Any real legitimate threat put out by the NRA?


PDA






slik pak
March 5, 2012, 12:47 PM
This seems to happen almost every presidential election year. I read Wayn'es comments about justice Ginsburg's statement regarding the constitution, as much as I detest her remarks, are there any real legitimate threats to the 2A?

I know some people ACTUALLY believe that the framers of the constitution meant that the 2A only applied to a well regulated state militia.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any real legitimate threat put out by the NRA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hypnogator
March 5, 2012, 01:28 PM
The major threat to our gun rights by an Obama re-election would be in case one of the pro-2nd Amendment judges on the Supreme Court would suddenly die or be incapacitated through illness. The liberal minority of justices have made it plain that they regard Heller as an aberration, and would vote to overturn or limit it in a heartbeat, and stare decisis be damned!

Moreover, the Obama administration has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar regarding Fast and Furious as being primarily designed to create additional evidence of gun trafficking to Mexico to justify additional restrictions on firearms purchases and possession in the U.S. For now, if they wish re-election, they must at least give the appearance of being moderate in regards to firearms legislation. Once re-elected for four years with no re-election constraints on their actions, they would be free to push a gun registration/assault weapons ban/UN Treaty strategy aimed at limiting 2nd Amendment rights. While some Democratic senators and congressmen (who do face future elections) might balk at such an agenda, there are genuinely serious risks to gun owners in an Obama re-election.

Awaiting thread lock ..... :uhoh:

slik pak
March 5, 2012, 01:34 PM
I'm so Pro 2A, but even if Obama got reelected, I would assume we would still have John Boehner on our side. I know he's on the legislative side, but he seems very pro 2A. After the Chardon highschool incident, Boehner said this incident wouldnt harm 2A.

Colonel
March 5, 2012, 01:57 PM
I read Wayn'es comments about justice Ginsburg's statement regarding the constitution, as much as I detest her remarks, are there any real legitimate threats to the 2A?

Both of the recent Supreme Court victories (Heller and McDonald) for the Second Amendment were 5-to-4 decisions.

In other words, if just one of those justices had voted the other way, the Second Amendment would have been hosed.

If he's re-elected, Obama will probably appoint betwen one and three MORE justices to the court.

If that's not a "legitimate threat to the 2A" then I don't know what would be!

Standing Wolf
March 5, 2012, 03:33 PM
If you don't think the "Justice" Department's operation Fast & Furious is a direct threat to the Second Amendment, I've got some lovely mountain property in Florida to sell you.

Has the NRA ever exaggerated in the past? Maybe a little. Is the NRA exaggerating these days? Not at all.

slik pak
March 5, 2012, 06:48 PM
So heres what I want to know. In the event that Obama gets reelected, can I absolutley kiss my 2A good bye? Even if Obama gets reelected, and even if he does appoint a new super liberal supreme court justice, and in the horrific event that a gun issue does get to the supreme court and it gets turned down, what will happen? States are supposed to be soveriegn.

Hypnogator
March 5, 2012, 07:28 PM
I don't think Obama's re-election would be an absolute disaster for the 2nd Amendment, but it wouldn't be good, either. We'll survive Obama, but we'll be a lot better off in a decade if he is a one-term wonder. ;)

PapaG
March 5, 2012, 07:32 PM
Unfortunate fact is that big O, Hillary, and the rest of the crowd including our thug Mayor of
Chikago, are all anti gun....that said, if reelected, O is now fireproof, meaning he can't be elected again so there is nothing to threaten him from doing anything he wants. He has affirmed to Sarah Brady that he is working on gun control "under the radar".
You don't want or need him for another term. Period..

mack
March 5, 2012, 07:38 PM
Ya know, I have worked for thirty some years on the "gun issue" - throughout that whole time, year after year I have heard people on both sides of the issue say things to the effect that - "well it doesn't really matter" - or - "no one is threatening to take guns away" - or - "Oh, the NRA is just alarmist all the time."

It wasn't that long ago that there was no established 2nd amendment right that recognized any level of an individual right to own any firearm. It wasn't that long ago that few states recognized any right to carry a firearm for self-defense. It wasn't that long ago that a person living in Chicago or D.C. had no recognized right to own a handgun at all.

Restrictive legislation is proposed in Illinois, California and other states towns and cities everyday. No right to bear or carry arms for self-defense is established in any binding USSC decision. The USSC established/recognized an individual RKBA by a bare 5 to 4 majority. Almost 30 percent of the citizens still do not live in shall issue carry states.

