The idea that firearms owners should be forced to insure their guns is nothing new. Gun grabbers have glommed onto it with gusto for years. Ignoring the fact that government-mandated gun insurance falls squarely under the “shall not be infringed” part of the Second Amendment, and that driving is not a natural, civil or Constitutionally protected right, it must be said (by a mindful Jew like me, anyway) that gun registration leads to gun confiscation which opens the door to state-sponsored murder and mass extermination. To make that point perfectly clear, I draw your attention to the prologue of Neal Knox’s book The Gun Rights War . . .

In Charley’s little town in Belgium, there lived an old man, a gunsmith. The old man was friendly with the kids and welcomed them to his shop. He had once been an armorer to the King of Belgium, according to Charley. He told us of the wonderful guns he had crafted using only hand tools. There were double shotguns and fine rifles with beautiful hardwood stocks and gorgeous engraving and inlay work. Charley liked the old man and enjoyed looking at the guns. He often did chores around the shop.

One day the gunsmith sent for Charley. Arriving at the shop, Charley found the old man carefully oiling and wrapping guns in oilcloth and paper. Charley asked what he was doing. The old smith gestured to a piece of paper on the workbench and said that an order had come to him to register all his guns. He was to list every gun with a description on a piece of paper and then to send the paper to the government.

The old man had no intention of complying with the registration law and had summoned Charley to help him bury the guns at a railroad crossing. Charley asked why he didn’t simply comply with the order and keep the guns. The old man, with tears in his eyes, replied to the boy “If I register them, they will be taken away.”

A year or two later, the blitzkreig rolled across the Low Countries. One day not long after the war arrived in Charley’s town. A squad of German SS troops banged on the door of a house that Charley knew well. The family had twin sons about Charley’s age. The twins were his best friends. The officer displayed a paper describing a Luger pistol, a relic of the Great War, and ordered the father to produce it. That old gun had been lost, stolen or misplaced after it had been registered, the father explained. He did not know where it was.

The officer told the father he had exactly fifteen minutes to produce the weapon. The family turned their house upside down. No pistol.

They returned to the SS officer, empty-handed.

The officer gave an order and soldiers herded the family outside while other troops called the entire town to the square. There on the town square the SS machine-gunned the entire family—father, mother, Charley’s two friends, their older brother and a baby sister.

Progressives don’t believe such a thing is possible in America. Let me put it this way: firearms are our insurance that it won’t. ‘Nuff said?

95 Responses to License, Register and Insure Your Guns. And Then Die.

  1. It really, truly SHOULD be enough. In fact, it shouldn’t NEED to said at all, it should be universally understood.

    Unfortunately we live in a world where the right to armed self defense gets boiled down to a punch line by those in power.

    • No we live in a world where people are more worried about a royal baby in another country than they are with learnin the history of their nation.

      • People are afraid of independence in any form. Have you ever pulled out a locking pocket knife in the presence of low info voters? They almost panic sometimes. Any hint of weaponry and people get scared. If you talk about not depending on external support or trying to avoid needing safety nets people look at you as if you were an escaped mental patient. People are being trained to fear anyone who demonstrates independence.

      • The only defense against tyranny is a republic, with a well educated and politically active population, armed with the best weapons that country has access to. People keep calling the US a democracy, our education system is a joke, and our politicians are pushing to disarm the people. We have to get out there and encourage our friends and neighbors to get involved, screen the crap the schools are teaching your children, and defend our second amendment rights.

    • Well, the tenth, fourth, fifth, sixth and with the NSA all-invasive spying in pretty much any form of electronic communication one could argue also the third are not so sacred either…

    • The Second Amendment IS still a (vital) part of the Constitution, regardless of whether you liberals happen to like (or approve of) it … it IS still the LAW. It must be obeyed, no matter how liberals view it.

      Now, if you mental giants think you’re smarter than the Founding Fathers, and you wish to change the Constitution… then – by all means – work to LEGALLY change it. Have at it!

      But as long as it IS law, you will NOT cram your idiocy down my throat!

