Robert Farago pimps for the NRA's all-talk position on CT a day after dishing out ignorance & defeatism on the subject by the shovelful. "Nullification by deer rifle."

Wars result when one side either misjudges its chances or wishes to commit suicide; and not even Masada began as a suicide attempt. In general, both warring parties expect to win. In the event, they are wrong more than half the time. -- David Drake, Vietnam veteran and author of Hammer's Slammers.

"As near as I can tell from reading the Connecticut game laws, it is not illegal to shoot tyrannical politicians over a baited field. . . Of course other laws may apply." -- COL Robert "Mad Bob" REDACTED, Dogtown Rangers.

Robert Farago, formerly of The Truth About Cars, and now running The Truth About Guns fairly gushes about the NRA's latest paper tiger maneuver in CT:

Make the jump for the best press release I’ve ever read by the NRA. Clearly, America’s oldest civil rights organization is kicking things up a notch, responding to events more quickly and amping up the rhetoric without falling prey to Chicken Little pronouncements.

My take, readers may recall, was a bit different: "The NRA whistles up a tune of pretension in Connecticut and tries to jockey the weeniewagon to the head of the PR line with words."

As I have long said, pay attention to what politicians DO, not what they say, for the lie is the attendant of every evil. And the leadership of the NRA, especially Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox and that portion of the NRA board who have supported him ever since the Wayne-orchestrated coup against Neal Knox, are nothing if not politicians. (See The Gun Rights War by Knox for the sordid details of Wayne "et tu, Brute?" LaPierre.)

But then all that was ancient history by the time Farago changed his focus from the "truth about cars" to the "truth about guns," so perhaps he can be forgiven his ignorance.

Less forgivable is this bit of uninformed and uninspired defeatism that he wrote the day before uncritically embracing the NRA's PR-only campaign in CT.

A doorstep firefight between Connecticut gun owners and state or federal police come to confiscate their “assault rifle” or “high cap mag” is unlikely. The State will not go door-to-door to grab guns. There will be no midnight no-knock raids or flash-bang police parties. For a while.

If Connecticut political leaders and their law enforcement lackeys can hold off on forcible confiscation until after the November mid-term elections, they will. But they probably can’t/won’t. As Ralph reminds us, history is driven by events. If there’s another AR-related spree killing, or an unrelated arrest goes seriously awry (with an “assault rifle”), or a gun rights protest turns violent, the State will not let a good crisis go to waste act on behalf of public safety.

Why not? The State enjoys overwhelming public support for their gun control policies. That’s how the laws came to be. The State being what it is, its functionaries are predisposed to preserving law and order (i.e. defending their own authority). The Democratic machine controlling Connecticut knows that gun owners are not “friends of ours.” And they know how easy it will be to paint lawbreaking gun owners as public enemies.

Bottom line: they will move against Constitution State gun owners in violation of the law when the time is right. The good news: the cops in charge of making the collar will make damn sure that any firearms confiscation campaign is a complete success – at least from their point-of-view. By that I mean that law enforcement will do everything possible to make sure they don’t get killed. Or even fired upon.

As we saw with the Department of Homeland Security’s arrest of gun dealer Bob Adams in New Mexico, the cops are smart enough to intercept ostensibly felonious gun owners away from their homestead, using speed, surprise and overwhelming force. So when Connecticut chooses to make a symbolic collar on a Class D gun owner, that’s how it’ll go down. And there’s not a damn thing sympathetic gun owners anywhere will be able to do about it.

After the fact, gun rights advocates/patriots will kvetch like crazy. But they will not mount anything other than a legal rescue effort to spring the gun owner(s) from prison. Which is just as well; the security surrounding the scofflaws will be extremely tight and the cops will be equally on edge. Both the fact of the arrest(s) and their own impotence to correct the situation will inflame gun owners in Connecticut and across the country. They’ll organize themselves into militias.

Now either Farago doesn't know any of the 85% of resisters in Connecticut, and/or he assumes them to be: a. idiots who are not already anticipating police moves and planning contingencies for them or b. cowards who won't do anything when their neighbors and friends are raided and killed. Personally, I'm betting on Farago's ignorance of the men and women on the ground behind enemy lines.

In addition, he assigns an omnipotence to "law enforcement" that it frankly doesn't have and doesn't deserve, not in CT and not anywhere else for that matter. The likelihood of combat being initiated accidentally, by attitude or misadventure, is much more probable.

Farago also ignores the plain fact, again out of ignorance (or perhaps because he has also uncritically accepted the SPLC's latest "intelligence" report that such formations are on the wane, which amounts to the same thing) that Three Percenters and others have been organizing themselves into local, self-defense formations for some time now -- they just haven't been issuing press releases about it. Oh, I have no doubt that violent events would galvanize others to do so, but Farago is wrong to believe that there aren't enough native state boots on the ground to make the authorities pay dearly for any bloody miscalculation -- and that there would be much time lost in doing so. And that payment will likely be in the form of 4GW targeting of the tyrannical politicians who set the stage for bloody civil war and initiated it with their appetites for their fellow citizens' liberty, property and lives.

Connecticut's armed citizenry, you see, is much more informed and wide-awake than Farago in his ignorance gives them credit for. When we smuggle magazines and ammunition into CT, it is always spoken-for ten times over. I got an anecdotal report the other day of cars with CT plates driving as far as PENNSYLVANIA to buy quantities of AR thirty rounders and 5.56 ball ammunition, but as one of my correspondents put it, "Connecticut may be the first state to experience 'nullification by deer rifle.'" Raid parties, he explained, would be dealt with by semi-autos (although he preferred the Garand for its body-armor punching qualities) but "deer rifles," he observed, "are the preferred means of killing tyrants at distance." He thought it was pretty ironic -- as do I -- that the slandered "evil black rifles" wouldn't even come into the picture for the tyrannical fools stupid enough to have signed their own death warrants by voting for what anybody with any sense should have seen as unconstitutional tyranny leading to civil war.

Oh, Farago is right in this part of his conclusion:

If that kind of conflict occurs, things will go completely out of control. The crackdown on gun rights supporters by government agents will be intense, on both the State and the federal level. Gun rights advocates’ response will be no less intense. Quite how it plays out from there I have no clue. But it will be a civil war of one sort or another.

Yes, civil war is where this is headed and I have been warning about that since last April. And what of his final paragraph?

As the weather warms and temperatures rise, there are only two ways to avoid this escalation into bloodshed in the Constitution State: the Supreme Court strikes down the Connecticut gun control laws or the Connecticut legislature repeals the laws. Neither is bound to happen. Although I don’t know the future, the future I see ain’t that pretty at all. And what about gun owners in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Rhode Island? God help them all.

Yes, well, Farago's wrong about there being only two ways. Perhaps if the NRA really wanted to DO something they could seek an immediate injunction in federal court for a stay in the law until it can be judged by the Supremes. That is the third thing that could avoid escalation into immediate bloodshed. The NRA, however, is so busy issuing press releases SAYING they're finally getting involved in the CT mess that they are too busy to actually DO anything about it. What good are all their millions and lobbying clout if they cannot figure THAT out? And that, if you wish to consider it, is the real "truth about guns" and the NRA in Connecticut.

And, yes, may God help us all.