ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Molon labe, m------------

Karl Denninger and his readers echo Leonidas:

"President Obama has said that his push to effectively delete the Second Amendment will face "significant resistance."  It is time to show him and those in Congress how much resistance there is for any sort of additional gun bans and/or registration requirements in a peaceful and lawful manner.  Print copies of this and dispatch them to your Congresspeople, The White House, and staple them to telephone poles and other locations across the country."

This image should be placed everywhere that will remind everyone Americans will never, ever, lay down their guns or accept any limits on their right to bear arms.  The politicians are hopelessly out of touch and they have no idea just how significant American resistance will be or they wouldn't dream of even hinting at the subject.  I find it very hard to believe they will be foolish enough to declare war on the American people and attempt to forcibly disarm them, but if they do pursue that war, they damn sure are not going to win it.

No limits.  No restrictions.  No laws.  Nothing that infringes, even in the smallest and most seemingly sensible way, on the right to bear arms.  No compromise.

Labels:

263 Comments:

1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Shimshon January 02, 2013 4:07 AM  

They might try another "assault weapon" ban a la 1994, but just a "little" more restrictive (for the children, of course!). Even though people won't like it, and it just moves things closer to the outright ban the elites really want, as long as already-bought weapons are grandfathered, I doubt there will be much actual unrest. Sadly.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie January 02, 2013 4:11 AM  

They won't dare?

How soon we forget. No one thought they could jam something like Obamacare down our throats. How's that working out for YA?

HKC

Anonymous Feh January 02, 2013 4:15 AM  

You: Molon Labe!

Obama: OK, we will!

Anonymous mongo January 02, 2013 4:16 AM  

All it would take is all serious Americans in the greater DC area to march on Washington bearing their arms. Not a cop would dare confront them.

Only one problem. It would never happen.

Blogger Mr. Naron January 02, 2013 4:28 AM  

I'm sure I can get my hands on a surplus amount of t-shirts with that logo on them. That was my football team's motto for two years until we switched to "Blue Steel". As you can imagine, I had a hard time distinguishing that from Le Tigre.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 4:49 AM  

I would prefer some Patrick Henry English language myself. But heck if may make people think. Maybe the news media will translate for them? that could be cool especially to young folk.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag January 02, 2013 4:53 AM  

Do you mean to tell me, VD2718, that you not only approve extremely massive weapons on unimaginable death, destruction, and harm to be in the hands of recidivists and agitators, but that you would encourage them to deface the camp, nailing these "99" theses on government (that is to say, all) property? At such a internationally perilous time as this, with our enemies watching, waiting for the next list to be read to our shame? I do not think the Sovfilm starlets can shed any more tears than they did the last round of public service announcements - and in any case, they cannot, since they were all found guilty of having ties to the former bourgeoisie and have had their lacrimal glands removed, the lying bastards... but that is beside the point. The point being - how could you?!

I shall hope that the inevitable dactylectomy administered will not interfere with your writing endeavors. It is for your own safety, you understand; but more importantly, for the good of the camp.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 4:54 AM  

This is better or just as good, us either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_Flag_Come_and_Take_It.svg

Anonymous HongKongCharlie January 02, 2013 5:06 AM  

"Well done to Obama."

The inane rambling of moms precious cellar dweller.

HKC

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 02, 2013 5:13 AM  

People think only right-wing people use guns.

Dude, where have you BEEN? Black Panthers, anyone?

Put down the Starbucks triple grande non-fat sugar-free vanilla latte and walk away slowly...

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 5:16 AM  

Kommandant

Yeah Volt (My German is real bad, no non existent, other than redneck Budweiser) Keep up the good work while anon cowards spray skunk puss in Boehners (see how bad my German is) mouth.

I tell you what if those people in congress got a sack they will booger this real fast. Whether they do or not is their concern, not mine. They are going to end me anyway. Told me so in as few words.

Watch whom you go to work for.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 5:23 AM  

"Put down the Starbucks triple grande non-fat sugar-free vanilla latte and walk away slowly..."

You forgot the the free ranging chicken and tofu.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 6:11 AM  

And buy fight I mean actual real risk of prison and shoot back fight

Bad grammar, it is not "buy", it is "by"

Okay, now grammar lessons. "Buy" means to purchase something or believe a story and "by" means beside something and "bye" means well...

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 6:17 AM  

Tough talk by citizens. If the cops come to each individuals home on a case by case confiscation order, I doubt few will offer up armed resistance. The smart thing for gun folks would be to conglomerate into their own communities, like golfers do.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 6:28 AM  

The smart thing for gun folks would be to conglomerate into their own communities, like golfers do.

With carts and Ice cold beer I hope. That would be the dumbest thing ever to do, but since I ain't planning to be around go put your guns in the golf bag now. Get a caddy and ask him which firearm to use.

If you thought Orson Wells radio broadcast was stupid scary just listen now.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 02, 2013 6:31 AM  

A young man lost it in SA a few years back, didn't have a gun and had to settle for killing a surprising number of fellow pupils with an ornamental-grade Katana. As in a mass-produced-in-China rip off.

Anonymous Rosalys January 02, 2013 6:45 AM  

I believe that Obama will try to provoke a civil war so that he can really crack down. He must know that there is a sizable number of Americans who will not give up their protection. He will push until someone fires the first shot (the first shot may actually be fired by a gubmint guy but that won't count). Then he'll just smile that toothy grin of his while he imposes martial law. Heil Obummer!

Anonymous OCS January 02, 2013 6:48 AM  

Somewhat OT, but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html

Fucking. Insane.

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Cool story bro. How about we round up you and a bunch of your warped armchair-thinking propaganda-priests and treat you all as if the Constitution doesn't apply. I guess the forfeit of a constitutionally-guaranteed prohibition of excessive bail and cruel & unusual punishment might indicate some hot, kinky fetish that I don't want to be made particularly aware of.

Anonymous Chromoly Man January 02, 2013 7:11 AM  

The strategy of keeping your right by proving that you deserve to have it because you are reasonable, and proving that you are reasonable by being open to sensible compromises, leads to the extinction of the right.

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA
http://tinyurl.com/2etbd3

Struggle over every detail. Be vigilant and unyielding. Never strive to be a "good guy" in the eyes of those who want to take your rights.

Anonymous Anonymous January 02, 2013 7:13 AM  

i have said the same thing. do not register, license, or in any way give the government information about your guns. all restrictions on gun ownership violate the second amendment.

Anonymous RedJack January 02, 2013 7:27 AM  

The cops and soldiers will follow orders, and most if not all will turn in their guns.

History is a rather harse guide here. Once a few "incidents" are shown in the meida, people will roll over.

And gun registration is already here. They know if you have one, even if it is off the books. Now back tracking it to each person isn't worth it, yet. But if the State feels like they want to, they can.

I have extended family in law enforcement and the fedgov. Trust me, they know if you have a gun even if you paid for it in cash on a private sale.

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 7:29 AM  

If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate.

We'll just have to settle for self-governing then!

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 7:32 AM  

The states have an ace up their sleeves. Based on the militia interpretation, a state could raid it's own armory and outfit a citizen militia with military hardware, as the Swiss do. They could even do a gun swap program: if you turn in your AR-15, you receive your fully auto M-16 free. Otherwise there is some fee to defray the cost.

Blogger Breadbasket January 02, 2013 7:43 AM  

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is going to introduce an assault weapons ban in lame duck which includes, "All semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well"

http://www.redstate.com/scotts/2013/01/01/cullerton-to-introduce-near-total-gun-ban-on-january-2nd/

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 7:48 AM  

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is going to introduce an assault weapons ban...
Shocking. Illinois Senate 6th District is a wealthy area of North Chicago.

Anonymous Stilicho January 02, 2013 7:53 AM  

Our government has a new motto: No representation without confiscation.

Anonymous FrankNorman January 02, 2013 7:58 AM  

Where's Wheeler?

Anonymous jack January 02, 2013 8:04 AM  

@Roundime:
I like Roundtime's idea. There is even some chance for it to be implemented in some of the red states. Of course, the federal's move would be to station troops and/or confiscate all state armories. If you see that happening then its belt tightening time....

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 8:13 AM  

Outlaw
The typical texan and his over inflated sense of rugged individualism. I'm sure your visions of holding off a battalion with your pimped out AR are awesome. Probaly taking place with bon jovi"s blaze of glory blaring through your dre beats.

There is strength in numbers, only in hollywood does the loner stand a chance, but you're different, good luck snowflake.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 02, 2013 8:16 AM  

"RedJack January 02, 2013 7:27 AM
...
I have extended family in law enforcement and the fedgov. Trust me, they know if you have a gun even if you paid for it in cash on a private sale."



I'd like to hear how they know this. Please, enlighten us.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 8:20 AM  

"The typical texan and his over inflated sense of rugged individualism. I'm sure your visions of holding off a battalion with your pimped out AR "

I don't have an AR I gave mine away to the homeless years ago. Who said I have an AR, Oh, wait, Air Rifle, sorry, do have one of those and the grackles fear me. I can just peak out the door at my tomatoes and they cower in fear Jerry.

Anonymous Van Jonson January 02, 2013 8:21 AM  

TLM,

Your type will fight to be the first one on the train and demand to be given favor when standing in the gas chamber line..