  2. There is 1 thing we as people of the gun understand is “for every action there are consequences ” Progressives may know about consequences but either put their heads in the sand or ignore them. We have to keep the fight to keep guns going. It figures the announcer would get somebody who worked for Chuckie Schumer to agree with him on registration.

    Personally we could do a “grassroots” which implements Article 5 in the constitution and get a constitutional convention going to have ALL Politicians to have term limits.

    My 2 cents

      • Cumulative lifetime limits on government employment, 12 years sounds about right. That includes all government employment, elected, appointed, civil service, military, Federal, state, and local. No more spending your entire life living off the tax paying citizens.

        • so a soldier who wishes to serve most of his life for his republic is to be restricted to 12 years ???

        • S. Dogood, the Founders didn’t want a standing army in peacetime. Ever. So the short answer is yes. Research Switzerland’s military system to see what ours should look like.

  3. Yea that’s ridiculous. Anyone that wants to instantly win this argument with an agit-prop anti-gunner only need to use these words:

    So if you want to regulate guns like cars that means that as cars are not regulated at all on private property and can have any modification on any unregistered, untraceable car, I can have machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank/anti-air guns with no registration, no insurance, no traceability whatsoever. Right? As that is the case with cars on private property.

    • Not only that, they teach driver’s ed in high school. So I’ll expect to be registering my kids for Shooter’s Education classes.

      And my 15-year-old ought to be getting his learner’s permit any day now, so he can legally carry a pistol in the company of a responsible adult. And when he’s 16 and passes his practical exam, he’ll be licensed to carry anywhere he likes.

      I think I like this future. Let’s get started on making it happen.

    • And all my guns like my cars will be allowed in Washington, DC, all areas of California, government properties, all public school parking lots.

  4. First issue with the video: his points regarding vehicle requirements are only valid for vehicles driven on public roads. If I never leave my property with my vehicle NONE of that is required.

    • You wouldn’t even have to stay on your own property. Just like you can put your unregistered car into a trailer and transport it, it isn’t like you are operating the car on public roads… So should you be able to carry/transport your weapon on public property without operating it. The whole thing is a crappy analogy, but we can poke the appropriate holes in it.

  5. The sickening thing is that any regulation progressives want to put on the 2A, they would have a conniption fit if it was applied to any other of the first 5 amendments. Hypocritical pieces of trash is all they are.

  6. I have but one question:

    How many lives are you perpeard to sacrifice on and altar of gun control to get me to do this? … give a number …

  7. Thanks, I’ll have a copy of The Gun Rights War by the end of the week….

    That story is a stark reminder of what’s really on the line here… With that I say to the man-child in the pink tie… FOAD…

  8. That story is a stark reminder of what’s really on the line here… With that I say the man-child in the pink tie… F0AD…

  9. You cannot insure something that is intentional. California much like many other stupid laws it has tried to pass had some good recorded testimony about this and how it was not possible. In CT they tried in the recent gun ban legislation and the insurance industry like in CA came to testify and said once again, you cannot have a market for intentional acts. In some cases, for accidents, your home owners insurance covers it.

    You can only insure something that can be accidental. America would not be a safer place because the gang bangers as we have already read about today would not have said insurance because they already do not follow any other firearm law including many who do not follow the basic 3 or 4 rules.

    America will not be a safer place because the Navy Yard shooter would have still heard voices and he would have still shot up the Naval yard insurance or not.

    The liberal progressives are so damn afraid to address mental health because they are afraid it will deter from banning guns message although since Newtown and way before that, it was mental health system that is the issue.

    There is good piece over on Ammoland about psychotropic drugs and mental health as it has been related to mass shootings over the last 20years. The common thread, batshit crazy people.

    • I dunno, they might buy it. Good lawyer. Legal bills paid. Maybe they can work it that their rival gets killed, they get a cut of the insurance money, and they go scot free because none of it blows back on them beyond a reasonable doubt.

  10. AARP got rich selling insurance, even when it was not mandated by the government.

    Seems like some enterprising pro-gun org (NRA, SAF, etc.) could consider adding a buck or two to their annual dues and providing insurance for their members. Might boost membership, shut up the grabber nonsense about mandated insurance, and help folks like George Zimmerman when and if the time comes to exercise your 2A rights.

