The anti-gun rhetoric continues, and no we are NOT getting behind any anti-gun anything, at any point, ever. Some ideas are harsher than others are, but make no mistake: The end result is still the same. What is anti-gunner's main goal?
I suppose it depends upon who you ask, but to me, confiscation is their ultimate goal. I believe they hate guns and gun owners. So, if that's the case, how could confiscation not be their goal at some point?
On the surface many of these ideas seem OK by design, because, after all, nobody wants innocent death. To those not in the know, what we're about to dissect seems to be common sense. But, it's not, ever. Each anti-gun idea is designed to deteriorate the freedom of the People, under the guise of saving lives.
What is it?
It's called the Gun Violence Restraining order, and this most recent idiocy comes right out of San Diego, close to El Cajon, the former jurisdiction of our resident police officer, Matthew Maruster. I'll share some quotes from a conversation I had with Matthew in just a bit, but first, let me lay this out so you understand its stupidity. Keep in mind going forward that this is something already in place in San Diego, and the author of a WaPo article says, and I quote,
Here’s a gun-control measure both sides can get behind …
I've never gotten behind any gun control measure because it's that slippery slope Jacob spoke about. Once they take something away and find out it doesn't work, they'll look for something else to take away. That process will continue, as it's done in other countries, until there are only bolt-actions and a few revolvers left.
Which, as I shared in the top of this article, is the goal. But, they can't start there, it has to start somewhere else. Somewhere much smaller and more tolerable. Where better for it to start than with the Gun Violence Restraining Orders that my source article (linked to below) describes? From here on out, I'll just call this monstrosity a GVRO.
I urge you strap in because this is going to be a long, debunking gun control article where I tackle most of what she states in her piece. Ready? Let's get started …
Supported by both sides:
The author claims in the article that the GVRO is supported by both sides. And, while it may sound nice and fluffy on the surface, it's broken and severely flawed because the only way it works is with gun registration. If any gun owners are on board with such a potential piece of legislature (not that it's in process right now), they're bound to change their minds when they realize, according to a former El Cajon (in San Diego County) police officer:
… registration is a huge component of it. If not, the cops are just going on a wild goose chase. With the registration, at least if the complaintant says ‘guy has a gun' and the records show that guy has a gun registered to him, there is some corroborating evidence to seek a warrant if need be. Without the registration, it is completely he said she said, and there is no way to know a) if the guy really owns a gun b) what kind or how many c) if you got them all.
My friends, he's speaking from experience because he's done similar things when he worked there. Read that again: registration is a huge component of it. I can claim with almost absolute certainty that if you are a gun owner and supported this before, you no longer do because nobody wants their guns registered. If you still support it, I allege that you're a liar and own zero guns, or just a few relics and have never been serious about the Second Amendment.
They obtained 15 GVROs:
Okay, good. You got 15 Gun Violence Restraining Orders against people. What the article does not state, is how many people, in total, were reported as needing this special treatment. Why does this matter? Because, if there were 15 people who needed a GVRO, and 15 GVROs were issued, that's a potential problem.
Why? Because that's a show of extreme bias. If 15 people were selected, and all 15 got the restraining orders, someone hates guns and/or those gun owners. That changes if 100 people were originally slated and 15 got the GVROs, but until we know the exact numbers, that could just show potential bias against gun owners. And then, Matthew had this to say:
But we all know that no judge is going to refuse one of these orders even without compelling evidence. No one wants to be on the news as the judge who let a shooting happen. That’s the same thing that happens with domestic violence restraining orders. They are just used often time to harass the other person.
No way to know:
Seriously, the article says that there is no way to prove how well this is working. In other words, they are running blindly towards a goal they have no clue will work, but let's write an article about it and hope nobody reads that sentence.
Okay, I'm done being a wise arse for the moment, but in all seriousness, there is no way to measure the outcome of the GVRO because nobody has yet committed a crime! If you don't see a problem with that, I conclude that you are a part of the problem. Due process goes out the window, and this turns into a society where you are guilty until proven innocent. That is not what our Constitution states.
