The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: Cyber Liberty on February 11, 2020, 05:56:12 pm
-
The Dirty Little Secret About Gun Control…
by Ken Jorgustin | Updated Feb 11, 2020
Unless YOU cooperate, it’s impossible to enforce.
Criminals do NOT cooperate with gun control. None of them. So why should we? Seriously. Why should we? We’re the good guys.
Why would we enable an iota of legitimacy to new seemingly unconstitutional gun laws enacted by far left legislatures and signed by far left anti-gun governors — all of which violates the 2nd Amendment at its core?
Sure, we’ll let the courts sort it all out. Good luck with that. But in the meantime are you, we (the good guys), going to comply with new laws that ban certain magazine capacities or certain guns/rifles or suppressors (for example)?
What are they going to do — come door to door and take them? (more on that in a minute)
By the way, I’m not advising that anyone disobey any laws. I’m just asking a question and inviting discussion. Just saying.
More: https://modernsurvivalblog.com/politics/the-dirty-little-secret-about-gun-control/
================================================
I will not comply.
-
I-will-not-comply.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
Except they are only required for license, registration and insurance when used on public roads.
Private use away from others has no such requirement.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
However, there are no politicians & state legislatures who are promising, given the chance, to confiscate cars.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
@Jazzhead
How useful are cars when it comes to taking back control of an UN-Constitutional government?
Apples and oranges. Both are round and edible,and grow on trees,and that's about it.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
Point out which Amendment in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to drive or own a car?
-
However, there are no politicians & state legislatures who are promising, given the chance, to confiscate cars.
Not yet anyway.
-
Well, I guess it's been too long since we've had a 100+ thread of hearing about good, reasonable gun restrictions like Insurance and Registration that, swear to God, won't lead to gun confiscation.
-
Well, I guess it's been too long since we've had a 100+ thread of hearing about good, reasonable gun restrictions like Insurance and Registration that, swear to God, won't lead to gun confiscation.
Just think...the Dems in VA think what they are doing is "reasonable".
-
Just think...the Dems in VA think what they are doing is "reasonable".
It's a disease. Rats in AZ think the same thing. They want to register/confiscate AR 15s.
-
It's a disease. Rats in AZ think the same thing. They want to register/confiscate AR 15s.
That's due in part to California legislators crossing borders and lobbying their Rat brothers in your state to imitate their laws.
-
It's a disease. Rats in AZ think the same thing. They want to register/confiscate AR 15s.
You mean they aren't coming after your Tesla Roadsters? After all, who needs a car that goes 250mph?
-
I really can't see gun confiscation working. People will find ways to hid their firearms. And who is going to go door-to-door to confiscate weapons? The police? I think in most places they will refuse to do so. I'd like to see the police or any other designated agency go around my neighborhood trying to confiscate weapons. Most of them would end up dead at the front door.
The author is correct that the average gangsta does not comply with gun laws already on the books. They don't buy from a licensed dealer. They don't submit to background checks. As long as they have the cash, there is someone in the neighborhood who will sell them a firearm. Tally up the number of dead on an average weekend in Chicago and tell me how many of those people died at the hands of someone with a licensed firearm. I'll bet not too many, if any.
That is our biggest problem: the average gangbanger shooting at a rival gang or whatever. It's not the mass shootings we hear about. I believe in a number of those cases the forearms were legally obtained. But I still believe those mass shootings are rare compared to the number of individual killings that occur in every major city on any given day. Gun control or gun confiscation will not curb those shootings.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
Oh, geez, not this sh*t again. *****rollingeyes*****
Show me where in the Constitution you have a Right to own a car.
-
It's a disease. Rats in AZ think the same thing. They want to register/confiscate AR 15s.
Registration I support, confiscation I do not. The Dems, as usual, overreach and motivate gun owners everywhere to get out and vote. I'm all for that. But requiring gun owners to be licensed and insure their toys just as I do my cars is still common sense, even if (as I admit) it's politically dead on arrival.
-
Registration I support, confiscation I do not. The Dems, as usual, overreach and motivate gun owners everywhere to get out and vote. I'm all for that. But requiring gun owners to be licensed and insure their toys just as I do my cars is still common sense, even if (as I admit) it's politically dead on arrival.
