Vox Popoli: Defying King Cuomo

Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.

Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.

King Cuomo is violating the Second Amendment and his new law is void on its face, being a clear infringement upon the right to bear arms. No New Yorker should obey King Cuomo's mandate, no New Yorker should register his weapons, and no New Yorker should permit himself to be disarmed by New York State.

"State officials will be nervously watching the registration figures to see how many gun owners comply, sources said."

I'll bet they're nervous. Molon labe.

Labels: gun control

705 Comments:

kh123 January 22, 2013 4:47 AM: It's the inciting incident to the story that seems so obvious in hindsight, but unexpected while in the middle of it.

Good; this will be the proper launching point to show where the dividing line truly lies.
Noah B. January 22, 2013 4:51 AM: But... but... they've already complied with all the other laws! Why wouldn't they comply with this one? It's only one more law! No one is trying to take their guns away!
Morrison January 22, 2013 4:56 AM: Brave words from Vox, in his comfortable European retreat.
Difster January 22, 2013 5:03 AM: This effort will fail, the rules will rolled back and the government will ease up. Then, they'll take the backdoor approach and starting hitting you where it hurts. You want that government check? Give up your guns. You got a ticket for going 20 miles an hour over the speed limit? You're aggressive, no guns for you. You won't submit to a mental health screening to keep your guns? Too bad, turn them in. They'll put the slow squeeze on us until so many of us are covered by so many different policies that virtually no one (except the elite) will be able to have a gun.
Difster January 22, 2013 5:03 AM: Damn the lack of an edit button!
VD January 22, 2013 5:14 AM: Brave words from Vox, in his comfortable European retreat.

Do you seriously think I didn't see this coming 20 years ago? It's not "brave words". It is simply history repeating itself. I am asserting that if New Yorkers are foolish enough to comply and disarm, their fate will be worse than if they do not. And the more they submit, the worse things will ultimately be.

Note that the Canadian government backed down when Canadians didn't comply. Are New Yorkers really more servile than Canadians?
Tim January 22, 2013 6:06 AM: This is the best news I've heard in a while. I'm happily surprised that this stupid new law will not be followed by anyone.
daddynichol January 22, 2013 6:07 AM: @ Morrison,

I doubt you have a shirt or yard sign that says, "Bravely unarmed!" Where's your courage?
zen0 January 22, 2013 6:08 AM: Clinton has sent a warning to the Obamoids. My immediate reaction is that, in their triumphant hubris, they will ignore it.

Bill Clinton, speaking to a group of Democrats at the Obama National Finance Committee Saturday, warned them not to underestimate weapons rights supporters.

Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms. In fact, then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley, D-Wash., lost his job and his seat in Congress.
LP 999/Eliza January 22, 2013 6:12 AM: This extra-supra-unconstitutional registrata isn't going to fly in NY or will it by force or threats of fines? Also, some residents don't care for Cuomo and won't comply with tyrannical requests he decrees. There will be another route to the endgame of disarming those who need to defend themselves from the criminal element that exists everywhere.
DJ January 22, 2013 6:13 AM: People need to realize that New York is literally two different states. Cut it off south of the Tappan Zee Bridge, and the rest of us would be happy
Anonymous January 22, 2013 6:29 AM: Notice that the MSM has moved the goal post on the definition of the assault rifle. It is now what will not be legal in NY. Next it will be a gun with a magazine of five or more, then two or more....

Jeff
Loving tribute to Falco January 22, 2013 6:33 AM: VD, do you comply with Italian gun laws?
tygh January 22, 2013 6:33 AM: Brave words from Vox, in his comfortable European retreat.

The brave words are from the assault-rifle owners, moron.
VD January 22, 2013 6:42 AM: VD, do you comply with Italian gun laws?

I comply with all laws in all jurisdictions at all times.
RedJack January 22, 2013 6:46 AM: Once an example is made, the majority will submit.

Just like every where else.
Razoraid January 22, 2013 6:47 AM: What on earth would give the people we elect to represent us the idea that we want to live in a society which is monitored and controlled to this extent? It's not going to make our country a better place to live. King Cuomo and his sidekick Bloomberg must be a barrel of laughs after the family Yahtzee tournament.
zen0 January 22, 2013 7:13 AM: Notice that the MSM has moved the goal post on the definition of the assault rifle.

The definition of assault weapon has been a political convenience since the 1980's.

Of course it will be changed for whatever administrative purposes is deemed desirable at the time.
Anonymous January 22, 2013 7:13 AM: RedJack...maybe. But if gun owners can band together and cover each who knows. Gvt going to have a hard if people shooting at them in the back while standing at a door to collect a gun.
stg58/Animal Mother January 22, 2013 7:19 AM: Washington State, Illinois, Massachusetts are much the same way. One huge progressive city, dragging the rest of the state with it.
lurkzilla January 22, 2013 7:23 AM: "I comply with all laws in all jurisdictions at all times."

That brought a smile to my libertarian face. :)

I would also like to state for the record that I to comply with all laws everywhere, every time, without exception.
LP 999/Eliza January 22, 2013 7:24 AM: In our new state of residency we were surprised that things are ran for the benefit of the people's safety in terms of easy or streamlined forms to complete/comply with firearms laws. Gun compliance, the DMV, new plates went great. Overall, living a little further south from OH has proved a good move and a better area.
tdm January 22, 2013 7:36 AM: VD..."I comply..."

Thanks VD I especially needed a good laugh this morning.
Anonymous January 22, 2013 7:47 AM: i comply with all laws everywhere, wink, wink. me too.
paradox January 22, 2013 7:53 AM: This maybe the only time the POS 14th Amendment has been worth anything. I wonder if NY will have an influx of Beacher's Bibles?
MendoScot January 22, 2013 7:57 AM: It's even funnier if you know anything about the Napoleonic code.
James Dixon January 22, 2013 8:04 AM: > The definition of assault weapon has been a political convenience since the 1980's.

Of course. As with all other language that gets in the progressive's way.

An assault rifle has always been a fully automatic weapon. Only those seeking to disarm the populace have ever argued otherwise.
MendoScot January 22, 2013 8:05 AM: I wonder if this will be enough to push Vox over the edge:

"He’s now working on a musical adaptation of Heathers, the eighties classic that culminates, famously, in Christian Slater nearly blowing up a high school."

Or maybe get out his hand-tooled leather dancing pumps.
Hermit January 22, 2013 8:08 AM: "Once an example is made, the majority will submit.

Just like every where else."

I have a feeling it will be really, really bad for the first 3-5 people. After that, everyone else will gain more confidence, start getting smarter.

The only problem is if, like you say, the first person is also the last person.
TontoBubbaGoldstein January 22, 2013 8:08 AM: VD: I comply with all laws in all jurisdictions at all times.

I tell the truth....
'cept when I lie.
--Dwight Yoakam
Tiny Tim January 22, 2013 8:10 AM: "I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep"

Talleyrand
zen0 January 22, 2013 8:28 AM: From a letter to Obama:

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association.

I wonder if the New York Sheriffs Association agrees?
VryeDenker January 22, 2013 8:30 AM: "I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep"

Talleyrand

Sure, whatever.
zen0 January 22, 2013 8:35 AM: Compare and Contrast

NY Sheriffs Assn says:

We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these problems.......We will be disappointed and alarmed if this steamroller approach to important legislation becomes the norm.

Disappointed and alarmed. That's telling them. I wonder if they will actually start to cry?
Joshua_D January 22, 2013 8:37 AM: VD January 22, 2013 6:42 AM

I comply with all laws in all jurisdictions at all times.

I laughed.

Difster January 22, 2013 5:03 AM

They'll put the slow squeeze on us until so many of us are covered by so many different policies that virtually no one (except the elite) will be able to have a gun.