History repeats.

Anonymous Rosalys January 02, 2013 8:28 AM  

RedJack, I just don't believe that the government forces are omniscient. There are probably registered firearms out there that they will lose track of. Don't count on it but it's probably true. Even Satan, though he's probably really good at reading body language (he's had several millennia of practice) can't read minds.

Anonymous Miserman January 02, 2013 8:32 AM  

I quote the movie "Equilibrium":

“How would you say would be the easiest way to take a weapon away from a Grammaton Cleric? You ask him for it.”

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 8:38 AM  

VJ
When the shtf it be interesting to know how many of internet tough guys, doomsday preppers, and members of the "I own an AR, so now I'm a warrior" types shit their pants and raise the white flag after the first volley rips through their front door, kids screaming, the family's fraking out, or i guessyou didnt think about that when you were putting your Magpul furniture on your over priced under powered AR. But damn it looks cool!!!

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 8:42 AM  

"There is strength in numbers, only in hollywood does the loner stand a chance, but you're different, good luck snowflake."

Stand a chance to what? Survive? Or do some damage?

you're thinking exactly backwards here. There is strength in numbers... but there is invisibility to individuals.

The US military absolutely sucks at 4G warfare. Give them a good straight up fight... and they will rape you.

now... instead... imagine 1 million well armed splinter cells... all over the country. All doing their own thing. no communication. No links to follow. They catch and kill one.. there is no trail or intel to follow to lead to the next. There is no bigger fish.

There are just 999,999 more individuals out there... sniping... blowing things up... creating havoc. and probably getting up and going to work the next day like everything is fine.

that is the nightmare friend. No agency has any answer for that.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 8:46 AM  

i guessyou didnt think about that when you were putting your Magpul furniture on your over priced under powered AR. But damn it looks cool!!!

Unlike you we see the engine and not the hood ornaments and therefore don't need AN "AR" DUMB ASS. Go back to The Intrepid report or wherever it is you live. NY. How's that Sandy hurricane relief working out for those dumb asses?

Anonymous RINO January 02, 2013 8:48 AM  

that is the nightmare friend. No agency has any answer for that.

They will find them all eventually with drone surveillance.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 8:51 AM  

Vox, The Nation is dividing fast. I just don't get it, why bother me? I never hurt a soul, but this bastard hopes "battalions' will come for me and make my children scream. Too bad I ain't got none! He will scream in Hell.

Anonymous VD January 02, 2013 8:53 AM  

When the shtf it be interesting to know how many of internet tough guys, doomsday preppers, and members of the "I own an AR, so now I'm a warrior" types shit their pants and raise the white flag after the first volley rips through their front door, kids screaming, the family's fraking out, or i guessyou didnt think about that when you were putting your Magpul furniture on your over priced under powered AR.

Sure, of course most of them will. Meanwhile, millions of other gun owners will have been put on notice that they are next. Why do you think they will simply wait for the next attack to be launched on them? And once it is demonstrated that their homes and families are not inviolate, why do you think the homes and families of those attacking them will be?

No sensible government concerned for its own survival would ever pursue this direction. The problem is that the present one is so clueless, self-deluded, and short-sighted that they might well inadvertently launch a war they would never knowingly elect to start. The evil of the anti-gun forces is well known, the limits of their idiocy are not.

Anonymous VD January 02, 2013 8:57 AM  

They will find them all eventually with drone surveillance.

Before the drone operators are found? The US military can't pacify Afghanistan with their forces locked up in bases. How are they going to do that in a domestic civil war; move every government agent and his extended family to a secure location?

Hmmmm, perhaps we have this whole FEMA camp thing precisely backwards....

Anonymous RINO January 02, 2013 9:03 AM  

Before the drone operators are found? The US military can't pacify Afghanistan with their forces locked up in bases. How are they going to do that in a domestic civil war; move every government agent and his extended family to a secure location?

Drones would likely not be the only phase of gun confiscation, and also would likely not be the opening phase. They could easily start with sending in regular law enforcement (the "being nice" option), then if they wanted it really bad they could send in foreigners via the UN which would explain the small arms treaty + China/Russia demanding confiscation. The drones can clean up whatever is left.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 9:08 AM  

"When the shtf it be interesting to know how many of internet tough guys, doomsday preppers, and members of the "I own an AR, so now I'm a warrior" types shit their pants and raise the white flag after the first volley rips through their front door, kids screaming, the family's fraking out, or i guessyou didnt think about that when you were putting your Magpul furniture on your over priced under powered AR."

How you forget how many millions of retired military there are out there. Hell one of our regulars is an honest to God SEAL. I suppose he is one of those AR warriors too right?

Look... I agree with you. 99% of gun owners will not fight back initially. Probably only the top 1% will... But if you think the top 1% most extreme most well armed gun owners are a bunch of mallcop AR fanboys you're out of your mind.

They will fight. They will be effective. the response will be brutal... and that response will create a massive wave from the other gun owners... as Vox explained. Instead of the top 1%... it will be the top 5%... and so on.

There aren't enough secret service in the world to protect the government officials 24/7.

As soon as the first family is executed in their homes... then government officials become targets in their homes as well.

How many representatives and senators will have to die before it all falls apart?

Not many. they are cowards. As soon as they realize that their ivory towers are not-so-out-of-reach as they thought... they will tuck their tails.

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 9:14 AM  

Outlaw
NY, surely you jest! Back before all my guns were lost in a freak boating accident, I likely had more than you. I just laugh at the "I'm gonna stand tall " bravado coming from people that have likely never been under enemy fire. And yes after carrying the A2 for 4 years, I'm no fan of the AR or its cult followers. I see these wannabes at the range, they are, for the most part, inept, careless, and too busy peacocking their useless furniture.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 9:14 AM  

"They will find them all eventually with drone surveillance."

You clearly have no idea how big the US actually is.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 9:15 AM  

We freaking lost an F-16 in colorado... but they are going to track down individual gun owners that are highly motivated to not be found?

ok.

sure.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 9:17 AM  

Also...

You folks are thinking in terms of the US military. it won't be military. It will be police... and ATF will be on point.

QUICK!!

Name an agency with a greater history of incompetence than the ATF. remember? This is the group that literally got its ass kicked in a fire fight with a bunch of untrained texans... and had to surrender.

Yes. That happened. Waco. The initial attack... the ATF ended up pinned behind the cattle trailer and actually ran out of ammo and surrendered.

The idiots just let them leave.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 9:29 AM  

Outlaw
NY, surely you jest! Back before all my guns were lost in a freak boating accident, I likely had more than you. I just laugh at the "I'm gonna stand tall " bravado coming from people that have likely never been under enemy fire. And yes after carrying the A2 for 4 years, I'm no fan of the AR or its cult followers. I see these wannabes at the range, they are, for the most part, inept, careless, and too busy peacocking their useless furniture.


I guess you never met a southron gentlemen who shot 4 hogs with a bolt action rifle at 400 yards running. F*ck the AR, and stop masturbating about killing good folks or you will find yourself in the same hole.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 9:31 AM  

"Name an agency with a greater history of incompetence than the ATF."

They are good at starting fires and killing children.

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 9:33 AM  

TLM: "...all my guns were lost in a freak boating accident..."

Were the professor and Mary Ann ok?

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 9:37 AM  

Outlaw
you sound agitated, like a woman. How will you keep your cool under fire if you cant stop your hormones from giving you the vapors on an internet forum.

Anonymous paradox January 02, 2013 9:40 AM  

They are destined to lose for one unalterable reason: We have the numbers, and they don't. If only 1% of American gunowners are left to fight for liberty, that would mean 2,400,000 guns in the hands of 750,000 Patriots fighting a guerrilla war on their own territory. Think of it this way: even if the USG were ever 99% successful, it still leaves nearly 21 times the IRA's per capita numbers that has fought the British empire to a standstill for generations. (I am not championing the IRA or its terrorism. I'm only noting the historical fact that a handful of riflemen can mire whole armies.) So, please, enough whining about future gun confiscation efforts-they cannot succeed!(1)

(1) Boston T. Party, Boston's Gun Bible (revised) (Colorado: Javelin Press, 2002), 39/10

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 9:40 AM  

Porky
It was gilligan's fault. He was too high and dropped them over side.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 02, 2013 9:41 AM  

"TLM January 02, 2013 8:13 AM

Outlaw
The typical texan and his over inflated sense of rugged individualism. I'm sure your visions of holding off a battalion with your pimped out AR are awesome. Probaly taking place with bon jovi"s blaze of glory blaring through your dre beats.

There is strength in numbers, only in hollywood does the loner stand a chance, but you're different, good luck snowflake.
"





Yes, there is strength in numbers. But a subject people without heavy weapons stand no chance against a government with heavy weapons. A subject people must revert to 4th gen warfare if they hope to outlast and wear down the tyrants.

Here is what I'm talking about. You move into your all gun owner suburb. The feds know who lives there, everything they need is easily data-mined.

They see your neighborhood as a tough nut. Instead of using police or infantry they carpet bomb it or lob some artie rounds on it. They don't even put eyeballs on it, they just examine it from sensing platforms and order the strikes based on geographic coordinates. I wouldn't be surprised if every area with a certain level of potential resistance has already been targeted and strike mission plans created for the drones.


