MNGunTalk.com

Along with GOCRA chairman Joe Olson and president Andrew Rothman, I'll be explaining these simple facts to your senator and representative:
Minnesota's law-abiding gun owners will not take the blame for the actions of criminals
We refuse to be treated like those criminals
You don't work for Michael Bloomberg and his billions: you work for your Minnesota constituents!
We know what his "universal background check" proposal really is: universal registration. And we will not sit still for it.
You have a perfectly good criminal control bill, HF1325, co-authored by 99 senators and representatives, waiting for your action

Thanks for calling a Turd a Turd.

Background Check sounds so Wholesome.....Registration sounds Euro-Fascist.

Just look at what is happening in Connecticut.

cobb wrote:Just look at what is happening in Connecticut.

Using the Background Check records to conduct confiscations?

Gee, it's almost like it was planned that way.

A quote from one of the several media sources covering the Connecticut assault weapon registration.

"Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law."

And this is another quote.

"Using the background check database to go after weapons owners would be unlawful. But such is the nature of statists who believe the government can use, misuse or ignore laws on a whim if the cause is good for the state."

But that would never happen here in the great state of Minnesota.

Everything I've read online seems to indicate that CT gun owners knew EXACTLY what they were doing. We all know it. Its the big elephant in the room that the other side won't acknowledge. They're currently in the process of "blinking first" as it were.

CT: Register your "Assault" Weapons
CT Gun Owners: Nope.
CT: Ummm.....

So, now what?

Don't forget - CT required registration of "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines"
b

CT just bugs the absolute heck out of me - I'd say it stronger, but the ban hammer falls on the cuss words.

Two sides staring at each other over a line in the sand -- each waiting for the other to blink first. Meanwhile, Joe Criminal continues about his life of crime, completely unaffected.

bstrawse wrote:Don't forget - CT required registration of "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines"
b

Thankfully, I only have sport rifles and standard capacity mags. If I had a class 3 assault weapon, it's already registered. I don't, cost of weapon and ammo to waste makes those not likely for me to ever own.

Thanks GOCRA for seizing the 'High Ground' and defining the issue as 'Universal REGISTRATION'.

military-style assault weapons

Next I'd like to work on popularizing the phrase:

MOM-FRIENDLY HOME & FAMILY DEFENSIVE WEAPON



Here's the features that make this weapon MOM-FRIENDLY.



1) ADJUSTABLE STOCK to allow smaller female to shoot comfortably.

2) PISTOL GRIP to enable female with significantly less 'upper body' strength to control weapon.

3) BARREL SHROUD to prevent burns from the high temperatures and permit safe handling.

4) FLASH SUPRESSOR to avoid 'flash blindness' from the muzzle flash and maintain vision in low light.

5) 30 ROUND DETACHABLE MAGAZINE to avoid magazine change under the stress of assault against family.

6) BAYONET MOUNT so a 95 pound female can look 'scarey' to stupid criminal.

My point being 'Seize the Language' MOM-FRIENDLY HOME & FAMILY DEFENSE WEAPON.

MOM-FRIENDLY...I'd love to see one of our testifiers Dis-com-bob-ulate Lutz/Paymar with the use of that term...

Possibly a little Hysteria could be coaxed out of Heather Martens if she hears the term 'MOM-FRIENDLY'

Mom-Friendly safety features in Pink:

I'm going to start using 'female-friendly'