Quote of the day—Italian Rose

If we have enough information on gun owners to start a confiscation effort, lets get started what are we waiting for?

Italian Rose
January 21, 2014
Comment to Knowledge is Power: How the NSA bulk data seizure program is like gun registration
[H/T to Sebastian for the link to the blog post.

To answer Italian Rose’s question:

  1. It is unconstitutional.
  2. There are over 300 million guns in this country and probably 10 billion rounds of ammunition in the hands of private citizens.
  3. The majority of those guns will only be willingly given up after the owner runs out of ammo.
  4. No one wants to take point on the confiscation project.

—Joe]

32 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Italian Rose

  1. I’m sure our dear friend Italian Rose is on an entry team to help with the gathering. Sure of it.

  2. The majority of those guns will only be willingly given up after the owner run out of ammo.

    I can’t speak for the majority, but running out of ammunition still won’t make me willing.

    • Ergo their fixation on the evil bayonet. Even if they shoot you out of ammo, SOMEbody will have to be ‘on point’ for the ‘dynamic entry’…

  3. I don’t know about the majority. Maybe it’s only the “3%”. That’s still 3 million really bad days for the BATFE.

    • And that’s assuming a 1:1 ratio.

      Don’t know about yours, and won’t say about mine, but some home layouts form natural bottlenecks (apart from the front door itself). Others can easily be made to do so by rearranging a few items.

      Also, if a husband/father is willing to take a stand, you can bet your ass the wife/mother is, too. “3% of 100 million gun owners” could become as many as 6 million people, if only one spouse or the other does all the gun purchases.

      Just sayin’.

  4. The next time someone suggests mass confiscation of firearms, I’m going to suggest it be done by zip code areas starting with “90210” or whatever zip code is for where the “elites” live. Should shut down the arguements right quick….

  5. Think about what a catastrophe Ruby Ridge was for the feds. Now, figure 5% will see the confiscation as the last straw and start giving their guns up one bullet at a time. That’s millions of ruby ridge style incidents, all occuring simultaneously.

    The feds could never handle it, either logistically or politically. Thats why i generally scoff at the confiscation alarmists. Good luck!

    • Ruby Ridge, hell… what about Waco?

      Feds there actually made it inside and were repelled/forced back out, then pinned down behind cover, out of ammunition, in a cross-fire covered ‘kill-zone’.

      The ONLY reason the initial assault wasn’t wiped out to a man, was the Davidians *allowed* them to gather their dead and wounded, and peacefully retreat.

      And look what they got in return. There’s a reason the phrase ‘Waco Rules’ came into being.

      • And just to make it worse, I don’t think the feds could control the narrative well enough like they did with Ruby Ridge and Waco. Too many cameras. Too many eyes watching.

        At least one other acquaintance has also pointed this out: the gun-confiscationists might be willing to fight to the last ATF agent. Would they be willing to fight to the last reporter? The last congress-critter? Because it’s not just Waco Rules they’ll be fighting under, it’ll be Bosnian rules.

        • Why do you think cameras would make a difference? Remember that nearly all of those cameras are operated by fellow travelers.

          • Difference is, everybody nowadays has a cell phone, and every cell has a camera. The internet is forever, and all it takes is ONE video to hit the ‘web and they will never be able to remove it. Something like Waco happens, and there will be a lot more than just one video hitting the net. There would be no way to hide it, and the more they try to spin it, the more cover-up-ish it will sound.

      • Aren’t the Waco Rules the same thing as the Dorner Rules? When in doubt, fight fire with fire? You may have guns, they have matches and a fire department to eventually put out the fire.

        • St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann had the best rebuttal to this (emphasis mine — ed.):

          “David Codrea noted that former Los Angeles cop Christopher Dorner–one man–came close to shutting down the second largest city in the nation, and had his former brethren so rattled that they shot up a truck and the two women in it, simply because they thought it looked like Dorner’s. Similarly, the two Boston bombers largely succeeded in freezing the Boston metropolitan area, despite a massive police presence and a huge contingent of federal law enforcement muscle (not to mention the National guard of not only Massachusetts, but several other states, as well–oh and did I mention a systematic, and apparently uncontested, campaign of illegal searches and flat out authoritarian bullying, coming close to terrorism itself?).

