Beyond The Obvious In Connecticut’s Refusal to Register Guns

So long as the citizens of this country willfully remain no more than participants in a maneuver by government officials, in cahoots with controlled media outlets, they play into the hands of the global ruling elite that want Americans disarmed. Some may ask how can I say that following what, on the surface, appears to be pure American defiance against those making laws contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

The subject at hand is the act of Connecticut gun owners who refused to obey the Constitution State’s (that’s a joke isn’t it?) law that required all people who own “assault rifles/weapons” to register them by January 1, 2014. Not very many people did.

Let’s try to examine this action on a level much deeper than hip, hip, hooray for those defiant gun owners.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Perhaps the Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, has been abused, tread on, altered, demonized, misinterpreted and used against the citizens of the United States as a means by the government to display its power over the people and the usurpation of rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, stated that it was the finding of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the people, that is the lawful citizens of this nation, have the right, under the Constitution, to keep and bear arms. He did not affirm that this right was without restrictions. One can therefore look at Heller v. District of Columbia as either an affirmation of a individual’s right to keep and bear arms, or an affirmation that even though the Second Amendment provides that right to an individual, government can make limitations against it, including prohibiting the sale and purchase of guns as we have already seen.

The global ruling establishment wants the United States of America to become unarmed. I have repeatedly written that, in my opinion, the fact that millions upon millions of Americans possess millions upon millions of arms and ammunition, it is the last deterrent toward tyranny and despotic rule. You might be saying then why am I not so enthused about the actions shown by Connecticut gun owners?

Actually, I am enthused, as I believe that any government that willfully and without regard, attempts to destroy the rights of people guaranteed by God and our constitution, should be defied. After all, isn’t that how America became separated from Great Britain and the despotic King George III?

There is more to this than a simple matter of defying the Connecticut government and that’s the part that bothers me.

Let’s start with the term “assault rifle.” This term was coined deliberately and with reason behind it. Just the word assault, because of years of brainwashing by our education institutions and media manipulations, have programmed humans to react to “assault weapon” as something to greatly fear; as though it had a will of its own, walking about seeking whom it may devour.

That’s only one small word that is part of a bigger plan to disarm America.

Who believes that the United States Government, or any other government or power, is going to simply one day demand that all Americans turn over their weapons and ammunition? Voluntarily, this will never happen. There needs to be a justifiable reason (justifiable by government interpretation) to forcefully take those weapons away and/or by some foreign invasion of this country in which Americans, even while putting up a fight, would eventually cede their weapons.

We have debated this issue for decades and some even recognize the so-called “incremental” attack on the Second Amendment through fear mongering, lying, cheating, stealing, the calling for “reasonable restrictions,” demands of background checks, gun registrations, permits, etc. And how has that effort gone?

There has been some success, mainly through those too gutless to stand up for the protection of rights and too ignorant, blinded by the media’s onslaught of lies and fabricated “data,” to not side with those calling for “reasonable” restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Consider some of those “reasonable” restrictions that we have so willingly given up:

1.)Restrictions of what kinds of “arms” and ammo we are allowed to keep and bear, quantities and size.
2.)Giving in and requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This being nothing more than in part a registration of gun ownership.
3.)Gun registration with the purchase of any gun through a licensed dealer.
4.)Background checks.

Do we have these same “reasonable” restrictions (remember reasonable is by someone’s definition and/or interpretation) on religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, privacy, search and seizure, etc, to the same degree?

In Connecticut, we see that evidently the majority of gun owners said requiring them to come forward and register their “assault” weapons was too much and are defying that law. So what is any of this accomplishing?

First off, the two actions, one by government and one by the citizenry, has played nicely into the hands of the media – a tool of the global ruling establishment. They now have an issue in which they can effectively play one side of the people against the other side – divide and conquer.

Government erred (or did they?) in crafting an unconstitutional law that they knew was unenforceable, or should have known. Gun owners, I suppose, if I may give them this much credit, knew the law was unenforceable and knew it went further against their rights than they were willing to give up. We now have polar opposites warring with each other. A despotic, tyrannical government forcing itself upon the people who place equal value on rights as do the tyrants in the Connecticut legislature on its power. A perfect storm.

This is where the media steps in, by order of their controllers, to play one side against the other. As an example, we read in the Hartford Courant, that the editorial staff wants law officials in Connecticut to find all those who refused to bow down to the whims of a tyrannical government, located and locked up.

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced. (emphasis added)

Evidently the Hartford Courant thinks Connecticut’s new law is enforceable, or do they really? Notice that the newspaper demands the state exercise an authority, one that evidently is believed to have been given along with background checks. Recall, if you can, that when all the hoopla was about strengthening background checks and having them all run through one federal database, the promise was that background check information would not be retained and used against those seeking to purchase a gun. So much for government honesty and those in the media who do the bidding for the government.

J.D. Tuccille of Reason.com says:

Laws rely, almost entirely, on voluntary compliance, with enforcement efforts sufficient for a tiny, noncompliant minority. If a large number of people to whom a law applies find the law repugnant—and a majority of a group, consisting of scores of thousands of people, constitutes a large number—than the law is unenforceable, no matter how many politicians and newspaper editorial writers think it’s a swell idea. Governments that try enforcement, anyway, will be stuck in a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy.

If Tuccille’s statement above is true, then isn’t it logical to ask, beyond of the obvious and shallow debate of who’s right, if the law that Connecticut passed was intended to create, “a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy?” Of course it was. And the media makes sure the ball is sent back and forth from one side to the other to perpetuate the “brutality” and ensure the “declining legitimacy” of the government, their authority and unreasonable rules of law.

The people now, more than ever, see government as brutal, overreaching, unfair, tyrannical in nature, etc. This, of course, by design. This isn’t relegated to just Second Amendment issues. No way! Pick any topic and any issue. They are ALL controversial, pitting one side against the other, either government against the people or people against the people. In this case it’s government against the people.

Connecticut gun owners’ actions will, more than likely, spread to other states, other gun owners. This, I also believe, is part of the bigger plan. If the global ruling powers can begin small and escalate the issue to encompass a majority of American gun owners, to get them angrier and more pitted against the government and their overreach and stripping away at constitutional rights, the more easily they can implement their plan of disarmament.

Earlier I stated that the United States Government and all those that control that government, have not had great success in taking bold action to disarm Americans or through the chipping away of Second Amendment rights; at least not in a timely enough fashion. I also said that the last deterrent to dictatorial rule, i.e. a One World Government, fascist in nature, controlling the existing New World Order, is Americans and their guns. They must be disarmed and the only way this is going to happen is by force.

If the media is successful enough, they will incite rioting, at any time, for any cause. If the action of Connecticut gun owners appears effective enough, other states will willfully begin to outwardly defy government laws aimed at gun ownership. The goal here by the global powers is to get American gun owners and anyone else who will follow, including those paid for and planted to create violence, to take to the streets in protest, the United States Government is well prepared to declare a national emergency.

All the years since Obama has been in office, he has, through legal law making and executive action, set the stage so that when a national emergency is declared, he becomes dictator. Then, guns will be forcefully taken from Americans.

The other option I spoke of is invasion by another country or countries, of which I am not ready to discuss.

Now is the time to be watchful and see how effective what happened in Connecticut will be in motivating others to defy the authority of strong-armed government. Will it end up in street violence? National emergency? Time will tell.