“Confiscation could be an option”

posted at 7:01 pm on December 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

It’s one of the most common refrains coming from the “reasonable discussion” crew as they pave the way for upcoming gun control legislation. Whether we hear it from the clucking tongues of guests on Morning Joe or from their legions of supporters on the web, the patter is the same. “No one is coming for your guns.” You’re all just being paranoid, disingenuous or worse. All we’re talking about is making little children safer. There’s not going to be anybody kicking down your doors.

(Of course, some very high profiles voices on the Left don’t seem to be able to stay on message.)

But over at National Review, Eliana Johnson proves yet again the wisdom of my dear old Dad. Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get ya.

In a radio interview on Thursday with Albany’s WGDJ-AM, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to work with state legislators next month to submit a proposal for new gun-control laws; in particular, Cuomo said, “our focus is assault weapons,” because current state laws regulating the weapons “have more holes that Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

Cuomo continued, “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.”

Here’s the audio, if you’d care to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, courtesy of Mediaite.

It really doesn’t get much more plain spoken than that, so we should probably give due credit to Governor Cuomo. But this is obviously not just on the minds of bloggers at KOS or media spokesmodels like Ed Schultz. It’s on the agenda of people like Chuck Schumer, who will vote on any future proposals in the Senate, and Andrew Cuomo, who will sign new legislation at the state level. True, they’re not owning up to it on the Sunday talk shows because they need to bring along the recently converted like Manchin, Bob Casey and Joe Scarborough. They need them to continue preaching to the wavering and mourning that nobody is coming to take away your guns. But they’re doing a very poor job of disguising their true intentions. What they’re talking about is confiscation. Or, if you prefer, “mandatory sale,” which simply means confiscation with you getting a check for whatever they deem the equipment to be worth.

Jerry Brown just signed a brand new law making it illegal to carry even long guns (bolt action rifles, shotguns) in public places in California. Maryland is already moving in the same direction. The people who have been waiting in the wings to gut the Second Amendment have not let the sudden wave of sympathy and horror escape their notice or go to waste, and they’re not waiting for the New Year to act. If you’re still sitting on the sidelines thinking that maybe if we just offer them some slightly smaller magazine capacities this will all go away, I don’t know what to tell you.

Maybe you are paranoid. But it seems fairly obvious that you’re also right.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Confiscation is never going to happen in this country. Nor should it.
chumpThreads on December 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The leftist wishes to ban guns and remove guns from the hands of every citizen. Period. An armed citizenry infuriates and terrifies the Statist — it reposits an impermissible and unpredictable amount of power in hands outside the government and cannot be tolerated. We know that Cuomo has now publicly mentioned confiscation. We know that this wasn’t an accident. We know that the Left’s agenda moves forward first on wings of words, emotions and narratives. We know that the Left is now empowered and emboldened like at no time in American history.

Sweeping confiscation may be impracticable and politically impossible at the moment but this is about working in deliberate increments, driven by propaganda and policy, to the end of making gun ownership an unbearable cost and trouble and embarrassment to the average citizen. Targeted confiscations may or may not be a useful component of this campaign. A lot depends on how completely the Republicans cave to the new emotional pressures of “gun control.” What really matters to the Left is to introduce the idea of confiscation to the conversation in order to judge the political reaction. So far, I have not heard a single Republican challenge Cuomo. This must thrill the Left. This is how it always begins. Of course, if any limited form of confiscation is allowed to go forward it greatly adds to the intimidating power of the government and to the fear and compliance factor with other anti-2nd amendment policies or actions.

The SCOTUS has settled the issue.

Nicely disingenuous. No issue presently unsatisfactory to the Left is EVER considered “settled.” ANYTHING that stands in their way is subject to annihilation or inversion.

rrpjr on December 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I’m curious who the republican leader of the NY State assembly is and why he wasn’t out that same day telling Cuomo he will in fact NOT confiscate legally owned firearms and if he attempts any such thing articles of impeachment will immediately be drafted.

rrpjr on December 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Brian M. Kolb
Assembly Minority Leader
LOB 933
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-3751

Mr. Grump on December 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

chumpThreads on December 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

First, please identify a weapon not designed for killing.

Now, to your points: How can you enforce a cap on ammunition? Can the state prove I didn’t go to the range and get myself back under the ‘max-allowable’ limit.

Additionally, what IS the limit? Just like the concept of ‘fair share,’ liberals refuse to actually identify what it is they want. Is it 3,000 rounds? 1,000? 100?

With 100 rounds, I can kill 100 people. With a 10-round pistol, I was able to fire 100 rounds in 60 seconds with no training whatsoever. What law can the state pas to prevent me from using my ammunition allotment to shoot people, and why isn’t that law already on the books?

