Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM

But is it REALLY illegal? Has such a prohibition been tested in the courts?

I have all along been particular in my descriptions and definitions about which types are legal and which are restricted. In this topic and several others. I have provided links to specific CT law and guwowner sites which detail which brands and configurations are legal to own. solaratov started off and continues shrieking that you cant own an AR-pattern rifle in CT. i have repeately demonstrated that you can. You can leave me out of your remonstrations.

Good question. I’ve read about attempts at this, such as a ring worn by the gun owner that enables the weapon. The problem is making weapons 100% reliable (even without the wizardry), and perhaps, with professionals, the possibility of needing to share weapons. I don’t have kids, but accessibility and safety are issues when young ones can gain access…this would be something useful in that circumstance.

Excuse my ignorance of the subject, but are there any kinds of firearms that can be fired only when in a particular person’s hands? You know, guns with some kind of scanner to confirm the identity of the user. Also, what about guns which can be made inoperable remotely? Such firearms could be useful for self-defense and to protect others, if it ever came to that, and hopefully wouldn’t be a threat if they fell into the wrong hands.

I can hardly bear to watch or read the coverage of this event. I am furious reading about how the brave principal lunged at the armed gunman to stop him, but ended up getting killed. If only she had weapon to kill the worthless nothing and save lives before the police could get there.

I went to the link you put up regarding Assault Weapons. Right after the paragraph you cite is another, succinct paragraph defining an ‘Assault Weapon’.

This is that same web site’s definition of an assault weapon:

“Assault Weapons

Section 53-202a of the Connecticut General Statutes gives the definition, and an itemized list of what weapons are considered Assault Weapons.

Definition. (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: List of Assault Weapons…”

The key phrases are “fully automatic” and “burst fire”. It is very difficult to buy a weapon with these features. Not impossible, but VERY difficult (difficult like first born kept as hostage difficult, act of of God/act of BATF level difficult).

The media, and people who only know what the media tell them, use the term ‘Assault Weapon’ incorrectly. ‘Assault Weapons’ are not for sale in stores to the public in CT. Rifles that LOOK like them, because they usually have many features in common with them, ARE for sale in stores because they are good, reliable rifles. Some may think ‘they look eeevilll so they must be ‘Assault Weapons”. But, they aren’t. For the simple minded; when you think Assault Weapon, think machine gun if that helps. When it is an AR 15, bought in CT, it is not a machine gun.

So, definitions are necessary, and must be applied properly.

TL;DR Assault Weapons aren’t for open public sale in CT. Rifles that look similar are for open public sale in CT, legally. Big difference.

Now you and the other guy (rayra?) can go back at it. Just get it right please.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I know how to shoot BULLSHITE when I hear, see and read it, which is more than enough for me to manage “firearms”.

I’m not of the mind to argue specs with people who argue specs but miss their targets, or, who, like you, target all the wrong moving objects and ignore the giant blob about to DROP DOWN from overhead.

You are the epitome of who and what gives the “right” (so-called because in your case, I think “mental illness” works to describe the hat you’re wearing) a bad name.

Temper, temper. Your problem is your damaged and damaging state of mind. You’ve memorized your specs well while you’re malformed temperamentally. Which means you are exactly the sort of person who should be limited to memorizing specs about “firearms” and not using them.

Lourdes on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM

It’s worth looking into. I haven’t the foggiest idea how such could be managed in light of the fringe few who tend to become isolated within these (and the violent) ‘shooter’ games as to the general population, but I do see it as a problem for some, a minority certainly, who are involved in gaming.

When a male has no other socialization other than frequent use of violent video games, and they have access to guns and other weapons in reality, I think it’s not a stretch to guess that they potentially can put down the game eventually and take up the “real world” weapon.

It’s a correlation, it should be addressed, which is all I am trying to do here.

Lourdes on December 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Like last night, Another post where you demonstrate your ignorance on things related to firearms. ‘First person shooter’ (FPS) computer games have been around for nearly 20yrs. ‘Cowboys and Indians’ has been around for hundreds. Likewise I’m sure there’s some kids running around with a couple sticks and string playing Mongols and Uighurs.
So Uighur, please, SHUT UP about firearms.

Same goes to bayam, that ignorant gainsaying ass doesn’t know what it is talking about.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I know how to shoot bullsite when I hear, see and read it, which is more than enough for me to manage “firearms”.

I’m not of the mind to argue specs with people who argue specs but miss their targets, or, who, like you, target all the wrong moving objects and ignore the giant blob about to from overhead.

You are the epitome of who and what gives the “right” (so-called because in your case, I think “mental illness” works to describe the hat you’re wearing) a bad name.

Temper, temper. Your problem is your damaged and damaging state of mind. You’ve memorized your specs well while you’re malformed temperamentally. Which means you are exactly the sort of person who should be limited to memorizing specs about “firearms” and not using them.

Actually, I’ve previously maintained that this is precisely the wrong time to leap all over this. It smacks of being an opportunistic approach and capitalizes on the emotions of a grief stricken public to begin tossing out and debating gun grabbing arguments right now.

I agree! I think we should have a common sense waiting period for discussing any gun control. It’s just not right.

The only chance the gun rights extremists have of winning a real discussion/debate on this issue is to mute it. Seems this tragedy has stolen that card from them for good.

verbaluce on December 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM

a. You are not interested in a real “discussion/debate” since you’ve been losing it like a prom dress for the last fifteen years- as in, every Federal/Supreme Court decision in that time has been a hard pointy-toed cowboy boot kick to the crotch for you in that time. Good luck with those precedents.

b. Your need to “win” once again underscores the essentially juvenile nature of the Left’s ‘feelings’ predicated positions.

c. This battle isn’t going to be fought on the Hill; the GOP has the House, the Senate doesn’t have the votes, and Obuggerme would prefer to wage battle on other issues.

I’m sure this point has been made before, but it’s very odd to see politicians, celebrities, business moguls, all who surround themselves with guards armed to the teeth, tell us all we shouldn’t have guns.

blue13326 on December 15, 2012 at 8:01 PM

No. That’s precisely the problem…it’s not odd at all. It’s hypocrisy at it’s peak, and the problem is they don’t seem to have a problem with it at all.

I can’t wait for the apocalypse. (Meteor, Government or Zombie, either way) The left will make good food stock. :)

Which does not explain where Nancy Lanza acquired an AR-15 rifle…which is strictly banned in Conn. If you even bring an AR in to Conn., you have 90 days to disable it permenantly or sell it to a gun shop or give it to the police. No exceptions. They cannot be bought, sold, licensed or registered to civilians (citizens) in Conn.

Where did Nancy Lanza acquire this illegal weapon? What was she doing with it? Why did a “suburban mother” have an illegal “assault weapon”?

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Wrong.

By law, it is illegal for anyone to (1) possess assault weapons, unless he or she possessed the weapon before October 1, 1993, registered it with DPS before October 1, 1994, and received a DPS certificate of possession for it; or (2) sell, transfer, distribute, or transport assault weapons (CGS § 53-202b).