@Blacksmith of Isaiah - In short, we gotten the bad end of things because not enough of us have been pushing back effectively while the gun grabbers have been getting bolder and more organized in their quest for disarmament. We have not matched their intensity and output because we have been too heavily relying on the law and Constitutional controls in place to stop these abuses, reasonably trusting that would be sufficient. Will it be? Hope so. I’m not taking it for granted any longer.
***Long winded response if you or anyone else cares (or can't sleep and needs help doing so***)
Do You stand on the side of the “law” regardless of how much they want to move the “legal” goalposts and irrespective of how much they want expand the scope of “The Second amendment is not unlimited” b/s arguments to justify total disarmament (their ultimate end goal as we both know). Your position further assumes our legislature(s) will always enact laws that comply with the letter and spirit of the constitution. Yea sure, it’s the law...but what happens if these new laws are not right and just? And at what point does it cross the line (I.e slippery slope)?
Our founders asked these same questions and when that slope got closer and closer, decided enough was enough. Rest is history. I stand with the law as well as long as it doesn’t conflict with or deprive me of my unalienable rights. Perhaps that helps you better understand my position.
The “Limits” Principle - If this is taken to mean no private individual or corporate entity should own WMD, guided missiles, bombs etc then sure I agree. But we aren’t taking about that, now are we? We are talking about common use arms. Just like the ones they want to confiscate.
Why I Use the word Treason - Any government entity or official or aspiring government official speaking of eroding/ending our otherwise unalienable rights on a wholesale basis, including our right to bear arms is treason, period. We are not subjects, we are citizens. You and I both know the difference between the two.
As (American) citizens, we should NEVER EVER hear the kind of rhetoric coming out of the mouths of officials or candidates for office, from any political party, of the sort we are hearing today. It shouldn’t even be contemplated privately let alone shouted out loud in a presidential debate on national TV (or openly discussed by a sitting governor). It’s an outrage! But we are. That is not how our laws and government should work. And that is why I am choosing to use the word Treason to describe what I’m seeing. Feel free to use whatever term you like.
Giving the System a Chance - Let’s assume the Supreme Court takes a case challenging a particular state’s (Massachusetts) assault weapons ban” in the near future. At the end of arguments and deliberation the Court rules once and for all that the AR15 and other similar platforms like it are meet all reasonable and legal and constitutional definitions of a “common use arm”, and that any statutory, administrative or case law-based legislation at any level, intended to ban/restrict them from ownership by law abiding citizens is deemed unconstitutional.
Such a decision would end all the bull shit real quick so we can get on with our regularly scheduled lives knowing the system does indeed work. And people like you and me can back to debating the merits of bolt vs gas guns (or Knights vs Surefire) or whatever similar arguments we want to wage instead of fighting about how to (or not to) discuss and deal with finding ourselves at the bad end of things.
All readers - sorry, I know this post was long winded but had to take the space to get it all out. It’s critically important to me as it is to all of you. We are (I hope) all on the same side.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
