Connecticut Gun Registration: The Race to Ruby Ridge

Gun registration > gun confiscation > disarmed populace > police state > bad, bad things. That’s how the People of the Gun see it. Constitution State legislators not so much. They responded to the Sandy Hook spree killing by turning their back on the U.S. Constitution, enacting gun laws that are the dictionary definition of infringement. And now . . . the race is on! Residents have until the end of the year to register their modern sporting rifle(s) and get an ammunition purchase permit (if they don’t have a concealed carry license). And then what? What will happen to the hundreds of thousands of owners who don’t register? Ruby Ridge? Regardless, this will not end well.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

78 Responses to Connecticut Gun Registration: The Race to Ruby Ridge

  1. avatarKirk says:

    Mark Levin has begun a movement to Amend the US Constitution using a State-sourced method. We should all go look.

    Yes, this post relates to State abuse, but gotta start somewhere.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      I have read the first chapter of his new book. It looks interesting.

    • Mark Levine is stupid. The last thing we need is to amend the Constitution. We should actually try to follow what in written in it now! The 2nd Amendment is in it NOW. Our founding fathers stated our right to keep and bear arms. States and the federal governments have no authority to violate the 2nd Am. in any way. Our founders explained the 2nd Amendment to us, but the traitors try to hide its true meaning. Read all of these quotes from our founders and you decide if government has authority for gun control.

      would like to see Gun Control Advocates in Washington, D.C. retire from politics and court. They haven’t done anything good for this country as far as I am concerned. They need to check out JUST A FEW OF THE QUOTES from our founding fathers and follow their advise on the subject. AFTER ALL, THEY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION!

      “… arms… discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” -Thomas Paine.

      “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

      “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

      “To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

      “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

      “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.: -Patrick Henry.

      “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry

      “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

      “The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

      “…the people have a right to keep and bear arms.” -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.

      “The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

      “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

      “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. (see http: //www4 . law. cornel 1 . edu/uscode/)

      “The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

      “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

      “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,..”-
      Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

      “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States… Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America.” -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe, the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword: because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a superior force to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised by the United States. Noah Webster “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)

      “They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

      “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts(only) as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785) .

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

      “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
      -Thomas Jefferson.

      “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.

      “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

      “Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual
      discretion… in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the
      Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
      ———————————————————————————–

      Finally, if you still don’t believe in the 2nd Am., maybe a few of these quotes will make you think twice:

      “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has FULL GUN REGISTRATION! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
      by Hitler,1935 – WHO WAS A SOCIALIST HIMSELF!

      “One man with a gun can control 100 men without one. … Make searches and hold executions for found arms.” by V. I. Lenin

      “Government begins at the end of a gun barrel” by Chairman Moa

      “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm them ourselves.” by Joseph Stalin

      “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” by Bill Clinton

      “Terrorism is the best political weapon, for nothing drives people harder than fear of a sudden death.” by Hitler

      “There ought to be limits to freedom.” George W. Bush

      “We are on the verge of a Global TRANSFORMATION. All we need is the right major crisis” … ?in order to create? ” world socialist government.” David Rockefeller (my OLD copy from the printer is messed up ?…? Search internet for whole quote.)

      See http://www.infowars.com, http://www.gcnlive.com, http://www.hourofthetime.com

  2. avatarimrambi says:

    New York State has refused to release how many people have become registered with their new AWB:

    http://ocshooters.com/blog/?p=980

  3. avatarJoshinGA says:

    In a state where they have a list of registered gun owners, how well can non-compliance with this latest series of draconian laws really work?

    • avatarHowdy says:

      Regardless of how the law is written, how were they planning on actually dealing with the thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands??) that don’t comply? Door to door? Roughly 3.5 million live in that state.

      Will those that passed the measure be among the “collectors” that are doing the “collecting”.

      I am a huge supporter of directly living with the consequences of your decisions.

      I wonder how many of the assigned “collectors” refuse. Then what?

      I agree this will have an interesting if not scary outcome no matter which side you’re on.

