Liddy advises listeners: "[N]o matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms"
On his radio show, G. Gordon Liddy advised listeners not to register their firearms, saying: "The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms."
On the November 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, G. Gordon Liddy repeatedly advised people not to register their firearms, saying: "The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms." Liddy added: "Because that's where they get the list of where to go first to confiscate. So, you don't ever register a firearm, anywhere." Liddy's statements came in response to a caller who said: "And I'm also very concerned about the firearm owners in this country. I think we need a bit of general advice from you as to what we can do as a group with our firearms. Do we need to buy up all the Cosmoline in the country and bury our weapons? And I'm -- I'm curious as to -- as to what advice you have for us. I mean, we know what's gonna happen. We know that they can't get their fingers on the brass ring until they've disarmed us."
Liddy later said: "[W]hat's gonna happen is, if you register your firearms, you're handing them a list of where to go to confiscate the firearms. So don't do it." Liddy also stated: "[D]epending upon the intensity of the repression by the government, the way they're, you know, seeking firearms and so forth, then I would say, yes, with respect to Cosmoline and, you know, proper wrapping and storage, and then putting them where they will not be findable by metal detectors and things of that sort. I'll leave that up to your imagination, and because it differs from location to location, but that would be the thing to do."
As Media Matters for America has noted, during the 1990s, Liddy repeatedly advised listeners on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents. According to an April 26, 1995, CBS News transcript (retrieved from Nexis), Liddy said on his August 26, 1994, radio show:
LIDDY: Well, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests.
Reporting on Liddy's October 19, 1994, radio show, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reported in an October 24, 1994, article:
Ursula from Millerton, Pa., tells Liddy she's afraid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is coming after her gun-owning friend. Liddy calls the bureau "bottom-dwelling slugs ... a pack of nitwits out to make war on those Americans who take seriously the Second Amendment." Liddy allows that calls to "hunt down and kill" such agents is "going too far." But, he says, "shooting back is reasonable... . I have counseled shooting them in the head."
According to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, on September 15, 1994, Liddy stated:
If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.
According to FAIR, Liddy said to a caller later in the show:
When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms thugs come to kill your wife and children, to try to disarm you and they open fire on you. When they come at the point of a gun, force and violence, when you're going to defend yourself, use that Gerand [sic] [M-1 rifle]. That thing is 30-06, and it'll take 'em right out.
According to an April 25, 1995, Associated Press article:
Talk show host G. Gordon Liddy said Tuesday he gave listeners bad advice when he told them to shoot for the head if attacked by federal agents. Instead, he said, go twice for the body and then the groin.
[...]
Last August, Liddy counseled "head shots" to respond to an encounter with agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, because, "They've got a vest underneath."
On Tuesday, he told a news conference held as part of his WJFK program that people should cooperate if authorities come to their homes with search warrants. But they should shoot back if agents shoot their way in, he said.
He said experts have told him shooting for the head was a bad idea because heads are hard to hit.
"So you shoot twice to the body, center of mass, and if that does not work, then shoot to the groin area," he said.
"They cannot move their hips fast enough and you'll probably get a femoral artery and you'll knock them down at any rate."
Asked about his ATF comments by right-wing blogger John Hawkins in December 2003, Liddy said they had been misinterpreted:
LIDDY: [A]s usual, people remember part of what I said, but not all of what I said. What I did was restate the law. I was talking about a situation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated.
In addition, according to the April 25, 1995, edition of NPR's All Things Considered (retrieved from Nexis), during a press conference, Liddy admitted that he named shooting targets after then-President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton. From the press conference, as aired by NPR:
LIDDY: I did relate that on the 4th of July of last year, when I and my family and some friends were out firing away at a properly-constructed rifle range and we ran out of targets, and so we -- I drew some stick figure targets and I thought we ought to give them names. So I named them Bill and Hillary, thought it might improve my aim. It didn't. My aim is good anyway. Now, having said that, I accept no responsibility for somebody shooting up the White House.
From the November 13 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:
CALLER: Good morning, sir.
LIDDY: Good morning, Jim.
CALLER: I'm honored. I -- I didn't hear the music, but I did note some dead air. Now, that's not a host problem, but an engineer's responsibility, is it not?
LIDDY: Well --
CALLER: Anyway, knowing how important your time is, I apologize. And also knowing the evils of Marxism, liberalism, fill in the blank, I am really concerned about the newest version of the brownshirts. And I'm concerned that, you know, almost immediately, that -- that new little group will be formed. And I'm also very concerned about the firearm owners in this country. I think we need a bit of general advice from you as to what we can do as a group with our firearms.
Do we need to buy up all the Cosmoline in the country and bury our weapons? And I'm -- I'm curious as to -- as to what advice you have for us. I mean, we know what's gonna happen. We know that they can't get their fingers on the brass ring until they've disarmed us. I don't know -- you know, health care is a concern, but it's not my primary concern, and I think that --
LIDDY: Well, health care, as I warned before, and as [former House Majority Leader] Dick Armey [R-TX] -- who's also, you know, a Dallas, Texas, guy --
CALLER: He's a good man.
LIDDY: Yes, a brilliant man. He said, look, it's coming in the guise of health care, but that's not really what it's all about.
CALLER: Certainly.
LIDDY: What it's all about is acquiring dominion over the individual.
CALLER: Absolutely.
LIDDY: Well --
CALLER: How do they -- how do they obtain any kind of dominion over an armed populace? I mean, it has to be their number one concern.
LIDDY: Yeah, I would think so. And Barack Obama, by his voting record, has demonstrated that he is, you know, totally anti-gun.
CALLER: Oh, certainly.
LIDDY: Now you say what to do. Well, the first thing people are doing -- the stories were in the news yesterday, and there's more stories today, about how the gun stores are being stripped by everybody going in and buying firearms.
CALLER: Yes.
LIDDY: And they're -- they're particularly buying handguns and semiautomatic shoulder weapons that look like --
CALLER: Yes, like the M1A, and --
LIDDY: Yeah. They -- they look like --
CALLER: Oh yeah, the black gun.
LIDDY: Yes, assault weapons, but they're not. An assault -- an assault weapon, by definition, is capable of fully automatic fire. These are not.
CALLER: Yes, sir.
LIDDY: But -- but people are buying them. Some because they've always wanted one and think that the Obama administration will try to outlaw them again, the way the Clinton administration did. Others figure, "OK, I'll buy as many as I can get my hands on, and I'll be grandfathered in. And then when they're banned, I will be able to sell them at a very nice profit." So, that's going on. But the main thing is, you know, get them into private hands as quickly as possible. Now, what do you do? The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms.
CALLER: Yes, sir.
LIDDY: Because that's where they get the list of where to go first to confiscate. So, you don't ever register a firearm, anywhere.
CALLER: Well, on the same hand, you know, if we're -- if we're apprehended with a nonregistered firearm, we're -- you know, we're under the jailhouse there, too.
LIDDY: Well, that's -- that's true, but what -- what's gonna happen is, if you register your firearms, you're handing them a list --
CALLER: Certainly.
LIDDY: -- of where to go to confiscate the firearms. So don't do it.
CALLER: I think that's why we fear them.
LIDDY: That's right.
CALLER: Because we have so many registered firearms. Out of, probably a dozen or more firearms that I have, I believe I have one 1911 that's not registered, that I procured at, you know, at a gun show many, many years ago. I have an M1A that was purchased for me, much like you, by my lovely spouse. And I'm considering another M1A purchase, only the -- the new SOCOM, the -- the carbine version. Now, where am I gonna find one of those, and -- and have the ability to purchase without registering it, you know?
LIDDY: Well, the -- the purchase data will certainly show that you have it. But what I'm speaking of is any firearms you may have that they pass some law saying, you know, bring in your firearms and register them.
CALLER: Oh, certainly, yes. I understand now.
LIDDY: That's what I'm referring to.
CALLER: OK.
LIDDY: That's what I'm referring to. And then -- and then, as to --
CALLER: I'm sure -- I'm sure you made that clear. It just went right over my head.
LIDDY: OK. Well, at any rate, then, depending upon the intensity of the repression by the government, the way they're, you know, seeking firearms and so forth, then I would say, yes, with respect to Cosmoline and, you know, proper wrapping and storage, and then putting them where they will not be findable by metal detectors and things of that sort. I'll leave that up to your imagination, and because it differs from location to location, but that would be the thing to do.











The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles



We could chat about some of the reasons given for buying firearms, like the claim that we need more because the blacks may get uppity, but I just find it entirely hilarious that gun sales are the only commodity that is booming in these challenging times. You just gotta wonder if a bunch of hicks who can't make their house payment blew it on that brand spankin' new AK-47 with the matching 9MM glocks.
