The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
72 votes

I lost my parents in the gun confiscation of 2014

The agents came in the early morning darkness while we were all sleeping. My father was a vocal dissenter of the central government. The men knew that there may be resistance, and they came prepared.

The loud crash of the door being smashed in awoke me. Within a few seconds - that seemed like an eternity - the shadow-like men were standing over me with their guns trained on my 9 year old face. I hoped that it was just a nightmare, but I couldn't wake up.

As the men stormed into my room, I heard gunfire coming from the direction of my parents room at the end of the hall. First, there were a couple of single shots and then came the rattling blasts of at least one fully automatic weapon. I helplessly screamed at the top of my lungs from the horror that overtook me.

I found out later that my father had killed the first agent that came through the bedroom door before he and my mother were mowed down in the name of "keeping the children safe".

I am now grown and the State will forever be my enemy. I vow that before I die, the State will have wished they killed me too on that fateful night. I was a scrawny kid then, but now I am a hardened guerrilla fighter. The State will continue to pay for what they did.

I lost my parents in the gun confiscation of 2014.


Are the gun grabbers ready to murder the children as well to avoid future blowback? Are the gun grabbers really "protecting the children."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Read Molon Labe by Boston T.

Read Molon Labe by Boston T. Party. The Narrative is slightly dry, because it's informative, but very well done. A movie version would be light years beyond Red Dawn or V for Vendetta.


wasn't this actually the gun confiscation of 2013?

It's a

future prediction.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero,


My sarcasm. :)

Isn't this how the Blow-Back got started?


wild wild west

great read indeed - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way. - My site on growing marijuana

Just a Reminder

'They' would rather you fear an immediate and severe leap to tyranny, than notice the slow generational creep towards it.

How much relief you'll feel as you are allowed to keep your guns, even 20 years from now.

And yet, the entirety of society will by then be dependent on government for health care, education, entertainment, and finance.

Maybe that is why children are called collateral damage?


I hope we have that much

I hope we have that much time...2014. But if they are going to do it they will likely not wait that long.

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

Oh god

No one is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. There should be background checks. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:

In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.

He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated".

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your'a is right after it?

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor tells us why,

in his book Tragedy and Hope, it is in the people's best interest to make sure their weapons are on an equal scale as their ruler's.

"When weapons are cheap to get and so easy to use that almost anyone can use them after a short period of training, armies are generally made up of large masses of amateur soldiers. Such weapons we call “amateur weapons”, and such armies we might call “mass armies of citizen-soldiers”. The Age of Pericles in Classical Greece and the nineteenth century in Western Civilization were periods of amateur weapons and citizen soldiers. But the nineteenth century was preceded (as was the Age of Pericles also) by a period in which weapons were expensive and required long training in their use. Such weapons we call “specialist” weapons. Periods of specialist weapons are generally periods of small armies of professional soldiers (usually mercenaries). In a period of specialist weapons the minority who has such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey: thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. The medieval period in which the best weapon was usually a mounted knight on horseback (clearly a specialist weapon) was a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. Even when the medieval knight was made obsolete (along with his stone castle) by the invention of gunpowder and the appearance of firearms, these new weapons were so expensive and so difficult to use (until 1800) that minority rule and authoritarian government continued even though that government sought to enforce its rule by shifting from mounted knights to professional pikemen and musketeers. But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840 a Cot revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them)."

Reagan, the Actor

did a good job acting. Meanwhile the wool was pulled over eyes while the Neocons stepped up to the job...

You say:
"Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your'a is right after it?"

You should already know the answer to that question. Let me ask you a question: What happens when someone decides you are on the "wrong" side of the line because you want a fully loaded revolver?

One more thing...

How would you propose enforcing a ban of certain guns and accessories with respect to people that didn't comply? Without enforcement, the law is null.

"Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's"

Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to decide what products they "need" or don't "need", value is subjective after all.

Should it be up to others what medical procedures one needs, or whether one "needs" alcohol or cigarettes?

Or should it be up to the individual to decide what is right for them?

Before you object that guns kill people, consider that medical malpractice kills at least 197,000 in the US annually, tobacco kills 435,000 and alcohol kills 83,000 annually, guns only account for 12,000.

Are hospitals, tobacco, and alcohol not more deadly than guns?

Should the government be able to regulate how many cigarettes or alcoholic beverages I may consume?

What about how many hospital visits I can make?

I submit that they have no more authority to do any of this, than they do the authority to tell me how many bullets I can have in a magazine, or what type of firearm I may own.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

You don't put it beyond the government...

to use drones to murder us domestically, but you think there is no need to protect ourselves from government tyranny?

The Patriot Act is similar in ways of enforcement to the British Stamp Act.

The NDAA 2012 (reauthorized in NDAA 2013) allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law.

Now, they are using the excuse of a mass shooting to ban certain guns.

I see a pattern here. Go back to sleep. Your government has everything under control. You can forfeit your right to bear arms, but you cannot forfeit mine. The US is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Our form of government is suppose to protect against the tyranny of a majority.

