Is fear of confiscation valid?

Governor Mcauliffe wants to pull the concealed carry permits of parents behind on child support. This is just another example of why concealed carry permits are a bad idea.
Click to expand...


Without going into the debate about the legitimacy of issued permits for CWC, many states already pull your driver's license and revoke hunting and fishing privileges if you are behind on child support and you can legitimately afford it. I cannot see how a state issued permit for CWC would be any different. Parents that don't pay child support when then can afford it are some of the lowest scum on earth as far as I'm concerned, and IMHO shouldn't be entitled to any rights. Deserting your dependent children financially is just another form of abuse.
 
Parents that don't pay child support when then can afford it are some of the lowest scum on earth as far as I'm concerned, and IMHO shouldn't be entitled to any rights
Click to expand...

That's the tyrant's perspective which uses an emotionally based excuse to revoke rights.

This is EXACTLY why we're in the predicament we're in today. Too many people agree with these sorts of arguments for their particular pet political issues. They go along with it and then get all upset when some other bunch of idiots does the same thing for some other political agenda. The result is a hodge-podge of restrictions that effectively nullify rights.
 
Last edited:
That's the tyrant's perspective which uses an emotionally based excuse to revoke rights.
Click to expand...

No, it's just plain fact. Another fact is, in every state in the Union, failure to provide child support is considered a crime. In many cases(my state) it is considered a felony. Felons can't possess firearms, so a CWC would be pretty useless.


As I said, I was not trying to argue the right or wrong of the need for a CWC permit, that is completely off topic for this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think so. I understand the concerns, but the politicians and bureaucrats have way more priorities than this. And when you consider the scale of the effort that would be involved, it would be one of the most massive projects in US history.

Not impossible, but extremely improbable, IMHO.
 
Is fear of confiscation valid?

I think yes, absolutely. As long as you have people shouting ban this or that, for whatever reason or none, it is a valid concern. Guns, a certain plant, breed of dog, book, food, it matters not, there are those who would take it from you, "for your own good" or "for the good of society". IN THEIR OPINION!

We can consider how difficult it would be for them, and assume they wouldn't ever undertake (or be successful), but they may not see it that way. Believing it can't happen because you or I can see how foolish it would be, doesn't affect their aims, except to possibly aid them through our own complacency.

The politician who said "If I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr & Mrs America, TURN Them ALL IN!!" is still serving in Congress. OF COURSE there's a valid reason to fear confiscation!

I'm not very concerned that it will happen next week, but I know there are people actively working for it to happen, and new restrictions seem to happen somewhere nearly every election cycle.
 
Gun confiscation and such...

<JohnKSa>

<All they have to do is make them illegal and wait. Over time, they'll chip away at the folks who don't turn them in or register their guns. A little at a time, one here, one there, so there's no obvious point at which those who are non-compliant feel like their collective backs are up against the wall and might be spurred to organized resistance.>

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 310 million civilian owned guns in the United States. Even if, each year, the Government had a total of 1 million guns confiscated, turned in, etc, that’s roughly 3 centuries to complete civilian gun elimination; and that assumes, among other things, the government consistently maintained the policy of civilian gun elimination for 300 years and there was a zero increase in the supply of civilian owned guns over that period of time.

<They have all the time in the world. Why bother risking lives and resistance by doing a door-to-door? Waiting works just as well if you're not impatient.

They will eventually get them all and with very minor effort.>

Generally speaking, politicians seem to think extremely short term. From what I’ve seen they usually think of the moment or to the next reelection. I’d say the odds are pretty good most politicians wouldn’t be in the mood to wait for a period far past their lifetime to try and reap some political benefit.

Aggressive gun confiscation, like door to door searches, besides consuming a lot of resources, would risk armed resistance. And the government using force against this resistance would likely lead to more of it. And although not in the same category and I do not advocate the use of drugs, did the war on drugs, for example, ever make this country virtually or even mostly drug free?

<In the meantime, those non-compliant folks who wouldn't give them up won't be able to rationalize any advantage in keeping their guns. What's the point of having a gun you can't use in self-defense or to hunt, or even to shoot? The only option would be to hide it away and never use it again on penalty of getting caught committing a felony. They might as well have turned them in before the grace period expired and taken the pittance offered for all their non-compliance gained them.>

I’m sure there are large numbers of people who would like to keep their now illegal firearms because they are heirlooms, have sentimental value, etc while some others because it is their Second Amendment Right or just because it is their property. And I’m sure the vast majority of gun owners would still use their now illegal gun to preserve their own life and/or the life of a loved one regardless of the current laws.
 