    Didn’t Nick used to be an actuary? Maybe he could run the numbers and see if this would be a viable voluntary program.

    • Nothing ever shuts up a liberal progressive until the government controls every aspect of your life.

      If they don’t ask for it today, they will tomorrow. Guaranteed.

    • The NRA and other groups already offer it – insurance that covers your bail, legal bills and other expenses in case you are involved in a shooting. It only pays if you are acquitted.

  11. It’s not clear whether the average Joe or Jill could prevent a squad of brownshirts from murdering their family. But, if the brownshirts insist on murder, it is pretty clear that many average Joes or Jills could take one or two brownshirts with them. Not a pleasant thought, either way.

    • “And how we burned in the camps later…”

      It is times like these that we can recall the words of Alexandr Solzhenitzyn. On June 8, 1978, Solzhenitzyn, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature in 1970 for his book “The Gulag Archepalego,” was addressing an audience at Harvard University:

      “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .”

      • Got linked back to this….been a while. Yes, average people can win, but it depends on organization. Rise up as one, and they won’t have enough brownshirts. If individuals (or small groups) rise up, the best you can hope for is to get a few brownshirts before they get you. If the choice is to die a free man or live as a slave, some will choose the former. It’s best to understand, though, that this is the choice if people don’t stick together.

  12. Can’t happen here ? Sure it can and there are plenty of statists who are actively pushing for it. Their armed thugs won’t show up wearing SS runes and swastikas, but they will try to forcibly disarm us.

    • “… but they will try to forcibly disarm us.”

      Um, police agencies in hundreds of jurisdictions have been forcibly disarming us for decades. If you don’t believe me, strap a handgun on your hip (openly visible) then take a stroll in downtown New York City and see what happens.

      Or try the same exercise on the campus of any of the hundreds/thousands of public colleges/universities that ban firearm possession in our country.

      I think you get the idea.

  13. My Crazy American Babies! Greetings! All you gun owners, ATTENTION! You are members of Al Queda! You are your own Al Queda and are destroying your country one bullet at a time! Congrats – now watch out for drones, my babies!

  14. Cars are regulated the way they are because most of the harm that comes from their use happens between people with no evil intent – in other words they are accidents. Accidents can be avoided by having people all agree to abide by a common set of rules, which they are willing to do because they are well-meaning people. Liability insurance makes sense because again, harmful incidents tend to come up between well-meaning and responsible people who don’t intend to cause damage and do intend to behave responsibly.

    If most automobile-related harm came from people intentionally using them to hurt other people and damage property, none of this would work. People who know they want to wreak havoc are not going to register and make it easier for police to track them down. They are not going to pay an insurance company to offset the damage. They’re just going to go ahead and do it.

  15. nice to see the attorney and host had done so much research – he does not know that the NRA has endorsed personal liability insurance. Google is your friend.

  16. No, you’ve not said enough. It will need to be said again, again and again, to each new generation.

    When you die, you still will not have said enough.

    We — every one of us irrespective of race, creed or political bent — must never forget, must remain ever vigilant and must ensure that the next generation as a group all know.

    • This^
      Never “nuff said”. It bears repeating at any opportunity.
      My next generation gets it. My daughter asked me yesterday if she could have my AR. My 5 year old granddaughter wants me to take her hunting. I’ve had perma-grin all day.

  17. People who know nothing about insurance or how it works should really keep their mouths shut. After nearly 30 years of doing insurance coverage analyses under different policies, I can state most definitively that these to idiots have no idea what they are talking about. Insurance (except in no-fault jurisdictions) does not protect persons who are injured by the insured, it protects the insured for his liability to third persons who are insured. No liability, no damages are paid. If a shooting was justified, no payments will be made. And if the shooting was intentional (husband kills wife, robber shoots store owner, etc.), then there is no potential indemnity at all, because it is a universal principal that insurance does not indemnify for intentionally wrongful acts. The ONLY time gun liability insurance might pay (1) is as a result of an accidental shooting, which are fairly rare–unlike car accidents, and (2) are probably duplicative of the coverage provided by a typical homeowner’s or renter’s liability policy. Policies like the NRA policy and the USCCA, are protection for the shooter against the cost of (criminal) defense, not coverage for injuries. Thus, apart from the privilege/right issue, any requirement for insurance will have no impact except to the extent it prices poor people out the gun ownership.

