Replies

I don’t agree that stopping blackmarket weapons should be a priority. The whole FFL scheme is unconstitutional on its face. There is no other enumerated right where you have to pay fees to enjoy the right. We had less crime when you went to a hardware store, put your cash on the counter and walked out the door with your purchase. Criminals will get guns no matter what. The whole FFL scheme is part of a long term plan to reduce the number of guns in non government hands and ultimately to register guns, then to confiscate them just like what happened in Britain and Australia. The propaganda organs of the regime (aka the media) want to denormalize armed self defense for non government employees. We’re not buying it. Repeal the GCA of 68 and the FOPA! Open or concealed carry without permit like AK, WY, VT and AZ in all 50 states. When the cost of crime goes up (i.e. when law abiding citizens will shoot you dead if you try to rob, rape or murder them) then the frequency of occurrence will go down.

And to the authors point, I’d mention that in many of our large cities, the Democrat politicians who control the police, don’t want crime to decrease. You don’t arrest and lock up your constituents.

The entire world was different at the time when you could just order guns from mail-order catalogs or get them at the hardware store; we didn't have one tenth the social problems (insane violence in media, fatherless boys, rap music, massive drug use, the welfare culture, etc.) at that time, so the situations aren't comparable. Guns are only a problem when the people who use them are a problem. In addition to the risk of crime rising, the cost of crime has got to go up also in the sense that those thugs actually have to be locked up or even put to death for things like murder, rather than being given a slap on the wrist and dumped back into society to kill more of us. Stricter sentencing and the death penalty were also features of those safer times.

It's true that criminals who can't pass a background check may still get them no matter what (buying a locally stolen gun, for example), but there's big money in weapons smuggling, both into and out of the US, and the money and the weapons go to everything from the Mafia to the drug gangs to terrorist organizations in the ME. So I think that could be a legitimate focus.

But the government isn't interested in that. F&F was essentially about just the reverse, for example: it was about the Federal Government trying to advance its anti-gun agenda by making it look as if legally acquired guns ("legal" only in the sense that legitimate dealers were forced by government agents to actually violate the safeguards, such as waiting periods) were being employed in crime, using the unsuspecting Mexican population as guinea pigs. The government has gotten away with it, and they're emboldened now.

I keep posting that the reason the Second Amendment exists was not to protect hunting or for any reason but to prevent the disarming of the citizenry that would make them unable to resist tyranny.

In reality, I don't think it even remotely likely that armed Americans would storm the citadels of government, but apparently Obama does. For one thing, the odds would have been pretty much the same on both sides in the 18th century, but a popular uprising now would face drones and the entire arsenal of modern weaponry. So in a sense, the Second Amendment for its original purposes is just symbolic.

But the thing that I find disturbing is that this symbolism is so important to Obama. What does he plan to do that means that even symbolically, he must make sure there is no dissent?