It took years and years of work to get to where we are today. Millions of dollars. Personal tragedies like what happened to Ms. Suzanna Hupp and we still have a long way to go to obtain/restore our rights.

Then I hear people say - "its no big deal" - and "you're paranoid" - and the like. Well, yes it is a big deal and yes it is important and crucial who is appointed to the USSC, and if you won't care or fight for your rights when it is easy to do so and would rather mock those that do. Well, you have your own reward, and no matter of fact or argument will persuade you anyway.

The NRA is far from perfect and sometimes they are even part of the problem - (see the history of the Heller case) - but if we do not continue to work to establish and maintain our rights and liberty - we will surely lose them.

You may not agree - that is certainly one's right to do so - or even if you agree you may decide that other issues are more important - but there are individuals in government and in many other institutions and positions of power that do not believe in the RKBA and who want to abolish or severely restrict the RKBA - and given the opportunity they will do so. I am not willing to let them have the chance in so much as I can.

slik pak
March 5, 2012, 07:59 PM
heres my view on it. Obama gets reelected (hopefully he wont), he appoints a super liberal supreme court justice and a gun issue gets bought to the SC and its ruled that a law abiding citizen doesnt have the right to carry/possess a firearm, whats the worse that could happen they rule on that individual case? I mean seriously.

If Obama were to flat out say that he believes guns should be banned the whole nation would flip out. Look at SOPA and the controversy that has caused. Even if he was in his second term he would get impeached.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like his policies, I find Ginsburgs view on 2A detestable but I am really wondering how serious this threat is. In the 80's Reagon was against social security and he even said something along the lines of "someday we will tell our children and grandchildren what it was like to be a free man". Until 2008 we werent heading in that direction.

mack
March 5, 2012, 08:39 PM
The worst that could happen? Other than getting hit by an asteroid, nuclear war, worldwide pandemic, or total financial and economic collapse? But restricted to the RKBA.

A USSC with a new majority hostile to the RKBA - rules on a case and overturns the Heller and McDonald decisions ruling that there is no individual RKBA. In a sweep in the 2012 elections the presidents party has control of both House and Senate. Registration of all firearms is introduced after a terrible domestic incident. The public at large following the lead of the USSC, President, Congress, and the MSM starts to turn against guns and gun rights. Public Service Announcements featuring the victims of gun violence are produced and aired nationally unremittingly.

A severe double dip recession occurs after the meltdown of the world economy due to conflict in the middle east, gas going to 10 dollars a gallon, hyper inflation, the meltdown of many European economies, and China invading Taiwan in the midst of it. Riots break out in major cities related to the government being unable to financially continue many social programs. Martial law is declared in some jurisdictions. Some wacked out extremist group commits an act of domestic terrorism involving guns and explosives.

A national ban on concealed carry is introduced and passed. A national ban on assault weapons is introduced and passed- the definition of assault weapon essentially includes all semi-automatic firearms. (both of the above have been proposed or endorsed by the current president). A ban on "military calibers" is introduced and passed. In light of the domestic unrest the majority of the public supports bans on "assault weapons" and "carrying hidden guns" and "military calibers."

Too dire of a scenario? Most likely. But the same could happen over a decade. It took us decades to get where we are, and the first step to losing that progress is losing the court. The rest can easily follow given time. Especially if there is no arguable individual RKBA if the USSC court has disposed of the 2nd amendment.

Art Eatman
March 5, 2012, 09:09 PM
There is always a possibility of bad regulation on the periphery: EPA and lead, e.g. Or legislation which indirectly affects the availability of reloading components.

There may be no active, direct threat, but funds to pay for lobbying for our cause, to pay for various legal actions, and unending polite communications with our representatives will always be necessary.

While I'm dubious about any direct "They'll take our guns!", I have no doubt about various types of hassles via law and regulation.

The anti-gun folks are much like the Temperance people after Repeal: "We can't stop them from drinking, but we can take the fun out of it!"

The NRA is likely the strongest at lobbying Congress. Others of the "majors" focus more on more localized lawsuits. State organizations focus on state legislatures, generally, and assist in getting the word out about national issues.

Pick your own priorities, and support as best you can.

Jim K
March 5, 2012, 09:19 PM
While a change to the current gun laws would require a "progressive" majority in Congress, Mr. Obama has said, and demonstrated, that he is willing to use several "loopholes" to get what he wants, depending on Executive Orders, recess appointments, considerng legal any executive action that Congress has not specifically and explicitly banned, and so on. I consider his general attitude and his appointments, including that of Mr. Holder, to be those of a left wing activist, not a moderate leader, no matter what his supporters say.