In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this sort of thing actually does not work. I mean, it didn't in Parkland, and look what happened there.
The shooting that took place in Parkland is a real-world scenario that happened, and in Florida they have a similar system in place, though it seems a bit different. Guess what? The law enforcement officers failed to do their job and then all those innocent people died. If it did work, we wouldn't even be having this talk right now.
If I were him, I'd have done this:
Okay, so they issued a GVRO based on a statement a man made that he'd kill some people. Again, from the front this looks like a common sense thing, but let me explain why this could be bad. In the world of deadly force you need a threat to become immanent before you can pull your weapon out in defense of yourself. Meaning that, people just saying they're going to hurt you is not enough to actually “defend yourself” against an individual. You have to believe beyond doubt that your life is in danger. Words alone don't do that.
Apparently, that's not a thing when taking away someone's rights. All you have to do is make a few comments and BOOM! rights gone.
Do I believe the police should have looked into what that man said? Absolutely, because as we've said earlier, there is no way to know if their process is working. But, what if the guy made a joke? It's a sick joke, sure, but what if he had no intent to kill people and his rights were taken away just based on something stupid he said? Which, leads me to my next point …
What about the Internet?
This is another thing we've spoken about heavily in the past. We caught some grief for it, but we stand firm on what we believe, and that is this: What you say on the World Wide Web can come back and bite you in the arse at a later date. Period.
Well, damn. What if I made a statement on Facebook: Good, that sucker got what came to him! One more taken off the street!
Or, what if I said, I woulda killed that fool. He needs to die, would someone just kill him already!? (Let me clarify that I'd not say such things, but I'm trying to put it in context)
Is that enough to take away someone's rights in San Diego or anywhere else something like this becomes law? If so, that sucks because most people have no intention to kill others. They like to just talk a big game. So, are we then taking people's rights away based on a comment they made on social media?
While it sounds crazy, let's not forget that other people had their guns taken away based on something they had said, without actually committing any crimes. To think that it could apply to things we say on the Internet isn't that far-fetched.
Responsible gun owners are OK:
Many Second Amendment advocates recognize that this approach strikes a good balance and that responsible gun owners should have nothing to fear.
Alright, if we have nothing to fear, riddle me this Batman: Who decides which of us are responsible gun owners? I mean, in the article the author states that some guns were taken away from people based on what they said alone. I know I've said some stupid things in the past but consider myself to be responsible. Would they look at me as if I wasn't responsible based on something I've said in the past? Or, because of a slip of the tongue when I say something I don't necessarily mean?
Maybe the intentions are clean, but it still makes me uneasy. And, then again, you have a start to something but where does it stop? With gun confiscation? I'll keep my guns, thanks.
You'll be hard-pressed to find any Second Amendment supporters who get behind any gun control. If they are actual gun owners, and not a plant made to look good by the gun-grabbers, then they are unapologetically pro-gun in any circumstances. While I'm sure they're out there, I've never met someone who started life pro-gun and then went anti-gun.
In fact, it's quite the opposite. A lot of people start out as anti-gun and come over to the light side of the force as they realize that self-defense is a fundamental right and the best way to protect yourself is with the same, or better, tool than your opponent has.
In other words, if your attacker has a gun, you want a gun, too, so you can properly defend yourself. Conversely, if your attacker has a knife, you still want a gun. If your attacker is in better shape, you want a gun. Once folks realize that, as well as the fact that guns are just tools that can in no way by themselves hurt anyone, and that the Second Amendment is a law written down by our founding fathers to guarantee a God-given right, they hop on board.
There is no gun control measure most of us are willing to give in to. After all, we are on a very slippery slope. Our freedoms are already being eroded one at a time, and it needs to stop. Do you agree with me, or am I wrong?
Here is the source article: