Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
on a local scale, if SF bans guns, like I said, you will not see a violent resistance mainly because there are still places that the gunowner, who refuses, can go to. The violent opposition we'll see is if it goes national. With no place left to go to, those that have had enough, will say 'enough'. Now, with that said, those localities will have to decide whether the loss of a tax base (depending on how many move out) was worth it, the rise in crime was worth it, or if it even worked at all. Local gun bans will not stop crime, violent or property, as evidenced in places like morton grove, evanston, and especially chicago IL. All it will do is allow the spread of rhetoric from gun grabbers saying that its easy weapons from (put any other location here) allowing crime to continue here, and the pressure will continue.
Now, not that i'm advocating a mass exodus for pro-gunners, I'm almost of the mindset that I think California, Illinois, and New Jersey should just outright ban guns, all of them. Let those who want to move out go to any other state, and see how the bans work out. Maybe that would show the anti's, once and for all, that gun bans don't work, but i'm afraid that it would just end up the same. They would start the rhetoric that only a national ban would work and we'd be at the same place we are now.
|
I understand, and you are probably right. Sun Tzu is careful to note in Art of War that you should not completely surround an enemy and give him no option to retreat, for he will have nothing to lose at that point and will fight most earnestly...the cornered cat concept. As long as you can move somewhere gun-tolerant without too much trouble, you aren't likely to put your life on the line--that is probably true.
I guess then the concern is that what if a national ban takes effect not as a sudden bill passed tomorrow, but as a creeping ban, as more and more cities, and then states, pass such bans. Is there a point at which the resistance will get critical mass, or will we be past the point of no return before we realize the problems. If each state truly had control over its national guard or some other form of community level organization could be employed to protect us from the next level up, that may substitute to some degree, but we don't have that, with the Feds having pretty completely consumed the N.G. structure into their own strategic thinking. Our only potential resistance exists within the arms that we as citizens have and possibly our police forces, which one would hope would have more loyalty to their municipalities than to the Federal Gov't.
I know I'm short on conclusions in this post, but I do think a lot of these are open items, at least as far as I am concerned personally. I'm apt to let S.F., Chicago, or even states do what they want right now either to ban guns, or to promote responsible gun ownership, as I don't have a ready answer and as stated, at least as far as crime goes, I can't say they won't work, or that they are wrong for trying. I can say that while I don't choose to arm myself today, I am willing to pick up arms if necessary in defense of the Constitution, as I swore long ago, against all enemies foreign and domestic.