Who the heck still buys an AK-47? I thought everyone upgraded to the AK-74SU.
I thought everyone upgraded to the AK-74SU.
See, Wuss, this is why you can't cry too much when normal humans laugh at you wingnuts.
Your economic policies? Failures since the 1970s
Social values? Quaint in the 1950s.
World view? Limited, even by 19th Century standards.
Scientific positions? ass-backwards in the middle ages.
But your firearms? Cutting edge!
All of that high tech weaponry might be enough to get them to believe in science!
Hey, the house payments can wait. We gots more important issues, like pertecting ourselves from the government. It will probably start out with them spying on us. Then, don't be surprised if someone you know is shipped off to some secret military prison in some foreign country without even being able to get a lawyer or have a trial for years and years. We gots ta have our guns to fight the tyrant socialists.
Besides, how can they reposess your house if they can't find it, eh? Heh heh...ain't called "mobile" for nuthin'...
Snoop, I heard that the uptick in gun sales was speculative journalism that the numbers weren't syncing with the story. Maybe I need to do some research.
Open your eyes Snoop, Realestate is what's booming here in Cali. Wealthy Investors are buying 2-3 year old homes for 40 cents on the dollar.
Ah yes America, The rich get richer while everybody is looking the wrong way.
Better yet, an M1A1 main battle tank. What is an assault rifle going to do against that? Or how about an A-10 Warthog on a strafing run? Much more effective than an F-16 in my opinion.
These guys are nuts. I'm a gun owner. If I need to register my firearms, so be it. I'll do so. I don't have an issue with that at all. I am a law abiding citizen, and I don't think anyone is coming to take my guns away either, and this incoming administration hasn't said anything about "banning" guns. And Obama is on the record as supporting the 2nd amendment (even though it doesn't say anything about personal individual ownership of weapons).
I've have experience with cosmoline.
I suspect that in his hate-filled, confused, pea-sized, atrophied-from-lack-of-use brain, Liddy thinks that "Cosmoline" is the magazine that once had Burt Reynolds as its centerfold......
Can Liddy even buy a gun as a convicted felon?
No. He can't.
No. He can't.
And somehow, I suspect that Liddy has been "shooting blanks" for years now - if you know what I mean.......
Incidentally, aren't his words sort of inciteful, in the sense that the web-toed idiots in the woods, with their automatic "hunting rifles" and two-year old mentality would use Liddy's words as a justification (in their own walnut-sized brains) to kill Federal agents? Just sayin'
It wouldn't be the first time. Remember that right after the start of Waco, Liddy told his radio audience that if ATF agents approached their door, they should "aim for their heads".
Brownshirts? Jesus Christ these people believe anything they're told to believe. Never mind that Republicans have made torture, domestic spying, free speech zones and pre-emptive war commonplace.
This universal healthcare is socialism crap is willful ignorance. Way back when, stupid jack-holes like Liddy said the same thing about social security and medicare. They were wrong then and they knew it, they're wrong now and they know it.
But Republicans need all of that power in order to defend liberty!
Is it even legal to advise people not to register their firearms? And I'm betting that convicted felon Liddy has some firearms himself, which is illegal, whether they are registered or not.
I'm thinking that the ATF should serve a search warrant on Liddy's house, and see what kind of illegal guns that he has. And make sure that they come in with weapons out, and watch him wet his pants as he sits in the corner in the fetal position, which is what would probably happen to fake tough guys like Liddy in a situation like that.
"which is what would probably happen to fake tough guys like Liddy in a situation like that"
I wouldn't want to be thought to be a fan of Liddy's - I happen to think he's despicable. But "fake tough guy" he's not. He's probably not as tough as he used to be, he is older after all, but one way he got people to trust that he wouldn't "rat" on them was to hold his hand in a candle flame to prove he couldn't be tortured into giving anything away.
That doesn't happen to be a kind of toughness I admire, but then I'm not conspiring with him to break into the Democratic Party headquarters. I guess if I was I'd find it reassuring.
Is it even legal to advise people not to register their firearms?
That's a good question. Whether or not it's a crime to advise people to commit this crime (and I'm assuming to fail to register a firearm exposes one to a criminal charge), can it possibly be within the Regulations of an FCC License to use the Public Airwaves to exhort people to criminal actions?
You see what I mean here?
