The other issues are a moot point. The country is in shambles. "Civil unrest" is seeming more and more likely as the numerous divisions of our citizens split everyone further and further. Having the ability to defend oneself is more pressing than anything regarding fiscal policy and responsibility.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
NRA: Garland confirmation will lead to gun confiscation
- Thread starter trucker777
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The other issues are a moot point. The country is in shambles. "Civil unrest" is seeming more and more likely as the numerous divisions of our citizens split everyone further and further. Having the ability to defend oneself is more pressing than anything regarding fiscal policy and responsibility.
This isn't the first time the country has been threat with civil unrest. And to be honest, it doesn't rank very high at all considering other instances. In other words, the sky isn't falling, so we can give attention to other issues besides the second amendment.
Smirconish interviewed someone about Garland, and it turns out he knows him personally. Bottom line he said the guy tends to favor precedence, establishment, and law enforcement, but would certainly move the court left as an incrementalist. On gun control, he said a lot of what's been said says more than reality bears. He would probably tend towards the anti-gun side. The interviewee doubted Garland would vote to overturn Heller, however. But if other decisions incrementally moved precedence in that direction, he could probably vote then to overturn it.
No, confiscation would be insanely easy if you had the right plan. Grandfather all current owners, and make them declare their firearms. Upon death, their firearms go to the state for destruction. If a person is found with an unregistered firearm, that's a charge. If you know of someone with an unregistered arm, and report them, you get $100 for each firearm recovered.
See, easy. People running govt aren't idiots. If those in charge wanted to be tyrants, they easily could. There simply aren't enough liberty minded people anymore to put up a good fight.
I don't know what you mean but I see you didnt make a wager.
It's like in chess when the threat of action is often more useful than actually taking the action.
I don't think desire is stopping them from confiscation. Well maybe their desire to be perceived as powerful. Australia comes to mind. I don't think it's benevolence which stays their hand.
Which issues take precedence here?
Last edited:
You seen to have this all figured out... Which side are you on?
Last edited:
He's the residential lib, unfortunately I still see his posts when quoted.
Was that a bet? I have no idea how you see it working, but ok, let's bet on something hypothetical that hasn't been put into motion.
I don't think govt wants to disarm us, we're very far away from that point, but I do think "they" and that's both parties would be ok with restricting us.
