Replies

“The Left can only enforce the ban thru threat of violence.”

First the Left has to define “ban”. The ‘94 AWB stopped new sales of semi-autos with certain cosmetic features, while allowing said semi-autos to be sold without said features. Semi-autos already in private hands were not affected in the slightest. Not much of a “ban”, in my opinion.

Now...if by “ban” the Left means “confiscation”, then they have a hard row to hoe. Confiscating firearms is nearly impossible if said firearms have not been previously registered, unless the Left wants to turn law enforcement officers into rogue Gestapo agents, in which case there will be mutiny and insurrection not seen since the Civil War.

So...let’s pass legislation creating a national firearms registry. And while we’re at it, a firearms owner identification system such as in NY, CT, & NJ. Get to it, Congress, get it done & Obama will sign it into law PDQ.

Diane Feinstein will sponsor it, and Congress will pass it. RIIIGHT!

“But, but...they did it in Australia, didn’t they? And people had to turn in their assault weapons or go to jail, right?”

I ask fellow FReepers to google “parliamentary system of government”, as they have in UK & Oz. Under their system the head of state is elected or appointed by the majority in Parliament. If he or she wants to ban a class of guns which are already registered, the majority drafts the enabling legislation, and the thing is done. And they did it.

This is what happens when there is no constitutional separation of powers as we have here and which the Founding Fathers insured would be in our Constitution, having bitter experience with British tyranny under a King with a prime minister who did his bidding.

Hillary wants Australian style confiscation, but folks, she ain’t gonna get it. Stay calm, FRiends, and watch this week unfold with many speeches full of sound & fury, but signifying nothing.