We see on a daily basis the non stop attempts to take our God given rights away from us, to try and regulate guns and gun owners out of existence while gangs and other criminals seem to be getting only MORE armed.
IMHO, the govt. is more interested in disarming "law abiders" then it is taking illegal guns away from criminals and gangbangers.
In the event of a gun bans, etc. will "law abiders" abide by the laws and lay down their arms? If a "law abider" doesn't, they would be considered a criminal or an enemy of the state, right? Is this the case EVEN if the laws passed are unconstitutional? Where is the line in the sand? where is the threshold that must be broken to where a law abider is no longer one in the eyes of the govt. and stupid/illegal laws?
This notion gets me thinking...
IMHO, the govt. is more interested in disarming "law abiders" then it is taking illegal guns away from criminals and gangbangers.
In the event of a gun bans, etc. will "law abiders" abide by the laws and lay down their arms? If a "law abider" doesn't, they would be considered a criminal or an enemy of the state, right? Is this the case EVEN if the laws passed are unconstitutional? Where is the line in the sand? where is the threshold that must be broken to where a law abider is no longer one in the eyes of the govt. and stupid/illegal laws?
This notion gets me thinking...