Be careful what you wish for . . . (courtesy cnn.com)

The Truth About Guns does not encourage nor condone shooting another human being unless that someone poses a direct, credible and imminent lethal threat, and imminence is imminent. It doesn’t matter if the person or persons posing the threat are criminals, crazies or government representatives. Self-defense. That’s as far as we go. That said, war. Also: we’re not afraid to report the fact that gun bloggers (including yours truly) predict that slave state gun grabbing will end in tears, as the Brits are wont to say. Not without provocation but still . . . Over at naturalnews.com, Mike Adams takes it all a step further. What if the United States Supreme Court refuses to strike down civilian disarmament laws? Uh-oh  . . .

If, somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds these new state gun restrictions laws to be “constitutional,” such a decision would be equivalent to a declaration that the court has openly abandoned its only real duty, which is to halt overreaching laws that violate the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

At this point, there would be widespread realization that the judiciary is an occupying enemy force acting in violation of their sworn oaths of office. If such a scenario unfolds, I theoretically predict, but do not condone, the likelihood that disgruntled individuals, having been stripped of their freedoms by a clearly illegal and unconstitutional judiciary, would take it upon themselves to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court justices who violated the Constitution as well as key high-level members of the federal government. Again, I’m not condoning this nor advocating it, because I do not believe violence is the appropriate path to a long-term solution in all this. However, I cannot deny the possibility of a decentralized, spontaneous armed response to the “long train of abuses” that liberty-loving Americans continue to suffer under today.

With my tin hat flattened and safely stowed in a kitchen drawer, with my friends close and my Glock 30SF closer, I have a hard time imagining any scenario where gun guys would target members of America’s highest court—never mind successfully. I pray to God nothing like that ever happens, nor would I do anything to encourage it. Period. But the discovery that this idea is out there, somewhere, is deeply worrying . . .

I know what you’re thinking: TTAG shouldn’t be publishing this “information.” Giving the idea the oxygen of publicity aids and abets those in government who want to paint The People of the Gun as terrorists; a designation that would give the DHS, ATF and God knows who else the power to trample all over the Constitution (thank you Patriot Act) and rain merry hell upon us.

Obviously, I hold a different opinion. American gun owners are already on the government’s radar. Sitting in their crosshairs. Anyone who thinks that the new and “improved” universal background check system under consideration in Congress isn’t designed to more easily monitor law-abiding gun owners, for example, hasn’t been paying attention. Or suffers from willful ignorance.

Anyway, while it may not be particularly helpful to rattle the beast’s cage, why not? What was it Jefferson said? “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Also something about not going quietly into that long good night.

More to the point, then what? What happens after the Supreme Court [theoretically] has to duck and cover? Oh wait. Adams wants us to consider the prequel.

At some point, the law-abiding citizens of America, when repeatedly oppressed, provoked and denied justice under law, will reluctantly decide that “following the law” is irrelevant. They will take up arms and begin to physically fight for the liberties that are being incrementally stolen from them by tyrants at both the state and federal level.

Globalists appear to be attempting to trigger precisely this reaction. The gambit is to see if a small reactionary group of “terrorists” (i.e. anyone with a gun who fights against oppression) can be cajoled into committing acts of violence that would justify the declaration of Martial Law and a nationwide gun confiscation domestic military action. If such an act of resistance cannot be provoked, it can always be engineered and pulled off by the FBI which is already well-practiced at staging terrorists attacks in the USA, then recruiting hapless stooges to frame as “terrorist masterminds” to be arrested.

This is where the “stuff” really hits the fan, because we’ll see all-out war between various factions of gun grabbers vs. gun defenders. Big-city police will attempt to shoot and murder sheriffs. Patriot groups within the U.S. military will mutiny and take over entire units to protect and defend the Constitution. A military coup might target top administration officials in Washington D.C. Regional wars might break out between urban (gun control) and rural (gun rights) communities. And the big kicker? Obama might call in the United Nations to aid in “halting the terrorists,” setting off an international war against America and the Constitution. (This may be Obama’s ultimate end game.)

Now that’s just silly. The U.N. bit I mean. The blue-helmeted boys may not be the world’s worst troops (unless you’re talking about raping children), but they’re certainly in the top five. U.N. “peace keepers” are a piss-ant part of an armed forces welfare system for militarily-challenged nations. Besides do we have to involve everyone in this just-because-you’re-paranoid fantasy?

Back on planet earth, Adams’ prequel to his prequel makes a lot more sense. The author reckons gun control laws in slave states will create a black market—with subsequent backlash. A vicious circle.

Driving guns into the underground economy will effectively construct a huge infrastructure of underground gun production, distribution and delivery, allowing anyone who can buy pot right now to be able to buy guns in the near future. Gun shops that presently follow federal laws for background checks will be put out of business and replaced by underground gun smugglers who follow no laws whatsoever.

In response, the federal government will multiply the budget of the ATF and declare a “war on guns” that will be roughly as successful as today’s miserable “war on drugs” — a police state fiasco that has done nothing more than fill the prisons with innocent victims while justifying the outrageous growth of police state agencies like the DEA.

Now that I can see: a festering wound that grows more fetid over time that eventually leads to . . . a rollback in civilian disarmament, either through the courts (yay) or the ballot box. Then again, will the courts strike down slave state prohibitions? Or will this thing spiral out of control over guns and other liberty-related issues? Watch this space. And for God’s sake, keep your powder dry. [h/t DK]

148 Responses to Assassinate Supreme Court Justices?

  1. I find it very disappointing that you’re kind of going along with the whole “you’re allowed to have guns for self-defense, defense of the homeland, and defense against tyranny…but you’re only allowed to use it for the first two.”

    When the time is appropriate to fight against tyranny, it should be encouraged and accepted.

      • “The Truth About Guns does not encourage or condone any gun owner to shoot another human being save someone who poses a direct, credible and imminent lethal threat, and imminence is imminent. It doesn’t matter if the person or persons posing the threat are criminals, crazies or government representatives. Self-defense. That’s as far as we go…

        With my tin hat flattened and safely stowed in a kitchen drawer, with my friends close and my Glock 30SF closer, I have a hard time imagining any scenario where gun guys would target members of America’s highest court—never mind successfully. I pray to God nothing like that ever happens, nor would I do anything to encourage it. Period.”

        That looks like never ever ever to me…

        • Well look, if you think the right time is now, then go for it, psycho. Just don’t expect us to write any songs about you after your head gets blown off.

        • Let me know if you need any help.

          “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
          ― Thomas Jefferson

        • They already wrote a song about people who thought the time was right.

          It’s called Steve Vaus – Come and Take It. You can download it off itunes 🙂

        • it’s even more ridiculous that the whole “no (or as few as possible) limitations to what guns people can own” is usually here and elsewhere being justified by needing to preserve the ability to fight tyranny.

