Thursday, February 25, 2016

Constitutional?

The hell you say. [More]

You know what else it's not, you old monsters, dependent on thug firepower to try and bend free people to your lust for control?

Enforceable.

You'll see. And you're not gonna like what happens if you try.

None of us will. So back off.

[Via Michael G]

4 comments:

Kent McManigal said...

"Shall not be infringed" seems so easy to understand, and so clear as to leave zero room to misunderstand. But those who want to misunderstand will find a way (or lie).

millwright said...

Anyone, with readily available tools and materials and easily learned skills, can effectively employ their "inalienable right"without interference from any government - at least until they are compelled to defend themselves.

Anonymous said...

The incrementalism by which they chip away at the phrase "shall not be infringed" could be illustrated in this way:

Say a neighbor decides to build a house on the property next to yours. He builds the house with the back end of it just on your side of the property line, claiming that it's only over the line by just a little bit. Later, he starts building a swimming pool behind the house, still further past the property line because, "it's only common sense that a house should have a pool". Later still, he builds a fence around the pool because it's a "common-sense swimming pool safety measure for the children".

On and on it goes, one excuse after another to take away one piece at a time until you have nothing left. Though you've already seen his published plans, where his house and gardens are all that's visible because what you had has been completely encroached upon, he completely denies that that is the goal.

Yet after each step is taken, he always needs "just a little bit more".

Henry said...

"Under this system, anyone selling or possessing unregistered firearms would face huge legal risks. Overnight, gunrunning and other illegal arms trafficking would become easier to prosecute.”

And here is where we have the luxury of referring to some other poor bastards who already did this experiment for us, and proved it false.

Canada ran such a registry for nearly two decades, at a cost of more than 500 times what they promised the subjects. They discontinued it after it was pointed out that it never figured in the prosecution of a single gun crime, EXCEPT for the "paper crimes” created by the very existence of a mandatory registry.