      • avatarArdent says:

        It seems to me that door to door confiscation would be prohibitively expensive and disruptive (though California seems to be all for it). I’d say a more likely (and somehow more insidious) scenario is that those who failed to register will be picked up piecemeal during random interactions with the police. Picture getting pulled over for a minor traffic violation then arrested and held while they sort out where that MSR you bought but failed to register is now.

        Here is to hoping the courts correct this egregious infringement before it comes to shooting because it seems to me that if it’s allowed to continue long enough and over a wide enough sample it will eventually (perhaps inevitably) lead to some very tragic shootouts.

        I think something fundamental that the grabbers miss is that when you make criminals out of previously law abiding citizens with a stroke of the pen, enacting arbitrary, capricious, controversial and very likely unconstitutional laws you in fact create a new criminal class, divisions between the people, the police, and the government and engender a scoff law sort of attitude.

        There is a reason the Declaration of Independence lists a string of abuses. Everyone has a tipping point and a response to reaching it.
        For some it’s civil disobedience or routinely violating those laws they disagree with. For others it’s seeking redress through the ballot and the courts. Eventually though, when other methods are excessively problematic or impossible more and more people come to resist what they rightly perceive as tyranny while many others at least tacitly support said resistance.

        I’m not saying the current batch of laws will result in a revolution (I doubt seriously that it will) but this IS exactly how revolutions get started; unpopular and arbitrary laws, draconian enforcement, and increasing disenfranchisement and disaffection with the ruling regime by a sizable minority.

        • avatarSHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! says:

          “prohibitively expensive and disruptive ”

          Since when has that stopped any level of government…

        • avatarCA.Ben says:

          Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. The boxes are running out in a lot of states.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        “I wonder how many of the assigned “collectors” refuse. Then what? ”

        That’s exactly what I wonder. You know what else I wonder? I wonder if the MSM would even cover it when it turns nasty and the “klecters” start getting shot dead. My guess would be no, which leaves gun owners with word-of-mouth, AKA the Rumor Mill….

        • avatarRob1285 says:

          I disagree. I’m sure they would cover it, but the story would be “Crazy Right Wing Nut Bag Gun Owners Shoot at Government Employees in Cold Blood”

      • avatarLarry says:

        Collecting. What an innocent idea. I wonder what would happen if during a “collection” the first three guys in the door were shot to death, and then the law abiding citizen surrendered to legitimate law enforcement and proclaimed that he had defended his home against criminal invaders? And demanded a jury trial. And demanded it tomorrow, as provided for by the Constitution.

        His ass would get kicked twenty ways, right? Lying, cheating, stealing, losing evidence, manufacturing evidence, he’d have no chance at all of a fair trial. Seems fair.

        Now, what if the NEXT person subject to “collection” shot the first 3 collectors through the door to death, and then surrendered to legitimate law enforcement and pled “not guilty”, etc. And the next thousand.

        “Collectors” would become increasingly hard to find. Courts would be backed up for a hundred years. And eventually a pro-confiscation Congressman or Senator would be invited to “ride along” and even to be the first one through the door, given the honor of the “collection” himself!

        This is pretty easy. Of COURSE I would never do such a thing myself, or even advocate it to others! But it is kinda obvious, isn’t it?

  4. avatarAnonymous says:

    I agree.

    Robert, you should go to wikipedia and rewrite this article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

    describing and defending the progressive liberals anti-gun rhetoric. Which totally missed the idea behind what you have written. Slippery slope is a scenario that can happen not necessarily will. However if it can and the opposition (gun control advocates) wills it – they will make it happen.

    • avatarChristian says:

      I always thought “Slippery Slope” was a poor term. It’s only a logical fallacy if taken to unlikely and/or un-provable lengths. We have plenty of real world examples of how what some call the “slippery slope” argument of Reducing Gun rights works out. As Nick so succinctly put it, Gun registration > gun confiscation > disarmed populace > police state > bad, bad things. The threat is real, the consequences are demonstrable.

      Slippery Slope? Not so much. “First crack in the Dam” is a better description.

