Bear Flare
New member
Greetings:
While the election of George W. Bush as the 43rd President of these United States is a great victory for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and indeed the American People as a whole, the battle over the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has not been won. I would assert further, however, that the battle for Liberty and Justice has barely begun.
As long as a restriction on Lawful activity exists, there will be pressure to enact further restrictions; the slippery slope cliché is indeed true. When reviewing the entire history of weapons restriction laws and the proposed future restrictions, the validity of the above often-ridiculed assertion is proven beyond doubt. Any restriction enacted now is merely a prelude to further restrictions in the future. The unconstitutional “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994, The unconstitutional Brady Act, the unconstitutional firearms and ammunition importation ban (by Pres. George Bush Sr.) in 1989, the unconstitutional Handgun Control Act of 1968, these all must be confronted and exposed as unlawful, illegal restrictions of our God-given right to Keep and Bear Arms before we can claim to be making progress in our fight. Victory can be claimed only when our battle takes us all the way back to the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934 itself.
I feel it is extremely important to concentrate on exposing the illegality and unconstitutionality of weapons restriction laws. In an area such as weapons crime where accurate statistics are impossible to gather, effectiveness of any regulation in reducing crime is purely a subjective endeavor. Even John Lott himself admits that the most important statistic, the number of times firearms are used to prevent crime, is impossible to estimate because these happenings are rarely reported and even more rarely recorded. Differences in interpretation of flawed statistics can never be resolved and will only result in further conflict over the issue. The current practice of using subjective statistical analysis to “prove” a restrictive regulation’s ineffectiveness, while perfectly valid, may also be used by opposition to “prove” its effectiveness. Conflict such as this that results in further legislation is a drastic loss to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Compromise in this legislation to a lesser degree of restriction still constitutes a loss for firearms rights and does nothing to stop the pressure for further restrictions. The only destination at which the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can arrive in an atmosphere of compromise is non-existence.
WE MUST PUSH BACK UPHILL!
A thought by me, fire away.
While the election of George W. Bush as the 43rd President of these United States is a great victory for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and indeed the American People as a whole, the battle over the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has not been won. I would assert further, however, that the battle for Liberty and Justice has barely begun.
As long as a restriction on Lawful activity exists, there will be pressure to enact further restrictions; the slippery slope cliché is indeed true. When reviewing the entire history of weapons restriction laws and the proposed future restrictions, the validity of the above often-ridiculed assertion is proven beyond doubt. Any restriction enacted now is merely a prelude to further restrictions in the future. The unconstitutional “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994, The unconstitutional Brady Act, the unconstitutional firearms and ammunition importation ban (by Pres. George Bush Sr.) in 1989, the unconstitutional Handgun Control Act of 1968, these all must be confronted and exposed as unlawful, illegal restrictions of our God-given right to Keep and Bear Arms before we can claim to be making progress in our fight. Victory can be claimed only when our battle takes us all the way back to the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934 itself.
I feel it is extremely important to concentrate on exposing the illegality and unconstitutionality of weapons restriction laws. In an area such as weapons crime where accurate statistics are impossible to gather, effectiveness of any regulation in reducing crime is purely a subjective endeavor. Even John Lott himself admits that the most important statistic, the number of times firearms are used to prevent crime, is impossible to estimate because these happenings are rarely reported and even more rarely recorded. Differences in interpretation of flawed statistics can never be resolved and will only result in further conflict over the issue. The current practice of using subjective statistical analysis to “prove” a restrictive regulation’s ineffectiveness, while perfectly valid, may also be used by opposition to “prove” its effectiveness. Conflict such as this that results in further legislation is a drastic loss to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Compromise in this legislation to a lesser degree of restriction still constitutes a loss for firearms rights and does nothing to stop the pressure for further restrictions. The only destination at which the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can arrive in an atmosphere of compromise is non-existence.
WE MUST PUSH BACK UPHILL!
A thought by me, fire away.