Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
In this excerpt we see that sacred rights encompass natural rights, personal liberty, and the right to private property (i.e., absolutely owned by an individual).
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
Short review of the foundation of American law - - -" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
Well, we have 50 states and over 330 million people. We have more firearms than people. What Army is he going to use to go and confiscate semi-automatic weapons in each house? Is he going to break in millions of homes and put millions of Americans in jail? good luck.
Democrats think by passing laws that they can't possibly enforce is doing something to make us safe. Every time you pass a law you have to figure out if it can be enforced and if we have the manpower and prisons for that.
Well, we have 50 states and over 330 million people. We have more firearms than people. What Army is he going to use to go and confiscate semi-automatic weapons in each house? Is he going to break in millions of homes and put millions of Americans in jail? good luck.
Democrats think by passing laws that they can't possibly enforce is doing something to make us safe. Every time you pass a law you have to figure out if it can be enforced and if we have the manpower and prisons for that.
But how many out of that 330 million, are going to be willing to stand up to law enforcement or military if widespread confiscation happens?
I have a feeling most will obey and comply in the end, only because they will want to avoid being arrested, imprisoned, likely loosing their jobs, incomes, etc.
If a citizen understands and believes in natural, individual rights, and also understands and can personally achieve "sub MOA", nobody is taking that citizen's firearms away, or at least not without substantial and tragic cost.
Swalwell, like virtually all dumbass politicians, has no idea what I am talking about, but I'd bet at least 20% of the responsible gun owners in this country know exactly what I mean. Just 20% of the responsible gun owners of America constitutes an armed force that exceeds the military's entire population by ~6:1. They cannot take the guns by force, period. Mathematically, they lose. So the only way to achieve superiority is, as Swalwell suggests, to step up and use area of effect weaponry. This presents the government with a tangible problem....
536 people get to rule 330 million people because of exactly 1 thing - faith/belief in the system as constructed. Yes, fear plays a part, but that fear is based almost entirely on faith/belief. If the State decided that to overcome their obvious numeric disadvantage against an opposing force, they should apply their technological/material advantage, the faith/belief in the system disappears instantly. Overnight, anyone in authority is seen as the enemy, and are now targets.
Swalwell is right, that fight would be short, and he and his ilk would lose. Minus faith/belief in the system, what is Swalwell to the gun owner he is trying to oppress? He's some dude stomping his feet and saying gimme that gun or else. He's somebody breaking into that gun owner's house and threatening their family. In short, he's just another, garden variety threat that the gun owner's weapons were designed to neutralize. Swalwell's current "armor" is made entirely from the citizen's belief/faith in the power/authority of government. Take away the faith and he's as helpless as a newborn baby, and again, a whole lot of gun owners understand and are proficient with sub-MOA.
And I don't say that as a tough guy or someone issuing threats, just a realization of what exactly holds a society together and historical knowledge of what has happened in every single instance where faith/belief in the ruling system eroded or disappeared. There is a very large number of Americans who are one or two straws away from losing that faith. Should they lose it, this whole thing is a big Jenga tower, and while Swalwell does indeed sit on top of that tower, gravity won't much care when those who lost that faith all scream "Jenga" at the same time. Everyone should hope, with all their heart as I do, that his bluster never amounts to anything more than bleating and babbling. Pray the government never gets so convinced of their own superiority that they become that stupid. This whole things falls apart if they do.
The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently.
This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.
As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; if a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control” they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people.
This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,” will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.
So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.
It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.
There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski
The people who think gun bans and more gun laws will make us safer are the same people that tell us if Roe vs Wade is overturned millions of women will die from back alley abortions. How do they square this in their minds?
Swalwell introduced the bill in July. It’s going no place, fast.
That does not however stop click bait from sustaining a perception the government is going to take your guns away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
