As is apparent from this article from Personal Defense World, it would seem that the idiocy that is Eric Swalwell now has a serious challenger; Illinois State Sen. Julie Morrison.
Morrison's statement in response to a gun owner who pointed at the fact that Illinois SB107
included a fine for those who don’t hand guns over:
"Well, you just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t
have a fine at all, maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have
to worry about paying the fine.”
Sadly this condescending, flippant and despotic response was followed by applause. Importantly, at least to me, it encapsulates in one brief response why the founders added a Second Amendment to our Constitution, to reinforce (not establish - that is important) the sanctity of the right to keep and bear arms; "....the security of a free State". Few better examples of attempts to diminish the free state than this one.
I certainly wish this questioner could or would have pushed this issue a bit further and challenged her to speculate on what she thinks would happen if she attempted this and people refused to turn them in at all, what would happen if there were active resistance to her authoritarian action. Does she have any idea at all that people will resist this? Perhaps she would have given us a great gem, like Swalwell's "government has all the nukes" idea. IS she, too, relying on government's ability to overpower, subjugate or destroy a signficant proportion of the citizenry?
The same potential consequences apply to this budding tyrant's example as we have discussed previously in the context of Swalwell's stupidity. However, it is a fine excuse to expand on them.
- A lot of people are not going to turn their firearms in willingly, not going to line up to hand over their rightfully-owned property. There are plenty of data to support this, not only in certain locales in the US where bans and "buybacks" have been widely ignored, but in other nations where this tyranny has been enacted. So, what is her next step in trying to confiscate them? Has she thought this through?
- She will need willing people with guns to "come and take" them from these armed non-compliant citizens. So she is not for banning and confiscating ALL guns. She will need to leave guns in the hands of government to enforce her unconstitutional mandate and, frankly, who knows what else will get banned (end of First Amendment perhaps?). Again - this eventuality merely proves how prescient the founders were in codifying the illegality of infringement and the sanctity of the keep and bear arms. Their only response, as from Swalwell, is "Sorry, we have bigger guns so you can't protect your free state anyway." Clearly this was not an unexpected event to our founders.
- It is likely that the first line of traitors who will be sent to confiscate arms will be drawn from local Law Enforcement. As has already been seen in many jurisdictions, a lot of LEOs will refuse to enforce laws that infringe on these rights. While it is likely, especially in some urban areas and Socialist states, there will be ample traitors to their oaths, it is also likely this kind of treason and the resistance it engenders will put LEO on both sides of this conflict. I know that, in my State, there are Sheriffs who will not suborn such infringement and may actively move against it.
- Those traitors that she CAN get to comply and enlist to enforce her confiscatory actions are going to have to go house-to-house in some locales to retrieve them. Let us remember that this will not only be in the suburbs, but in high density population centers as well (less likely in rural locales). Those affected by this confiscation will represent a wide range of races, ethnicity and ages. It may even serve to unite groups that have previously been at odds, given a common enemy - for a while. This will be a massive undertaking with operations in a variety of what will be significantly hostile environments - and, environments that favor the defender.
- When those in uniform carrying guns knock on your door or kick it in, announcing they are there to take your property by force, the first thing it should do is bring up images of all of the totalitarian regimes in history. Here are armed representatives of your government, forcibly entering your domicile, demanding that you turn over your property or threatening you and yours with bodily harm if you do not. Be sure if this happens you have the cameras rolling to create a historical record for broadcast as footage of the imposition of unconstitutional law by lethal force. I think the LEOs who defy their oath will soon find that "Blue lives matter" becomes a matter of history. Many who believe blue lives matter are also those who will resist confiscation.
- Lethal force is justified no matter the law. Yes, I know - Castle Doctrine has exceptions for LEO who are there in an LE capacity. But, frankly, once the Constitution and Bill of Rights are violated and infringement is in progress, I think protection of ourselves, our loved ones and our "Castle" now reflects the existent of common and natural law - since their actions have abrogated any other legal consideration. Remember, the Second Amendment did not create the right, it merely asserts that the existing right shall be not be infringed
- There will be blood - on all sides. Betty and Bobby Suburban (who probably applauded Morrison's oh-so-witty dictatorial quip) will be woken up by the gunshots at the next door neighbors' house, as the traitor police make entry and the law-abiding homeowner is forced to defend himself, his family, his property and his rights. They may be woken up by the neighbor they turned in using the "Report your local rifle owner" hotline. Either one of these may become fairly common occurrences, along with SWATting.
- Given that most Americans do not even have the hearts or fortitude for long protracted violent engagements on the other side of the world, and have shown a great reticence to defend their own nation against enemies, foreign and domestic, for how long is it likely they will have it for door-to-door operations in their own neighborhood? I suspect not for long.
I would hope this scenario is just a cautionary tale of how some small-minded, egotistical authoritarian figures might do the wrong thing and the price that might be paid for it by the rest of us. But the increasingly tyrannical drumbeat to demonize law-abiding Americans will not end well.
No comments:
Post a Comment