How the road to gun confiscation unfolds (You might need a tarp)

The Grand Junction Free Press ^ | February 15, 2013 | Jim Hoffman, Opinion Columnist and Realtor

[2ndDivisionVet]

What many Americans consider “common sense” efforts to curb gun violence and ownership of military-style assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is met by much criticism and the claim that it is merely the first step toward confiscation.

The rhetoric sometimes seems to border on hysteria, and the “facts” and “quotes” mere fabrications to bolster an argument. There really should be a rule that if you are going to disseminate information be it a quote, a picture or a fact it should be accompanied by sufficient citation allowing the average reader to verify its veracity. Otherwise people on both sides of the argument are descending into the bowels of a propaganda campaign they claim to be sworn to oppose.

It is doubted that anyone or any side will claim that our current system is functioning. There are claims that hammers kill more than firearms, that the problem is medications do not control behaviors, etc., but there is little acknowledgment that the system is broken. We have had limits on the sale of military assault rifles previously without progressing to confiscation and we can again. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is just that, a right, but please read the entire opinion as it also ruled that restrictions were not without merit.

There is overwhelming support for bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and universal background checks. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. However, there are too many who are “straw buyers” for non-qualified purchasers; there are too many unlicensed dealers who sell literally hundreds of guns per year without any knowledge of the buyer. There are too many private and gun show sales to whomever appear with cash in hand. It has become true that some “legal” gun owners have indeed become outlaws...

[Oatka]

This is just another variation of “I’m a gun owner but I support all liberal legislation against guns” line of b/s that routinely comes out after these Newton-type tragedies.

Nothing but posers.

[dcwusmc]

Your comment is STILL wrong. The Second Amendment (nor the Constitution as a whole) GRANTS NOTHING. It RECOGNIZES OUR GOD-GIVEN PREEXISTING RIGHT to self defense and forbids ANY level of government from interfering with it. It IS an absolute right, as are each and every individual right we possess.

[RedwM]

No, it isn't. And I agree with everything you said. When I hear some pundit say that our forefathers meant muskets and swords, I say they are wrong.
I believe our forefathers were saying defend your freedom by any means necessary, because were are all equal and no one has the right to impose their will upon you.
Even if I had no country, it is still my inalienable right.
If the King's men had been armed with AR-15's then, I would have and should have wanted to have something equal or better to defend myself. It doesn't have to be written, it is ingrained.

[dcwusmc]

If you read the actual words of the Founders, you see that they meant us (the individuals) to possess ALL the implemnts of the warrior, as they explicitly meant for US to be the militia (as by federal law we are), called by our State governor into State service then into federal service.

At that time even commercial ships were armed, though not as well as naval ships.

[HKMk23]

I recall a political cartoon back in the sixties showing a woman berating her husband, who was sitting in a chair hugging an armload of rifles. “They just want to register your guns, not take them away.” she said.

Not in a British paper, by any chance? The irony would just be TOO profound.