There are some stupid laws that you probably never heard about.
Politics and legislation seem inextricably combined. And the degree to which any fool or subversive who can claim citizenship is allowed to influence the combination, the less wisdom will emerge in the resulting law. I've noticed that I tend to use the word "stupid" a lot when writing about gun control. That's inevitable. I won't even try to break the habit.
If you agree with this statement: "Criminals won't break gun control laws because they don't want to go to prison," then congratulations, you're stupid. Do your country a favor and never vote again. Better still, go get yourself sterilized at the doctor's office before you pass on the genes for stupidity to a new generation of stupid people.
Despite all the penalties attached to the illegal possession and use of a firearm, or to the illicit trade in firearms, the majority of intentional, malicious career criminals find that having and using guns illegally is still a good deal, from their point of view. The reason is that what these criminals want to do was already illegal, and that the penalties for committing crimes were already fearsome—if they get caught.
In other words, having a gun doesn't add, proportionately speaking, much extra legal endangerment, but it does confer on the criminal the ability to evade apprehension by persons who are not as well armed as he is. And in a gun-control society, hardly anybody is as well armed as the criminal.
Quoted from another page.
The criminals have, you see, already adjusted mentally to the idea that they will be jailed if they are caught. The penalty for, say, robbing somebody of $1000 is already so stiff that any extra penalty resulting from the illegal possession of a gun doesn't make much difference to them. The big whammy of a gun control law falls on the honest people who, had they been permitted to carry guns, would have used them in self-defense or in defense of their loved ones or their property. That is why gun control is so INSANELY STUPID.
Even "moderate" gun-control measures are stupid, such as licensure. Do criminals bother with licenses? No. Certainly not. What, then, does licensure accomplish? It gives the government the chance to deny citizens permission to keep and bear arms, on one flimsy pretext or another. How about "background checks"? Criminals commonly steal their guns, or they buy them from blackmarket vendors who buy them from gun thieves or smugglers, and in either case, the criminal by-passes the mandated check. What, then, do background checks accomplish? They give the government the chance to deny citizens permission to keep and bear arms, on one flimsy pretext or another.
Does a common thread emerge from these "moderate" gun-control provisions? Might we be justified in anticipating that further gun control measures will also contain this feature? In any case, is it not unseemly for a free citizen to have to go crawling on his knees to a government authority in order to get its "blessing" for the exercise of one of his basic constitutional rights? Licensure and background checks give the lie to the notion that the 2nd Amendment has any real controlling influence on government power: You never need a special license to do what it is really your right to do.
That much is basic. But the stupidity of gun control laws often becomes positively absurd. Suppose that you're hunting on your own property, 800 feet from the house of your nearest neighbor. On a whim, you decide to shoot a bullet into the dirt near your car. Was it legal? It depends. If you were outside your vehicle when you fired the bullet, it might have been legal. If you were inside your vehicle, you committed a second degree felony, which is legally punishable by 5-10 years in prison. That's right: your gun, your bullet, your car, your dirt, nobody hurt—it's still illegal, with a big time penalty that common sense would dictate should be reserved for armed robbery.
Again. Let's say that you gave a pair of your handguns to your daughter and son-in-law as a wedding gift. They're both over 21, and neither of them has ever been arrested. Was it legal for you to give them your guns? It depends. If they are legal residents of the same state as you are, then it was probably legal. But if you live in Alabama, and they live in Georgia, then you have committed a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, punishable by a five year prison sentence. (However, if you die, then your relatives in another state can inherit your guns from you, according to the provisions of your Will.)
Wow. I bet you didn't know those things. There's a lot about gun control laws that you don't know. And most of those laws don't appear to serve the general welfare to (anywhere near) an extent that would justify their cost in terms of lost freedom. Moreover, these laws usually don't "make sense," meaning that you can't anticipate what has probably become illegal through your personal reflection on what ought to be illegal because of the harm it would cause if it were permitted.
I imagine that the "no shooting from inside a vehicle" law was passed ostensibly as an attempt to suppress drive-by shootings, always a popular sport among gangsters and city niggers. Jacob and Sarah Senatestein, declaring that the laws against assault and murder just weren't doing the job, decided to make it illegal for anyone to shoot a gun from a car, and that would fix things right up. Now, if you happen to be a killer, and you see your intended victim in a parking lot, you must get out of your own car first, before shooting him, so that you don't break the gun control law that says you can't shoot him while sitting inside the vehicle. How wise the law is.
Some of these gun control laws are so nonsensical that they appear to have been contrived and enacted mostly in order to give the government a pretext to arrest people on, upon which it may act or not, just as happens to be convenient to those powers that be.
What this means is that gun control has ALREADY GONE TOO FAR, and that many gun control laws that are presently in place must be repealed, and state constitutions amended to amplify (rather than contradict) the "keep and bear arms" provisions of the US constitution.
Gun control, where it isn't too obviously tyrannical, is a classic example of the sort of legislative "tragedy in the commons" that, in economic matters, turns Marxist countries into economic disaster areas. Fools outnumber sages in every country, and always will. And whenever any fool can vote, the resulting laws will tend to be foolish. This would be true even if the media weren't in the hands of subversive Jews.
When subversives control the media, however, the fools will have only sly misdirection to (dis)inform them on the relevant issues. The fools might mean well. They might be doing the best that they can. But it isn't good enough to save them from legal corruption and, ultimately, from government tyranny, which they eventually will get because they were tricked into voting for it.
It isn't wise to counsel people to break the law, even when George Washington and all the Founding Fathers would have done it. Such counsel can be construed as "conspiracy" to break the laws, and conspiracy has become illegal too. So I won't advise the breaking of gun control laws. If you know what I mean.