Banning “Assault Rifles” is the fundamental violation of the 2nd Amendment. These are the very weapons that We The People must possess to equalize power throughout the Republic. The mainstream media continues to ask the question of “why would anyone need an ‘assault rifle?” since they are not designed for hunting. The answer, though obvious, continues to be left out of the conversation- and since many gun owners do not feel sufficiently protected by the First Amendment anymore they are hesitant to openly discuss that “assault weapons” are the last equalizer of power throughout the republic.
January 31, 2013
On Gun Control
[Vitalis is correct. A certain judge is going to have to be told by the higher courts about the fundamental violation of the 2nd Amendment that he is allowing to continue.—Joe]
If your home security guards are violating your trust and contract by letting robbers in through your back door at night, they’re just as guilty as the robbers.
Covello is one of the guards at the gate, hired to and sworn to protect human rights. By “allowing” a violation to continue he is actively participating in it.
Put his name on the list.
By the way; anyone who entertains the “in common use” argument on either side is a damned fool.
Accepted at face value it puts a freeze on technological development, and that of course is it’s purpose. The partners in crime to the “common use” argument are the antique firearm exemptions. You have full and unadulterated second amendment rights in some cases, BUT ONLY with muzzleloaders and other firearms made prior to 1898.
Shall we apply the “common use” and antique concepts to other articles in the Bill of Rights? Say you may posses any book you like, so long as it’s in common circulation at the time, or it was printed before 1898. Let’s say your home, personal effects and papers are safe from unreasonable search and seizure IF AND ONLY IF said home, papers and items are of common design in common use or were made prior to 1898.
Never mind that the AR was a varmit rifle before the Air Force bought them. Facts are icky.
The AR is still a varmint rifle. Just a wider variety of recognized varmints.
But the core point of the post, that shooting tyrants and their minions is the central purpose of the 2nd, is uncomfortable for a lot of people, and the more “civilized” a nation gets, the less prone they are to attempt to discuss “uncomfortable” issues, because “nice folks” don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable or hurt any feelings. But denial doesn’t make truth disappear.
Paul sent me this the other day – seems to be relevant here.
Related item on denying personal responsibility, by a Danish psychologist named Sennels: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/9469-Danish-Psychologist-%E2%80%9CIntegration-of-Muslims-in-Western-Societies-is-not-possible%E2%80%9D
But eventually, really always asserts itself.
“‘Assault weapons’ aren’t used for hunting,” is a category error. Doesn’t it depend on the nature of your quarry?
“These are the very weapons that We The People must possess to equalize power throughout the Republic.”
I really don’t get this concept. The government has many weapons that allow them to attack from far away or without even being there (like bomber planes or the Batcat http://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/02/lapd-batcat-criminals-remote-controlled-nightmare-video/ ).
The whole idea of a gun being “equal power” (unless someone is talking about equal power against other individuals) totally escapes me.
You keep saying the same thing, just like many other anti-rights folks. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Russia in WW II. “Winning” has many definitions and conditions. You keep confusing “winning in open battle in setpiece confrontation wearing uniforms” with “what the other side is talking about.” It’s about raising costs of failure to negotiate in good faith for an opponent an an unacceptable level. It doesn’t need to be about anything more than that. The whole concept of asymmetrical warfare is about the sides NOT being evenly matched. Surely a lefty like yourself should know about how well that has been used many times.
” It’s about raising costs of failure to negotiate in good faith for an opponent an an unacceptable level.”
What do you mean by that?
I really don’t get this…
I wonder if you’re really that ignorant or merely being disingenuous for an ulterior motive.
I discount stupidity, although I may possibly be in error on that.
Anyway, here’s one of the new rules, just so you can’t claim ignorance as a future excuse.
A subset of 4th Generation Asymmetrical Warfare is making YOU (in the generic sense) personally have skin in the game.
This includes the politicians, media talking heads, media moguls, financiers, corporate boards of directors etc., etc. and YOU, on the list of approved targets.
You can thank Billy Boy Kartoon for the entry of ‘Bosnia Tactics’ and the unintended consequence of evolving that tactic to it’s logical conclusion.