Now, if all those people lived apart from one another, some of them will get caught up in a weapons confiscation sweep but the others will get warning and bug out or stash their weapons or both. They will live to fight another day.

4th generation warfare doesn't have stand up fights because survivors are not stupid.

The government has stand-off weapons until they run out of them. The people have numbers but concentrating their force makes them vulnerable to the stand-off weapons. Therefore the people strike in small ways at a million different places. They don't give the government forces anything of substance to latch onto. It's all stick and hide. They bleed the bull.

The government occasionally gets frustrated and lashes out to try to intimidate the people. The longer it goes on the more people have some relatives get stomped on when the gov forces lash out. This recruits more into the resistance.

The only historically proven way of winning against a superior military is a native insurgency that goes after weak points and outlives the occupation. Mostly it is about crippling supply lines. An army can't fight if it doesn't eat. Guns eat bullets, soldiers eat food, vehicles eat fuel. You take those things away and it doesn't matter how well trained that army is or how well equipped, it won't fight without food, fuel and bullets.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 9:42 AM  

"Outlaw
you sound agitated, like a woman. How will you keep your cool under fire if you cant stop your hormones from giving you the vapors on an internet forum."

I duuno, just have to piss my pants when you walk through the door. will you at least greet me before you open your can of Yankee whoop ass on me?

Looks like you want to make it PERSONAL!

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 9:44 AM  

Ah Never mind, we still got some turkey and ham left, come on down and let's be friends.

Anonymous Susan January 02, 2013 9:45 AM  

Remember that NY newspaper that ran with the information on legal gun owners? Well evidently the pushback has scared the crap out of them and they have chosen armed guards for their building.

I think if they would have pulled this stunt 10 years ago, people would have not reacted so badly. But now they are so scared of what the future may hold for them that they are finally pushing back in the only way they know how.

It made me think of the difference in people. Thinking people who are aware of what is going on around them are scared and angry. The libs at this paper not only don't have a clue as to what is going on around them, they can't understand their reader's anger at what they did.

So the paper reached for guns. Ironic and amusing. I do believe that Nate is correct on his point regarding the police and ATF. Although I think it was brilliant on the Waco folks part to let the ATF leave. Sort of like the big guy who has his fanny handed to him by a scrawny girl. You guys are still finding amusement at the ATF's expense decades later. And it proved to the world that they weren't some kind of knuckle draggers out to kill. The ATF was.

Anonymous Wendy January 02, 2013 9:47 AM  

Should the registration pass, I foresee a slew of boating accidents...

Anonymous Susan January 02, 2013 9:47 AM  

This post is like a belated Christmas present for Wheeler. I also can't believe he hasn't shown up yet. Maybe he is still in shock on the floor.

Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 9:47 AM  

Waco- a group of like minded individuals living together successfully making the ATF look like fools. Strength in numbers. When stopped fighting and started negotiating is when they lost the edge. A fatal error it turned out to be.

Ruby Ridge-rugged individual loses badly. Wins lawsuit but wife and son are dead.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 02, 2013 9:49 AM  

Should the registration pass, I foresee a slew of boating accidents...

Wendy it won't be boating accidents.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 02, 2013 9:50 AM  

When whole families are slaughtered and/or hauled off to camp by gun confiscators, all bets are off on their own families.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 9:55 AM  

@Vox Day

The Nuts and Dolts on the Right constantly set themselves up in opposition to the will of the American people, to common sense, and to the constitution. Why a smart guy like you would throw you lot in with the Nuts and Dolts astounds me.

And why in order to make your "case" must you misconstrue the facts on the ground. No proposal is asking you to relinquish any of the arms you own.

Further, in come right out and suggest that Americans "will never accept any limits on the right to bare arms". But of course they will. They have for decades and they do now and their is no war over it. In fact there is no uprising over the ban on automatic weapons.

And yet there you are suggesting that any and all weapons ought to be protected under the second amendment.

Tell me Vox Day, would you support a requirement that your Surface to Air missiles be locked up when not in use? What about your small tactical nuclear arms. Would you support a requirement that they not be left in the open in the house? How about a law that all owners of nuclear arms must register their weapons, or at least the fissionable material that makes them function? Finally, I assume you don't support the ban on the sale of nuclear weapons at gun shows.

Please tell us that you don't wonder why so many people like you are labeled as nuts and dolts.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 02, 2013 9:55 AM  

I foresee a slew of boating accidents...

Stupid move.

"You lost your guns in a boating accident? Oh, okay. Well, have a nice day them."

Off to the camp you go anyhow.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:00 AM  

@Vox Day

Before the drone operators are found? The US military can't pacify Afghanistan with their forces locked up in bases. How are they going to do that in a domestic civil war; move every government agent and his extended family to a secure location?

Oh my! Not only do yo seem to be suggesting that the current attempt to regulate arms will cause a civil war, but that your rebel army will take control of drones.

I have to ask....are you playing out a scenario for a new science fiction novel? What role will the Elves play in the coming Second American Civil War?

Anonymous Anonymous January 02, 2013 10:02 AM  

Shut up, Tad.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 02, 2013 10:04 AM  

Pow.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. – Proverbs 22:6

They are.

Anonymous Susan January 02, 2013 10:05 AM  

The only flaw I have ever been able to see for our side is in the area of communication. The feds could roll up an area tight and seal it before our side hears what's going on and can go into action. Even down on the lowest of local levels, there are contengency plans for every situation. Not a gamer, just noted this from observation and reading the past number of years.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 02, 2013 10:07 AM  

Susan, how many of them do you think there are?

Blogger Hamilton January 02, 2013 10:08 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:12 AM  

@Nate

There are just 999,999 more individuals out there... sniping... blowing things up... creating havoc. and probably getting up and going to work the next day like everything is fine.

that is the nightmare friend. No agency has any answer for that.


Of course there is an answer to that, Nate: Reality.

No one in their right mind believes and assault weapons ban will be met with anything other than political opposition. You Nuts and Dolts so misread the American electorate. You misreading of what will happen stems from the same thing that led Vox Day to always get his election predictions wrong: You constantly misread the will and disposition of the vast number of Americans.

Blogger Hamilton January 02, 2013 10:14 AM  

I'm not aware of any serious attempts to propose legislation that would give authorities the right to confiscate guns from rightful owners. I see some half-hearted attempts to ban assualt rifles, which is bad enough, but don't go off the deep end people. You sound crazy and nobody pays any mind to crazy people. Address the real issue and don't go all nutso and start pondering civil wars and ATF vs. Next Door Joe. Get a grip.

Anonymous Stilicho January 02, 2013 10:14 AM  

You folks are thinking in terms of the US military. it won't be military. It will be police... and ATF will be on point.

Indeed. Those police forces exist solely for the purpose of suppressing and preying upon the citizenry. This will not be a new mission for them, merely a small expansion of the scope of their existing enterprise.

I wonder when the NY Journal News will publish a list of the names and addresses of all of the armed cops withing those areas? After all, if guns kill...

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:19 AM  

@Nate:

Look... I agree with you. 99% of gun owners will not fight back initially. Probably only the top 1% will... But if you think the top 1% most extreme most well armed gun owners are a bunch of mallcop AR fanboys you're out of your mind.

Fight back against what? A ban on Assault Rifles? A ban on high capacity magazines? That's what is going to rile up the Nuts and Dolts of the 1%? Man, what world do you live in?

The first nut that goes out shooting up something or some people in response to a re-authorization of a gun ban is going to witness the full force of public opinion come screaming down on them. This alone will turn the 1% into the .00001%.

Man....find a new tin foil hat.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:23 AM  

@Hamilton

If you walk around the woods long enough and keep your eyes peeled, you'll eventually come across a bee hive or an ant hill. They aren't that common. So when you see one, you stop in your tracks and go, "Wow....look at that crazy thing...", then you slowly back away.

What you are looking at here is the equivalent of an Internet ant hill. It's rare. It's crazy. It's all piled up on top of itself.

Anonymous Daniel January 02, 2013 10:24 AM  

Yes. That happened. Waco. The initial attack... the ATF ended up pinned behind the cattle trailer and actually ran out of ammo and surrendered.

Never, ever, let this be forgotten. The ATF went in on a warrant that the Davidians might be in possession of legal arms that could possibly have been modified to automatic status.

Of course, the legal weapons weren't likely modified (except quite easily by the feds when they brought their case), and aside from the obviously planted grenades and some plumbing materials brought forward as "silencer" making materials, it is fairly certain that the equipment the Davidians had on hand were legal semi- and automatic weapons. Hell, they operated a legal gun trade business for income!

So, an ATF "prepares" to go to war against a military-grade army in a facility smaller than an elementary school, and instead gets their asses whipped by some families with legal weapons fired in self-defense.

If they couldn't take down that mom and pop gun store, what makes Obama think they are going to walk into even one Wal-Mart, much less the thousands around the country, and not get their spiffy kevlar brownshirts turned to ribbons?

These guys prep to take over Bolivia and end up surrendering to Jennifer Grey.

Anonymous Daniel January 02, 2013 10:26 AM  

Hamilton
I'm not aware

I agree with this completely, man. You aren't.