Let's not forget the examples throughout history, although not as numerous as we may like, where enough people did not, in fact, give up their arms.
stg58/Animal Mother January 22, 2013 8:40 AM: The forces of evil have been hard at work in the northeast, particularly against the office of sheriff. There are no sheriffs in CT to my knowledge. They were all bought out and became federal marshals.
Starbuck January 22, 2013 8:44 AM: From a letter to Obama:

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association.

I wonder if the New York Sheriffs Association agrees?

Our County Sheriff said something very similar. Made the news.

For those in colorado, it was in larimer county (Fort Collins and Loveland.)

I wonder how far all this is going to go.

Let's not forget the examples throughout history, although not as numerous as we may like, where enough people did not, in fact, give up their arms. - Joshua_D

Well the colonists in north america minus canada didn't give them up.
harry12 January 22, 2013 8:49 AM: A sheriff is a politician... And like any other elected politician, he wishes to retain his latch upon the public teat.
paradox January 22, 2013 9:16 AM: harry12

A sheriff is a politician... And like any other elected politician, he wishes to retain his latch upon the public teat

Yes, a sheriff is a double-edged sword. Surround (move) yourself with voters who will keep a sheriff under control.
Clay January 22, 2013 9:25 AM: You can Support Your Local Sheriff, but will your Local Sheriff really support you?
FP January 22, 2013 9:32 AM: Eh, most sheriffs, even the ones who are writing these letters to Obumbles/Biden are in bed with the Feds for cash/equipment. One legal weapon they'll use is civil asset forfeiture like with drugs. They seize a gun or a 8+ round mag and goodbye house/car etc.. That might wake up more people.

See: http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w305.html

Great video with takedown of a gun control reporter's anti assault rifle rhetoric:

WVCDL's Morgan vs StateJournal reporter

Worth watching all 12 minutes, check the reporters hands about half way through, I think after Morgan mentions he's armed.
Daniel January 22, 2013 9:32 AM: ...and no New Yorker should live in New York. Plaxico! Plaxico! Plaxico!
Nate January 22, 2013 9:33 AM: "I comply with all laws in all jurisdictions at all times."

The amusing thing is... you people think he's lying. if the US passes a law and confiscates weapons... am I breaking the law by refusing to turn my guns over?

No.

The weapon ban is itself illegal... and one cannot be guilty of breaking an illegal law.
Godfrey January 22, 2013 9:33 AM: SPARTACUS!
Wgswst January 22, 2013 9:34 AM: Obama's "Organizing for Action" community-organizing thugs are being unleashed to ensure that Chicago-style politics reach into every corner of the nation.

Not complying has become more important than ever.
Tad January 22, 2013 9:41 AM: @Vox Day

King Cuomo is violating the Second Amendment and his new law is void on its face, being a clear infringement upon the right to bear arms.

Here's a baseless assertion that is both undefended and indefensible. There is no explanation as to how registration of arms in any infringes on a citizens right to keep and bare arms.

That said, wouldn't it be marvelous if the gun nuts in NY did start shooting. I mean, for those who understand that sensible gun laws are just that--sensible--it would be a boon to the easy enactment of commonsense laws controlling the use of guns.

After all, many suspect there is a contingent of folks just waiting to use guns against representatives of the people and that they are dangerous in the sense that Timothy McVeigh was dangerous. A dust up of the sort imagined in this post would just confirm it.

However, I suspect there will be no shooting. These folks are armchair revolutionaries as likely to cower in their homes in front of "Call of Duty" rather than put their money where their mouth is.
Poli_Mis January 22, 2013 9:41 AM: Does anyone else note the coincidence that the selection of the first state to go 'all in' on gun control is also the home of the Army's 10th Mountain Division located at Fort Drum? The same division who've been training for domestic deployment?

I don't believe in coincidences any more.
Josh January 22, 2013 9:48 AM: That said, wouldn't it be marvelous if the gun nuts in NY did start shooting. I mean, for those who understand that sensible gun laws are just that--sensible--it would be a boon to the easy enactment of commonsense laws controlling the use of guns.

Omelettes, broken eggs and all that.

Tad, how many state police does the people's techno republic of new York have?

How many gun owners are there in new York?

I think the state police are outnumbered.
James Dixon January 22, 2013 9:49 AM: > There is no explanation as to how registration of arms in any infringes on a citizens right to keep and bare arms.

Absolutely true. Now, bearing arms, that's another matter.

> However, I suspect there will be no shooting.

If there is, it'll be police who start shooting, not the gun owners.
Giraffe January 22, 2013 9:51 AM: The weapon ban is itself illegal... and one cannot be guilty of breaking an illegal law.

And David Olafson would tell you that you can be guilty even when you don't break any laws.
Daniel January 22, 2013 9:51 AM: Tad, I'd like you to register your boyfriend with the state, so they can track him and come and get him if they need to.

It isn't an infringement on your curiosity.

Pinkie swears.
Tad January 22, 2013 9:59 AM: @Josh

Tad, how many state police does the people's techno republic of new York have?

How many gun owners are there in new York?

I think the state police are outnumbered.

And if we can just a small band of them to shoot at state police, then their work in solidifying the appropriateness of the NY gun laws will have been done.
Josh January 22, 2013 9:59 AM: One of the most effective things the nra (or more likely the goa) could do would be to give free lessons to members about not talking to the police and making them come back with a warrant. Bog the bureaucracy down in paperwork and make it an onerous process for them to enforce king cumo's decree.
Darth Toolpodicus January 22, 2013 10:00 AM: @ Tad_a Here's a baseless assertion that is both undefended and indefensible. There is no explanation as to how registration of arms in any infringes on a citizens right to keep and bare arms.

There's a baseless assertion here all right.

Registration (and the licensing and fees that go with it) is certainly an "infringement" on the rights to own and use things that were previously not so...although you have certainly argued semantics over the definition of "infringed".

That being said, the 7-round magazine limit is most certainly an infringement as it effectively bans or severely limits the use of 90%+ of the handguns out there. That number wasn't pulled out of thin air...the anti-gun weasels knew that most handguns come with 10-round mags.

Then again, I expect that you will continue your semantics clinic to demonstrate that "infringed" == "nothing less than 100% ban" and therefore if that's not the case then there is by definition no "infringement".

As far as your sniping about armchairs...this in nothing more than simple libel (and a dose of wishful thinking) on your part that serves mainly to amuse you.
Josh January 22, 2013 10:00 AM: And if we can just a small band of them to shoot at state police, then their work in solidifying the appropriateness of the NY gun laws will have been done.

So you actually support people shooting at police?
Tad January 22, 2013 10:01 AM: @Daniel

Tad, I'd like you to register your boyfriend with the state, so they can track him and come and get him if they need to.

If the registration came in the context of a marriage license I'd have no problem at all with that. It would confirm a more enlightened, more ethical, more moral approach to civil rights.
Tad January 22, 2013 10:02 AM: @Josh

And if we can just a small band of them to shoot at state police, then their work in solidifying the appropriateness of the NY gun laws will have been done.

So you actually support people shooting at police?

I'm just saying, if the new gun laws of NY are going to be supported by close to 100% of the population, all that needs to happen is have a few yahoos with guns unload on state police.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 10:02 AM: @ tad

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed... except by sensible infringement?
Yorzhik January 22, 2013 10:03 AM: What all good people need to know is that in history, a peaceful gov't called for registration, and the subsequent tyrannical one confiscated easily because of it. One example: the 1928 gun law in Germany.
Tad January 22, 2013 10:03 AM: @Pea

Registration does infringe on anyone's ability to bear arms.
Darth Toolpodicus January 22, 2013 10:05 AM: @ Tad_a
And if we can just a small band of them to shoot at state police, then their work in solidifying the appropriateness of the NY gun laws will have been done

Really? how so? If anything that sounds more like it solidifies the the appropriateness of the 2nd Amendment: The People having the means to resist.