If YOU are subject to the exact same ultimate, proven by example, risk that your proxies are.
That from somewhere out of the blue, by any person within range, at any conceivable moment, YOU might wind up as an entry on a casualty list.
How do you think that might influence your political decisions?
I’m no expert on war or defense — if that’s what you are getting at. I’m not stupid but I don’t know everything (unlike some of you who seem to be experts on everything).
Targeting me will not influence my political decisions at all. It will make me target those who would target me.
The difference is, Ubu — how are _you_ going to target the armed insurgent that you _cannot_identify_? And what are _you_, unilaterally disarmed BY CHOICE, going to do against _them_?
They will have relatiely little trouble identifying you. . . and they will be armed and likely reasonably competant. . .
Armed insurgents plan to target UNARMED WOMEN? Will they target children too?! That should help them win hearts and minds! Sheesh! They’ll be less popular than the Communists!
Also, why wouldn’t anyone be able to identify the armed insurgent? Are they invisible? Don’t people still have eyes? Wouldn’t they be the “armed” guys?
Because the insurgents are unlikely to be wearing uniforms while conducting guerilla attacks. Nor is it necessary to carry weapons openly until the moment of the attack.
Seriously — if it was THAT easy to pick out that sort of person ahead of time, there wouldn’t be a mugging successfully carried out, ever.
What, you think teh insurgents would stop, gather in large groups in known areas, and issue out grey and butternut uniforms before beginning operations? In a non-geographically oriented guerilla operation?!? In an era of assymetrical warfare?!?
Believe it or not, many gun owners have read Mao’s little book as well, and very few think they need to be swinging a shiny sword from the back of a white horse while leading their fellows out marching in Napoleonic linear attacks.
Really? Pretend you are a cop, and you know to things. (a) you have been given orders to go door to door confiscating weapons, and (b) your home address is known, and your family has kids and school and your wife has commute to work every day. If you know “the other guys” will play by “the rules,” and leave your family alone, how you will act is different than if you know they are playing by Waco Rules, and your family is unlikely to survive outside a serious protection program (which rather limits the available manpower to go door to door). Given that the Feds have already demonstrated they are quite willing to kill women holding children in their arms (Ruby Ridge) and burn out entire families (Waco) and not only not punish, but promote the perpetrators, why do they think the average American might not decide that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander? If you are already on enough lists, what have you got to lose?
I’m pretty sure you are smart enough to not need it spelled out more clearly than that.
Opp, accidentally cut a paragraph. It it fear of decending into the Waco Rules scenario that keeps the government somewhat in check, and at least trying to make it look like they are mostly playing by the rules, and keep the offenses from getting too blatant, too egregious. But if they forget the rules of history, and start NOT negotiating in good faith, then some folks might figure that Waco Rules are announced, and decide they cannot win on defense alone. I’m I going there today or tomorrow? Nope. Could I write a book about someone pushed to far, for the wrong reasons? Been there, done that, and it’s selling well right now.
But this is one of the reasons I said that they would never confiscate by “going door to door.” It’ll never happen.
However, it’s if you and 20 of your closest friends (or even 100 of your closest friends) holed up somewhere, all bets are off if they want to confiscate. That would take a lot more people than just Officer Friendly and many of them would, most likely, not live in your community so your knowledge of them would be minimal. And, even if they did, the Feds have a way to relocate this people and their families and give them all new lives.
Aside from Waco, etc. — look at riots. In how many riots have the rioters prevailed? Even with the Occupy movement, who won eventually?
Anyway, back to the basic question — so you all need guns so it will raise the cost to those who would choose not to negotiate. Is that correct?
I don’t know if you’ve ever read this: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/america-gun-culture?page=6
I find it interesting that, almost 45 years after it was written, not much has changed.
ubu, what’s interesting? That Hofstadter was a nutcase back then, just like Brady and CSGV and MDA folks are now?
