Is fear of confiscation valid?

What it takes in the US to be that kind of nobility is simply to be self appointed and self proclaimed, win a popularity contest(s) (elections), or just acquire piles of money and pronounce to the world that you know better how we should live our lives than we do.

I don't happen to agree with them.
 
I personally have a roommate who would turn me in for keeping my guns if a law were passed requiring me to hand them to authorities. "See something, say somethimg" is a Stazi tactic and I for one expect guns to be out and out illegal in my lifetime, unless some cataclysm happens that favors gun ownership.
 
Doesn't sound like a roommate that is much of a friend. Dump him/her; life is too short to put up with such nonsense.

If you are a felon or would be felon, you damn sure ought to have a "fear of consfication". Other than that it is a "fear" that for most that stays a fear or concern and nothing more.
 
44AMP, I think you have hit a major point in the discussion, that of the "nobility class" that exists today. Politicians stay in office so long that they lose touch with the electorate. More than ever, the need for term limits is evident. Another trend is the accumulation of massive amounts of money by mostly progressive entities, such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, etc. These individuals seem intent on shoving their vision of the future down our throats. Such individuals have control of a large portion of the media, and therefore structure the debate in ways that favor their ideals. I 594 was passed by media influence, false though it may be, and the ordinary man sucked it up and it passed. Most of us here adhere to certain principles, honesty being one of the foremost. The anti's have no qualms about twisting the "facts" to fit their needs.(outright lies) The paramount question is why do they feel the need to disarm the American people? Their common response of "safety" and "protection" hold no water. It is all about control, and that is more evident as time goes on. Hold no illusions, confiscation is ultimately what it is all about.
 
Have you ever read the Constitution, or any of the supporting documentation that led to the Constitution? Government does NOT grant rights. Your creator grants rights due to you being HUMAN. The Constitution only guarantees these NATURAL RIGHTS are not infringed by government.

By giving the power to government to grant you rights, you also give them the power to take them away. Nothing could be further from the truth. The right to protect yourself, and family is a natural right, not a government granted privilege.
Click to expand...


The rights were believed to be God given rights. But if you don't believe in a higher authority other than government, than the government granted those rights.
Click to expand...


Oh, I have read the Constitution along with it's Bill of Rights and the statement in the Declaration of Independence.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.



Unalienable rights are also universal, which means they are not bound by borders or government. But, the idea of Unalienable Rights is a philosophy for the most part, especially when it comes to gun ownership, that is uniquely American. Ask any other God-fearing developed country in the world if they have as much freedom as we do here in America when it comes to firearm ownership. The idea of Unalienable Rights was originally suggested in the 17th century. Those same folks that first proposed Unalienable Rights also stated that “there can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest publick Good." Even when first proposed, Unalienable Rights were deemed to have limitations. The argumentative and subjective part of any "natural right" has to do with the "greatest public good". This is what we as gun owners are facing today in America. Our government was actually formed to protect our "natural rights" but also initially protected slavery. Freedom, since the beginning of time and proved to us by Moses, has always been deemed a natural right, but is only given when government protected or granted that right.

Thus, we have formed a government in America to protect and grant our rights, and you are correct, that same government can take them away. But in our form of government, the common people have a choice as to what the government does by electing those in power. So, our freedom to own guns will only cease if the majority of Americans elect those officials that want to take them away.....or our form of government changes.
 
I would disagree with using the word "grant" re: govt and our rights. The whole concept of natural or unalienable rights is that the rights exist independent of government (or anyone else's) permission or authority.

It is a fine distinction, but these discussions are places where fine distinctions should be made, because they do matter.

Government can neither take away, or give you natural rights. Government can suppress, deny, restrict or empower us exercising a right, so it appears that govt grants the right, but they don't. Of course, governments don't mind us thinking they grant us our right. They don't mind that one bit.

A couple hundred years ago, what many thought was in the best interests of the publick good was the greatest freedom for the individual. Particularly when it came to arms.

Today, many people apparently think differently.
 
ronl said:
Politicians stay in office so long that they lose touch with the electorate. More than ever, the need for term limits is evident. Another trend is the accumulation of massive amounts of money by mostly progressive entities, such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, etc. These individuals seem intent on shoving their vision of the future down our throats. Such individuals have control of a large portion of the media, and therefore structure the debate in ways that favor their ideals.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to start an extended thread hijack, but I find this statement to be seriously self-contradictory.

In order to get enough name recognition to win a major political campaign when media exposure is crucial and political contributions are becoming increasingly unregulated, a person generally needs at least one of three things:
  1. Pre-existing fame
  2. Personal wealth
  3. Contributions from external benefactor(s)
Set aside #1 and you wind up with two basic categories of people who have a realistic chance of winning political office starting from scratch:
  • The wealthy
  • Those who have pledged fealty to wealthy benefactors
If "they" control the money, and "they" control the media, does it not logically follow that "they" WANT term limits in order to more easily manipulate who is in office? :rolleyes:

Keep in mind that I-594 in WA was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the wealthy. This factor is becoming increasingly relevant in ALL SORTS of elections.
 
Last edited:
I would disagree with using the word "grant" re: govt and our rights. The whole concept of natural or unalienable rights is that the rights exist independent of government (or anyone else's) permission or authority.

It is a fine distinction, but these discussions are places where fine distinctions should be made, because they do matter.
Click to expand...

Then it must also come down to whether the rights are God given or birth rights, especially in the case of people who do not believe in a divine creator.

My point is, regardless of the semantics you want to use, folks that live under any form of government, have their rights regulated......period. That is never going to change, regardless of how much folks preach otherwise on internet forums. We see that in the 2nd Amendment already. The amount and type of regulation comes from those in power. We as citizens of the U.S. control those in power for the most part by voting for those that represent our concerns. We are fortunate as this is not how it works in many other societies. One needs to be realistic......Regardless of who you think has granted us those rights, our government will always control those rights. The day they don't, we will have no government. The day we have no government, odds are, gun control will be the least of our worries.
 
Keep in mind that I-594 in WA was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the wealthy. This factor is becoming increasingly relevant in ALL SORTS of elections.
Click to expand...
Keep pointing that out, too. The people who pushed for I-594 are the ones who most frequently gripe about our elections being bought by the "1%."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top