"Beware Gun Registration -- It's Coming"

[TBoneTX 43,327]

Hard to argue with the historical and political parallels brought up by this freelance author. Comments on the content of this article?

BEWARE GUN REGISTRATION – IT'S COMING

by Patrice Lewis

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” – Unknown

In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste, President Obama recently issued 23 new executive orders on the subject of gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. “Liberals have an uncanny knack for designing solutions that do not address the problem at hand,” noted David Limbaugh. And as William S. Burrough famously said, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”

Controlling firearms, you see, is deemed necessary by progressives to achieve some sort of nebulous theoretical bucolic pacifistic utopia that has literally never occurred on the face of the earth. Their actions prove they’re attempting to take the closest approximation of that utopia that has ever existed (America) and replacing it with their simplistic notions of what America should be (by violating every principle in the Bill of Rights, which they’ve never like [sic] anyway).

Obama’s executive orders lay the groundwork for the next inevitable step toward that mythical utopian fantasy: a national registry system for all firearms (H.R. 34, H.R. 117). Gun registration, they argue, is necessary because we have to know what kind of unstable people might possess firearms and thus become the next Adam Lanza.

So let’s engage in a mental exercise and pretend the government has already passed an edict requiring all guns to be registered, no exceptions. Naturally this is done in the name of public safety – “for the children,” if you will.

OK, so now all guns are registered. Now what? What has that achieved? How would registration change anything? How would it make gun-free zones like schools any safer?

Answer: It won’t. Think about it. Gun registration contributes nothing toward a safer society. Nothing. There is no value in registration unless you intend to do something with it.

In his sobering 2003 essay, Robert A. Waters briefly relates the history of gun control in England and concludes with these eerie words: “When the Dunblane Inquiry ended [in 1997], citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.” [Emphasis added.]

This, folks, is the inevitable path gun confiscation follows. Register guns, and confiscation is the logical next step. Ah – but confiscation will only happen among the law-abiding, because criminals will never register their firearms in the first place. So where does that leave moms trying to protect their children from intruders? Dead. Because make no mistake: home invasions and other violent crimes invariably skyrocket when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens.

Our federal government is setting up the framework for our total disarmament. Oh not right away, of course. There’s still too much opposition by people who know their history and their rights. But over the next 10 or 20 years, federally funded public schools will continue to brainwash children about the evils of gun ownership. These children will grow up ignorant of their heritage and will be taught to despise their parents and grandparents, who know precisely why the Second Amendment is so important. Within a generation or two, our nation will be as emasculated as England is now – a place where violent crime has gone through the roof, people are locked away for defending themselves from thugs and where even knives are being banned.

And then the door will be opened for the rest of our rights to be dismantled. It’s well-known and well-documented that gun control doesn’t control crime. Why, then, is the government eager to control guns if it knows crime will escalate as a result? Easy. The government doesn’t give a rip for crime control. It wants citizen control. Remember, once we lose the Second Amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is meaningless. We the People will have no means to protect it.

When the progressives cheer additional gun-control measures, such as limiting magazine size, they argue that no one needs magazines holding more than 10 rounds for home defense or for hunting. But that argument (right or wrong) totally and entirely misses the point of the Second Amendment. Do you honestly think deer hunting or home invasions were on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they composed the Second Amendment? Or perhaps – just perhaps – fresh from the hideous tyranny of George III, they wanted to make sure their infant nation would never face a similarly abusive government? These men knew that the people of America had a natural right to arm themselves with whatever powerful firearms were necessary to ensure a home-grown tyrant never arose on our soil.

Believe me, when the Department of Homeland Security buys up 1.5 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, citizens need something a little better than a steak knife for defense. If our government ever decides to move en masse against innocent citizens, it must know there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Did you know that worldwide, the leading cause of unnatural human death is government? Democide is defined as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats” (emphasis added).

The only purpose of gun registration is to let the government know who has guns – so they can be taken away. Remember that. Gun confiscation is historically followed by democide against the disarmed; this is an undeniable historical fact.

I applaud the recent massive attendance of every gun show in the nation, which is putting millions of firearms into the hands of decent law-abiding people. It demonstrates that American citizens are intelligent enough to know that the government is taking advantage of a crisis to increase its tyrannical and unconstitutional powers.

Gun registration: It’s coming. Be warned. Be ready.