OK, I guess I’ll have to spell it out. You admit that door-to-door confiscation won’t happen, because it’s too dangerous to the cops. You just said so. That means they recognize that the cost of attempting to do that is to high, so they have no choice but to bargain in the political area. They have to keep in the game by constantly threatening to do things, and proposing laws that need to be fought against, but by your own admission the cost of NOT bargaining and just going full Bullworth is to high, because they know that in asymetrical warfare they will lose, not just a little but, but their lives. As long as it’s a game, they’ll at least keep up appearances of following the rules. But even a crooked ref has to call some fouls if they are too obvious, and that is what the threat of Waco Rules is about.
It is also what the NSA and meta-data collection threat is all about. It means that they are actively seeking to try to pin down nodes to be shot first, hoping that it’ll cow the rest. But all it would really do is make the final accounting that much bloodier, and kill off a lot of the smartest people, the very folks the nation needs the most. Strong central governments, be they communist or King, always try to rub out the competition for the seat of power.
Missing a step between “it’ll never happen” and “Waco Rules”. Look at CT. First a law. When that doesn’t work, offer an amnesty, because they’re so grandulous (or that no one obeyed the crap law). This is where the NSA comes in. Pressure or false accusations at your place of employment. Jack with your bank account. Jack with internet access. Publicize whatever your kink is, and if none then make it up. Oh yeah, these pressures can go away, and all you need to do is give up those baby killers that you don’t really need. Busting in doors, middle of the night, for 2A ‘violations’ won’t happen til the herd is well culled. Unless they’re utterly incompetent…even money on that. Point is, they won’t do a mass move with 90+ million owners out there. Not enough po-po, and no one will buy that there are 90+ mm “terrorists”. Besides the hipster Columbia Julia types that is.
Why won’t they do what they have done in California? And I’m talking about both sides… Why won’t the government do what has been done in California and why won’t gun owners act like the gun owners in California?
Two reasons: (a) because most states are not as extreme-left as CA, so its people are less likely to go along with such things, (b) because CA went first so gun owners in other places now see what the plan is more clearly.
When the propaganda mostly says “we would never take your guns” (unless you listen carefully to the victim disarmers in their less guarded moments) honest people are willing to assume the best. Once the reality is exposed, they know that the propaganda was a lie and what the real plan is.
People in California have been disobeying the gun laws for a long time. They have also been attacking, and mostly winning, in the courts. People have also moved to more free states. And finally, many of the police don’t enforce the gun laws unless they “have too” or it is convenient to get “a known bad guy” off the streets.
They’ve been attacking via the court but I haven’t counted a whole lot of wins.. Remember ULOC? People have moved. There are always people who disobey laws (they are called “criminals.”) It’s true that the police don’t always enforce gun laws but they do enforce them sometimes. Only foolish people take a chance that they’ll be the one who will not get prosecuted. As far as unregistered AW go, you’ll have to ask the Calguns guys how many people actually get prosecuted for that.
“Superpower” high tech ordnance comes in two basic categories of “Ouch!”
The first category is USELESS against a civil insurgency within your own population — you’ll kill as many – or MORE – of your OWN SUPPORTERS as you will the insurgants. So, the Big Scary Weapons _DO_NOT_COUNT_.
The second category is USELESS without their infrastructure of support. Now, when deploying them against a foreign enemy — or even a secessionist rebellion with a fixed geographical locale that DOESN’T incorporate the essential infrasturcture, cool. However. . . the “essential infrastructure” for those systems, TODAY, is _not_ located in one place, NOR is it located in “progressive” enclaves that can easily be sanitized and defended. Thus, they are of _EXTREMELY_LIMITED_USE_ in a large scale, non-geographically limited domestic insurgency.
And even if you want to “harden” that infrastructure by guarding it, you _CANNOT_ do so adequately enough that you can stop motivated, reasonably well trained (i.e., ANY combat arms vet, whether peacetime service or not, from the last 40 years or so; a guy with 2 years experience in the National Guard as a light infantryman 25 years ago has _ALL_ the training he needs, because it’s a _direct_ application of how he was trained to fight a Soviet invasion of Europe by killing Ivan’s logistics columns) insurgents with small arms.