  5. avatarAnon in CT says:

    Since I purchased my firearms retail, they are all ALREADY registered with the state and my town. So now I have to re-register some to make sure that they are on the list of very scary guns of color.

    It will be pretty easy to determine non-compliance, where they ALREADY have a registry of owners and gun models.

    • avatarPascal says:

      I would HIGHLY recommend that you ask DESPP for a list of your guns which they have on file from your DPS- 67-C or DPS-3-C form. As other have found, they may have extra or fewer guns under your name and you want that corrected first.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        If some of one’s guns are listed, WHY THE HELL would you want to “correct” the bastards? That’s crazy talk.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Well, you’d really only correct the “extra,” I think. But knowing the fewer might be good because you know which ones you can squirrel away, in case they come for the ones they do know about.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      File an appeal due to the racist nature of the state’s request that you re-register only your black, scary guns.

  6. avatarensitue says:

    Read LaRue’s ‘The Gestapo’ because We are on the same EXACT path

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      No question about it. Some continue their “commie” whine, but it makes NO difference what they call themselves, or what you call them. They are statists and despots, and there’s not an ounce worth of difference between any of them.

      DESPOTS BEWARE!!

      • avatarRalph says:

        The difference between fascists and communists is the quality of their uniforms. Commie unis look like they were stitched up by a collective in Murmansk. SS unis look like they were tailored by Hugo Boss — which they actually were.

  7. avatarJacob says:

    Bunch of cowards.

  8. avatarAccur81 says:

    Here is my simple registration argument:

    Cars and trucks, operated on public roads, should be registered. The drivers are consistently using public property which needs to be cleaned and maintained regularly. That cost is alleviated in part by registration.

    Cars and trucks, operated exclusively on private roads, have no need of registration. It doesn’t cost the state anything for you to drive your own vehicle on your own property.

    Firearms are private property. They are stored, used, and maintained on private property at the expense of the owner. It doesn’t cost the state anything for you to own and use your own private property. The state has absolutely no right to force you to register your own property for a second time, at your own time and expense, for the “privilege” of the state’s consideration for future confiscation.

    • avatarjoe smith says:

      I’m going to start writing down all the great reasons and by the time i’m done it’s going to be the size of a phone-book.

      • avatarPascal says:

        And unless you are the one making the law or running for office where you can change the law or working to get the people who will do what you want with laws, all you will still have is just pieces of paper.

        If it was purely a matter of logic and reason, none of these laws would have been passed. This was 100% to push a political agenda. Thanks to Obama’s Creeping Authoritarianism this is what we have. Until gun owners become active on places other than gun blogs and forums, this is what it will be. However 2014 goes, goes the country. People will have to choose, freedom or the Abyss — if all the Obama scandals have not finally pushed you over the edge, then nothing will.

        • avatarShire-man says:

          According to family who is still there they were/are as active as any group can be when these laws were being discussed and now with plans for the upcoming election. As active as any group has been. And the best they have to look forward to is maybe getting some politicians elected who think the ammo permit bit is too much but everything else is okay.

          Being active is nice and all but there’s only so much you can do with words and ballots and CT has been beyond that point for a number of years now. It just took this nonsense to highlight that fact for those who couldnt or wouldnt see it decades ago.

          Nothing short of a complete cultural shift is going to change CT, NJ, MA, NY, CA, etc…

        • avatarPascal says:

          @Shire-man:

          Lower Fairfield County will be lost forever because there are far too many liberal NY transplants who live there to escape NY and NYC taxes. However, Upper Fairfield Country has hope because we have both Rs and Ds who voted against the bill. There are few key Senate posts which if can be taken, would change the make up of the policy makers.

          It will neither be quick, cheaper or easy to do but it can be done. Recall that Malloy literally won his seat by only a few hundred votes and is not polling well.

          There is also a good chance we can displace the current state AG so it would remove any teeth from the law suites.

          There is still much that can be done. The worst thing that can happen is believe that the fight is over and people will stop fighting.

