It will go as far as Stephen Hawking can throw a 50lb sack of potatoes.
Other than that, it will be used as the starting point for ‘compromise’, which is the entire point. They want us to give up all of our rights, we don’t want to give up any. To ‘compromise’ by just giving up a few is a loss for us and they will paint us as recalcitrant and unwilling to compromise.
Fine by me.
Advertisement
Incoming Fire
Feinstein Laid It All Out Years Ago, Right In Plain Sight | Daily Pundit
on 1/28/2013 2:29 PM
Comments
We need to start demanding a repeal of the '68 GCA and '86 FOPA, then loudly complain about lack of compromise from the left.
I'm going to steal $1000 you. You'll likely be outraged and demand I return it immediately.
I'll stop you and demand we engage in "reasoned discourse" and have a "national conversation".
At the moment, you are out $1000. I'll offer a compromise. I'll give you $500, since at the moment you have $0. That puts you $500 ahead. Any "reasonable" person with "common sense" understands that $500 is greater than $0.
Only a fool wouldn't accept my offer at compromise.
I'll stop you and demand we engage in "reasoned discourse" and have a "national conversation".
At the moment, you are out $1000. I'll offer a compromise. I'll give you $500, since at the moment you have $0. That puts you $500 ahead. Any "reasonable" person with "common sense" understands that $500 is greater than $0.
Only a fool wouldn't accept my offer at compromise.
I think that the real sneaky part is the "universal background check", which will open the door to full registration. Then they'll start the armed robbery under color of law, er, *ahem* "confiscations".
My guess is that it will be rammed down our throats like Universal Health Care (which immediately cost me $20.00 more a week)
Now Social Security is up and Odimwit owes me $40.00 a week since he's been in that now soiled office.
Now Social Security is up and Odimwit owes me $40.00 a week since he's been in that now soiled office.
Tirno
says:
The politicians like Ms Feinstein are asking us to surrender some longstanding liberties in exchange for some promised security, implemented with the implied threat of deadly force exerted by the government upon the people in accordance with the law.
A reasonable counteroffer would be to require Ms Feinstein to identify what longstanding powers of the government will surrender in exchange for promised compliance with her measures, with governmental compliance ensured by lawful authorization of deadly force exerted by the people upon the politicians making the promise.
In other words, I will happily give up magazines over 10 rounds if "the politician broke his promise" becomes a classification of justifiable homicide.
I think I read a story about this kind of thing. And I just found it again: Lone Star Planet by H. Beam Piper and John J. McGuire. Of relevance from the work in question:
"The Court of Political Justice has reached a verdict," he [the chief justice]announced. "Wilbur Whately, and your attorney, approach and hear the verdict."
The defense lawyer motioned a young man who had been sitting beside him to rise. In the silence that had fallen, I could hear the defendant's boots squeaking as he went forward to hear his fate. The judge picked up a belt and a pair of pistols that had been lying in front of him.
"Wilbur Whately," he began, "this court is proud to announce that you have been unanimously acquitted of the charge of political irresponsibility, and of unjustified and excessive atrocity.
"There was one dissenting vote on acquitting you of the charge of political irresponsibility; one of the associate judges felt that the late unmitigated scoundrel, Austin Maverick, ought to have been skinned alive, an inch at a time. You are, however, acquitted of that charge, too.
"You all know," he continued, addressing the entire assemblage, "the reason for which this young hero cut down that monster of political iniquity, S. Austin Maverick. On the very morning of his justly-merited death, Austin Maverick, using the powers of his political influence, rammed through the Finance and Revenue Committee a bill entitled 'An Act for the Taxing of Personal Incomes, and for the Levying of a Withholding Tax.' Fellow citizens, words fail me to express my horror of this diabolic proposition, this proposed instrument of tyrannical extortion, borrowed from the Dark Ages of the Twentieth Century! Why, if this young nobleman had not taken his blade in hand, I'd have killed the sonofabitch, myself!"
He leaned forward, extending the belt and holsters to the defendant.
"I therefore restore to you your weapons, taken from you when, in compliance with the law, you were formally arrested. Buckle them on, and, assuming your weapons again, go forth from this court a free man, Wilbur Whately. And take with you that machete with which you vindicated the liberties and rights of all New Texans. Bear it reverently to your home, hang it among your lares and penates, cherish it, and dying, mention it within your will, bequeathing it as a rich legacy unto your issue! Court adjourned; next session 0900 tomorrow. For Chrissake, let's get out of here before the barbecue's over!"
A reasonable counteroffer would be to require Ms Feinstein to identify what longstanding powers of the government will surrender in exchange for promised compliance with her measures, with governmental compliance ensured by lawful authorization of deadly force exerted by the people upon the politicians making the promise.
In other words, I will happily give up magazines over 10 rounds if "the politician broke his promise" becomes a classification of justifiable homicide.
I think I read a story about this kind of thing. And I just found it again: Lone Star Planet by H. Beam Piper and John J. McGuire. Of relevance from the work in question:
"The Court of Political Justice has reached a verdict," he [the chief justice]announced. "Wilbur Whately, and your attorney, approach and hear the verdict."
The defense lawyer motioned a young man who had been sitting beside him to rise. In the silence that had fallen, I could hear the defendant's boots squeaking as he went forward to hear his fate. The judge picked up a belt and a pair of pistols that had been lying in front of him.
"Wilbur Whately," he began, "this court is proud to announce that you have been unanimously acquitted of the charge of political irresponsibility, and of unjustified and excessive atrocity.
"There was one dissenting vote on acquitting you of the charge of political irresponsibility; one of the associate judges felt that the late unmitigated scoundrel, Austin Maverick, ought to have been skinned alive, an inch at a time. You are, however, acquitted of that charge, too.
"You all know," he continued, addressing the entire assemblage, "the reason for which this young hero cut down that monster of political iniquity, S. Austin Maverick. On the very morning of his justly-merited death, Austin Maverick, using the powers of his political influence, rammed through the Finance and Revenue Committee a bill entitled 'An Act for the Taxing of Personal Incomes, and for the Levying of a Withholding Tax.' Fellow citizens, words fail me to express my horror of this diabolic proposition, this proposed instrument of tyrannical extortion, borrowed from the Dark Ages of the Twentieth Century! Why, if this young nobleman had not taken his blade in hand, I'd have killed the sonofabitch, myself!"
He leaned forward, extending the belt and holsters to the defendant.
"I therefore restore to you your weapons, taken from you when, in compliance with the law, you were formally arrested. Buckle them on, and, assuming your weapons again, go forth from this court a free man, Wilbur Whately. And take with you that machete with which you vindicated the liberties and rights of all New Texans. Bear it reverently to your home, hang it among your lares and penates, cherish it, and dying, mention it within your will, bequeathing it as a rich legacy unto your issue! Court adjourned; next session 0900 tomorrow. For Chrissake, let's get out of here before the barbecue's over!"
If I remember the majority opinion for the 1934 machine gun tax stamp, the Supreme court found that the American people had the rights to the same small arms as the military. I realize that since 34 that has not been the case, but maybe that is what we should be demanding.
Comments have been closed on this topic.
However, I CAN see a bunch of RINOs going along with a Hi-Cap Ban, all "in the Spirit of Reaching across the Aisle," of course. Those Idiots don't realize that this Anti-Gun Legislation can EASILY be defeated if they "Just Say No."
But they're Politicians.....