Who’s paranoid now?

California Democrats to confiscate all registered rifles with detachable magazines, prohibit those barred from owning guns to live in houses where a gun is owned, require fingerprinting and background checks for permission to buy ammunition, etc.

Why the call for a national registry and why do gun owners object to such a “common sense” requirement? Because, as Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo demonstrated last month and California is proving now, registration is merely the prelude to confiscation. One the government knows who owns guns, who has ammunition in their homes, they can seize it.

And they will.

UPDATE: For fans of “sensible restrictions”, think about this, which is about to become  law in California and is proposed for Connecticut residents too (and for all citizens if Obama’s Democrats have their way): The category of who is barred from gun ownership is a broad one, so broad that barring such people from living in homes with guns means forcing you, a lawful gun owner, to choose between surrendering your gun to be melted down or evicting your 18-year old daughter, just convicted of her first DUI, your 20-year old son, who was handed a permanent rap sheet as a sex offender for having sex with his 16-year old girlfriend, your nephew, who’s been tossed from his house because he struck his wife and needs a couch to sleep on, and that good-for-nothing brother-in-law, newly home from the Navy burdened with a dishonorable discharge. Aside from asking yourself what the hell kind of family you have, what are you going to do? Should the state have the right to take away a constitutional right in such circumstances? At least consider that such a broad power to deny one right may lead to the denial of other freedoms you may cherish more.

19 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “Who’s paranoid now?

  1. TheWizard

    If the legislation were to pass, It would be interesting to watch the result of some of these seizure attempts.

    • It will pass, probably, because the Democrats want it and Democrats control California (why do you think the state places 48th in the worst place to do business?). So you’re right, it will be interesting to see how those home raids work out.

      • Anonymous

        Chris Dorner – one guy – has the entire LAPD tied up in knots. Some of the sheriffs in the far northern part of the state, the portion which has tried to secede and form the state of Jefferson, have said they would not enforce.

    • AJ

      If someone on the block owns a gun they’ll just burn the whole block down like they did in 1985.

      “…Twenty years ago this Friday, city police dropped a bomb on this block and let it burn. Five children and six adults, members of a small radical collective called MOVE, died; 61 homes in a middle-class neighborhood were destroyed. As the nation watched, Philadelphia became the city that bombed its own people. (Related photo gallery: MOVE bombing)…”
      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm

      Waco is another good example of how things might play out:

      On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly two hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed. Upon the ATF’s failure to execute the search warrant, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The siege ended 50 days later when a fire destroyed the compound when a second assault was launched. Seventy-six men, women and children,[8][9] including the sect leader, David Koresh, died in the fire. The Waco siege also has been described as the “Waco massacre.”[10]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

  2. Libertarian Advocate

    More interesting will be to see how many people will now flee California altogether and whether there is a consequential surge in gun-related street violence and home invasions. Anyway, that sealed it for me. No chance in hell I’d move to that state now.

  3. Dollar Bill

    There’s nothing in the legislation about confiscation, and you know it..You’re just making it up to stoke the NRA-worshiping rubes who read you. Why is it with you people that when the right to bear arms collides with the right not to be killed with guns, the guns always win? When rights collide, sensible people usually compromise, There is no compromise with you Tea Party Rand-bot extremists, even after multiple gun-related massacres. Where is it written in the Constitution that the 2nd amendment, unlike any other Amendment, never has to budge? I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if it was one of your kids that had gotten blown away…

    • The reason I put links to articles I quote, Bill, is so that readers can read them and decide for themselves if what I’m saying is accurate. You, with your automatic knee twitching and conformist, reptile brain stem are probably not capable of that, but perhaps your keeper can read this for you:

      Hancock’s bill would ban possession — not just manufacture and sale — of large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
      State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, has reintroduced a bill to ban “bullet button” kits that let gun owners effectively sidestep the distinction between detachable and fixed magazines for semi-automatic rifles. Another Yee bill would require that guns be properly locked and stored when their owners aren’t present, but that bill wasn’t included on Steinberg’s list Thursday.
      That list also included bills that would:
      Require anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check, as Los Angeles and Sacramento already do.
      Update the definition of a banned shotgun with a revolving cylinder to include the new technology of a shotgun-rifle combination.
      Prevent unregulated gun loans, with some exceptions, including hunting, in order to keep weapons from those who haven’t passed background checks.
      Require all handgun owners obtain a safety certificate every year, rather than the every-five-years requirement for purchases of new handguns.
      Prohibit anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept and to expand the list of crimes for which convictions result in being barred from gun possession.
      Let the state Justice Department use money from the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement.
      Yih-Chau Chang, spokesman for the gun rights group Responsible Citizens of California, said it’s all “par for the course.”
      “The violent criminals are simply not going to be affected by any of these proposals,” Chang said. “Following the law is the last thing they’re going to do, so it’s only going to affect law-abiding citizens.”