We already have backgrounds checks. In fact, that precise mechanism prevented the Connecticut shooter from purchasing his own weapon. He was forced to steal one.

Define ‘arsenal.’ You’re using emotionally-charged words to avoid discussing specifics. Every gun on earth was designed to kill people. Every single one. A hammer was designed to drive nails, a saw was designed for cutting wood, a gun was designed to kill.

The 2nd Amendment was designed to enshrine the right of the people to violently oppose the government, not to enshrine the right of the people to hunt their own food.

Everything you posit does NOTHING to prevent 1st graders from being mercilessly gunned down. Nothing. Once he decided to shoot those children, the ONLY thing that was capable of stopping him was a second gun, legally carried, in the school. President Clinton advocated precisely that after Columbine.

Washington Nearsider on December 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): ‘The State Ought to Have a Monopoly on Legitimate Violenc

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nadler-state-ought-have-monopoly-legitimate-violence

How ignorant must this guy be, to be both American and Jewish and utter such garbage?

rayra on December 22, 2012 at 11:57 PM

And now you should understand better why Israel only has friends in conservative circles. Just look at Hussein’s admin and do the count of so called Jews in it, then add in the number that help him stay in power: media, Wall Street, Hollywood, etc. Shame that Jewish blood flows in their veins, they have not learned anything from the past 3 thousand years.

In regard to a number of posts above, Stalin used ethnic/regional divides to keep control of USSR. Military recruits from one republic would serve in another and had absolutely no qualms in opening fire on people in Uzbekistan, for example, if given orders. AND DID SO during a few little known mutiny attempts in large Soviet cities where even tanks were used to mow down the crowds (where do you think Chinese got the idea?). Draconian gun laws also helped since it is much easier to fight/control the unarmed populace.

The most “hunted” group in USSR was the GULAG guards, they had easily identifiable uniforms and were killed and beaten into pulp at every opportunity.

City I was born in (in Ukraine, but in Poland until the 1939 Great Divide) could not be taken over by Soviets after WWII until late 1950s and even afterwards government had issues well into ’60s. Why? Because the populace was ARMED, REALLY WELL ARMED. STILL ARE.

riddick on December 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Mr. Grump on December 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Thanks.

rrpjr on December 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

We can afford money to put cops in schools, but can’t afford new text books, professional development for teachers, higher salaries to attract the truly talented, school construction to ensure small classrooms and music and arts programs? Explain that one to me.

libfreeordie on December 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Yeah, cops would be a lot cheaper than those other NEA wet dreams. Next.

ddrintn on December 23, 2012 at 2:13 PM

As Col. Sam Trautman said to Sheriff Will Teasle upon learning of the upcoming assault to capture/kill John Rambo:
“Be sure to bring plenty of body bags.”

America’s gun-owners will not go quietly into that good night.

Another Drew on December 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Jazz, I would correct you by pointing out that the law that Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed restricts the carrying of UNLOADED long-arms;
The carrying of loaded long-arms has been illegal in CA since the days of the Black Panthers (restricted in 1970 IIRC).

As to Andrew, son of Hamlet-on-the-Hudson:
When NYC is the safest city in America, with the highest level of Freedom & Liberty of all, get back to us about how you’re going to dry-up all the guns in America.
Until then, just remember how the courts slapped you down when at HUD, you wanted to forbid those in HUD housing from possessing firearms. BTW, wasn’t the NRA one of the groups that filed suit against you?
Still carrying a grudge, are we!

Another Drew on December 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM

There are now upwards of 3 million Americans preparing in ernest to defend themselves and the Republic from the Marxist enemy in power.
The next move is theirs.
They feel emboldened and empowered, but the wrong move will bring their reign to a bloody end.
It won’t be quick; 4th generation warfare never is. We learned our lessons well in the sandbox.
Barak Hussein Obama, 44th and first true Marxist President of the United States…Greatest Armaments Salesman in the history of the country.
May God have mercy on us.

dirtengineer on December 23, 2012 at 3:05 PM

with regard to magazines capable of holding 19 (9mm) to 30 (.223) rounds, I wonder the best magazine size for dealing with breakdowns in civil order where Law Enforcement has given up. Certainly the LA Riots come to mind, but what also comes to mind was the beating murder of Kris Kimes by a half a dozen gang-bangers during the Seattle Mardi Gras riots. Kris Kimes murder, by the way, was watched by a line of police ordered to stand and watch–rather similar to how the Columbine first responders were ordered to stand and listen to the killings. And there are multiple stories of officers fleeing rioters during the LA Riots.