I’ve explained this to you before, Ubu52 — I am starting to suspect willful refusal to admit understaning on you part, because you may be militarily ignorant (no fault of your own; why WOULD you be an expert on infantry tactics and the strategies of insurgency?), but you are not illiterate.
I don’t understand what you posted. “essential infrastructure” — what is that? Roads? Electrical system? To me, (and don’t take this wrong), this sounds like something a drunk in a bar would tell me while trying to describe his job. ” the “essential infrastructure” for those systems, TODAY, is _not_ located in one place, NOR is it located in “progressive” enclaves that can easily be sanitized and defended.” You want to sanitize enclaves? Sanitize them how? Wash them with Purell or make all the people of different colors move away? Like I said, this makes NO sense to me.
“Essential infrastructure” includes a LOT of things, but in _this_ case, it means that infrastructure peculiar to and necessary to keep these systems up and running.
High tech equipment does NOT just keep running without a steady supply of parts, technicians, ammunition (in the case of direct weapons), and fuel (in the case of vehicles and items requiring generator power). Of these categories, _only_one_ is likely to be common in non-military uses — fuel. (But there’s a hitch. . . modern US military engines, while multifuel, are optimized for jet fuel, and use of other fuels comes at performance and maintainance costs. Plus, military equipment sucks fuel like a fat kid at an all-you-can-eat cake buffet. . . civilian fuel infrastructure CANNOT support military operations other than “just passing through”.)
Fuel trucks, trucks with spares, trucks transporting techs, techs bivouacing in “semi-secure” areas while moving behind the manuever forces, and even maintenance depots are ALL much easier to target and destroy than are combat units. And you get more bang for your buck killing electronic mechanics, fuel handlers, ordnance handlers, signals intercept guys, aviation mechanics, etc., then you do killing tankers and infantrymen who are all too good at shooting back. You get more bang for your buck killing three fuel trucks than you do blowing up a dozen M1 Abrams tanks. A fighter squadron missing ONE TYPE OF AVIONICS COMPONANT can be 100% grounded.
Logistics. It ALWAYS comes down to logistics. If you deny your enemy the logistics he needs, while maintaining enough logistics for yourself (like, out of the supplies you are denying HIM), he CANNOT defeat you.
And in a large scale insurgency within the US, there will be NO safe rear area where these things can be kept. See, we didn’t worry about the Viet Cong launching regular and effective attacks on these targets because they were OVER THERE, while Kansas was relatively safe from them. Ditto to a lesser extent for AQ. If _any_ statistically significant segment of our society goes insurgent on any basis other than pure geographic regions (the Civil War, for example — while there was SOME crossover in allegiance, by and large it really was the North against the South), the insurgents will be present around ALL of these targets, without having to travel anywhere. Keep in mind that the entire US Army (including ALL reserves) is under one million — LESS THAN 1/3 of 1% of the population, or (based on how I was taught to estimate military capacity) less than 1% of the viable military population. If you totalled up every single police officer (including “part time” sworn officers) and every single service member (including reservists, and also including specialists who are fairly USELESS at counter-insurgency fighting such as veternarian techs, sonarmen, or reactor operators), you are looking at a TOTAL “government” force of under 3.1 million personnel. . . assuming none of them happen to be both reservists and cops (many cops are in the Reserves or Guard), none of them happen to agree with the insurgents (one middle level NCO or officer in the right place can completely torpedo logistics for an entire division or air wing, easily — and likely get away clean). That is NOT enough to credibly sweep, secure, and sanitize the United States.
BTW, the usual ratio is it takes anywhere from 5 to 10 _combat_troops_ to suppress one insurgent, and it takes about 8 support personnel to support 1 “shooter”.
So, figure, the ENTIRE combined Armed Forces and police personnel of the United States (assuming ALL of them end up on the government side, and discounting the fact that many are both civilian police AND military reservists) can suppress less than 80,000 insurgents in the field while trying to secure their own lines. . . that leaves NOTHING for defending the borders, overseas commitments, or securing civilian areas.