Jim

kozak6
March 6, 2012, 01:50 AM
Absolutely. It's under continuous assault, 24/7. Don't you get their mailings?

Why, just the other month they called me and told me that North Korea and Iran were going to vote at the UN to take away my guns.

They wouldn't lie to my face to get my money, would they?

andrewstorm
March 6, 2012, 04:52 AM
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIwCbdOq8Ugand any who refused became felons, one fellow who owned a bar semi auto, said it fell out of his canoe and sunk,thats his story and he"s sticking to it":neener: go to youtube aussie gunban

Bubbles
March 6, 2012, 08:41 AM
- 0bama's nominees for federal judges, not just USSC judges, will affect RKBA for decades to come.

- "Gun walking" became an approved policy under the 0bama administration.

- Multiple long gun sales reporting in border states is another 0bama administration change.

RatDrall
March 7, 2012, 12:06 PM
Even if Obama gets reelected, and even if he does appoint a new super liberal supreme court justice, and in the horrific event that a gun issue does get to the supreme court and it gets turned down, what will happen? States are supposed to be soveriegn.

That was addressed in the Civil War, and the States lost.

Neverwinter
March 7, 2012, 03:52 PM
Fear sells, if modern society is any indication. We do have some ways to go towards freedom, and I can accept taking money from the people who buy into it, given that the funds go towards that purpose.

Although these threads wouldn't be nearly as fun to read otherwise.

Sent from Tapatalk

Cosmoline
March 7, 2012, 04:41 PM
I'm more worried about the size of the D majority on the Hill. Obama is going to get reelected regardless.

beatledog7
March 7, 2012, 05:45 PM
The RKBA spelled out in 2A and facilitates the protection of our other rights. It is also self protecting, which is why it is such a danger to those who don't like the idea of anyone owning a gun.

Tipro
March 8, 2012, 07:54 AM
Two things are important to remember when talking about the United States Supreme Court.

1. The only way in which Obama could change the fundamental makeup of the Court is if a conservative Justice retires. Obama has appointed two Justices to the Court, none of whom will make a change for the worse in any future 2nd Amendment case. Why? Because the two Justices that retired, Souter and Stevens, both dissented in Heller. Again in McDonald (decided after Obama's election and a USSC appointment), Stevens and Sotomayor dissented. There was no real change in the Court. Then next Justice likely to retire seems to be Ginsburg, who again will be replaced by someone will similar views on the 2nd Amendment.

If a Republican is elected, it is highly probable that Scalia and/or Kennedy will retire during that Republican's term, only to be replaced by another conservative (unless it's a Romney whitehouse :neener:)

2. Supreme Court Justices don't act the way you think they will. If they did, Roe v. Wade wouldn't be in force any more, and would have been overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). There, three "conservative" Justices appointed by Reagan and H.W. Bush (O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter) all voted to affirm the fundamental holdings of Roe.

Perhaps some of these "liberal" Justices appointed by Obama will surprise us.

Also, don't underestimate the power of stare decisis. Each year Heller and McDonald become more entrenched, and can be a very powerful factor in the Court's future decisions, no matter who the Justice is.

ZeSpectre
March 8, 2012, 08:19 AM
Last time around only took one election cycle to devastate our Second Amendment Rights. We simply can not afford to be "asleep at the wheel" again.

Colonel
March 8, 2012, 05:49 PM
Obama is going to get reelected regardless.

That's the spirit! http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/fffmain/smilies/salute.gif

valnar
March 8, 2012, 06:25 PM
Justices don't have to rule in favor of the constitution. Sadly this is a true statement. They can have an agenda as much as any other politician or private citizen. Don't let their legal-speak confuse you.

If Obama is re-elected, he will appoint somebody to turn the Pro-gun 5-4 vote over to 4-5. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, but if you deny that fact, you deny reality.

jimmyraythomason
March 8, 2012, 06:58 PM
Justices don't have to rule in favor of the constitution.If they don't congress can override them. The House just did that very thing concerning their ruling on eminent domain.<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/213129-house-votes-to-overturn-supreme-court-property-rights-decision>

exbrit49
March 8, 2012, 09:45 PM
I have been hearing and reading almost the same arguments for 40 years, This president or that president is going to ban guns or have the courts strike down the 2A.
All this type of post does is scare people in to buying more guns and more ammo.
I read this one just to look at the viewpoints and they are the same ones i have heard so many times before.
As far as my own personal 2 A rights , not one aspect of all these supposed changes have impacted me in all these years.
THink about it, the 2A is what keeps the 2A valid.
Saw the comments about Australia. Australia did not have a 2A in their constitution,
Enough already!

cavman
March 8, 2012, 10:00 PM
Enough already

I see it that we came within one vote of the 2nd Amendment not for individuals but for the govt. one vote.

