A trouble with the scenario of a "temporary" confiscation of weapons from private citizens is that temporary would become permanent. Never in history has a government taken weapons out of the hands of private citizens and then returned them
Nuke,
I hear ya'!!
But I also know that while they may confiscate one of my present weapons and "lose" it, unless I'm a criminal, I'll have the ability to buy a new one later on. Let there be no misunderstanding of my position, I'm a firm believer and advocate of gun ownership by responsible indidividuals. I concur that ownership of weapons by the common person has been a great deterent to our being successfully invaded or becoming innocent victims to criminals. (The wife and I "cheer" when we hear of some thug meeting his end by the hand of his intended victim. I call it purging the gene pool...:0)
It is incumbent that we keep in mind that any martial law will be temporary and those who managed and supervised it will have to answer later on for any violations of individual civil rights perpetrated.
Martial Law permits a temporary suspension of individual civil rights, whether we like it or not. So we must suffer through it, make as few non-essential "waves" as necessary, and provide as little excuse as possible to maintaining military rule.
Then the Rule of Law can be re-established and any abusive leadership, dealt with.
So when Street talks about not turning over his weapons to the authorities when his, and everybody elses, civil rights have been suspended, is a dangerous and confrontation stance.
Regards,
Ron |
