Hi, I was thinking the other day - progressively harsher regulation of firearms cannot continue forever. It has to reach a stable point eventually. So what do you think the endgame will be? Personally I feel, especially outside the US, the long term policy will end up being a ban on all repeating weapons. Not semi-automatic. Repeating. As in, the firearm can hold multiple rounds - no need to put in a new round every shot. A single barrel shotgun is a good example of a non-repeater. You shoot it, you open the firearm and put in another shell. Why stop here? Well, they're never going to get rid of some sort of firearm ownership for farmers and primary producers. It simply won't be possible to farm without some sort of firearm or more primative weapon which performs the same function. It is not possible to run a farm without varmint control. So, the endgame policy I see as likely is as such: -Ban on all repeating firearms. No more handguns, bolt action rifles, etc. -Strict licenses only for verified farmers with verified varmint issues. No sporting licenses. -Ban on all centrefire rifles except in exceptional circumstances. Rimfire only. -Ban on handloading. -Bans on social media for discussing firearms. -Restrictions on hand to hand combat. Amputations for those who are too proficient (lol ok so maybe not this one hehe) What do you think? Where will it settle down and remain?
The anti-gun left does not judge the success of gun laws by the amount they reduce crime, but by the number of people who choose to not exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
There is no specific "endgame" to actually be had with firearm-related restrictions, as they are nothing more than a single part in a much larger, much wider goal. That goal being to eliminate the notion of self-reliance, and instead make the populace of any particular nation completely dependent upon their government for everything, as if they were nothing more than infants who must ask for permission before doing anything. In countries that have severely restricted private firearms ownership and use, the right to self defense has been severely curtailed to the point where injuring an assailant automatically makes the victim guilty of assault. Furthermore the carrying and possession of any implement in public that can be constituted as a weapon is seriously punished. Even possession of a kitchen knife within the home constitutes brandishing an offensive weapon if used against another individual.
In a rape situation your best defense is ******** your pants and vomitting to deter the rapist. This is why we have the highest rape rate in the OECD. Women are disarmed to all the way down to rape. They would take your hands if they could.
None of the above in the U.S. I can see a ban on semi-automatic rifles possibly coming about, but it wouldn't last long.
What is the gun apologist end game? Obviously, they want to undermine public safety and make it easy for criminals to obtain firearms. They also want children to have guns. How far will they go?
Totally false, law abiding gun owners want criminals sent to prison for lengthy terms for gun possession, however bleeding heart liberals oppose that idea at every turn, as such, it is those liberals who are truly the ones who want to arm criminals not gun owners. But as an anti-gunner you would never accept such a fact.
It has already been revealed through studies that the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California have made absolutely no difference in the rates of criminal misuse of a firearm, and have done nothing to benefit "public safety" to any meaningful degree. The matter aside, the united state supreme court ruled in Heller that the scope of the second amendment was not subject to a judicial interest balancing test against the vague concept of "public safety".
Nothing like a continued repetition of the Left’s demonizing propaganda and demonstrating a complete ignorance of the motives of guns rights advocates. After all the posting you’ve done, you have completely missed it, most likely a deliberate dedication to ignorance. Hint; the motivation isn’t focused on guns ownership/carry as an end game, but sees the issue as a canary.
The anti gun movement and the violent criminal elements-have much in common-and both see armed citizens as their most serious enemy.
"It has to reach a stable point eventually." 'Stable' is not what I would call this movement... The logical conclusion is anything but.
All their laws and yet across the pond the Czechs have lower rates of gun homicides and mass shootings despite: 1. Shall issue concealed carry. 2. Legal Modern Sporting Rifles 3. Self defense as a justification for firearm ownership. 4. 270,000 people packing heat walking around Prague. Clearly the issue of gun violence has more to do with the people holding the gun than prohibition.