Massachusetts is considering a law to make it illegal, with a 5 year prison sentence, to have more than fifteen guns within the Commonwealth. This is where one-gun-a-month and restrictive licensing will lead if we allow it to happen here.
7 thoughts on “Where Rationing Will Lead”
Comments are closed.
Massachusetts never ceases to amaze me. I really wish we could just give trade New England to Canada, in return for some of the sparsely populated hunting an fishing spots further west. That’d be a fair trade. They get the Red Sox and the Patriots, we get some great walleye fishing in Ontario.
“restrictive licensing” ???????
This is redundant. We need to work towards abolishing all forms of licensing or registration of our firearms.
The ass-bags in Washington don’t need to know squat.
I am steadfastly opposed to any licensing of gun ownership. That shouldn’t be read as insinuating there’s a type of licensing of gun ownership that I’d accept.
What was that revolting thing that happened at Lexington and Concord about again? Oh, that’s right! It was about confiscating the citizens guns at the armory.
My how the times have changed!
They might as well become a province of France.
France wouldn’t have them.
This legislation reminds me of the “Brady II” bill which most people don’t remember today. Brady II died an unlamented death as it fell into the gap between passage of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban and the devastation of the Democratic party in the 1994 elections. Infamously that scumbag Schumer described Brady II as “the rest of the camel” as compared to the ‘camels nose’ of the Brady I anti-gun law.
One aspect I recall of the Brady II law was an ‘arsenal liscense’ provision, that required anyone with 10 or more guns or anyone with 1000 or more rounds of ammunition to acquire a Federal ‘arsenal liscence’ at the cost of $300 dollars which expired after 3 years duration.