Anonymous RINO January 02, 2013 10:28 AM  

I'm not aware of any serious attempts to propose legislation that would give authorities the right to confiscate guns from rightful owners.

Alex Jones and Matt Drudge say they are coming for our guns. Would they lie?

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 10:29 AM  

The bottom line of Tad's argument is "Slippery slope? What in the world is a slippery slope?? There's no such thing as a slippery slope! I've never heard of a slippery slope before! Slippery slope?!?! Seriously?? You guys are nuts if you think there's such a thing as a slippery slope!! For real?? Slippery slope???"



Anonymous JartStar January 02, 2013 10:29 AM  

Not only will there be further gun restrictions, they will get shockingly more restrictions then people expect. However he does it Obama keeps beating Republicans at every turn, and the biggest mistake I’ve seen the right making over the last five years is underestimating him. The second largest mistake by the Right is overestimating American’s desire for liberty over perceived security.

The idea of an actual shooting war over an assault weapons ban is laughable. The average US gun owner is nowhere near desperate enough to give up what they have in their nice suburban homes and cubicle jobs to start taking on the authorities.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 10:33 AM  

"Trust me, they know if you have a gun even if you paid for it in cash on a private sale."

Pure bullshit, RedJack.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 10:35 AM  

"You constantly misread the will and disposition of the vast number of Americans."

The vast majority of Americans, apparently including you, have made themselves totally irrelevant.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 10:38 AM  

" The ATF went in on a warrant that the Davidians might be in possession of legal arms that could possibly have been modified to automatic status."

Hold on now... its actually much worse than that. David Koresh was a licensed Class III weapons dealer. They knew he had full auto weapons. He sold them. He was licensed to have them.

They raided him... because of the supposed failure to pay one 300 dollar stamp on one rifle.

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 10:39 AM  

Few are willing to die to seize guns.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:39 AM  

@Porky

"Slippery slope? What in the world is a slippery slope?? There's no such thing as a slippery slope

There WAS a ban on assault weapons. But it went away. What happened to THAT slippery slope.

Obama was elected and would take away guns, they said. He didn't. In fact, he signed a bill allowing concealed weapons in National Parks. What happened to that slippery slope?

Porky...not every slope is slippery.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad January 02, 2013 10:40 AM  

Another business day, another Tad.

Shutup,Tad.

Blogger James Dixon January 02, 2013 10:40 AM  

> ...you'll eventually come across a bee hive or an ant hill. They aren't that common.

Ant hills aren't common? What woods do you go wandering in?

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 10:41 AM  

Yep. It was intended to be a major PR victory for the ATF, rescuing children from a crazy cult with automatic weapons.

Instead, the ATF ended up getting shot to hell, their helicopter brought down by small arms fire, and they had to have the FBI come save their sorry asses. A lot more of them would have been killed if the Davidians had not allowed them to retreat.

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 10:41 AM  

Drudge had a good tweet today. 3500 dead today from abortion. No hysteria, no calls for bans, just business as usual.

Blogger Giraffe January 02, 2013 10:41 AM  

When the Schumer ever hits the fan, may I recommend the following strategy: Don't engage the thugs they send door to door if you don't have to. Shoot the ones that sent them. Start at the top, as high as you can reach, work your way down.

I believe it is called the "Christmas Card List" in the popular vernacular. They are building their list.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:41 AM  

@Noah

The vast majority of Americans, apparently including you, have made themselves totally irrelevant.

And yet, folk with opinions like mine keep winning the argument. You are falling into the same trap as Vox Day. Without any research or thought, you think you understand.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 10:41 AM  

"Fight back against what? A ban on Assault Rifles? A ban on high capacity magazines? That's what is going to rile up the Nuts and Dolts of the 1%? Man, what world do you live in?"

You blithering moron. This has nothing to do with high capacity magazines or cosmetic alterations to firearms.

its about confiscation.

To quote Diane Feinstein... "Mr and Mrs America turn them all in."

Anonymous JartStar January 02, 2013 10:42 AM  

It’s really surprising to me to see how many people here claim to read history, particularly military history, and have such a skewed view of how rebellions and civil wars take place. What’s even more surprising is the belief that a Che Guevara style rebellion insurgency would actually work. You do know that he lost, right?


Anonymous TLM January 02, 2013 10:44 AM  

Nate
How you forget how many millions of retired military there are out there. Hell one of our regulars is an honest to God SEAL......

After 4 years in the 82nd Airborne, I can say that there are some great guys and true warriors in the service and amongst the retired military community. However, many, if not a majority, were a bunch of shit birds, weirdos, shammers, and the truly detestable lifers(these assholes are in it for the govt bennies and nothing more). And at the end of day, a military retiree is nothing more than an a retired govt employee, all dependent on their income from Uncle Sugar. I doubt they'll be thrilled to leave their benefit guilded quarters to join the fight.

How come every Navy vet I meet is an Ex Seal? No one evr claims here served as a cook or gunner's mate. Strange.

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 10:44 AM  

"And yet, folk with opinions like mine keep winning the argument. "

And exactly what argument did you win? I note that gun control has been the deadest of dead political issues since well before 2004.

Its just as dead today. Hollywood's pathetic emotional appeals aside...

Blogger Nate January 02, 2013 10:45 AM  

"How come every Navy vet I meet is an Ex Seal? No one evr claims here served as a cook or gunner's mate. Strange. "

veriseal exists for a reason. use it.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 10:45 AM  

"And yet, folk with opinions like mine keep winning the argument."

Even if you win the argument -- which you're not -- you still lose. You have no significance at all. You have chosen to be passive and irrelevant. You are nothing.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:46 AM  

@Roundtine

Drudge had a good tweet today. 3500 dead today from abortion. No hysteria, no calls for bans, just business as usual.

3,500 dead what?

If you can't get a civil war going against this so-called holocaust, do you really think anything is going to happen on an assault weapons ban? Sheesh.

Americans support limited abortion right, and correctly I might add. That's not going to change. Neither is the American willingness to support commonsense bans on massively powerful weapons system in the hands of civilians.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:49 AM  

@Nate

its about confiscation.

Ah!! Why didn't you say so? That makes everything different. Now all I need to see is the federal bill that confiscates weapons. Got a link???

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 10:50 AM  

@Noah

You have chosen to be passive and irrelevant. You are nothing.

You mean instead of picking up a weapon and fighting the good fight; fighting for the right of possessing Surface to Air missiles and Nukes?

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 10:55 AM  

Neither is the American willingness to support commonsense bans on massively powerful weapons system in the hands of civilians.

They are already banned, as abortion is legal. So what are we talking about?

Anonymous Salt January 02, 2013 10:55 AM  

"Unintended Consequences, John Ross.

Read it!

Anonymous Susan January 02, 2013 10:57 AM  

How many of them what, Mr. Pea? If you are talking plans, I can only speak for where I live, and that is small town rural. With a Pastor who is a retired fire chief who would know what he is talking about when he says that the authorities have contingency plans for every situation.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 02, 2013 11:02 AM  

If they couldn't take down that mom and pop gun store, what makes Obama think they are going to walk into even one Wal-Mart, much less the thousands around the country, and not get their spiffy kevlar brownshirts turned to ribbons?

They will not send men in kevlar, they will send DoJ lawyers in suits. Much more effective if Wall-Mart wants to keep selling stuff to people.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 02, 2013 11:02 AM  

" JartStar January 02, 2013 10:42 AM

It’s really surprising to me to see how many people here claim to read history, particularly military history, and have such a skewed view of how rebellions and civil wars take place. What’s even more surprising is the belief that a Che Guevara style rebellion insurgency would actually work. You do know that he lost, right?"



Che was a commie. Which means he wanted to replace a sitting government with a commie government. Considering the number of commie governments in the Central and South America, in particular Cuba, you can't really say he was a failure.

He had outside help in every country he went to until the last one. In that one he was hunted down and killed specifically. He got no help from those he worked with in that instance. Apparently he had outlived his usefulness.

Good try on the reframe though.

Anonymous Pete January 02, 2013 11:03 AM  

I don’t see the feds going door to door collecting all guns. Would cost too much money, doesn’t look good on TV and they might lose a bunch of cops. More likely scenario is, they just make all guns illegal with the stroke of a pen - then, they just let you keep them.

What does the gov care if you have 10 rifles and 23 handguns, as long as they are locked in a hidden gun safe in the attic at all times, or buried in a hole in your backyard, rusting away?

The “gotcha moment” comes when you get home invaded and you defend yourself with a gun. Then the fangs appear and they get to pile all kinds of federal charges on you and you disappear into the prison system forever.

Such a law will not affect the black/hispanic population; when they shoot someone as part of a robbery or drug deal gone bad, they are ALREADY committing several crimes. Adding one more crime of firearm possession won’t matter to them. Like most Leftist control laws, this will only impact the (formerly law-abiding) white folks.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 02, 2013 11:06 AM  

With a Pastor who is a retired fire chief who would know what he is talking about when he says that the authorities have contingency plans for every situation.

Of course they have contingency plans.

Cities and counties with airports that land jets have to have contingency plans for an airliner crash. Have a railway line running through the county that transports hazardous material. Have to have a contingency plan for a hazardous materials spill/crash.

However, the contingency plans for things that have not happened for around 230 years are not likely to be very well rehearsed or very effective.