---

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/beware-gun-registration-its-coming/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hard to argue with the historical and political parallels brought up by this freelance author. Comments on the content of this article?

Teach your children the sport and at least one friend who wasn't in to it to begin with. Anyone who shoots a few times tends to be hooked.

[TBoneTX 43,327]

Teach your children the sport and at least one friend who wasn't in to it to begin with. Anyone who shoots a few times tends to be hooked.

Sensible ideas that I hadn't heard before.

[james&olya 1,121]

This article implies that Sandy Hook would have occurred even if the sale, distribution, and possession of such weapons were felonies. I agree Adam Lanza's mother was stupid and, perhaps, in retrospect, criminally negligent in failing to properly secure her weapons. But where is any shred of evidence she or her son would have decided in advance to become felons and have these weapons in their home, even if they were banned! You are right, there is NO such evidence. Yes, people who make their living as contract killers might still have such weapons. How many murders in the US are by such professional criminals? It is a false argument to suggest that the consequence of uniform state and federal laws banning the sale and ownership of certain weapons would affect only the law-abiding citizen. It would also substantially reduce the opportunity for and likelihood of possession by most common criminals. And it would certainly reduce the incidence of such crimes as that in Sandy Hook where the perpetrator never came close to crossing that line between law-abiding and criminal until that tragic error of thought process occurred in his mind.

Yeah, the gun confiscation sky is falling again! Better go out and buy more guns! Buy more ammo too!

[Khal_Drogo 50]

This article implies that Sandy Hook would have occurred even if the sale, distribution, and possession of such weapons were felonies. I agree Adam Lanza's mother was stupid and, perhaps, in retrospect, criminally negligent in failing to properly secure her weapons. But where is any shred of evidence she or her son would have decided in advance to become felons and have these weapons in their home, even if they were banned! You are right, there is NO such evidence. Yes, people who make their living as contract killers might still have such weapons. How many murders in the US are by such professional criminals? It is a false argument to suggest that the consequence of uniform state and federal laws banning the sale and ownership of certain weapons would affect only the law-abiding citizen. It would also substantially reduce the opportunity for and likelihood of possession by most common criminals. And it would certainly reduce the incidence of such crimes as that in Sandy Hook where the perpetrator never came close to crossing that line between law-abiding and criminal until that tragic error of thought process occurred in his mind.

Yeah, the gun confiscation sky is falling again! Better go out and buy more guns! Buy more ammo too!

Remember than Columbine happened during a weapons ban.

History shows that weapons bans do not, in fact, reduce the likelihood.

Most common criminals do not get their weapons legally. I am a gun collector, and studying to become a gunsmith, I've spent a lot of time in and around gun shops, ranges, and gun owners. A criminal does not walk into a gun store to buy weapons. And most of what they buy on the street or black market would not be "dried up" because they often do not come from the U.S., they come from overseas and are either smuggled in or aquired illegally in the first place. Less than 5% of all gun crime involves an "assault" weapon (civilian versions are not assault weapons, so I hate saying it). If we're gonna start down the "less opportunity" road, how about requiring mental health professionals to report mentally unstable people to the authorities? Cho, Holmes, and Lanza all had mental health professionals who said, "They might be dangerous," but nothing was ever done for it. Blaming the tools for the actions of the user isn't the way to do things.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Hard to argue with the historical and political parallels brought up by this freelance author. Comments on the content of this article?

There's a big difference between calling something a parallel and implying it be a cause and effect. The folks who write these articles like to list a handful of historical cases of democide. For some reason, they don't bother to list the hundreds of countries that have successfully implemented gun licensing and registration without democide happening. It's like saying there's a parallel between getting on an airplane and crashing into the side of a mountain.

Anyway the problem with using historical data to write an article is you need to get the facts straight. It is easy to look it up.

Hitler didn't ban guns in Germany. Most private gun ownership ended in Germany in 1919. These restrictions were part of the treaty of Versailles. Hitler wasn't even in politics at the time. Gun restrictions were actually loosened in 1938 when people were again allowed to own rifles. Most of the democide in Germany occured between 1939 and 1941.

In Russia, it's true - gun control was imposed in 1929. Like Germany, gun restrictions were significantly reduced as Russia entered WW2. Using the same University of Hawaii study that most of these dates come from, it's easy to see rate of democide was not deterred by an armed populace. It ended when Stalin ended.

