Have the anti-gunners already won?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 12:51 PM
.

NY, NJ, CA, MN, CO, and other states are all passing or are getting ready to pass strict anti-gun laws that could cripple gun ownership. Other states maybe following suit.


They are passing semi-automatic weapons bans, magazine size bans, making magazines be engraved with a serial number date, making gun buyers pay for their background checks, making people do background checks on all sales, tax on bullets and guns, making gun owners have insurance, confiscation of so-called assault weapons and magazines, and other such laws.



Sure many of these laws are unconstitutional and would be repealed by the court, however, by that time (years) the guns and magazines would all ready be gone, perhaps no longer even being manufactured because the manufacturers were put out of business. The goal of the anti-gunners is to "dry-up" the guns and magazines, so perhaps by the time the unconstitutional laws are repealed it's too late.



Companies such as Magpul are getting ready to leave CO and Remington and Olympic Arms maybe leaving NY.



If years from now we get these unconstitutional laws repealed, will it matter because we would no longer have our guns and magazines and/or gun companies would be out of business because it's too late?
.

If you enjoyed reading about "Have the anti-gunners already won?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo
February 16, 2013, 01:13 PM
If gun companies go out of business, where will the government get guns and ammo from?

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 01:13 PM
Since they can't get a federal bill up and running, they've retreated to state government, where it's easier to pass such things under much less media scrutiny. That's just political strategy, regardless of what issue or what side of the issue.

Ryanxia
February 16, 2013, 01:19 PM
We haven't lost, we're doing pretty good actually. There are lots of attacks and we need to keep up the good fight. We've lost a few battles but it's the war that matters.
Even if they banned all semi-autos and magazines over 10 rounds nation wide there would be hundreds of freedom loving Americans setting up their own manufacturing systems. We will only lose our freedom if we LET them take it. There are 80,000,000+ gun owners in America, we should not fear our government, that's not what the founding fathers intended.

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion"
-Thomas Jefferson.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 01:23 PM
I know it's great to pound the freedom drum, but no one did crap after the 1994 AWB. Dozens of American businesses went out of business because their product line was outlawed. There was no rising up against the government. There was no massive civil disobedience. No one was making their own personal firearms to circumvent federal law. Everyone tucked tail between their legs and complied with federal law until 2004 when it sunset everywhere except states that adopted a state-level version of the same bill.

That's the reality. That's why we better not let it happen to begin with because all those pie-in-the-sky fantasies vaporize the day after such a law is passed.

usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 01:26 PM
.

Another problem is these laws don't have sunsets like the '94 AWB did.
.

Vector
February 16, 2013, 01:28 PM
.

If years from now we get these unconstitutional laws repealed, will it matter because we would no longer have our guns and magazines and/or gun companies would be out of business because it's too late?[/B]
.

I think the big question is, who will voluntarily turn in guns/mags/ammo the state or federal government demands.
If a decent amount of people are sheep, then yes the battle will be lost before it ever gets to the SCOTUS. Then again, if we keep electing people like Obama, the SCOTUS will be full of people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has no respect for the Constitution. The current balance of 5-4 majority could easily turn the other way or worse.
So every single person who voted for Obama will have played a role is destroying the 2nd Amendment, and eventually the rest of the Constitution.

Derek Zeanah
February 16, 2013, 01:30 PM
I'm growing more pessimistic. I'm almost convinced that we won't win the fight in the political arena. We will in rural areas, but the divide between rural and urban voters is just too huge in terms of all values, not just gun rights. Upstate NY is suffering because of NYC voters. Here in GA Atlanta is a worry, as folks flee from NY to Atlanta because it's a better place to live, then proceed to vote into power the same sorts of people that ruined the last place they lived. It's frustrating.

Anyway, what we're seeing is a rush to act before the emotional power of Sandy Hook fades. There's probably not enough support to do so at a national level, so we're seeing local efforts instead. But they're backed by national political efforts. Apparently (according to MSNBC) Bloomberg is throwing millions into PR efforts in multiple states to support civilian disarmament, the mainstream media (with the possible exception of the WSJ) is not on our side, and Obama -- probably the most effective campaigner this country has ever seen -- is encouraging his supporters to put pressure on local politicians to support these sorts of "reasonable, common sense" policies.

I'm not sure what we can do counter that politically. I see the real fight being in the courts, or barring that, elsewhere. The mood among gun owners I've talked to seems a bit...darker and more ominous than it did during previous gun debates. I worry that gun banners might be biting off more than they can chew here.

