today's XO gun restrictions

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by CATO, Jan 16, 2013.


  1. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    With GOP sellout on private sales looming, non-compliance is second-to-last step - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com

    For a while now, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner has argued that Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) grotesquely over-the-top bill to ban regime change rifles (she still calls them "assault weapons," and has certainly shown no inclination to adopt the Department of Homeland Security's name for them: "personal defense weapons") is political theater--a decoy.
    The Firearms Coalition's Chris Knox probably described it best, as a political analog to Muhammed Ali's "rope-a dope" strategy, by which Ali wore down a bigger, stronger George Foreman, by letting him expend all his energy on ineffectual blows on a well covered-up Ali in the early rounds, only to overwhelm him in the later rounds, after he had exhausted himself.
    The gun prohibitionist lobby would of course love to pass Feinstein's abomination, but they are not counting on it, and will instead be more than happy to settle for a "TKO," in the form of an outright ban on private gun sales. We have noted that, inexcusably, neither the NRA nor the GOP look particularly interested in fighting more than a token battle on that front (although at least the NRA is finally countering the "40% of gun sales are transacted without a background check" myth)--at least if the private sales ban can be confined to gun shows.
    Politico notes that ostensibly "conservative" Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is "open" to universal background checks (not only at gun shows), and the Huffington Post quoted Tea Party favorite Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) as willing to "look at" universal background checks.
    In other words, a vastly more intrusive, oppressive federal regulatory regime of gun sales, that have been private until now, is a very real possibility in the near future. We must fight against that outcome at every turn. What to do if it comes to pass anyway? As we have observed before, some great men have some suggestions:
    Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them.
    Henry David Thoreau
    Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
    Henry David Thoreau
    An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
    Mahatma Gandhi
    An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.
    One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
    Martin Luther King, Jr.
    The above are in good company: National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea:
    When I grew tired of that I held up one of the “Assault Weapon Registration Applications” and said “Here’s one of your applications to register my militia rifle, with a space on it for my thumbprint. Here’s what I think of it.” I tore it up and tossed it to the floor.​
    Sometimes, one is faced with the choice of being "law-abiding," or of being free. In such times, "law-abiding" comes in as a very distant second, in terns of quality of choices.
    Oh, and about that "second-to-last step" in today's title? One would hope that regular readers will not need to be told what step comes after that. When civil disobedience fails, after all, the one alternative left is . . . much less civil.
    Got militia?
    See also:
     
  2. NotSoSneaky

    NotSoSneaky former supporter

survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7