Wednesday, December 10, 2008

"Reasonable" Regulations?

Whenever the victim disarmament goons start trying to advocate their particular brand of evil, they almost always call for "reasonable" regulations or restrictions. In this way, they think they will paint anyone with the sense to oppose them as unreasonable. Sorry, you perverted, murderous monsters, I'm not falling for it. Not even if you lie and call your draconian edicts "common sense".

It seemed "reasonable" to many settlers (and to the US government) during the 1800s to kill indigenous people in the American west.

It seemed "reasonable" to some in America to imprison Japanese Americans during WWII.

It seemed "reasonable" to some in Germany to kill Jews in the concentration camps during that same era.

And today, it seems "reasonable" to some to prohibit private gun sales, or to ban guns based on how they look or how many bullets they fire when the trigger is pulled. Even to those traitors in our midst. It is only "reasonable" if the final goal is to kill those who would fight to stop you long as they are armed with effective weaponry. Well, guess what: Your "laws" won't protect you if you declare war on liberty; not even if the guns all magically vanish (which ain't gonna happen).

The only reasonable gun law is the Second Amendment, which makes it treason to advocate, pass, or enforce any restriction on gun ownership or possession. Yet, even its repeal won't alter the right to own and to carry arms one iota, in case the hoplophobes among us were plotting something.

Every time one of those mass-murder-fans opens its ignorant mouth to advocate "reasonable" restrictions, remember what they really are, and treat them as such.