          Every victory for the pro-gun side be it in CT or Colorado is a win for all gun rights. Hell, we just elected a Republican to a district that never had a Republican so it is possible.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      “Cars and trucks, operated on public roads, should be registered. The drivers are consistently using public property which needs to be cleaned and maintained regularly. That cost is alleviated in part by registration.”

      Eliminate registration and increase the fuel taxes. You raise just as much money (possibly more so we have better roads) without the interference in peoples lives.

      • avatarDenny says:

        Good points.. But can we truly ensure that these Gov. pukes spend all the Fuel taxes only on roads, Interstates, and bridges rather than say public parks or misguided spending on social /communal pork.

        • avatardarth says:

          You don’t have that assurance NOW, so who cares? As long as I can get untaxed fuel for my tractors, I’m good.

      • avatarT-DOG says:

        “Nothing short of a complete cultural shift is going to change CT, NJ, MA, NY, CA, etc…”

        It’s called bankruptcy. When the free food, rent, and cell phones run out you will see the change.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      That’s a pretty good argument, Accur81.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Huzzah!!

    • avatarJim Barrett says:

      The car and truck argument has some problems. To wit:

      Many states require a car that is operated on public roads to have insurance. The insurance is at least in part tied to the vehicle because someone who has a valid drivers license, but does not have a car of their own and thus has no car insurance can drive my car and they would be covered by the policy I have on it.

      If you don’t drive on the public road and are not registered, then you may not need insurance.

      The gun grabber argument is that if you keep the gun on your property (in your house), fine, but the minute you take it out onto the public way, then you should carry insurance and be subject to registration and other hassles.

      At this point, one would bring up the whole Constitution thing, but the point I am trying to make is that comparing cars and guns will only get us into trouble.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        “The gun grabber argument is that if you keep the gun on your property (in your house), fine, but the minute you take it out onto the public way, then you should carry insurance and be subject to registration and other hassles.”

        That’s a false conflation on their part, and easy to argue against, Jim. The difference is using it in public versus transporting it in public. Simply taking a gun out into a public space should not make you liable for licensing and insurance, any more than taking the aforementioned “private property only” vehicle from one place to another via trailer or truck. If your farm truck, for which you have no tag or insurance, is needed on another farm, you take it there by trailer, and you don’t have to register and insure it for the trip. Likewise, if my gun that I use on private property (my home) is being taken to another private property (the range) to be used, that’s no different.

        “But, but what if you used your gun in public to defend yourself? Shouldn’t it be insured then?” If I needed to run from a raging forest fire, and the only vehicle available to run in was an unregistered, uninsured farm truck, I would do so, and deal with the consequences later. I dare say that at that point the lack of registration is the least of my concerns.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          That was my line of reasoning as well.

        • avatarJim Barrett says:

          Matt, I’m not saying that I agree with the gun grabber argument. I’m just saying that in a debate between one and you, that issue is likely to be raised. Neither of you will convince the other, but I’m worried about the undecided third person who is merely observing the argument. Whichever argument appears more “reasonable” is the one likely to win the day with that person. I think that the gun grabber could argue that if you take a weapon with you, loaded and ready for use, you are actually “using” it. If you merely wish to transport it – then unload it and lock it in a case – now you are “transporting it”. Note that several states make this distinction. Even a relatively firearms friendly state like Texas says that people without carry licenses cannot walk about on public ways unless the pistol is unloaded and cased.

          I’m not arguing this point because I believe it. I don’t. I’m just saying that for many of the low information voters (key word being voters) this perspective might make more sense.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Oh, I know you weren’t actually advancing that point, and I tried to word my first sentence to make that clear. I guess I failed. I was just trying to point out a way to argue against it, should the need or opportunity arise. They say “cars” and you say “it’s not the same and here’s why.” I do see the distinction you’re drawing regarding “availability for use.” Sorry for the confusion.

      • avatarLarry says:

        Time out. I live in TX, and have held a TX CHL for 15 years. All of my “instruction” has included the fact that TX law does not discriminate between “loaded” and “Unloaded”, regarding pistols, rifles, concealed, not concealed, anything. Yet you assert that there is a law differentiating between the two. Sorry. Show me.

