So, it seems that the politicians in Connecticut are a little perplexed that people aren’t registering their firearms like good little lemmings are supposed to. Given how prior gun registration requirements have morphed into gun confiscation lists I don’t blame the residents of CT one bit. In fact, I may even question the sanity of the 50,000 people who did register.
In reality, gun registration is simply another step along the way to a gun ban which won’t keep anyone safer. We’ve seen it Great Britain, Australia and now New York and California. Crime rates aren’t actually tied in with gun ownership rates, but the gun control lobby just doesn’t seem to grasp reality. Making people register their firearms isn’t going to do a damn thing to reduce crime.
It will be interesting to see what CT ends up doing. When you pass a law that people don’t follow, do you decide to repeal it or enforce it anyway and turn most of your citizens into felons? How much civil disobedience needs to take place before subject matter penetrates the politicians thick skulls?
In a related note, South Carolina governor Haley offered her support to the idea of Constitutional Carry, or the right to bear a firearm without need to get permission from the state. The left wing media and gun control lobby immediately lost its collective shit. The comments on the Rachel Maddow Facebook page are priceless in just how clueless the ignorant sit-at-home-and-bitch-because-I’m-too-scared-to-deal-with-life crowd is.
If you can stomach it, check out Paul Diamond’s little plan. Here’s an excerpt.
“…However, stop calling it gun control. Stop letting them get away with calling it ‘gun control.’ ‘Gun Control has come to mean in the minds of many gun advocates, confiscation. It is a matter of public safety. It is a matter of public health. It is to “…ensure domestic tranquility…” It is “…to promote the general welfare…”
There are those who say that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a persons right to “…keep and bear arms.” I submit that the Second Amendment is obsolete. It is no longer applicable.
The Second Amendment says,”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The D.C. Shooter was NOT well regulated! Jared Loughner was NOT a member of the militia! John Holmes was NOT acting for the security of a free state!
However, since 1903 The Militia Act organized all local and state militias into the National Guard. Outside of the National Guard there are no legal militias, well regulated or otherwise. Since the formation of the National Guard if citizens wish to bear arms for the defense and, as the second amendment says, “…security of a free state…” they can join the National Guard, or one of the standing armed forces that defend our nations freedom. Or they can join one of the thousands of law enforcement agencies. They have no need, no inherent right, no entitlement to “…keep and bear arms…” in their homes. After all, when was the last time anyone in the National Guard was ordered or even asked, to report for duty with his own personal weapon? Can you see a pilot in the Air National Guard reporting for duty with their own, personal F-16?
Guns kill more people in this country than most major diseases. Guns kill more people in this country than most major disasters. Keeping and bearing arms is no longer a need or a right….”
I’m not convinced he understands what “…ensure domestic tranquility…” and “…to promote the general welfare…” mean in the context of the constitution. Furthermore, he is wrong in his use of the term “militia”. While he quotes the correct act, 1903 Militia Act, he seems to have missed the part about “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Those not in the Organized Militia are in the Reserve Militia. Since the reorganizations under the Militia acts of 1903, 1908 and 1916, individual members haven’t been asked to supply their own equipment. However, in the past it was often the case. Letters of Marque are clearly mentioned as one of the powers of Congress. In order for that to hold true, an armed civilian would need to receive it. Considering that armed ships and privately owned cannon were not uncommon at the time of the drafting of the Constitution it only seems proper that someone with the wherewithal to have his own fighter plane should be available. Then he makes the fallacious statement that “Guns kill more people in this country than most major diseases.” I’m beginning to think he just talks out of his ass to hear his own voice. According to the CDC both heart disease and cancer killed over 500,000 people in 2010. In addition chronic lower respiratory disease and stroke each killed ~130,000, alzheimer’s 83,000, diabetes 69,000, kidney disease, influenza and pneumonia each killed over 50,000. Guns, including suicides? They accounted for ~31,000. Poisoning was greater than firearms deaths @ ~43,000. In any event, since he considers the 2nd Amendment obsolete, perhaps a more constructive use of his time would be to start a petition to get it repealed.
My friend David L. Burkhead posted a blog at Cold Servings last year with listing many of the politicians, policy makers and activists who have come out and said that their ultimate aim is to ban guns. I’ll reproduce it here because it’s worth remembering that when someone says “We don’t want to take your guns”, there are plenty of people out there who actually DO want to take your guns.
Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”
Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:
“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)
“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)
“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”
Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”
“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman
“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post
“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.”
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94
“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990
“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA
“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.”
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).”
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes
“We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress
“I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.”
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93
“The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.”
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,
“I don’t believe gun owners have rights.”
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report “Handguns in America”, October
“We must get rid of all the guns.”
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on “The Phil
Donahue Show” September 1994
“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.”
Sarah Brady 7/1/88
“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994
“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…”
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93
“My bill … establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns.”
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal.”
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker’ magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f
“Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.”
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
“The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.”
The Washington Post – “Legal Guns Kill Too” – November 5, 1999
“There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution.”
USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?” – January 16, 1992
“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012
” 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.”
Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota
“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” NIJ Memo on a new “Assault Weapon” Ban. 2013
“The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection” (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)
“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013
California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.
California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.
California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.
California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. (“High-cap” means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40’s–AK pattern rifles–or 60’s–AR pattern rifles.)
“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).
“People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.” Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? “Final Solution” anyone?)
(Emphasis added in the above).
“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey’s State Legislature, May 9, 2013
“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013
But nobody wants to take our guns?