Agreed.
One more thing: gun-control (gun ban) advocates will tell us that we engage in a logical fallacy here called the 'camel's nose' argument which works like this: 'A' is proposed, and is opposed on the basis that if we allow 'A', then 'B' will follow and then 'C'. Before you know it, we are at 'Z', which for sure and for certain is a place that we don't want to be.
A common example is DUI checkpoints. Opponents warn us that this is only the first step towards giving the police more power, then warrantless, mandatory auto searches are next, and eventually, they can search our homes on a whim.
The reason that this is a logical fallacy is that 'B' and then 'C', etc., do not necessarily have to follow 'A'. 'A' could very well be where it ends.
However, care must be taken because sometimes, those who advocate for one thing have something further in mind. I give you gentle people the following:
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
Nelson P. 'Pete' Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. The New Yorker, July 26, 1976
Who is to say that handguns are not just the first step? Will the restrictions end after military-style rifles? After handguns? Who knows what they will think of then? Varmint guns as 'sniper rifles', perhaps?
I don't want to take the first step. Does anybody here? I hope not.
We can't take the first step. The first step was taken back in 1934. All We the People can do is push them back.
I can't tell you when the turning back of the infringements point will be reached, but it is getting closer and closer each and every day. Just be warned that when it starts, all you will have to win the day is how you prepare in advance.
Woody
Our force of arms, the right to keep and bear arms that the Constitution forbids this or any government under it to infringe, must be cleaned, polished, and PUT ON PARADE from time to time. This must be done so that those who would usurp our freedoms, or dictate their unrighteous causes, or enslave us under some self-serving tyranny, will know to remain humble before us and keep their distance. B.E.Wood