On the Happy Bachelors forum, JayJet talked about how much red tape law abiding people go through to get a gun. He then went on to say that, even though America is touted as "the land of the free and home of the brave", it's not. For a coup de grace, he said that, should you exercise your Second Amendment rights and actually use your gun to defend yourself, you'll have to spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees-all for your 'rights'.
I wrote him the following response below. Since I wrote it, of course it was brilliant; it was too brilliant to leave in the confines of the Happy Bachelors forum, so I'm posting it here for a wider audience. Enjoy!
WRT the Second Amendment, I would submit to you that it is ALREADY
GUTTED; de facto, it's already gone. How so? Thanks to the background
check. When you go to a gun shop and fill out your 4473, the salesman
will make a call. That call is to some remote, anonymous gov't
bureaucrat who will tell the salesman yes, he can sell you that shiny
new piece; or he'll tell the salesman no, he cannot sell you that piece.
I don't know about you, but that looks like seeking permission to me.
If you have to seek permission to do something, then you do not have the
RIGHT to do that something!
What is it that the DMV manual says about your driver license? It says
that it's privilege, not a right, correct? How does the DMV confer that
permission? Via the driver license. See what Black's Law Dictionary says
below when it defines 'license'. https://thelawdictionary.org/license/
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent
authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such
authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. State
v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 220; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am.
Rep. 054; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 4S2. 33 S. W. 843; Chicago v.
Collins, 175 111. 445. 51 N. E. 907, 49 L. R. A. 40S, 67 L. R. A. 224.
Also the written evidence of such permission. In real property law. An
authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon an- other’s land
without possessing any estate therein. Clifford v. O’Neill, 12 App.
Div. 17, 42 X. Y. Supp. 607; Davis v. Townsend, 10 Barb. (X. Y.) 343;
Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 282, 9 Am. Rep. 124; W.vnu v. Garland, 19
Ark. 23, 08 Am. Dec. 190; Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 266. Also
the written evidence of authority so accorded. It is distinguished from
an “easement.” which implies an interest in the land to be affected,
and a “lease,” or right to take the prolits of land. It may be. however,
and often, is. coupled with a grant of some interest iu the land
itself, or right to take the profits. 1 Washb. Real Prop. *398. In
pleading. A plea of justification to an action of trespass that the
defendant was authorized by the owner of the freehold to commit the
trespass complained of. In the law of patents. A written au- ?? thority
granted by the owner of a patent to WI LICENSE 724 LICERK another person
empowering the latter to make or use the patented article for a limited
period or in a limited territory. In international law. Permission
granted hy a belligerent state to its own subjects, or to the subjects
of the enemy, to carry on a trade interdicted by war. Wheat. Int. Law,
Whether going for a driver license, a CCL, or even to merely buy a gun,
the prospective gun owner must seek PERMISSION. Again, when you need to
seek permission for something, you do not have the RIGHT to do that
something! If we really enjoyed the right to own and use guns, we
wouldn't have to interface with the government at all, let alone seek
their permission, correct? Ergo, thanks to the background check, the
Second Amendment has already been taken away; unfortunately, most gun
owners are too stupid and/or ignorant to REALIZE this.
Those are my thoughts...