gun controlIt’s happening. The fascists or communists or socialists or progressives or new world order tyrants or whatever you choose to call them are taking over. This has been happening for some time (if you haven’t watched the movie “Agenda”, which is available at the moment for free viewing on Vimeo at, you must), but the frog in the pot has suddenly had the water turned up to full boil under the Obama administration.

According to a story reported by WFSB, Connecticut gun owners were standing in line to comply with unconstitutional legislation requiring them to register their semi-automatic weapons and magazines. The pictures of the people dutifully lining up reminded one of the lines of Jews at the concentration camps waiting to take their showers. The similarity was more than superficial.

The registration legislation was passed during the hysterical period following the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the face of such incomprehensible violence, parents and citizens in general wanted to know what they could do to make their children and themselves less likely to be the next targets for some madman. Waiting in the wings for just this sort of tragedy were anti-gun politicians like Connecticut governor Daniel Malloy and his gun-grabbing friends in Washington from Obama on down, who immediately intensified their anti-gun rhetoric and attacks on your Second Amendment rights.

These politicians positively drooled on themselves in anticipation of how easy it would now be to implement another step in their ultimate plan to disarm America. While parents were still weeping over the tragedy, they ran to their statehouse to pass legislation requiring lawful citizens to register their guns and magazines by the end of the year.

What was the purpose of this legislation? What is the purpose of registration? As WFSB reported, “None of the people Eyewitness News spoke with thinks this is going to reduce gun violence. They believe it’s only hurting law abiding citizens.” Then why are they complying with the law? One resident who was registering his magazines said, “If they were trying to make them illegal, I’d have a real issue, but if they want to just know where they are, that’s fine with me.” But if all they wanted was to “know where they are”, why would they go to all this trouble? What possible good would it do the government to “know where they are” if it didn’t intend to do something else later, like confiscate them? How would “knowing where they are” prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook?

In a similar development, country music star Toby Keith has opened another restaurant in Woodbridge, Virginia, just outside D.C. Prominently displayed on the front door is a sign saying: “NO GUNS PERMITTED.” Virginia law allows open carry, or concealed carry with a permit, in such establishments, although drinking alcohol when carrying is illegal. Obviously Keith’s restaurant is private property, and he can prohibit people from bringing weapons on his property if he so desires, but what is troubling is people’s attitudes toward this prohibition.

The Fox 5 article says, “We didn’t find anyone at Toby Keith’s who objected to the no guns rule. It’s possible we found no dissension because gun fans are boycotting the establishment. If that’s happening, the boycott doesn’t appear to be effective. At lunchtime, there was a 20-minute wait for tables.”

Apparently patrons have the twisted idea that people carrying in the restaurant somehow make the

atmosphere more dangerous. I guess they think that someone will eat his dinner and then suddenly open up on the rest of the customers. These uninformed patrons might wish to reflect on the massacre at Luby’s Cafeteria on Oct. 16, 1991 in the Central Texas town of Killeen. On that day, at 12:45 p.m., 35-year-old George Hennard drove his pickup truck through a window and killed 24 people. A Houston Chronicle reporter summarized what happened: “He calmly and methodically strolled through the cafeteria, randomly shooting innocent people as they crouched under tables. Often he would stick the gun at a victim’s head or body and fire.”

A potential victim who survived was Dr. Susan Gratia Hupp. She survived, but her parents and 21 others were killed, and another 29 injured. If you haven’t heard her testimony, you can watch it here. Things might have turned out differently if Dr. Hupp had had her handgun in her possession inside the restaurant instead of leaving it in her car due to anti-carry legislation in Texas. Without guns, the patrons in the restaurant became defenseless victims, as Toby Keith insists all his patrons be.

The people of this country have been lied to for so long, and have been fed liberal anti-gun propaganda for so long, that they cannot think for themselves any longer. What would have made a difference in Sandy Hook or in Killeen? Gun registration? What possible difference would it have made if the guns had been registered or not? The only way the shooters could have been stopped would have been if someone had been able to shoot back.

The governor and the legislators of Connecticut, and their counterparts in Washington and states all over the nation are not stupid. They know that their usurpation of your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will not do a thing to reduce crime and carnage. In fact, gun-free zones, whether schools, or restaurants, or your homes when they ultimately come for your guns, will be far less safer than they are now, just as Sandy Hook and Luby’s were. There will always be guns; the only difference will be that only criminals and the government will have them.

Just look at the track record of the 20th Century. Look at what is happening to unarmed people throughout the world today. Yes, people die at the hands of crazies and criminals. But if you want to talk about tens of millions of innocent victims, you have to look at government, not individuals. And it is precisely government that wants your guns.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.