You cannot meaningfully reduce the number of guns in the United States without building a system capable of finding them, compelling disclosure, and forcibly removing them when people decline to cooperate. [More]
We believe gun-control advocates – or their leadership anyway – consider the deeply totalitarian implications she draws out to be not a bug but a feature. We think they want to shape the kind of society in which the kind of total. smothering force she describes can be exerted, much more than they want to “reduce gun violence” or any of the other goals they talk about.
It’s not about guns. It’s about freedom.
And having history to show us what totalitarians are capable of, it’s existential.
[Via Michael G]
“You cannot meaningfully reduce the number of guns in the United States without building a system capable of finding them, compelling disclosure, and forcibly removing them when people decline to cooperate.”
Even if the process is successful, what kind of “United States of America” would exist as a result?
“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” — Unidentified U.S. Army Major quoted by Peter Arnett 2/8/1968
https://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2015/02/it-became-necessary-to-destroy-the-town-to-save-it/
Holly is based.
“From there, the conclusion followed naturally: therefore, we need nationwide gun control. These local restrictions are said to be meaningless because a would-be killer can simply go to New Hampshire or Vermont and buy a weapon with ease.”
An old, old argument, with a correspondingly old debunk:
“Just name the states that get their ‘street narcotics’ from other states where they are legal.”
Anyone who lived through the Biden years and still thinks a national border is a magical natural barrier to anything… shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Oh, so you’re FOR street narcotics? 🙂