This guy liddy not only advises people to commit a crime, but he broadcasts his exhortations on our Public Airwaves, by way of an FCC License... can that possibly be allowed under the Regulations of the precious and privileged power that broadcasting on the Public Airwaves is?
I'd hope not.
In addition to repealing the unlimited power of FCC Licensees to broadcast their personal political opinions (unopposed and unbalanced) on a precious and privileged Public Resource our Public Airwaves, we should also require that our Public Airwaves not be used to exhort people to criminal actions.
It's a no-brainer.
I believe your menory has served you...poorly.
Your reasoning in defence of lethal force against federal authority has too many holes in it to even be classified as lace.
I did not defend Liddy's statement, I was simply stating why he made it many years ago. Ilive in New York, and there have been many times over the years when the police shot innocent civilians, some in their own homes when they raided the wrong house. And with all due respect, I'm pretty sure I'm right about the Nazi's rounding up the gun owners first. Do you think if the Jews had arms they would have been exterminated at the same rate?
Yah we just had the Seattle police kill an innocent home owner, outside his house. Horrible sh*t happens. You singular response, citizens must shoot back?
To attempt to tie the fate of the German Jews to gun control is way past any evidence or logic. The German Jews couldn't believe that the leadership of the country that they sweated and fought for, was going to reject and kill them.
There was no point at which they'd have had the opportunty or inclination to "Take it to the Streets."
No. Of course you didn't defend Liddy's statements, like a sneaky little sophist, you merely made excuses for him. And what's your implication concerning gun owners? Are you one of those people, despite the track record of liberals and gun ownership, who believes someone is going to take your guns away?
As I recall in New York City, in recent years, under the authoritarian leadership of Mayor Giuliani, his police stste tactics focused on minorities and immigrants. That newlywed was made a widow, that immigrant man became forcefully intimate with a toilet plunger by Rudy's goon squad.
Given McCain's campaign proposals of locking down urban neighborhoods with National Guardsmen and Palin's sorting of real Americans from the fake Americans, you should count your blessings that the liberals (the Nazi's first target) are in control. We may have avoided a quick descent into Christo-fascist totalitarianism.
I did not make 'excuses' for Liddy, I merely stated why he was motivated to make those comments. When Hitler came to power he enacted the Waffengesetz Law of 1938 to disarm Jews. Long before Guliani and long after him the NYPD has shot innocent civilians with zero accountability. They shot an 80 year old woman named Elenor Bumpers in her own kitchen when they mistakenly broke into her house while she was making breakfast. They gunned down a Haitian man standing on his stoop by shooting him 90 times. And recently under the Bloomberg administration they gunned down Sean Bell the night before his wedding. I do not believe it matters who the Mayor is, it has to do with the shoddy training that our paramilitary recieves.
Roundhouse can you show me where Mclame said he was going to lock down urban area's? I would be very interested in reading that, since I live in an urban area here in Rockaway Beach and never heard of that. And no I am not afraid they will take my weapons, since I have been trained and licensed and also am licensed to teach women in the NRA how to properly use a weapon. This way when some monster breaks into their home, they will not be a chalk line when the police finally do show up.
Yes, you provided Liddy cover. Just own up to it and stop being an authoritarian apologist. .
Here's your quote link:
"MCCAIN: And some of those tactics — you mention the war in Iraq — are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc."
I'm off to work, so I'll not be responding again today. I will be back, though.
As far as the Nazi legislation you cited, who do you think Jews were? Were they not liberals?
So, just to expand. In the same way McCain laid the groundwork for the necessity of enacting counter-insurgency tactics on U.S. streets, you gave Liddy a rationale, a justification for his incendiary rhetoric. Where I come from, a place Sarah would call the real America, that kind of imputation of propriety is an endorsement.
And speaking of Palin, what's your take on her liberals are not real Americans theme? Personally, I think her "othering" of liberals is more on par with the way of the Nazi than any legislation that keeps assault rifles and armor piecing ammunition out of the hands of civilians. That's just me, though.
Now, you say you are a licensed legal owner of firearms and fear no interference with your rights to own guns. So, what's your deal? Why do you feed the paranoia that guns are in danger of being removed from the homes of law abiding citizens? Don't tell me you didn't stoke those fears with your invocation of Nazi's going after Jewish gun owners.
Don't slink away from your words or we are done talking. I can't abide a sniveling backslider.
I did not make 'excuses' for Liddy, I merely stated why he was motivated to make those comments.