      Further provisions found in the San Francisco Chronicle’s reporting include a five-cent penalty tax on each cartridge sold and mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. Oakland gang bangers and Las Angeles Crips will really regret this last provision because they are mostly not good candidates for this sort of policy. If every lawful gun owner has to pay $1,000 or so, per year, to purchase insurance, is that too much to ask if it saves the life of a single child by forcing criminal gangs to surrender ther weapons?

    • TheWizard

      I’ve already encouraged my local district board to place armed security in our schools so our kids DON’T get blown away.
      Fortunately, they’re going to. Why they wait one more day is beyond me.
      Guns are the solution, not the problem.

    • AJ

      In 1913 everyone was told not to worry because income tax was something that only the wealthy would pay; they would never tax workers. Thirty years later in 1943, much to everyone’s surprise, they began tax withholding, and everyone’s paycheck was a little lighter. So either Mr. Bill is being disingenuous or just plain stupid if he doesn’t understand that this is how it works. Bill says that “When rights collide, sensible people usually compromise”, but when it comes to the Bill of Rights the word compomise is code for losing them. To compromise your rights is to lose your rights.

      Mr Bill writes, “Where is it written in the Constitution that the 2nd amendment, unlike any other Amendment, never has to budge?” It’s written in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, where it is clearly spelled out that these rights are not granted rights but natural rights and therefore non negotiable.

      I posted this before, but here it is again. This is why the Bill of Rights is set in stone forever more, never to be subject to change:

      “…Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.

      A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.

      A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

      If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.

      In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”

      Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus…”

      http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/27/repeal-of-the-second-amendment-would-not-abolish-any-right/

  4. Anonymous

    Chris, I’d stay out of California for a while. Here’s the description of the truck they are looking for. From blog Grumpy Elder:

    “A blue toyota tacoma “meets the general description” and so does the black Honda Ridgeline…
    so basically they’re looking for “some truck, in any color” and that’s justification to open fire
    and shoot the thing to pieces and kill whomever is inside it? In the name of saving lives?”

    PS: did you read that the state of Idaho wants to add Atlas Shrugged to mandatory high school reading lists. Awesome.

    • Anonymous

      Surprisingly enough, I’d add the Koran. Some heavy duty hate, torture, treachery recommended in there. With a good teacher, it could be a classic of education on the subject of propaganda and peasant control.

  5. D

    “We can save lives by getting guns and ammunition out of the hands of the wrong people. We can save lives if every gun owner knows how to safely handle those guns. And if we can save lives, we must act to do so.”

    -Can’t wait for all the criminals to turn in their banned weapons immediately. Morons.

  6. weakleyhollow

    ‘Tis a privilege to not live in California!

  7. RL

    When do people in general (Dollar Bill) keep the actions of the few shoot-em up crazy types from running / ruining theirs lives and trying to control the rest of us.That is basically excepting terrorism as your savior FOREVER ! Judge and Punish those that commit the crimes, NOT those that HAVE NOT. Because of WHAT YOU FEAR THEY COULD DO.

    When the Shooters kill themselves is when it seems people want to shift blame to the law-abiding innocents that haven’t committed crimes.That’s like me saying my neighbor is an attorney, drives a Lincoln and he drinks bourbon and its just a matter of time before he picks up a pretty girl at a party and drives her off in a lake and leaves her to drown some night. So, we need to take his bourbon and his Lincoln just to be safe.

    All of this FEEL-GOOD legislation will be a waste of time as where you have illegal drugs running on every street corner, the guns will follow and make another market for the criminals. A terrorist will always find another way. Look at Timothy McVeigh.

    CHAVEZ just built one of the largest AK-assault weapons manufacturing producing facilities in the world with the help of the Russians south of our borders and has vowed to give guns to any wanting to cause grief in this country. Oh, and a El Supremo ammunition producing plant to go with it.
    With more and more cartels arming up with the AK’s, I sure don’t mind more Americans – Law Abiding Americans, owning some AR-15′s to protect family and property with in south central USA.as the drugs continue to flow.

    Make you feel warm and fuzzy ???

  8. Anonymous Citizenette

    Hell, I don’t know how we all survived “back in the day” when a foot of snow didn’t cause widespread panic, when just about all cars had rear-wheel drive and there were no snowblowers. My mid-Westc. town has just called me saying the roads are officially opened…so I now can venture forth without being shot on sight, I guess. What a country of wimps we’ve become.

  9. Anonymous Citizenette

    sorry, wrong thread. I’m an idiot.