Oh, and while 80K insurgents sounds like a HUGE number, it’s only about 0.025% of the population of the United States.
That’s less than the population of Suffolk, Virginia (a rural county that incorporated as a city for political reasons — it’s primarily known for being the peanut capital of Virginia) . . . only the insurgents wouldn’t BE in one area.
That’s less than the number of Roman Catholics in Delaware, or less than the combined total of native (primary tongue) Vietnamese and Russian speakers in Pennsylvania. But they wouldn’t be as easy to identify before they attacked. . .
You seem to be forgetting the number of people who would side with the existing government. To put it in California terms, this would be the “I like to surf” crowd — the group who like their lives exactly the way they are and don’t want change. This would include huge corporations which would see any insurgency as a disruption to business as usual. You wouldn’t be facing 3 million government people, you’d be facing many more millions who simply don’t want any part of it. They would see you as fighting on the side of the Al Quada — the group that wants to tear this country down.
Already addressed that above — counterinsurgency via guerilla action is a non-starter, by and large. Unless you define “counterinsurgency” as meaning “genocidal elimination of anyone who MIGHT be affiliated with the insurgents”.
For an evaluation of military effectiveness, the primary numbers are:
1. Numbers, motivation, training, and logistical resources of the insurgents. (As addressed above, numbers, training, and logistics requirements are MUCH LOWER for insugents than they are for regular forces.)
2. Numbers, motivation, training, and logistical resources of the counterinsurgency armed forces. (And they are much more vulnerable to interdiction of numbers and logistics than are dispersed insurgents.)
3. The relative abilities of inteligence gathering by counterinsurgency forces (including loyal citizenry – note, this is one of the FEW areas where the general population can make a direct and widespread contribution to the counterinsurgency) vs. the counterintelligence and internal security of the insugrents. (The insurgents honestly have to do little more than secure their communications between each other and “Shoot, shovel, and shut up,” to avoid this.)
I’ve studied this professionally, at taxpayer expense. You haven’t. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about, nor any grasp of the historical realities of these sort of wars.
Did you catch the story in yesterday’s news? http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/05/272015606/sniper-attack-on-calif-power-station-raises-terrorism-fears
To me, this sounds more like one of these Patriot militias trying to start something than it does anything else. So where are the rest of the people just itching for a civil war?
Hold off on the substation discussion for now. I’ll have blog post on it sometime tonight.
What is this provision in the Constitution about Letters of Marquis about? There appears to be an underlying assumption that private ownership of fighting ships is given. In fact there is no enumerated power to allow the Federal Government authority to restrict ownership of any weapon regardless of its novelty.
If I get bored someday I will look and see who actually owns fighter jets, munitions, and naval ships before final inspection and acceptance by the Government… hmmmm
Letters of Marque. Those are issued by the government. Also, they are issued to selected “friends” for use against selected “enemies”.
I see you’re suggesting that the existence of such a notion means the presumption that civilians have ships etc. that could use a Letter of Marque. Yes indeed. Back then, ships were normally armed. Now they aren’t, which is appreciated by pirates worldwide.
And yes, you’re right that Congress has no enumerated authority to abridge the right to possess arms — no such power is found in Article 1 Section 8. This is the reason (at least if you want to be charitable) why Madison called the Bill of Rights redundant. (The not so charitable view is that Madison was trying to do a snow job, one he started in Federalist #41 claiming that the first clause of section 8 is merely a general statement of the specifics that follow, rather than an independent clause on the same footing as the narrower clauses that follow: “…a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon”.)
The licensed manufacturers own the ordnance before turning it over to the government. In some cases, they are using componants that, while they own them (until they sell them to the government), the contractual arrangements allowing them to use certain hardware mean the ONLY legal purchaser would be the US government for that hardware (such as if the contractor is installing a weapons, commo, or sensor system that that same contractor builds and supplies that has classified componants).