It's depressing, but I'm trying to be a realist.

61Woody
February 16, 2013, 01:40 PM
My guess is that as soon as these state laws start taking efect the NRA and others will file a bucket full of lawsuits and tie them up in court. We have lost nothing yet and frankly, I'm getting tired of all these defeatest posts.

michaelbsc
February 16, 2013, 01:47 PM
Well, thank goodness people are finally starting to have *THIS* discussion.

Yes, it's a political strategy. And it's a damned effective political strategy. Scary isn't it!

What we need to come to grips with is that this isn't just about "gun rights" at all. It's about the overarching social contract that knits the society together. Gun rights are an important part, but only part.

This debate has been going on for quite a while now, and if you want to know what's happening please, please, *PLEASE* bone up on some old political theory. (I know people here have studied this, and we've sent PMs. I'm preaching to make new converts.)

Get and study Hobbes book Leviathan and Locke's book The Second Treatise of Government.

Hobbes describes and justifies a benevolent all powerful state.

Locke describes the founding principles of the US, both among the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The 'strong central government' favored by the Federalists was a mouse compared to the elephant we have today. The 'strong central government' favored by the Federalists was the one George Washington presided over. The Anti-federalists lost and the constitution was adopted instead of rejected.

Don't study one side. (1) And start with Hobbes. It's the older work. It makes better sense working in progression.

Both are available free on Kindle, Gutenberg, various college websites as PDFs, etc. but I encourage you to buy a paper version with scholarly foot notes that you can write all over the margins.

(1) Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

Ryanxia
February 16, 2013, 01:54 PM
My guess is that as soon as these state laws start taking efect the NRA and others will file a bucket full of lawsuits and tie them up in court. We have lost nothing yet and frankly, I'm getting tired of all these defeatest posts.
Well said.

OilyPablo
February 16, 2013, 01:57 PM
Keep fighting. WA state is loaded with libs and people who vote for anything with a D after the name. But we will win!!

usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 02:00 PM
.

61woody, yes lawsuits. Which takes courts and years to sort out. Which is the problem. It could be too late. We need to be realistic and not just hope the courts will 'eventually' rule in our favor years down the road. We need to defeat these proposals and laws now.


And how have we not lost anything yet? Look at Nathan Haddad who's been charged with 5 felonies for having 5 empty AR15 mags. How many years until that reaches the high courts or will he plead out by then making it a mute point?

I can guarantee you many people who fear breaking the law would turn in their guns and magazines.


I think a lot of pro-2nd Amendment folks believe that a majority of the the public who owns guns are as ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment as they are and that's just not the case.

People would be turning their guns and magazines in en masse if the government said to do so.
.

Solo
February 16, 2013, 02:02 PM
People would be turning their guns and magazines in en masse if the government said to do so.
Like with pot?

usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 02:16 PM
.

Pot possession is a mere misdemeanor in most states and not illegal in others.



Owning a hi-cap mag is a felony. Much higher stakes.




Also, the gun owners who would turn their guns in are law abiding citizens, same as the law abiding citizens who don't smoke pot.
.

akv3g4n
February 16, 2013, 02:17 PM
I agree that there have been some setbacks but it is premature to declare defeat. There is quite a bit of anti gun legislation that has been introduced both nationally and on the state level but how much has really become law? Aside from NY I am not aware of any current sweeping changes in even state gun law...and many states are also introducing legislation to expand gun rights.

I think we are in a much better position than any time in history to fight this legislation. The facts and figures are on our side and are easily accessible on the internet. Organizing and awareness of issues has increased because of social media and sites like THR. For sure, we are still under threat of losing many of our rights and probably always will be. But there are plenty of citizens who still believe in the value of all civil liberties and will continue to fight this legislation. No one has won anything.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 02:18 PM
Like with pot?
Pot and guns aren't equivalent arguments. One grows freely on it's own volition if left alone. The other requires extensive manufacturing. One is a misdemeanor unless you're distributing and the other is a much more serious offense. One has absolutely no records while the other has records and sales.

Most law-abiding citizens WILL comply. Australians and the British did it. Are there some who hid their guns? Yep, but a large number of folks turned them in because the authorities told them to.