While I am sure the rank and file police were sick to their stomachs after both incidents, that doesn’t change the fact that even when the police are present one isn’t assured of any assistance other than cleaning up the mess and trying to arrest the perpetrators.

iconoclast on December 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

What this comes down to Andrew is that you don’t trust most of the people in NY and a large number of these same people don’t trust you.

diogenes on December 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM

rather similar to how the Columbine first responders were ordered to stand and listen to the killings. And there are multiple stories of officers fleeing rioters during the LA Riots.

iconoclast on December 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Sandy Hook response from cops was 20 MINUTES’ time. This in town that has what, 3 traffic lights and 2 main roads? What took them so long to respond?

Back in the ’70-80′ in NYC it took at least that much time to respond to a shooting, cops made sure that by the time they arrive THEIR LIVES are not in danger and perpetrators are no longer on scene. Used to ride 4 to a car just for regular patrol. But yes, “brave” enough to stop you and write tickets for having “Bad cop, no donut” bumper stickers or other car adornments.

Police departments’ hiring policies MUST be re-examined, we cannot have LE agencies that do not perform jobs they were hired to do in the first place.

riddick on December 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Exceptional

DarkCurrent on December 23, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, there have been tens of thousands of homicides (included in that figure are deaths resulting from self-defence actions.) Anyhoo, in all of those deaths AUTOMATIC WEAPONS were used TWICE.

Resist We Much on December 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM

And one of those was committed by a cop, with a department weapon.

rayra on December 23, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Anyhoo, in all of those deaths AUTOMATIC WEAPONS were used TWICE.

Resist We Much on December 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Legally Registered automatic weapons.

Solaratov on December 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM

NV seems to be going in the other direction come 2013 session. Proposed bills to include CCW on college campus as well as elimination of CCW license, similar to laws now in AZ, AK and VT: you qualify to purchase a gun, you automatically can carry. Open carry is already legal.

One restriction they may introduce is background checks for private sales.

riddick on December 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM

chumpThreads on December 23, 2012 at 12:54 PM

You need to read Scalia’s summary of the Heller decision. He specifically mentioned light weapons such as are commonly found on the battle field. That majority opinion was aimed specifically at the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, not hunting or self defense, which are ancillary benefits. I also assume if Balkanization were a direct result of weapon accumulation, it would have happened before now. Why hasn’t it?

a capella on December 23, 2012 at 1:04 PM

You’re wasting your time on Chump-ass there. He’ll only do enough ‘research’ to support his nonsense and maintain his self-delusions. Countervailing information will be ignored.

Good for the rest of the audince, though. EVERYBODY should read Heller and Scalia’s clear recounting of the history and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
THen they should go read the garbage amicus filing by some 500 ivy-league ‘constitutional scholars’ who claimed it doesn’t mean what it plainly says. And that somehow an ennumerated right in the BIll of Rights – an instrument that was specifically appended to the Constitution as a set of protections for the individual, as a compromise solution for those saying the Constitution gave to much power to a central govt – ISN’T an individual right like the other 9.

As for the asinine quibbling literalism of chump’s claims re Feinstein and confiscation – just what does he imagine is the necessary mechanism when Feinstein’s bill criminalizes ownership of such firearms and fails to granfather them? Just wtf is the difference between attempting to compel turning them in under threat of criminal penalty and ‘confiscation’? Does CHUMP somehow think it is any different or somehow ok if people are compelled to line up, rather than the police going door to door? Idiocy.

rayra on December 23, 2012 at 4:50 PM

In general, I share Andrew Cuomo’s pro-gun-control agenda. But I regret that he used the word “confiscation” in a radio interview yesterday in response to a question on guns, because it rallies the opposition while getting us no closer to more intelligent gun regulation:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/12/one-democrat-blowing-smoke-four-million.html

So Cuomo mouthed off — and now his use of a red-flag-to-a-bull word is going to be waved at gun-control advocates every single time we ever try to advocate for any change in any law in any way, however small or incremental, even if it’s far from New York State. We are now all Andrew Cuomo, forever. All of us now want to take all their guns, and anything we ever want to do is a smokescreen for that agenda. Just ask Jazz Shaw, writing at Hot Air about Cuomo’s remarks:

It’s one of the most common refrains coming from the “reasonable discussion” crew as they pave the way for upcoming gun control legislation. Whether we hear it from the clucking tongues of guests on Morning Joe or from their legions of supporters on the web, the patter is the same. “No one is coming for your guns.” You’re all just being paranoid, disingenuous or worse. All we’re talking about is making little children safer. There’s not going to be anybody kicking down your doors.

(Of course, some very high profiles voices on the Left don’t seem to be able to stay on message.)