Enough already exactly. Enough of the type of people who will look you straight in the eye and say up is down and black is white.

That four judges would read the 2nd as they did is so shocking to me that I now am firmly in the camp that vigilance is Eternal.

The threats are real to me and I believe that the non-elected routes and decrees by fiat are real and we have to continually work to prevent that from happening.

JRH6856
March 8, 2012, 10:10 PM
States are supposed to be soveriegn.

States have not been sovereign since the Civil War ended in 1865. Or technically, with the ratification of the 14th amendment. A sovereign state is one to which answers to no higher authority in the governing of its citizens. Since the 14th amendment made all citizens of each state citizens of the United States, this act made the Federal government sovereign to which the states are subservient. The Federal government has yet to exercise its full authority, but it is there and a complicit SCOTUS would make that exercise easier if not inevitable.

BSA1
March 8, 2012, 10:12 PM
I have been hearing and reading almost the same arguments for 40 years, This president or that president is going to ban guns or have the courts strike down the 2A.
All this type of post does is scare people in to buying more guns and more ammo.
I read this one just to look at the viewpoints and they are the same ones i have heard so many times before.
As far as my own personal 2 A rights , not one aspect of all these supposed changes have impacted me in all these years.
THink about it, the 2A is what keeps the 2A valid.
Saw the comments about Australia. Australia did not have a 2A in their constitution,
Enough already.

If you put a frog in a pan of hot water he will immediately jump out.

If you put that same frog in a arm pan of water and slowly increase the temperature he will just sit there and boil to death.

While you have being sitting Obama has appointed two anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court. We are only one vote in the court away from seeing our guns rights stripped away piece by piece.

Neverwinter
March 9, 2012, 02:01 AM
Two things are important to remember when talking about the United States Supreme Court.

1. The only way in which Obama could change the fundamental makeup of the Court is if a conservative Justice retires. Obama has appointed two Justices to the Court, none of whom will make a change for the worse in any future 2nd Amendment case. Why? Because the two Justices that retired, Souter and Stevens, both dissented in Heller. Again in McDonald (decided after Obama's election and a USSC appointment), Stevens and Sotomayor dissented. There was no real change in the Court. Then next Justice likely to retire seems to be Ginsburg, who again will be replaced by someone will similar views on the 2nd Amendment.

If a Republican is elected, it is highly probable that Scalia and/or Kennedy will retire during that Republican's term, only to be replaced by another conservative (unless it's a Romney whitehouse :neener:)

2. Supreme Court Justices don't act the way you think they will. If they did, Roe v. Wade wouldn't be in force any more, and would have been overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). There, three "conservative" Justices appointed by Reagan and H.W. Bush (O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter) all voted to affirm the fundamental holdings of Roe.

Perhaps some of these "liberal" Justices appointed by Obama will surprise us.

Also, don't underestimate the power of stare decisis. Each year Heller and McDonald become more entrenched, and can be a very powerful factor in the Court's future decisions, no matter who the Justice is.
It's like some people can't even see your post. How odd.

Sent from Tapatalk

JohnBT
March 9, 2012, 08:36 AM
"not one aspect of all these supposed changes have impacted me in all these years."

The NRA has been effective. The NRA didn't do it alone, but they have been effective. Have you thanked the NRA?

jimmyraythomason
March 9, 2012, 08:42 AM
The only way in which Obama could change the fundamental makeup of the Court is if a conservative Justice retires.Or dies or is impeached.

ZeSpectre
March 9, 2012, 08:58 AM
The NRA has been effective. The NRA didn't do it alone, but they have been effective. Have you thanked the NRA?

You are welcome.

(I'm not making a joke here, I'm being serious. "the NRA" is it's members, especially the politically active ones such as yours truly not some big ivory tower group off someplace else).

Carl N. Brown
March 9, 2012, 02:26 PM
National Coalition to Ban Handguns constantly harped on the NRA using its clout with Congress to thwart its goal of, well, a national ban on handguns.

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 04:51 PM
While you have being sitting Obama has appointed two anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court. We are only one vote in the court away from seeing our guns rights stripped away piece by piece.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by BSA1; Today at 04:54 AM.

