Biden has a number of plans to discourage gun ownership. Among them, he wants to raise the cost of gun ownership by holding gun manufacturer's responsible for any deaths or wounds caused by guns. He also has a plan to force the registration of guns, which will be accompanied by a large registration fee.
Let us think about this as a matter of principle for a moment. The right to defend oneself is a natural right and also an explicit constitutional right. Freedom of speech is a natural right and also an explicit constitutional right.
Let us suppose that someone asks you if you think the person they want to marry will be a good lifetime partner for them. You, as a friend, answer yes. The marriage ends in divorce. The divorced partner claims you are partially responsible for the suffering and perhaps financial losses they incurred due to the failure of their marriage. Should they have the right to sue you for recovery of their losses? Imagine if they could do this, what this would do to your ability to exercise your right to freedom of speech. Whatever the actual impact your advice on the proposed marriage might have had, it was the responsibility of the individual receiving that advice to evaluate whether they should marry. It was the responsibility of the married person to make the marriage work or if they could not do so, to realize that the mistakes or lack of effort were their own.
The gun manufacturer has no significant voice in how the gun they make is used. It can be used rationally or irrationally. It can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. To hold the gun manufacturer responsible for the use of the gun is as nonsensical as holding the marriage advisor responsible for his advice. Actually, I would be inclined to think that bad advice on marriage would make an easier case for responsibility for harm against the advisor. At least the marriage advisor presumably has some knowledge of the two people whose marriage is being considered.
Gun registration and fees: If the government can in principle claim the power to make you register as a gun owner and pay a high fee for doing so, what is to keep the government from next forcing everyone to register for the right to exercise freedom of speech and pay a high registration fee for doing so? After all, if one right can be controlled, limited, and taxed if it is to be exercised then why would the government defer from doing the same to other rights -- freedom of speech included. Just as the Democrat Socialist Party thinks guns can be used harmfully by hoodlums, so does that host of parasites believe that Deplorables do great harm with their speech.
Do you think the party of slavery, the early KKK, Jim Crow laws, the Woodrow Wilson second wave of the KKK, segregation, the welfare dependency of many American Blacks, mandatory government school holding pens minus education, that declared Trump voters Deplorables, and the party that has always thought it moral to steal elections, would not desire such control over our freedom to exercise our individual rights that all of them will not disappear unless we throw our minds, hearts, and souls into defending every one of them?
ReplyDeleteIn Brazil, the Government used similar method to exclude the population's right to have weapons. Expensive fees and various restrictions for traders. Justice criminalizes the right of defense, prosecuting the victim who reacts against an burglar, often more armed.
Even with a pro-arms government, there are countless difficulties in changing existing legislation.
Thomas Sowell once said in one of his videos that the UK has a much higher burglary rate than the US. Any burglar in the US knows if he breaks and enters he is likely to encounter a hail of bullets.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in a rough neighborhood. My dad, not the most aggressive of individuals, kept a loaded shotgun in the bedroom closet so he could tell an intruder with some authority he had it in his hands and to come on to see if it was loaded.
Need I add here that the aim of gun-control governments is to make us helpless?
Why is it in the interest of government to make us helpless by depriving us of our right to defend ourselves?
ReplyDelete1) Then we are dependent on government entirely to protect us from those with weapons or from those who use violence as a substitute for hard work and the offering of values for what they want.
2) Our governments give special dispensation to union thugs to use violence and does not want us to be able to defend ourselves from the organized crime and/or socialist union leaders.
3) Many of our governments want us to be intimidated by organized groups they favor such as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa who utilize violence. The acceptance of violent groups of the past such as The Weathermen and the Black Panthers anchors this as a long tradition of the American left. Of course that tradition in Europe includes the leftist street gangs of the National Socialist Workers Party and the Communists.
4) Governments do not want to be limited in the scope and nature of their dictates to the people by concerns about whether the people will rebel. The Americans certainly would have had a much harder time rebelling against King George III if they had been unarmed. As it was, their relative lack of muskets, canon, and black powder caused the American rebellion constant problems. Why did the shooting reach critical mass in the American Revolution? Because King George III sent his troops through Lexington and on to Concord to confiscate the guns and black powder of the American militia. So of course, evil Biden and the Democrat Socialists do not want Americans to have even the modest firepower of an AR-15. They also want to make only limited ammunition available. Clearly, they see themselves as the modern King George III. When you lock down businesses so long that many fail, ruining the owners and putting their employees out of work, you do not want them to be able to rebel. When you disregard the people's votes by flooding an election with illegitimate votes, you do not want the people to be able to revolt.