Those who can’t think, will vote for anything that makes them feel safe, even if their fear has been cultivated without them knowing.
When Anti-2nd Amendment Radicals push gun-control laws, they want you to think their intention is to save lives, but when we look at how these laws would violate the rights of people and put them in danger, we begin to understand their real motives. When anyone wants others to be vulnerable, we have to ask ourselves, how it is that the perpetrator might benefit.
It’s not so unbelievable that those in power (or those who desperately seek power) would want to control the people they represent, but that some people would welcome that control over their own lives is a much scarier thought.
Congressman Eric Swalwell recently held a rally that attracted a whopping 20 people, where he unveiled his latest list of gun-control measures. His performance took place outside the NRA Headquarters in Virginia (for effect). His list of attacks on the citizens he hopes to represent as President include civil liberties violations that cause the gun-grabbers to salivate, but when we look at the potential results of his ideas, we get a good idea of what his real intentions might be. Here are some of them.
- Ban and “buy back”so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons”and prosecute those who don’t comply
This is confiscation under the guise of “buy-back.”As soon as “prosecution for not complying”enters the equation, the freedom to choose is eliminated and our “rights” aregone. This is the thinking of a dictator.
- Implement background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases
Studies have shown that 90% of criminals surveyed in prison, acquired their firearms illegally and avoided background checks, while 95% of background checks denied are initially “false positives”(good people being unjustly denied). If the gun-grabbers know that criminals pay no attention to background checks but good people are the ones denied, who are these background checks intended for?
- Create a federal licensing program for gun owners, requiring them to satisfactorily complete a training program with both written and practical exams, the same way most states do with cars and hunters.
This would appear to be another way to limit gun-ownership by giving bureaucrats the ability to create required standards that would be impossible to meet. Who do you think would write the rules to these mandatory programs or the questions onthese exams?
- Require that all people or businesses selling more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in a 30-day period be federally licensed in a program similar to the Federal Firearms Licensee system.
This could bean attempt at implementing another government issued license created and run by those who don’t want firearms dealers in the first place. Firearms dealers would have to meet additional government standards, ultimatelymaking it more difficult for them to conduct business.
- Prohibit individuals from hoarding ammunition in quantities exceeding 200 rounds per caliber or gauge.
200 rounds is hardly “hoarding”but any terminology that makes gun-owners look dangerous is helpful to the anti-gun agenda. This would appear to be rhetoric on the surface but if implemented, would limit the ability of gun-owners to train;turning gun-ranges into ghost towns and creating an ammo drought that would prevent people the ability to defend themselves if attacked. Guns would collect dust in closets because there would be no sense in carrying one if it was ammo-less. A law like this would conveniently criminalize anyone who owns more than 200 rounds. But how would they ever know how much ammoyouhave? That’s what the ammo background checks are for.
- Limit ammunition sales for individual purchasers to 200 rounds per 30-day period.
Again, the lack of ammo would shut down gun ranges causing a lack of interest in future generations. If no one can shoot for practice or recreation, the desire for these activities will quickly disappear. This, coupled with a continued effort to implement gun-fear in our youth would make gun-ownership a thing of the past.
- Repeal the law that prohibits the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from consolidating and centralizing records relating to the acquisition of firearms maintained by federal firearms licensees.
“Gun-Owner Database.”Not sure if there is any other way to see this one. Remember the Red Flag Laws that many states are trying to implement and ask yourself how they would work hand-in-hand with a database.
- 48 Hour “cooling off”period for firearm purchases.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that people would be vulnerable to attacks during waiting periods. Women being stalked or pursued by a violent predator would have to “wait it out.”
The idea that someone would need time to “cool off” or they would otherwise kill is an idea that lives in the minds of Anti-Gunners. By believing otherswould act dangerously when angered or “triggered,” they may be revealing more about themselvesthan they realize. This is a common projection that comes from the irrational gun-fear crowd that believes “guns make people do bad things.” This reveals their own dangerously volatile lack of physical restraint. Someone who thinks other people needs 48 hours to “decide not to kill someone,” may have some deeper issues that need to be addressed.
- Prohibit states from allowing teachers to be armed on campus.
Preventing teachers from being able to protect themselves and their kids would only seem to perpetuate the dangerous activity we continue to see in Gun Free School Zones. If the idea is to preventsenseless killings in schools, how does it make sense to purposely make teachers and students more vulnerable? It would seem that this type of policy would encourage moreschool attacks, ultimately justifying the call for more gun-laws, but I’m sure that’s not the intent here. Nobody is that sick.
- Require that liability insurance be purchased before a person can buy, trade, or otherwise receive a firearm, which is what states already require for automobiles.
This looks like yet another way to eliminate gun-ownership in America by pitting insurance companies against gun-owners. How soon would there only be one insurance company left willing to provide this insurance and how expensive would it be? Would a law like this encourage frivolous lawsuits against gun-owners? How would it help to offer monetary rewards to people for suing gun-owners? What would happen if your insurance policy lapsed? Would the insurance company be required to notify the government, similar to the way insurance companies now notify DMV if your car insurance lapses? Using automobile insurance as a way of justifying this is a way to make is seem like a “common sense policy” so you look irrational if you don’t go along with it.
If only the Anti-Gunners could see how voting for this type of government overreach would likely affect them on issues they care about down the road. If we find ourselves telling them, “See, we told you so,” it’ll already be too late.