What it comes down to is this. There is a fairly good historical correlation between maniacal demagogues or dictators and the number of people they kill. Armed populace .. sorry, not so much.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anyone who shoots a few times tends to be hooked.

Not really. I know a lot of people that have shot many times and none of them are hooked.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Comments on the content of this article?

Aside from hysteria and paranoia, what is there in this article from a content point of view? Oh yes, almost forgot. There is also hysterical paranoia and paranoid hysteria in there. Just as you would expect from something worthy of being published by the World Nut Daily.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remember than Columbine happened during a weapons ban.

There was no weapons ban in place when Columbine happened. Just because they called it a ban, didn't actually make it one. Remember, not a single weapon was taken out of circulation as a result of the so-called "assault weapons ban". These weapons were not banned. The weapons used at Columbine were purchased at a gun show from unlicensed sellers. That is how almost half of all weapons are acquired in this country - from unlicensed sellers w/o any requirements for background checks. That's the biggest problem.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This, folks, is the inevitable path gun confiscation follows. Register guns, and confiscation is the logical next step.

When you look at gun ownership rates, you will find that most countries high on that list are "Schengen countries" - i.e. countries that are party to the Schengen treaty. They all have regulations around acquisition, ownership and registration that are far tougher than anything proposed in this country. And they've had this for decades. So when is that next logical step following? When is that confiscation finally taking place? In another 20 years? 30 years? 50 years? 100 years? Or could it be that confiscation is not the inevitable next step? Coud it be that you are falling for some grandiose paranoid hysteria? I mean really, you folks need to get that tin foil out. Lots of it.

[Khal_Drogo 50]

There was no weapons ban in place when Columbine happened. Just because they called it a ban, didn't actually make it one. Remember, not a single weapon was taken out of circulation as a result of the so-called "assault weapons ban". These weapons were not banned. The weapons used at Columbine were purchased at a gun show from unlicensed sellers. That is how almost half of all weapons are acquired in this country - from unlicensed sellers w/o any requirements for background checks. That's the biggest problem.

Wrong on two points:

1. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect

2. The primary weapon used by Dylan Klebold was a TEC DC-9, which was specifically named in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun; sawed-off shotguns have been tightly restricted under the National Firearms Act.

Remember, 19 named weapons were taken out of circulation.

So yes, it made it one. Look it up if you don't believe me; I'm studying to become a gunsmith, I have both laws (the VCCLEA and NFA) sitting on my bed back in my bunk, I can quote it word for word for you if you like.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wrong on two points:

1. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect

2. The primary weapon used by Dylan Klebold was a TEC DC-9, which was specifically named in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun; sawed-off shotguns have been tightly restricted under the National Firearms Act.

Remember, 19 named weapons were taken out of circulation.

So yes, it made it one. Look it up if you don't believe me; I'm studying to become a gunsmith, I have both laws (the VCCLEA and NFA) sitting on my bed back in my bunk, I can quote it word for word for you if you like.

Nonsense. All these weapons that were already out there were left out there. Grandfathered in. They were not BANNED and they were not taken out of circulation. No new ones were introduced into circulation but whatever was out there remained out there. That's not what a ban is. A ban means that a certain weapon is no longer legal. That was never the case. Now, there was a ban on the manufacturing of certain weapons. But that was all it was. There was no ban on the weapons themselves. Period.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Nonsense. All these weapons that were already out there were left out there. Grandfathered in. They were not BANNED and they were not taken out of circulation. No new ones were introduced into circulation but whatever was out there remained out there. That's not what a ban is. A ban means that a certain weapon is no longer legal. That was never the case. Now, there was a ban on the manufacturing of certain weapons. But that was all it was. There was no ban on the weapons themselves. Period.

I agree, but remember its the politicians that were and are calling it a ban. I wouldn't take it out on Khal.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not really. I know a lot of people that have shot many times and none of them are hooked.

In my experience, when you someone shoots a firearm for the first time it removes the fear they have of the firearm. Afterwards, they are much more likely to take up the sport themselves or at the very least respect it.

My response to Tbone is the notion that if the percentage of the population using firearms drops to a small percentage, then the 2nd amendment might be changed in a future generation. IE 30+ years from now.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Teach your children the sport and at least one friend who wasn't in to it to begin with. Anyone who shoots a few times tends to be hooked.

I heard the same thing about gay sex.