There is NOTHING inherently controlled about a really fast single seat jet, or a really big ship with a flat deck. They contain lots of systems that are classified (EW systems, RAM and other stealth tech, fire control radars), some systems that are NFA items (the actual guns), some systems that require specific licensing and special regulation (high power RF emmitters, nuclear reactors), and a LOT of things (including most everything in the aforementioned list) that are controlled munitions under ITAR and require State Department blessing to export or even train a non-US citizen on (even, in many cases, where the foreign citizen is a permanent resident of the US!)
But if you avoid the ITAR, classified, NFA, and other restricted equipment (say, you go with a non-nuke power plant and use standard off the shelf radars and radios already approved for civil use), you can build an unarmed Mach 2 multimillion dollar “sport plane”, a 70 ton tracked “off road vehicle” with REALLY thick quarter panels, or operate a light carrier for your squadron of Cessnas, Jet Rangers, and small business jets.
Hey, if you apply for and receive a manufacturer’s FFL & SOT (including ITAR registration & fees), you too can legally, and with the blessing of the United States government, build Really Big Guns as well. And if you can win government contracts or gain export approval for specific foreign sales, you can build things that are classified.
Hell, who do you think actually owns all the military armored vehicles not in museums or Army parking lots? Civilians.
“I’m no expert on war or defense — if that’s what you are getting at. I’m not stupid but I don’t know everything (unlike some of you who seem to be experts on everything).
Targeting me will not influence my political decisions at all. It will make me target those who would target me.”
And you didn’t get the point, which having been present several times from different directions, brings into play the word ‘obtuse’. Purposeful, or congenital?
If Joe will allow (Hotlinks Joe? yes/no?) I’ll give you one that will – hopefully – shed a little more light on the subject.
Of course you’ll have to promise you’ll read the whole thing, cogitate on it, digest it at length and not just skim through it.
I don’t have a problem with hotlinks. But why not just a normal hyperlink?
Well, my web-terminology may be faulty. I despise computers, but am forced by the mandates of necessity to use them, and the web.
So here it is. Hope you don’t mind it’s from Mr Vanderboegh.
One man’s explanation of 4th Generation Warfare.
This 4th Generation stuff comes from him? I think he’s crazy. Seriously nuts. Why would anyone listen to him?
Did you read it UBU, or are you dull enough to ignore the message simply because of your prejudice against the messenger?
The most quoted source in the article is a Marine officer’s book on the subject, but I bet you didn’t know that because of your bias allowing you a plausible reason to claim ignorance.
READ it UBU. Ingest it. Digest it. Think about it.
Consider this: “Cherish your enemies, because they teach you the best lessons.”
Also, your thinking Mike V ‘crazy’ is a bit hilarious. There is a different subset, which he intersects merely on the periphery, who make him appear tame as dishwater.
Do you want to learn, or remain ignorant?
Ubu — in many ways, I do think Mike Vanderboegh is a skosh over the top. . . doesn’t mean he is wrong about how assymetrical warfare works.
Insurgents can _easily_ tie up the United States Armed Forces enough to prevent them from being very effective in stamping out any insurgency of minimally competant, minimally equipped (“small arms only” is practically “unarmed” by First World military standards), but motivated and a statistically significant sliver of the population (say, the 3% number Vanderboegh likes). WITHOUT taking up more than a tithe of the insurgency to do so. That leaves the rest of the insurgent combatants free for Direct Action missions (that’s a formal military term) against the civilian evemy leadership. While _most_ of those DA operations may well fail (especially if the the “government” is trying to actually DEPLOY any of their armed forces against the insurgents “in the field”; holding the cities ALONE is a sure route to defeat — ask the French in Algeria, the French in Indochina, the Soviet puppet government of Afghanistan, etc.), enough would likely succeed to devastate the enemy leadership.
Keep in mind, I do not support violent revolution or rebellion in the United States — because I know what kind of a cost it would come with, including the usual post-conflict retaliation against the supporters of the losing side. However, _unlike_you_, I actually _understand_ how it would likely go down, and why it would be impossible for the government to suppress an uprising that involved a significant (albeit minority) population of gun owners. (Nor would any gun owners on the government side actually do much to help their cause — they’d either enlist in the Armed Forces with the same disadvantages, or they would be guerilla vigilantes. . . and guerillas make LOUSY counter-insurgents.)