    The idea that “more powerful” guns would be subject to higher premiums, and therefore less likely to be purchased, is based on additional fallacies about insurance. The cost of liability insurance is based on driving record and mileage, for the most part; the reason a Ferrari policy is a lot more expensive is because of the cost of the first party coverage for damage to the vehicle, not the cost of the liability coverage. Same with guns–all guns are dangerous (just as all cars) , and a semi-auto presents the same risk of injury as any other firearm.

    • Driving record, mileage and potential for damage.

      A utility truck carries greater liability than a Prius, even when both are work vehicles and are driven about the same distance per year.

      Having worked out of both a Saturn SL-1 and a Chevy C-3500, of this I know.

  18. Set aside the constitutional arguments, and the fact that insuring intentional acts is fundamentally anathema to our legal system (I mean, why not put the guns in jail if they are responsible).

    It also happens to be a really dumb idea. Socializing losses and allowing people to shield their assets for bad behavior will lead to: More bad behavior**. You get more of something you subsidize.

    If you don’t believe me, see: toxic subprime mortgage debt. Yes, people will be a lot less concerned about shooting someone when they have access to a good (and free) lawyer.

  19. “driving is not a natural, civil or Constitutionally protected right…”

    We do in fact, have the right to travel, it’s both a Natural Right and a Constitutionally protected right.

    “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

    “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

    The State does violate and deprive this right, however.

    • The right to free travel means that by whatever means, one can go from point A to point B without die Polizei asking for “Your paperss pleasse?” or the levying of fees for the crossing of public land.

      We are not Constitutionally guaranteed any right to use dangerous machinery on publicly funded roads, nor free travel on private roads.

        • @Charlie Mike:

          I’d suggest that you attempt the following, in order:

          study up on the English language as used in the 18th century;
          get a dictionary;
          actually read the Constitution.

          Extra credit will be given for reading the works of John Locke, the Virginia Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and the Treaty of Tripoli.

        • Not at all. The right of travel between and within the various states is guaranteed, however certain means of travel are regulated.

          There are many alternatives to driving on public roads, such as walking, riding, public transportation, private conveyance as a passenger et cetera.

          The public road infrastructure is public property, true, but subject to state laws within the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

          A simile in 2A terms would be:

          RKBA on public land is a fundamental right, whereas plinking in the park isn’t. Further, a public, state-operated range may charge admission, restrict the use of steel ammunition and so on.

      • “We are not Constitutionally guaranteed any right to use dangerous machinery on publicly funded roads, nor free travel on private roads.”

        Frankly, that is absurd. Such a lack of fundamental freedom to travel makes us prisoners on our own property. Which will soon be confiscated anyway because one can’t leave one’s property to participate in commerce and work, and therefore can’t make money to pay the property taxes.

        There is absolutely a right to travel by whatever modern means are in common use on public right of ways.

  20. the argument assumes that people want a gun will abide by the law. the problem with is, as we know, is that criminals and crazys don’t give a shit about the law. if they want a gun and can’t get one the legal way, they will get an illegal guns. Laws do not stop criminals. that’s what makes them criminals.

  21. Require gun insurance, tax ammo heavily, ban certain types of guns, more background checks, no internet sales, it’s like being pecked to death by geese.

    Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito
    I pray for the continued health and long life of these five every day (well not every day but often). We’re only one old fart away from losing a weak majority on the SC. If it happens during the next three years, the stage is set for a gun rights disaster.

  22. These guys are full of crap. This scheme would not take 1 illegal firearm off the streets. And I put forth we still need to be able to protect ourselves from the government. Without the 2A the others would have been gotten rid of a long time ago. It’s the Second Amendment that protects all the others. As for insurance, that’s crack pot lefties wet dream that will never come true. Just look at what obama has done to the health industry.

  23. Compliance is the key folks, compliance, Australia had massive non-compliance with their gun ban in 96. Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights or a Second Amendment yet 10’s of thousands of Australians simply refused to comply with laws that striped them of their private property.

  24. Progressives in the 40’s and 50’s embraced Stalin despite the millions he murdered. They embraced Castro and Che, two more mass murderers. A professor in Kansas openly pines for NRA member’s children to die.

    Makes you think.

  25. My understanding is that you do not need insurance or a license to purchase a car or to operate one on private grounds, you only need a license and insurance to operate it on public grounds.

  26. BTW guys, RT is a Russian propaganda outlet. They actually went as far as to claim that the police handling of Occupy Wall Street protesters (I think those) was worse than how Russia’s government was dealing with Putin protesters.

  27. Another major difference between guns and cars is that cars are generally not something that certain people are hellbent on outlawing. And to the extent that they are (such as the environmentalists who want to outlaw SUV for example), the public will not go that far (they put it forward in California to ban SUVs for example). But another thing is that also, unlike with guns, banning cars is impossible, because it would shut down society. No one has to worry about “car confiscation” from registration of cars in the way they do about gun confiscation.

  28. The argument of the Second Amendment being about preserving slave patrols is nonsense. This is something that even historians who do not agree with the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment have refuted.

  29. So much bullsh!t, from only two a$$holes, in such a short video. I am overwhelmed. I don’t know where to begin to reply to such a tour-de-force of outrageous stupidity. Perhaps the wisest course is to simply laugh and ignore it.

    • This is a repost of an item I came across in my archives.

      FROM poster JARHEAD 1982 ====>

      ….. Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No……… Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No…… Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes…… Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes…… Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes…… Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No……. If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No……. Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes…… Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No…… Do I need a license to buy a car? No……. Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes……. Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes…… Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes……. Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes…… Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes….. In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No….. In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No……. Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)…… Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No….. Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No…… Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No….. Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No….. Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not…. Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes…… Shall I go on?

  30. Oh they’re so smart aren’t they. Apparently they never read Justice Story, on why the 2nd is in place. But hey fuck it lets just repeal the whole constitution, cause it is a relic right. Dianne Feinstein and chuck schemer know what’s better for us, they can draw up a new better one for us. God, hate these SOB’s.

  31. Come on Rob,

    I’m against registration but it doesn’t always lead to death, distruction, and confiscation.

    Their are plenty of countries that register guns and haven’t come to take them away.

    Same for Michigan, Guam, and Hawaii.

    As much as I’m against Australia, England, and Canada’s gun bans, they haven’t marched their subjects off to death camps.

    We get enough of this semantical nonsense from the Brady Bunch…. our side could do without it.

    • The argument is that by disarming the populous you remove one of the major checks against mass murdering dictatorship. Of course the government isn’t going to start rounding people up in camps right away, but human nature and the thirst for power being what it is, it’s a near guarantee to happen eventually, maybe withing a few generations. Once basic limits on government and civilian arms have been removed, any given country is one massive crisis away from a charismatic loon with a warped understanding of reality and a higher value of his ideology than of human life taking power by saying all the right things. My only objection to referencing Nazi Germany is that it gives people an excuse not to listen, but the warning is valid.

      As I should have said to a friend who once asked if Newtown, CT was the price of the 2nd amendment: Mass killings like this are not the price of the second amendment, Mao’s cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge and all similar happenings are the price of not having a second amendment.

      It only gets old because we’re up against people who’s main tactic is to ignore rational arguments until they can be called ‘cliche.’

    • Just because their governments haven’t doesn’t mean ours won’t. I don’t feel like rolling those dice.

      Besides, one need only look at the American Progressive’s mind to see what horrors they’re not only capable of, but desire, like the KU professor. I carry because they exist.

  32. Hmm… Nazis deathly afraid of a measly pistol possibly in the hands of civilians. Hmm… What exactly were they afraid of? Oh, and what kinds of personality and proclivities exist in a person or a group that would go to such lengths to disarm citizens? Gosh, they bear an uncanny resemblance to certain… let me think… it’s coming…. Darn, I know it’ll come to me….

  33. Is there any state that is likely in the forseeable future to try and require gun insurance?

    Even California removed, not added, removed liability insurance as a requirement for a LTC (CCW for you non-Californians). IOW, even if by baby steps, the other direction. It seems the TPTB, whatever they may want, do not see insurance as a good route for gun control. Sure you can find a hairbrained legislator in any state. But no serious support.

  34. All I could think about when watching the video was limiting the 1st Amendment like law makers limit the second. As we know, words are more powerful and dangerous than firearms will ever be. So let’s explore what would happen of we put limits on free speech.

    These so called professional orators would be liable for the consequences of their words, perhaps they also need to be insured since their opinions can affect a worldwide audience negatively.

    Because their words have the potential to do harm to a wide audience. We need to limit them to 30 words, standard capacity. In California, 10 words should suffice, and of course everybody’s favorite, sentences formed with just seven from the state of New York.

    Maybe these professionals like Piers Morgan require a cool down period of 10 days to actually think something through and get the facts straight before opening his mouth.

    I bet you their would be on hell of an upheaval if the 1st was regulated much the 2nd.

  35. Robert, what could possibly be te problem with simply having all member of gun owning households wearing a yellow pin on thier shirts so they can be identified among the general population?

    That said, WTF is wrong with Jewish people that today vote overwhelmingly with “progressives”?

  36. Kinda funny in a sad way that Progressive Fascists don’t believe such a thing is possible in America, yet they’re the architects ensuring that it’s happening.

  37. “When there isn’t a single idea among them that hasn’t been tried and failed;
    When it’s clear to every person who’s capable of rational, conscious thought that their ideology, practices and policies are irrefutably destructive to the individual, the family and all that‘s good and decent in America;
    When the self evident truth is that they’re waging war for total control of the hearts, minds, bodies and allegiance of the innocent, unknowledgeable and uninformed to their collectivist, statist causes;
    When their activities can only lead to the ultimate reversion of the Great American Constitutional Republic to the natural state of all governments as that of Tyranny and Despotism;
    When those who know what THEY are, do not correctly label THEM as “DIGRESSIVES”;- is nothing less than testament to the effectiveness of their insidious propaganda.”
    Gw

  38. This is a repost that punctures the “treat guns like cars” stupidity.

    FROM a poster with the screen name JARHEAD 1982 ====>

    ….. Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No……… Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No…… Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes…… Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes…… Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes…… Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No……. If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No……. Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes…… Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No…… Do I need a license to buy a car? No……. Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes……. Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes…… Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes……. Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes…… Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes….. In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No….. In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No……. Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)…… Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No….. Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No…… Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No….. Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No….. Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not…. Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes…… Shall I go on?

  39. The People have limited Memory. They Forget after a certain amount of time..

    The Tyranny: Ah yes, but that was 70 years ago. Not in our enlightened time. We have the Internet and we will see and stop tyranny before it begins.

    But tyranny always disguises itself.

    And when it comes we are shocked. Then the murders happen and only then we learn. And moan: Oh, why did we not have kept our guns!” or “Why did we not buy a gun long ago?”

    Those who suffer keep their guns but to their grandchildren tyranny becomes a fairytale.

    And the cycle repeats itself…

  40. Robert, thanks for the reference to Dad’s book (Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War). Dad used to tell that story among friends, but rarely told it in “mixed” company. I learned why years ago in an online debate. When I brought the story up I was set upon by a flock of debunkers. Their logic was that if I couldn’t prove the story it didn’t happen. They then lept to the conclusion that it therefore couldn’t have happened, and so can’t happen.

    We — Dad, my brother Jeff Knox and I — have attempted to substantiate the story over the years, but have so far not come up with anything solid. Doubters will doubt, but the long-term effect of the story is undeniable: When Neal Knox heard it, he believed it. He saw the tears and heard the cracking voice. At that point, fact-checking the story becomes irrelevant. Journalistically verifiable or not, the story seared the Second Amendment into Neal Knox’s soul like a hot iron on cowhide. It stayed with him for the rest of his life — and beyond.

    Contact me directly through our web site (http://www.firearmscoalition.org/) for an autographed copy and free shipping.

    Chris Knox

Leave a Reply

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