First they register your guns, then they confiscate them.

confiscationLately I find myself writing more and more about second amendment issues. Despite what the Democrats and the Obama administration are saying publicly, their ultimate aim is to take away guns from law-abiding Americans. Despite a recent Gallup poll which shows that only 29 percent favor handgun bans, even the will of the people will not deter the Democrats from their objective of disarming Americans and making a mockery of the second amendment.

It has been stated that the second amendment is the most important amendment because it ensures all the other amendments. A disarmed America will not be able to resist a tyrannical, socialist government bent on subjugating its citizens. And if you think the idea of a tyrannical dictatorship happening in America is ludicrous, you need look no farther than what happened in Germany with Adolf Hitler. Something similar could all to easily happen here.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she wants to register guns. When asked about the prospect of new gun-control laws she responded:

It’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House. We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.

But why do Democrats want to register guns? They have long claimed that registration helps solve crimes. Yet in places where gun registration is required, few if any crimes have been solved through gun registration. When guns are left behind at a crime scene, which rarely happens, they are almost always registered to someone else, whose gun has been stolen. Those who use guns to commit major crimes are unlikely to have a firearm that is registered to them.

Hawaii has had licensing and registration of guns for about 50 years. Yet despite all the costs and inconvenience imposed on gun owners, police in Hawaii cannot point to a single crime that has been solved by gun registration.

Canada, which has required registration of handguns since the 1930’s, admitted recently in a parliamentary debate that only 3 crimes in 70 years had been solved as a result of registration. Of those 3 cases, 2 of them had other independent evidence which helped solve the crimes.

Since it is obvious that registration does not help to solve crimes, it is necessary to ask why governments want to register your firearms. Once again all you have to do is look to history for the answer. In countries like England and Australia gun registration has been used to create lists of owners whose guns were later confiscated by their governments. Fears that gun registration in America will be used for the same purpose are well founded. California has already used existing registration lists to confiscate so-called “assault weapons” just six years ago.

And despite the recent Supreme Court DC v. Heller 5-4 decision which struck down the District’s handgun ban, all it takes is another liberal justice (Sonia Sotomayor comes to mind) appointed to the bench by Obama to change all that.

So the next time your hear a liberal Democrat say “ all we want to do is regsister your firearms” what you really should be hearing is “ all we want to do is confiscate your firearms.”


  • Matty D

    Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.

    I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh — all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks — were just the beginning and that worse is to come.

    As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns. The group’s anti-Obama Web site is called

    While the N.R.A. is not advocating violence, it shouldn’t take more than a glance at the newspapers to understand why this is a message that the country could do without. James von Brunn, the man accused of using a rifle to shoot a guard to death at the Holocaust museum last week, was described by relatives, associates and the police as a virulent racist and anti-Semite.

    Investigators said they found a note that had been signed by von Brunn in the car that he double-parked outside the museum. The note said, “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them.”

    Richard Poplawski, who, according to authorities, used a high-powered rifle to kill three Pittsburgh police officers in April, reportedly believed that Zionists were running the world and that, yes, Obama was planning to crack down on gun ownership. A friend said of Poplawski, he “feared the Obama gun ban that’s on the way.”

    There is no Obama gun ban on the way. Gun control advocates are, frankly, disappointed in the president’s unwillingness to move ahead on even the mildest of gun control measures.

    What’s important to grasp here is that this madness has nothing to do with hunting, which the politicians always claim to be defending, and everything to do with the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like.

    In a speech in February to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre, said: “Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

    A new book by Dennis Henigan, a vice president at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, goes into detail on this point. In “Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy,” Mr. Henigan refers to a Harvard Law Journal article written by an N.R.A. lawyer titled, “The Second Amendment Ain’t About Hunting.” In the article, the lawyer makes it clear that for the N.R.A., the right to bear arms is “directed at maintaining an armed citizenry. … to protect against the tyranny of our own government.”

    There was a wave of right-wing craziness along those lines during the Clinton administration. Four federal agents were killed and 16 others wounded in 1993 during an attempt to serve a search warrant at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., where a stockpile of illegal machine guns had been amassed. The subsequent siege ended disastrously with a raging fire in which scores of people were killed.

    In the aftermath of Waco, the N.R.A. did its typically hysterical, fear-mongering thing. In a fund-raising letter in the spring of 1995, LaPierre wrote: “Jack-booted government thugs [have] more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. …”

    Whatever the N.R.A. may intend by its rhetoric, there is always the danger that those inclined toward violence will incorporate it into their twisted worldview, and will find in the rhetoric a justification for murder. On the second anniversary of the Branch Davidian fire, less than a week after LaPierre’s inflammatory fund-raising letter went out, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

    You cannot blame the N.R.A. for McVeigh’s actions. But you can sure blame it for ignoring the tragic lessons of history and continuing to spray gasoline into an environment that we have seen explode time and again.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported a resurgence of right-wing hate groups in the U.S. since Mr. Obama was elected president. Gun craziness of all kinds, including the passage of local laws making it easier to own and conceal weapons, is on the rise. Hate-filled Web sites are calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has a black president and that his chief of staff is Jewish.

    It might be wise to pay closer attention than we’ve been paying. The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.

  • Great comment Matty D. Lets see. In one comment you used right wing hate mongers, slither, gun crazies, wackos, right wing craziness and a few other choice phrases. Typical response of the liberal gun control advocates. Facts and statistics have no place in your comments. You figure if you just spew out enough rhetoric that someone may actually believe some of it. Chicago and DC have the strictest gun laws in the nation and also the highest murder and violent crime rates in America. But more gun control is going to fix that. How is that so? The law-abiding citizens have all been disarmed and no law passed by Obama or Congress is going to be obeyed by criminals. Your arguments are baseless and not supported by any statistics or reality. Your comment is just a bunch of words that have no real meaning. The current brutal suppression of peaceful protesters in Iran is a perfect example of how an unarmed populace is at the mercy of a tyrannical government. I reject everything you say, as fortunately most Americans still do.

  • BTW Matty D, you comment was stolen word for word from an op-ed piece by a NYT liberal columnist. Apparently you are incapable of writing a complete sentence of your own. Pathetic.

  • Fund Raising is always needed to support existing and future projects.’-.

  • Pingback: Proposed Gun Control Law Trashes First, Second And Fourth Amendment Rights »

  • The fungus lives underneath thee nail caused by a best treatment for nail fungus virus.

    A bladder infection is diagnosed at your
    veterinary clinic.

  • Fantastic artwork! This is the form of facts that should be embraced online. Shame on Google for not placement that upload bigger! Can occur through as well as consult with this site. Appreciate it Is equal to)

Leave a Reply