No. The court does not "swing" back on isssues it's already decided. Certainly not because a justice dies. All future courts are bound by Heller, just as the Heller court of today was bound by Miller of the 1930's. Case law, and the courts are on our side.

Individuals are standing up for their rights against unjust laws, and the courts are agreeing with them. We should be thanking the courts for throwing out the unjust laws that the political hacks, we elected and paid for, in both state and federal governments have written, and with the direct help of the NRA. (Yes, they helped write every major gun control law ever written. Look it up for yourself.)
Then the NRA takes credit for any victories, collects money and writes more bad gun control laws. Just like every other gun control law that has been written since 1871, by the NRA. Run by people who openly promote gun control... except for legit "sportsmen". A vauge term that seems to change over time, but they always seem to find a few people or guns to ban every few years.
After they have helped to write the laws to have guns restricted to only "sportsmens" use; The NRA will still be there to scare the few remaining gun owners (I suspect with nothing but black powder single shots by then) and their "right to hunt", and take thier money.

If you want to expand government power to restrict who and what is "allowed"; then keep giving your money to the NRA and electing the politicians who have been voting for more laws in the last 10 years. Hint; the have both "R"s and "D"'s by thier names and worked directly with the NRA - everytime! And the NRA helped them with your money.
If you want it to stop that expansion, and instead roll back to a Constitutional right to ARMS; then stop giving the NRA your money and support real gun "RIGHTS" groups, not "sportsmens" clubs who are hell bent on banning everything except thier double barrels.

Your money is paying for lawyers to write the next gun control laws and lobby the politicians to pass it. They hope this will cause you to send more money to them, because it always has. Thier next $3,000 lunch depends on it.

Colonel
March 9, 2012, 05:02 PM
Every gun control law since 1871 has been written by the NRA.

Huh? http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/eek7.gif

JRH6856
March 9, 2012, 05:02 PM
No. The court does not "swing" back on isssues it's already decided.

Except that more than one member of the "liberal" wing of the court has already expressed the view that Heller is an aberration that should be reversed and stare decisis does not apply.

Stare Decisis is a convenience that allows judges to move forward and not continually revisit past decisions. But it is not binding and past decisions can be revisited and reversed when the judges deem it necessary or desirable.

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 05:22 PM
"no assault weapons for Civilians and get the capacity down to 5 rounds" - Joaquin Jackson is currently a member in the NRA Board of Directors
Lives the philosophy: "Say what you mean, mean what you say, and tell it like it is."

"no assault weapons for Civilians and get the capacity down to 5 rounds"

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios01/jackson.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 05:29 PM
Colonel

Quote:
Every gun control law since 1871 has been written by the NRA.

Huh?

They didn't tell you that in that pile of junk mail they sent you?



"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247 [/url]

Colonel
March 9, 2012, 06:08 PM
Ford, please enumerate all these 19th century gun control laws you speak of that the NRA has supposedly written.

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 06:31 PM
Did you read the quote above? It even gives the time and place. What part of it was not clear to you, was it the NRA's own words or was it their specific actions that are not clear?

ETA:'We believe that the machine gun, submachine gun, sawed-off shotgun, and dangerous and deadly weapons could all be included in any kind of a bill, and no matter how drastic, we will support it." ..."the association I represent is absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.'

NRA Executive Vice President Milton Reckord
-House Ways and Means Committee, House Hearings on
National Firearms Act, (April/ May 1934)

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 06:41 PM
Here, let me quote from the link for you.

-"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns
-"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (
-The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963
-In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
-In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;""b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"

-"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act." . 1999

-CHARLTON HESTON: "We're in favor of the Brady Bill as it stands now. To a large extent, we drew it up in its current form".




-VirginiaTech?

JRH6856
March 9, 2012, 06:49 PM
was it the NRA's own words or was it their specific actions that are not clear?


I think there is a clear difference between "support" and "written". I still don't see any list of gun laws the NRA has written. and I doubt such a list would include all of the laws written.

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 07:03 PM
Really? Who promised you a list? I even made one for you. Did you miss it? Like all the other evidence of their actions?
It's not clear that "support" in this case means sending it's paid (sorry, YOU paid) representitives to give sworn testimony before congress and even the admitted actual writting of the laws themselves, by sitting presidents and VP's is not clear as "support"? Parse much? Does it depend on what the definintion of the word "is" is?

Would publicly written letters and repeated statements to the press count? Do I need to post a list of those too?

How about current board members own words? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios01/jackson.html

JRH6856
March 9, 2012, 07:10 PM
Parse much? Does it depend on what the definintion of the word "is" is?