          Once you take that away you’ve significantly diminished your ability to argue why you mustn’t have ‘common sense’ gun control imposed on everyone by our elected representatives.

        • They don’t want to be killed off like other people… cough cough, Noveske, Breitbart.

      • No, the time is not now. But at what point should the shooting start?

        As history shows, if you don’t already know the answer to that question, then the answer will be “Never”. Because at some point, it becomes too late.

        • It should start, as this article suggests, when the system has run its course and we’re left with nothing but infringement and no avenue for redress.

          Right now, Congress has a pretty good shot at shutting down any new federal gun control, and the states will have to take theirs to the Supreme Court… which should fall in our favor (in freedom’s favor) if they uphold Heller and McDonald. It will be a long road and some rights will be curtailed while we wait for it, but we must wait. Part of upholding the Constitution is allowing the balance of powers created by the Constitution to work as it was designed to.

    • Reading the comments on this article (all of them) is making me doubt the term “armed intelligencia”. Anyone trying to take the term “tyranny” and apply it to today’s America needs to take a trip around the world and understand what true tyranny is. Talk to someone who has been oppressed to the point where they fled their home country, or fought in an actual revolution/civil war. Remember that the only difference between a civil war and a revolution is who wins…

      Get some damn perspective. If we were actually living under a tyrannical regime, gun rights would not be a topic of discussion. The simple fact that people can say the most vile things about POTUS without being rounded up and, literally, shot dead in the street or imprisoned, tells me that this isn’t tyranny.

      We need to fight for our rights using the most effective means, whatever that may be. Right now it’s political influence and the power of communication. If anyone wants to go out and take up arms against the government, please use a revolver or better yet, a double barrel shotgun… the end result will be the same as if you used a black rifle, but you won’t be working against the rest of us actually defending your rights as much.

      • -NDAA
        -SOPA/PIPA (created quite a stir…imagine if it had PASSED)
        -FISA Amendments
        -Patriot Act
        -NFA rules and regs
        -H.R. 347 (Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”)
        -Continued assaults on gun rights
        -Potentially arming drones and flying them over the United States and being able to take people out without due process “in extreme circumstances”

        Yeah, it may not be COMPLETELY tyrannical…but it’s starting to get pretty fricking close. Look at what happened post-Sandy Hook…suddenly EVERY gun owner in America needs to be led to the slaughter house because guns are evil.

    • I must agree. Defense against tyranny is the PRIMARY function of the 2A. While I certainly prefer SCOTUS does not abdicate their responsibility of preventing an overreaching government; they already have demonstrated this abandonment in matters of free economics, private property, and even in with regard to 2A rights.

      The recent rulings by SCOTUS on RKBA issues have ignored the “Shall not be Infringed,” phrase, a phrase which is an absolute restriction upon government in the matter of regulating RKBA, and therefore I expect them to continue this dangerous trend.

      Who else can help? The military leadership at least in the Pentagon will not help; they are careerists. Those who almost certainly will take up arms against the tyranny will be non-pentagon colonels and below and non-pentagon E-9s and below in all 5 of the military branches–most own private arms.

      Federal law enforcement? Few among them will take the side of the people. Their oaths are meaningless as every federal LEA is extra-constitutional. I am willing to bet most know this. A few are innocent in this, but do not count on them to wake up.

      A rebellion by the people will be the most likely course to regain liberty. It will be costly and very bloody.

      This rebellion, if it is to happen will require trust by its members and limited knowledge by members of any group so anyone captured will be able to betray only a few. Feds will try to infiltrate. Use PGP to communicate between yourselves and other groups. Freeware is at www dot gpg4win dot org. You can set up committees of correspondence. Good leaders will be needed. There will be bad guys to fight too, lawless biker and drug gangs and rogue police and military who wish to set up local tyrannies. Looters and moochers will abound, especially after the government falls and these moochers are unable to fend for themsleves. They will join these gangs. They will be the most dangerous.

      Fight asymmetrically. If enough of you can pre-coordinate using the encryption i mentioned, it could be coordinated in all 50 states and a smooth power transfer in theory could take place. DC will need care.

      An innocuous tweet could trigger the mobilization. There really is no way to prepare for a silent, single and unpredictable mobilization.

      Do not let the Feds instigate this war. THEY MUST BE THE FIRST TO DRAW BLOOD AT ALL COSTS! The first side to kill loses!!! They know this. And you too need to know this! And you know why! But you can prepare; you can organize and get your ducks in a row. And then work to take back the system and if possible avoid all bloodshed.

      Although I hope it does not come to all this, only future behavior of the government that SHOULD be serving us, rather than acting as our master, will tell. Part of this depends on the actions of the electorate. Work to influence the electorate.

      God bless the United States, those oath-takers who keep their oaths and
      the US Constitution and those who serve it and the people it is meant to protect.

      SamAdams1776 III
      Molon Labe
      non sibi sed patriae
      No Fort Sumters!!!!!

    • +1

      This is the reportedly one of the most trafficked gun blogs on the Internet. It’s not a private discussion board or a quiet conversation in a living room.

      We need to be very conscious about our appearance here.

      • If you’re afraid to exercise your First Amendment Right, you’re already a slave and have lost it.

        • People often confuse the “it’s my 1st Amendment right” line with the “right” to behave like an idiot when, really, you should know better.

          Just because you can be a moron, doesn’t mean you should. Especially in the case where doing so can cause other people to be hurt.

          Not saying this article falls under that at all. Rob’s just having a conversation.

        • Just because we have the right to speak freely does not mean we should spout off alarmist, paranoid crap that directly reinforces the opinion antigun forces have of gun owners. The time for an armed uprising is not now and likely will never come (not in our lifetimes certainly). It’s hard to refute the “dangerous gun nuts” label when the opposition can point to post after post suggesting armed uprising and assassination are good ideas…

          it’s called discretion. have your opinions, but know when and where to share them. A heavily trafficked, publicly accessible blog is not the place.

        • Actually the first amendment says we can say stupid, paranoid crap. It might not be smart to say it, and it could do more harm than good, but we do have the right to say it.

        • @raw_toe

          You REALLY think the time for an armed revolt will never come?

          Why do you even own a firearm then? For hunting and sporting purposes only? I think you fail to see the political divisiveness that is consuming this country more and more every day.

          The idea behind the First Amendment is that ideas could be shared in the press, between people, whether in protests or in books. How is a blog off-limits to such discussion? You may not agree with what people say, but they have the freedom to say it regardless. I mean hell, we put up with trolls…

        • re: Free speech – you may have the right to say it, but do it at the right place and time. the westboro church people have a right to spew what they spew, but it doesn’t make others very supportive of their cause (whatever it actually is). A blog like this is a valuable discussion forum, the problem is that comments will be taken completely out of context by some anti gunner looking for “facts”. You can have the most logical, objective piece in the world, but what will be quoted is “Gun Blog Says Assassinate Supreme Court Justices, members agree”. Not going to help us much.

          I just think that these kind of conversations belong on another site. I like to direct anti/fence sitters here because in general it comes across as a very fact based, objective place that won’t scare them. This is a war of perception as much as anything. We need to appear to be the reasonable, responsible citizens we claim to be.

          @truth – “likely never” and “never” don’t mean the same thing. Yes, I do believe that it is unlikely to come in the lifetime of anyone posting here. I do not see America slipping that far, that fast. I see the divisiveness all the time, and honestly it makes me sick, but you have to remember that the pendulum swings both ways, slowly. Change will come when enough people see what they are losing and vote accordingly. Call me an optimist, but I still believe in our system and I’d like to think Americans aren’t eager to repeat 1861-65 anytime soon.

          I have guns because I like them. I have a carry license because I recognize that the world is still a risky place and you have to watch your own ass.

        • We are all just having a conversation too. However, I too don’t agree now is the time for an armed uprising… That said, if there was a very large armed uprising, I would consider joining them.

          “Talk like this is will only serve to justify confiscation in the minds of undecided people.”

          -Or separate them – between the brave and the cowardice.

        • I haven’t lost it, but the first thing that popped into my head when I read this was, “TJIC.” Google TJIC or Travis Corcoran. He posted something on his blog post-Giffords shooting that while maybe not tasteful, wasn’t a threat. Someone notified the cops, and the wonderful town of Arlington, MA. revoked his permit and his guns…. DESPITE NO CRIME HAVING BEEN COMMITTED.

        • @raw_toe

          “you may have the right to say it, but do it at the right place and time. the westboro church people have a right to spew what they spew, but it doesn’t make others very supportive of their cause (whatever it actually is). A blog like this is a valuable discussion forum, the problem is that comments will be taken completely out of context by some anti gunner looking for “facts”. You can have the most logical, objective piece in the world, but what will be quoted is “Gun Blog Says Assassinate Supreme Court Justices, members agree”. Not going to help us much.”
          -Dude…He’s the one who posted the article with the title. We’re all just talking here. You can agree or disagree if you want. As for anti-gunners looking for facts…they’re already saying assault grips make pistols more deadly, that 40% of gun sales are done without background checks, that no one needs an AR15 and if they have one, they’re crazy and going to kill everyone, shoot down airplanes and blow up railroads. I think they have all the “facts” they need.

          “I just think that these kind of conversations belong on another site.”
          -Like on what? ARF.com? Thehighroad?

          “I like to direct anti/fence sitters here because in general it comes across as a very fact based, objective place that won’t scare them. This is a war of perception as much as anything. We need to appear to be the reasonable, responsible citizens we claim to be.”
          -I can respect that and I agree. But again, TTAG posted the article and opened it up to comments…people are going to discuss.

          “@truth – “likely never” and “never” don’t mean the same thing. Yes, I do believe that it is unlikely to come in the lifetime of anyone posting here. I do not see America slipping that far, that fast.”
          -You may not but others do. That said, it would be wise to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Look at what AWB 2013 did to prices and availability. What do you think is gonna happen if SCOTUS agrees that there is no Constitutional Right to concealed carry? A Circuit Court in Colorado ruled that.

          “I see the divisiveness all the time, and honestly it makes me sick, but you have to remember that the pendulum swings both ways, slowly. Change will come when enough people see what they are losing and vote accordingly. Call me an optimist, but I still believe in our system and I’d like to think Americans aren’t eager to repeat 1861-65 anytime soon.”
          -I don’t want a Civil War either, but sooner or later, something’s gonna give. The Liberal establishment DESTROYED Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians the past two elections even when the Republicans put out a better candidate the second time…Liberals don’t plan on stopping anytime soon. Look at what they’re doing in CT, CA, MA, RI, IL, MD.

          “I have guns because I like them. I have a carry license because I recognize that the world is still a risky place and you have to watch your own ass.”
          -Chicago, NYC disagree with you having the right to own a firearm. Blue states want to turn your guns into safe queens.

          Anonymous
          “Talk like this is will only serve to justify confiscation in the minds of undecided people.”
          -Or separate them – between the brave and the cowardice.
          +1 bro.

          Bottom line: pray for peace, prepare for war. Be active in the peaceful political process, but the Liberal establishment needs to remember they need to play by the rules and respect our Rights, because we have guns and the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.

          We as AMERICANS, never mind gun owners, shouldn’t be afraid to speak the truth, hold people accountable, and express our thoughts. Our Founding Fathers died to ensure such Rights were protected…it would be disgraceful to watch them disappear and not be exercised.

        • Raw_toe said. “Just because we have the right to speak freely does not mean we should spout off alarmist, paranoid crap…”

          I’m sure that is what many Jews said as they were in line to take their final shower!

        • ALL,

          It is not time for violence. We sadly are moving in that direction and it is prudent to prepare for it, but this is NOT the time.

          Take the system back if you can. We are not past that yet, but prepare if the waves of tyranny cannot be stemmed.

          SamAdams1776 III
          Molon Labe
          Non sibi sed patriae
          No Fort Sumters

    • GOD FORBID they ever decide to give birth to what’s already in the darkness of their hearts, huh?

      FLASH: if and when pro-gun forces fail to provide aforementioned provocation, the State itself will provide it. CRIMINY. Look up “false-flag terrorism”, CHUMPS.

      Just sayin’. We should be on the side of what’s right. The provocation WILL COME. But we have to wait for them to provide it. WE MUST NOT provide it ourselves.

      Goodness and right. Sometimes its wages are death and deprivation.

      • As I read Kevin Phillips’ ” 1775,A Good Year for Revolution”, one of the lessons is clear. The Founders made sure everyone knew that if armed violence started, it must only be started by the British. It’s the best rule now. The courts are open and the vote is still available. Moreover, the right to speak is still available in every state and the second amendment is still treasured in most. Those in slave states can still move to firearms freedom. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING that should lead a rational patriot to think that armed revolt is justified at this point. Be cool. Keep educating yourself. Stay informed. Pray. Try to win fencesitters to our cause. remember that liberty, freedom, and the Constitution are our cause(not merely guns).

        • The courts are open. If they decide you have “standing” and if they decide that they don’t have immunity and if they decide that the law isn’t protected under “government secrets”. Yeah, the courts are still open.

          Yes, we can vote. During the last election we could vote for a Yankee who signed gun control bills into law, advanced socialized medicine, and hated blue collar whites or we could vote for Obama. Sure you could vote 3rd party, if they decided to count those votes this year.

          They have already started the violence. Ruby Ridge, Waco, the murders of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. Don’t forget the people killed and imprisoned in the idiotic “war on (some) drugs and the American people”.

          But you are right, there is nothing to justify shooting the bastards yet.

        • “Moreover, the right to speak is still available in every state …”

          Make no mistake, our right to free speech is under attack as well. The government’s first salvo was the National Defense Authorization Act. That act states that government can indefinitely detain anyone (as an enemy combatant or sympathizer) whose speech helps terrorists. And please note there is no due process required, no indictment from a Grand Jury, no day in court, nothing. Everything is at the sole discretion of some military and/or government agents.

          The only bright spot: it appears that several journalists filed suit in a federal court to protect the right of the press to do what they do — and the judge found in their favor.

          Think about that. Just one person (a federal judge) was the only thing standing between the government’s ability to indefinitely detain anyone — based on their speech — and our right to speak out. What if that one person had decided differently?

        • Indeed. The time may yet come, but now is not it.

          SamAdams1776 III
          Molon Labe
          Non sibi sed patriae
          No Fort Sumters

    • I imagine the colonialists that eventually came to be known as Torries also espoused the idea that our founders should mind their p’s and q’s and try not to appear as if they really cared about their rights.

      By the way, the gun grabber types already think we are crazy and no amount of politeness will change that. They already choose to ignore a wealth of information that proves their positions wrong. So actually, they are the crazy ones and it is crazy to attempt to appease crazy people.

      It sounds like there are a lot of folks on this board that want their rights to be respected but are unwilling to actually sacrifice anything to make sure that happens. We are fortunate our founding fathers didn’t have the same weakness.

      • firedsilver.ok: “By the way, the gun grabber types already think we are crazy and no amount of politeness will change that. They already choose to ignore a wealth of information that proves their positions wrong. So actually, they are the crazy ones and it is crazy to attempt to appease crazy people.

        It sounds like there are a lot of folks on this board that want their rights to be respected but are unwilling to actually sacrifice anything to make sure that happens. We are fortunate our founding fathers didn’t have the same weakness.”

        ^THIS!

        Found this awhile back…haven’t had a chance to verify it but if it IS indeed true…

        Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

        Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

        Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

        Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

        They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

        What kind of men were they?

        Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

        Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

        Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

        Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

        At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

        Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

        John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more th an a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

        Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn’t.

    • This is a truly stupid headline. It only confirms in the minds of those who would demonise guns that we are incapable of being trusted with “dangerous” weapons. Frankly it is also irresponsible.

    • Reading the words of many here, it’s easy to understand why we must continually fight this battle. It’s easy to see how the government has been able to continually infringe a right that “shall not be infringed.” We are cowards!

      At what point do rights become privileges? Do we wait until we are made criminals by fiat laws? That has already happened. Do we wait until the boot is on our necks but little pressure is applied? Do we wait until the boot breaks our neck? Do we wait until they come to our doors in the middle of the night? At that point, it is to late and the only thing you’ll accomplish, if you even have the balls, is to take a few of them with you!

  2. Well Sammy, sometimes the “truth” hurts…… Not condoning it, but would accept it, if it comes down to it. A clear mind, and a steady aim would do alot for the “coming attractions”….. IJS…..

  3. I do sincerely hope that we can pull back from that brink. The trouble is that control freaks are biologically incapable of letting go. The best approach now is to show them up for the fools that they are–and study what might be necessary in the future.

    • Sometimes the brink will not pull away from you. Retreat, appease, retreat… it is STILL right in front of you, snarling for more.

  4. But the discovery that this idea is out there, somewhere, is deeply worrying.

    Wasn’t a very similar idea the major plot point in ‘The Pelican Brief’?

  5. “Giving the idea the oxygen of publicity aids and abets those in government who want to paint The People of the Gun as terrorists; a designation that would give the DHS, ATF and God knows who else the power to trample all over the Constitution (thank you Patriot Act) and rain merry hell upon us.”

    I beg to differ: our government is already trampling all over the Constitution without any assistance whatsoever from the Armed Intelligencia.

        • Purely hypothetical question: How would you go about uniting such a revolt? The American Revolution was basically a bunch of small revolts in the colonies that kept in touch by letters and word of mouth. I don’t see how such a movement could ever TOTALLY unite.

  6. Wasn’t Colorado going to call in the FBI? if those pesky sheriff’s don’t do their duty. This is not the FBI of old, this is any asswipe who wants to be a G man & can spell “it” now are one. Milwaukee had the FBI sting operation where they had their guns stolen including a machine gun. o & co better be a bit carefull, Randy

    • You mean you can type it on a form, but not in an email? You can click one button, but not another? I can’t fathom what you’re trying to say, if it’s not that….

    • Yea that’s pretty typical. The BAT FLY’s have a history of botching things and then becoming media hero’s by taking or ruining the lives of innocent people.

  7. If the Supreme Court refuses to strike down civilian disarmament laws, the assassination of any of the members of that Court, particularly if the act is accomplished with a firearm, by someone who can be shown to be a 2d Amendment supporter, will simply confirm in the minds of the general public that we civilians need to be disarmed. On top of that, such an assassination would leave a spot open for the appointment of another Supreme Court Justice who believes that the 2d Amendment guarantees, not the right of individual gun ownership, but only the right to own a firearm as part of “a well-regulated militia.” And given President Obama’s apparent stance on gun control, what do you think is the likelihood that anyone he appoints to the Supreme Court will be on our side in the great gun control debate? I submit that the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice would be an unmitigated disaster for gun owners. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

    • It’s not up to us. We don’t have to lift (or pull) a finger. Don’t you see that if an assassination of a SCOTUS member (or any other high ranking govt. official) is to be the catalyst, it can be accomplished from the inside. An earlier poster called it “false-flag terrorism”. In the movie “The Long Kiss Goodnight”, it was called a fund raiser. There is a history of this tactic being used for hundreds of years. So they don’t need us to start this out of control spiral, they can do it all on their own.

    • 20 kids at Sandy Hook, is a tragedy. 500,000 kids a year lost to abortion is an abomination. An accepted form of genocide? They have skewed the rhetoric to make/validate their position. They the “Gun Grabbers” are dancing on the graves of these 20 children and using this tragedy to further an agenda that was postulated much earlier. Deal with the doctors by releasing the pothead and locking up the doctor.

    • I agree. We are making a big deal about 20 kids – but what about all those babies who’s skull is penetrated and brains pulled out just prior to being born.

  8. A person observing what’s been going on with these extreme anti-gun measures being pushed at the state and federal levels might be excused for thinking that all of us ARE being pushed towards “reacting” in an extreme way ourselves. In other words, have you ever wondered if the extreme nature of these new laws and anti-gun proposals are intended to push people who treasure their freedoms to respond violently once they’re realized that the game has been rigged ?

    A few years ago I would have told you, if you’d said what I just wrote above, that you were a paranoid and maybe needed more fresh air. Now, with the current administration in power, I have come to believe that they would actually welcome some member (or members) of the freedom loving public lashing out.

    What it really all boils down to is: Just how much are freedom loving Americans going to bend, in the face of what’s going on ? How much “infringement” of our God given rights is finally too much ? Personally, I believe that we’re darn close right now. If I lived in NY, CA, Conn., MD or a few of the other states who have deemed it acceptable to stomp all over their citizens’ rights I would consider the legislators and governors of those states to have already gone too far. I believe that all of those people involved in the destruction of their citizens’ rights have committed treason. Yet, they’re quite snug and secure in their positions right now, aren’t they ? I don’t believe they should be. Just my opinion, for discussion purposes only, of course.

  9. I find Mr. Adams assessment a very compelling one, though I’m
    less inclined to believe that this will happen at a rapid pace.
    Since the fight over our God given rights is an ideological one,
    no clear sides could be drawn for a quick civil war. Instead
    it will slowly simmer and escalate much like the cold war.
    As we internally destabilize, so will the rest of the world.
    Eventually this will culminate in another world war.

  10. Americans have the right to overthrow the government every two years (at least, at the polls, peacefully). So long as that remains there is really no right or cause to act violently against officials. Even if they uphold all these laws (which i doubt) you are free to move to another state. And you are also free to educate and persuade people to agree with you and get a constitutional amendment passed (35 states joined in the heller decision). prohibition was passed, and repealed, as amendments.

    more than likely what you will see is peaceful civil disobedience. Honestly, calling for armed insurrection and assassination only gives fodder to the gun-owners-are-crazyparanoidthreateningunsafeterrorists gun control advocates.

    • I couldn’t disagree with you more, but I see the points you’re trying to make. That said, I believe you are misguided.

      Americans have the RIGHT to overthrow the Government at ANY TIME.
      “–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Declaration of Indepedence)

      THAT SAID…
      ” Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

      The Right to vote does not eliminate the Right to Revolution. Because you can vote all you want, but if the Government refuses to uphold and preserve the Rights protected by the Constitution, it is not a Government worthy of this country. Voting does not inhibit tyrants from committing tyranny.

      Yes, you are free to move to another State (in fact, this is what I’m trying to do). However, that is a sad solution when the problem is Government not protecting the People’s inalienable Rights.

      • well, fair enough, you have a right to do it anytime. but you still have to do it peacefully, through say a referendum or recall petition. Now, if there comes to be a point where people refuse to leave office even though they were defeated in a free and fair election, then we can talk.

        but honestly, i live in maryland, and i own plenty of guns. the reality of the situation is that the law is riddled with so many loopholes that very few people feel their rights are being violated. Even in this deep blue state 80-90% of the population feels they have the right to defend themselves (or family) against criminals, and have the right to own a firearm to do it. Only half the people in this deep blue state think it should be limited to a “hunting weapon.”

        there are plenty of unregulated semiautomatic ..223 or higher caliber with detachable magazines that are not on the marylands scary black rifle list. The law says that you cannot buy your 30-round magazine in maryland. Heck, i can put a slightly different stock on a springfield M1a, give it a “standard” 10 round magazine, and call it a “Civilian self defense sporter rifle” and its cash and carry.

        the gun ban laws are a joke that are letting the politicians (who know they cant really ban guns) give themselves a pat on the back. And the manufacturers go along with this for the same reason the auto manufacturers go along with new car requirements… it lets them sell more newer model “better” rifles. and people go along, because who does not want the newest best model of anything?

        • I also live in a deep blue state, and the loopholes don’t give me comfort at night. I know at ANY TIME a State Trooper or Townie Cop could say “yeah, I’m an idiot and I’m gonna charge you with a gun law violation” and the DA might just want to bury me under the jail.

          The Second Amendment does not say “500 rifles on this list are approved but the rest shall be infringed. “Shall not be infringed” means whats it means. Loop holes/restrictions OF ANY KIND are unconstitutional as far as I’m concerned. YES THAT INCLUDES BAZOOKA OWNERSHIP. Why? Because I respect the law that says “Murder is illegal”. Therefore, I will not aim my Glock, AR15, or theoretical bazooka at anyone because I respect life and the law.

          Other blue states with long-standing AWBs and crap are much more militant in their Gestapo persecution than Marylands. Maybe one day you will know our pain. I hope not.

        • a bazooka has no real self defense value to me either in my house or out in public. I doubt it would be protected by even the most conservative court (militia men brought rifles and muskets, not cannons and boats).

          Kalifornia is effed up in a lot of ways, not just gun laws.

          now, i hear that in CA the confiscation police are out about town knocking on doors. remember: just say no, without a warrant they cannot come in. make sure to video the whole thing. and when they do, remember, a good lawyer and and good video will net you a big pile of cash when your civil rights are violated. take the cash and move to texas.

        • One word: MRAPs

          Portable surface-to-air missile launchers for God King Obama’s drone program.

          They come up with something else to infringe upon my God-given, Constitutionally protected Rights…I’ll address that too.

      • The vote only works when the power is managed in a nonpartisan way, once a large amount of persons are influenced by sums of money and cell phones, the power has changed the calculus severely, to superficial self interest. So, the whole country becomes a rotten borough and the tempering effect of democracy becomes invalid. A house divided against itself shall fall and its fall is beginning to accelerate. Only when the enormity of the consequence of punishment increases will sobriety return to public life. A frightening thought inevitable as the power continuously seeks to provided grievances to divide section against section of the community with a malice that is palpable and disturbing.

  11. Hmmm, seems odd given their current track record on the 2nd. They have struck down major parts of liberals anti-gun laws. In Heller they even left an opening for further strike downs. You no, the whole cant ban arms in common use. With the current make up of the court I can’t see them upholding many of any of these news restrictions. 5 of them anyway. We are already know the leftists on the court are just a rubber stamp for the progressive agenda but the other 5 have been solid it seems to me.

    Natural News seems a bit nutty anyway

  12. I consider it much more likely that if any political figure is shot that the Left will be behind it. They will use items such as the above to make the case that the conservatives did the deed, as they always do.

    With the present makeup of the court if even one conservative Justice should fall ill or be mortality injured the left would obtain the majority again and could then overturn Heller and every other decision they abhor. Plus the fallout of such a shooting, like the fallout of the RFK assassination which got GCA-68 passed, would be the death of the 2nd amendment as having any limitation on government.

  13. This sort of thing should not even be mentioned. There are a lot of unstable people out there that need very little to set them off. Giving them justification for murder is totally irresponsible.

    • @Jim B

      So I guess we should take away all guns because we wouldn’t want them to snap huh? I mean, defending your Rights against Tyranny is just as bad as committing a mass shooting.

    • That’s right Jim. We need to ban all guns. Don’t want those people going off. We need to Ban this topic also.

