Thursday, May 21, 2009

Repeat After Me...

Registration leads to confiscation.

Registration leads to confiscation.

Registration...[More]


[Via Dave Licht]
Posted by David Codrea at 5/21/2009 01:19:00 PM

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Registration leads to confiscation
Registration leads to confiscation Registration leads to castration...

The catch 22 is that registration ABSOLUTELY leads to confiscation AND (certainly in kalifornia) non registration i.e. possessing firearms not registered to the possessor leads to confiscation also.

NEVER admit (in a traffic stop or to any agent of the government) to possessing guns. Keep your unregistered guns separate and away from your 4473'd guns.

I would not be suprised at all to see the irs and batfu matching records and using tax delinquencies and other agency administrative penalties to seize and confiscate guns.

The WOG is here.

Stay below the radar.

Fight islam Now

5/21/2009 1:53 PM
straightarrow said...

Only four officers to do this work, and they got all those guns? Without getting shot? The cop said "We're pretty much at the mercy of the guy on the other side of the door." Seems mercy is plentiful there. None of these people harmed or attempted to harm any of the cops, yet they had firepower and the sonsofbitches still try to convince us these people are too dangerous to have them.

Cops are sure becoming a bunch of pussies if that is their idea of danger.

5/21/2009 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...

Given a choice of turning weapons over to the authorities, giving them to another or selling them, why would I ever give them to the authorities?

5/21/2009 7:34 PM
Divemedic said...

Misdemeanors make you prohibited in Cali?

5/21/2009 8:56 PM
Joe G said...

I liked the (probably unrelated) footage of a conversation about manufacturing AK47's, followed by video footage of several bolt-action .22 rifles... they really tried to squeeze some hype out of this dry washcloth of a story.

5/21/2009 9:12 PM
Defender said...

"... some misdemeanors..."
He had already mentioned domestic violence -- being ACCUSED of MISDEMEANOR domestic violoence is now the same as a felony as far as gun confiscation - so looks like they're adding to the list, as we knew they would.
If they're "too dangerous to own a gun," why are they out of prison?
We know why. To skew the statistics.
Are there any Americans left in the Bay area of California? Do you want help?

5/21/2009 9:15 PM
W W Woodward said...

Portents of things to come.

Ex-felons today, or a person convicted of (at the time) a minor misdemeanor - the rest of us tomorrow.

At some point in your future a group of armed government thugs will show up at your door demanding the surrender of your personal property. If you don't meekly give up your property, they will kill you and take it.

Up until some jackass submitted a bill and convinced other jackasses to vote it into law, ex-felons and those convicted of minor misdemeanors weren't prohibited from possession of firearms.

Up until some jackass submits a bill and convinces other jackasses to vote it into law you won't be a felon either. At the stroke of a pen, you could also be a law-abiding citizen today and a felon tomorrow.

5/21/2009 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...

All of these "prohibited" gun owners should've given those cops the ammo first!!! F*** the "only ones"! They need to be taught that enforcing these vile gun laws will very likely lead to many of them NOT going home at the end of there shifts. The hogs are getting very hungry.

5/21/2009 10:53 PM
cranky said...

Heh.

At first blush, I didn't find much objectionable about visiting felon's homes to seize their guns, because that's the law...

But then, two of the examples given are people who HAVEN'T committed felonies. One was a misdemeanor domestic offender, the other, a person "determined," somehow, to be too dangerous to own guns.

At least the camera people gave him the chance to offer his opinion, that he will need those guns in the event of a natural disaster. Given the mindset of the Bay Area, however, it's likely the newsmen thought it was an especially damning admission, not worthy of debate.

Right on to those who say this is evidence of creeping standards. Sooner, rather than later, the desire to own a gun will somehow become evidence that a person should not be allowed to.

5/22/2009 10:23 AM
David Codrea said...

Cranky, I refused to register my "assault weapon" with the California DoJ and kept it in defiance of their edict. I was a felon. For years. I also had several different handguns which based on CA law would make me a felon if I carried one where I ignored their requirement to register it or just a misdemeanant for the other because the new law was in effect when I bought it through a dealer.

So I was a felon for carrying, too.

An unrepentant repeat offender gun felon--just never caught.

And more that it would be unwise to recount here.

And damned proud of it.

5/22/2009 10:38 AM
cranky said...

David:

I agree with your assessment: A felon is whatever they say a felon is.

Years ago, I was a felon for owning a handgun in the city limits of Chicago. And it was fear of a felony conviction that stopped me from carrying it.

I couched my initial approval with the term "at first blush..." because it's seems reasonable, at first. But it's all of a piece: None of it is reasonable.

5/22/2009 11:17 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)