If you want to talk about definitions, look up the definitions of "support" and "write" and get back to me. While you're at at, look up the definition of "every" as in "every gun law...has been written."

Ford Prefect
March 9, 2012, 07:23 PM
With all that spare time I have, you could post a single major gun control law written since 1871 that was not written AND supported by the NRA. That should be easy right?

And by support, in this case, it means they took your money (support), and spent it on and office, pay a lawyer to sit in that office, pay of the paper for him to write the words on and then pay for lunch to hand the Congressmen the paper with the gun control law written on it. Then pay for lunch with your money and thank him for his support. Then send more of your paid NRA reps to testify before congress thier/your continued support.

Is that clear by what support means in this case?

Byrd666
March 9, 2012, 07:25 PM
YES slik pak, THERE IS A VERY REAL THREAT!

Please read the news, watch the news, and talk to people. Read some the information that is available about the Administration that's in office. Read and or watch videos of past votes and opinions of "elected" officials in office. Read about the plans of Obama and his cronies for our Second Amendment Rights. Read about the many different Mayors and states that want to abolish the possibility of any law abiding individual from owning, let alone using any type of firearm. Read about the Supreme "Justices" that want to strip of any and all Rights you hold now.

I mean no offense, but, are you really that naive, or uninformed?

JRH6856
March 9, 2012, 07:45 PM
Is that clear by what support means in this case?

Is it clear yet to you that I'm not talking about support? I'm talking about your claim that "Every gun control law since 1871 has been written by the NRA." There is a difference between writing and supporting. That is why I suggested you look up the definitions. Instead, in response to requests for a list supporting your claim (supporting, not writing. See? There is a difference) you claim to have posted one (you didn't) and then ask me for a list of laws the NRA did not write AND support. Sorry, I never made any claims that could be supported by such a list. You are the one that made the claim that you are apparently unable to support.

alsaqr
March 9, 2012, 07:58 PM
No. The court does not "swing" back on isssues it's already decided. Certainly not because a justice dies. All future courts are bound by Heller, just as the Heller court of today was bound by Miller of the 1930's. Case law, and the courts are on our side.

Its the legal principle of stare decisis and its the reason Roe v. Wade has not been overturned.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm

mack
March 9, 2012, 08:10 PM
The NRA was not a large and powerful or sophisticated lobbying and political organization until after the 1968 gun control act.

Prior to that they were primarily a hunting and marksmanship organization.

In 1968, after the hysteria of the assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King and then Bobby Kennedy the country and the congress and president were united in desiring gun control. Gallup polls in that decade showed that the majority of people favored a handgun ban. The NRA membership itself was divided between hunters and target shooters who also supported gun control and those that did not.

Many states already had long standing gun control in the form of bans on concealed carry and open carry - many a legacy of Jim Crow.

Since that time after many internal battles at the NRA that supported a harder core stand against gun control and years of developing support through education, scholarship on the second amendment, and developing a larger and more powerful lobbying and political presence the NRA has played a major role in turning around the direction of state and federal governments, the courts and public opinion at large.

The NRA supported the gun control act of 1984 which repealed many of the worst provisions of the 1968 gun control act. However the poison pill amendment that banned all new machine guns was put in at the last minute and the NRA had to choose between having Reagan sign it or having him veto it. They chose to ask him to sign it in the stated belief that they could get the ban repealed. Which has not been the case.

The NRA did not support the Heller case initially as they were afraid that a loss would be catastrophic, a ruling that the 2nd amendment did not protect an individual right. So they did work to derail it. They have since been aggressive in pursuing cases in court.

The NRA has been instrumental in helping to foster many state level gun rights organizations that together have helped to establish the right to carry in state after state - today 38 states have a shall issue right to carry and 3 or is it four have constitutional carry and there will be more. Current court cases are moving forward from the SAF and the NRA to codify the right to carry as part of the 2nd amendment constitutional right.

In Maryland a republican appointed district judge ruled that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry outside the home - in Illinois a democratic appointed judge ruled there was no right.

Hopefully the USSC will decide that there is a right to carry outside the home found in the 2nd amendment. But that depends on the court being willing to do so, and on there being five justices who in Heller and McDonald supported a real 2nd amendment. None of those five were appointed by a democrat - the oldest of the five is Kennedy at 77 yrs old. Younger justices who will serve for life are democratic appointees who do not support a real or meaningful interpretation of the 2nd amendment. A conservative republican president after 2012 could help to cement a pro-2nd majority whereas a liberal democratic president could very well appoint justices that overturn Heller and or more likely water it down to meaninglessness by subsequent decisions that effectively gut it.

