Has the fuse of revolution been lit in California?

I was astonished to read about the weak (that’s the legislators and politicians) writing what the media called sweeping new rules on including a ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, background checks for those buying ammunition and new restrictions on homemade firearms, and a host of other stupidity.

Still at least a federal judge has temporarily stopped this process in defense of the 2nd Amendment. Only what happens next if his ruling is overturned and it leads to door to door searches and direct action against gun owners (of both political persuasions) by Leo’s?

Will Democrats ‘rat’ (pun intended) side with the state against Republicans?
Or could that happen the other way around? Or both ways around !!!!!
Either way you look at this, the common enemy here would be THE STATE which could lead a violent reaction by some of the population to a gun grab.

That would not be the common definition of civil war (a war between citizens of the same country), a reactive attack against THE STATE would be called revolution and that will drag the White house into the equation in double-quick time.

After that POTUS would have only two choices.
Support the state which may bring about a general revolution and be seen as a betrayal by the people (and reading comment he’s on shaky ground now) or support the people (which would bring about political open warfare at a central government level in support of the state). Just think, California might just be the lit match that destroys the US.

Something tells me this is only the beginning of an interesting summer.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in miscellaneous, politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Has the fuse of revolution been lit in California?

  1. Brittius says:

    Constitutional carry, is sweeping the nation. The Marxist control addicts cannot accept things. People are fed up with them. But, Fear Not, as other pressing matters will overcome the fools in political office. The fuse of Failure, has been lit. California, is on the cusp of receivership. The free programs, exceed tax revenues taken in by the state. It also does not address the underground economy of California, such as drug dealing, prostitution, gambling, stolen merchandise for sale, etc.
    As the state of Illinois is ready to go belly up, California too, has swallowed the Marxist liberal rubbish, hook line and sinker. Then if it really goes bad, both states will cry for the federal government to step in and bail them out. Here in New York, the Marxist governor Andrew Cuomo, has pushed free stuff, and taxes will rise causing further exodus and increased tax burden on whomsoever is left. The president should be lining up the ducks, now.
    I need some black market business of my own (!). The meager pension only stretches so far.

    • I’ve read about constitutional carry and agree with it (I would seeing as though we’ve not got any carry or any weapons). However the problem isn’t the people it’s the politicians, (which is the same on both sides of the pond).
      Perhaps you’d like to start something anyway as our sheeple always seem to follow your lead after a while.
      As for a pension?
      I’m there, wear the tee shirt, and love to eat the pie!
      Still I can trap, fish, and forage.
      After that runs out there is always C R I M E ! 😉

  2. shtfprepper says:

    Any attempt at actual, physical confiscation of firearms will not end up well. At all. Ever.

    • While it’s not an ideal solution as innocents will get hurt, action may just sharpen ‘targeted minds’ about their stupidity.
      That and I keep thinking about Thomas Jefferson and his love of trees.

    • equippedcat says:

      Actually, there have been many actual, physical confiscations of firearms, which ended up very well for the confiscators. During Katrina, guns were confiscated from anyone in the area and as far as I know they still haven’t been returned. Chicago, you miss your annual registration date for a gun and the next day the gun task force is at your door to confiscate it. You can hand that one over now, or they will return with SWAT, break in, and take them all.

      Of course, in the first case, it was a limited area and they could concentrate their forces to make it impractical to resist, and in the second, they only have to deal with one at a time, so again can concentrate their forces. Confiscating “all” the guns in the U.S. would be rather more of a challenge and might allow resistance.

      And they don’t actually need to confiscate them; just make possession a serious crime. I don’t know if Australia “confiscated” them or just made “turning them in” the least painful option. But in any case, they used to have them and now they don’t.

      • The problem for law enforcement is numbers and once a round up commences there may be loss of life.

        It won’t take a lot for some communities to react to that as a whole when one of their own is threatened thereafter.

        So what happens then?
        The law can’t back down, others may die. Now it’s not just a community who gets upset but the masses and who join in as support. What then?

        Law enforcement still can’t back down so they need support aka the army.
        Now the world talks about it and you’ve got full on world coverage about the state murdering it’s citizens.

        All because one state decided to stomp on the 2nd amendment.
        Who will win? Who knows but the preliminary action will be epic.

      • equippedcat says:

        There are several places stomping. Illinois is severely anti-gun, particularly Chicago, also New York City and Washington, DC. Some other states may not be stomping on, but are stepping on. And then there is the UN.

      • I feel the US has got more to fear from local legislature than the UN butting in.

        I also think that although some talk a good game, quite a few won’t react to coercion choosing the safer reaction of compliance.

        I draw that conclusion from experience and ask of you “Have you ever noticed how few when confronted by officialdom will actually say that one little word “NO” to unreasonable or questionable demands?”

      • shtfprepper says:

        Pretty sure you understood my point being confiscation on a nation-wide scale. If not, well, there ya go.

      • equippedcat says:

        Yes I understand the concept, but I don’t see it being a high probability, because, as you say, the sheer size of the task and the certainty of at least some resistance would make it a really poor political choice. Even with martial law it would be a challenge. Much easier to say “you have until XX to turn them in, anyone found in possession of a firearm after that date faces a mandatory sentence of execution/20 years in jail/$1M fine.

      • Yep, I completely understand and concur with where you are coming from..
        The sad bit about it is how the minority (politicians) seem oblivious to the possible ‘global’ effects of their puerile actions.

  3. equippedcat says:

    The California stupidity is based on impression. You know what makes a rifle an “assault rifle”, requiring registration and imposing draconian restrictions (can’t even will it to your son)? Any one of an adjustable stock, a thumbhole stock or pistol grip, a forward grip, or a flash hider. That’s it. Doesn’t have one of those? It’s not an “assault rifle” and does not need to be registered. Note that a “muzzle break” is just fine; its a “flash hider” which makes the weapon too deadly…

    A big part of the problem is the people of California. I’ve talked with several who whine about the gun regulations and ask them “Well, why don’t you move someplace saner?” “Oh, my job is here” or “I like the weather”. What about, if the place you are at won’t work for you, either go someplace better or make the place better?

  4. Brittius says:

    …Breakout, “The Marine”!

Comments are closed.