Governments bent on denying things to their subjects often find that it’s easier to make ownership prohibitively expensive rather than an outright ban. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
Bans are problematic when the thing being targeted is already in wide circulation. Gun being an obvious example. They can decree no new sales but what about the ones already sold – already possessed – by literally millions of people?
Door-to-door confiscation risks physical resistance and is logistically difficult regardless. It is much easier and equally effective to not ban possession of guns outright but rather to require that those who wish to continue continue possessing them pay for the privilege.
That they pay a lot for it. Not just once, either.
An annual registration fee, for instance. With the threat of criminal repercussions for failure to pay, if discovered (as during a “routine” traffic stop, for instance).
Also make ammunition expensive – as via heavy taxes. Not illegal, per se. Just generally unaffordable.
Presto! You have banned without actually banning.
This method will likely be applied to cars that aren’t electric cars and – most particularly – cars that are not modern cars; i.e., those without built-in spyware (marketed as “apps” and “concierge services”) which present the threat – to the electric car agenda – of being an alternative to them.
The electric car agenda is about more than just electric cars. It is about connected cars – and electric cars are the apotheosis of connectedness.
The source of motive power is almost incidental to the fact that the powers-that-be can remotely control a connected electric car. Its range, for example, can be increased over-the-wire via a “software update.” It ought to be obvious what this implies. If the range can be extended, it can also be reduced.
They can revoke the Second Amendment and they’re still not going to come close to getting rid of America’s guns, especially with 3D printing. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
The next round of COVID-19 relief could bring up to $1,400 direct payments to millions of Americans. Some people will buy food, save money, pay rent or bills. Others will gamble in the stock market. Some may take the free money and print an entire 3D gun at home. According to Futurism, it now only costs $350 to print to a firearm, including the printer’s cost.
Deterrence Dispensed, an online group that promotes and distributes open-source 3D-printed firearms, has designed a fully functional 3D-printable semiautomatic pistol caliber carbine. Designs for the FGC-9, which stands for “f**k gun control 9 mm,” were made widely available on the internet in late 2020.
The FGC-9 eliminates the need for factory-made gun parts. Its design was created with careful consideration for anyone, at any skill level, to produce the firearm at home with a 3D-printer. From the body of the weapon to the magazine, much of the gun can be printed. The FGC-9’s barrel, which is metal and cannot be printed with a typical 3D printer, is created through electrochemical machining.
Futurism states that the total cost of the weapon is $350, including a $250 printer and $100 in parts.
Millions of people have watched the riots on TV and realize if they come to a venue near them, pepper spray just isn’t going to cut it. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:
It’s increasingly clear to even the average American that if riots come to your neighborhood, you’re on your own. The message received is increasingly be this: if your plan is to wait until the police show up to provide “protection,” be prepared to wait a long time. Consequently, as violence appears to surge in America’s cities, millions of Americans have become first-time gun owners.
Government Officials Aren’t Keeping Us “Safe”
There are two trends at work which are making Americans doubt that government law enforcement is reliable and effective.
On the one hand, the public is witnessing nightly displays of looting, rioting, and general civil unrest. At the same time, many police officers don’t appear particularly able or willing to defend the public against looters and rioters. Homicide rates in New York, for example, have surged among accusations of a “police slowdown.” A number of police departments (including those in Los Angeles and Atlanta) are rumored to be using strategies such as the “blue flu” in which police personnel pretend to be ill as a negotiating tactic for obtaining political favors from lawmakers. But even when police personnel are able, there are not enough of them in most cases to truly address the ongoing nightly violence in many cities. And in some cases, elected officials, like in Portland and Chicago, appear uninterested in confronting rioters with much enthusiasm at all.
It easy to see how ordinary Americans could look on current events with increasing alarm. On August 29, a man was allegedly murdered by at least one protestor among the many who have been protesting, rioting, and looting in Portland for more than three months. Two weeks ago, a truck driver sustained serious injuries, also in Portland, when he was attacked by a group of “protestors” while reportedly attempting to help a woman who was being robbed. Last week in Kenosha, protestors were seen attacking a teenager who had been attempting to protect businesses from looting and vandalism. The teen reportedly opened fire in self-defense. In Washington, DC, a mob threatened restaurant patrons, and in Minneapolis, dozens of businesses have been burned and looted.
When the shit really hits the fan, you’re going to want guns, lots of guns. Just ask anybody who was in LA for the Rodney King riots (I was). From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:
We should all be ready to do our duty as American citizens and, when duty calls, each of us should embrace our inner Rooftop Korean.
The year was 1992, 27 years ago right about now, and the city was Los Angeles. Several police officers who got into a videotaped brawl with a petty criminal named Rodney King were acquitted of beating him up. The city exploded. It was chaos.
I was a first-year law student, back a year from the Gulf War, and I had just joined the California Army National Guard. My unit was the 3rd Battalion, 160th Infantry, and we got called up early the first night and were on the streets for three long weeks. Making it even more delightful was the fact that the unit was in Inglewood, which was pretty much on fire. They burned most everything around, except our armory – that would have gone badly for them – and the Astro Burger.
My battalion commander grabbed then-First Lieutenant Schlichter, and we went all over the city in his humvee as he led his deployed and dispersed troops. Our soldiers came, in large part, from the areas most effected by the riots, and they were notably unpleasant to the thugs and criminals who quickly discovered our guys had no patience for nonsense. One dummy discovered that the hard way when he tried to run over some Guard soldiers from another battalion; he had a closed casket funeral.
The city went insane. Order simply ceased to exist. It was Lord of the Flies. I remember a cop totally breaking down because everything was completely out of control.
They’re not your protectors if they’re eating you.
Bruno walks into a neighborhood shop and threatens the shopkeeper with unspecified “bad things” if the shopkeeper doesn’t fork over $200 a week. The shopkeeper pays. If Bruno runs a “legitimate” protection racket, bad things don’t happen.
You can skip a class, indeed an entire four-year program in political theory, if you realize that governments are everywhere and always protection rackets. Fork over money and personal freedom and the state will protect you from bad things, specified or otherwise. Sometimes the state aligns itself with a deity or deities, demanding not just money and obedience but worship, too.
What if the shopkeeper pays Bruno, but his shop is still beset with burglaries? What if he discovers that Bruno is the burglar? The shopkeeper faces the same quandary as billions of people who are subjugated by governments: they need protection from their protection rackets. The protector has dropped all pretense of protection and has become a predator.
When the Soviet Union conducted its first successful atomic bomb test on August 29, 1949, it undercut the protection-racket rationale for governments. No one realized it at the time, but how can you run a protection racket if you can’t protect those you’re purportedly protecting from annihilation? Perhaps that wasn’t the case in 1949―the US still had a lead in nuclear armaments―but by 1955, when the Soviets detonated their first hydrogen bomb, it was clear that all either the Soviet or American government could offer its people was assured destruction of the other side, and most likely their own, in the event of an attack.
Posted in Civil Liberties, Collapse, Crime, Cronyism, Debt, Economics, Government, Military, Politics
Tagged Firearms, Predators, Resistance, Saprophytes
When the Second Amendment goes, the rest of the Bill of Rights will be right behind. From Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com:
The United Nations is gearing up for round two in the fight to disarm the American public. Last month, the United Nations’ International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) held a week-long conference geared towards making gun control an international priority.
Wanting world domination, the global elites are seeking to prevent Americans from being able to escape the slavery they have planned for everyone by enacting “global gun control.” According to Townhall‘s Beth Baumann, during RevCon3, the conference on the program of action on small arms and light weapons, the UN’s Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres had a message delivered on his behalf. It reads, in part:
Every year, over half a million people are killed violently around the world, mostly through small arms fire.
Those pulling the trigger may be soldiers, border guards or police, using their weapons as a last resort, in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality and restraint. Some are private security guards or civilians, using a registered firearm for protection or in self-defence.
But the huge majority of those who kill with small arms do not fit this description. They may be members of armed groups who are terrorizing people of a country or a whole region with killings and sexual abuse. They could be members of national security forces who are abusing their power. They might be terrorists aiming to destroy lives and sow fear; criminals holding up a grocery store; or gang members killing those who get in the way of a drug deal.
Tragically, many of them are men using an illegally-acquired weapon against the women who are their partners. In some countries, more than 60 percent of killings of women are committed with firearms.
Illicit small arms are also used against United Nations peacekeeping forces. In 2017, 56 peacekeepers died in violent attacks – the highest number in over two decades.
Controlling and regulating small arms therefore requires action that goes well beyond national security institutions. It includes providing alternative livelihoods for former combatants, engaging with municipal governments and police, working with civil society, including grass-roots organizations and community violence reduction programmes, as well as local businesses.
To continue reading: World Domination: UN Continues Fight To Disarm All Americans