There are other routes to marginalize the RKBA - agencies like the EPA and such have the power - given presidential directive and a lack of strong congressional support of severely damaging the practical RKBA.

Perhaps the NRA is sometimes a little over the top on their rhetoric about the threats to the RKBA - but not by much in my opinion. Our RKBA will only exist and continue if we fight to support it. The minute we stop, we will start to lose it. Maybe not all at once, but certainly a piece at a time, and those pieces will add up. The NRA is far from perfect - but the members do get a say and a vote. And the NRA is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the only one, when it comes to national gun control.

Due in large part to the NRA we would not have the freedoms we have today. Without the NRA it would be bleak and today we would be much more like England or Australia.

Neverwinter
March 9, 2012, 08:46 PM
Read about the plans of Obama and his cronies for our Second Amendment Rights.
By any chance, would you happen to have a verifiable source for said plans?

Tipro
March 9, 2012, 08:48 PM
Mack, very informative and very well said. and a nice quote from scripture as well. What would be the justification of a constitutional right to carry? I'm with you, just curious as to the basis. Perhaps that's any militia would be essentially powerless without that the right?

mack
March 9, 2012, 09:12 PM
Well, Heller and McDonald would be the legal basis of a constitutional right to carry - and if decisions such as that rendered in Maryland prevail in a USSC case.

However, constitutional carry is also a phrase used by advocates of open carry and often used to describe those states laws where anyone who can lawfully own a firearm can lawfully carry one without a permit - Alaska, Arizona, etc.... Will there be a USSC decision that supports such a requirement nationally and finds licensing and permits unconstitutional - that I doubt - I don't think the USSC will go that far. Alan Gura has a very good explication of how far he believes the court will go.

As to Obama's plans in a another post - he has stated on record that he would support a national ban on CCW and wants a new and even more restrictive assault weapons ban. This is consistent with his record as a politician in the state of Illinois. And his two appointments to the USSC are not supportive of gun rights as protected by the 2nd amendment.

JRH6856
March 9, 2012, 09:44 PM
Barak Obama on gun control (http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

Jeff22
March 9, 2012, 10:24 PM
We have to remain vigilant but we should not submit to panic.

Tracking the activities of our government has never been easier.

Check out:

www.govtrack.us

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php (Library of Congress website that tracks legislation)

Remember, just because some clown has proposed legislation, and some other clown may speak publically in favor of it, it doesn't necessarily mean that the legislation is going anywhere. A lot of that extreme gun control legislation never even makes it to a committee hearing, because nobody really wants it.

Proposing that stuff is just a way to get the foolish to send them more money . . . And both sides are guilty

So we have to pay attention and remain vigilant but keep our perspective

Colonel
March 10, 2012, 08:56 AM
1934 is in the 19th century?

Neverwinter
March 10, 2012, 09:59 AM
As to Obama's plans in a another post - he has stated on record that he would support a national ban on CCW and wants a new and even more restrictive assault weapons ban. This is consistent with his record as a politician in the state of Illinois. And his two appointments to the USSC are not supportive of gun rights as protected by the 2nd amendment.
It is interesting that the AWB is being cited, because the last president said that he would also support a renewal of the AWB. Yet there was no furor about it as with Obama. It's rather amusing. :)

The record of supporting a national CCW ban was from before his presidential term, much like his statement regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Both of those have not come to pass, and no noticeable steps toward fruition have been made. It looks like the mantle of the office has changed him, and this fear is unwarranted.

His past appointments to the USSC are A) not future plans, B) not significant in regards to the makeup of the Court. The people who think that the two Justices that were replaced would have voted favorably for McDonald and Heller are deluded. Have any of the 5 supporting Justices indicated health issues which would cause them to retire?

The most recently closed threadhttp://www.thehighroad.org//showthread.php?t=644876 gives some insight into the real, non-RKBA related explanation behind this opposition.

Deanimator
March 10, 2012, 10:55 AM
It depends.

Do you consider a false flag operation to intentionally allow illegal trafficking of guns to Mexican drug cartels in order to "justify" additional repressive gun controls a "threat"?

Tommygunn
March 10, 2012, 11:13 AM
It is interesting that the AWB is being cited, because the last president said that he would also support a renewal of the AWB. Yet there was no furor about it as with Obama. It's rather amusing.

