Someone has died in a part of the US where the Constitution is not fully respected, arguably due to that very reason. And now, in order to honor him, the rest of us need to lose our own Constitutional rights? Huh?
Here we go... someone has brought a bill to the US Congress to introduce national gun registration.
But well, gosh, who could argue with that... right?
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hr45.pdf
This process began in the same manner in Weimar Germany. And in the UK. Gun registration has always later been used for confiscation, everywhere it's been instituted.
So much easier to round people up for torture, or simply intimidate them into silence, once that confiscation has occurred.
Outright confiscations aside, in practice, every renewal cycle there are more excuses not to grant the renewal, and more prohibitions applied. This was the UK model. In prewar Germany, if you had a Jewish name or were on Hitler's sh*tlist, no renewal. This is similar to how "discretionary" gun registration approval tends to work in those few (but highly violent and corrupt) US jurisdictions where registration is required.
Of course, it's been argued since day one that the FBI instant check system is an instant registration system, and I have never had reason to doubt that's been happening. If most of the country is buying on a daily basis, who cares (much) ? But now it's out in the open... and if this passes, there will no longer be the potential to jail or fire people for violating the "no archive" principle of the current setup.
Worse, there will, of course, be a new inherent requirement to periodically "prove" the right to ownership.
Do I also now need to periodically "prove" my right to free speech, or not to be enslaved?
14 ... The Attorney General shall issue
15 a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an
16 application that meets the requirements of section 102 of
17 this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the indi
18 vidual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section
19 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a fire
20 arm.
He shall? After what maximum amount of time has passed? Oops, I guess they forgot to add that part.
"Says here you complained a lot about Obama on the Internet, so we'll need some more time to do the ascertainin'. Haw haw haw!"
Lastly, Blair Holt (for whom the bill is named) was killed in Chicago, which already bans guns, yet has far more shootings per capita than neighboring communities that don't.
Never mind. The proponents of this bill already know these things (or if they don't, they haven't done their homework on the issue and don't belong in office). They don't care. To them, facts and logic standing in the way of their private agenda are just tiresome obstacles.
Remember how the founding fathers warned that if slavery, as an affront to the principles the country was founded on, was permitted to persist the country would end up tearing itself apart?
What about regions where other affronts to the Constitution -- such as tight restriction or prohibition on keep and bear -- have been allowed to fester for generations, for the sake of "getting along" politically?
Entire US cities and states filled with people who've been made to suffer under those political setups, hating those in other parts of the country who aren't oppressed the same way, yet failing to see the real reasons for their suffering. Or they just don't care, and are happy to see other people made miserable like them, or "put in their place". Like Orcs (who started as Elves, don't forget) going to battle in support of their master and oppressor Sauron.
I shouldn't have to prove my right to own something the Constitution guarantees me. I shouldn't be considered guilty until "proven" innocent by some bureaucratic rule.
No more than Obama should have to prove he shouldn't be enslaved by some white cracker. "Hey, the Constitution bans slavery!" "Constitution? Ah don't see no Constitution, bwah! Someone done shredded it!"
That's why we have a Constitution, isn't it? To say that there are certain things the government can't do, even if a majority votes for it?
If we really want to honor Blair Holt, restore the right to keep and bear to the citizens of Illinois, and of Chicago. If the shooter had had reason to believe the bus driver, or one of the parents, or a local resident or passerby might be armed (an impossibility in Chicago) he might have stayed home that day.
Here we go... someone has brought a bill to the US Congress to introduce national gun registration.
But well, gosh, who could argue with that... right?
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hr45.pdf
This process began in the same manner in Weimar Germany. And in the UK. Gun registration has always later been used for confiscation, everywhere it's been instituted.
So much easier to round people up for torture, or simply intimidate them into silence, once that confiscation has occurred.
Outright confiscations aside, in practice, every renewal cycle there are more excuses not to grant the renewal, and more prohibitions applied. This was the UK model. In prewar Germany, if you had a Jewish name or were on Hitler's sh*tlist, no renewal. This is similar to how "discretionary" gun registration approval tends to work in those few (but highly violent and corrupt) US jurisdictions where registration is required.
Of course, it's been argued since day one that the FBI instant check system is an instant registration system, and I have never had reason to doubt that's been happening. If most of the country is buying on a daily basis, who cares (much) ? But now it's out in the open... and if this passes, there will no longer be the potential to jail or fire people for violating the "no archive" principle of the current setup.
Worse, there will, of course, be a new inherent requirement to periodically "prove" the right to ownership.
Do I also now need to periodically "prove" my right to free speech, or not to be enslaved?
14 ... The Attorney General shall issue
15 a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an
16 application that meets the requirements of section 102 of
17 this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the indi
18 vidual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section
19 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a fire
20 arm.
He shall? After what maximum amount of time has passed? Oops, I guess they forgot to add that part.
"Says here you complained a lot about Obama on the Internet, so we'll need some more time to do the ascertainin'. Haw haw haw!"
Lastly, Blair Holt (for whom the bill is named) was killed in Chicago, which already bans guns, yet has far more shootings per capita than neighboring communities that don't.
Never mind. The proponents of this bill already know these things (or if they don't, they haven't done their homework on the issue and don't belong in office). They don't care. To them, facts and logic standing in the way of their private agenda are just tiresome obstacles.
Remember how the founding fathers warned that if slavery, as an affront to the principles the country was founded on, was permitted to persist the country would end up tearing itself apart?
What about regions where other affronts to the Constitution -- such as tight restriction or prohibition on keep and bear -- have been allowed to fester for generations, for the sake of "getting along" politically?
Entire US cities and states filled with people who've been made to suffer under those political setups, hating those in other parts of the country who aren't oppressed the same way, yet failing to see the real reasons for their suffering. Or they just don't care, and are happy to see other people made miserable like them, or "put in their place". Like Orcs (who started as Elves, don't forget) going to battle in support of their master and oppressor Sauron.
I shouldn't have to prove my right to own something the Constitution guarantees me. I shouldn't be considered guilty until "proven" innocent by some bureaucratic rule.
No more than Obama should have to prove he shouldn't be enslaved by some white cracker. "Hey, the Constitution bans slavery!" "Constitution? Ah don't see no Constitution, bwah! Someone done shredded it!"
That's why we have a Constitution, isn't it? To say that there are certain things the government can't do, even if a majority votes for it?
If we really want to honor Blair Holt, restore the right to keep and bear to the citizens of Illinois, and of Chicago. If the shooter had had reason to believe the bus driver, or one of the parents, or a local resident or passerby might be armed (an impossibility in Chicago) he might have stayed home that day.
No comments:
Post a Comment