He turned the comments into another post in order to add what he'd apparently forgotten first time around, basically that my idea of reasonable restrictions already affects him.Blame me all you want. I'm fine with being disconcerting. If everybody likes me I am obviously not doing my job.
Gun control doesn't work. It hasn't worked here in the US, overseas in the UK, South Africa, Germany, Finland, Australia, India, and even Japan.
Japan still has gun deaths, even with all the "reasonable" restrictions you want. A professional pig hunter was arrested and had his single rifle confiscated because he allowed a television reporter to hold it during an interview. How reasonable is that?
After the Civil War the KKK started up to oppress blacks, and white souther lawmakers began the first round of gun control in the US, to keep the "uppity niggers" from having access to firearms. From the point of view of the bigots, it was a "reasonable restriction".
If you don't think allowing niggers to have guns was a political nightmare, reference the Dredd Scott decision. "It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
And it just isn't blacks, it was Jews in Europe. Primo Levi wrote that "After Auschwitz, every man must have a gun." Because he lived through being disarmed, lived through a concentration camp. He survived, millions didn't. The Bielski's survived, and they fought, it was long and hard, but they did what was right.
And after the Jews in Europe it was the Hutu's in Africa, the Montagnards of Vietnam. History has a thousand lessons of the unarmed being slaughtered by the lack of mercy and humanity of government. Armenians by the Turks. Ethnic Chinese by the Khmer Rouge. The Trail of Tears didn't happen because the Supreme Court allowed it, it happened because a man with a gun did what he wanted anyways and damn the law. That man was our elected President.
So you say you want to make life safer. Fine, good for you. But you live in a big playpen of civilization which has a very short shelf life if push comes to shove. I recommend you travel the world, or talk to a Cherokee or Sioux about the mercy of the Government.
Remember, he who has the guns makes the rules. And the GCA 34 was translated from German and implemented here by a Socialist President and Legislature. It can happen. And you are working to make it happen.
And if it takes my life, the life of my loved ones, the blood of my children, I will fight you to the bitter end. Because freedom is worth the cost. I have seen the cost of your "reasonable restrictions", and it is too high a price to pay.
Well, I do admit to downplaying that part of it. AM is too sharp for me. What I call "inconvenience," he perceives as onerous. Fair enough. What I don't accept is that gun control doesn't work. That's the key point. That's what he and his friends refuse to accept and admit because their whole argument depends on that, doesn't it? If they admitted gun control works and still opposed it, what would that make them?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.