TexasCHLforum.com

The Attorney General of Massachusetts apparently wants to get the jump on Hillary right now.

It'll never be a direct "turn in your guns!" That would be unAmerican.

It will be baloney slicing, one thin slice at a time. A regulation here, a law there, making gun ownership, possession and use more expensive, more risky, less useable, until it's such an inconvenience, and of so little use, that nobody will want to bother. Every misuse will get maximum publicity, and ridicule in the media, prime time TV shows, etc. so that gun owners will be seen as knuckle dragging lunatics.

Want an example? Look at banks. Nationalizing the banks would spark a revolt, possibly. It would be the end of free private enterprise, the death of capitalism. So it is unthinkable. But, it is doable if you regulate the banks and every aspect of the operation, who can work there, what accounts and in what terms they must offer, what loans and on what rates and terms they may make, what investments they may hold, where banking offices are located, what hours banks must be open, and closed, their names, logos, trademarks, and advertising must be approved, the associations they must be members of, reporting and auditing requirements, everything, in fact, except the kind and quantity of candy offered at the teller desks. The bank officers and directors serve at the pleasure of the shareholders, provided they do everything they are required to do by the banking regulators, and if not, they must be replaced whether the shareholders like it or not.

Hillary supports the Second Amendment, of course. You can't deny Constitutional rights of free American citizens! She just doesn't want anyone to have guns.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

There is another factor, as yet unmentioned that I have seen, that a great many of us, especially my age and older, were raised to avoid knowingly breaking the law, respecting the law whether we happened to approve of it or not.

There are laws based upon Natural Law that uphold the natural Rights of mankind, and then there are other laws. The former pose no issue for a civilized man to follow. The latter may in some cases be not only wrong-headed but clearly against Natural Law and Rights. While I am a law-abiding person myself, I don't consider it the duty of a free man to obey such laws.

So, in California, do you carry? Will you take your suppressed SBR there and go for a walk? .50 BMG, maybe?

Where is the line?

There is another factor, as yet unmentioned that I have seen, that a great many of us, especially my age and older, were raised to avoid knowingly breaking the law, respecting the law whether we happened to approve of it or not.

Example, residing in California, I scrupulously avoided having any weapons defined in those statutes as illegal assault weapons. I didn't even leave the house in my car without my drivers license. I would never carry a pistol except in strict compliance with the statutes, unloaded, in a case, locked in the trunk, etc. until I had my carry permit in my hand, and never without it. I avoided robbing banks, throwing litter on the highways, illegal handicapped parking, illegal subdivision of land, selling real estate without a license, charging usurious interest, public drunkenness (albeit with occasionally imperfect results), whacky tabacky, unconsented to sex, especially with minors, all kinds of homicides, and a whole list of acts and omissions the State of California is pleased to define as criminal.

Had I been caught and convicted, I would have immediately lost all the licenses I had worked hard to acquire, and my mother would have died humiliated. It would be very, very difficult to overcome the habits of a lifetime to suddenly defy the law, however wrong headed.