Oookkkaayyy... First, let's address confiscation.
Quote:
con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.
|
Confiscation is 1 of 3 equally bad options.
1) Turn it over to the government forever.
2) Disable and/or turn it over to the government so that it be made effectively useless.
3) Get rid of it.
The NET EFFECT is the loss of the inherent right of ownership. "Confiscation" in this sense really is a confiscation of the RIGHT, and not so much the property at question. Would be similar to being restricted to practice religion for 15 minutes on Sunday morning. It makes the right toothless, and hence an effective confiscation.
Next let's discuss whether it's the law called the SAFE ACT or a different law... while it would matter if I were to go to the proper legislation branch of NY and sit down and work out a new law, repeal the old, etc... IT DOES NOT matter if it's call the "Blue Banana" law or the "Sugar and Spice" law or the "blah blah blah..." Frankly, calling it a SAFE law is a misnomer. Just like the nicknames give to many laws - the "Assault Weapon Ban" was technically probably something else. But EVERYONE knew what you were talking about.
Whether SAFE actually kicked this off, or just accelerated the enforcement, who the heck actually cares.
The END result is that in NOVEMBER 2013, residences of the friendly city of liberty are receiving Nazi-style letters to turn over or destroy or remove private property and effectively 'surrender' their liberties to the Constitution. I do think it is akin to Nazi-ism. I value my 2nd Amendment right more than nearly anything. And the Nazis used the exact same tactics. Identified Jews. Isolated Jews. Then took Jews away.
Perhaps it is not due to the SAFE act. Perhaps this 'began' a year or 10 years ago. Does that make it any less relevant, personal, or important?
I think folks are missing the bigger picture.
Quote:
|
conjecture and emotional appeals
|
Does it really matter to the person surrendering a life collection of guns, or sending them out of state at a significant expense, or moving out of state also at a significant expense, whether it was due to the SAFE or another law, both unfair?