By claiming Americans "are completely totally different" is just ego-stroking. We're still all humans and work on the same basic psychology. Poke and prod us in the right ways and we'll give up. Milgram experiment, anyone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Old Dog
February 16, 2013, 02:19 PM
Not to split hairs with the OP, but
Olympic Arms maybe leaving NY.Oly is our local gun company, right down the road in Olympia ...

Solo
February 16, 2013, 02:20 PM
Pot possession is a mere misdemeanor in most states and not illegal in others.



Owning a hi-cap mag is a felony. Much higher stakes.
You are absolutely right. I should have methamphetamine as the example.

Although when the War on Drugs started, marijuana was seen as the worst drug imaginable, and no one turned it in then either.

Also, the gun owners who would turn their guns in are law abiding citizens, same as the law abiding citizens who don't smoke pot.
Actually, I know many otherwise law abiding citizens who smoke pot.

Vector
February 16, 2013, 02:25 PM
Like with pot?

I don't want to start a pot debate, but as a general rule doper & potheads are (D's), not (R's).

As to your presumed analogy, pot smokers are criminals and do not turn in anything, they smoke their supply.
Many gun owners consider themselves law abiding even though they have no idea how easy some places have made it to lose their 2nd Amendment rights, even for some misdemeanor offenses.

Regardless, some would probably turn in the guns without compensation, and many would do it with a financial incentive (i.e. gun/mag buy back programs).
These same people would not give up their 1st Amendment rights so easily, but somehow in this modern society they do not think the 2nd Amendment has the same value as the 1st.
Sadly they do not realize only the 2nd protects the value of all the others. Without it, everything else is but ink on paper to a tyrannical government run amok.

`

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 02:26 PM
I hear otherwise. Often from members of this forum.

Depends what you want to make. Mass-produced stamped sheet metal products from the WWII era? No problem. You can cobble out AK-47s in the mountains of Pakistan with basic tools. That can be seen in this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE

That's far from ideal if you want high quality firearms. I work in aerospace manufacturing. To make a precision, modern, high quality firearm, you need precision, high quality machinery. That and the pesky ancillaries of making ammunition. Buying primers, brass, bullets, and powder isn't making your own ammo. If those items are outlawed, who is making their own ammo from scratch?

jamesbeat
February 16, 2013, 02:26 PM
In the UK and Australia, guns were registered, so if you didn't hand yours in you'd get a knock on your door...

The comparison with pot is invalid, because the penalities for possessing a small amount of pot are considerably less severe than those for possessing an illegal firearm.

If possession of one joint could get you a decade in prison, there would far fewer pot smokers.
If you have an illegal gun, you could end up losing everything.

Solo
February 16, 2013, 02:27 PM
How do you feel about a comparison with methamphetamines?

usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 02:29 PM
.

Meth users break the law.



Law-abiding citizens don't. And that's why they would turn in their guns.




The penalties for smoking pot are petty misdemeanors to misdemeanors. Breaking a gun law can be a felony. The repercussions are far greater which would make people more apt to follow the laws.
.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 02:29 PM
The most harmful drug in human history is already legal: alcohol. What about meth?

https://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0140673610614626-gr4.jpg

Solo
February 16, 2013, 02:30 PM
Meth users break the law.



Law-abiding citizens don't. And that's why they would turn in their guns.Define law abiding?

Gallstones
February 16, 2013, 02:31 PM
It's not all bad news. Many states are pre-empting and/or legislatively shoring up Second Amendment rights. Some Bills intended to deny certain authority to the Feds.
I have been watching the goings on in my state and sending letters.

This thread was started to post information on this very thing.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703418

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 02:32 PM
How many law-abiding citizens are carrying guns into federal buildings? I can't think of one who'd skirt that law even though there is nothing stopping me from carrying into a post office.

316SS
February 16, 2013, 02:36 PM
Meth users break the law. Law-abiding citizens don't. And that's why they would turn in their guns.

We are facing a lot of bills that if passed would make many of us criminals. Each one of us needs to decide what we are willing to risk by not complying with invalid laws. Our founding fathers were criminals and rebels in the eyes of the British. Today we would call them terrorists. See my sig ...

colorado_handgunner
February 16, 2013, 02:38 PM
My guess is that as soon as these state laws start taking efect the NRA and others will file a bucket full of lawsuits and tie them up in court. We have lost nothing yet and frankly, I'm getting tired of all these defeatest posts.

This. I as so tired of hearing the typical post of "Oh no, our guns will be banned tomorrow. Brave people people must rise up in armed resistance, come and get them, from my cold dead hands."

Here is a novel thought, instead of taking the time to write out a long winded thread or post on this defeatist mindset, write your federal and state representatives instead. It takes about the same amount of time and may actually do something.

Sheesh, enough already. Stop wining and get involved in protecting your rights.

mrvco
February 16, 2013, 02:40 PM
In my humble opinion, our biggest problem is that we have no charismatic leader (or leadership really) capable of pitching a better vision that can gain mindshare with the American public rather than positioning us almost universally as nothing but obstructionists to the liberal-statist enlightened and ultimately (purportedly) inevitable "solutions" to all of our ills (relating to guns or otherwise).

I know the media plays a large part in this issue, but even the supposed right-wing news-entertainment channel FoxNews muffled and marginalized Ron Paul (the only candidate that could have changed the discussion and had a chance of defeating 00bama) in favor of Milk-Toast Romney.

And why Wayne LaPierre is the public spokesperson for the NRA I'll never understand. Is it because his name sounds French and the NRA thinks that resonates somehow with liberals and country club republicans? I'd love to see a video on YouTube of Mr. Colion Noir (https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR) giving one of LaPierre's speeches.

CarolinaChuck
February 16, 2013, 02:43 PM
Michael,

I get the gist of what you are saying and can only agree. I would, however, suggest Mark Levin's Ameritopia, as picking up the "Philosophers" and reading them is not like reading a Louis Lamor book. I read his book and came away with a sense that he about summed up my first two years of college.

Chuck

usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 02:44 PM
.

Lets not get off track into drugs and please let's stick to the 2nd Amendment.
.

targetshooter22
February 16, 2013, 02:48 PM
Respectfully, I disagree with Minnesota on the list. Anyone in any state can introduce anything. That doesn't mean it has a chance of passing. Here the governor and the rural democrats are very cool on any new restrictions. All are up for re-election in the next two years, and only urban and suburban democrats are pushing for anything. Some rural democrats came out opposed to new control laws almost immediately after they were read.

robhof
February 16, 2013, 02:53 PM
I saw on Fox that several Sheriffs and at least 30 governors have signed on to restrict federal incursion into states rights including gun ownership. The scariest part of the whole debate is the constant calling of light weight semi-auto rifles Assault rifles. If they get a law passed, then it's a very small step to say any semi-auto magazine fed gun falls into that catagory; semi-auto shotguns, pistols with magazines, 22 rifles, essentially 75% of currently available guns would become illegal and I am one of those that will NOT give up any of my guns for any reason...:cuss::fire::banghead:

Billy Shears
February 16, 2013, 02:56 PM
NY, NJ, CA, MN, CO, and other states are all passing or are getting ready to pass strict anti-gun laws that could cripple gun ownership. Other states maybe following suit.

They are passing semi-automatic weapons bans, magazine size bans, making magazines be engraved with a serial number date, making gun buyers pay for their background checks, making people do background checks on all sales, tax on bullets and guns, making gun owners have insurance, confiscation of so-called assault weapons and magazines, and other such laws.

Sure many of these laws are unconstitutional and would be repealed by the court, however, by that time (years) the guns and magazines would all ready be gone, perhaps no longer even being manufactured because the manufacturers were put out of business. The goal of the anti-gunners is to "dry-up" the guns and magazines, so perhaps by the time the unconstitutional laws are repealed it's too late.

This is why, in another thread earlier today, I suggested not only engaging in political activism, but also to focus on the business side of things. Specifically, enjoin other firearms manufacturers to follow the example of Olympic Arms and a few other companies who are either now refusing outright to do any further business with any agency of state or local government in New York, or are at least refusing to sell any such agent any product that it would be forbidden to citizens to buy. (See here: http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/. )

More specifically, try and get the “big guns” (no pun intended) in the industry to join this effort – meaning SIG, Glock, and S&W, who among them have the lion's share of the law enforcement business in America today, to join in. Focus on getting these companies (and Colt couldn't hurt either -- they don't supply many handguns to cops anymore, but a lot of the patrol rifles riding around in squad cars today are Colt AR carbines) to sign on. Ruger also should be asked to join.

