Oh, stop it with the virtue-signaling and the phony calls for revolution. Your idea of patriotism is warped by your selfishness.
I not only did not make a call for revolution, I specifically stated that the idea was to ward off tyranny by not providing the tools to implement it.
You are right in one sense. I am very selfish, in that I deeply desire to finish my days as a free man in the most free country on the planet, and to pass that legacy on to my great grandchildren!
If that's
SELFISH, I hope there are legions of other
SELFISH people out there who not only want to retain their property, but the rights and freedom that property ensures.
As for accusations of "virtue signalling", save that crap for the tourists. Kindly don't try to bullshit me or anyone else here with some pantload about how altruistic you are for wanting to take away our rights. You are the one embracing concepts which hold the potential to destroy this country. It isn't "virtue signalling" to demand that your rights be left unmolested. To even suggest such about me in the future will be taken as a personal insult, and an attempt to insult the intelligence of all who gather here and read these postings..
Honest and moral people are willing to obey the laws of a constitutional republic derived from the consent of the governed.
We do not consent. Having trouble with that? Simply put, NO. My fellow citizens didn't want Obamacare, either, and what difference did that make?
It is one thing to refuse to obey the laws of Stalin, and quite another to bluster defiance of your fellow citizens and their desire to do something simple and reasonable to help law enforcement get a handle on gun-facilitated murder and violence.
Stalin is irrelevant unless he's passing laws here (from beyond the grave) but modelling American legal schemes on those of past dictators has provided us with a pretty good idea of what results to expect. No matter who does this stuff, the result is the same, historically, and in this day and age of efficiency, those seeking a "final solution" to gunowners need only have the lists. (IIRC, not only Jews but Homosexuals, Gypsies, and a host of other 'type' folks were registered in Europe in the 30s and 40s, and that result alone should give you and anyone else considering such a scheme pause. Unless they're in agreement with those sort of results).
I have stood against consensus before, and know the loneliness of being the only person in the room who is right, and arguing that point. When successful, I saved clients millions of dollars, and made them millions more.
In this I am not so lonely: there is a multitude who agree.
If you want law enforcement to get a handle on murder and violence, kindly don't tie them up with useless schemes to create criminals over paperwork. Because gun owners, following the model of our peaceful neighbors to the North (who were not subject to your hyperbole about wanting to have a revolution or any of that other nonsense you are spewing),
will simply not comply. That doesn't imply murder or violence, unless people start kicking down doors and shooting at people who have not bothered to file unconstitutional paperwork. Kick down doors and start shooting, I'm going to return fire if I can. I don't know you from any other violent home invasion.
So, the implementation of such a scheme, even among Canadians, who would simply not comply with the law, proved to be neither simple nor easy.
Read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_RegistryCanada discarded this scheme, in a less freedom oriented society, without our Constitution or Second Amendment. They could not get it to work, and most essentially, the attempts at registration did nothing to improve Public Safety:
Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_RegistryIt was a failure there and it isn't going to work here, either. That resistance was a peaceful endeavor, as I have embraced in the event it become necessary here, unless the wannabe tyrants want to take it to another level.
But, like full blown and oft failed Socialism, maybe the "right people" haven't tried it yet. Maybe they didn't try "hard enough"--another way of saying throw enough money at it.
In Canada, the means employed at thwarting this initiative were simple, and what have been embraced as the preferred course of action here should it become necessary:
NONCOMPLIANCE.
It is estimated that the long guns in Canada which went unregistered in five years handily outnumbered those which were registered. The expense of continuing the registration scheme ballooned from the original cost of a couple million CAD to more like a billion. Finally, the government threw in the towel, unwilling to attack gun owners to force them to comply or to prosecute noncompliance.
No bloodshed. No war.
Now, If that is to be avoided here, not only should the idea of forcible compliance be discarded, but the whole scheme could be similarly tossed out and save the money and the diversion of law enforcement personnel and resources to a scheme which WILL FAIL, not only to prevent crime, but to achieve its primary goal of assembling a database of guns and owners (and collecting all those nominal fees).
Just forget it, and not only will people
not be needlessly turned into felons by edict and decree for doing nothing which was criminal last year, but you will save a lot of money, too!
As a bonus, the investigative and other law enforcement abilities of all those personnel could be used to pick up and prosecute all the drug dealers, murderers, and other nasty criminals out there. Maybe even send some of those (additionally) criminal illegal aliens out of the US, too!
If, however the objective is so ingrained that you control people, that the government begins assaulting those it has decreed to be criminals for not complying with unconstitutional paperwork requirements, that escalation of force will predictably be seen as an attack on the fundamental Civil Rights of the People who own guns and appropriate levels of force used in response. Not always, but often enough that either the government will back down, or the tyranny will spiral upward, with responses becoming more common, necessary in the eyes of the public, and brutal.
You have the option as was pointed out by all here of not advocating instigating/initiating hostilities.
It isn't assault for telling you that if you hit me, I'm going to hit
back. I'm just saying "Don't even think about it!"
You are the aggressor, here, calling for diminishing the fundamental Civil Rights of the individual American and an entire class of people based on devices they legally own today, and then trying to say those who are calling for resistance to the idea, resistance to the implementation of the idea, and even resistance to the forcible implementation of the idea (should it be implemented and that forcible action be taken against gun owners) are somehow
calling for "revolution" in trying to preserve the status quo. What an impeccable logical fallacy!
When we say that we will not be a party to that theft of our Rights, we will not aid it in any way, and we will resist, you say people are calling for revolution and blood in the streets. Nope. Actually, we are the ones who have looked at the big picture and are trying to avoid blood in the streets. Those who seek to implement fundamental changes are the revolutionaries, not those who seek to keep things the same.
So, who, counselor, is the revolutionary *(as in Mao, Che, Castro, Lenin) but those calling for the blatant subversion of our Constitution through incremental programs establishing the means for the Government to wage war against its own people?
We don't have to be PhD's in History to see that a registry leads to confiscation leads to subjugation and worse. Ultimately, that is what disarmament permits, and there is no other reason to disarm the population in general. Registration just facilitates that.
So, NO.
We will not comply.
That is Civil Disobedience.
No broken windows or burned neighborhoods or looted liquor stores, just quiet people saying "no" and not complying. Not even blocking traffic.
I also see you haven't addressed the demonstrated inability of the government, which cannot even keep high level probes secure (leaks!), which can be defeated in its own security by a cross-dresser pretending to listen to Lady Gaga, to keep secure the information which would in this case, if established, provide lists of firearms owned and the addresses of the owners to any criminal element which hacked it. I wouldn't trust that lot to pull off a surprise party without information security leaks, much less keep secure a list of items which might be in my possession which would be of particular interest to criminals.
The Canadian database was easy to hack, (see the Wiki article I linked).
