Apr 29th A quick note 2A
A quick note:
I constantly hear this argument, that criminals do not use background checks, terrorists aren't going to use background checks. This is all fine and dandy, as it makes a valid argument for why supports of the 2nd Amendment can continue to ply an intellectual position.
Yet, the argument is really not relevant, because the opposition (gun-grabbers), if they get their stronger backgrounds and close all loop holes, will find that many guns are initially purchased by legal means. How they end up in crime can vary (theft, change of disposition of person, etc.), but initially the product is purchased by someone that was able to pass a standard background check. This is probably true of most guns. I seriously doubt that most guns are either manufactured by criminals or stolen directly from firearms manufacturer. My guess is that 99% of guns used in violence against another person are either owned by the person using it or stolen from someone else whom did in fact purchase it legally.
This means, and this is the reason why people like myself feel the current round of gun control is only a stepping stone, that the only way that the opposition can continue to 'decrease gun violence' would be to continually compound the law until such a time that it was nearly impossible to own a gun.
For example, guns purchased by legal means used in a crime: the anti-libertists would then outlaw the owning of those guns, outlaw the owing of some types of guns in certain places. Or how about: People whom move guns from one state to another and then use them in a crime. Outlaw interstate transportation of firearms...etc. Then guns would 'legally' have to remain the states where they are bought and thus, be relinquished at time of the move.
This is why we need to stand our ground now, because every incursion at this point is a direct attack at our whole natural Right to self preservation.
The crime of violence is already illegal, that in and of itself is enough.
I constantly hear this argument, that criminals do not use background checks, terrorists aren't going to use background checks. This is all fine and dandy, as it makes a valid argument for why supports of the 2nd Amendment can continue to ply an intellectual position.
Yet, the argument is really not relevant, because the opposition (gun-grabbers), if they get their stronger backgrounds and close all loop holes, will find that many guns are initially purchased by legal means. How they end up in crime can vary (theft, change of disposition of person, etc.), but initially the product is purchased by someone that was able to pass a standard background check. This is probably true of most guns. I seriously doubt that most guns are either manufactured by criminals or stolen directly from firearms manufacturer. My guess is that 99% of guns used in violence against another person are either owned by the person using it or stolen from someone else whom did in fact purchase it legally.
This means, and this is the reason why people like myself feel the current round of gun control is only a stepping stone, that the only way that the opposition can continue to 'decrease gun violence' would be to continually compound the law until such a time that it was nearly impossible to own a gun.
For example, guns purchased by legal means used in a crime: the anti-libertists would then outlaw the owning of those guns, outlaw the owing of some types of guns in certain places. Or how about: People whom move guns from one state to another and then use them in a crime. Outlaw interstate transportation of firearms...etc. Then guns would 'legally' have to remain the states where they are bought and thus, be relinquished at time of the move.
This is why we need to stand our ground now, because every incursion at this point is a direct attack at our whole natural Right to self preservation.
The crime of violence is already illegal, that in and of itself is enough.
Comments
Post a Comment