“They can buy parts to modify their firearms; that AR-15 is okay if they replace the barrel with one that doesn’t look as scary and replace the standard-capacity magazine with multiple smaller-capacity 10 round magazines. That is a waste of money that does nothing for public safety, but it does make the individual’s problem go away, at least in the short term, and with minimal effort.”
I’m not sure of your age, but I can remember a time that we were able to smoke while flying on any commercial airline.
The Libtards started putting limitations in place while telling us that the limitations were safety reasons and that they would not become stricter.
Now, where do we stand on that simple act?
Need I expand on this?
We agree. But people have a range of priorities in their lives. I’m hoping a sufficient number of CT citizens will refuse to allow this law to stand rather than working around the letter of the law. Full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law is the worst of all possible options. Even if I had too little backbone to defend freedom, I would rather put my guns and ammo on the front lawn with a “take what you want” sign than give them to a government that was confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens. Better to arm unknown individuals, some of whom will oppose tyranny, than to disarm everyone.
Conservatives are, however, by nature law-abiding. We expect leftists to realize that their demands are unconstitutional and back down eventually (which is not rational on our part - they want unconstitutional, unlimited power, violating our rights is the goal and not just an oversight). It takes a little thought for us to cross the line from complying even with dumb laws because they are laws to active resistance. I think it is worth articulating the available options with firearms, with ObamaCare, with mandates to provide artistic services to gay weddings, and with the rest of the big government overreach.