Glaze said, “I think you, at a bare minimum, fine them severely for it and build an incentive for them to [cooperate].”..."and eventually the supply will dry up..."
BUT HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHO TO FINE?
So let's play this game... they have their national gun buy-back program for all the "evil" guns in exchange for like, a $100 Targets gift certificate or something (because we all know the gov will not be handing out $800-3k dollar checks to properly compensate people for their goods, and given the sheer number of guns currently in country, not to mention ammo and magazines [thanks Feinstein!] couldn't afford to do so even it they would).
Per CT and any other states that have done similar things, there's already a large portion of gun owners that have decided never to be caught on camera in a "turn 'em in would you kindly" line like that....So when their brilliant plan inevitably nets a FAR fewer amount of guns than they expected, what then?
Oh, right... you'd need more restrictions OR go door kicking, which *would* result in a body count (however high or low it would turn out to be in reality because you'd sort the talkers from the doers real quick), but TPTB are NOT dumb enough to let it escalate to a weapons free situation... So, more restrictions it is. As usual.
Let's say a mag ban to go along with it. Great. Because at this point every gun owner without their head up their ass has a pile of them, and before that ban went into effect, you would not be able to find a magazine on a shelf in the entire country (see: 2013, when you couldn't even find an M1 Garand on a shelf). So, you have the choice to either buy them back, with the same predictable result as the guns, OR go door to door (good luck...).
So the net result being, most folks STILL have their guns and magazines, they just can't show them openly.
Ok, an ammo ban- stop them from being used, right? Ehhhhh , wrong. Ok, so maybe you could ban *actual* 5.56 and maybe x39, but you know how many hunting rifles run .223 and .308? Yeah. A LOT. So the handwringers can sit there all day and be like "they'll track your ammo purchases", um...no, not if you have a "good citizen" gun to go with it... Or you know... cash. Plus see the previous about not being able to find a box of ammo on a shelf in the country before that ban goes into effect.
Oh, so now they'd have to stop the "cash loophole" or the "bulk ammo" loophole, and require ID for all ammo purchases. Well, A) now you've pissed off the "sport shooters" too, B), so I'll buy 2 8oz sodas instead of 1 16oz, and C) net result- most folks STILL have their "evil" guns, mags, AND ammo.
Then what?
At that point they'd either have to admit it's all pointless (a laughable suggestion, we all know at that point the brakes are off and they'd just keep piling on more increasingly asinine restrictions), or things start going full Bracken...
Edit: And for the lefties who I know are skulking about here somewhere- I know you're sitting there saying "well, at least now nobody can get the "bad" guns or use them".
Um...no. Because you see, it's simple- the only people who are going to hide their piles of guns and ammo are the people who would never have been a threat to society at large in the first place. The felons, the criminals, the nutbags, the Terries.... all those people you *think* you're saving the world from... THEY DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOUR IDIOT LAWS! As we've already covered, you can never possibly get all the guns from the good guys, half of whom will even turn them in voluntarily, unlike the above criminal elements who for sure will NOT be turning in a damn thing, and those people WILL continue to use their guns, and you idiots will continue to pass more laws because you're literally to stupid to grasp the sheer pointlessness of trying to "legislate criminals into righteousness".
And if you still think I'm wrong, let me remind you that Columbine happened DURING your "oh so great" Clinton AWB, and the Bataclan massacre happened in a country with FAR more restrictive laws than we have. But hey, you do you... We of the "other side of the aisle" already know your incessant gun banning efforts have nothing to do with making anyone safer anyway.
Carlson looked at Glaze and asked, “Are you ready for the civil war that would ensue if you try to take people’s guns?”
And yet, I am sick of hearing about the "gun bans will lead to civil war" bogeyman.
The big "line in the sand" moment most seem to be waiting for isn't ever going to happen.
It's going to be hundreds of little lines that will instead be stepped over unnoticed or uncared about, as is already the case.
Personal privacy is dead, Free speech is dead, and the entire country is held hostage by the Federal banks and corporations, and their own obsession with media dictating their every waking moment, to name just the most glaring issues.
WHY DON"T I SEE ANYONE SHOOTING YET?????? Has anyone read the "reasons" portion of the Declaration? Kinda starting to sound real familiar right?
And yet somehow there's going to be this great Rubcion event "when guns are banned"? Bullshit.
Not to mention, most folks that throw out the "civil war" term really haven't spent much time thinking it over...
Last edited by Jellybean; 12-06-17 at 00:08.
"Once we get some iron in our souls, we'll get some iron in our hands..."
"...A rapid, aggressive response will let you get away with some pretty audacious things if you are willing to be mean, fast, and naked."-Failure2Stop
"The Right can meme; the Left can organize. I guess now we know which one is important." - Random internet comment
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by VARIABLE9
Bookmarks