Anonymous Mina January 02, 2013 11:13 AM  

Debauching of the currency and disarming of citizens are two activities on the to-do list of every civilization facing a fall.

They are simply following the playbook.

Anonymous RINO January 02, 2013 11:15 AM  

To quote Diane Feinstein... "Mr and Mrs America turn them all in."

To quote Diane Feinstein .... 17 years ago?

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 11:20 AM  

Tad: "There WAS a ban on assault weapons. But it went away. What happened to THAT slippery slope."

Let's see...Dianne Feinstein is now proposing a more comprehensive weapons ban than her last one.

slip.......slip.........slip..............



Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 11:26 AM  

Porky...not every slope is slippery.

Doesn't have to be slippery if you push hard enough. 'Slope', not 'slippery', is the operative word, Tad - as in headed downward.

Who in 1973 would have thought that a sitting president (Obama) would support the killing of a live born child? Or that a sitting president (Clinton) would support ripping open a child's skull with forceps and sucking it's brains out with a vacuum?

Ludicrous, right?

Anonymous poodleshooter January 02, 2013 11:28 AM  

To quote Diane Feinstein... "Mr and Mrs America turn them all in."

To quote Diane Feinstein .... 17 years ago?


Is there any indication she has changed her mind in the last 17 years?

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 11:28 AM  

To quote Diane Feinstein .... 17 years ago?

This is why progressives succeed. Patience and determination.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 11:29 AM  

"With a Pastor who is a retired fire chief who would know what he is talking about when he says that the authorities have contingency plans for every situation."

How does he know that, from the discovery channel? Because he applied for a few federal grants?

I work with the federal government frequently, and what I mostly see are people who are barely capable of tying their own shoelaces, much less being prepared to implement "contingency plans for every situation."

Anonymous RINO January 02, 2013 11:32 AM  

Is there any indication she has changed her mind in the last 17 years?

Did she get her gun confiscation 17 years ago or any time since then? Will she now? The obvious answer is no because it won't be happening. Gun sales are at record highs, concealed carry has made gains in a large number of states, and public opinion is still very pro-gun after Newtown. All the busybodies have left to do is tweak various regulations one way or another.

Anonymous JartStar January 02, 2013 11:32 AM  

He had outside help in every country he went to until the last one.

Exactly. The Communist infrastructure was already being built, or was built by the time he arrived. Compare him to Mao and you will see that Mao succeeded. The problem with the Che style rebellion is the lack of infrastructure in its wake. Mao knew that if you close down the school of your enemy you build your own, if you blow up their hospital you replace it with yours, if you take out the opposing politicians you replace them with yours. You must rebuild as you tear down or the populace will never trust or accept you.

A radical libertarian rebellion has no hope of success as the enemy is the very idea of government and unless your ideal state is a quasi-feudal/warlord dream it won’t work. Libertarians don’t want any schools, hospitals, or much of any infrastructure unless it is built and controlled by businesses. To make this happen one would literally have to have millionaires and billionaires, who have a whole lot to lose, actively participate in the rebellion with the express intent on rebuilding the infrastructure on the flip side for a profit. Hell, Libertarians can’t even solve the problem of police and they will be the ones to usher in a new glorious age after TSHTF?

This is all just academic anyways as there is no taste for rebellion in the US, at least not yet. If the Preppers get their euphoric dream of the BIG CRASH in which they get to eat their canned goods and fend off thieves with their guns, maybe, just maybe we will see a rebellion but I’m still not convinced. Take a look at the unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. Is there any serious shooting going on? Catalonia may leave, but if it comes to bullets will they fight?

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 11:32 AM  

'The “gotcha moment” comes when you get home invaded and you defend yourself with a gun. Then the fangs appear and they get to pile all kinds of federal charges on you and you disappear into the prison system forever.'

That sounds about right to me, Pete. So what we have to recognize is that, if the government bans guns or magazines, they are banning self-defense.

The criminals that do house to house searches probably won't be the variety in uniform.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 02, 2013 11:33 AM  

I don’t see the feds going door to door collecting all guns. Would cost too much money, doesn’t look good on TV and they might lose a bunch of cops.

They will depend on their friends in the MSM not to report on it.

Of course, they will likely have to take down the phone systems as well when they move.

Blogger JohnG January 02, 2013 11:34 AM  

@Tad -

Actually automatic weapons aren't banned. Fingerprints, photo, lengthy form, $200 and a sherriff's signiture is all you need. They're not harder to buy then a silencer.

The surface to air missile and nuke argument is stupid. If you want a nuke and have $billions in disposable income, to pay for the R&D and development, then you'll get a nuke. Joe Citizen will never have one. Anybody that *really* wants a SAM can get one (I'd just go across the border and buy one from the ATF)...Libya just recently lost track of 40,000 of them by the way. Further, if the US went into an insurgency state, China, Russia and everybody else in the world we pissed off would be pumping them in...(like we did to the Russians in Afghanistan and are doing to Bashar Assad now). Afghan cavemen make high explosives in their homes that take out multimillion dollar vehicles every single day. All of that is to say, it's a bullsh*t arguement.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 02, 2013 11:35 AM  

I work with the federal government frequently, and what I mostly see are people who are barely capable of tying their own shoelaces, much less being prepared to implement "contingency plans for every situation."

Ahhh, but you've never worked with Seal Team Six, have you!

Blogger JohnG January 02, 2013 11:38 AM  

Thinking about this for a moment, soon the South American narco-trafficers will have a new money making opportunity! Selling automatic weapons to Americans. Hopefully they'll include some M72 LAW rockets. Light, small, good range, accurate. Would defeat any police, SWATT vehicle and most APC/AFVs.

Anonymous Mina January 02, 2013 11:50 AM  

So much for the theory that government thugs won't be going to door to door to confiscate weapons: Here's todays Illinois action alert from ISRA:

"CULLERTON TO INTRODUCE NEAR TOTAL GUN BAN ON JANUARY 2ND

The ISRA has learned from a credible source that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton will introduce a so called “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday ... Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday. If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.

Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution. "

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 11:54 AM  

@Mina

This is why registration is bad.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 02, 2013 11:55 AM  

CULLERTON TO INTRODUCE NEAR TOTAL GUN BAN ON JANUARY 2ND

While I certainly believe Cullerton & his ivory tower friends like the idea, there is dick chance of that happening as described.
Who is going to enforce it?

Anonymous patrick kelly January 02, 2013 12:00 PM  

"The states have an ace up their sleeves. Based on the militia interpretation, a state could raid it's own armory and outfit a citizen militia with military hardware, as the Swiss do. They could even do a gun swap program: if you turn in your AR-15, you receive your fully auto M-16 free. Otherwise there is some fee to defray the cost."

I recall soon after the 94' scary lookin' gun ban a Sheriff in Florida began deputizing inclined, qualified (anyone who could truthfully fill out a 4473 as legally permitted to purchase a firearm) citizens, complete with necessary paperwork enabling them to fulfill the letter of the law and purchase anything. Didn't get much MSM attention, wonder why?

Anonymous RedJack January 02, 2013 12:03 PM  

Are you/have you
-A member of the NRA or other gun rights organization?
-A member of a shooting club?
-Every hunted?
-Bought online any hunting or shooting gear?
-Bought any gear with a credit card or used a loyality card at a store?
-Frequent certain websites with shooting or hunting themes (or sites such as this one)?
-Bought a firearm from a FFL dealer?

There is a profile matrix. They can determine with a great deal of accuracy if you own a gun, and even if you own a rifle, shotgun, or pistol. And here is the rub.

That program was developed by ad companies to find customers. It is much better than anything the puzzle palace made up, and since it is mainly based on public information is perfectly legal (not that it will stop them). It is based on the same way you get shooting catalogs from places you have never ordered from.

It isn't an "active" thing, but they do keep tabs on then numbers of gun owners, and other indicators. Have for decades. With the Internet it got much easier. That doesn't mean that they are saying "Heh, RedJack has X." But the data is there. They can track it down to the individual very easily.

So saying your guns fell out of a boat will not work.

Anonymous Clay January 02, 2013 12:06 PM  

If the SHTF, one decided advantage the Goons will have is the prevalence of those damn surveillance cameras. I'll bet you I come within their purview 10 times a day. And I live & work in relatively rural Mississippi!

They're putting up more every day, too. They prolly have untold hours of footage on file of Tad servicing strangers at stop lights.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 12:16 PM  

"There is a profile matrix. They can determine with a great deal of accuracy if you own a gun, and even if you own a rifle, shotgun, or pistol. And here is the rub."

That isn't what you originally claimed. You said that if you bought a gun secondhand with cash, they would know about it. Now you've walked back your claim substantially, claiming only that the feds will have a pretty good idea of whether or not you're a gunowner.

"But the data is there. They can track it down to the individual very easily."

How, exactly? This strikes me as total horseshit. The government does have some scary awesome capabilities, but they are not all powerful and all knowing.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 12:20 PM  

@JohnG

The surface to air missile and nuke argument is stupid. If you want a nuke and have $billions in disposable income, to pay for the R&D and development, then you'll get a nuke.

Maybe. But what I note here is that you have not, sensibly, made the argument that the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on some right to possess a nuclear weapon or SAM. This indicates to me that you see at least SOME constitutional ability on the part of the people to regulate arms.

