The anti's never give up

Sounds exactly like what California is doing, to include a tax and a small limit. 50 rounds for recreational use is nothing. 50 rounds in a bangers hands is a shot up neighborhood. No round limit will protect a community and will be reasonable for legal purposes.

 

They think if they make enough illegal gun laws the Supreme Court will just give up.
It's like swatting bugs on a hot Aug. night "you can't get them all"

 

Yep. But it'll just be included in one of the pork filled monstrosities that no one reads and gets passed at 11:30 pm on a night before the session ends.

 

Some of these kids rarely see daylight aside from school, their faces are locked in front of a screen.

In the fantasy world they live in, airsoft or other replicas will no doubt suffice.

 

It’s not that they never give up, they have a goal that is no guns.

What they do, is get “the low hanging fruit” first, the easy ones. Register machineguns, SBS,SBR AOW. Then go after semiautos (AWB), bolt actions they will call “sniper rifles” when they come after them.

Each being a stepping stone, not the end goal.

Thinking they will be happy with ANY advancement towards their cause with any firearm still in existence, is simply unacceptable.

The thought, “Well, that would satisfy them.”, should never come into your head because that’s simply not the way they think. When they get a step forward the first thought in their head is what they can take next.

Thinking they will be satisfied and find something else to do would be like letting the coyote eat one of your chickens in front of you thinking he won’t be back because he’ll be full now.

 

While this is something I read about here constantly, it is not what I have personally experienced. What I have seen, for most of my almost 7 decades of life, is folks, trying and failing, to find some way to control violence using firearms. Making access to firearms more difficult, and the restriction of certain firearms and accessories. Obviously, it has not worked to 100%. No one here or anywhere else can honestly claim it has not worked at all, because there is no real way of judging that, but it is obvious that it is not the ultimate solution.Confiscation from law abiding citizens may decrease some forms of violence using guns, but it will not stop the criminal use of firearms at all. One only has to look at the use of recreational drugs to see how well that works.

....and I see the same here. Folks use statements like the "total confiscation" to instill fear in folks that are not really in the know. IMHO, these tactics hurt more than they help because once those same folks see that "total confiscation" is not in the future, they are more willing to accept the smaller sacrifices to their gun rights. What we will see long before confiscation, is access so restrictive and restrictions so intense, that confiscation from ordinary law abiding citizens would be moot. While at the same time criminal access to firearms is not impeded at all. Nor is the mental health issues associated with the majority of gun violence, addressed.

While I agree with the first two sentences, I do not agree with the last. The regulation of ammo and reloading components would be the easiest way to keep the average law abiding citizen from practicing their 2nd Amendment rights. We have seen it already with the recent supply shortages in the last decade or so. The lack of ammo and reloading components has restricted severely the use of firearms, altho the sales of firearms is at an all time high......and this is a shortage we created ourselves.

.....and I would assume you will point your finger at me just because I don't agree that total confiscation is the ultimate goal of most that would like to see more gun control. That IMHO, is more "unhelpful" to our cause than anything I have said. Alienating fellow gun owners and calling them names just because they do not exactly mirror our opinions, does nothing to strengthen support, only to weaken it. Again,while there are many that want more gun control, there are very few who's ultimate goal is "total confiscation". Similar to some gun advocates that want zero restrictions on the RKBA. Like no minimum age to purchase firearms and ammo, and nonrestrictive access to weapons like bazookas and projectiles with explosive charges.

What I do agree with, is the statement that we need to keep on fighting for the rights of the ordinary citizen and their RKBA. We need to quit using scare tactics and come up with legitimate solutions to protect innocents. That means more monies for mental health and security in schools and large venues. We also need to promote things like "Stop the Bleed" in schools, so fewer kids die from bleeding out before the EMTs are allowed in the building. This means harsher sentences for folks that use guns in the commission of a crime. We need to promote a positive image of gun ownership and quit acting like "bubba". We need to teach gun safety in our schools, so youths are not afraid of guns, but know how safe they can be when used properly. They also need to be aware of what happens in real life when someone gets shot. But we need to do this together, and not divided.

 

NONE of that is going to actually happen on any meaningful scale. Probably not even on a tiny scale. Perhaps with the possible exception of the part about "harsher sentences for folks that use guns in the commissions of a crime" so long as the perpetrator is not of a protected "victim" class. If they are, they'll likely be turned right back out on the street either in the immediate or not-too-distant future.

Criminal justice and crime prevention is largely a joke now in the jurisdictions that need it the most. If it weren't, they wouldn't be having all the crime.

 

They don't have to restrict all ammo and components.
All that they have to do is arrange for all of the primers to be bought up... .

 

This, though, in illusory.

Laws do not prevent violence. They can only proscribe the violence available to the State as punishment for such acts.

Violence is born in the hearts and minds of men. This is where the concept of mens rea enters into jurisprudence.

Lawmakers have only one tool for every social ill, real or imagined--laws. Laws cannot prevent, only react. Lawmakers gloss over this reality to make emotional appeals to support their causes (which may be aligned with, but are not necessarily linked to, such laws).

Gun laws, in particular, are flawed in that they presume obedience by the law abiding.

Criminals are not, by mere definition, law-abiding.

Not all criminals are per se violent. But violence is already illegal.

"Gun laws" are not, not now, nor then about "gun violence" they are merely about control, and control of the obedient.

Creating new "gun laws" only creates more criminals out of the formerly law-abiding.

Making the innocent guilty has a further consequence, at a certain point the lawmakers are encouraging lawlessness. This is not new it's been recognized for centuries (and equally ignored by lawmakers over the same span). There is a tipping point where, if the laws are beyond knowing, they are beyond obeying, beyond enforcement, then, there's no way a reasonable person could obey them. So, why should they bother? And not just with "gun laws" but any laws at all?

The powerful always presume that they will be obeyed. This ignores the very real reality that obedience comes from the willingness of the people to obey. No matter how totalitarian the sword of government is wielded, governance reuires the willingness of the people.

 

Well, if you have a revolving door justice system you probably need all of your subjects in white padded rooms in straight jackets, so they can’t hurt each other because the bad are not separated from the good any longer.

 

Taxation of ammunition and firearms is a ship that sailed a long time ago. See 26 USC 4181 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4181.

The only question remaining is to what purposes would these funds be put?

An interesting discussion of this here: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/excise-taxes-guns-and-ammo-sin-taxes-dont-prevent-sin

And here: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax...g-ways-reduce-gun-violence-there-are-problems

 

Most of the stuff that’s being focused on these days – the open/non-existent border, gender/transgender hysteria, the Ukraine uproar, the destruction of the country’s energy supply, the threat to the world’s food supply, the climate hysteria, the Covid response, gun control, etc., etc., etc. -- isn’t even for the namesake reasons that they claim. The real people behind the scenes who are driving this stuff could not care less about those issues. Those issues are INTENTIONAL distractions for the gullible, and the more damage they do, the more disruption, distraction, and controversy they cause, the better for those who are orchestrating it and profiting from it. Those issues and events are shiny objects to keep the little people occupied while those driving it redistribute global wealth, especially US and European wealth, and enable themselves to grab a massive chunk of it, gaining generational wealth and power.

So, yeah… while they’re doing this, far too many among us will worry about how much tax they might put on a bullet. Or whether or not Donald Trump’s tweets were too mean. Or whether or not the Feds are creating a list of gun owners. Or whether or not you “recycle” your trash (which often means shipping it to India to be burned to the open atmosphere). Distractions. While everyone else’s futures and fortunes are being robbed and transferred to a hand full of elites.

They do not need to take away guns to control the people. What has been proven out in Canada and much of Western Europe can happen here without much more than a whimper.

 

By and large, they don't hate guns.
They hate folks that they don't like, trust or control having guns.

 

Therefore we need to keep financially supporting the SAF and the other groups so they will have the ability to keep filing lawsuits.