This will be extremely difficult to persuade them to do. I am sure a lot of their money comes from these law enforcement sales, and they'll be understandably reluctant to essentially amputate that part of their business. It will have to be sold to them as an example of putting long term profitability over short term profit. As the OP noted, other states are looking to follow New York’s lead on this issue. We need to make these companies understand that it is in their long-term interest to get into this fight. After all, there was once a thriving firearms industry in Britain. Except for a handful of companies making high end shotguns, it's almost completely gone now, largely as a result of increasingly restrictive gun laws there destroying that industry's domestic market. If New York succeeds in getting this law on the books and keeping it there, and other states follow NY's example, a huge chunk of these companies' domestic marketplace will be legislated out of existence, thus depriving them of much of their profits. It's time for them to consider what their profitability is likely to be 20, 30, 50 years from now if this trend is allowed to progress. They may want to take a little hit now for the sake of saving their future viability. An ounce of prevention, after all, is worth a gallon of cure. Glock and SIG might be more difficult to persuade, as they are foreign-based companies who only do part of their business in the US, and (especially in Glock’s case) a lot of that is the law enforcement business. Nevertheless, they do rake in an enormous lot from civilian sales, and I don’t think they’d like to see that business slowly strangled to death, state by state. Smith & Wesson might be a little easier. Not only are they based in the US, this is a company that used to have the law enforcement market in this country almost all to itself, and no longer does. This is a company with firsthand knowledge and experience of having to rely more and more on civilian sales to make up for a shrunken share of the law enforcement business. It’s also a company with firsthand knowledge and experience angry civilian gun owners can do to its business (remember the heat turned up on them after the old ownership sold civilian customers out during the Clinton years).

We need to write to these companies and urge them to take a long view, and be willing to take a hit to their short term business in order to protect the long term viability of their industry. It might suck to lose those lucrative contracts to supply the NY City and State police, and all the other agencies in that state. It will suck even more, however, if they go out of business in the coming decades because, state by state, lawmakers have legislated the domestic firearms market out of existence. So let’s write to them and urge them to take a stand against NY state now, and hopefully in so doing, send a message to the other states considering such legislation that they are going to have a really hard time finding guns to put in their officers’ holsters and patrol cars if they go down this road.

Calibre44
February 16, 2013, 02:58 PM
I'm sorry to say it folks but you will get gun control - the reason is simple: kindergarten children got murdered in their own classroom. Its as simple as that. The reality of children being slaughtered is so abhorrent you now have a groundswell of public opinion wanting something done about it, including a good deal of gun owners.

Whether it is unconstitutional or not, people are now questioning the freedoms gun owners take for granted. Politicians will react by bring in new measures to try and prevent a similar tragedy happening again. Any sensible person knows it won't work but they will bring in new laws regardless. The reason? ... because if a similar massacre happens again no politician will want to be a position were they were seen to have done nothing.

This is exactly what happened over here. When Michael Hamilton went door to door in 1987 shooting people at will, the UK public were horrified. Interestingly enough though, handguns were not banned at that point despite the fact that he had one as well as an AK47. Only semi-auto centre fire rifles were banned. In fact this was only a smoke screen because we can still own all of the semi-autos including .50 cal but in a straight pull configuration, whereby the bolt has to be manually pulled back. No mag restrictions are in place. The reason there wasn't an all out ban? - because no children were shot.

Now advance this 10 years or more and we see a guy walk into a school and slaughter a class of children using a handgun. The groundswell or public opinion was such that the Government banned handguns. In fact they didn't ban .22 handguns at that point but a new Gov was elected and they saw their chance and took those too. Registration made this easier.

I hope you all win the fights you are preparing because gun control does not work in reducing violent crime - it only reduces violent crime using a gun (and even that is debatable) - it doesn't stop the violent crime - period.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 03:06 PM
Writing legislators is free. Volunteering time or money for grassroots efforts requires a bit more commitment. I'm actually very disappointed that there is a thread on the forum from a scientific documentary maker who burned his own career to make a pro-2A documentary for the purpose of educating fence-sitting Americans and edging them towards the side of supporting the second amendment. He is asking for donations to finish up the documentary and it has gotten almost no interest here.

People love to shout and complain but when it comes to putting up a few bucks, people become cheapskates. Even the NRA/SAF/GOA threads here have to push hard to convince people to spend a few bucks for memberships or donations and everyone complains they don't "get enough back" like magazines, stupid hats, and trinkets. I've learned that most people don't put their money where their mouth is, and that includes a fair number of gun owners and freedom lovers. They're more concerned at complaining about how panic buyers bought up all the ammo so they can't panic buy themselves.

shafter
February 16, 2013, 03:18 PM
I know it's great to pound the freedom drum, but no one did crap after the 1994 AWB. Dozens of American businesses went out of business because their product line was outlawed. There was no rising up against the government. There was no massive civil disobedience. No one was making their own personal firearms to circumvent federal law. Everyone tucked tail between their legs and complied with federal law until 2004 when it sunset everywhere except states that adopted a state-level version of the same bill.