This sensible position seems to be in opposition to many here who believe, and I quote, "No limits. No restrictions. No laws. Nothing that infringes, even in the smallest and most seemingly sensible way, on the right to bear arms."

Congratulations on not volunteering for the Nuts And Dolts Brigade.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 12:24 PM  

"Maybe. But what I note here is that you have not, sensibly, made the argument that the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on some right to possess a nuclear weapon or SAM. This indicates to me that you see at least SOME constitutional ability on the part of the people to regulate arms."

Now you're making the very same slippery slope argument that you just got done trashing in order to claim that Congress should be able to ban "assault weapons." You lying, wretched piece of filth.

Anonymous Roundtine January 02, 2013 12:27 PM  

Don't feed the troll.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 02, 2013 12:28 PM  

"So saying your guns fell out of a boat will not work."

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe someone just wants to avoid handing over any firearms to gov't, and make sure they are in the hands of someone else who has the motivation, resources, and plan to actively and violently resist. This may result in prison or death, but the plan will have "worked".

If you are just trying to save your own cowardly, pussy skin, then just turn them all in or run to the most remote, dark hole you can find and wait it out with your cold hard steel. Won't have accomplished much good toward any other goal, but it's still a plan.

Of course there are multiple variations of plans between these extremes, but why actually put forth any genuine effort of thoughtful consideration what you can conveniently handle with an ignorant, bigoted, knee-jerk talking point?

Anonymous Daniel January 02, 2013 12:33 PM  

When Facebook bans Gandhi because of his stance on human freedom to curry favor with the Overlords, yes, there's nothing brewing here, nothing at all.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 02, 2013 12:37 PM  

" you have not, sensibly, made the argument that the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on some right to possess a nuclear weapon or SAM."

Hey Tard, show me the specific law passed by Congress that prohibits individuals form possessing a nuke or sam, I bet you can't find it.

Notice how all the meme-control crowd keep shifting goal posts and re-framing their straw. First it was they absolutely know if you ever bought a firearm through a no paperwork private sale, to well, they can probably figure it out through real smart computerized thinkin'.

First is was no-one is proposing confiscating any firearms we may own, to now it's well, it will never get enough support to actually happen.

Y'all go back to lickin' some thugs jack boots and leave the thoughtful and discourse and analysis to the dread ilk. Or at least eat some more Cerebral Wheaties until you are tall enough to ride. I know I need some.

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 12:53 PM  

I'd actually like to hear Tad's argument in defense of a nuke/SAM ban. It certainly won't be a constitutional one, but it should be full of hilarious weepy sentiment and concern about children and such.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey January 02, 2013 12:58 PM  

I and my wife have had one of these on each of our Glocks for the last couple of years.

MOLON LABE Chrome Slide Cover Plate

Anonymous Mina January 02, 2013 1:05 PM  

Noah B. (re: Registration):

"A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something, or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license."

(something I found in researching another topic I am involved in which also involves civil rights violations.)

Seems like gun registration could be included as "licensing" in the context of this statement, no?

The statement goes on to say:

"It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. Licensure is a taking by government without compensation. If you live in a city, town, municipality, county, or state that requires ... licensing, then the act of ... ownership has been made illegal without permission of government."

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 02, 2013 1:06 PM  

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

It seems it is time I make certain people a little proposal. Doubtless it will go over better this time.

Anonymous mina January 02, 2013 1:10 PM  

WinstonWebb: January 02, 2013 11:55 AM

Seems like there is some scuttle that there will be a voluntary "turn in" program after which our ownership of the guns will be declared "illegal" - some quarters are alluding to state-sponsored confiscations but that's mostly the lunatic fringe talking.

However, this is Illinois and they do have a history of being rapidly anti-2nd amendment. So probably best to be prepared for the worst than to get caught flat-footed and have the worse happen but be unprepared.

Just not sure on what "prepared" might mean right now. That is what I am currently weighing. Might need to go shopping tonight ... and not for a new pair of shoes.

Anonymous Dan in Tx January 02, 2013 1:12 PM  

The topic is small arms, not nuclear weapons or shoulder fired rockets. Nice try on the bait and switch though. Oh and .......

Shut Up Tad

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 02, 2013 1:19 PM  

mina,
It's not a matter of willpower for TPTB, it's a numbers issue.

Population of Illinois ~12.8M
# of Ill State Police ~3K

If 1/2 of all Ill. residents have a firearm, that's 6.4M gun owners. If 0.0468% (that 4.68 out of 10,000) attempts by State Police to disarm a resident are met with a shotgun blast to the face, the State will run out of agents before they finish their list.

Blogger ajw308 January 02, 2013 1:22 PM  

The smart thing for gun folks would be to conglomerate into their own communities, like golfers do.

I've always said that a golf course is a total waste of a perfectly good rifle range.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:28 PM  

@Noah


Now you're making the very same slippery slope argument that you just got done trashing in order to claim that Congress should be able to ban "assault weapons." You lying, wretched piece of filth.


No, I'm reiterating the case that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit sensible regulations of arms.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 02, 2013 1:34 PM  

Tad January 02, 2013 1:28 PM
No, I'm reiterating the case that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit sensible regulations of arms.


Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Tad,
Aside from the mentioned "time of war", when else can the USGov't quarter a Soldier in an Owner's home without his consent?

Thank you,

Anonymous Mina January 02, 2013 1:34 PM  

WinstonWebb: January 02, 2013 1:19 PM

Yes I agree. I have read and archived with interest the blurb from the Russian general that has been posted here several times.

Add to that the words of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution -

It conclude that it is my DUTY to do meet any confiscation agents at the door with a loaded shotgun.

Guess I'm going shopping.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:35 PM  

@Patrick

Hey Tard, show me the specific law passed by Congress that prohibits individuals form possessing a nuke or sam, I bet you can't find it.

Hey Patrick...where do you stand on defamation laws? Opposed also to laws that prohibit yelling fire in a theater? Opposed to laws that prohibit occupying private property for the sake of peaceably assembling?

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:38 PM  

@Dan

The topic is small arms, not nuclear weapons or shoulder fired rockets. Nice try on the bait and switch though. Oh and .......

To quote Vox Day:

"No limits. No restrictions. No laws. Nothing that infringes, even in the smallest and most seemingly sensible way, on the right to bear arms."

Neither Vox Day nor the Constitution speak merely to "small arms". By the way, what's "small"?

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 1:38 PM  

No, I'm reiterating the case that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit sensible regulations of arms.

Actually it does.

#tadhasnoideawhatthewordinfringemeans

Blogger JohnG January 02, 2013 1:39 PM  

Maybe. But what I note here is that you have not, sensibly, made the argument that the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on some right to possess a nuclear weapon or SAM. This indicates to me that you see at least SOME constitutional ability on the part of the people to regulate arms. ~Tad

Shall not be infringed?

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:40 PM  

@Winston

It says right there.

Now, are you one of those folks that also believes the Constitution prohibits any law that takes nukes out of the hands of civilians?

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:41 PM  

@Porky

No, I'm reiterating the case that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit sensible regulations of arms.

Actually it does.


So tell me, is a prohibition by the government on civilians possessing Nukes a reason to rise up and revolt?

Anonymous hayekthegay January 02, 2013 1:42 PM  

Lol, look at all the dweebs fantasizing about an armed showdown with the Gubmint. You guys live in fantasy land. You have a lot of built up aggression that needs to get out and it's only getting worse because the closed loop in here reinforces and amplifies your rage against the evil you invent outside. Of course Fox news is making it's own effort to fan the flames out there too. But here it's like a cult. You people need to collectively drink the koolaid and die already or just relieve the tension with a group wank. It sounds like some of you would like that, anyway.

P.S. That proposal for a banner is retarded (no one would get it and Texans would call it gay) and smacks of Denninger's childish ideations and his propensity to fantasize that he's some kind of culture warrior in the metaphorical mold of a Hannibal. While his pudgy fingers tap the keys on his keyboard and he takes another sip of his diet Coke. Really pathetic.

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:43 PM  

@JohnG

Shall not be infringed?

Then I'll ask you:
Where do you stand on defamation laws? Opposed also to laws that prohibit yelling fire in a theater? Opposed to laws that prohibit occupying private property for the sake of peaceably assembling?

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 02, 2013 1:43 PM  

Tad January 02, 2013 1:40 PM

It says right there.


That is not an answer, sir.
I ask again: Aside from the mentioned "time of war", when else can the USGov't quarter a Soldier in an Owner's home without his consent?

I will be happy to answer your question the moment you answer mine.

Thank you,

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:44 PM  

@Winston

I can't think of one

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 1:47 PM  

Tad: "So tell me, is a prohibition by the government on civilians possessing Nukes a reason to rise up and revolt?"

Was seizure of powder and field artillery in 1774 a reason?

Can you actually be this dumb? Can't wait for your next brilliant argument.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 02, 2013 1:50 PM  

Tad January 02, 2013 1:44 PM

@Winston

I can't think of one


Now THAT is an answer. Thank you.

[A]re you one of those folks that also believes the Constitution prohibits any law that takes nukes out of the hands of civilians?

Yes, but your framing of the question is backward. The Constitution gives no authority to the Gov't to disarm a citizen. The 2nd Amendment enforces the idea that the Gov't cannot give itself said authority.

My turn:
If, in your words, the "2nd Amendment does not prohibit sensible regulations of arms", why then does the 3rd Amendment not prohibit the sensible quartering of Soldiers?

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 1:54 PM  

@Porky

Tad: "So tell me, is a prohibition by the government on civilians possessing Nukes a reason to rise up and revolt?"

Was seizure of powder and field artillery in 1774 a reason?


Wow....Ok. I'll take that as a "no". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that you believe the people, through their representatives, have no power to prohibit the personal possession of nuclear weapons.

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 1:55 PM  

Tad: "Opposed also to laws that prohibit yelling fire in a theater?"

Wow you are a moron. Oliver Wendell Holmes says that handing out anti-draft leaflets is just like yelling fire in a theater and you like the dutiful peon you are never bother to question him.

Holmes also said that imbeciles should be sterilized so if we adopt TADTHINK we can surmise that the constitution allows for eugenics.

What deft stroke of brilliance will Tad bring us next....

Anonymous Kickass January 02, 2013 1:57 PM  

Note to self, look into new business opportunities regarding crossbows, slingshots and throwing knives. Oh yes, and the occasional machete.

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 1:58 PM  

Tad: "Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that you believe the people, through their representatives, have no power to prohibit the personal possession of nuclear weapons."

Sure they can. Just pass a constitutional amendment.

Anonymous Kickass January 02, 2013 1:59 PM  

@ Porky?
Did you ever notice that those who are the targets of eugenics are often its largest proponents?

Anonymous Tad January 02, 2013 2:01 PM  

@Winston

[A]re you one of those folks that also believes the Constitution prohibits any law that takes nukes out of the hands of civilians?

Yes, but your framing of the question is backward. The Constitution gives no authority to the Gov't to disarm a citizen. The 2nd Amendment enforces the idea that the Gov't cannot give itself said authority.


Winston. Forgive me, but I have to withdraw from this conversation/discussion with you. You never know exactly who you are dealing with when you have these kinds of discussions on line.

It appears I've been confronted with someone who is so far on the fringe that they believe the Founders meant to prohibit the people from enacting laws that attempt to keep out of civilian hands weapons with the power to obliterate millions of people in one fell swoop.

Some times, when you are chatting with folks you've just met and you think there may be something "off" about them, you let the feeling pass. Then, all of a sudden, they blurt out that they being spied on by agents of the UN because the UN fears they will spill the beans that Kennedy was killed by little green men. That's when you smile and back away.

I'm slowly backing away. Have a nice day.

Blogger Giraffe January 02, 2013 2:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Kickass January 02, 2013 2:06 PM  

Tad, I like your stick-to-it-ivness. Have you ever considered reading the Bible?

And yes, I make up my own words.

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 2:07 PM  

Tad: "It appears I've been confronted with someone who is so far on the fringe that they believe the Founders meant to prohibit the people from enacting laws that attempt to keep out of civilian hands weapons with the power to obliterate millions of people in one fell swoop."

What was several hundred kegs of powder in a silo if not an 18th century WMD?

You keep getting stupider by the post, boy.

Anonymous Kickass January 02, 2013 2:07 PM  

@ Loki
That clip would never happen in my neck of the woods. That guy would have gotten his ass beat for dressing up like that.
Sheesh, I hope that isn't what you are wearing right now.
No! Don't tell me!

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 2:13 PM  

"If you are just trying to save your own cowardly, pussy skin, then just turn them all in or run to the most remote, dark hole you can find and wait it out with your cold hard steel. Won't have accomplished much good toward any other goal, but it's still a plan."

And it's worth pointing out that, even if one is solely concerned with saving their own skin, complying fully with every illegal demand still might not be enough to save you. After all, how do they know you don't still have contraband that you haven't turned in? Might as well torture you for a while just for good measure.

"Just not sure on what 'prepared' might mean right now. That is what I am currently weighing. Might need to go shopping tonight ... and not for a new pair of shoes."

Good shoes (and socks) are important too.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 02, 2013 2:14 PM  

Tad, everyone by now should know what you are doing. Muddying the waters. Stay with the TOPIC of gun control.

Anonymous Dan in Tx January 02, 2013 2:16 PM  

Tad Says: "By the way, what's "small"?"

If you don't know, my ten year old will explain it to you, otherwise I'm not wasting my time.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 2:23 PM  

@Mina

If more gun control from your state government is a possibility you consider likely, you might want to consider establishing legal residence in another state. Could be cheap insurance.

Blogger JohnG January 02, 2013 2:25 PM  

Then I'll ask you:
Where do you stand on defamation laws? Opposed also to laws that prohibit yelling fire in a theater? Opposed to laws that prohibit occupying private property for the sake of peaceably assembling? ~Tad

Irrelevant. You fundamentally do not understand the purpose of the second amendment - it's not about shooting Bambi and Thumper - it's about overthrowing a tyrannical government and defending yourself from whatever troops they throw at you (by killing them). "This" is short and to the point.

Anonymous Porky? January 02, 2013 2:27 PM  

Tad: "It appears I've been confronted with someone who is so far on the fringe that they believe the Founders meant to prohibit the people from enacting laws that attempt to keep out of civilian hands weapons with the power to obliterate millions of people in one fell swoop."

Yes I'm sure the intent of the founders was to make damn sure that only tyrants would have access to deadly weapons. Good Lord.

I initially doubted that you could get any dumber but you've proven me wrong at every turn.

Anonymous RedJack January 02, 2013 2:56 PM  

Noah B.

I didn't say that they know exactly what you have, but that they know you have something. Using the data I mentioned, along with other information, they can build a very good idea of what you have, how much you shoot, and if you are a straw buyer or private seller. Look at the recent case of the felon killing a couple firefighters. They had the straw buyer found rather quickly.

Buy looking at ammo purchases, reloading inforation, etc, they can tell quite a bit.

What is interesting is that even with all that information, they are still pursuing a ban. Either they know something, or they are over confident.

Anonymous George of the Hole January 02, 2013 3:10 PM  

Mr Pea: "Tad, everyone by now should know what you are doing. Muddying the waters."

No. Tad is attempting to use Alinsky's Rule #5. He is not very good at it yet.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 02, 2013 3:12 PM  

Tad January 02, 2013 2:01 PM

@Winston

[A]re you one of those folks that also believes the Constitution prohibits any law that takes nukes out of the hands of civilians?

Yes, but your framing of the question is backward. The Constitution gives no authority to the Gov't to disarm a citizen. The 2nd Amendment enforces the idea that the Gov't cannot give itself said authority.

Winston. Forgive me, but I have to withdraw from this conversation/discussion with you. You never know exactly who you are dealing with when you have these kinds of discussions on line.

It appears I've been confronted with someone who is so far on the fringe that they believe the Founders meant to prohibit the people from enacting laws that attempt to keep out of civilian hands weapons with the power to obliterate millions of people in one fell swoop.

Some times, when you are chatting with folks you've just met and you think there may be something "off" about them, you let the feeling pass. Then, all of a sudden, they blurt out that they being spied on by agents of the UN because the UN fears they will spill the beans that Kennedy was killed by little green men. That's when you smile and back away.

I'm slowly backing away. Have a nice day.


Yet no matter how lunatic, left-wing fringe I find your arguments, I don't fear the debate. Curious.

I also find it very interesting (and I'm sure others reading will as well), that the moment I challenged you to apply your ass-backward interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the very next one on the list, you (coincidentally, I'm sure) put on your best Brave Sir Robin imitation.

While I appreciate the brief discourse we've had today, I find your current excuse to abandon both intellectually dishonest and cowardly.



Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 02, 2013 3:15 PM  

That clip would never happen in my neck of the woods.

Really. Where are you, again?

That guy would have gotten his ass beat for dressing up like that.

Is it my fault your people have no taste? But in any case, you are welcome to try.

Sheesh, I hope that isn't what you are wearing right now.
No! Don't tell me!


You tempt me too much. At the moment, I am wearing a business suit, sans blazer. I am also eating a brownie and enjoying a much deserved break from world conquest.

Doubtless you envy me, and rightly so.

Anonymous Nihilus January 02, 2013 3:17 PM  

Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Anonymous J. Doe January 02, 2013 3:19 PM  

Christian men bearing arms should be the least of this faggot's worries.

The ongoing fall of Western Civilization, brought about by the spiritual void created by godless freaks like this blog's resident pervert clown, will usher in Islam, as is now happening in Europe. All freedoms will be lost, including the right to bear arms, as well as the freedom to be a filthy degenerate. Faggots will have to slither back under their rocks or be executed.

That will be the one small consolation - seeing the vile and vicious destroyed by their own doing.

Anonymous Nihilus January 02, 2013 3:20 PM  

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

-Adolf Hitler

Anonymous Thor January 02, 2013 3:25 PM  

Loki's lyin' again. I happen to know, for a fact, he's wearing a leather thong, out looking for another horse to screw.

Blogger James Dixon January 02, 2013 3:27 PM  

> It appears I've been confronted with someone who is so far on the fringe that they believe the Founders meant to prohibit the people from enacting laws that attempt to keep out of civilian hands weapons with the power to obliterate millions of people in one fell swoop.

