Self defense opponents frequently argue that they are for not for banning guns. Heavens no! They are merely for "reasonable" regulations. And who could oppose reasonable regulations? Only irrational gun nuts, that's who!
But the true goal of many "reasonable regulation" proponents is not reasonable regulation. Their true goal is a complete ban.
They can't advocate a complete ban right now of course--it would arouse too much political opposition. So they propose a thousand "reasonable regulations", each of them by themselves ever so small and "reasonable". But each increases the cost of owning a gun by a little bit more in time and money.
But suppose you're willing to pay the upfront cost of time and money. Are you willing to take the legal risk? Remember that in many cases, you face felony conviction for violating one of the hundreds of "reasonable" regulations. A felony conviction often means the loss of your job, jailtime, and the right to vote. Are you willing to take that risk?
Eventually, you end up with thicket of law so costly to penetrate that none but the most determined, wealthy, politically connected can afford to breach it.
Such a situation already exists in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. While it's technically legal to own a gun in those cities, if you're not a movie star or crony of the mayor, you will find it almost impossible to get a permit to actually carry it in self defense. Poor and black? Fuggetaboutit.
With time, the people forget they have the pro forma right of self defense in the first place. At that point, it's a simply matter to execute the final coup de grace on gun ownership. After all, who owns a gun these days, what with all the hassle involved?
“It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
-– Alexis de Tocqueville
But the true goal of many "reasonable regulation" proponents is not reasonable regulation. Their true goal is a complete ban.
They can't advocate a complete ban right now of course--it would arouse too much political opposition. So they propose a thousand "reasonable regulations", each of them by themselves ever so small and "reasonable". But each increases the cost of owning a gun by a little bit more in time and money.
But suppose you're willing to pay the upfront cost of time and money. Are you willing to take the legal risk? Remember that in many cases, you face felony conviction for violating one of the hundreds of "reasonable" regulations. A felony conviction often means the loss of your job, jailtime, and the right to vote. Are you willing to take that risk?
Eventually, you end up with thicket of law so costly to penetrate that none but the most determined, wealthy, politically connected can afford to breach it.
Such a situation already exists in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. While it's technically legal to own a gun in those cities, if you're not a movie star or crony of the mayor, you will find it almost impossible to get a permit to actually carry it in self defense. Poor and black? Fuggetaboutit.
With time, the people forget they have the pro forma right of self defense in the first place. At that point, it's a simply matter to execute the final coup de grace on gun ownership. After all, who owns a gun these days, what with all the hassle involved?
“It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
-– Alexis de Tocqueville