Registration, historically, leads to or enables confiscation. If it hasn't (yet), give it a little time.
That's why the Canadians simply would not comply with a Long-gun registry. Eventually, the government up there gave up on that.
-
But requiring gun owners to be licensed and insure their toys just as I do my cars is still common sense, even if (as I admit) it's politically dead on arrival.
And yet again you're arguing apples and oranges when it comes to cars and guns.
There's an enshrined right in the Constitution to allow citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership was a cornerstone to the founding of this country because of what we had just endured under British rule.
There is no Constitutional right to own a car.
And by the way...guns aren't considered "toys" by those of us that own, use and carry them.
-
And yet again you're arguing apples and oranges when it comes to cars and guns.
There's an enshrined right in the Constitution to allow citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership was a cornerstone to the founding of this country because of what we had just endured under British rule.
There is no Constitutional right to own a car.
And by the way...guns aren't considered "toys" by those of us that own, use and carry them.
I think you hit on something. He can't get it out of his head these aren't toys, like firecrackers.
-
Registration I support, confiscation I do not. The Dems, as usual, overreach and motivate gun owners everywhere to get out and vote. I'm all for that. But requiring gun owners to be licensed and insure their toys just as I do my cars is still common sense, even if (as I admit) it's politically dead on arrival.
@Jazzhead
TOYS?
To a guy that burns firewood, a chainsaw is not a 'toy'. It's a necessity. So is a heavy duty 4wd pickup. Be careful imposing your means and mores on other folks.
To anyone who subsists off the land (which is near everyone I know) guns are likewise a necessity.
To anyone who keeps livestock and must control vatrmints and predators guns are a necessity.
To anyone who lives outside of reasonable response times from LEOs and must defend themselves (which, truth be told, is absolutely everyone) guns are a necessity.
Guns are tools, just like a chainsaw, wrench, or hammer. No more, no less, and should be treated exactly the same (which they are here).
-
Registration I support, confiscation I do not. The Dems, as usual, overreach and motivate gun owners everywhere to get out and vote. I'm all for that. But requiring gun owners to be licensed and insure their toys just as I do my cars is still common sense, even if (as I admit) it's politically dead on arrival.
Toys?? I hope you don't own one @Jazzhead Any weapon or firearm certainly isn't a toy and should be handled with the utmost care and respect at ALL times.
-
Just think...the Dems in VA think what they are doing is "reasonable".
@txradioguy
Reasonable FIRST STEPS,maybe. They will never stop until it is a felony to own or even
have a gun in your house. Special permits will be required for hunters,and you will have
to be a member of a hunting club to be allowed to store your guns and ammo there. Which
means no one but the elites will be able to afford to own a gun,and they are the only
ones that will have 24/7 armed police protection.
That is the way it works. That is ALWAYS the way it works.
-
And yet again you're arguing apples and oranges when it comes to cars and guns.
There's an enshrined right in the Constitution to allow citizens to keep and bear arms.
@txradioguy
Never mind right,it was actually a REQUIREMENT for all able-bodied males between the
ages of 16,and I THINK 60.
BTW,there were NO laws against males under 16 or over 60 owning and possessing
firearms,as well as no laws against women of any age owning and possessing them,either.
-
Good guys drive cars all the time, and yet remain subject to licensure, registration and insurance requirements because cars can sometimes be dangerous implements. I agree that gun owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions on the type and numbers of guns they own. But licensure, registration and insurance is common sense.
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Walking, riding a horse, or riding a bike on the public roads is a right.
Our right to keep and bear arms is analogous to the latter and not the former. Kindly don't confuse them and please don't use this fallacious argument again.
-
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Walking, riding a horse, or riding a bike on the public roads is a right.
Our right to keep and bear arms is analogous to the latter and not the former. Kindly don't confuse them and please don't use this fallacious argument again.
As an aside, look at what that 'driving on public roads is a privilege' has done.
For all intents and purposes, it has limited the right to travel freely on public roads.
And that right is becoming more and more limited to the elite, a little at a time.
I will predict that before long, older cars will be eliminated by emission regulation and insurance standards... with the supposed intent being to eliminate 'unsafe' and 'environmentally harmful' machines. But in actual effect, people who cannot afford to own a 5 year old car or newer will be forced out of the ability to own a car that can actually be driven on public roads, limiting more and more the ability to freely and independently travel distances.