  9. avatarShire-man says:

    Empty CT. You’re rewarding them with your tax dollars. Staying only tells them their tyranny is tolerable. All the petitions and elections and demonstrations in the world wont change CT in your favor. I wasted 30 years in that state before I got the sense to move on. Dont spend a dime there. Dont work an hour there. Drive around it when you travel. Get out and dont turn back lest you become a pillar of salt.

    There are “free” states in NE that could use more of you moving in and less of the Masshole variety. It’s easier for a state to stand in this nation that it is for any group of people within that state. Saturate ME, NH, and VT. Dont stick it out in NJ, MA, NY, CT. The whole Northeast region is spread too thin for gun people. That dilution makes it easy to ignore you. Pick a state or two and saturate them or they’ll soon enough become just like CT and MA.

    • avatarPascal says:

      Most of NE will face a demise from simple demographics and crappy public policy. There is an aging population. Those who can afford to, are moving out. It is too expensive for the younger generation to live in much of NE. The states are all under funded on public pension plans like Detroit and the cost of living make unattractive to business. Add to that a crumbling infrastructure and a poorly planned one that does not services the areas it should, and NE will sink to a debt whole over time.

      Don’t be surprised if states try to merge into bigger states just to keep the welfare state going. CT and RI are too small to sustain the demographic and job shifts. They will be the first to sink.

      • avatarJoshinGA says:

        And then they will move to greener pastures, and ruin those states with their terrible laws, rinse and repeat.

        • avatarPascal says:

          Which is why we should not believe the fight stays within borders. Everyone in every town, city, county, state and this whole country has to fight. EVEN IF you are in a free state, there are ALWAYS forces working against you.

          This idea that politics is local needs to banished. You are fighting a nation wide battle always. Every victory counts and you cannot give the enemy any rest. It is as much a matter of will than anything else. A few key victories takes them out of the fight and makes it easier.

        • avatarAvid Reader says:

          Which is just what happened when Colorado was overrun.

    • avatarArdent says:

      This exactly shire-man. Many of these tyrannical states are also verging on bankruptcy. It seems that the same absurd minds that contemplate gun bans also enact laws that lead to financial collapse. In the case of the listed states, the ‘axis of tyranny’ the sooner they ruin themselves the better. It serves not only as an object lesson in how not to govern and or vote, but also the very real goal of hamstringing these states abilities to enforce their ill-conceived laws.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        “This idea that politics is local needs to banished. ”

        When they say “local”, I hear “federal”. There is nothing wrong with local policitics; politics yearns to be local.

        The problem is in the deception.

  10. avatarST says:

    I don’t think Ruby Ridge is the endgame here.The antis want a disarmed population,but they aren’t stupid enough to think going door to door openly will ever fly.The sheer logistics of such a plan arent even feasible:the ratio of LE to citizens doesn’t permit it.

    No,registration accomplishes a far more devestating goal then *just* logging the guns.Rather,by forcing people to either sell ,bury,or register guns the government has fundamentally altered the pro-2A CULTURE. With legal gun owners wary of being arrested,and illegal owners of unregistered hardware keeping their collection on the QT,precious few voters will be converted to pro gun issue backers.

    In 10 years,the only folks in Conneticutt with scary rifles will be cops and old timers.Newcomers and young voters will have grown up with only the anti gun media and school as their guide to the RKBA.Thus,that is the endgame:modifying the culture so that every man,woman,and child born or living in a state such as CT is by default anti gun.

    The long term game plan isn’t SWAT trucks and flashbangs.Its all of us growing up to be old crones surrounded by millions of youngins campaigning for total disarmament.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      I think you’re largely correct. In the shorter term, the police, whoever is in charge of confiscation at a local level, will have a list. And they will wait until you are in a public area, away from home, and they will arrest you on a bogus charge that they do not intend to pursue against you.

      While you’re cooling your heels, waiting for your attorney, the constabulary will be collecting your guns and, with a totally-co-opted court system, you are shit out of luck, vis-a-vis your guns.

