My biggest problem with this whole thing is why do we need the US Supreme Court to tell us that we have a right that is specifically given to us by our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect the government or "allow" us to have rights. It says those rights are unalienable. They are our RIGHTS and cannot be taken away! It is not a PRIVILEGE to enjoy free speech or to own a gun. It is a RIGHT! Is the Supreme court next going to write that we can keep our right of free speech? Or that, yes it's true, we are all created equal? Or maybe the Justices should tell us what religion we should all be.
Worse yet, how can the leftists that call themselves Americans, whether they like guns or not, want to have one of our rights stripped from us? These are the same people that talk about how oppressive the US government is, yet they want to have that same government to take away our only right that TRULY protects us from tyranny? How can you be a proponent of Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy, yet want us to have freedoms taken away. Sure, maybe you hate my guns, but you know what? I hate some of the stupid things that you say, yet I won't try to take away your right to say them. I know, I know, historically so many people have been killed with guns. However, I wonder how that compares to the number of people who have died in speech-related issues.
Now the D.C. government and the governments of other cities with fascist gun-control laws are trying to figure out how they can reword these laws to skirt the second amendment, so that no one's rights are trampled, yet it is nearly impossible to get a gun. So when these leftists do not like court rulings, they just make up laws so that they still get their way. Like maybe limiting guns to non-semi-automatic types, such as revolvers and bolt-action rifles. They will over-regulate this, and skirt the laws until no one will be able to own guns again in D.C. and in other cities. This move by lawmakers to make it impossible to own guns is proof of one thing: these strict gun laws have nothing to do with cutting down crime, it's about exerting control and taking away something that they don't like, just because they don't like it. Because in the end, are all the new laws and tighter regulation going to take guns off of the streets and out of the hands of those that would do bad with them? No.
Somehow, I just cannot picture this conversation:
"Hey, man, take this pistol and go bust a cap in that guy standing right over there!"
"Naw, dude. That's a semi-auto handgun. Dawg, you know we can only take the revolver! Are you trying to get me arrested for breaking he handgun law?"
Posts
2 comments:
I'm guessing that they probably won't go after Semi-Automatic or even weapons that are deemed to be "Assault Weapons" this time. I think we saw just how ineffective that ended up last time. The lawmakers understand now that people will find ways around those types of laws, as people did last time. (Really what the hell is the operational difference between an AK47 with a pistol grip and one with a "thumbhole" stock?)
The next time gun-limiting laws come in to play they will find more solid ways to take away our capabilities. My fear will be regulations on ammunition. Seeing as the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about that.
If you think the price of NATO 5.56 or 7.62 X 39 is bad now, just wait. It's going to make a day at the range make filling up your gas tank look cheap!
I don't know if they'll "go after" assault weapons again, but they'll still use it as talking points to further their agenda. Who's to say they won't try to pass something that doesn't have the quick expiration that Clinton's gun ban did.
I've heard talk about them going after ammo. Not just raising prices, but I've also heard of them marking each round, and gun owners having to register and account for each round they own. That seems kind of far fetched to me -- like anyone in government could keep track of every round that every citizen owned. Especially since as of now, we can still legally hunt in this country. What happens if I "lose" a round in the woods?
I don't really put anything past those people, though. If people tried to go after the right to free speech with as much vigor as they go after the second amendment, they'd have a hissy fit.
Post a Comment