Shaw goes on to quote Cuomo, but, as backup, he gives us that extra link, the one on the phrase “don’t seem to be able to stay on message.” Did you click on it? It’s a post by a Daily Kos diarist titled “Yes Conservatives, We Want to Take Away Your Guns…”

Whoops! Looks like the Oppressives have realized that they let the mask slip.

Up until the final solution it’s only supposed to reasonable or commonsense measured steps… designed to set us all up for the inevitable CONFISCATION.

Galt2009 on December 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Progressive tyranny marches on……..raving about 20 children being killed in kindergarten…..all the while actively supporting the butchering of those same children, by the tens of millions, in the womb.

Meanwhile the traitors in the media remain silent.

PappyD61 on December 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

petition to charge NBC David Gregory for possessing 30rd mag in DC

apparently he waved one around on Meet the Press, while weighing in for ‘gun control’. A felony violation for the hoi polloi in DC, but apparently not for a leftist journalist.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/press-charges-against-david-gregory-possession-30-round-high-capacity-assault-rifle-magazine/gMNRPpPl

rayra on December 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM

They can have my guns. But they shall have my bullets first.

wildcat72 on December 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

…color me naive, but isn’t just about everything an ‘assault weapon‘? If you use it properly, that is?

For instance (OLD toon of mine).

But seriously, I could pour a glass of tepid water on a black person whose hair was on fire and get 5 years. Not to bring race into the issue (*cough* *Al Sharpton* *cough*)…

Ugly on December 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Americans Won’t Give Up Their Guns, Law Or Not! … J. D. Longstreet
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2012/12/americans-wont-give-up-their-guns-law.html

To those on the political and those pushing gun control — in the childish naivete — You need to understand two things: One — Americans are NOT going to give up their guns! That’s one. Number two is this: If you really want to begin a civil war in this country, continue your efforts to take those guns and you will most certainly have one, and I do not think you have any idea, any inkling, of just how ferocious and brutal such a war can be.

For the past four years gun owners across America have been planning for just such a move by the gun control crowd. They have been purchasing weapons in record numbers and they have created secret caches of both weapons and ammunition that you simply will not believe.

I realize the words above are strong. That is intentional. I am trying to convey to gun control advocates and the Mainstream Media the seriousness of what they are doing and the indelicate manner in which the are approaching the issue. DEMANDING that an American citizen give up a constitutional right is bad enough, but demanding that he give up a constitutional right upon which his freedom and his very life may depend is the ultimate insult and is nothing less than an assault on the constitution itself. This we cannot, we will not, abide.

A note to our national legislators. Those of you supporting gun control legislation should understand it will be a career-ending move on your part.

“Molṑn labéis” ( Molon Labe) is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army’s demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.
So what does “molon labe” mean? Well, it is an invitation — and a challenge — all rolled into one. From the original Greek molon labe means: “Come and take ‘em.”

Galt2009 on December 23, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Bloomberg has a ‘shoulder thing that goes up’ moment. Totalitarian jackass doesn’t even know wth he’s trying to ban. Thinks the SEMI-auto rifles he’s trying to ban are actually full-auto.
And kudos to teh ABC wench for even knowing the difference and calling him on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8es6M_9HKk#ws

rayra on December 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Did David Gregory just violate D.C. gun law by possessing a high-capacity gun clip? (Update — No response yet from NBC)
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/did-david-gregory-just-violate-d-c-gun-law-by-possessing-a-high-capacity-gun-clip/

I confirmed via Westlaw that this is in fact existing D.C. law.

§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Here is the segment of today’s Meet the Press show in which Gregory holds up what appears to be a high-capacity (i.e., more than 10 round) ammunition clip while interviewing Wayne LaPierre this morning.

Update 5:15 p.m. — It has been 4 hours since I emailed the two communications people at NBC News with responsibility for Meet the Press, and almost two hours since I emailed the S.V.P. of Communications and left a voice mail on her cell phone, but no response yet from NBC News.

Galt2009 on December 23, 2012 at 6:44 PM

It’s funny, because I was just having a discussion with some folks where I work. They kept saying, “Why would anyone need a high capacity magazine? The government has tanks, RPGs, nukes… you can’t fight a government tyranny with just an AR-15 and a high-capacity magazine. So realistically, the 2nd amendment is dead. All you should need is something for hunting.”

My response: They won’t be sending out tanks (at least not at first) to take away your guns. So when the Obama goon squad comes to get your guns, and you have determined that it’s worth fighting for, which would you rather have? A 3-round magazine, or a 30-round magazine?

