If "they" can now punish us for owning a machine gun that isn't a machine gun until they tamper with it, why would "theoretical gun owner" worry about getting caught with a real machine gun? Is there a worse penalty? There seems to be an unintended consequence lurking there somewhere.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
What's to Lose?
Kent McManigal just shared a thought with me:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Either they want everyone with a semi-auto rifle to be so intimidated that they're afraid to take it to the range, or they want everyone to start ignoring the most serious yet arbitrary gun laws so they can point to "a real and growing problem" with disobedient peasants, and double their budget, quadruple their manpower and zero out the few restrictions they have to follow now.
If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't even THINK about doing it...
If you don't live free while you're alive, there's not much time to do it later.
It kind of reminds me of how the 'gun show loophole' lie got started. I'm sure the antigunners would have created the lie eventually, but the increase in private citizen sellers at gun shows they based it on was because they forced the hobbyists who had a dealers license for convenience to give them up.
Kent has a very good point, and it reminds me of the unintended consequences of the 1989 import ban and the 1993 Assault Weapon ban - a booming resurgence in the American firearms industry. Hundreds of new weapon-related manufacturers were and are still being born. The technical knowledge related to weapons design and manufacturing has never been higher in this country. Millions of Americans suddenly became very interested in assault weapons and also precision weapons and shooting skills. The prohibitionists unintentionally sparked the most dramatic renaissance in weapons, weapons-related technology, and knowledge that the world has ever seen. I think that it is safe to say that these prohibitionists really are stupid beyond what a sane, rational person can even comprehend.
Reread the decision, Defender, it's not just rifles, it applies to any firearm; handgun, shotgun, rifle, semiautomatic or otherwise. Other than that quibble, I agree.
Why would an innocent man submit to trial? I expect we may start seeing some unintended consequences along those lines too. Of course, guilt will be assumed when resistance is met, but what incentive is there to trust the courts and the legal system?
SA, an innocent man would submit to trial because it is due process, and a fair trial would sort out who is guilty, and who is innocent. The problem is, gun owners can no longer expect a fair trial in today's "judicial" system.
That is exactly my point Crotalus, and innocent man against certain agencies of government already know the fix is in. DEA, ATFE are two that come to mind.
Innocent men are submitting to trial, they are being convicted with perjured testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial complicity. Eventually this will become common knowledge and some will not submit, knowing that due process has already been derailed they have no chance at justice.
crotalus,
Sadly, it is not just gun owners who can not expect a fair trial.
I think Aaron Zelman of JPFO even said it: Gun owners are the new Jews. We will be the victims of new "security" laws, framings, propaganda, persecution and imprisonment, as the government gauges the reaction -- if any -- of the general public. Then they'll proceed from there.
I've sat in on a few minor trials. I don't think I can trust our legal system. I doubt that they would find 12 jurors who have read the Bill of Rights, much less understand and love it. Or a judge.
Post a Comment