About Me

Name: Kerbouchard
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Could they really ban guns? (follow up)

I don't know. I wish I could answer that question. I started this thread You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands...or not. to answer that very question.

Unfortunately, it raised more questions than answers...Here is what I have figured out so far...

1. I can't fight off a SWAT team. So if the gov't wants to take them, they can...
2. The blueprint for confiscation is already in place, with precedents.
3. The promises of our officials and our inaliable rights go out the window if martial law is declared, or a national emergency, or any other catch-phrase they want to use.
4. The second that the gov't gained access to weaponry that was too sophisticated or lethal for civilian use, we became 'subjects'.
5. It will probably happen in our lifetime, and I don't think there is a dang thing we can do about it.
6. Any armed resistance would be passed off as crack pots/Keresh/Waco type incidents and would be a rallying point for the Brady Bunch.
7. I don't believe there will be much resistance, because it will happen on a 'local'/temporary scale, and before we knew it wasn't local, or temporary, we would be disarmed.
8. Much like the smoking ban, where it was tried 12 or 13 times, and struck down easily every time, until everybody assumed it would get struck down and stopped paying attention...Then it passed.
9. A Representative form of government has outlived it's usefullness. The reason we went to a representative based gov't was because towns got too big for town meetings. People lived too far away to communicate/travel to vote on issues. Technology has put us all a few keystrokes away.
10. A gov't big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it away.
11. The ban will probably start with ammo, in the form of restrictions that make it cost prohibitive to purchase. Either by regulating primers and gunpowder as Hazmat, or serialization. Along with higher taxes on ammo.


My solution...get out and vote, put the strongest constitutionalists into power. Work to overturn 'common sense gun laws', because we have to start eroding the traction and getting rid of the precedents that they have already set. Inform as many people as we can about these types of illegal activity by our own gov't. Press our politicians to follow up with these investigations.

My best solution is the following, and it would take work, time, and organization, but here it goes...
If you see an anti/propaganda type show, jot down the commercials that played on air, make a list of these companies, and write to those companies explaining why you will no longer purchase their products.

That's the best I have so far. And unfortunately, during a local crisis or emergency, I'm afraid none of it will be effective.

__________________
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own."

Who is John Galt?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Banning guns is impossible, right?

I wish I could convince myself of that.

Somebody told me if I woke up one day and found out that guns were being banned then I slept too long...
Well, I wake up every day knowing that if they ban guns that same day, there isn't a thing I can do about it, aside from possibly burying some in my backyard or whatever. And the first time I had to use a hideout I would probably be thrown in jail for not relinquishing my banned weapons.  And that reminds me of a saying I've heard repeated many times, and lately, even more often...
 
"If you are thinking of burying your guns, it is probably time to dig them up."
People tell me that there is no political traction for a gun ban...
But how about the following attempts or successes:

Banning hunting ammo because it can penetrate bullet proof vests
Ammo serialization
Smart guns
Safety locks
High capacity magazines
Outright bans in some cities
Full-auto
Silencers
'saturday night specials'
Background checks
Barrel length
types of ammo
classes of people who the 2nd doesn't apply to
gun-free zones
suing gun manufacturers
registration

I personally think those do establish some sort of traction for the anti's.

The DC vs Heller case really, really scares me. I know what the ruling should be. You do to. It is the only ruling that would be just and make sense, but just because it would be just, doesn't mean that's what it will be.  A cut and dry decision by the SCOTUS could wipe out hundreds of years of gun laws. I don't see that happening. I personally think it will be vague enough to not set a huge precedent. I think they will rule that banning currently legal, operational firearms inside one's home is unconstitutional, and will leave it at that. I would love to hear a ruling saying 'shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed'; I won't hold my breath, though.

I think it is already too late, and I think the more people that realize it, the better off we will be. I see too many people rationalizing more gun legislation as 'common sense' or 'for the good of the people', and I think it would help a lot if people realized how much closer we get to a total ban with each concession we make. I've heard a quote that goes something like this... 'What is a interpretation of the constitution except half way between what it says and what you want it to say' or something to that effect.
 
We've gotten so far away from what the 2nd admendment actually means that it has no meaning anymore except as a rallying point or catch phrase for some conservatives or the NRA.
The only way to win this type of battle is politically. So, you think, well, great. We're doing good on that front, and making enormous progress. And I would tend to agree. In a day to day 'normal' society, I think we are doing pretty well. But in a 'National Emergency', or 'National Fuel Shortage', or any other type of catch-phrase that they decide to use, the 2nd admendment and the politicians promises won't mean a thing.
 
The New Orleans mess has convinced me that our society can be forcibly disarmed, and easily.  Granted, it would have to be on a local level, but what if everybody thought the same things the guys in N.O. thought...That it was only temporary, or that it was localized....Well, I think we're going to see a lot of 'localized' actions, and one day, we'll wake up, and we'll have slept too long.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »