"Oh, don't worry about that new income tax. It tops out at 5% and only applies to multi-millionaires."
"No, of course we won't ever use your Social Security number for identification."
"Instead of going after the perpetrators of 9/11 with Letters of Marque and Reprisal as the Constitution allows, we're going to start entire new zillion-dollar wars that will wreck foreign nations, get thousands of American soldiers killed, and allow for corruption on a scale you wouldn't believe. Oh, wait. I meant we're invading Iraq and Afghanistan to PROTECT you."
"We're from the government and we're here to help."
If you believe the government will EVER stop at "reasonable" (whatever the hell THAT means) infringements of our rights, you haven't been paying attention.
Edit: let's make that "alleged" perpetrators of 9/11, since even if Ron Paul's resolution to USE Letters of Marque and Reprisal had passed, going after a bunch of Arabs hiding in caves halfway across the world wouldn't have gotten us to the actual perps.
I wouldn't trust any government solution on the federal level. Any special case gun legislation should be passed and enforced on the local level, and the sheriff in each county should implement it. The list of gun owners should be carefully protected from the feds in case of any efforts for national confiscation.
Look at Florida leading the way on mask mandates. The more difficult solutions will come from local government, not federal.
I'd decentralize even further, and allow for non-government gun control (in businesses, gated communities or neighborhoods, shopping districts, etc -- anywhere a person or group of people decide on such unanimously). "No gun zones" are notoriously counter-productive, of course, but I can see a shopping district, say, deciding to ban fully automatic weapons or mortars. Not that I expect that would actually accomplish anything, but it would be their decision, not mine.
Government is the wrong tool for "protecting us from our own rights" because once you give government the power for "reasonable" restrictions, the definition of reasonable eventually becomes "total."
Florida didn't least they way on anything. Its individuals who stand up and tell the government to shove it up their ass that lead the way. In this nation we worship Jesus. NOT GOVERNMENT.
So let's say the sheriff changes over the years and you end up with a power hungry despot. How is that gonna work out for you?
There is no such thing as a constitutional right. They are God given rights. The constitution is a set of negative rights that are written to place limitations on government.
"Oh, don't worry about that new income tax. It tops out at 5% and only applies to multi-millionaires."
"No, of course we won't ever use your Social Security number for identification."
"Instead of going after the perpetrators of 9/11 with Letters of Marque and Reprisal as the Constitution allows, we're going to start entire new zillion-dollar wars that will wreck foreign nations, get thousands of American soldiers killed, and allow for corruption on a scale you wouldn't believe. Oh, wait. I meant we're invading Iraq and Afghanistan to PROTECT you."
"We're from the government and we're here to help."
If you believe the government will EVER stop at "reasonable" (whatever the hell THAT means) infringements of our rights, you haven't been paying attention.
Edit: let's make that "alleged" perpetrators of 9/11, since even if Ron Paul's resolution to USE Letters of Marque and Reprisal had passed, going after a bunch of Arabs hiding in caves halfway across the world wouldn't have gotten us to the actual perps.
I wouldn't trust any government solution on the federal level. Any special case gun legislation should be passed and enforced on the local level, and the sheriff in each county should implement it. The list of gun owners should be carefully protected from the feds in case of any efforts for national confiscation.
Look at Florida leading the way on mask mandates. The more difficult solutions will come from local government, not federal.
Nope. You don't infringe. That's it. The end it's not governments business. They don't own our God given rights.
I'd decentralize even further, and allow for non-government gun control (in businesses, gated communities or neighborhoods, shopping districts, etc -- anywhere a person or group of people decide on such unanimously). "No gun zones" are notoriously counter-productive, of course, but I can see a shopping district, say, deciding to ban fully automatic weapons or mortars. Not that I expect that would actually accomplish anything, but it would be their decision, not mine.
Government is the wrong tool for "protecting us from our own rights" because once you give government the power for "reasonable" restrictions, the definition of reasonable eventually becomes "total."
Well that why its called concealed carry...
Florida didn't least they way on anything. Its individuals who stand up and tell the government to shove it up their ass that lead the way. In this nation we worship Jesus. NOT GOVERNMENT.
So let's say the sheriff changes over the years and you end up with a power hungry despot. How is that gonna work out for you?
There is no such thing as a constitutional right. They are God given rights. The constitution is a set of negative rights that are written to place limitations on government.
In fact, the only way your proposal could even happen is if the 2nd amendment is overturned by a new Constitutional amendment.
Our right to bear arms isn't up to the local level.