Saturday, December 21, 2013

Make No Mistake: They Want To Take Your Guns

You ask Ol' Backwoods, "How do we argue effectively against these useful idiots who say, "Nobody wants to take your guns?"  This, folks, is how it is done:
Why can't you walk down to the corner hardware store and buy a gun muffler for your pistol or rifle, like they do in Finland? A gun ban passed in 1934
Why can't you order military surplus rifles mail order, and have them delivered to your door, even though they are almost never used in crime? A gun ban passed in 1968
Why can't you pay the $200 tax, jump through the ridiculous hoops and interminable wait the BATFE requires to buy a newly made MP5, just like the police often carry, for the police price of $1,000, instead of the current U.S. legal price of $26,000? A gun ban in 1986
Why can't a Vietnam Vet, who 45 years ago signed a plea bargain about an argument with his wife, buy a shotgun to go hunting with his grandson? A gun ban passed in 1996.
And this past summer, we had an Arizona court rule that police can 'temporarily' take your guns just because it makes them feel better ("officer safety"), whether you are being detained on probable cause (per Terry v. Ohio) or are merely having 'voluntary contact' with the police:
PHOENIX (AP) - A new Arizona court ruling says police can take temporary custody of a person’s gun for officer-safety reasons even if the person’s contact with police was voluntary. 
A man appealing a firearms misconduct conviction argued that Phoenix police wrongfully took his gun after he agreed to talk with officers on a street in a high-crime area. An Arizona law allows police to take temporary custody of firearms during encounters with people, and the Court of Appeals ruled that includes times when a person is not in custody and merely in consensual contact with police. The ruling says that gives police flexibility while safeguarding the rights of lawfully armed individuals. 
A dissenting judge argued that the law only applies when there’s an “investigative” stop based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
The dissenting judge is right, and agrees with the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968).

See, we gun rights people have FACTS that show that the 2nd Amendment is being infringed.  These facts that cannot be refuted.   The gun banners are working toward a goal based purely on emotion and supposition: that a government monopoly of force will totally eliminate crime.  Never has, never will, not in this fallen world.

No comments:

Post a Comment