You've presented no evidence that is not the case. Were they around to ask, I suspect they would say that's exactly what they intended.

Anonymous Mina January 02, 2013 3:27 PM  

Does anyone think that the fall can be averted by the people rising up and overthrowing the Government?

That would seem a better place to invest your time than in sitting around waiting for the US to turn into Iraq or Iran.

So if you were going to invest your time wisely, where would you do it? Is this new push for more gun control our signal to start marching on the seats of Government and demand that some heads roll?

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 3:27 PM  

Statistical analysis is a very powerful tool indeed, and much can be ascertained from it, but many things cannot. Knowing when someone sold a gun that they purchased from a dealer, or knowing when someone bought a gun secondhand with cash, would be extremely difficult for the government. This is a very different problem than tracing a gun with a known serial number back to the last person that purchased it from a dealer.

"Either they know something, or they are over confident."

There's another possible interpretation: they're desperate. While the federal budget is in crisis and the military is increasingly unable to maintain its global posture, the public is becoming increasingly well armed and gun culture is thriving. Mild mannered, pleasant folk are talking nonchalantly about setting up trusts to buy NFA weapons. Parents are getting their daughters AR-15s for Christmas. TV shows like "Red Jacket" have normalized fully automatic weapons, flamethrowers, and grenade launchers. People are openly saying they will not surrender their guns and their right to self defense, no matter what illegal laws the government tries to enforce. The political class sees their control over society in danger of slipping away, and it scares the hell out of them.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 3:29 PM  

"While I appreciate the brief discourse we've had today, I find your current excuse to abandon both intellectually dishonest and cowardly."

Tad is all mouth.

Anonymous RedJack January 02, 2013 3:32 PM  

The political class sees their control over society in danger of slipping away, and it scares the hell out of them.

The same people who talked about the tracking program talked about the reason for it. The State is very afraid. And not just of the right side of the aisle. They (the State) view the regular proles as the biggest threat to their existance.

Anonymous Bastiat January 02, 2013 3:43 PM  

@Tad re: yelling fire in the theater

I am not against laws that prosecute people for incorrectly yelling fire in a theater. After the fact.

Are you for duct taping everyone's mouths shut because a few crazy/evil people may incorrectly yell fire in a theater and thus cause harm due to the panicked reaction?

Anonymous Daniel January 02, 2013 3:44 PM  

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that you believe the people, through their representatives, have no power to prohibit the personal possession of nuclear weapons.

Interestingly...they haven't. One would think that the banning of personal possession of a billion-dollar WMD would be fairly low hanging fruit, if anyone really believed the completely laughable notion that weapons possession equals violence.

Although there are numerous regulations for the refinement of nuclear material, just as there are regulations for the production of ammunition, and just as there is licensing required to import, and importation restrictions on nuclear devices (just like there are licenses required to be a gun dealer) there are no bans in place on the personal possession of nuclear weapons.

Because everybody, even the retarded, in the U.S. knows (not believes, but knows) that banning tools is stupid*. Government licenses manufacturers, regulates production (not saying they should, just that they do) but doesn't bother with possesssion except on a completely ad hoc basis. It is impractical, ineffective, and needlessly oppressive to try and do otherwise. Honestly, as a political animal, the p.r. and legal approach they took to smoking (tax the hell out of gun companies to tell people how awful guns are) would be a better application of their resources, but the problem they face is this:

With tobacco companies and farmers, the orgs said, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" and resigned.

With gun companies, they might say the same thing...and reload.

By the way, I'd just love to watch the ATF try to pry a nuke off someone's land. It would be like the Keystone Cops vs. Major Kong.

*except, of course, for the corpse-monger powers that be. Well, they know that a ban is illogical, but that it is cornerstone of their longevity, so they don't care at all that it is neither morally nor intellectually right. Evil doesn't have to trifle with such things as logic or ethics.


Anonymous J. Doe January 02, 2013 3:59 PM  

Wow....Ok. I'll take that as a "no". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that you believe the people, through their representatives, have no power to prohibit the personal possession of nuclear weapons.

This vile SOB doesn't believe the people have the power to prohibit fag marriage. I don't have to ask, I know, that this reprehensible creature has no problem with a faggot activist judge overturning the direct will of the people in CA.

Shut the fuck, faggot. Your hypocrisy is as disgusting as your lifestyle.

Anonymous dh January 02, 2013 4:09 PM  

No limits. No restrictions. No laws. Nothing that infringes, even in the smallest and most seemingly sensible way, on the right to bear arms. No compromise.

But you've already compromised. Already today. So all we are is arguing over the terms of your capitulation.

Anonymous Dan in Tx (Philosopher / Biker Poet) January 02, 2013 4:10 PM  

Those who are saying the ruling elite are worried are very much correct, I believe. I also believe that their reaction will be the same (mistaken) reaction that their predecessors made: to attempt to clamp down even harder. I believe these early rumblings about armed fighting over gun control are very similar to the rumblings over secession. You may have those that point and laugh and say armed conflict will not break out over these issues. What they fail to realize is the wind has shifted out of the north and you can hear rumbles of thunder out of that black cloud bank. The sun may still be shining but that doesn't mean a storm ain't comin'. Am I saying that it will blow up tomorrow? Of course not as we are just now at the beginning of the end. It's easy to fall into the trap of taking these issues on an individual basis and fail to account for them as a part of the whole; the government's inevitable financial peril (whether it be in the form of inflation or deflation), large banks openly breaking the law with impunity, anger of gun control talk, talk of secession, complete lack of feeling of having anything in common among the population along racial as well as geographical lines. Each of these issues on their own might be simply cause for some concern or looked on as a bump in the road. Looking at them all together as ingredients in a recipe, it looks to me like nobody's going to much enjoy what's goin' into the oven.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 02, 2013 4:17 PM  

Tad, you don't trust civilians with nukes. Why do you trust the government? It has been shown over and over again that the biggest mass murderers are in the government. The only party that has actually used nukes has been the government.

Also, does an assault weapons ban include disarming president obama's secret service as well as the security around politicians? Are politicians more equal than citizens, Tad?

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 4:21 PM  

"But you've already compromised. Already today. So all we are is arguing over the terms of your capitulation."

We're saying no to more gun control. Meanwhile we're willing to work peacefully to overturn the ridiculous laws already on the books. In many countries, silencers are very loosely regulated (if at all), and there's no good reason why they should be regulated here.

We require cars to have mufflers for them to pass inspection, but create criminal penalties for doing the same thing to a firearm. It defies all logic. New Zealand and Finland don't exactly have problems with assassins running around shooting people with silenced weapons.

Fully automatic weapons have limited military utility for offensive use since they waste so much ammo but are excellent defensive weapons, where a defender can have much more ammunition than can easily be carried. Again, there's no legitimate reason why these weapons should be banned.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 4:26 PM  

I note that if one applies the standard the court set in U.S. v. Miller, fully automatic weapons and suppressors should be legal for individuals to own free of restrictions.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 02, 2013 4:32 PM  

A mistake many people make is extrapolating from present conditions to a future with nothing changed except the one thing being discussed. The world is rapidly changing and the changes are accelerating.

The people on here that see 4th gen warfare coming to this country see most conditions of life changing not just the one being discussed. It is those changed conditions of life that will motivate the chaos. It will be the chaos that compels the government to severe measures. Gun control or confiscation is only one thing among many, one trigger among many.

A well-fed, warmly clothed and housed populace has little incentive to revolt, we don't disagree about that. Thing is, those conditions are not guaranteed to exist in the future. With the way things are going it is looking more and more likely that large portions of this country are going to be mired in violence in response to a lack, either total or partial, of many of those things which facilitate our modern way of life. The amount of violence will be inversely proportional to how much the people in an area fear God.

That you don't see it coming only demonstrates your ignorance of the true condition of the world.

Anonymous Noah B. January 02, 2013 4:33 PM  

"But you've already compromised. Already today. So all we are is arguing over the terms of your capitulation."

And this is a really fascinating position. Do you apply this same logic to justify gang rape after the first rape has already been committed? If not, what's the difference?

Blogger Patrick Kelly January 02, 2013 4:35 PM  

Tard: "laws that prohibit yelling fire in a theater?"

When you can show me the law I'll comment on it. I bet you can't find a Federal law that specifically prohibits me from yelling anything in a crowded theater.

Now if I do so, and it results in panic, rioting, other mayhem, there is probably a law somewhere that holds me criminally liable, but I bet even that law is not a Federal law.

Your bowling strikes here sparky.

Anonymous Mina January 02, 2013 4:37 PM  

"The amount of violence will be inversely proportional to how much the people in an area fear God."

... or proportional to how many people are armed and ready?

I don't discount the features of benefits of strong community, matter of fact I think it will be essential to survival, but let's say there's a lack of God-fearing and lots of gun-toting.

Is that just as good?

Anonymous Signe January 02, 2013 4:50 PM  

Loki's lyin' again...

If that's the case, who was just in here yelling about the coffeepot being empty?

Blogger James Dixon January 02, 2013 4:53 PM  

> Parents are getting their daughters AR-15s for Christmas.

When someone makes a Hello Kitty AR-15, you know the tide has turned.

1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts