I actually saw a bit of commentary on this recently that made a good point, namely that the people claiming to be most concerned about the government coming to take their guns are the ones most opposed to any sort of national gun registry, because "that'll tell them where their targets are": the question is, if you think that owning a personal firearm is an effective defense against a tyrannical government, wouldn't such a registry serve as a deterrent against such government action? Wouldn't that tell them who not to mess with? And the more guns someone has officially on the books, the greater the deterrent?To Far Away Times wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:09 am People daydreaming of a heroic Clint Eastwood standoff against the might of the US Military should probably not be the ones deciding our children’s fate at schools.
Not to mention, of course, that when it comes to the government deploying the military against its own citizens, one of the two major party candidates has explicitly promised to do just this, and I guarantee that nearly all of the Gadsden flag-waving crowd will be eagerly voting for that candidate and the party obediently backing him straight down the ticket; for all their constant "slippery slope" arguments in this case they're all too willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt that it would only ever take such action against, y'know, those people.