Bill_Rights
February 19, 2013, 01:14 AM
Subheading: swapping, trading, exchanging, relocating, giving away and/or rotating firearm location or possession
The power of gun ownership by the general public is multiplied many-fold if no one knows where the guns are. They could be anywhere. Every potential criminal, or gun-confiscating government official (same thing, according to 2A?), must behave as if a gun and competent user/possessor is everywhere. This is a good thing.
I could, by a superhuman stretch of trust in my government, possibly condone a more stringent background check system for initial purchase of firearms. But I cannot at all tolerate any system of firearm registration. The fact of a certain firearm being purchased by a certain individual should be "flushed" from the databases immediately after the background check. A clear violation of this principle would be the various "inspection" proposals whereby LEOs would visit your house and verify that your means of storage of firearms meets some (as-yet-undetermined) safety standard. To do such inspections, there would almost have to be records of who owns what firearm(s). This is unacceptable.
We could have a discussion of whether the 2A provides for completely free and "anonymous" possession, transfer, ownership, transport, etc. of firearms. I believe the 2A does provide for this, at least as far as any level of government is concerned; else the prime express purpose of the 2A is defeated (i.e., "infringed"). This thread is not for that topic.
We could also discuss whether background checks de facto create a government database of gun owners and whether the government is entitled to assume that the original purchaser is the owner in perpetuity. Do we law-abiding citizens, by virtue of submitting to background checks, de facto authorize the government to construct, maintain and use such a firearm ownership database? (I say no to all points.) Or rather, is the background check system merely an extension of imprisonment, fines, sanctions and other restrictions (such as ability to vote) on criminals and mentally ill people? (I say "yes", philosophically this is what's going on in a background check.) Regardless, I have some inkling that though such a database of background checks may in fact exist, it is poorly maintained, out-of-date and virtually useless, as passively intended, in fact, by some slow/sloppily-reporting jurisdictions. (This is a good thing.) This thread could be for discussing such points.
But what I really wanted to discuss was, if a government, at any level, really does try to register, inspect or confiscate our firearms, does it make sense to swap, trade, exchange, relocate, give away and/or rotate firearm location or possession among us citizens?
Such a scheme would, in fact, accomplish my desired situation: that no one knows where the guns are.
I am suggesting sort of a random, willing, unannounced transfer/swapping of firearms among previous possessors and/or would-be possessors. After several months of doing this on a face-to-face, undocumented basis, when convenient for both parties, the scrambling of gun location and possession would be irrevocable and untracable. This is a good thing, I argue. Hobby collectors could exempt themselves. Those of us that are sort of halfway in between, i.e., that we like to obtain firearms that are both utilitarian and we have a special favoritism toward them, could resume our old ways after the spate of government oppression subsided.
Of course, such a procedure would be subversive of government aims. But it would only be implemented if/when a government branch became oppressive and over-reached. The desired effect would be that the government branch back off and cease its operation, in view of its futility and uselessness. I see such a citizen action as a form of civil disobedience, which, in this case, is in response to government violation of its citizens' Constitutional limits on government power. Therefore it is not disobedience at all. It is merely resistance. This is also a good thing, when needed. We would not have a country (in the USA) if such good things had not been done in the late 18th century.
FYI, we did get into some related issues in two recent threads:
If it comes down to it, what do we do?!!! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702199) [OPEN as of February 19, 2013, 12:15 AM EST]
Cold dead fingers, Really? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=700629) [CLOSED February 2, 2013, 10:15 AM]
The power of gun ownership by the general public is multiplied many-fold if no one knows where the guns are. They could be anywhere. Every potential criminal, or gun-confiscating government official (same thing, according to 2A?), must behave as if a gun and competent user/possessor is everywhere. This is a good thing.
I could, by a superhuman stretch of trust in my government, possibly condone a more stringent background check system for initial purchase of firearms. But I cannot at all tolerate any system of firearm registration. The fact of a certain firearm being purchased by a certain individual should be "flushed" from the databases immediately after the background check. A clear violation of this principle would be the various "inspection" proposals whereby LEOs would visit your house and verify that your means of storage of firearms meets some (as-yet-undetermined) safety standard. To do such inspections, there would almost have to be records of who owns what firearm(s). This is unacceptable.
We could have a discussion of whether the 2A provides for completely free and "anonymous" possession, transfer, ownership, transport, etc. of firearms. I believe the 2A does provide for this, at least as far as any level of government is concerned; else the prime express purpose of the 2A is defeated (i.e., "infringed"). This thread is not for that topic.
We could also discuss whether background checks de facto create a government database of gun owners and whether the government is entitled to assume that the original purchaser is the owner in perpetuity. Do we law-abiding citizens, by virtue of submitting to background checks, de facto authorize the government to construct, maintain and use such a firearm ownership database? (I say no to all points.) Or rather, is the background check system merely an extension of imprisonment, fines, sanctions and other restrictions (such as ability to vote) on criminals and mentally ill people? (I say "yes", philosophically this is what's going on in a background check.) Regardless, I have some inkling that though such a database of background checks may in fact exist, it is poorly maintained, out-of-date and virtually useless, as passively intended, in fact, by some slow/sloppily-reporting jurisdictions. (This is a good thing.) This thread could be for discussing such points.
But what I really wanted to discuss was, if a government, at any level, really does try to register, inspect or confiscate our firearms, does it make sense to swap, trade, exchange, relocate, give away and/or rotate firearm location or possession among us citizens?
Such a scheme would, in fact, accomplish my desired situation: that no one knows where the guns are.
I am suggesting sort of a random, willing, unannounced transfer/swapping of firearms among previous possessors and/or would-be possessors. After several months of doing this on a face-to-face, undocumented basis, when convenient for both parties, the scrambling of gun location and possession would be irrevocable and untracable. This is a good thing, I argue. Hobby collectors could exempt themselves. Those of us that are sort of halfway in between, i.e., that we like to obtain firearms that are both utilitarian and we have a special favoritism toward them, could resume our old ways after the spate of government oppression subsided.
Of course, such a procedure would be subversive of government aims. But it would only be implemented if/when a government branch became oppressive and over-reached. The desired effect would be that the government branch back off and cease its operation, in view of its futility and uselessness. I see such a citizen action as a form of civil disobedience, which, in this case, is in response to government violation of its citizens' Constitutional limits on government power. Therefore it is not disobedience at all. It is merely resistance. This is also a good thing, when needed. We would not have a country (in the USA) if such good things had not been done in the late 18th century.
FYI, we did get into some related issues in two recent threads:
If it comes down to it, what do we do?!!! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702199) [OPEN as of February 19, 2013, 12:15 AM EST]
Cold dead fingers, Really? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=700629) [CLOSED February 2, 2013, 10:15 AM]
