04-05-2017, 12:55 AM
(04-05-2017, 12:37 AM)hollodero Wrote: That I do not get. Confiscation would be a clear breach of your Constitution, that's not likely at all. If you think confiscation is on the table, I would like to know where this perception comes from. You said some reality, so what reality?
Much like anti-abortionists, the goal isn't to accomplish abolishment in a single stroke, it's more of a death by a thousand cuts. One need look no further than the most recent presidential election, in which Hillary stated openly that the Australian model of confiscation was something, "worth looking at". First you make one class of firearms illegal, after all, who needs military style "assault weapons". After you get that passed you focus on the next target, any semi-automatic magazine fed long gun. California is a perfect example of this. Who needs magazines that hold more than ten rounds, let's ban them, but let those already in possession stay with their owners, after making a promise never to confiscate these, "grandfathered" magazines. Fast forward to 2016 and those grandfathered magazines are banned and must be confiscated or the owner is now a felon. California has a handgun registry that is intentionally designed to shrink with every passing year, the goal isn't to promote safety as stated, it is to eliminate private firearm ownership.
Yes, you are right that under DC v. Heller the right of private citizens to own a firearm for self defense is upheld. But the SCOTUS is not set in stone, hence the extreme importance attached to the ability to nominate SC justices. I totally get why people in countries that don't have firearms ownership don't get the American desire to own a gun. Having grown up around them they aren't odd or scary, but I understand how some would perceive them as such.