Buck460XVR said:
Without going into the debate about the legitimacy of issued permits for CWC, many states already pull your driver's license and revoke hunting and fishing privileges if you are behind on child support and you can legitimately afford it. I cannot see how a state issued permit for CWC would be any different. Parents that don't pay child support when then can afford it are some of the lowest scum on earth as far as I'm concerned, and IMHO shouldn't be entitled to any rights. Deserting your dependent children financially is just another form of abuse.
Click to expand...
There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to drive, or to hunt and fish. That's the difference in a nutshell.

2A said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

To any rational mind, a permit to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right is an oxymoron. If we have to ask for permission to do something, it isn't really a "right" any more, is it? Pertaining to the question of carry permits and child support, while I agree that a parent who intentionally reneges on paying child support is lower than whale dung on the bottom of the ocean, the fact remains that a right is (or should be) a right, and "shall not be infringed" still means (or should mean, unless you're a politician or a Supreme Court justice) "shall not be infringed."

A requirement for a carry permit is, IMHO, a very significant infringement.
 
Revocation of ones ccw permit for being behind on child support, after he lost his job due to harassing phone calls from the ex wife and having to fight off harassment from her boyfriend in the company parking lot getting off work, and is then assaulted by the ex wife's boyfriend and 3 of his friends once the loss of his permit became known. That's not a place I want to live. Secondly, too many people seem to mention "if it goes door to doorl" if they're going door to door then it's too late already. At Lexington they stopped the british at the bridge before they got into people's homes (if my history hasn't been lost). People then we're organized enough and knew what was coming and what to do about it and most importantly, where to do it. People now do not.
 
Originally posted by Aguila Blanca:

There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to drive, or to hunt and fish. That's the difference in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

In my state, I am guaranteed by our constitution, the right to hunt or fish. Still, if folks don't pay their child support, they loose their license to legally hunt or fish. So much for that nutshell.


Originally posted by Aguila Blanca

the fact remains that a right is (or should be) a right, and "shall not be infringed" still means (or should mean, unless you're a politician or a Supreme Court justice) "shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Again, I tried to avoid the issue of the validity of CWC permits as not to get off topic with a whole other can or worms. While I too see no reason why anyone should need a license to carry concealed, in many states we do. If those states feel that rescinding those permits for non-payment of child support will make a dead-beat parent pay-up, so be it. As for defining the phrase "shall not be infringed", seems to me that those children have a God-Given right also and they are being infringed upon.
 
They may have a record of what I have bought. There is no record of all the things that I have sold. I've got nothing left. It all went at the last gunshow.
 
Yes, I think confiscation of guns is a possibility. What really concerns me most is the utter disregard shown for the law by the people in power, and that doesn't bode well for the gun owner. The will of the people means very little, either, as several shoddy pieces of legislation have been literally rammed down our throats in the past few years.
 
In one sense, yes. In another sense, 'no'. I think the more likely event is 'stealth confiscation'.

1) Prohibit transfers. This means that when you die, your firearms go away.

2) Make it miserable to own. Some states do this already. I only ever lived in gun-friendly states before, and then I moved to a 'bad state'. It's just a huge hassle to own 'interesting guns'. I think I'm just not used to it....but the concept of having 'registered guns' kinda makes my skin crawl. :(
 
Weapons System Advancement

Science could make the firearms we have today useless and not worth confiscating. Spitting little pieces of lead might be of no consequence to the authorities twenty thirty years from now.
If normal citizens are barred full auto or explosive devices like missiles. Certainly any as yet developed weapons, like energy weapons, whatever they might be will never be on the civilian legal market.
 
"Science could make the firearms we have today useless and not worth confiscating."
That is an interesting thought, and the devices constructed by the whiz kids for DARPA and the like are growing each and every day. Exo-suits, robotic warriors, microwave and sound weapons, lasers, are just the tip of the iceberg. Your point is well taken and should be of some concern, as when the power to wield overwhelming force becomes available without cost to the aggressor, the temptation to use such power grows exponentially.
 
A chunk of lead will take a man just as fast thirty years from now as it did one hundred years ago. Interesting concept and there may actually come something that might render old weapons less useful, but it won't make a man invincible.
 
Check out the TALOS system under development by the military for SpecOps. An ordinary bullet may be rendered obsolete sooner than you think.
 
confiscation

i think it is on record that EVERY nation that has had registration ended up with confiscation. mite have to give canada a little slack.
 
Spitting little pieces of lead might be of no consequence to the authorities twenty thirty years from now.
Click to expand...

While I can see the possibility that the authorities might not care, someday, about you or I owning a "lead spitter" sort of like how they don't really care too much about us owning muzzle loaders, today.

BUT, I ASSURE you that if you USE that "lead spitter", they WILL CARE!
I don't see that changing, ever.

And while eventually we might find that today's small arms aren't useful against powered combat armor suits, etc., that doesn't mean our arms are useless. There are other threats to our health and safety than the yet to be realized ROBO Warriors of a tyrannical govt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top