“Gun registration, let alone confiscation has, always and everywhere, fallen into that “unenforceable” category. We saw the same phenomenon with Prohibition, and we’ve also seen it with drugs. To insist, now, that Connecticut authorities try to chase down “scores of thousands” of gun owners (using background check records that don’t actually prove they still own the forbidden firearms) displays wild ignorance of the limits of government power. It also expresses disgusting deference to authority at the expense of any respect for liberty—an immature morality that sees no good beyond obedience to rules. And, it’s sheer lunacy.” – J.D. Tucille, reason.com
I think this is the key, and I’ve said the same before: “It also expresses disgusting deference to authority at the expense of any respect for liberty—an immature morality that sees no good beyond obedience to rules.”
The problem with most anti-gun fanaticism is that it’s based in statism, where the anti-gun crowd truly believes that we are slaves to the state, and obedience to law of said state is the highest moral path. It’s disgusting to hear someone use “it’s the law” as an excuse for wrong-headed or tyrannical behavior. As freemen and freewomen in this country, it’s our RESPONSIBILITY to weigh those laws against our own moral code and determine whether they deserve our support and obedience in exchange for the stability they provide.
Many times, they do. I don’t have a problem with, for example, requiring insurance to drive a car (although I wish there were exemptions for self-insurance for those who could afford it). I feel like it’s a stabilizing influence whose yoke I’m willing to bear in exchange for the knowledge that I’ll be protected if someone hits my car.
But they don’t always, and then a citizen must choose how he responds.
In the past, you may have been legally required to turn in a run away slave if he came to you for help. Does the legality of that act make it any more palatable or moral?
Maybe they could go after & prosecute people that are actually hurting others? Or is that asking too much? I am concerned because the grabbers need to make a political statement & go after guns or risk a bunch of disallusioned sheep. We are at war now & the enemy wants us to turn in weapons, do they open at Dangerfields next. Like the king said, “those damn Colonists don’t need war weapons”.
I like the idea of a boycott to this newspaper and all of it’s paid advertisers. This is an effective tactic of the left that should be utilized by the right.
An email/letter campaign to advertisers from thousands of angry customers will make this propagandist rag think twice before turning its editorial page on thousands of CT citizens.
Yes, the idea of registration leading to confiscation is lunacy indeed. Because I’m sure that it has never been done before. Never in history has a government used registration to confiscate guns… oh wait…..
Well, most assuredly never here in the US at least. Our government would never take away it’s citizen’s firearms and shove them in internment camps…. oh wait.
Well, in our modern, enlightened society where we know better this surely could never happen. Places like California and New York would never, ever consider doing something like this…… oh wait…..
how can a student carry on campus if guns are banned in the dorms?
Am I missing something? I thought Congress specifically prohibited the NICS system from creating a registry based on the background checks. If so, is Connecticut breaking the law by having such a registry or is the Courant uninformed as usual.
All FFLs must keep a bound book recording ALL of their sales. Type of firearm, serial number, address, SS number, and so on. But of course that isnt a registry (wink wink nudge nudge).
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”
The leftist gun grabbers are working their plan – to constantly toot the horn of ‘reasonable gun control measures’ (wink, wink) until they have convinced the masses, particularly young people, that constant infringement of our 2nd Amendment right to KABA is just peachy. Unless 2nd Amdmt supporters counter this continuous onslaught of lies, misinformation & misrepresentation, we will find ourselves not only outnumbered but on the receiving end of never-ending & onerous gun-grabbing schemes. Take your kids, grandkids & their friends hunting and/or to the shooting range – teach ’em safety, marksmanship & enjoyment of firearms.
I would propose a way to counter the gun grabbers howling – ask legislators to introduce a law exempting all firearms & ammo from sales taxes. OMG, watch the liberal heads explode from that one! Liberals try to nanny-state us to no end, but they simultaneously & hypocritically want a piece of the action. Cigarettes cause cancer, but we’ll tax ’em! Soda pop is bad, but we’ll tax it!
The mortgage interest tax deduction is one of many sacred cows in the tax code for a lot of Americans. But where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to keep & bear a home? Why do people get a tax break on purchasing a home, but not on an item or items to which we have a Constitutionally-recognized right to own? I say ban sales taxes on all firearms & ammo!
A Russian saying is appropriate here.
“The legislature pretends to make laws, so the people pretend to respect them.”
Another applied example- I know a case where my grandma on my mom’s side carried a S&W snub nose back in the 70’s without an IL FOID card. Said revolver saved my mom’s life when my aunt’s psycho ex tried to kick in the door in their teenage years. Were it not for that act of civil disobedience, I might not be here now to type this.
If we know it is political, why is it not stopped. I have known for a long time working with the Obama team that it is punishment to the white man. Plain and simple.
This is not a debate. This is a well rehearsed speech. Therefore, when asked a question “off” message he punts. he is not a gun advocate. He uses gun advocacy as a matter of convenience to further his real far right agenda.
Original Henry rifles, and early Winchesters, could fire out of battery for two reasons.
First, it was possible for the hammer to fall before the lever had completely closed the action.
Second, if the rifle got dirty or rusted, the firing pin could protrude & result in a slam-fire if one was in a hurry.
Winchester fixed both of these problems, the second by having a positive firing pin retractor.
So does this new Henry have these two fixes, or is it designed EXACTLY like the original?
The whole idea of a practical repeating rifle was a new thing in 1860. One cannot blame them for missing a couple of possible malfunctions in their design. But on new made guns?
The administration is implementing a multi-prong attack on the Constitution. they are now going after the 1St amendment:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/why-fcc-should-keep-its-nose-out-tv-newsrooms/
Obviously, Obama’s oath to obey, protect, and defend the Constitution means nothing to him and his minions.
Hey, everyone got home safe. Good shoot.
Not even gonna lie. I didn’t get a single one at theguardian. However, theguardian has one marked incorrectly, at least according to his site. The sixth one down, the grassy field, they have a small dark patch circled, and noted as “just left of the centre.” The same photo on his site doesn’t have it marked, but has it noted as “slightly right of the center,” and you can see what the photographer is referring to. Once you’ve looked at several of his images, the same “tuft of grass” seems to be more obvious in some of them. I mean, I still didn’t find it on first examination, but once you know where it is, you find a consistent shape/size/texture in some, but not all of the photos. The trick would be learning to recognize that in the wild.
Also, theguardian’s final photo, I think they may have it mismarked, though I can’t tell for sure. The photographer’s site has it noted as “behind the sapling in the left center,” and I think theguardian’s mark isn’t far enough to the left.
Either way, I wouldn’t have seen him, and I’d be dead before I found him. Glad he’s not pointed at me.
It’s easy to hide in a photograph. It’s when you’re living and breathing and have to move that makes it hard.