It's telling that you chomp at the bit thus: seizing upon the first spark of resistance as the cue to sweep down and eliminate all possible resistance.
Josh January 22, 2013 10:05 AM: If the registration came in the context of a marriage license I'd have no problem at all with that. It would confirm a more enlightened, more ethical, more moral approach to civil rights.

What if all sexual partners had to be registered with the state before sexual activity could be initiated? And mandatory background checks and a waiting period?
A January 22, 2013 10:05 AM: It's in cases like this that I believe Nullification falls short. If the State you live in has become tyrannical, how can the Federal Gov't possibly be the better evil to come and rescue you, and then the next day the Feds pass a law that you believe tyrannical and your State does nothing about it. The result of nullification seems to be inevitable tyranny from both gov'ts, after all, as Rothbard pointed out, what is to keep nullification from extending down to counties, cities, local gov'ts, the people themselves?

I honestly don't know if there's any model of statehood that can and does protect one's rights. Libertarianism comes awfully close in that regard, as law and justice were carried out in Tocqueville's day, but how can such a state of living ever stay maintained? Are we always going to be bound to a gov't of one kind or another? Even the Christian worldview of Jesus' reign on Earth is still in the form of a gov't, and if there is anything that gives me pause on whether or not an afterlife exists or Revelation isn't John speaking of Nero, it is that any form of gov't at all is necessary in a sinless environment.
Josh January 22, 2013 10:06 AM: Registration does infringe on anyone's ability to bear arms.

And thus is unconstitutional. By your own words.
Giraffe January 22, 2013 10:10 AM: And if we can just a small band of them to shoot at state police, then their work in solidifying the appropriateness of the NY gun laws will have been done.

This is how the liberal mind works.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:12 AM: We spend to much time on political defense. We need to go on offense and force the other side to spend their political capital holding ground instead of gaining it.

for example... we could fire up a proposal for a constitutional amendment that says, "The Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate the sale or manufacture of firearms."

It doesn't matter if it passes or not. the point is.. the left would be spending money fighting to keep the ground instead of fighting to gain more ground.
Daniel January 22, 2013 10:12 AM: If the registration came in the context of a marriage license I'd have no problem at all with that. It would confirm a more enlightened, more ethical, more moral approach to civil rights.

Said the rabbit to the butcher. "Why," asked the rabbit, "would you ever kill me? I'm one of the cute ones!"
Wgswst January 22, 2013 10:16 AM: @Nate: there are quite a few states working on variations of this already.

That is where the battle has shifted: to the States.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:16 AM: "And if we can just a small band of them to shoot at state police, then their work in solidifying the appropriateness of the NY gun laws will have been done."

no.

Obviously you're not paying attention but the public opinion of law enforcement is at an all time low already. 60 year old law abiding white people are even starting to hate/fear police.

As usual... you simply are seeing things the way you wish they were... not the way they are.

the state police will win the standoff... and kill everyone in some over-the-top act of brutality... actually they'll bring in the ATF and FBI who will end up burning everyone to death or poisoning them to death with tear gas...

And the sympathy will go entirely the other way.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:17 AM: "That is where the battle has shifted: to the States."

Right. Which means we have them where we want them. Because Constitutional amendments are handled by the states.

And guess what?

There are far more pro-gun states and anti-gun states.
Giraffe January 22, 2013 10:18 AM: It doesn't matter if it passes or not. the point is.. the left would be spending money fighting to keep the ground instead of fighting to gain more ground.

Keep the Gungans away from the constitutional convention.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 10:19 AM: @ tad

@Pea

Registration does infringe on anyone's ability to bear arms.

I think you meant "doesn't."

Sure it does. It infringes on those who own arms that scare you because they look mean.

How could you possibly be such a bold faced liar?
Josh January 22, 2013 10:23 AM: It doesn't matter if it passes or not. the point is.. the left would be spending money fighting to keep the ground instead of fighting to gain more ground.

Another proposal would be trying to implement insanely convoluted procedures for registration, etc.

Like...you can call a gun store and get a list of background check requests...but here is a hundred page form you have to fill out for each request...and each form has to be checked by the compliance department...and if a single form has an error...that launches a immediate investigation by internal affairs...and all related activities regarding registration have to be suspended pending the completion of the investigation...
RINO January 22, 2013 10:23 AM: You may as well ignore the law, I highly doubt that anyone would come for you. It's possible that they could surprise us but until then we have to remember we're still talking about one of the most defunct state governments in the country, and before King Cuomo the clown show was most recently headed by Elliot Spitzer and David Patterson.
JartStar January 22, 2013 10:26 AM: Obama’s already punted the gun control issue. He didn’t mention it directly in his inauguration speech (unless I missed something), and he had Biden do all of the work before the inauguration. The legislation will fail.

Remember he only has 18-24 months until he enters the lame duck phase, and a good number of Democrats are up for re-election in 2014 meaning he can’t do everything he wants. He laid out his agenda in the inauguration speech and he doesn’t have time for gun control if he wants to do the rest. As soon as he pushes for his agenda gun control will fall off the front page, and the MSM will be hysterical about the next "crisis".

He’s thinking “legacy” now and so the bigger fish to fry are the entitlement programs, winding down Afghanistan, and whatever clean energy nonsense he want to push.
Asher January 22, 2013 10:28 AM: @ VD

I am asserting that if New Yorkers are foolish enough to comply and disarm, their fate will be worse than if they do not. And the more they submit, the worse things will ultimately be.

How does registration impair the right of the citizenry to defend themselves against government should that government become tyrannical.

This looks like a contradiction.

Now you're operating under the same line of reasoning as liberals like Tad and dh. All laws are either obeyed or they are broken, and the American Revolution was just disobedience of the law to King George. If the signers of the declaration had taken this stance their revolution would have never happened. Laws broken at a very general level are the functional equivalent of revolt.

All revolutions are simply disobedience to the law with a broad scope. There are two ways of taking you comment:

A) You are offering a descriptive explanation of your past behavior, i.e. "I have obeyed all laws until this point"
B) You are offering a normative judgment of what you consider your future obligations, i.e. "I am morally obligated to follow any law in the future"

Which way are are you using that declaration?
Signe January 22, 2013 10:32 AM: Hey Tad, do you think all people exercising their rights to political free speech should be required to register every statement--such that their names, home addresses, and copies of their intended statements are accessible through FOIA to anyone and everyone--and have a waiting period before being allowed to publish?

If so, would you be so kind as to include all this information about yourself in your next comment here? Not that anyone would ever do anything with it, of course...
Asher January 22, 2013 10:33 AM: @ VD, Mr Pea, etc>

Tad said:

There is no explanation as to how registration of arms in any infringes on a citizens right to keep and bare arms.

Tad is entirely correct. Registration in no way impinges on the possession of firearms, by definition. If the government passes regulation that makes it marginally more difficult for any specific individual to get a weapon that regulation has nothing to do with the collective right for THE PEOPLE to be armed.

VD, there is a logical inconsistency in your position, and the gun rights supporters who endorse your position.
Signe January 22, 2013 10:36 AM: Tad is entirely correct. Registration in no way impinges on the possession of firearms, by definition. If the government passes regulation that makes it marginally more difficult for any specific individual to get a weapon that regulation has nothing to do with the collective right for THE PEOPLE to be armed.

Is that so?
Asher January 22, 2013 10:37 AM: Yes, we all know that gun grabbers like Tad and Cuomo want to confiscate guns. When that time comes the appropriate response is to break the law and start killing people. But killing people is not an appropriate response to simple registration.