Liddy is motivated to say what he does because he's an idiot. What's YOUR excuse?
I remember when Liddy spoke of shooting ATF agents, and the reason was because they had broken into the wrong home on a raid and threw a 5 months pregnant woman on the ground so forcefully that she lost her child.It was a total outrage and as usual no one was held accountable. Also, let us not forget when a 'sharpshooter' shot and killed Randy Weavers wife and child, mistaking a woman with a baby in her arms for Weaver. And of course who will ever forget what our government did in Waco. They claimed they were protecting the children from abuse by burning them to death, again no one held accountable. If memory serves me, didn't the Nazi's go after the Jewish gun owners first?
AS usual, Fishface, you're wrong. Liddy made those comments after the branch Davidian shootout that started the siege at Waco. You should get your facts straight before bringing other subjects into the mix:
Liddy is noted for controversial advice to his radio audience, including on one occasion in 1994, after the federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, Liddy advised his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." [7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy
Don't you have to go somewhere and read "The Turner Diaries" again???
Pathetic old jailbird.
Contacts for Liddy
onair@radioamerica.org
listeners@radioamerica.org
Thegman@radioamerica.org
Randy
Judging by the comments on this thread, I would say that you all would see nothing wrong with exterminating conservatives.
That doesn't sound Hitleresque at all.
Judging by your coment, I doubt if you've read diddly.
Not the people, just the policies.
I've been in a couple of gun stores recently and heard some of the most ridiculous stuff. Obama is going to change the flag, Obama is going to change the national anthem, he's going to ban all handguns. It's enough to make a progressive want to retch (or at least leave the store).
Thankfully, liberals don't stoop to this level of stupidity and name calling.
"...like the claim that we need more because the blacks may get uppity."
"...a bunch of hicks who can't make their house payment..."
"All of that high tech weaponry might be enough to get them to believe in science!"
"...ain't called 'mobile' for nuthin'..."
"Republicans bunkered in deep woods shelters, armed to the teeth with illegal unregistered weapons, pantries well-stocked with spam and Night Train. As they prepare for the coming end of days, their paranoia spikes and at the slightest cracking of a twig they spray bullets into the woods. Here's to hoping they shoot each other and save the ATF the trouble."
"...the web-toed idiots in the woods...and two-year old mentality..."
Hmm. I can't imagine why many gun owners think so low of liberals, and vice versa.
"Can Liddy even buy a gun as a convicted felon?"
No, but his wife can and does.
"...with their automatic 'hunting rifles'..."
The rifles in question are semi-automatic, not automatic (top gun control advocates have openly said that they benefit from the public confusing the two) and are in fact quite useful for certain types of hunting. They also happen to be the most popular center fire rifles in the country. They are less powerful most typical hunting rifles (the pretty ones with wood in your grandpa's gun case).
"for myself, i'll take a 20mm electric gatling gun, with a combination of explosive and armor-piercing rounds. body armor shouldn't be a problem."
Most center fire rifle rounds will go right through the type of "body armor" that is worn by law enforcement. Remember when the NRA types accused Obama of voting for banning hunting ammunition? And the Obama people said it was a lie? What Obama voted for was H.R. 1784 which would have banned any round that could penetrate body armor (and be used in a handgun, which many of them can). So did it say the words, "Ban most popular hunting rounds,"? No. But it would have, since just about every popular hunting round met the criteria to be designated as armor piercing.
It's sort of the same way that every Obama defender (FYI, I voted for him) kept saying, "He's not going to take your guns." No sane person thought that. What they/we were worried about is that he will do exactly as he has stated repeatedly, namely banning so called assault rifles. Not a pure lie, but not the truth either. He has also stated that he wants to put a federal ban on concealed carry despite its unqualified success in many states over an extended period of time.
I would consider myself a progressive; on many issues, I make Obama look like Jesse Helms. But there is no ideology behind wanting to own and use the best tools for defending one's self and family. There is no ideology behind wanting to participate in shooting sports (and so called assault weapons are used in shooting sports). Both sides have shown an astonishing ability to believe nonsense without checking for themselves. Both sides isolate the most extreme stereotypes as typical of the other.
I expected better from people on this site.
Who better to give advice on breaking the law than GGL? The headlines regarding the economy (U.S as well as world) grow more harrowing on a daily basis, and these nut-jobs are worried about losing their assault rifles. M-o-r-o-n-s.