I'll never be on board with something like this. It's no less intrusive than a registration system, mandatory gun locks or safes, and just about any other form of gun control.
whole heartily agree
Forcing someone to own a firearm under color of law is not freedom folks.
i agree but to expect freedom without having to take some responsibility is a little silly to me. i do not feel this is the answer, though i did like the idea lot, i do not use the police for protection, just their other services, as a responsible gun owner.
That brings up a great point that I every once in a while find myself telling someone.
Laws. All laws, are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Now, mind that when I say, "ultimately", I mean in the utmost extreme. They are most certainly often enforced, and always backed up by "force", but ultimately, that force finds it's way to the point of a gun. Granted there are other methods. Tasers, batons, OC spray, etc... Remember, there are two basic ways of dealing with people.That is, diplomacy, and force. When force is used, it is the greater force that prevails.
Break down the most simple and basic of infractions, and take it to an extreme. In my example, I use the parking ticket. You decide that you are not accountable to that ticket, or it's authority. You'll not pay anything for it, be it time, labor, property, resources, or money. If they don't use force to enforce that ticket, then your lack of compliance will be the end of it, and nothing will ever happen. But, that isn't the way it works, is it. Wat was initially a $10 fine (okay, I know they aren't that cheap anymore, this is just an example) will eventually increase in price as a incentive/ coercion to pay it in a more timely fashion. That of course matters little to you since you've already decide that it's irrelevant. Eventually, they'll probably issue some sort of warrant or bench warrant for you. I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of the process, but rest assured, they will somehow come for you. Chances are it will be a traffic stop (cop probably ran your plates to see if he needed a reason to pull you over). But you don't submit to their authority, and therefore do not comply with the officers attempts to communicate to you that you pull over to the side of the road so he can arrest you.
Do you see where this is going folks? Eventually, if you refuse to comply, there will be some form of violent force employed against you. It may be slight, it may be great, but it will be used. In order to submit you, they must always use greater force (of course it is you who is escalating
that force. If only you would submit, they wouldn't have to increase the amount or type of force). If you resist, then the force is increased until your ability to use force is overwhelmed by theirs. Often times it's fire, but if you chose to defend yourself/fight back, then chances are they will have to use a gun.
Granted, this is an extreme, and over the top example. It's so far out past the fringe that I doubt even the fringe would want anything to do with anyone like that. I only use it for illustration. Laws are enforced by violence. Diplomacy is more often used, but make no mistake. That diplomacy is backed up by overwhelming, violent force.
Most people don't like hearing this. Truth is, they know (deep down inside), that they won't do it. They'll just send (pay) someone else to do their dirty work for them. Remember that next time you feel like shouting, "There ought to be a law...".
Do you really, truly want to force someone else (neighbor, friend, cousin, sister, mom, etc...) to buy a gun that they don't want? At the point of a gun?
Are you willing to walk into your daughter's (or anyone Else's) house with two M-4s, and point the first one at her while demanding that she pay for the second.?
Do you still want it to be a law? If you do, maybe you should be the one to go pick up two M-4s.