The Rogue Tomato on December 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

We can afford money to put cops in schools, but can’t afford new text books, professional development for teachers, higher salaries to attract the truly talented, school construction to ensure small classrooms and music and arts programs? Explain that one to me.

libfreeordie on December 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Easy.

Your gang-banging Obama base has made most inner-city schools hellholes of violence. Look at Chicago, look at DC, look at Detroit, look at LA, and look at inner-city Atlanta.

And remember, any time the laws are enforced against the Obama base and the gang-bangers therein, you shriek “racism”.

So for the few kids who actually want to learn, there have to be armed police officers there to protect them, since you and your Obama won’t tell your gang-banging base to knock it off and enforce the laws against THEM having guns and using them illegally.

northdallasthirty on December 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Read Matthew Bracken, he does a great job describing this in three very well-written and exciting-to-read novels.

Who is John Galt on December 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Where else can our country get a free Army who arms themselves guns and ammo, against insider threats? Thats what Americans are when they arm themselves. DOes anyone look at it as a cost savings that the govt doesnt need to waster time and effort on more cops?

johnnyU on December 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM

In the history of the United States how many invasions of our mainland have we suffered?

Yeah.

As I recall Yamamoto had something to say about that.

M240H on December 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM

So for the few kids who actually want to learn, there have to be armed police officers there to protect them, since you and your Obama won’t tell your gang-banging base to knock it off and enforce the laws against THEM having guns and using them illegally.

northdallasthirty on December 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Any over/under on how many gansta idiots will be present at Hussein’s inauguration party this time around?

“Kill cops” seems to be pretty popular rap sh$t for years now, but who cares about law abiding gun owners?

riddick on December 23, 2012 at 8:09 PM

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

“The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/3949

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 8:12 PM

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 8:12 PM

The Left could’t care less. The media either won’t report any violation, will cover for the Left when there is a violation, and/or will ignore or attack any Republican who tries to make an issue of it. And the Republicans are more terrified of the media than they are comitted to, well, anything. There in a nutshell you have the elements of our downfall.

rrpjr on December 23, 2012 at 8:33 PM

ROFL…so when he got to a city dominated by liberals, this good-guy-in-private was going to be just what we needed.

Non sequitur.

You don’t know what the term means.

Anyway..how about answering the questions I asked?
Be specific.

Mimzey on December 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM

You first. Point out some of Romney’s governance that should’ve made conservatives thrilled about him.
Now you’re just being childish…possibly unaware of it.

Mimzey on December 23, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Nothing. I thought so.

ddrintn on December 23, 2012 at 8:50 PM

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/3949

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 8:12 PM

With respect sir, that website is a giant steaming pile of bull@#$%. You do the cause of modern conservatism inestimable harm when you link to it on a well known conservative website like this. The Hotair community is not terribly fond of the traitors or the murderers of innocent children who maintain that site.

Alberta_Patriot on December 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Alberta_Patriot on December 23, 2012 at 9:00PM

Keep drinking fluoride…it’s working.

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Alberta_Patriot on December 23, 2012 at 9:00PM

Listen to pro Agenda 21 Vaccine pusher Bill Gates in his own words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNyo0Gu7064

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Yeah,
I can see all those thugs/gang bangers giving up their guns.

Yeah…I’m talking to you Bloomberg, you thug. (IMHO)

ProfShadow on December 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Keep drinking fluoride…it’s working

That’s why I only drink grain alcohol and rainwater.

The Buzz on December 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”…Sound familiar?

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

If the citizenry does not need semi automatic rifles then neither do the federal, state or local police. They especially do not need fully automatic weapons.

booger71 on December 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

The Definition MILITIA by James Madison, is that of a CIVILIAN FORCE, which is to serve as an OPPOSING FORCE to any standing army;

Along with this is a very defining statement that the MILITIA be officered by men chosen “among THEMSELVES”; Not by the standing army, and not by government.

This being the intent in creating and understanding the compact and common law as the first law of nature being self preservation, no other description in law, however written or documented, can exceed it.

The quotes below establish this as fact:

President George Washington presented his mistrust in the federal government very clearly and defined the true intent where the powers should lay, and that is in the hands of the civilians.

In response to a proposal for gun registration George Washington in 1790 said: “Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the “federalists” do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government.”

The RIGHT to “CONCEAL” from the federal government; The purpose clearly stated to have the power to put down an oppressive federal government.

This is clearly in line with the “12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence” ( http://www.pacificwestcom.com/independence ); This defines the Intent of the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founders.

Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress from Massachusetts during the debates over the Bill of Rights “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to “prevent the establishment of a standing army”, the “bane” of liberty …

… Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

Lets review other words of James Madison with regards to “MILITIAS” and standing armies; The purpose and the “POWER RATIO” between them:

James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:

“The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of the number able to bear arms.

