I wonder how much the fury was when the first major firearms restrictions were put into law in 1936? Or the fury when wearing a sword or openly wearing a revolver was passed? The "gunfight at the OK coral" was over an ordinance declared by the Sheriff that everyone had to turn in their guns when arriving in town. Yet the Sheriff and those with him considered the good guys. Laws and restrictions about firearms is nothing new.
There is no one monolithic liberty for which having anything is necessary. ANYTHING the government prohibits - items or actions - is a lost liberty inherent to the definition of liberty. In short, your slogan has no value and is just a slogan. The question is what liberties should be prohibited. For example, there should be no liberty to rob from, rape or murder people.
Wait ... are you then proposing that all firearms be confiscated? What about daggers, bows and arrows, spears and slingshots? LOL at the Libertarians thinking "government is not necessary." You're referring there to anarchists. Hardly the same thing. Yes, government is a reality, and is necessary. It's legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed. Anyway, this is pinko Bernie Sanders on guns: SANDERS: It's a country in which people choose to buy guns. More than half of the people in Vermont are gun owners. That's the right of people. I think we have to bring together the majority of the people who do believe in sensible gun safety regulations. Are you to the left of Sanders on gun control?
Up to a point. Being allowed to keep a tool of tyranny over others, is not synonymous with liberty Being allowed to sell heroine to school children is a liberty for you and a subjection to tyranny for everyone else. Liberty and anarchy are not to be mistaken for each other. When guns are being described as a tool towards a political end by a potentially violent minority, they are tools of repression. One man's liberty is another man's tyranny. The freedom to own slaves for example.
Well, sure, but that's different from banning guns or asking me to justify my ownership of a gun to the government. Of course guns, like cars,should be regulated in terms of maximum magazine size, barrel materials, legal caliber size, safety catches, and so on. We don't ban cars and we won't ban guns, though we lose about 40,000 to car accidents every year, compared to 13,000 killed by guns, over half of which are suicides.
What? No sane person the farthest reaches of the right claims that selling heroin to children, or shooting children, is a liberty interest. The question is, may you own guns (for protection and for hunting or target shooting), and may you own heroin? The first one is not worth arguing about because it's in the constitution. Ron Paul (Rand's father)n once asked an audience opposed to drug legalization, "How many people here would start shooting heroin if it were legalized?" Obiously no hands went up, and I think he has a point. but heroin, like meth and coke, is bad for the user himself, so I think the government has legitimate interest in banning it, assuming the popularly elected representatives vote to outlaw it. And they can do so without infringing any particular constitutional right. Guns are different legally and factually.
I'm from the right. I consider it insane that cars require a lisence but guns don't. Beyond insane. You couldn't make this **** up. And no the question is the threat being provided to other peoples children. I'm not worried if you shoot yourself to death with your own gun in the comfort of your own home. Gun suicides aren't an issue of liberty in my eyes. No reason to ban them on that account. You wish to harm yourself or you do so out of your own negligence, that is your liberty. You provide a threat to others... that is your tyranny. I couldn't give a **** about your constitution. Whatever it once was, it has long since become a instrument of repression. What kind of a coward seeks to hide behind laws? Wrong is wrong.
I was responding to the suggestion above that we should accept regulations of guns, like we accept regulations of vehicles, and of course we should as to both.
Vehicles only require a permit/license if you drive them on a PUBLIC ROAD, just like most all states require a permit to carry a gun in public. Nothing stops you from buying dozens of cars and keeping as well as driving them on private property -- no registration, no license, no insurance, no laws regarding how you store them, who you can sell them too etc... If only gun laws were like the laws regarding cars!
The state can legitimately require a drivers license and a licensing of the vehicle (the plate) because vehicles are used in public and on public roads. It's analogous to carrying a weapon in public, and in most places that also requires a license. Keeping a truck on your farm or ranch and never driving it on a public road should not require a license or registration of the vehicle in my opinion, and I don't think it does in most places. Same with keeping a shotgun in your house.
Or maybe "sorry officer but someone stole my guns. I filed a report last week. Never mind it was 2 minutes after the legislation got signed"
Having a hard time picturing a law enforcement officer who grew up in TN demanding you turn over your guns, LOL. Same throughout the south and southwest, and in Vermont, western PA, and ... where else?
Do I have the right to shoot my car in my own backyard? How about the garage? Driveway? I don't want to get into any trouble.
Universal background checks that affect private sales will pave the way for gun confiscation. The right to intrastate private sales with NO government intervention must be preserved at all costs. Once that right is lost the gov will begin to track every sale, and compile a list of every firearm an individual owns which makes for a handy list when (not if) weapons are outlawed. They are already doing that in California, all private sales must involve an FFL so the transaction and type of weapon etc... is recorded. You can be sure when California passes another law banning specific firearms they will hunt down everyone in their database and inform them that they must relinquish those weapons.
You didn't answer the question. So why would you be deported if you didn't turn it in? Are you already an ILLEGAL immigrant? Or is this just a weak attempt to troll?
If I drive my car on my farm, I can injure no one off my farm. With my rifle, I can. The bullet travels miles. My lisence reflects that and the calibre of rifle I am lisenced for takes the size of my farm into account. Shotguns being less dangerous require a lesser lisence. How do you feel about RPG 7. If I promise to only use it on my farm, can I have a bazooka? What about cyanide gas? At what point in your mind is a tool dangerous enough to need a lisence? Now the problem with guns is not the same as the problem with off road cars. Because off road cars have no history of being used in a long string of violent attacks Any more than caffeine has history of providing lethal drug abuse on par with heroin But guns do. It's not a like for like comparison with cars. It is a mountain and molehill comparison. It is insane of any person left wing or right wing not to recognise the inherent social danger of guns. Barking loony tunes. Their very purpose is to kill. Not just by accident as is the case with cars and heroin, but by malevolent design. When you think "how best to kill someone" the first image that comes to mind is not a car. Hence they need to be lisenced. Because right now, nutbugs are routinely getting hold of them not just farmers.
Then schools could teach students the correct actions to take if they see one of their fellow students has been gang raped and begging for help the German way to handle it. Say "stay away from me because you have sperm all over you" and get away from that person.
The Trump base keeps referring to America as a nation of laws when applauding the tossing of immigrants who have been allowed to live here for years and I was just farting around because that argument could be employed for any law breakage. Get it?
It is insane for any person left or right not to recognize the inherent dangers of tyrannical governments. In the last century tens of millions have been killed by regimes that could run roughshod over their populace to starve them to death, beat them to death, put them in camps etc.... (The Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia, etc...) The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people the ability to RESIST a tyrannical government. Our founding fathers had just waged the revolutionary war so of course they understood the dangers! And before you say "private guns can't stand up against the US military" be aware of the fact that gorilla warfare is extremely effective. It works darn well in places like Iraq and Afghanistan even against super powers that are free to carpet bomb at will, and it works even BETTER in a civil war when the government can't carpet bomb their own cities and destroy their own infrastructure. A well armed populace ensures the US government knows they can't declare war on the undesirable (or deplorable?) citizens without paying a very high price, and that will keep them from doing it. Our government is becoming more corrupt by the day and the need to retain our constitutional rights to prevent them from becoming TYRANTS increases every day. Of all people the left, the ones that think "Trump is literally Hitler", should understand why preserving the 2nd Amendment is an absolute necessity.
