Hillary's 25% gun tax...

[OlongJohnson]

The castle washes out to sea one grain of sand at a time.

I think the 25 percent tax thing is just too blatant at this time, outside places like Chicago, the Bay Area and the Bay Area North. You can't smuggle it under the cover of "reasonable," because it affects everybody legally purchasing legal firearms. You can't say it's a check or is preventing people who shouldn't get guns from having them. It's basically saying guns are all bad (I think sin tax was mentioned above) and we are going to make it harder for everybody to (legally) acquire them, even if the law says it's OK for them to have them.

The only way I could see it being tried is the way Seattle did, saying they are going to use the money to fund "research" for "safety." That's still difficult politically in a non-blutarded jurisdiction. The command-and-control regulations about storage ("we don't need research, we already know the answers") are easier to accomplish (no requirement to follow up with actual research results, no risk of research not providing the desired results), and more directly impede the readiness of an armed populace. Also, since federal money can't be used (for now) to advocate for gun control, there's nowhere for the money to go on the federal level.

[Shoresy]

When the gun control establishment says nobody wants to take your guns, what they really mean is "unfortunately it's not possible to take your guns right now, but we're working on it over the long term."

Just like how they don't want to take guns from law-abiding gun owners... the solution is to craft laws that progressively restrict ownership until there are no gun owners who are strictly law-abiding.

[Malamute]

... Also, since federal money can't be used (for now) to advocate for gun control, there's nowhere for the money to go on the federal level.

I would expect that to change, which could be a serious thing. Its been couched in "research" just as the noise recently about CDC wanting to do studies, and med docs asking about guns, and making it a "public health" issue, worthy of study and corrective action,...for the good of everybody, especially the children. Its only common sense.

[Willard]

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

[Joe in PNG]

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

The funny thing is that kind of system will erode itself from the inside, and eventually break down. Your big name, nasty tyrannies like the Nazi Party and the Soviet Empire became extraordinarily, deeply corrupt. The fear and guilt they hope to instill instead becomes indifference, and an increased willingness to "game the system". Your enforcement officers are more willing to skim a bit, to look the other way in exchange for a bit of a payoff.
If you make everybody guilty, everybody will become criminals.

[Willard]

If you make everybody guilty, everybody will become criminals.

That's kinda the point Joe. You make everyone criminals. Then you can then put whomever you want in jail at your convenience. You don't actually intend to enforce all the laws. Only what suites you. It is a tool for oppressing the people.

[Joe in PNG]

That's kinda the point Joe. You make everyone criminals. Then you can then put whomever you want in jail at your convenience. You don't actually intend to enforce all the laws. Only what suites you. It is a tool for oppressing the people.

Think of it this way. If one has severe dehydration, the obvious course appears to be drinking lots and lots of water. But that could be fatal
If one is severely malnourished, the apparent course is to eat lots of food. That too can be fatal.

If one wants power, the apparent course is the type of tyranny we have seen during the 20th century. This will be fatal to the government system in question.
The counter intuitive thing here is that the mass of regular citizens won't really be cowed into a fearful submission. If minor, day to day infractions result in felonies, and are punished as such, then why stop at the minor crimes? Why not get what you can, even against the law, if everyone else is doing it.
With your enforcement officers, they too have little incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. Why crack down on some poor guy who's just doing what he has to do to make a living? Why not take a few extra bucks to just look the other way? Everyone else is doing it.

Of course, like many other really stupid ideas, the fact that it won't work doesn't stop people from trying it.

[Willard]

...the mass of regular citizens won't really be cowed into a fearful submission..

You've obviously got more faith in the public than I have. Last two elections, the things that have transpired since, and the way this one is going have left me with very little faith in the decision making, moral courage, or other positive aspects of a big chunk of America. Most just want their "entitlements" and limited inconveniences.

[Joe in PNG]

Big Brother Tyrannies are one of the hardest governments to establish, and one of the weakest.
Established democratic governments do not become Big Brother Tyrannies on their own. Most of our textbook examples (Nazis, Soviets, Chinese) were weak, recently established democracies shabbily built on fallen Empires. In this case, the people wanted a return to rule by that one strong man- and had a tradition of submission to the one strong man, the man on the white horse. Nazi Germany was an attempt to resurrect Fredrick the Great as Hitler. The Soviet Union tried to bring back the Peter the Great as Stalin. Communist China tried to turn Chairman Mao into one of the great Emperors.

Anyway, our future looks more akin to that of our other British descended democracies around the world. More Big Mother ("I only want what's best for you, dearie") than Big Brother.
And yet, things may still change. The current culture pushes one more toward the individual over the mass- this will have an effect.

[OlongJohnson]

Mother, should I trust the government?