      • Anonymous, where did I say ban all guns? I never said such a thing. You love to put words in people’s mouth, huh? I said that talking about the assassination of public officials is wrong and irresponsible and I stand by that. Mike Adams is a total conspiracy nutcase BTW.

        I will say as others have that Robert is bringing this whole thing up for the sake of hits which equal money for him. Sad. We, at least I, am not of a mind to shoot people I disagree with politically. I would think most people feel the same. At least I hope so.

        • Jim B, you basically implied that gun owners are unstable and wanting to raze the country to the ground when you said “There are a lot of unstable people out there that need very little to set them off. Giving them justification for murder is totally irresponsible.”

          There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing politically. We all should know that. But when that disagreement leads to LEOs possibly coming to take peoples guns away or infringe on their rights…people are gonna start slinging lead. Just look at the NY SAFE Act and how that almost led to a revolt. People aren’t gonna take their rights getting pissed away for much longer, especially when you factor in the economy, entitlement attitudes people have, illegal immigration, etc.

        • You know Anonymous, I am getting a little sick of you putting words in my mouth. I said that there are a lot of unstable people out there which there are and we don’t need people giving them justification for murder. I did NOT say gun owners were unstable. I think publishing that headline and really repeating anything Mike Adams has to say is irresponsible as I am happy to see a lot of do too.

          Now stop saying I have said things I haven’t, OK?

        • Jim B. No harm no foul. Just giving you a hard time with maybe too much sarcasm, and I and others know you didn’t say any of that.

  14. Quote: “The Truth About Guns does not encourage or condone any gun owner to shoot another human being save someone who poses a direct, credible and imminent lethal threat . . .”

    You can strike “Lethal” from that statement – if someone is gonna beat my ass, I’m gonna cap his.

    • His name is Robert Farago. And this is his website. This is his article. If you want to contest his points contest them, but when we are a guest we do not slap our host in the face. Have some respect or take a hike.

  15. SCOTUS already struck down bans on semi-autos, cosmetic features, and mag cap limits in Heller. You can’t say 30 round mags are uncommon. They’re not “dangerous and unusual”. Registration and background checks? The question has not been addressed, but I believe the SCOTUS will uphold those. We’ve already ceded the enemy that territory. Very foolishly. If another Obama appointee gets in the SCOTUS will not strike down any gun control laws. They will uphold a complete bans on single shot .22 rifles.

    • “SCOTUS already struck down bans on semi-autos, cosmetic features, and mag cap limits in Heller. You can’t say 30 round mags are uncommon. They’re not “dangerous and unusual”.

      And yet states with AWB legislation will bury you under the jail if you have a post-ban magazine. Such states force you to surrender Rights that are federally protected and inalienable in the first place. Someone needs to go back to SCOTUS and finish the crappy excuse of a start called Heller vs. DC once and for all.

  16. I think the likely scenario to watch for will be that of one or more conservative justices dying of “natural causes” right before any 2nd amendment cases are heard.

  17. Inflammatory headlines like this do not serve the cause of gun owners. RF seems to think clicks are more important than maintaining a sense of decorum.

    It’s really getting tiresome….if the anti gun forces post any BS, it’s widely mocked. Why should this blog get a pass?

    • I like being an American, so I am ecstatic that our founding fathers didn’t overly worry about “decorum”. I would just hate to still be English, kind of like I would hate for the rights others shed blood to gain, to be ripped from us because we don’t want to be rude and don’t have the stones (or the moral fortitude) to risk our blood to keep those rights.

    • +1. TTAG has a brand that IMHO represents the best or at least among the best websites for information education and respectful debate. I too point people herr as a resource. But IMHO and with deep respect to Robert despite all the disclaimers the bottom line is this: this title and the sort of speculation it raises does not help it tarnishes that brand. Plenty of other places to go for this kind of stuff.

  18. SURPRISE! If you say in the comments of this article you’re willing to shoot government officials, expect a visit by your friendly neighborhood guys in black suits and glasses anytime now.

    BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

    Me? Guns? Naw… I sold them all… =)

  19. It’s not time to start shooting yet. The elections to come and court cases have not settled the issue. And if it ever becomes time to start shooting then assinations are not the way. George Washington led an army fighting for a common cause under a flag. These men took the field with pride and honor and did not shirk from challenging the greatest super power of its time.

    Who will run America after this revolution. Honest people of courage and honor, or assasins?

    • Let’s not forget this country’s History got kicked off by a bunch of Lexington rag tags with muskets who said “TO HELL WITH YOUR CONFISCATION!”…

  20. I stopped reading when i saw “Naturalnews”.

    that place is the biggest pocket of retards after the new york times comment section and Illuminati/Rapper conspiracy theorists on youtube.

  21. dwb says: “(militia men brought rifles and muskets, not cannons and boats).” Wrong on both counts. Private citizens in colonial times armed their ships — with government permission — to be used for raiding British merchant ships. Look up “letters of marque” and “privateers.” Also check Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

    • i guess its my fault i am being loose with terminology. In my mind there are “levels” of protection. law abiding citizens with commonly used weapons – highest protection. For unusual weapons like a stinger missile, government permission, as you note.

      • hey, if drones start flying around taking people out without due process, I’m gonna want stingers or whatever is capable to taking out drones.

        I have a hard time believing they will, but with God King Obama…after Fast and Furious and his economic destruction plan, ANYTHING is possible.

  22. This topic is a sign of despair and despair is not warranted. No bill will pass Congress and outside of a few states where a majority of the voters have decided to be victims of crime gun rights continue to march in the right direction. The states where the right to bear arms is being infringed are pretty much bankrupt and will laying off police. The voters will pay for their follies in the end. Screw ’em.

    • +1. Thank you Td fot that level view. If legislators over-reach the laws can be contested at the Supremes and more good precedent set. Taking the long view its clear this is indeed the trend with Heller, McDonald, Madigam and Kachalsk cases. I do not suggest complacency but rather vigilance and supporting smart lobbying and lawyering with $$$.

    • Thanks bro! I happen to be a Republican voting conservative who lives in one of those hell-hole deep blue states, and I’m unable to relocate states as of yet. I happen to care about the fact that if I were to use my firearm in self-defense, the DA would try to bury me under the jail. Thanks for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      • I feel for you but even in Republic the majority rules and the only way out of this at legislative level is for Second Amendment supporters to win a majority of the seats in both houses of the legislature and elect the Governor. If you can’t do that you are SOL if you stay. You can hope the Courts nullify the most egregious violations of your rights but you can’t count on it. As I posted below the AGs will argue that their restrictions are consistent with court precedents and some of them may have potentially solid winning arguments. So if you wish to stay and fight then this kind of talk isn’t going to help your case. I would prefer that folks like you abandon the “slave” states and come down to places like Virginia so we aren’t overwhelmed by blue invaders who want to take away our rights too.

        • In a Republic, the Rights of the minority are also supposed to be protected.