      • avatarLarry says:

        I believe you are correct. I also believe that there will be some few (certainly not me) who will FIGHT when confronted away from their homes, then surrender and plead not guilty, and demand a jury trial TOMORROW!

        The Constitution guarantees the right to a “SPEEDY” trial, does it not? Jamming up the illegitimate court system is a legitimate goal, no?

    • avatarsmackit says:

      Yep, generally correct.

      Over the past 30 years while the conservatives are whooping up their occasional congressional and presidential wins every 2 or 4 years, the leftist teachers go back to our schools EVERY DAY and drill their ideology into our kids from grades K thru Doctorate. The bad fruits of their labor is evident all across our country in a myriad of ways. The only way to reverse this trend is to recapture the schools but that will be next to impossible since they have a stranglehold on who gets hired and promoted.

      The end of this story will be an ever increasing slide into financial collapse and some really bad scenes. I may not be here to see the bottom, but my kids likely will. Got a kid in college who says he wants to move to Australia or NZ when he graduates. I’m not talking him out of it.

  11. avatarAdam says:

    Canada went down this road. A bit of a backgrounder may interest people here:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/a-gang-that-couldnt-shoot-straight/article748138/

    Note that Canada recently repealed the ‘non-restricted’ (most long guns) registration, but not the licensing portion of the Firearms Act.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Ironically, Canada is now, in some respects, freer that CT:

      - You can order non-restricted weapons (includes M-14 clones) to your house by mail.
      - While Restricted weapons must be registered, others don’t have to be.
      -Free access to cheap ChiCom imports of guns and ammo.
      - Though some ARs / AKs are prohibited, the rest are merely restricted and they don’t do dumb “feature” counting.

      On the downside:
      - You cannot hunt with a Restricted weapon (pistol, AR, etc.)
      - Rifle Mags limited to 5 rounds / pistols 10.
      - A lot of small pistols are Prohibited for having inadequately long barrels.
      - There’s no concept of legal carry – concealed, open, home or otherwise.

  12. avatarDB says:

    At @ 1:50 the news interviews a citizen of noticeably darker skin tone. I’m confused. According to Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg News, firearms ownership is strictly a white person thing.

  13. “The evolving War on Guns is being built on the War on Drugs chassis, running gear and steering components. Offenses are primarily felonies carrying mandatory minimum jail sentences – and simple possession being the basic context-dropping framework for being charged and convicted. Like the War on Drugs, new gun laws are not aimed at criminals; they are brutal attempts to change the longstanding behaviors of currently law-abiding or otherwise law-abiding citizens. Soon people will be in deep trouble with the law, because they did not register a perfectly ordinary rifle that had a threaded barrel or a thumb-hole stock.” (my VTD article linked off my name, above)

    Gun control is associated with the Democratic Party but I am rather certain that Republicans who do the bidding of the intelligence, defense and DHS community — are ultimately interested in civilian disarmament. The people who green-lighted NSA snooping, DHS armaments and ammo purchases cannot possibly have positive feelings about a well armed citizenry.

    “Liberals” — and city dwellers are certainly of a subculture that does not “get” why we should have easy legal gun ownership. And the Democrats have been exploiting the latest SSRI fueled rampages (that is a different discussion) — but the “The Libs” were not behind the War On Drugs, mandatory minimums for everything, zero-tolerance, The Patriot Act and various post-911 infringements on individual liberty. 

    “Conservatives” are now face-to-face with the massive contradiction that comes from the fact that they are NOT Libertarians. (double-think) Conservatives don’t want to hear that the founding fathers were opposed to foreign entanglements — no less FSD (Full Spectrum Dominance) and a million other things — now accepted for “National Security”

    The ONLY thing that will really insure that most of society supports the armed citizen is when the Conservatives become more Libertarian and attack the WOD, over-incarceration, draconian laws of ALL sorts and also start taking a good look at what their government is really up to. In the mean time we need to win hearts and minds in the Liberal camp by asking them to oppose a Police State in all its forms.

    Gun Rights (civil rights of gun owners) will get more support when properly identified as a Police State +/- issue.

