So then, what are YOU saying? If the government comes to your door to confiscate semi-autos, are you going to hand them over? If they come to confiscate ALL your guns, are you going to hand them over? If so, I have to ask: what is your line in the sand? At what point are you going to refuse to let the government trample your rights? Would you go to an internment camp? Granted, these are perhaps wild hypotheticals, but all of us have to decide where our limits are. To me, I have to wonder, given numerous historical examples, if they come to take my guns, what is next? If my line isn't drawn there, what do I do when they come for me and I have no guns? Frankly, I don't trust our current government. I don't trust the left, which has been unrelenting in the attempt to disarm Americans, and I see absolutely no historical basis for trusting the left. They are NEVER going to leave us alone, and no matter what we give up the very next time they can whip up an emotional frenzy they're going to come for the next round of guns, until, like in the UK, we're talking about bans on pointy kitchen knives. Geez, even Pravda is warning us about our future if we give in to the latest demands from the left.57Coastie wrote:This post, along with several others somewhat similar, but worded more carefully, discreetly, and less pointed, get very close, in my opinion, to going just a bit too far. I have watched the drift here on the forum for some time, and I am honestly concerned as I observe what just may be a contest developing with respect to who can use the stronger language or be more macho. Given the current political situation domestically this is certainly not an unexpected development.Stephen wrote:I understand the debate as to whether the law would be meaningful in that it may well be trumped by federal law. However, we are a nation founded on principle and eventually we will have to make the choice to stand up for those principles or sit down and keep out mouth shut.
These laws make a statement and they show that we have made a choice. It shows that we have chosen to stand together in resistance to laws which violate the constitution.
Let's say for a moment that Feinstein's bill or one similar to it passes. Much like the impact of a Texas sized asteroid, it will eventually happen given enough time. Take in to account the unpredictable nature of our government and the people of this nation it may happen very soon. It may very well go far beyond even what Feinstein has in mind. At that point will you be turning in your firearms, will you hide them, will you have any support at all?
At some point people will be required to stand up to the fed government regarding gun control and IMO the best way to do that would be as a state with our state law enforcement backing us. There are already 5 states who have passed these laws and SC looking at it. How many states do you think the federal government would attempt to take on. There have already been cases of sheriffs departments running federal agents out of town due to ridiculous federal regulation that puts good people on the wrong side of some ill conceived federal law. The thought that the fed is so powerful the we could not resist it at the state level is, IMO, laughable.
We will eventually have to take a stand on a large scale, the few who are worried about our votes may not be enough to sway the vote and with the numerous backroom deals that take place in DC many are likely to vote one way or another based on an owed favor or bargaining for an upcoming vote. I only hope we do not wait so long that their is little left to stand up and defend. It will be much harder to get our rights back than it will be to preserve them to begin with.
When I see just the 3rd post of a member joining just today sounding off this way I must conclude that perhaps a little education is in order for a few, certainly not all, of our members. Standing up for one's principles is honorable, but he or she when standing up should be sure that she or he knows just what may be at stake if their bluff is called. Nathan Hale knew just exactly what was at stake, but he stood up for his principles. But he knew, and perhaps not everyone knows.
I would suggest that we may be well-advised to take the time to read Title 18, Chapter 115, of the U. S. Code -- all of it, but particularly Sections 2384 ("Seditious Conspiracy") and 2385 ("Advocating overthrow of Government"). Chapter 115 is readily available in several, if not many, places on the Internet. Reading Chapter 115 may be a wise new year's resolution.
I am not saying that anyone has gone too far yet -- only that some may have approached going outside the lines. When I read members saying words to the effect that "if the Feds try to enforce that law on me, I will not go down quietly, I will fight, using a deadly weapon" and then I see other members saying words to the effect of "me too, I'll be with you," I cannot help but feel that some could use a little review on concepts like "conspiracy" and an introduction to limitations on certain of the first 10 amendments. Like the 1st. The 2nd is not the only amendment which may, to the judiciary, mean less than its literal wording.
I am not saying that there are not Constitutional issues posed by Chapter 115, nor am I saying that such issues can not be posed by the government's application of the chapter to individual cases.
I will note, on the other hand, that there have been successful prosecutions of violations of Sections 2384 and 2385. It may be interesting to some of you to learn that these cases have tended to be reactions to acts and words coming from the left. Someday we may well see reactions to acts and words coming from the right. We may, for example, see the burgeoning modern "militias" lead the way.
I have been hesitant to raise this matter, as my political and moral principles are no secret here, and I will not be surprised to not be taken seriously. On the other hand, given my knowledge and experience it just may be worth the flames if I save somebody time, money or even freedom for doing something or saying something not absolutely required to support his or her principles.
Jim
I'm not looking for a fight. I do whatever I can to avoid conflict; but the left just won't leave us alone. They're not going to stop with semi-autos or 10 round magazines. Next is pump shotguns and handguns of all kinds. It's not like there is no precedent to consider. DiFi's proposal is even more draconian than the gun laws in the UK --where at least you can own a Ruger 10-22 with more than a 10 round magazine. The left wants to take guns away from me that I've owned for over 40 years. They want every semi-auto handgun I have.....including my 1911. And that's just the current DiFi Bill. They're literally after guns that have been in use for over 100 years. We have no reason to believe they're going to stop, and at this point, I can't even comfort myself that their aims at least won't leave us any worse off than the UK. You seem to think what they're after is trivial, but I think most of us realize they want it all.