To be honest about fully automatic weapons, I would rather conserve ammo by using a semi-auto. So, I am not against people having fully automatic weapons.

To go even further - to your proposed extreme - would the government mess with me if I had a nuke ready to go with the push of a button pointed at DC? However, while assured mutual destruction is a good deterrent against violence, I would not condone individuals owning nuclear weapons. Admittedly though, nuclear weapons kept the Cold War cold.

Being aware that you have a capable adversary is always a good way to prevent violence. On the other hand, some being aware that they have a less than capable adversary makes violence more likely.

If you like gun bans so much and have bought into the demagoguery of "keeping the kids safe," then go move to Chicago. I here the gun bans there are really stopping violence; they had a record number of gun murders this year.

You seem to be blaming the existence of certain guns and accessories for the cause of these mass shootings while you seem to completely ignore that nearly all of these shootings have involved a shooter on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). For instance, I have heard the statistic that people taking Prozac - an SSRI - are 12 times more likely to commit a violent act against themselves or others when compared to people taking different anti-depressants.

Unfortunate for the truth, big pharma is a big part of the Huxlian agenda governments seem to be pursing - keeping people happy with their mundane lives by shoving pills down their throats. Oh, and one can't ignore the amount of money involved in big pharma with the heavy government involvement in "healthcare."

Like I said earlier - Go back to sleep. Your government has everything under control.

BTW, I am aware of what the 2nd Amendment says -

"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." (Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, it doesn't say - "the right of the Militia Men to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Instead it says - "the People."

I would translate the 2nd Amendment as - So that a Militia may be raised with haste in the event it is needed, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For a historical context, one can look to 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."


"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Looks like they're trying to take it.

One more thing, Ronald Reagan was not a small government conservative/libertarian.

Drones would be very

Drones would be very problematic to use. Just like the narrative, imagine how many would swell the ranks of an insurgency if they were used on difficult targets as gun owners who are... doctors, lawyers, school teachers... etc. The collateral damage from one missed drone would double any resistance.

As for nukes you have to ask yourself how prohibitive are they? One nuke would cost a tremendous amount of money to buy, maintain... etc. I really wonder if Bill Gates could afford to own one? Also... the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. A state could easily ban private ownership off a nuke.

The problem is that we should be the military force and no standing army. I think the Founders intended citizens to be on par with any weapons a solider would carry.

I like your writing. You

I like your writing. You should write a book. You already have the first page done.

Good stuff! Bump

Good stuff! Bump

That sounds like the makings of

an exciting novel in the style of Louis L'Amour, perhaps.

Get a 50 caliber rifle make

Get a 50 caliber rifle make sure in such an event you can quickly get to three secure locations which require progressing through narrow corridors and in each location have a half-inch thick steel shield as cover and just wait till they move single-file down the hallway and fire a couple rounds.

The 50 will go through at least 3 of them. They will all be fucked by the time you're in your last location.

If your house has external wall which consist of only siding, foam, and drywall - you are fucked in that house. Your house needs to be either stone, concrete, 1-2 foot thick cob or something similar. Something they can't shoot through wall or burn down.

And, then, you would have to have a secret passage

so you could escape under the feet of the multi-agency attack force. Keep writing so that we can read about what happens next. Seriously, I like a good story!

An escape route or hidden

They wouldn't make it there that quickly. Besides, all you are trying to do it get out of there with your firearms alive. Meaning, your house is yours no longer, you have to abandon it. Either you are going to make a stand or you aren't. If you think you are going to tell them you sold your stuff or lost it and they'll just say "OK, later", you are crazy. If you have guns "registered" to your name on 4473s either you give them the guns, show proof you don't have them and who does, or you are being detained indefinitely under NDAA or similar until they show up. Even then they won't let you go because you lied. They aren't going to let you go with the potential that you might go dig up your guns and start shooting at them next time they come to another house.

An escape route or hidden underground "bunker" would be a good idea and not very difficult to make. Plenty of plans for that on the web you can do for under $1000.

I was fantasizing about

a castle I read about that had an underground escape tunnel that was used back in Cromwell's day. I've always wanted one.


A sobering read that leaves the reader standing in the cold hard reality of what is happening in America.

You mean, the cold hard reality

of what America has been doing to the rest of the world?

When a gang bursts into your house in violation of the 2nd Amend

When a violent police gang bursts into your house in violation of the 2nd Amendment it is your duty to react either by means of escape to fight another day on your own terms or to stand your ground and resist.

No law gives any gang the authority to confiscate your weapons.

No law gives any gang the authority to search your home for said weapons.

Your home is your castle, when that sovereignty is violated there is no more lawful authority to uphold or protect.

War is war.


It seems as if what happened

It seems as if what happened at Kent State,Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian near Waco,Texas have been forgotten. Hurricane Katrina when,after it had struck New Orlean's the citizens guns were confiscated.

Bob Marshall

V for Vendetta

If there's anybody here on DP who hasn't seen V for Vendetta yet, you need to do so .........


The Count of Monte Cristo starring Robert Donat as Edmond Dantes.


In the book Turner Diaries

It pretty much starts off the same way with all the gun confiscations