    Discuss……

    • avatarsmackit says:

      Little correction…

      “…..but the “The Libs” were not behind the War On Drugs,”

      Not true. When the Crack epidemic first hit I remember mayors from cities of all types begging that extra harsh laws be put in place to try to put a lid on things. Both R’s and D’s were for these minimums.

  14. avatarmediocrates says:

    I think its only a matter of time before resistance turns violent.

    • avatarLarry says:

      While I hate to do so, I have to agree. And I hate to visualize that situation, the armed against the unarmed.

  15. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    ““Conservatives” are now face-to-face with the massive contradiction that comes from the fact that they are NOT Libertarians. (double-think) Conservatives don’t want to hear that the founding fathers were opposed to foreign entanglements — no less FSD (Full Spectrum Dominance) and a million other things — now accepted for “National Security”

    HONK if you think Karl Rove is a good-guy Republican Constitution-lover.

    “Gun Rights (civil rights of gun owners) will get more support when properly identified as a Police State +/- issue.”

    Yes. Republicans and Democrats are one another’s “loyal opposition”. BREAK THAT TERM DOWN.

    That’s my discussion.

  16. avatarTom says:

    People are going to have to make a stand here on the Second Amendment. Even if it means that they resort to massive civil disobedience. There are ways of making yourself a total pain in the posterior if you are arrested such as refusing to be booked. Allowing yourself to be booked is a acknowledgement of guilt. You are not guilty if you are standing on your constitutional rights. If you have a good deal of resolve, go on a hunger strike. Totalitarians fear dissidents and hunger strikes. If we lose the Second Amendment, it will be only a short time before the other amendments go down. And you will wake up in a dictatorship.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Amazing. A dedicatedly pacifist attitude toward murderous oppression and criminal violence. Don’t look for me in your pew.

  17. avatarRalph says:

    I moved from NY to CT to RI to MA. I think I’ll move to CA so that I can achieve the elusive superfecta of firearms @sshattery.

  18. avataranonymous kommando says:

    The gun rights movement /really/ needs to stop felating fringe whackadoodles like Randy Weaver, because a “former” 14/88 who got his family killed while resisting arrest after making an illegal SBS and sending threatening letters to government officials, and who is currently sending out “hitlists” to random people on gun sites, totally makes us look good.

    (that last sentence was sarcasm)

    • avatarLarry says:

      Uuuuh,,, the whole thing was one sentence! I think you need to look farther into what happened on Ruby Ridge.

  19. Anyone else getting this message from GMAIL RE: TTAG?

    “This message could be a scam. The sender’s account may have been compromised and used to send malicious messages. If this message seems suspicious, let us know and then alert the sender as well (in some way other than email). Learn more
    Report this suspicious message Ignore, I trust this message.”

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      You get that when you get a comment notification email for one of the spam comments that have been popping up lately, the ones of the “my best friend’s sister’s husband’s boyfriend makes $43 a second on the web.” You will also get that warning when you get a notification email for any comments that reply to the original spam comment. You can safely ignore that Gmail message when it’s regarding comments of this type.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        And by ‘ignore’ I meant you can either click the ‘Ignore’ link in the email, or simply literally ignore the message and go about your business.

  20. avatarKen Hagler says:

    Legislators see it as “Gun registration > gun confiscation > disarmed populace > police state > good, good things” (for them).

  21. avatarAndy says:

    Eventually gun control will lead to first non-compliance,then down the line a total shooting war with the establishment.At first they will call the folks that fight back domestic terrorists or whatever they can use to try to persuade the rest of the public to be against anyone that stands up against the establishment.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  22. avatarensitue says:

    We shall soon discover that these Slave States have been provided with the meta data (and More) by the NSA as it is perfectly obvious that anyone who follows the US Constitution is a Domestic Terrorist thus greatly facilitating the ‘Door To Door’ 3AM Dynamic Entrys of Domestic Peace Keepers.

    Read Larue’s The Gestapo

  23. avatarPat says:

    This is what you get when you vote libtard (democrat). Don’t do it again.
    Did some of the morons on this very forum RE-ELECT Obummer?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.