WHAT THEN?

 

Here is something to think about.

 

This firearm (pictured below) is legal in California under their "Assault Weapon" restrictions.

Are flash hider, pistol grip, adjustable stock and magazine capacity restrictions really designed to keep people safe?

 

 

 

I believe that is an absurd proposition. Is it not true that a homicidal maniac could easily use the below weapon for an evil purpose and yield horrific destruction? Obviously yes and if such is the case then the proposition that the restrictions mentioned above truly pertain to public safety is clearly absurd.

 

The practical reality is that such restrictions are simply part of the ongoing piece-meal strategy purposed to get the general public used to the idea of increasing firearms regulation. Here a little and there a little.

 

Those with an agenda to ultimately restrict all firearms cannot come out and openly state their true intention which is why a piecemeal approach is needed. Each piece doesn't objectively increase public safety but it does lure the general public further towards the objective of a total restriction on all firearms.

 

The question the public ought be asking when faced with each restriction or new regulation is "what then?

 

None of the proposed or implemented additions restrictions or regulations will solve the underlying cultural problem which is at fault thus necessitating the ongoing proposal and implementation of further restrictions and regulations.

 

Restrict certain features on rifles... are criminal acts prevented? Therefore what then? What's next?

So national background checks on all private sales are mandated... will that prevent criminals selling firearms to each other? Therefore what then? What's next?

 

A national registry of each firearm designed to prevent people bypassing private sales without a background check...Will that prevent an illicit trade in firearms? Do drug bans prevent illicit use and access to drugs? Therefore what then? What will be next?

 

Restricting more kinds of firearms to "get them off the street." Will criminals still use firearms? What then? What will be next?

 

Heavy restrictions on all semi-automatic rifles. Consider that the maniac who murdered 16 students and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland used a pistol and a revolver. Consider that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 students with two handguns. So what then?

 

Strict restrictions on all handguns and on and on we go...

 

See how it works? It has to eventually end in the total restriction of ALL firearms, a situation where the state and criminals have a total monopoly on the use of lethal force. It has to end there because people will NEVER be completely safe in a FREE society, hence the ultimate outcome must a form of societal open prison, a society where people are no longer free. Is that what people really want?

 

Did Australian's and New Zealander's intend to grant their governments the authority to mandate medical procedures, home lockdowns, forced business closures, protest bans and even the power to arrest people for critical Facebook posts that encourage protesting? I don't think so but that's what can  happen when people empower the state with unrestricted arbitrary power. What then? What will be next? Is there any limit to gradually increasing state power? 

 

Do people really want to grant the state a total monopoly on the use of lethal force. Is it wise? Historically, how does that often work out?