          Here’s the thing about Rights…they’re not supposed to be VOTED ON. That’s why they’re called Rights, not privileges. So I don’t give a damn WHAT the majority says, you cannot take away inalienable Rights.

          Yeah, VA’s not Red enough for me. I’m thinking further South.

        • But if you come here you can help keep it red. I my fellow gun owners would appreciate that. It won’t take that many to at least keep a Second Amendment majority in the legislature. We have a lot Jim Webb type gun loving redneck Democrats in the state.

  23. If somebody, anybody, gets assassinated over gun control, I see the anti’s using that as an “I told you so” moment. They’ll say “This is why people shouldnt have high powered handguns(.22s), or assault weapons (garands), or sniper rifles (anything with an optic).”

    They’ll say “this happend with only one bullet (ala JFK). If this can happen with one, how can we allow you to have 30? Or even 7? One bullet turned this nation upside down. How can we possibly allow this?”

    Or they could just stage something “for their greater good”.

    Unless some one uses an FBI special (fully automatic reciprocating bear claw hammer with spare magazine clip chambers and a black thingy that goes up). then we’d be safe. Not condoning that or advocating it in any way though.

  24. A very interesting discussion for sure….but ultimately pointless. A looming (1, 5, or 10 years??) financial collapse will be the lynch pin for civil unrest or worse in this country. Financial Default in its various forms bill be the harbinger and what comes after that is anyone’s guess. I recommend, if you haven’t already, surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals within your community and/or state that share your political/philosophical persuasion. Continue to work to bring your desired outcomes to fruition, but I believe we’ve passed a point of no return.

    • Motion, been reading some James Wesley Rawles lately, have we ? and yes I agree on the financial thing.

    • +1

      That doesn’t mean freak the hell out…but it does mean don’t be so foolish as to assume that the USA will never become like ancient Rome.

      • I had to look up Rawles, I didn’t know who he was! I don’t think I fall into the survivalist category, yet. Honestly, I just read a lot of financial publications and blogs. The whole “surrounding yourself with like-minded people” is just common sense if you feel like tough times are on their way.

    • +1.

      Financially, the US passed the tipping point about 5-8 years ago. The debt level can now never be lowered sufficiently. The US dollar will not remain the global reserve currency for long. The treasury department has devalued it to the point where we no longer have a housing bubble, but we replaced it with a currency bubble. When that bubble pops, the economy of the US will be turned completely upside down, and it will cause massive civil unrest. If you think this is untrue, do some research. The course of action that America has taken cannot be undone, and stability will only remain for the next 3-8 years.

      Of course, the government would love to have all our guns confiscated before that massive civil unrest happens.

      Write me off as a tin-foil-hatter for now, but just a few months ago Fast & Furious seemed to be a tin-foil hat conspiracy as well. Prepare well.

  25. The only thing talking about assassinating government officials like judges,etc will accomplish is to get yourself arrested.The 1st amendment doesn’t cover threatening someone’s life.However,fictional treatments of such ideas are protected as any thriller novelist or film maker can attest.

    • so I guess the Second Amendment does not cover resisting tyranny, and that in fact, talking about resisting tyranny in a broad manner equates to treason?
      Yeah, that logic makes sense.

      How about arresting Judge Andrew Napolitano? “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/#ixzz2PpbXpf4A

      • I was referring to a threat against a particular individual(s)-not something generalized like Napolitano made a remark about.Maybe I wasn’t clear enough.What you cannot legally do is say” someone should go out and shoot “X”or indicate that you will do it yourself-and that applies to any person,not just public officials.

  26. I would not be surprised if the Courts upheld a number of the restrictions. I have to caveat that of my points below only reflect the kind of arguments that the states with new restriction could make in court that would satisfy Heller and McDonald.

    (1) IF I were the Colorado AG I would argue that the magazine restriction of 15 rounds is consistent with the Court’s previous rulings because the standard issue US Army handgun, the M-9, uses a 15 round magazine. Therefore the limit, at least for handguns, passes the Heller test of “in common use” and the Militia clause in that it allows citizens to use the same handgun and magazine that is issued to regular troops and the National Guard. Furthermore, the AR-15 available to the public is not the same weapons as used by the military. It is merely a civilian small bore autoloading varmint rifle that is not suitable for military use (that’s the argument we have been making) and a 15 round limit for such a rifle is a reasonable limit for self-defense based on the Army’s choice of the M-9 magazine size.

    (2) The new Connecticut law on magazine size does not restrict the use of standard capacity magazines at the range, competition and particularly at home where it could be used for self defense. The restriction only applies to magazines used outside. It is highly unlikely that someone will be using an AR in self defense outside the home. That satisfies the Heller decision as well. The outright ban on certain weapons would be harder to defend.

    (3) New York probably doesn’t have a defense because it restrict magazine capacities below anything that the military uses. However, the Marine Corp has decided to go back to the 1911 as the M45. The NY AG could argue that if 7+1 is good enough for the Marines it’s good enough for Joe Citizen. I am sure that they will also argue that revolvers are unrestricted and that a citizen can exercise lawful self defense just as well with a S&W 686 as he can with an automatic.

    I could give more examples but the three should generate enough discussion if anybody wishes to discuss. Remember, I am putting myself in the role of an AG defending the law. It does not reflect my own views so personal vitriol will not be appreciated.

    • *a hypothetical rebuttal to your hypothetical AG arguments

      (1) IF I were the Colorado AG I would argue that the magazine restriction of 15 rounds is consistent with the Court’s previous rulings because the standard issue US Army handgun, the M-9, uses a 15 round magazine. Therefore the limit, at least for handguns, passes the Heller test of “in common use” and the Militia clause in that it allows citizens to use the same handgun and magazine that is issued to regular troops and the National Guard. Furthermore, the AR-15 available to the public is not the same weapons as used by the military. It is merely a civilian small bore autoloading varmint rifle that is not suitable for military use (that’s the argument we have been making) and a 15 round limit for such a rifle is a reasonable limit for self-defense based on the Army’s choice of the M-9 magazine size.
      -Disagree. 15 rounds may be standard capacity for some handguns, but not all. Glock 17 has 17 rounds. Many Glock 17s are found among LEOs, therefore in common usage. BTW, how does one SPECIFICALLY DEFINE common usage? Law is too vague and you will only end up arguing about it until you’re blue in the face.
      As for 15 round limit for AR15, no again. No one makes a 15 round magazine. 20, 30, even 100 round magazines are already in common usage. I actually would argue that since LEOs and military use AR15 fully automatic variants, and that since “common usage” addresses that fact, civilians MUST be entitled to the same firearms as they are in “common usage”.

      2) The new Connecticut law on magazine size does not restrict the use of standard capacity magazines at the range, competition and particularly at home where it could be used for self defense. The restriction only applies to magazines used outside. It is highly unlikely that someone will be using an AR in self defense outside the home. That satisfies the Heller decision as well. The outright ban on certain weapons would be harder to defend.
      -This logic is flawed in that many people have been told by self defense instructors that if they can flee the house, they should. I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell am not gonna let my gun safe sit and get cracked, the contents of which probably commandeered, and used against me while I piss my pants hiding behind a dirt mound in my backyard waiting for the cops to show up. If I get a chance to bring my AR15 out of the house and have it on my person for self-defense should the criminal decide to charge my position, I’d let him have it.

      (3) New York probably doesn’t have a defense because it restrict magazine capacities below anything that the military uses. However, the Marine Corp has decided to go back to the 1911 as the M45. The NY AG could argue that if 7+1 is good enough for the Marines it’s good enough for Joe Citizen. I am sure that they will also argue that revolvers are unrestricted and that a citizen can exercise lawful self defense just as well with a S&W 686 as he can with an automatic.
      -You could say the same thing about a variety of firearms…1st SFOD-D has been known to use Glock 23’s with 15 round magazines. SEALs use the Sig P226 with 15 round magazines. So now what? A pissing contest of who’s the most elite? “Well if it’s good enough for the SEALs, it’s good enough for Joe Citizen”
      Plus, NUMEROUS self-defense instructors would be like “dude, .45’s put more citizens at risk than high-capacity 9mm handguns because the spread under stress and movement would be like…3 times the size of a 9mm spread…and a 9mm spread can already be bad if the shooter is under stress”

      • Putting on my AG hats. I said the NY argument would be weak so I won’t address that.

        As Colorado AG my response would be is “heah, I said you can use the weapon that the military uses as a standard issue, not a less common firearm. You got to set a standard and since the first part of the Second Amendment does mention the Militia the standard we have decided to use is what is in common use in the military and not law enforcement. It hardly matters that another pistol not standard issue in the military has more or less capacity. For the AR the market will provide an alternative and by the way we are not taking your standard capacity magazines from you or limiting where you can use them like say the State of Connecticut. [Aside, when your magazine spring wears out you can always drive up to gun store in Wyoming and buy a spring and replace it while you are out of state. Colorado law has no jurisdiction beyond its borders and the law as written says you must maintain physical possession for it to be grandfathered in Colorado. You can satisfy this requirement by replacing the spring while you are having a burger at Micky D’s in Cheyenne.]

        As the Connecticut AG my answer is the law actually on your property not just your house so if the bad guy is dumb enough to charge your position while you remain on your property you are covered by the law.

        • ACTUALLY your answer as the CT AG would be…

          “All gun owners will be stripped of their citizenship, guns, and Rights. They will subsequently be waterboarded for Liberal enjoyment in the public square, then sent to death camps.”

          Just sayin…lol

  27. Perhaps some day the time will come when “voting from the rooftops” will become necessary. Jefferson certainly thought so. As for right now,we are merely fighting for our constitutional right to be able to cast that vote. When it “turns to tears”, when folks start getting shot (regularly, as it has happened before) over that right, all bets are off.

  28. I think we are still far from the armed resistance. The political system still allows us to punish anti gunners at the polls. We wont sweep all of them, but the worst should be targeted for defeat, even if they are replaced by similar ilk. At least some will feel the personal agony of defeat and their contemporaries will note the price to be paid.

    For a State to not allow its county Sheriff’s to be independent is unconscionable and would lead, sooner than later to a federalized local police. THIS WE DO NOT NEED!

  29. This is a really good thread.
    I, for one, really like getting schooled by folks with more edumication than I have.
    I’m glad Mr. Farago brought up someone else’s thoughts. It kind of places the onus elsewhere.
    Just FWIW, I respect every persons written opinion here. It helps me to form a more varied and voiced opinion. I too, feel that the time for armed rebellion is close, but not here yet. I have my own thoughts on a trigger moment.

    Sorry for the intended pun.

    At that time, why on earth would one use a firearm?….

  30. wooooooow…..

    im really not sure what to say after reading the headline, let alone the comments.
    im guessing RF’s purpose was to see how many paranoid gun owners comment and spout BS everywhere? granted i only see one here….

    i bought a gun to protect me and my loved ones. not because i think theyre cool or i like them (though both are true).

    and really, im facepalming so hard at some of these comments, im warping time and space.

  31. read this tomorrow
    *** NY Times, April 9, 2013 ***
    NRA / GUN NUTs FANTASIZE ABOUT ASSASSINATING JUDGES and OVERTHOWING THE GOVERNMENT !!!
    “Recent posts from radical gun owners on the website “Truth About Guns” reveal what 90% of the American People have always believed about gun owners is true …….”

    If I was leftist subversive tasked with making People of the Gun look like raving , mentally imbalanced radicals, lovingly stroking their ARs while fantasizing and panting for the day when we rise up to over throw the gobberment …..
    I would respond to this post exactly like over half of the posters here have already done.

    ‘Free speech’ and all that notwithstanding, its hard enough to fight these p****s without having gun people hand them the ammunition.

    • They will spin it however it best serves them. We can’t really avoid that.

      If we can debate this topic tactfully then, when the time comes for action, we will have at least discussed it in realistic terms without painting too irresistible a target on ourselves. 😛

      • That’s true. But do we HAVE to help them?
        What’s in news lately? There’s a vendetta goin’ down now where prosecutors and officials (and their wives) are being targeted and killed.
        If we take nothing else into account, the timing here sucks.

    • ***WASHINGTON TIMES *** 4/9/13

      After having an open discussion on TTAG’s blog…no one overthrew the government and no one was executed or assassinated.

      Guess all those gun owners are just INSANE!

      Oh wait…

  32. I have to take back what said …
    It isn’t “half”.
    There is some good thinking expressed here but, there’s also just enough that isn’t to give comfort to enemy.

  33. The author of the source article seems to think the FBI was also behind 9/11…

    Not sure dignifying it by reposting serves any cause, other than illustrating that there really are some crazy people on the interwebz.

  34. The more likely scenario is for the Supreme Court to strike down any new gun regulations.
    .
    Since ALL of the recent mass shooting events have been perpetrated by a liberals, It is plausible that one of them would attempt an assassination of one or more Supreme Court justices to force an appointment by OBayme. That new justice would be a liberal/Progressive “person” easily confirmed by the Senate. With the balance of the court reversed, OBayme would be free to enact any repressive legislation his little heart desired.

    • DickG., I’m astonished at your assertion that “ALL of the recent mass shooting events have been perpetrated by a liberals.” As evidenced by what, exactly? As far as I can determine from what’s been reported in the media, the thought processes of the likes of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, and other spree shooters, are way too jumbled and incoherent to be characterized as being either of a liberal or a conservative bent. So on what basis do you declare them to be “liberals”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *