While I support anyone who will work to protect a person’s God-given right to self protection and the right to choose how one should be able to protect themselves, I cannot, with a straight face, allow for the concession of a right to keep and bear arms while fighting against an absurd, fascist attempt to rid the state of Maine and others from gun ownership.
Question 3 isn’t about so-called (fake) universal background checks before a gun can be purchased, swapped or loaned. It’s about gun registry, as are background checks of any kind. Once guns are registered, the fascist government (the United States) will know how many and of what kinds of guns you own when they come to confiscate them. If you understand that principle, then simply supporting a background check – the only ones who get them are law-abiding citizen-subjects – is advocating for the destruction of a person’s right to protect themselves and their choice to do so. If you do not understand this principle, then you are one of the blinded who think “reasonable” prohibitions to the Second Amendment are necessary and proper, and while appearing to be a supporter of such a right, in reality, you are a contributor to its destruction, and ultimately, of yourself.
An example of this is found in articles published in Maine newspapers. I applaud the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s executive director, David Trahan, for his relentless work in trying to ward off a fascist billionaire, ordered by his bosses to come to Maine and stir up as much havoc as can possibly be done in order to pit people against each other, while at the same time, attempting to destroy the Second Amendment. However…..
I see things a bit differently. Make no mistake, I vehemently oppose Michael Bloomberg’s effort. I also vehemently oppose gun registries of any kind. The requirement of a background check, even though we are lied to that the information used in a Federal Background Check is not retained for further use, is nothing more than a gun registry.
The Bangor Daily News carries an opinion piece from David Trahan. Trahan is not the only one fighting against Question 3 that indicates they would support background checks for private gun sales in Maine. Trahan writes: “The reason we strongly oppose Question 3 is because it includes firearm “transfers” as well as sales.” Let’s not kid ourselves. What this statement means is that if Bloomberg’s Question 3 did not included background checks on “transfers” they would support it. That is unfortunate.
The limitations and destruction of any and all rights, inalienable or government granted, all come from concession and compromise. Fascists like Michael Bloomberg, and the totalitarians that follow him, want to be the dictators of what, if any, rights and privileges people have. One reason they continue in their onslaught of human rights is because they know that with each proposal they gain something because the opposition thinks offering up a concession or a compromise will appease the lion and that the lion will go away – only until such time that it is hungry again. That’s how it works and that is how promoting such behavior at any level is supporting your own self destruction. It makes little sense.
Maine needs to stop Question 3. However, if that should happen, the lion will return again because, if nothing else, it has learned that they can easily win another limit, a regulation, with a person’s loss of right to buy and sell a firearm but not a transfer….this time.
Which will come first? The loss of the right to loan a gun to a friend, or the right to keep and bear arms. At some point, this continued ceding of inalienable rights will end in the all out prohibition of anyone’s right to keep and bear arms…well, except the fascists who make the laws and force them onto everyone else but themselves.
Oppose Question 3, but oppose all efforts to limit your right. It’s what works.