As you say, you will still be free to walk, pedal, or ride a horse... as far as you like... But the ability to really travel - distances - will be ever limited to those who are approved ~and~ can afford it...
And that noose will keep tightening. That is what insurance ad regulation will predictably and ultimately give you. And what is happening to the right to free travel can be directly compared to the intent in insuring and registering arms. The exact same thing will happen.
-
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Walking, riding a horse, or riding a bike on the public roads is a right.
Our right to keep and bear arms is analogous to the latter and not the former. Kindly don't confuse them and please don't use this fallacious argument again.
Please keep an eye on this thread @MeganC! This may be a live-wire! happy77
-
A God-given right (to defend oneself from all manners of harm)... that includes governments.
Want to take them away from me... change the Constitution.... opps... it is God-given and I will not comply.
-
As an aside, look at what that 'driving on public roads is a privilege' has done.
For all intents and purposes, it has limited the right to travel freely on public roads.
And that right is becoming more and more limited to the elite, a little at a time.
I will predict that before long, older cars will be eliminated by emission regulation and insurance standards... with the supposed intent being to eliminate 'unsafe' and 'environmentally harmful' machines. But in actual effect, people who cannot afford to own a 5 year old car or newer will be forced out of the ability to own a car that can actually be driven on public roads, limiting more and more the ability to freely and independently travel distances.
As you say, you will still be free to walk, pedal, or ride a horse... as far as you like... But the ability to really travel - distances - will be ever limited to those who are approved ~and~ can afford it...
And that noose will keep tightening. That is what insurance ad regulation will predictably and ultimately give you. And what is happening to the right to free travel can be directly compared to the intent in insuring and registering arms. The exact same thing will happen.
@roamer_1
EXACTLY! I will add it won't really be necessary to ban older cars and trucks because the repair parts and labor costs are getting so high now that it's cheaper and more practical to just buy a new car every time the warranty on your existing one is getting ready to run out. If you can't buy a smog pump,catalytic converter,or other emissions part your vehicle is nothing but junk. It's not even "yard art" anymore because it's illegal to park unlicensed cars in your yard most places.
Not to worry,though. If you are wealthy and need a part for one of your older Porsce 911's or Ferrari,parts will still be made for the "liesure classes"/our Masters.
This is all a part of a plan to move most of the populations back into the cities. The excuse given,if one is ever needed will be to "lower pollution and make life more affordable for the working class by allowing them a short bus ride to work every day." Stalin did the same thing using the same reasoning. I suspect there are still the remains of whole villages rotting away outside of Russian cities,from the time the trucks drove in and everybody was ordered to pick up what they could carry and leave the rest because they were being moved into new housing in the city.
-
@roamer_1
EXACTLY! I will add it won't really be necessary to ban older cars and trucks because the repair parts and labor costs are getting so high now that it's cheaper and more practical to just buy a new car every time the warranty on your existing one is getting ready to run out. If you can't buy a smog pump,catalytic converter,or other emissions part your vehicle is nothing but junk. It's not even "yard art" anymore because it's illegal to park unlicensed cars in your yard most places.
Not to worry,though. If you are wealthy and need a part for one of your older Porsce 911's or Ferrari,parts will still be made for the "liesure classes"/our Masters.
This is all a part of a plan to move most of the populations back into the cities. The excuse given,if one is ever needed will be to "lower pollution and make life more affordable for the working class by allowing them a short bus ride to work every day." Stalin did the same thing using the same reasoning. I suspect there are still the remains of whole villages rotting away outside of Russian cities,from the time the trucks drove in and everybody was ordered to pick up what they could carry and leave the rest because they were being moved into new housing in the city.
It really is insidious, @sneakypete ... And no matter how well-intentioned things start out, in the aggregation and layering of rules and regulations, tied to frog-in-the-pot situational normalcy, something very draconian to begin to form... Similar in kind to an HOA, but on a much larger scale... And with enough time and continuation, all the elements congeal to a point that a tyrant comes along and realizes what can be done.