This “PORTION” would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To “these” would be opposed

(APP: VERY IMPORTANT – indicating that the “MILITIA” is to be a >>>”OPPOSING FORCE” to the standing army as well as that of foreign enemies)

a “MILITIA” amounting to near half a million “CITIZENS” with arms in their HANDS,

“officered by men chosen from >>>”among THEMSELVES”,

(APP: Not chosen by the government or by the standing army)

fighting for “their” (the citizen / militia’s) common liberties and united and conducted by government”S” possessing their (the citizen / militia’s) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted whether a “MILITIA” “thus circumstanced” could ever be conquered by such a “proportion” (i.e. POWER RATIO) of regular troops (i.e. standing army).

Besides the advantage of (THE CITIZENS) being armed, it forms a barrier against the “enterprises of ambition”, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.

If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

John Adams in A Defense Of The Constitution:

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion … in private self-defense.”

Samuel Adams, John Adams’ second or third cousin, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Jefferson:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.”

Part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria — a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary — in On Crimes and Punishment;

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Paine from his Thoughts On Defensive War written in 1775:

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

George Washington January 7, 1790 :

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, “the rifle and pistol” are “equally indispensable”. The very atmosphere of firearms “everywhere” restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

George Mason when the Constitution was being debated:

“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Absolute Rights of the Colonists – Samuel Adams – 1772

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Rights_of_t

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.–

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the >>>”best manner they can”– (APP: Note that there are no limitations in how our the means)

Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called >>>”the first Law of Nature”–

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.–

When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable “ORIGINAL COMPACT”.–

Every natural Right not “expressly” given up or from the nature of a Social Compact “necessarily” ceded “REMAINS”.–

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Tp paraphrase Mr. Crockett, “[They] can all go to hell. I shall go to Texas.”
Wait… I’m already there.

Empiricist on December 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

COME AND TAKE IT

burserker on December 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM

When all armed private bodyguards are illegal, when off-duty and retired cops are disarmed, and when police protection for politicians is as easy to get as police protection for private citizens then come talk to us about disarming.

When there hasn’t been a riot in 50 years, when young men like Kris Kimes are not murdered by a gang-banger mob (while the police watched) then let’s talk about high-capacity magazines.

iconoclast on December 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM

dom89031 on December 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

That’s great stuff. Thanks.

rrpjr on December 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Jazz:

With respect to Cuomo you said: “…straight from the horse’s mouth…” I’m sure that what you really meant to say was, “…straight from the horse-asses mouth…” Right?

stefano1 on December 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

ass’s

stefano1 on December 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

None of this has me worried, really.

Most cops and military people do respect the right of the People to bear arms, and they understand the depth to which that tenet is held among much of America.

I am one of so, so many, who will refuse to register guns.
If anyone comes for them… if I am an otherwise law-abiding citizen, in my castle, I will shoot any and all dead until I am shot.

Of course, I will lose. I can’t outshoot the government. But I will take down anyone who forcibly tries to violate my 2nd Amendment rights, until I am dead on my own property.

Multiply this many, many times across America, and one sees that realistically, the government cannot disarm the people, without full-fledged civil war.

It would be a pretty stupid way to go, given that most gun owners are law-abiding, and there are much worse problems facing the nation.

cane_loader on December 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM

As a California Resident, I received this from the California Democrat Party:

I wanted to make sure you saw my email from Friday regarding the need for passing sensible gun laws in the wake of the terrible school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

More than 15,000 California Democrats have already signed our petition supporting sensible, long-overdue legislation from Senator Dianne Feinstein to ban the sale of assault weapons and extended ammunition clips.

Despite this outpouring of support, the gun lobbyists — who wield tremendous influence in Washington — will try to stop Senator Feinstein’s legislation.

We need your help to make sure it passes. Click here to sign our petition of support for the upcoming assault weapons ban legislation.

My email from Friday is below, and it has all of the details.

Let’s show the country that California is taking the lead in standing up to gun violence.

Thank you for being a California Democrat.

John Burton
Chair
California Democratic Party

I posted this on the petition:

I am not a gun lobbyist, nor not even a gun owner at present. While the government can draft thousands of pages of new legislation with ease, consistent failures of the government to competently deal with law enforcement may force me to purchase a handgun for self-protection in the near future. But I digress…

As the Senator from California, I think it would be extremely important to see you introduce legislation that prohibits depiction of violent acts in Hollywood productions. The problem is the culture that tolerates and promotes violence, not the weapon of choice of the criminal.

Also, uniform enforcement of existing laws (put David Gregory in jail for a year for violating DC’s gun laws LIVE, ON AIR) would indicate that the Democrats are serious about law enforcement. Cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration would be a good thing, too. After all, “illegal” is “illegal” – isn’t it?

Otherwise, if we’re not going to enforce the law, any person with an assault weapon could just call themselves an “undocumented soldier” – right? RIGHT?

Rule of law, please. Rule of LAW.

JohnD13 on December 24, 2012 at 3:22 AM

KOOLAID2 on December 22, 2012 at 8:19 PM

-
If Andrew’s leadership over gun control is as effective as it was for Hurricane Sandy, I wouldn’t loose much sleep.
-
BTW, Curtis “Guardian Angel” Sliwa refers to him as Andrew “Snake Eyes” Cuomo.

diogenes on December 24, 2012 at 5:31 AM

Not one single person in New Orleans fired a single shot in defense of their 2nd amendment rights which the New Orleans Police were indisputably violating.

What SWalker doesn’t want us to remember is that there was a little thing called a hurricane going on at the time. They can’t count on little distractions like that.

SDN on December 24, 2012 at 6:59 AM

Meanwhile, here in The People’s Republic of Illinois:

Background checks conducted ahead of gun sales in Illinois have almost doubled since the school shootings in Connecticut on Dec. 14.

Illinois State Police information provided to The Associated Press shows that 12,557 checks were conducted through the state’s Firearms Transfer Inquiry Program between Friday and Tuesday. There were 6,870 checks during she same period a year earlier.

When I visited my local shop last Friday their handgun stock was depleted by 2/3.

visions on December 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

They should confiscate forks too. Forks make people obese. Look at all the obese people dying from forks!

Wait let’s confiscate cars, since they force people to drive drunk and kill others. Cars also make people take drugs.

While we’re at it lets confiscate cell phones, since people texting behind the wheel of their cars kill thousands. We should especially confiscate cars EQUIPPED with phones.

btw didn’t the confiscation of alcohol require an amendment to the US constitution?

dogsoldier on December 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

What SWalker doesn’t want us to remember is that there was a little thing called a hurricane going on at the time. They can’t count on little distractions like that.

SDN on December 24, 2012 at 6:59 AM

Of course they can. That is what never letting a crisis go to waste is all about.

They won’t seize our guns because children were murdered at Sandy Hook. They will just move the line a bit closer. At this point they still need a much better crisis than that to go straight for outright national confiscation.

For instance, the collecitivists would love it for al qaeda to set off a nuke in an American city and threaten to blow up a few more. They are close enough to outright confiscation now that the chaos of millions of panicking people fleeing the cities would probably do the trick.

As time goes on and they gradually get the line closer, it won’t take such a drastic situation to go to confiscation.

fadetogray on December 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Mobsters don’t like other people having guns, it’s a power and steal thing.
But i wonder who will go around and collect the guns if it comes to that, not Cuomo or Schumer.

arand on December 24, 2012 at 10:30 AM

An observation from a last minute shopper yesterday.

Moved around a very large mall in Indianapolis yesterday with almost no traffic jams or large crowds.

That is until I went to Gander Mountain. The store had to be near capacity. The gun counter had a ticket dispenser and they were 65 customers out when I looked at the number being dispensed. Many of the guns were sold out. Racks that held 10′s of thousands of rounds a month ago were empty of almost ever caliber.

I saw an awful lot of “normal looking” Americans buying some of the remaining stock.

I get the feeling they aren’t buying before the bans hit. I think they are buying to protect their families and loved ones.

This is going to be ugly if they really push this agenda. I think they will.

acyl72 on December 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

This is going to be ugly if they really push this agenda. I think they will.

acyl72 on December 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

They will. Know it.

As time goes on and they gradually get the line closer, it won’t take such a drastic situation to go to confiscation.

fadetogray on December 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Precisely. This is all about closing the line. “Confiscation” has now been introduced into the “national conversation.” No leading Republican said a word. Mission accomplished.

rrpjr on December 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Bloomberg is a long-time gun advocate who started “Mayors Against Guns,” which now has more than 700 members. He has been lobbying for:

Renewal of the assault weapon ban.

Required background checks for every gun sold right now — 40 percent of all guns are sold without background checks.

Stronger enforcement of straw sales, where someone buys a gun for someone not eligible to own one.

A requirement that states enter criminal and mental health records into the federal background check system.
~

Could this possibly be a mistake?

Akzed on December 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

“Confiscation could be an option” – il Duce Coomo

LMAO
Try it. Be sure to lead the charge, literally, Coomo ya coward.
M400, SIG Sauer
http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductList/rifles-m400.aspx

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Curiouser and curiouser.