For the record, I am a registered gun owner and am perfectly fine with registration. If the government decided to confiscate those guns I would immediately begin exterminating the family members of politicians, hunting them down, torturing them to death and posting the videos on the internet.

That would be a reasonable and appropriate response to gun confiscation.
Giraffe January 22, 2013 10:38 AM: What exactly is the supposed benefit to gun registration?
scoobius dubious January 22, 2013 10:39 AM: Let the state and federal registration of dangerous, violent negro penises begin! After all, studies have shown....

Oh, wait, what's that? It would violate de cibbil rights? An' de "vision" ub de Doctor Lufer Kang?

PHINEAS: Why, yes. Yes it would.
FERB: Right.
Asher January 22, 2013 10:42 AM: @ Signe

Yes, it is "so". Did you even bother to read your link? It's about speech. Regulating speech is different in kind from regulating guns. Words can't kill people so their exercise is more fragile. Words can't defend themselves by inflicting pain and death. Guns can.

The appropriate and equal response to a "chilling effect" on gun possession is to start shooting people. The appropriate and equal response to a "chilling effect" on speech is ... there isn't one.

This is why the concept of a "chilling effect" can't be coherently applied to gun ownership. Gun registration is in no possible way a chilling effect.
sprach von Teufelshunden January 22, 2013 10:45 AM: @ A January 22, 2013 10:05 AM

Even the Christian worldview of Jesus' reign on Earth is still in the form of a gov't, and if there is anything that gives me pause on whether or not an afterlife exists or Revelation isn't John speaking of Nero, it is that any form of gov't at all is necessary in a sinless environment.

We are getting into dispensations there. Something I don't ascribe to. As to the rest, I think you might enjoy Rulers of Evil by Saussy. (click on the Museum) Now, when one adds Saussy's professed preterist views into the mix, the flavor really gets enhanced, concerning ~70 A.D. and Nero. Also check into what Luther said about prudence vs. goodness in choosing a [temporal] ruler.

History doesn't necessarily appear to be repeating itself, verbatim. However, it is certainly rhyming. Lexington Green was about arms confiscation, via a tyrannical entity.

A perplexing question ensues. Why does it seem most national monuments are marked with Egyptian style obelisks? And, not just this nation. It is prevalent in western society worldwide.

Vox, also stated earlier:

...the more they submit, the worse things will ultimately be.

I have heard similar words before, in very similar context:

Until Americans come to acknowledge the role of the Jewish Mafia in the subversion of their nation, they will remain enslaved indefinitely. [1]

and..

If we let them get away with this and keep their ill gotten gains there is absolutely nothing they will fear doing do to us in the future. Only a conquered, defeated people would accept such a humiliation.

Yes, we ARE talking about economic terrorism, and the prospect of the death of America, as we know it...

-----------
[1] What did Jesus confront in the Temple in Jerusalem, if not a Jewish Mafia? (Talmudic Babylonian [Moneychangers]Cabal)
njartist January 22, 2013 10:45 AM: How to define to a liberal an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Infringement: definition:
a) A regulation that a person seeking an abortion must be shown a video describing the abortion process;
b) A regulation which requires an abortion provider to hand out a brochure describing the procedure to the client;
c) A requirement for a three day waiting period once the pregnant woman has told her "health care" practitioner she wants an abortion;
d) The presence of anti-abortion demonstrators in front of an abortion clinic.
Asher January 22, 2013 10:45 AM: @ Signe

What is so dispiriting to me is that your position implies that you lack the fortitude to resist government appropriately in the event of attempted gun confiscation.

In the last analysis words on paper, laws, rights, constitutions, etc., do not protect you. The only protection that people have is power, eg. guns.
castricv January 22, 2013 10:45 AM: I hate protesting as I think nowadays it acomplishes nothing but gayness. However, I think it would be awesome for every citizen that respects the constitution and lives near New York to show some solidarity and conduct a march on the state house. Let's see how these assholes want to test a few hundred thousand people that may or may not be packing....
Nate January 22, 2013 10:46 AM: ". If the government passes regulation that makes it marginally more difficult for any specific individual to get a weapon that regulation has nothing to do with the collective right for THE PEOPLE to be armed."

Except its an individual right... not a collective right.
Tiny Tim January 22, 2013 10:47 AM: The momentum is swinging in favor of the gun owners of America. It is presently unstoppable.

Time for a horrible false flag event to rival all others to swing the momentum back to the gun grabbers.

It is time, it will be shocking, it will traumatize. Trauma is required to shock the people into willful submission. We are ruled by cowardly scum who will indiscrimanatly kill children and old women to get what they want, what they crave, what they exist on.....
scoobius dubious January 22, 2013 10:48 AM: "Words can't kill people."

Um, all of human history just called, and it begs to differ.

"Words can't [inflict] pain and death. Guns can."

No they can't. Guns are just objects, they can't "do" anything absent human volition. If you claim that "guns" can kill people, then I am equally justified in claiming that "words" can kill people (we can start with the Koran, a plain incitement to murder and mayhem). I'm fairly certain history will show that, since guns are a rather recent invention, pound for pound (that is to say, per capita) a lot more people have been killed "by" words than "by" guns throughout human history.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:48 AM: "This is why the concept of a "chilling effect" can't be coherently applied to gun ownership. Gun registration is in no possible way a chilling effect."

What part of the constitution grants the federal government the authority to even attempt such a thing?
Asher January 22, 2013 10:49 AM: @ Opponents of gun registration

What your opposition to gun registration reveals is that you lack the fortitude to undertake the necessary actions required to resist gun confiscation. That deficit is profoundly depressing.
Mike M. January 22, 2013 10:50 AM: Register now, confiscate later. There is NO cause and effect relationship between registering firearms and reducing crime.

As for this wretched violation of civil rights, watch the courts. My own opinion is that it won't come to shooting - merely massive civil disobedience. Cuomo MIGHT try to order house-to-house searches, he's that stupid and arrogant. But it will backfire in his face.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:50 AM: if there were a federal law requiring all able bodied males to own a select fire battle rifle and 2000 round of ammunition.. then I could see a registration mechanism to insure that everyone was in fact complying with that law.

outside of such a requirement... no.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:51 AM: "What your opposition to gun registration reveals is that you lack the fortitude to undertake the necessary actions required to resist gun confiscation. That deficit is profoundly depressing."

No Asher. What it shows is... you have no understanding of incrementalism.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 10:52 AM: @ Asher

Please show us were in the constitution the government is delegated the authority to register guns, make certain guns illegal, legislate magazine capacity...

The fact is, you can't find it. There is your infringement.
Booch Paradise January 22, 2013 10:53 AM: Interesting how Tad, who scoffed at the idea of Sandy Hook being some sort of false flag, is now openly saying how glorious it would be if some crazy person with a gun would go on a rampage so that they could pass more gun laws.
Asher January 22, 2013 10:53 AM: @ Nate

Except its an individual right... not a collective right.

In the end, all rights are only sustained by force. Individuals lack the required quanta of force to protect rights; only collectives have that ability.

You are engaging in a category mistake.

If the right to keep and bear arms is the right to resist tyranny then that right is BY DEFINITION a collective right. Once you admit to the former then you are accepting the latter. Conversely, if the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right then that right has nothing to do with resisting government. This is axiomatic.
castricv January 22, 2013 10:53 AM: Tad -- is it not better to commit a mild, non-violent act of civil disobedience in refusing to register (and become a possible target of government tyranny in the future by registering) than to wait as you say and then "torture and kill family members of politicians, etc."mwhen they come to take away your rights officially???

