search
top

Where Registration Leads?

We’re told we’re paranoid and delusional for our tome that registration’s only purpose is to tell the government where they all are so they can be rounded up when a pretext presents itself. Well, here’s what’s happening in California:

The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.

If you New Yorkers register your guns, you’re friggin nuts. Also, next time some gun control advocate tells you no one is talking about taking your guns, take a copy of Time, roll it up, and smack them with it (assault magazine).

23 Responses to “Where Registration Leads?”

  1. Garrett Lee says:

    It will be interesting to see whether they go after the assault weapon owners or the convicted felons with outstanding weapons first…

    • raybiker73 says:

      The registered owners, of course, since registration has nothing to do with crime. In fact, the pro-registration forces see higher crime as a benefit. Once they have you and I disarmed and there is still lots of violent crime, they’ll have an excuse to begin openly deploying their blackshirted troops on the streets for “public safety.”

  2. BC says:

    Some of the other measures they’re talking about include banning all semi-auto rifles, full stop, not just “assault weapons” variously defined. Guess what, Fudds? Time to take your medicine.

    • jbiros says:

      I don’t think using terminology such as fudds to describe hunters is the way to go.
      If we ever needed to stick together now is the time, and name calling won’t help.

      • Akatsukami says:

        I do not believe that “Fudd” is a derogatory term for “hunter”; I believe it is a derogatory term who a hunter who says, “I don’t care if the government outlaws guns, as long as the rifle that I hunt with remains legal”.

        • BC says:

          Exactly. I have no beef with hunters as a general proposition. But I have nothing but contempt for the assholes who are silent, if not enthusiastic, accomplices to every gun control scheme to wander down the pike as long as they get to keep their hunting rifles.

      • NUGUN Blog says:

        There were archers who stood with us against the Eastern Sports Show. They’re not FUDD.

        I agree, a FUDD is specifically a “hunter who doesn’t care about naught but their own”.

  3. TS says:

    We knew this was coming for years, I just didn’t expect it so soon- the zero feature “assault weapon” ban. This completely undermines the national conversation that the antis are having. How can they say it is these “military features” that make all the difference, while at the same time calling it a “loophole” that allows identically functioning weapons that aren’t “military –style” to be sold in California? You would think they would get on the same page, but of course the reason is they don’t have to. Those who hate guns want to keep striking while the iron is hot, those who are willing to think this trough are already on our side, and the people who just don’t care still don’t care.

    And the state legislature is a super majority to the antis now. Help me Obi Wan Gura. You’re my only hope.

    • I do have to admit that a ban based on function — semiautomatic magazine fed weapons — is at least more intellectually honest than one based on form (bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks, etc).

      The problem is that magazine fed semiautomatic weapons are the most effective ones for defensive purposes.

      • TS says:

        Completely agree. If you are going to draw the first line between mainstream guns that are more effective than others (for good or for bad), then it would be at; semi-auto fed from a detachable magazine. This perfectly illustrates incrementalism. That is too big of a bite (even for california) so they had to push this “milirltary-style” crap.

  4. Jacob says:

    “Update the definition of a banned shotgun with a revolving cylinder to include the new technology of a shotgun-rifle combination.”
    Are they talking about combination guns?

    • TS says:

      That is the first thing I thought of (“new technology”???)- but I believe they are talking about the scourge of guns chambered in .45 long colt that can also shoot .410. The Taurus Judge is already banned under SBS rules, so maybe they are expanding it to long guns.

    • Guav says:

      They’re probably talking about Saigas and other Shotguns That Look And Operate Like Rifles.

  5. Right Wing Wacko says:

    Maybe they could start by taking guns away from LA Cops

  6. Andy says:

    I wonder if the other manufacturers have the guts of Barrett.

  7. NotClauswitz says:

    They’re lying when they say “We can save lives…” – they can’t and this won’t.

  8. Andy B. says:

    “We’re told we’re paranoid and delusional for our tome that registration’s only purpose is to tell the government where they all are. . .”

    Now we’ve demonstrated that we were right all along. Meanwhile, in other threads, people have been describing conditions for expanded background checks, that they would fine acceptable. What are background checks if not automated registration of gun owners, if not of the guns themselves? (Actually, they are both.)

    I just want to thank all the “reasonable” gun rights advocates I’ve worked with in my life, with special accolades to those specializing in Cracking Down on Crime.

  9. John A says:

    Expanding the idiocy. I especially see

    Prohibit anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept…

    listed: so send your kid[s] somewhere?

    And turn in your M1, it has a detachable magzine/clip! But not necessarily your Winchester, since the magazine is internal!

    As to registration, do you list your weapons for insurance? Might as well register then with government, then.

    • Divemedic says:

      So that is the choice we are left with: Am I more likely to have my guns stolen by a burglar, or by a cop? If burglar, I list the guns on my insurance. If by cop, I buy a safe and hope for the best.

  10. Gun owners in the blue states have some tough choices after the courts have a swing at these bans.

    The way I see it, they can leave, they can comply, they can quietly resist by refusing to comply, or they can openly defy the law and accept the consequences.

    I think compliance is retarded, personally. Anything registered WILL be a cause of hassle and be subject to eventual confiscation. The Democrats in NY clearly felt it appropriate to hold the FOIA-exemption out as a threat so I would not be surprised to see the registry published, requiring said gun owner to move in the future anyways.

    Besides, these laws will be so complex and confusing, and none of them will require demonstrating criminal intent, so it will be trivial for the state to arrest you and charge you with something; because everything is a draconian felony, you WILL plea bargain down to a misdemeanor and be glad you get off with probation or a short stay in jail and a hefty fine. Everyone is guilty of something. There’s just not much point in trying to comply with the law under such a system. Compliance merely turns you into a target on a list for arbitrary enforcement action when the local SWAT team decides it needs to do a “compliance inspection” to gin up some funds.

  11. Bill says:

    By this time, we all know what they intend on doing. If they pass things lie this, I’m a defacto criminal. Which means I have nothing to lose. So they’ll come hot and heavy.

    The stupid games they play.

  12. Harry Schell says:

    Even if the state boyos don’t come to your door, those who don’t comply have significant downside.

    Any banned weapon can be seized when a LEO sees it, the owner brought up on charges. The state can go after those who have registered, as it has the time, but you cannot use a banned weapon, even for a lawful purpose, without facing charges yourself.

    This has another dimension. Since you are now a criminal, you will be reluctant to discuss what you have with others. You will be reluctant to travel with the banned weapon, lest an ordinary traffic issue turn into felony charges and seizure. You are guilty, which will color any interaction with LEO’s, not knowing what they know or don’t.

    This tends to isolate people from each other. It makes planning for emergencies more difficult, the formation of a militia in response to any significant threat harder. You are somewhat immobilized, and develop distrust in LEO’s or any government rep. Having someone do work in your home may be problematic for the amount of space you have to conceal “bad stuff”.

    Damage is done to the fabric of society, and the hold of government increased.

    Since government can’t get them all, when they do find someone, an example will be made, to the fullest extent of law and the imagination of a prosecutor. They’ll examine your dog to find out if they can add sodomy to the writ. You can bet any family members they can get to will have their homes tossed, in case they are accomplices.

    It’s for the children, y’know.

    Resistance is not futile, but it has a price, general and individual.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. California, possible new hollow point laws. - Page 3 - [...] your guns, take a copy of Time, roll it up, and smack them with it (assault magazine)." Where …
top