          What’s the relevance? If one or two men can so thoroughly shake the security apparatus of the United States, the idea that the Second Amendment’s protection against tyranny is outdated, because the U.S. is now a modern superpower, and therefore ‘resistance is futile,’ is simply not going to hold up. Imagine, after all, what even a small militia group of perhaps a dozen members could do, if the battle were not between terrorists and a country whose people can still convince themselves that they’re relatively free; but between a determined and angry citizenry who will no longer submit to enduring a long train of abuses and usurpations, and the government perpetrating those abuses. Now imagine a couple dozen of those militia groups. Now imagine hundreds of them.

          tl/dr: Your argument is invalid. Yet again.

        • Two key differences, Ubu52:

          1: The Branch Davidians didn’t pick the fight…Dorner did.

          2: The Branch Davidians only used lethal force in self defense…Dorner didn’t.

          And I know it’s not the kind of thing you want to hear (because you honestly do think ‘it can’t happen here’), but ‘Waco Rules’ (at least as far as I understand it) means essentially that if it comes to the point of guns against government…show no mercy.

          For they will show you none.

          • I know what your point was; it was a rather flippant reference to one of, if not *the*, most horrible ways a person could die/be killed. Who used that tool in each of the cited instances?

            And yet we gun owners are the ones saddled with the ‘violent’ label….

          • The real significance of Waco Rules is that the government can commit mass murder without any consequences to the criminals — neither the ones actually doing the murdering, or the ones who order the murder.
            I agree with Phssthpok — making flippant references to the most blatant case of government terrorism in recent history is really not appropriate. Perhaps you thought you could get away with it because the victims were “right wing”. In most forums you probably could, but not in this one.

        • “Aren’t the Waco Rules the same thing as the Dorner Rules?”

          Not if you don’t stop. like the Branch Dividians did.
          They had fought the ATF to a standstill – basically, they’d won the day. If they had continued instead of allowing a truce so the ATF could recover, the whole story may have been quite different.

          So ‘Waco Rules’ are: War to the knife, knife to the hilt. No stopping, once started.

  6. Of course if people could learn to mind their own fucking business there’d be no issue whatsoever.

    As it is, we have millions of people who basically can’t handle their own lives without preying on others, and who do very little, who’re pissed off that anyone else CAN manage their own life, and they’re trying to stand in the way of everyone else. They call themselves Progressives. Progress, then, means shutting someone else down and taking their stuff.

    No wonder they want everyone else disarmed.

    • Confiscation is a stupid idea. The best thing to do is ban an item then selectively confiscate when someone decides to use the banned item. There may be a huge number of the banned item available, but if no one is using them, they can be considered “self-confiscated.”

      • That is why many of us see very little difference between “lesser” actions like registration, and outright bans or confiscation. All have the same goal.

      • In other words, you agree that compromise in gun control is for chumps, and there is ZERO reason for anyone who wants to own a gun to compromise in any way, on anything, in this arena. Thanks for being so eloquent in your support of our position.

      • Ah, “selective enforcement”. That’s every bit as much a tool of tyranny as full enforcement. Perhaps even more so — because it means those who are, by utterly arbitrary criteria, judged to be “enemies” are subjected to the full force of oppression, while others are left with the temporary illusion that freedom is yet intact.

        • Indeed, selective enforcement of the laws is the essence of tyranny. It is the rule of man and not the rule of law since no one can predict its application, except that it is differentially applied to certain enemies of the state.

          I posit that the POTUS with his job requirement to apply the laws equally and yet does not (e.g. union pay off in the auto bailout, the New Black Panthers, Obamacare) is a petty tyrannt.

          So, when his executive pen declares that I must register my firearms, I will not comply.

          One more entry for the NSA files…

      • Thank you, Ubu52, for validating my position of “Not ONE more shred of gun control. Now let’s start rolling them all back.”

        Becuase you’ve neatly illustrated why a free people cannot TRUST anti-rights bigots with ANYTHING, no matter how seemingly insignificant a restriction or regulation may be.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the Day: Ubu52 and Fast Richard | Weer'd World

  8. Pingback: Monday News Links | Shall Not Be Questioned

  9. The reason they are waiting IS because we have guns and they like you have no balls. You are getting awfully plural with the “WE” $H!T there Rosey hoping to send others to do your dirty, how very Liberal of you.

Comments are closed.