It seems incredibly morbid to say that. This is not some pre-emptive strike. It is a simple line in the sand that we will not go across just because it's easier to do so. You're way is basically saying sure I'll dress up like a girl and let you fondle me, but I promise on my fake machismo to unleash hell if they decide to put the tip in. What a faggotty stance to have.
Signe January 22, 2013 10:53 AM: Did you even bother to read your link? It's about speech. Regulating speech is different in kind from regulating guns. Words can't kill people so their exercise is more fragile. Words can't defend themselves by inflicting pain and death. Guns can.

It says "a constitutional right". Is gun ownership a "constitutional right" or not? Am I more likely or less likely to buy a gun if I know the government will know what and how many I have, and where I have them? That the primary use of the term is around the First Amendment doesn't preclude its being used around the Second.

Owning guns is more important. It's foundational. It's the last resort of the people against a government determined to infringe all the other rights. Just because you think guns are ickier than words and somehow more destructive doesn't mean you can regulate guns more.

The appropriate and equal response to a "chilling effect" on gun possession is to start shooting people. The appropriate and equal response to a "chilling effect" on speech is ... there isn't one.

I like how you decide that whatever you're personally okay with or see no harm in is not a violation of rights, but what you're not okay with justifies torturing toddlers to death on Youtube.

This is why the concept of a "chilling effect" can't be coherently applied to gun ownership. Gun registration is in no possible way a chilling effect.

See above.
Asher Jacobson January 22, 2013 10:55 AM: @ Mr Pea

Please show us were in the constitution

In the last analysis, only guns confer rights, words written on pieces of paper do not. The constitution is just another paper with words written on it, no different from JK Rowling's Harry Potter.

Rights are predicated on might.
Nate January 22, 2013 10:55 AM: "In the end, all rights are only sustained by force. Individuals lack the required quanta of force to protect rights; only collectives have that ability."

False.

One man with a nuclear weapon can protect his rights by force against anyone he wishes.

Thus... nuclear weapons are the ultimate equalizers.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 10:57 AM: What your opposition to gun registration reveals is that you lack the fortitude to undertake the necessary actions required to resist gun confiscation. That deficit is profoundly depressing.

Ok there agent provocateur.

How about you lead the assault on DC. We promise we will shortly behind you.
Signe January 22, 2013 10:57 AM: What is so dispiriting to me is that your position implies that you lack the fortitude to resist government appropriately in the event of attempted gun confiscation.

In the last analysis words on paper, laws, rights, constitutions, etc., do not protect you. The only protection that people have is power, eg. guns.

1. So why are you okay with gun registration, which tells the government where the guns are and makes it easier to target the people who have them?

2. You're making some interesting assumptions about whether I'd fight having my gun stolen. I'd prefer not to even have them know whether I have one to steal. Maybe it's because I'm a girl, but I'm really hinky about being put in a position to have to kill someone.
scoobius dubious January 22, 2013 10:59 AM: "If the right to keep and bear arms is the right to resist tyranny then that right is BY DEFINITION a collective right."

This is getting silly. Collectives are not entities independent of individuals. Collectives are composed of individuals. Hence the distinction between a "collective" right and an "individual" right is imaginary.

You're spending too much time with Kant. Go back and read about simpler more important things, like the Heap.
Asher January 22, 2013 10:59 AM: @ Signe

It says "a constitutional right"

Constitutions do not confer rights, guns do. A constitution is a normative statement of how those guns should be used and who they should be used to kill.

All rights are predicated on you having guns and using them to kill those who would impose their will on you.

The constitution is just a piece of paper with words on it. I wager it's pretty hard to resist people with a piece of paper.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:00 AM: Asher,

Stop with the pedantic, semantic, argumentative.

That is Tad's dept. (or is he in the cube next to you?)
Signe January 22, 2013 11:01 AM: No they can't. Guns are just objects, they can't "do" anything absent human volition. If you claim that "guns" can kill people, then I am equally justified in claiming that "words" can kill people (we can start with the Koran, a plain incitement to murder and mayhem). I'm fairly certain history will show that, since guns are a rather recent invention, pound for pound (that is to say, per capita) a lot more people have been killed "by" words than "by" guns throughout human history.

Yeah, I guess he's never heard of perjury or inciting riots.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:04 AM: Stop with the pedantic, semantic, argumentative.

That's his goal, to get you bogged down into the rhetorical weeds.
scoobius dubious January 22, 2013 11:04 AM: "Ok there agent provocateur."

This.^

Tad is attempting to bait people into engaging in acts of political violence.

In some circles it could be construed as incitement.

I think both Tad himself, and any speech he might utter, should be registered, at both the state and federal levels. A background check, fingerprinting, a mental health screening, and a waiting period should be imposed on Tad, so that rash speech like Tad's does not lead to a massacre.

It's for the children. Or for the chirren, I guess it depends which district you're in, how you punounce that one.

Now let's get back to the urgent, statistically proven question of restricting, registering regulating dangerous negro penises.

We can't afford NOT to act.
castricv January 22, 2013 11:04 AM: Also, all this bravado from those saying to register is no big deal but war will come down if they try to do the inevitable consequence of registering in the first place, are completely naive. What major injustice against society, morality, America itself, or even God the ALmighty has anyone in the last 40 years actually taken up arms to fight against the government????? YOu take it up the ass everyday and smile while your cities crumble, your kids are drowned in filth, and the government steals your money and your soul, yet THIS TIME you and the hordes will rise up if they come for you??? Bullshit. You'll be the first one to hand in your guns when the SWAT team pays you a visit.

The ones who always yelp for things to fall apart so they can go on a rampage of justice are always the ones who want someone else to do the rampaging for them.

You actively resist the minor things precisely so that you and your kids don't have to wind up living on the run in a forest fighting against a overpowering force, a scenario I can assure you, you are ill-equipped to handle.
sprach von Teufelshunden January 22, 2013 11:06 AM: Another perplexing question gnaws at brain, "Who WON here?" That is, the winners in this hysteria of portending gun grabbing. Another way to propose the question:

Who Makes The Profits?

I'm afraid the winner here is Sam Colt. [1] This Hegelian Dialectic thang. A most sinister device beholden by man. And then again, back to that Jewish Mafia...... thang:

We have no king but Caesar!

---------
[1] I am for a properly armed society. However, an armed society at the expense of record profits for the very few? We need to think very hard on that one.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:06 AM: Constitutions do not confer rights,

No, they don't. They are an open contract with the governing body that indicate what the government may or may not do. "Infringe right to keep and bear arms" is under "not do". Penalties for breach are implied by context.

guns do.

No, God does. I have rights whether I shoot a gun or not. The gun is just a tool to enforce if I see fit.

A constitution is a normative statement of how those guns should be used and who they should be used to kill.

Show me where in the Constitution it says we have to declare what guns we own if the government would "just so happen" to like to know what, how many, and where.

All rights are predicated on you having guns and using them to kill those who would impose their will on you.

Right, and telling them where the guns are only tells them where to go to take away my ability to enforce.

The constitution is just a piece of paper with words on it. I wager it's pretty hard to resist people with a piece of paper.

You're not familiar with contracts, are you?
jay c January 22, 2013 11:07 AM: Asher,

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The founding fathers said so, and the supreme court has said so. Resistance to tyranny is only one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment. It's primary purpose is the security of a free state, a free state being one in which individual people are free to speak, worship, make a living, own property, govern their homes and families, and defend themselves, their families, their communities, and their nation from interlopers. In addition, militias, well-regulated or not, are composed of the whole of the people, which is made up of individuals. One cannot defend his family or shoot a sudden invader with a collective right. The weapon must be in the possession of the individual at the moment it is needed.

Now...if kindergarten is over, run along and play. Let the grown ups talk.

Gun registration is diametrically opposed to the security of a free state. The only possible rationale for registration is confiscation.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:08 AM: @ Signe

I'm really hinky about being put in a position to have to kill someone.