Did this bit quoted from Lind jump out at anyone else?
“in 19th century war games, it was common for junior Prussian officers to be given problems that could only be solved by disobeying orders”
Wow, can anybody say “Kobayashi Maru”?
Kirk — believe it or not, THAT is the historical “Prussian military mindset” — mission and victory over blind obedience.
The idea that the German military culture was EVER (aside from Hitler’s attempt from 1933 – 1945 to alter it) one of clockwork soldiers blindly following orders is a myth.
Since when did public safety and crime control trump an individual right?
If the crime is ownership of a specific item, banning the item reduces crime.
So criminalize all but Democrat voter registration, and send everyone else to the gulag.
Haven’t you heard? The Proles and the Ummah don’t need (or get) individual rights. Collective rights covers all you need (or will get).
And ubu, I don’t comment often, don’t think I’ve dived in with you before. Possibility 1) You come from a viewpoint, but seek sincere dialogue and answers. Possibilty 2) You’re seeking something hard to deliver to other sites, BATFE, etc. .Gov projects have been run, and exposed, acting as mobys or agents provacateur for decades. I think option 2 is what leaves people leary of spelling out what we fear is coming down the pike. Ain’t purdee, those kind of things. Never are. But ugliness doesn’t mean you don’t deal with the hand you’re given. Many look forward to it, on both sides. Not me, makes me sad as hell to see what’s being done to a great nation and people. Angry too. People just want to be left the hell alone, others want nothing more than to control. Somethin’s gonna give. I hope my parents are gone before it gets ugly.
Addendum, for ubu: You’ve asked a number of questions that appear sincere and not terribly trollish. Which is why you’ve gotten some decent responses. But your initial question seemed a type that has been used as a tactic by various alphabet soup agencies, to get people to say/do something actionable. There’s a history of such things. Your wording aeemed to me at least, to be of that nature.
Not a troll, not with the government. Someone from the government would already know the answers to all those questions and they would want to help you.
Yeah, you’d *surely hope* a government-paid “troll” would be a good enough actor to act… just as naive as you are.
For anyone of the “you don’t need fighting weapons because it couldn’t happen here” mentality or anything similar to it;
There was an extermination order against Mormons in Missouri from 1838 until 1976.
Also; the significance of small arms in the hands of regular citizens for the purpose of dealing with tyrants is widely recognized by the tyrants themselves, as they invariably rail against the right to keep and bear arms.
If regular citizens with small arms were no real threat to tyrants who control whole modern armies, then the tyrants would have no interest in disarming the public. They wouldn’t care a whit about our guns. The fact that they DO worry about our guns (and they worry a lot) says a great deal about the worriers.
Its really bizarre how easily and willingly gun control advocates have forgotten or intentionally erased recent history.
“Why won’t they do what they have done in California? And I’m talking about both sides… Why won’t the government do what has been done in California and why won’t gun owners act like the gun owners in California?”
CA has had two “assault weapon” ban/registrations, a few years apart, some twenty years ago. Between them, they ended up doing a confiscation on one particular model from the first attempt (long story as to why- not germane to this).
Talking to a gun dealer near the end of the registration period for the second, he told me that the state was only seeing about 5% of the estimated number being registered. Said the state was puzzled as to why such low response. They ran out of the forms, but not many were ever returned. The estimated final number was 10%, at most, was registered. Oh, BTW, the confiscation order was on the news, and notices were posted in all gun shops, so everyone was aware of it.
Can you connect the dots? Gun owners did. There is only ONE real purpose for a gun registration.
You realize that when they had the next gun registration in 2000, there was a lot higher compliance? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=453977
Where do you see that? I just read the entire first and third page of that thread and saw nothing that supports your statement. What I did see is a fairly detailed analysis that suggests the compliance rate is around 4.5%. That seems rather low, but somewhat believable. (Low, because I would estimate the sheep / man ratio in California to be worse than that.)
Pingback: What was the objective? | The View From North Central Idaho