Akzed on December 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I thank God that we still have a House Majority and at least Senate gridlock because if the Dems had control of both the House and the Senate, Gun Control would be law! Scary times!

Conservative_Hippie on December 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM

And there are multiple stories of officers fleeing rioters during the LA Riots.

iconoclast on December 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

..just as there were many stories of Korean store owners protecting their property with firearms in 1992.

The War Planner on December 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Here, everybody interested in the Firearms / RKBA arena should go read this PDF by the ATF, Some very interesting numbers and trends within it.

ATF 2012 Statistical Report on Firearms Commerce in the US
h ttp://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf

rayra on December 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Sweeping confiscation may be impracticable and politically impossible at the moment but this is about working in deliberate increments, driven by propaganda and policy, to the end of making gun ownership an unbearable cost and trouble and embarrassment to the average citizen.

rrpjr on December 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I expect the coming wave will be aimed mainly at increasing the cost and trouble, until most people decide buying or keeping a gun is not worth the hassle/expense.

petefrt on December 24, 2012 at 4:45 PM

440 children shot in Chicago! 60 killed!

It took 51 weeks, but still.

Akzed on December 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM

On the day of the shooting Robbie Parker, grieving dad, puts up a FB page soliciting money.

Akzed on December 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Merry Christmas everyone. HUG YOUR WIFE, KIDS AND YOUR AR-15 !

TX-96 on December 24, 2012 at 7:05 PM

The more I think about LaPierre’s position, the more I think the GOP needs to support it, and do so aggressively. His position is an enlightened offense, not a cowering defense, with high appeal to reason and common sense, especially to parents.

Will we let the politicians protect themselves and their children in school with armed guards, yet deny comparable protection to our children? Where’s the fairness in that?

petefrt on December 24, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Curiouser and curiouser.

Akzed on December 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Not surprising. AT ALL. I posted a number of times pointing out that there HAD to be someone else involved to trigger the events. If not “helping” outright. Cops reported they found a man “strolling in the woods” nearby, in fatigues, but let him go without even checking his hands for powder residue. This whole things just smacks of cover up of some kind to drive the liberal agenda.

And yes, I will not be surprised that once we see resistance to any proposed bans we will see one or two more mass shootings liberals will organize to scare up more people. I am actually betting on it, noting will stop the mother fuggers, no matter how low and despicable. Its post 1917 Russia all over, shoot and pillage into submission.

riddick on December 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

“She explains that all existing “assault weapons” would be–just as machine guns are currently–put under National Firearms Act (NFA) regulation, with all the legal hoops such regulation entails.

The guns would be registered (presumably, like machine guns, subject to periodic inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives); owners would be subject to invasive background checks, presumably fingerprinting, etc. She did not mention the $200 tax stamp for every transfer (and would that also apply to magazines–each magazine?), but if they are to be regulated “like machine guns,” that would be part of it. And ownership of the gun would apparently be contingent on a local judge or chief law enforcement officer approving that ownership–with the official in question not required to provide that approval, or even a reason for disapproval.”

Now I understand why teachers and Doctors have been asking children about “If you or your parents own a gun”. All that goes into a file which is now electronically in the hands of ObamaCare/Homeland Security.

All those “studies” that we laughed at were mere Trojan Horses to get statements on the record.

Bulletchaser on December 24, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Now I understand why teachers and Doctors have been asking children about “If you or your parents own a gun”. All that goes into a file which is now electronically in the hands of ObamaCare/Homeland Security.

All those “studies” that we laughed at were mere Trojan Horses to get statements on the record.

Bulletchaser on December 24, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Soviet Union days all over again: Make kids tell on their parents. Make neighbors tell on you.

Country/region changes, but same communist methods, proven by decades of repressions.

riddick on December 24, 2012 at 10:54 PM

rrpjr on December 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” ~ Ayn Rand

petefrt on December 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM

They can confiscate all guns when all US congressional politicians and other DC and local elected officials give up their secret service protection, state government protection, and personal armed bodyguards.

Then nobody will have guns for protection, defense, or crimes, right?

Who needs an armed FBI agent, secret service agent, or police. We can fire them all and save money.

K.I.S.S. Socialist Utopia is the answer, right lefty?

Stefan

stefanslaw on December 26, 2012 at 6:20 AM

Back to Cuomo…this guy is one of the Great White Hopes of the demotards? He’s a dolt. You can see the wheels turning in his head as he tries to form cogent thought.

He makes Bill Richardson look positively cerebral.

MikeinPRCA on December 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Cuomo is larger than life with a brain much much smaller.

Sherman1864 on December 27, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.

You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4