Ding! Ding! Ding! This is exactly my point. You lack courage, so you hide behind constitutions. You lack courage and a people that lacks courage is a people that is just waiting to be conquered. If the colonists had the same lack of courage you evince we would all still be subjects of King George.

When the children of Israel cleansed the land of the Canaanites they were commanded by God to kill everyone, including newborn babies. You are "hinky" are killing functionaries of the government involved in taking away your guns.

This lack of courage is my entire point.
jay c January 22, 2013 11:09 AM: I thought I had deleted that last sentence. It's still true; I just didn't mean to put it where it is.
stg58/Animal Mother January 22, 2013 11:10 AM: Asher is becoming quite annoying. His pseudo intellectualism grates on me, just like King A does. Or did.
The other skeptic January 22, 2013 11:10 AM: Ding! Ding! Ding! This is exactly my point. You lack courage, so you hide behind constitutions.

Just as politicians hide behind armed goons.

History tells us again and again of the folly of believing in government goon!
Asher Jacobson January 22, 2013 11:12 AM: @ scoobius doobius

the distinction between a "collective" right and an "individual" right is imaginary.

No, the distinction is synthetic and functional. An individual right and a collective right is a very real distinction. Individuals in a state of nature experience an endless war of all against all. But individuals form collectives to mitigate this war, and those collectives are very real things.

Yes, collectives are comprised of individuals, in general, but they are independent of any individual, in particular.
Shut Up, Asher January 22, 2013 11:12 AM: Shut up, Asher. Tad. Whatever your name is. Tasher.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:14 AM: Collective rights do not exist. Only individuals have rights.
Shutup, Tad January 22, 2013 11:14 AM: Tad is attempting to bait people into engaging in acts of political violence.

Or baiting people into wasting their time and defiling their intelligence.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:14 AM: @ Signe

Yeah, I guess he's never heard of perjury or inciting riots.

Perjury in a court of law implies the application of the power of the state. Riots imply the use of weapons. Both involve weapons. Words, in themselves, do no inflict physical damage.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:15 AM: Good question…
Asher January 22, 2013 11:15 AM: @ Josh

That's his goal

My goal? My goal is widespread gun ownership so we can start slaughtering government functionaries and their families should the need arise. My arguments are made solely with that goal in mind.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:16 AM: However, an armed society at the expense of record profits for the very few

Commie
Asher January 22, 2013 11:18 AM: @ castricv

What major injustice against society, morality, America itself, or even God the ALmighty has anyone in the last 40 years actually taken up arms to fight against the government?????

This is precisely my point. You and people like you are soft and lack courage. If your rights are being violated then the appropriate response is not to mindlessly bleat about "your rights" but to start slaughtering people en masse.
Tad January 22, 2013 11:18 AM: @Darth:

It's telling that you chomp at the bit thus: seizing upon the first spark of resistance as the cue to sweep down and eliminate all possible resistance.

This kind of resistance to constitutional laws is without merit and merely represents the criminal minded. Such an act of criminality would spark horror in the vast majority of citizens leading, in turn, to the recognition that gun registration is necessary.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:18 AM: My goal is widespread gun ownership so we can start slaughtering government functionaries and their families should the need arise.

That seems to be tad's goal as well, inciting people to start shooting.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:19 AM: That seems to be tad's goal as well, inciting people to start shooting.
Tad January 22, 2013 11:19 AM: @Josh

What if all sexual partners had to be registered with the state before sexual activity could be initiated? And mandatory background checks and a waiting period?

That would be funny. I'd pay good money to hear this law debated in congress.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:20 AM: Well Asher and Tad are back in their cubicles and furiously typing on their keypads today.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:20 AM: @ Signe

Penalties for breach are implied by context.

Lol, there are only penalties is there is a subject willing to apply penalties. My point is your lack of willingness to apply those penalties, which is mass slaughter.

You lack the courage of your convictions, and that is my point. You will bleat like a sheep when they come for your guns and you will bleat like a sheep when they come to confiscate your guns. You lack courage.
Tad January 22, 2013 11:21 AM: @Nate

for example... we could fire up a proposal for a constitutional amendment that says, "The Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate the sale or manufacture of firearms."

It doesn't matter if it passes or not. the point is.. the left would be spending money fighting to keep the ground instead of fighting to gain more ground.

The number of constitutional amendment that are filed with Congress is substantial. Few if any ever are taken under consideration. This kind of proposal would see the same fate and would result in zero political capital being spent.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:21 AM: Ding! Ding! Ding! This is exactly my point. You lack courage, so you hide behind constitutions.

Okay, let me make sure I have this straight:

You think that the only appropriate form of recompense to any wrong between two people is immediate and lethal bloodshed. Is that correct?
Josh January 22, 2013 11:22 AM: Such an act of criminality would spark horror in the vast majority of citizens leading, in turn, to the recognition that gun registration is necessary.

Your logic:
One state passes gun registration laws
People who do not want to register their guns react by killing the registrars.
Thus, registration in all the states will not have a similar effect.

That's backwards logic, my dear queer.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:22 AM: @ Signe

No, God does.

Then you don't *need* guns for anything at all. Just let government do whatever it wills and anything that happens will, by definition, be an ongoing state of God protecting your rights.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:24 AM: You will bleat like a sheep when they come for your guns and you will bleat like a sheep when they come to confiscate your guns.

Paging the Department of Redundancy Department.

Anyway, I'm glad you can read my soul from all the way over there.

By the way, didn't it used to be a killing offense to call someone a coward?
Tad January 22, 2013 11:25 AM: @Signe

Hey Tad, do you think all people exercising their rights to political free speech should be required to register every statement--such that their names, home addresses, and copies of their intended statements are accessible through FOIA to anyone and everyone--and have a waiting period before being allowed to publish?

No. But the limit on our first amendment rights are in fact many. This just goes to show that no rights are without limit, including the second amendment.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:26 AM: @ Signe

Right, and telling them where the guns are only tells them where to go to take away my ability to enforce.

Telling the government where your guns are puts your back to the wall, makes you put your money where your mouth is. Your admission that being in the position where you are required to kill people makes you "hinky" is an admission of a lack of courage and fortitude and that is my point.

You are servile, and tyranny is the price of servility. You lack courage and you will be conquered. The solution is not to bleat about your rights but to get a little damn courage.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:26 AM: Then you don't *need* guns for anything at all. Just let government do whatever it wills and anything that happens will, by definition, be an ongoing state of God protecting your rights.

You're kind of stupid, you know that?
Tad January 22, 2013 11:26 AM: @Asher

Yes, we all know that gun grabbers like Tad and Cuomo want to confiscate guns.

I have no desire to see guns confiscated.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:27 AM: @ Signe

You're not familiar with contracts, are you?

I'm quite familiar with contracts. Are you? Last I checked contracts are enforced with guns.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:27 AM: No.

Why not?
Josh January 22, 2013 11:27 AM: So, per the atheist philosopher Asher, anyone who does not immediately start killing people lacks courage and has no convictions.

Per the atheist gay party favor Tad, the goal of gun policy should be to incite and provoke law abiding folk to start killing people.

Funny how the atheist always ends up advocating for mass violence.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:28 AM: You are servile, and tyranny is the price of servility. You lack courage and you will be conquered. The solution is not to bleat about your rights but to get a little damn courage.

Lighten up Francis.
Tiny Tim January 22, 2013 11:29 AM: Is Tad even real? Are some of you obsessing on him?

Be careful, hate can turn into sexual attraction. You have been warned.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:30 AM: Funny how the atheist always ends up advocating for mass violence.

They do get excited about democide.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:30 AM: My goal is widespread gun ownership so we can start slaughtering government functionaries and their families should the need arise.

That seems to be tad's goal as well, inciting people to start shooting.

