Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Michelle Obamas warning to gun owners
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1645442" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I am sure that many of you actually would take up arms if outright gun confiscation were ever attempted... or at least would refuse to turn in guns and would possibly resist with force if you ever caught any heat for it. I would be right there with you. But here's the deal: the politicians know this too. That is why outright confiscation has never been tried in this country, and never will be tried. The politicians are smart enough to know that it would likely be met with some resistance. The way it will go, if we keep on our present course toward a statist society, is that the politicians will keep on making small incremental infringements on our right to bear arms (along with our other liberties). No single infringement will be so outrageous or hard to swallow that anyone will be willing to draw the line right there and wage war against the government over it. </p><p></p><p>Look at all the gun control that has been passed so far in this country... it is very incremental. First they require registration and a tax stamp on certain types of weapons that are fairly rare, and then 50-some years later they close the registry on them, making them de-facto illegal, yet without having to confiscate a single gun. They require dealer licensure and ban mail-order sales other than through dealers. They cut off the further import or production of certain ammo types, and then certain guns with certain features. They impose little requirements that at first are more annoying than anything, like the background check requirement. They drive up prices by refusing to sell surplus gov't ammo and firearms on the market, and block the importation of certain guns from foreign countries. They make administrative regulations that never have to see a vote, and use them to further restrict the importation and sale of certain guns and ammo. They impose environmental regulations on bullets and components. </p><p></p><p>Nobody resisted any of these incremental infringements along the way, because it was never a "big enough deal" to warrant that in anyone's mind. It has to be a pretty damn "big deal" for someone to actually give up his entire life, standard of living, and everything he loves about it; condemning himself to be hunted as an outlaw for the rest of his likely much-shortened life, to take the lives of his fellow countrymen and make widows and orphans of their wives and kids. </p><p></p><p>The politicians know that they do not have to outright confiscate any guns... all they have to do is to slowly make it more expensive and more of a hassle to own and shoot one, and eventually we will get the same place -- which is a disarmed populace and an armed government. Also, the government will certainly be expanding in other ways, and making people more dependent on it. Eventually we will reach a point where the vast majority of people draw some sort of government paycheck... hell, we are pretty close to that already. If you depend on the government for your job, food, medicine, housing, and other basic needs of life, you will be in much less of a position to fight them. Only people who are materially and mentally independent are threats to a tyrannical government. If you make people materially dependent on the government, they will become mentally dependent. Nobody will adopt a political/moral philosophy that is opposed to big government when their livelihood depends on big government. If the attitude in this country becomes more and more tolerant of big government in other parts of our life, eventually people will give up on the idea that they need to be armed in order to protect themselves against tyranny. Once we've reached that point, as all other countries already have, we will be ready for european/soviet/nazi style mass disarmament. </p><p></p><p>So you see, it's bigger than just gun control. The problem is the failure of most people in our society to adopt a consistently pro-liberty view on all other issues as well. And <em>that</em> is what will have to change if we are to retain a shred of our rightful liberty.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1645442, member: 4235"] I am sure that many of you actually would take up arms if outright gun confiscation were ever attempted... or at least would refuse to turn in guns and would possibly resist with force if you ever caught any heat for it. I would be right there with you. But here's the deal: the politicians know this too. That is why outright confiscation has never been tried in this country, and never will be tried. The politicians are smart enough to know that it would likely be met with some resistance. The way it will go, if we keep on our present course toward a statist society, is that the politicians will keep on making small incremental infringements on our right to bear arms (along with our other liberties). No single infringement will be so outrageous or hard to swallow that anyone will be willing to draw the line right there and wage war against the government over it. Look at all the gun control that has been passed so far in this country... it is very incremental. First they require registration and a tax stamp on certain types of weapons that are fairly rare, and then 50-some years later they close the registry on them, making them de-facto illegal, yet without having to confiscate a single gun. They require dealer licensure and ban mail-order sales other than through dealers. They cut off the further import or production of certain ammo types, and then certain guns with certain features. They impose little requirements that at first are more annoying than anything, like the background check requirement. They drive up prices by refusing to sell surplus gov't ammo and firearms on the market, and block the importation of certain guns from foreign countries. They make administrative regulations that never have to see a vote, and use them to further restrict the importation and sale of certain guns and ammo. They impose environmental regulations on bullets and components. Nobody resisted any of these incremental infringements along the way, because it was never a "big enough deal" to warrant that in anyone's mind. It has to be a pretty damn "big deal" for someone to actually give up his entire life, standard of living, and everything he loves about it; condemning himself to be hunted as an outlaw for the rest of his likely much-shortened life, to take the lives of his fellow countrymen and make widows and orphans of their wives and kids. The politicians know that they do not have to outright confiscate any guns... all they have to do is to slowly make it more expensive and more of a hassle to own and shoot one, and eventually we will get the same place -- which is a disarmed populace and an armed government. Also, the government will certainly be expanding in other ways, and making people more dependent on it. Eventually we will reach a point where the vast majority of people draw some sort of government paycheck... hell, we are pretty close to that already. If you depend on the government for your job, food, medicine, housing, and other basic needs of life, you will be in much less of a position to fight them. Only people who are materially and mentally independent are threats to a tyrannical government. If you make people materially dependent on the government, they will become mentally dependent. Nobody will adopt a political/moral philosophy that is opposed to big government when their livelihood depends on big government. If the attitude in this country becomes more and more tolerant of big government in other parts of our life, eventually people will give up on the idea that they need to be armed in order to protect themselves against tyranny. Once we've reached that point, as all other countries already have, we will be ready for european/soviet/nazi style mass disarmament. So you see, it's bigger than just gun control. The problem is the failure of most people in our society to adopt a consistently pro-liberty view on all other issues as well. And [I]that[/I] is what will have to change if we are to retain a shred of our rightful liberty. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Michelle Obamas warning to gun owners
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom