Think about the demographic requirements to even be affected by the CA magazine confiscation, and what it's all about comes into focus very clearly. It's not about what they say it's about.Originally Posted by Suvorov
Think about the demographic requirements to even be affected by the CA magazine confiscation, and what it's all about comes into focus very clearly. It's not about what they say it's about.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
The most effective liars are those that are skilled at weaving in bits of truth with their lies, politics is not immune to this as we often see.
This is happening because, once again, due to a sense of urgency created by recent events, the Democrats/Left (and many others) have conflated legislation with the function of enforcement. Laws merely describe prohibited actions. Enforcement is the act by which perpetrators are brought to justice by law enforcement and judicial agents after the Commission of an offense. While these coward's actions (most recently in El Paso and Dayton) which have elicited the cries of the Democrats/Left to "Do something!", what the Democrats/Left are really seeking is not the creation of more laws that address some undefined criminal act, but rather a new species of legislation that can somehow "prevent" these tragedies from occuring in the first place. What seems to have escaped the Democrat's/Left's understanding is that such laws would require the ability to accurately predict both normal and abnormal human behavior. To date, no such ability exists and is unlikely to ever exist since human behavior is far too complex in nature.
The ulterior motive being pursued by the Democrats/Left has nothing to do with controlling firearms, but rather with controlling the citizenry. Take away the guns: eliminate the need to worry about predicting future human behavior since the instrument is gone. Of course, such an approach ignores the fact that the human species is marvelously adaptive. If deprived of a specific instrument or tool, the human species has a very long and successful history of finding or improvising another.
Last edited by the Schwartz; 08-11-2019 at 11:59 AM.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
A cousin of mine posted this piece on his FB page. It's an entertaining read, with some good historical context for the philosophy of John Locke. The end game:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Ameri...WkCl6Yf03j1xDcLocke was perfectly prepared to acknowledge the horrors of anarchy, but he doubted very much that they so exceeded those of tyranny that human beings could be persuaded to give up the right to organized self-defense. A well-ordered government would include a monarchical executive armed with a prerogative enabling him to execute the laws, defend the realm, and respond to emergencies; it would include a representative assembly empowered to lay taxes, make laws, and examine the conduct of the executive's ministers. But it would rest ultimately on an enlightened citizenry prepared, in the face of executive and legislative abuse, to take up arms in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.
MY FELLOW AMERICANS, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR YET?
Like I said, America’s Founding Fathers stole a hell of a lot of Locke’s ideas. They used Locke’s principles of the social compact, consent of the governed, and the right to keep and bear arms to form a near-perfect union—to shape (and philosophically defend) the fledgling United States of America. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It also says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
And the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s not something the 1st United States Congress pulled out of their asses. It comes straight from Locke.
MIlitary Arms Channel had an in depth discussion over what may be happening with this potential legislation with Gun Owners of Amera. There is lots of good information shared here and hopefully what we can do to help the situation.
Reply With Quote