And why shouldn't we start shooting?

The purpose of the 2nd is to prevent tyranny.

How much tyranny do you need before you call it tyranny?

When they come for your guns?

They've been coming a long time now.

What rights are you protecting other than the right to own firearms?

Forget about those other rights?

Just let me have my guns and we’re okay?
Tad January 22, 2013 11:31 AM: @Nate

if there were a federal law requiring all able bodied males to own a select fire battle rifle and 2000 round of ammunition.. then I could see a registration mechanism to insure that everyone was in fact complying with that law.

But, you would oppose this kind of proposed law, right?
Noah B. January 22, 2013 11:31 AM: "After all, many suspect there is a contingent of folks just waiting to use guns against representatives of the people and that they are dangerous in the sense that Timothy McVeigh was dangerous. A dust up of the sort imagined in this post would just confirm it."

Pay close attention to what Tad says here because this perfectly captures the mindset of the left. To them, it is unacceptable for the individual to use violence against agents of the state under any circumstances. They only need to keep pushing until they provoke a reaction which, in their minds, will prove to them that they were correct in the first place.

"There is no explanation as to how registration of arms in any infringes on a citizens right to keep and bare arms."

You have nothing in your bag of tricks except recyling the same worn out lies, Tad. Registration enables confiscation and is therefore unacceptable.
Shut up, Asher. January 22, 2013 11:32 AM: Asher, you're a idiot.

"Hey guys, don't oppose gun registration. If you do, it just means you aren't willing to fire shots to defend your rights to own a gun."

How about this. You tell the government where your guns are. When they start talking confiscation, I want you to send an anonymous tip telling them about your guns. When they come to take them, then you can stand up and be the martyr you were born to be.

Either that or you are actually pulling a quite clever satire of gun owners.
Shut Up, Asher January 22, 2013 11:32 AM: Shut up, Asher. Please. For the Children.
Unending Improvement January 22, 2013 11:33 AM: "But, you would oppose this kind of proposed law, right?"

I would. It's conscription by another term.

But hey, keep dreaming pal.
RedJack January 22, 2013 11:34 AM: Booch Paradise January 22, 2013 10:53 AM
Interesting how Tad, who scoffed at the idea of Sandy Hook being some sort of false flag, is now openly saying how glorious it would be if some crazy person with a gun would go on a rampage so that they could pass more gun laws.

Because the agenda matters more than the victims. An attack on the state police of NY would lead to full confiscation of firearms. Tad wants this, so he is in favor of such attacks.
Once you know the narrative, such mental gymnastics are easier to spot.
Tad January 22, 2013 11:34 AM: @Scoobious

Tad is attempting to bait people into engaging in acts of political violence.

In some circles it could be construed as incitement.

Indeed. And that "circle" would be the circle jerk of like minded gun nuts conversing on a blog.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:35 AM: @ jay c

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The founding fathers said so,

No, they didn't. The second amendement is very clear that the right is collective and is intended to resist government. Individuals don't resist governments, collectives do.

the supreme court has said so.

The Supreme Court is wrong. Even the most "conservative" jurist, including Scalia and Thomas, are merely functionaries of the imperial welfare state, they get their position and status as individuals by being functionaries of that state. If the government is corrupt then every individual involved in its function is corrupt, regardless of their particular intentions.

Resistance to tyranny is only one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment. It's primary purpose is the security of a free state,

Lol. Um, resisting tyranny IS the definition of a free state. That IS what it is. It has no other possible definition. Yes, private individuals killing off the Trayvon Martins of this world is a nice side effect but that is just frosting on the cake.

militias, well-regulated or not, are composed of the whole of the people, which is made up of individuals.

Individuals, in general, not any individual, in particular.

One cannot defend his family or shoot a sudden invader with a collective right. The weapon must be in the possession of the individual at the moment it is needed.

If I, a specific individual, am unarmed and a home invader comes in and shoots me during that home invasion how is that of any relevance to a free state? It isn't. The right is collective, not individual.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:35 AM: Telling the government where your guns are puts your back to the wall, makes you put your money where your mouth is.

So you want to commit suicide by cop. Gotcha. Me, I prefer to fight smarter; it's more efficient.

Your admission that being in the position where you are required to kill people makes you "hinky" is an admission of a lack of courage and fortitude and that is my point.

No, it means exactly what I said. I don't like the idea of ending a life, no matter how justified I might be. The target is a person, a fellow creation of God, whom I'm sending to Hell because he's dumb enough to think he's doing the right thing. Knowing that I was doing the right thing doesn't make me actively happy about it. If that doesn't give you pause, you might be a sociopath.

What am I saying? You advocate cutting toddlers to pieces for the crime of being related to someone who works for the government. You ARE a sociopath.

You are servile,

That's not what my employer says.

and tyranny is the price of servility. You lack courage and you will be conquered. The solution is not to bleat about your rights but to get a little damn courage.

I've drawn my line, and when they cross it, I'll enforce against the people who cross it. You, on the other hand, will go after people who had nothing to do with it: small children and weak women. Who is the coward?
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:36 AM: They only need to keep pushing until they provoke a reaction which, in their minds, will prove to them that they were correct in the first place.

Worked for the Founders.
Giraffe January 22, 2013 11:37 AM: Interesting.

http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens
Asher January 22, 2013 11:37 AM: @ jay c

The only possible rationale for registration is confiscation.

You are confused about what the term rationale means. It only means that someone could construct an argument for it. A possible rationale for registration is public safety. You may not accept that rationale but that does not make it *a* rationale.
RedJack January 22, 2013 11:38 AM: Asher,
There is no right to free speech anymore. Hasn’t been for a while now. If you don’t believe me, try saying some of the words Jamie Fox said, and see how long till you get a lawsuit. We have numerous laws regulating blasphemy (hate speech), to the point where people have to be care talking about global warming.
Historically, free speech was viewed as a much more dangerous thing than arms. Because an object can not act without a person, but words can light the fire in the minds of men that will consume the State.
sprach von Teufelshunden January 22, 2013 11:38 AM: @ Josh January 22, 2013 11:16 AM

And by your logic and reasoning, I suppose generals Butler and his protege Shoup are also Communists?

Seriously Josh, are you truly that small-brained? Your et al's intellectual gymnastics with tadpole the asher is wasted energy. Ignore these imbeciles. You cannot reason with a sociopathic mind...
RINO January 22, 2013 11:39 AM: I'm sure when Tad is on the train to the nearest FEMA work camp he will be trying to justify it to everyone else around him.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:40 AM: And why shouldn't we start shooting?The purpose of the 2nd is to prevent tyranny.How much tyranny do you need before you call it tyranny?When they come for your guns?They've been coming a long time now.What rights are you protecting other than the right to own firearms?Forget about those other rights?Just let me have my guns and we’re okay?

Ok, so we've got four presumably different people calling for violence on this thread.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:40 AM: @ stg

Asher is becoming quite annoying. His pseudo intellectualism grates on me,

You're confused about the use of the term "psuedo intellectualism". A pseudo intellectual is someone who uses rhetorical handwaving in place of arguments or who claims some sort of intellectual authority for themselves.

I make very specific claims and/or challenges that you can choose to answer or not, at your discretion. If you do not answer specific, direct and relevant claims then you are conceding the point. As the old Jewish saying goes "silence equals assent".

If you have an argument against what I am saying now is the time to make it.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:41 AM: Last I checked contracts are enforced with guns.

Remind me not to sell you anything. If you get the notion I didn't perform to your unstated expectations, you'll kill my grandma.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:42 AM: I'm sure when Tad is on the train to the nearest FEMA work camp he will be trying to justify it to everyone else around him.

The sad fact is... we'll let it get that far.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:42 AM: @ the other skeptic

Just as politicians hide behind armed goons.

