So envision one. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn’t cover defective products. It covers the gun equivalent of SLAPP lawsuits, nuisance suits that are intended only to drive gun makers out of business by crushing them with legal fees, a long-time strategy before the law was passed.
As for the recall, that’s not what recalls should be used for. I disagree with the laws passed, but that’s how it goes. If they want to change them back they can vote at the ballot box during the normal election. This temper-tantrum stuff is chilling. Are we going to have recall elections to look forward to every time someone casts a vote on anything even remotely controversial?
The Second Amendment is not about target shooting or hunting. It never was.
Criminals are not generally affected by any gun control law, because, by definition, criminals are those who do not obey laws anyway. It is only honest-law-abiding citizens who are deterred by any gun control laws. The effect is that criminals are easily able to be better armed than the victims on which they prey.
Whether out of ignorance or malice, anyone who supports any gun control law, no matter how apparently benign it may be, is on the side of criminals and tyrants, and against that of honest, law-abiding citizens.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment that gives government any authority to discriminate among free citizens, as to who may exercise the right affirmed therein, and who may not. The only purpose that is or can possibly be served by a background check is to support governments efforts to illegally discriminate in this manner.
To be clear, all advocates of any gun control, without exception, fall into two categories…
[ol][li]Those who are willfully on the side of tyrants and criminals, and who wish to disarm the general population in order to make them easier prey for the tyrants and criminals. They may claim that they support such laws for the sake of public safety, but they are flat-out lying when they make such claims. They know very well that gun control laws, at best, do nothing to promote public safety, and in fact, tend to make the public less safe.[/li]
…or…
[li]Those who are ignorant and gullible, and who believe the lies told by the first group.[/ol][/li]
It is well worth noting that those who most support gun control laws, and who claim to do so in the name of “fighting crime”, are generally the same people who most strongly oppose any genuine efforts to fight crime, such as tougher sentences for genuine violent criminals.
Repeating nonsense like this ad nauseum doesn’t make it true.
So no restrictions on who can own guns? Ex-cons? Diagnose psychopaths? People with a long history of domestic violence? People currently under restraining orders for specific threats of violence?
If three rounds isn’t enough, you’ve chosen the wrong weapon for the application.
That’s how the Army handles it, and it’s a good rule for civilians as well.
This is a narrow part of the broader difference between the far right and the far wrong on what constitutes “freedom”.
I can remember when those on the wrong liked to claim to be the champions of “free speech”. Back then, what they meant by “free speech” was pornography, obscene language, and similar degrading uses of speech. To this day, this is what liberals defend as “free speech”. When Free speech is used in its genuine sense, to express beliefs and opinions that those on the wrong do not like, they are the first to cry “hate crime!” and demand that the speech in question be censored and suppressed.
Those of us on the right support genuine freedoms, including religious freedom, property and economic freedom, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freely hold and express controversial beliefs, freedom of association, and so on; while those on the wrong oppose these genuine freedoms, instead supporting “freedoms” that pertain to killing unborn children, engaging in all manner of sexual immorality, drug abuse, parasitism, and so forth.
Gun control uses a strategy of increments. Ban a few weapon types here, a few more there. Prohibit these people from owning guns now, then later, those people. This many rounds today, a few less tomorrow. A small fee today, a bigger one later.
We see.
Sometimes, the buck stops. It stopped in Colorado yesterday.
(Actually, the gun control buck stopped in Washington in April. Colorado just picked up the roadkill and threw it in the dump.)
This illustrates a broader strategy that has been going on for several decades, now.
Every so often—sometimes prompted by some particularly notorious crime—a proposal would be put forth for some new gun control law, ostensibly to make us safer. In nearly all cases, a careful, honest examination of what is proposed would reveal that, in fact, it does nothing to make us safer, and does nothing to address whatever crime it was that prompted it. But the proposal is put forth as being a “reasonable” restriction that only an extremist would oppose, and on the basis, it eventually gets signed into law.
Of course, as any honest, intelligent person would have known, the new law ends up doing nothing at all to make us safer, and a few years later, another, even stricter proposed “reasonable” restriction comes up, and is again passed into law.
The cycle has been repeating itself for several decades, now, and the right which the Second Amendment asserts, and forbids form being infringed, is becoming more and more difficult to exercise without running afoul of these laws. And all the while, we are not being made any safer as a result.
Unchecked, this cycle would continue until there is no more freedom to sacrifice to it. The ultimate goal has always been to completely eliminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Fortunately, the public, as a whole, is finally opening its eyes. The latest iteration of this cycle at the national level brought forth a whole new batch of these “reasonable”proposals, driven by a President who was determined to get them passed into law, and upheld by a set of blatant lies that claimed 90% public support for them, and not one of them was able to get past Congress. The public is no longer being fooled, as it has long been.
God willing, this marks the end of us sacrificing more and more freedom in vain, and perhaps the beginning of a time that will see us take back what has already been illegally taken from us.
You leave out the rather important part about gun owners themselves polling in favor of universal background checks.
What happened here in CO is a supercharged radical political minority that couldn’t and didn’t get what they want by normal election processes winning a confusing recall that took a lot of voters by surprise when they couldn’t vote the normal by mail way.
Ignoring or dismissing the plain truth doesn’t make it any less true.
If someone is so dangerous that he cannot be trusted in free society, then he needs to be removed from free society.
Allowing a dangerous criminal or someone who is dangerously and violently insane to go free, and then enacting a law that says he cannot legally possess a firearm is futile. If he’s not going to be stopped by a law that says it’s illegal to kill people, then he’s not going to be deterred either by a law that says he can’t own a gun.
As I pointed out, those who most support gun control laws, on the ersatz basis of “fighting crime”, are generally the same ones who are most opposed to properly dealing with the very worst, most dangerous criminals, in order to prevent them from having the opportunity to commit more crimes. This makes it clear enough what side they are really on, and it isn’t the side of those who they claim to want to protect.
30 round limit for m-16s, back in my day. Anything more was considered unreliable. And really the little short ones were better.
I don’t know if today’s magazines work differently or are more reliable.
When we were on duty with live ammunition, we were issued three rounds.
This was not in a combat zone.
Keep thinking that, if it makes you feel better. I, for one, actually associate with real gun owners, instead of reading polls.
The closest I’ve ever come to one accepting this idea is “You know, I might actually be willing to consider universal background checks. But the bastards will never stop there.”
It’s not a fallacy when it can be so clearly and provably observed to be happening.
Several leading anti-gun politicians have made it clear that their ultimate desire is to co0mpletely eliminate any right of private citizens to posses any firearms. Nobody believes that this can ever happen all at once. But undeniably, they have been nibbling away at this right for several decades, one “reasonable” restriction at a time. Ban some arbitrary category of guns here; impose some stricter criterion as to who may own them there; require a permit to do this; impose a fee to do that, and so on. It’s like the cliché about boiling a frog.
“I, XXX, hereby swear that if we implement a nationwide universal background check. I will never support any additional gun controls whatsoever, and will vigorously oppose all such proposed.”