Funny, I recall a kurfuffle over that.
It seems to me Obama has expressed pro-guncontrol opinions when he was ensconced in whatever political position he had at the time, yet when he sought higher office (namely the presidency) he made progun statements.
I have never trusted politicians who "spin" their response to gain the approval of whatever masses they seek to impress at the time.
With Shrubbie's backhanded stab at gunowners in the 2000 debate however, came an unfulfilled promise four years later when the AWB expired. Shrubbie didn't lift a finger to help its renewal and it died of old age.
With Obama having shoved a healthcare law down our throats despite a majority of people expressing opposing opinions I have to wonder what Obama will do with regards to gun control should he get another term.
Like others I have no information about any specific attempts being made right now but I do know pols like Diane Feinstein want it back.
So, we'll just have to see what Obama will do if he's (ick) re-elected.
Or, what Romney will do if he's elected. He is also no real friend to the second amendment.

mack
March 10, 2012, 12:20 PM
Bush got in trouble on the statement that he would support a renewal of the AW ban - it first caused a furor in the gun rights community. Later, via the backdoor channel of Karl Rove - the word was put out that Bush had no interest in supporting a renewal of the ban and that it would never be renewed, which in turn caused a furor with supporters of the ban. When the issue came up - Bush was happy to let it die and was criticized by the supporters of the AW ban for doing so. Prior to being president Bush signed the CCW law in Texas. As president he appointed an atty general in Ashcroft who was supportive of the 2nd amendment. And appointed justices to the supreme court who were supportive of the second amendment - Roberts and Alito.

Obama appointed justices who do not support the 2nd amendment RKBA, has appointed an anti-gun Atty general, generated fast and furious in an attempt to gain support for a new AW ban, and has been consistent in his statements and actions in being for more gun control. So far he has not had the votes to pass what he wants due to republicans and pro-gun democrats in the senate and house.

Obama has done nothing to disavow his long standing support for gun control.

As to his two USSC appointments not changing the make up of the court in regards to the current 5 to 4 majority view on the second amendment - I haven't and I didn't see anyone else say it has changed the balance yet. But let one of the five in the current majority in the next four and a half years retire, become incapacitated, or die - Kennedy is 77 now - and the balance will change if Obama is still president. That is a real threat. If the president's party gains control of the house back and maintains and/or makes gains in the senate - then renewal of an AW ban becomes potentially viable in a second term. Particularly in light of the president's administrations statements and actions to gin up support for an AW ban - via fast and furious.

However the primary threat that the current President poses is his judicial appointments. The district federal judge in Illinois that found no right to bear arms outside of the home despite Heller and McDonald was an Obama appointee. Conversely the judge in Maryland that found a right to bear arms outside the home is a Bush appointee.

But perhaps that is all wrong and Obama has had a secret epiphany on the gun rights issue and is now pro-gun rights. I'm waiting to hear him say it and I'm waiting to see his appointments reflect it. Cause I have seen no evidence to suggest such an epiphany occurred.

If you want to support Obama for other reasons then be free to do so - but don't try and shine people that he poses no serious threat to the RKBA.

phil dirt
March 10, 2012, 01:10 PM
For all of you who mistakenly think that Obama is no threat to the Second Amendment, you'd best do your homework. The information is out there. Obama is without a doubt the most dangerous presidential opponent of the Second Amendment that this country has ever had. A second term, as a lame duck president, will be a disaster for freedom in this country.

JohnBT
March 10, 2012, 03:54 PM
Will be? You have proof of the future before it has happened? No, you don't know what will happen should he be elected again. You suspect much will occur, but you cannot know for certain. Do you have a license for fortune telling?

Colonel
March 10, 2012, 05:28 PM
Do you consider a false flag operation to intentionally allow illegal trafficking of guns to Mexican drug cartels in order to "justify" additional repressive gun controls a "threat"?

"Intentionally allow"???

Many of the guns they sent to the drug cartels through "Fast & Furious" were bought and paid for with U.S. taxpayers' dollars!

I'm not making this up. It's established, admitted and documented fact.

Tommygunn
March 10, 2012, 06:04 PM
Will be? You have proof of the future before it has happened? No, you don't know what will happen should he be elected again. You suspect much will occur, but you cannot know for certain. Do you have a license for fortune telling?

Do you know Obama will do nothing about guns? It seems to me that also would require a "license for fortune telling."
And if we're only "suspecting" something, why the snark about "fortune telling?"

Art Eatman
March 11, 2012, 04:56 PM
More about politics than legal...

If you enjoyed reading about "Any real legitimate threat put out by the NRA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!