Focus
- Thread starter Benzene
- Start date
I absolutely agree, but...
Yellowfin, I absolutely agree with you that "Attempts to confiscate should be regarded as a hostile foreign invasion," but we HAVE to do more than being mouth-shooters.
Can you think about an America without the Harley-Davidson, apple pie, or the right of individuals to own guns? This HAS to be "foreign" and "hostile"!!!
I guess I'm looking for some sort of "authoritative" reassurance the our right WILL be upheld.
Yellowfin, I absolutely agree with you that "Attempts to confiscate should be regarded as a hostile foreign invasion," but we HAVE to do more than being mouth-shooters.
Can you think about an America without the Harley-Davidson, apple pie, or the right of individuals to own guns? This HAS to be "foreign" and "hostile"!!!
I guess I'm looking for some sort of "authoritative" reassurance the our right WILL be upheld.
I know of zero 'retards' in the ATF, but a few in the PD.
Look at it this way...
Lets say you work for the ATF.
Then, lets say you are given the task of enforcing a gun ban.
Your job requires you to go house to house, with a team, and confiscate newly 'illegal' firearms.
Would you actually be naive enough to try and complete your task?
How many homes do you think you would get thru, before you ran into a smoking barrel?
Or, would you delay the task, and even quit your job, if needed?
A gun law that would require such enforcement would be just as idiotic.
Look at it this way...
Lets say you work for the ATF.
Then, lets say you are given the task of enforcing a gun ban.
Your job requires you to go house to house, with a team, and confiscate newly 'illegal' firearms.
Would you actually be naive enough to try and complete your task?
How many homes do you think you would get thru, before you ran into a smoking barrel?
Or, would you delay the task, and even quit your job, if needed?
A gun law that would require such enforcement would be just as idiotic.
Technosavant
New member
Nope.
My reason: A decision in Heller that follows the collective right interpretation, upholding any and all bans, would not change our current legal landscape. Right now, there already ARE bans in some places in the US (which is why the suit exists). In some places the RKBA crowd is losing to the anti crowd, in others we're winning. All of this is being done in a legal environment where the federal government isn't interested in stopping state or local bans. Indeed, the San Fran handgun ban (hey, that rhymes!) was even struck down according to the CA constitution, a victory even in a state considered a RKBA hellhole.
A loss in this one won't change a thing. We'll still be fighting stupid laws in every state in the union, and we'll still win in some places, lose in others, depending on the strength of the anti nuts. All private ownership won't automatically be banned; it will remain every bit as likely as it is now (not terribly). Sure, we'll still have to redouble our efforts to fight them, but if the decision comes down tomorrow (it won't, but say it does) that we don't have an individual right to firearm ownership, it doesn't mean we'll be handing in our guns and ammo on Thursday while taking up model trains on Friday.
A win, however, would put some kinds of bans beyond the pale, which would be a HUGE win. And from what I have read about how the oral arguments went, I feel hopeful.
My reason: A decision in Heller that follows the collective right interpretation, upholding any and all bans, would not change our current legal landscape. Right now, there already ARE bans in some places in the US (which is why the suit exists). In some places the RKBA crowd is losing to the anti crowd, in others we're winning. All of this is being done in a legal environment where the federal government isn't interested in stopping state or local bans. Indeed, the San Fran handgun ban (hey, that rhymes!) was even struck down according to the CA constitution, a victory even in a state considered a RKBA hellhole.
A loss in this one won't change a thing. We'll still be fighting stupid laws in every state in the union, and we'll still win in some places, lose in others, depending on the strength of the anti nuts. All private ownership won't automatically be banned; it will remain every bit as likely as it is now (not terribly). Sure, we'll still have to redouble our efforts to fight them, but if the decision comes down tomorrow (it won't, but say it does) that we don't have an individual right to firearm ownership, it doesn't mean we'll be handing in our guns and ammo on Thursday while taking up model trains on Friday.
A win, however, would put some kinds of bans beyond the pale, which would be a HUGE win. And from what I have read about how the oral arguments went, I feel hopeful.
Technosavant
New member
Benzene, the moment you come up with a good way to counter idiots, somebody will come up with a better idiot.
It's life on this terrestrial ball.
It's life on this terrestrial ball.
What is needed is a shift from squashing the ants one by one to smashing the anthill. We need an end game: what can we do to make them gone? They're playing for keeps. They have an end solution, which is no more rights, absolute bans. They've gotten them in other countries, so they have an end goal that is visible.