There is a simple solution to this: kill them, kidnap their children, torture them to death and broadcast the video on the internet. Make it cost prohibitive to confiscate guns.

You lack the courage to do what is necessary should it be required and I am pointing this out.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:42 AM: A possible rationale for registration is public safety.

"Public safety" is usually defined by women and effeminate men who think guns are icky and dangerous, you know...
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:42 AM: Asher is just viddying what to do with his ultra-violence.
Tad January 22, 2013 11:43 AM: @Rino

I'm sure when Tad is on the train to the nearest FEMA work camp he will be trying to justify it to everyone else around him.

This kind of comment is indicative of folks at your particular position in the political continuum. YOu worry about Fema work camps, black helicopters, confiscation of arms, etc.... But they don't exist.

One word: Paranoia.
Noah B. January 22, 2013 11:45 AM: "There is a simple solution to this: kill them, kidnap their children, torture them to death and broadcast the video on the internet. Make it cost prohibitive to confiscate guns."

Wheeler, is that you?
Josh January 22, 2013 11:45 AM: And by your logic and reasoning, I suppose generals Butler and his protege Shoup are also Communists?

Seriously Josh, are you truly that small-brained?

Hey man, you're the one concerned about capital accumulation by the very few. Sounds a bit like Marx, don't it?
Asher January 22, 2013 11:45 AM: @ Josh

Collective rights do not exist. Only individuals have rights.

Rights come from power, period. Individuals lack the power to assert rights. There are no individual rights without collective rights. The very concept of political self-determination is by definition a collective right.

Are you familiar with the foundational premise of liberalism? Individual autonomy. Individual rights IS liberalism. Collective rights IS conservatism.
stg58/Animal Mother January 22, 2013 11:45 AM: A pseudo intellectual is someone who uses rhetorical handwaving in place of arguments or who claims some sort of intellectual authority for themselves.

Exactly my point. You are so adept at describing yourself. MMM..bye.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:45 AM: Ok, so we've got four presumably different people calling for violence on this thread.

So says the slave.
RINO January 22, 2013 11:45 AM: This kind of comment is indicative of folks at your particular position in the political continuum. YOu worry about Fema work camps, black helicopters, confiscation of arms, etc.... But they don't exist.

One word: Paranoia.

Yep you'll be sitting there all shackled up to a wall informing all the other prisoners "hey there's precedent! The Japanese went to camps! The government can take my rights!"
Josh January 22, 2013 11:46 AM: Wheeler, is that you?

No, he didn't call for raping the toddlers.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:47 AM: Ok, so we've got four presumably different people calling for violence on this thread.

I think we're being mobied. This could also be an attempt to get us flagged as potential terrorists.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 22, 2013 11:49 AM: Ok, so we've got four presumably different people calling for violence on this thread.

Not violence, but ultra-violence.

They keep posting here instead of leading the charge, curious.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:49 AM: @ Signe

You think that the only appropriate form of recompense to any wrong between two people is immediate and lethal bloodshed. Is that correct?

In the last analysis, yes. Teen boys have shot their brothers over who gets to control the cable remote. In practice, we try to manage ways to avoid getting to the point of lethal bloodshed, but the pure state of nature is lethal bloodshed in resolving all conflicts.

Thankfully, we have the function of human reason that allows us to find ways of living outside a state of pure nature.
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:49 AM: I think we're being mobied. This could also be an attempt to get us flagged as potential terrorists.

So said the Founders.
Cogitans Iuvenis January 22, 2013 11:49 AM: What major injustice against society, morality, America itself, or even God the ALmighty has anyone in the last 40 years actually taken up arms to fight against the government

There were instances of violents during the civil rights movement of the 1960s and many individuals like to forget that Malcom X was a firebrand and that if certain events had gone differntly it could have turned into an insurrection.

Never underestimate a persons ability to lash out when they have had enough. Some cultures are more tolerant towards despotism, such as Russia, but everyone has limits. Assuming that the American spirit hasn't degraded too far, the threshold point to violence is lower than you think. You also need to remember that the United States had the benefit of a vast open country were individuals sick of government meddling could retreat to. We also had major world engagements such as WWII and the Cold War that significantly occupied the governments time, and the ire of the people. That open country no longer exists today and there is no real geopolitical item that demands our attention like it did back then. This country could very well see some internal bloody infighting. I say that as someone who has said numerous times on VDs blog that I do not want to see this sort of thing and that the end result would be disasterous, so I am not one of those arm coat revolutionaries giddy at the chance of slinging some lead towards Mr. Fed.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:50 AM: Are you familiar with the foundational premise of liberalism? Individual autonomy. Individual rights IS liberalism. Collective rights IS conservatism.

Can I sue this guy for the damage my desk did to my forehead?
Asher January 22, 2013 11:50 AM: @ Signe

By the way, didn't it used to be a killing offense to call someone a coward?

That it isn't indicates a nation of cowards. You're making my case, not yours.
ajw308 January 22, 2013 11:51 AM: Isn't packing two guns called "The New York Reload"?

With mag limits, I've heard that New Yorkers who carry are upgrading to .45.

As it is, this effort to limit guns is driving sales up in NY.
stg58/Animal Mother January 22, 2013 11:51 AM: You know, in every one of these "militia" or "extremist" groups that gets caught with grenades or explosives and plans to use them, the federal agent was always the one promoting the violence, handing out the bombs, then sitting back and watching the suckers run out into the arms of the law.

Just Saying.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:52 AM: Individual rights IS liberalism. Collective rights IS conservatism.

Now that does sound like Wheeler.

So, where are all these conservatives lining up to support collective rights like women's rights, gay right's, minority rights, etc?
Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 11:52 AM: Are you familiar with the foundational premise of liberalism? Individual autonomy. Individual rights IS liberalism. Collective rights IS conservatism.

Can I sue this guy for the damage my desk did to my forehead?

So said Thomas Jefferson.
Nate January 22, 2013 11:52 AM: VD...

I think its about time to monitoring some particular IP addresses.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:53 AM: the federal agent was always the one promoting the violence, handing out the bombs, then sitting back and watching the suckers run out into the arms of the law.

Bingo
Noah B. January 22, 2013 11:54 AM: "I think its about time to monitoring some particular IP addresses."

Agreed.
Signe January 22, 2013 11:54 AM: In the last analysis, yes. Teen boys have shot their brothers over who gets to control the cable remote. In practice, we try to manage ways to avoid getting to the point of lethal bloodshed, but the pure state of nature is lethal bloodshed in resolving all conflicts.

Thankfully, we have the function of human reason that allows us to find ways of living outside a state of pure nature.

(LoA, answer this yourself! I'm not going Shakespearean on his butt no matter how much you insist you're too busy!)
Stilicho January 22, 2013 11:54 AM: No real surprise here: Ponnuru still hates liberty

A Catholic statist is still a statist.
Josh January 22, 2013 11:54 AM: I think its about time to monitoring some particular IP addresses

I second this.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:55 AM: @ Signe

You're kind of stupid, you know that?

How so? I simply pointed out that if God is the source of all rights then only he is necessary and sufficient to enforce those rights. You don't need to do anything, at all, just sit back and let God protect your rights.

My statement was intended as irony. Your rights do not come from God, which was my point, but from the ability to enforce those rights. You want to base your rights in some "higher power" because you lack the courage to enforce your rights, which was the entire point I was making.
Nate January 22, 2013 11:56 AM: You're absolutely right Asher. You're the only one that isn't a coward.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:56 AM: @ Tad

I have no desire to see guns confiscated.

You're lying.
Asher January 22, 2013 11:57 AM: @ Signe

No.

Why not?

You're going to have to refresh my memory, as this thread has gotten long. To what "no" are you referring?