I wonder what our great-grandfathers would think of how easily their sons let liberty slip away. **nononono*
-
@roamer_1
EXACTLY! I will add it won't really be necessary to ban older cars and trucks because the repair parts and labor costs are getting so high now that it's cheaper and more practical to just buy a new car every time the warranty on your existing one is getting ready to run out. If you can't buy a smog pump,catalytic converter,or other emissions part your vehicle is nothing but junk. It's not even "yard art" anymore because it's illegal to park unlicensed cars in your yard most places.
Not to worry,though. If you are wealthy and need a part for one of your older Porsce 911's or Ferrari,parts will still be made for the "liesure classes"/our Masters.
This is all a part of a plan to move most of the populations back into the cities. The excuse given,if one is ever needed will be to "lower pollution and make life more affordable for the working class by allowing them a short bus ride to work every day." Stalin did the same thing using the same reasoning. I suspect there are still the remains of whole villages rotting away outside of Russian cities,from the time the trucks drove in and everybody was ordered to pick up what they could carry and leave the rest because they were being moved into new housing in the city.
Don't forget, those one or two room (room, not bedroom) apartments in the cities were rent-free, too. (subsidized housing).
There is always a carrot (even if it looks good but is rotten) to wave along with the stick.
-
It really is insidious, @sneakypete ... And no matter how well-intentioned things start out, in the aggregation and layering of rules and regulations, tied to frog-in-the-pot situational normalcy, something very draconian to begin to form... Similar in kind to an HOA, but on a much larger scale... And with enough time and continuation, all the elements congeal to a point that a tyrant comes along and realizes what can be done.
I wonder what our great-grandfathers would think of how easily their sons let liberty slip away. **nononono*
@roamer_1
Everything is already in place,from the unquestioned zoning restrictions that remove your freedom to manage your OWN property to the mindset that accepts that the government/other people have the unquestioned right to dictate to them how and where they live.
-
Don't forget, those one or two room (room, not bedroom) apartments in the cities were rent-free, too. (subsidized housing).
There is always a carrot (even if it looks good but is rotten) to wave along with the stick.
@Smokin Joe
Stalin/the formal communists "sold" their plans to the people with the promise and delivery of electric power,central heat,and running water in their new housing.
Today the sheeple are willing to sell their freedoms for being Environmentally Correct. The Politically
Correct took over a couple of decades ago. It has just taken them this long to worm themselves into
positions of influence so they could write new laws to enforce their ideology,and have the power to enforce
them.
-
Don't forget, those one or two room (room, not bedroom) apartments in the cities were rent-free, too. (subsidized housing).
There is always a carrot (even if it looks good but is rotten) to wave along with the stick.
@Smokin Joe
Yes,but a "minor detail" or two were overlooked because the Soviets never bothered to tell them they
would NEVER own those new apartments with all the conveninces. They would just be allowed to live there
rent-free as long as they accepted the state was their master that could kick the slaves (them) out into
the snow anytime the state even SUSPECTED them of being disloyal.
When "The State" in the USSR,where the patterns were made for all this,created this system,they did so
using programs like this as "Bait" to lull the citizens in who might have otherwise been resistant to
losing their freedoms.
Given a choice between comfort and freedom,comfort wins every time.
Don't believe me,consider the typical resident of public housing.
-
@Smokin Joe
Yes,but a "minor detail" or two were overlooked because the Soviets never bothered to tell them they
would NEVER own those new apartments with all the conveninces. They would just be allowed to live there
rent-free as long as they accepted the state was their master that could kick the slaves (them) out into
the snow anytime the state even SUSPECTED them of being disloyal.
When "The State" in the USSR,where the patterns were made for all this,created this system,they did so
using programs like this as "Bait" to lull the citizens in who might have otherwise been resistant to
losing their freedoms.
Given a choice between comfort and freedom,comfort wins every time.
Don't believe me,consider the typical resident of public housing.
Oh, I agree. Many find a sense of security in the burden of their chains, at least until they get too heavy.
-
Registration I support, confiscation I do not. The Dems, as usual, overreach and motivate gun owners everywhere to get out and vote. I'm all for that. But requiring gun owners to be licensed and insure their toys just as I do my cars is still common sense, even if (as I admit) it's politically dead on arrival.
Hey @$$H@T, Wake up.Firearms are necessary for the overthrow of a tyrannical government. You do not need a motorized vehicle to win a war. Yeah it dose make it easier, but plenty of people have done it with out (see our own history).