That's the reality. That's why we better not let it happen to begin with because all those pie-in-the-sky fantasies vaporize the day after such a law is passed.

I agree, history shows that very few people do anything at all when gun laws are passed. Sure, some may hide their firearms and ammo but most will turn them in when it comes down to getting arrested for a felony. Think about it, how many people possess fully automatic weapons? Even though such a restriction is probably unconstitutional most people dutifully turned theirs in or registered them. What makes you think it will be different with AR's or Glocks?

I think a lot of pro-2nd Amendment folks believe that a majority of the the public who owns guns are as ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment as they are and that's just not the case.

Absolutely. Most gun owners in the country are probably very casual about it. A huge amount are probably hunters with a rifle and shotgun or two and will simply switch to bow hunting to avoid breaking the law. The same with the guy who only goes to the range occassionally. Will he risk getting arrested for a sport he participates in only a few times a year?

This battle could have been won. . .a long time ago, but that day has past.

2ifbyC
February 16, 2013, 04:03 PM
Defeatism, complacency, and compromise are terms I redundantly hear on THR. Frankly, this outlook has become tedious and nauseating.

We are in a fight; stop predicting the future and try to so something that will win the objective that we want to accomplish. Write your representatives in Congress and your State, teach the fence sitters the value of guns, carry yourself as a respectful gun owner, contribute to 2A causes, and never give in or give up.

While it may not be fair that we must defend our 2A rights more so than other amendments, action vis-ŕ-vis prediction will determine your gun bearing future.

With over 300,000,000 guns, many things will have to happen before confiscation is ever in play. Injunctions will be invoked to protect your rights if some States go too far with draconian gun bills.

Enough of the “Henny Penny” already!

Texan Scott
February 16, 2013, 04:21 PM
Texas, along with several other great States, are now and will remain strong refuges and vast reserves of both the right and ability to bear arms. When things settle out in the other states, we will be here. The firearms, the factories, the trainers and engineers, the power and the knowledge will be here.

Some antis in some states may take some of the guns and some people's rights for a while... but the RKBA will not go away. When the rest of America is ready, we'll be here for you.

Just sayin'.

hso
February 16, 2013, 04:22 PM
You're looking at this as "the glass is half empty because there are some holes in it".

That's just not the case.

Flip the coin over and ask how many states have said that they'd not pass any additional restrictions? How about those with legislation moving forward saying that any restriction can't be enforced? What about those that are passing legislation saying permit holder personal information will not be releases?

You're acting like some battles that don't look good is the whole war when we have a federal and state by state struggle to win before we can see how the war goes.

If SOME states end up violating the rights of their voters MOST won't and that means your fear of having the entire industry collapse is way ahead of the facts.

AnthonySmithXR
February 16, 2013, 04:28 PM
Well, you might not have yours, but I'll still have mine!! It will matter because most of the states in this Union have the guts to stand up to these neo-commies. I WILL NOT register and I WILL NOT. Hand over what's mine. There only one way to take a gun from a man with his finger on the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gordon_Freeman
February 16, 2013, 04:33 PM
No they have not not already won. There are plenty of states that are standing strong.
There are plenty of people in rural areas that will not let the anti-gunners win.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 16, 2013, 04:43 PM
I still have a 100% legal AK74, how has the left won exactly?

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 04:48 PM
Defeatism, complacency, and compromise are terms I redundantly hear on THR. Frankly, this outlook has become tedious and nauseating.

And the complete opposite has become tedious and nauseating. The "we can't be beat!", pie-in-the-sky, cavalier "I'm invincible", "Romney wins by a landslide" optimism exists which results in, "I don't understand how Obama won again", the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, the 1994 AWB, and a thousand other bills at the local, state, and federal level.

Then the excuse? "Move to another state!" That's what gun owners are saying to New York and California residents. Did these same gun owners move out of the USA when the 1994 AWB was passed? :rolleyes:

The problem is some folks think we've got our rights secured and aren't lifting a finger to do anything. The problem is some folks think we've already signed our death warrant and have nothing to fight for. The truth is freedom and liberties are ALWAYS at risk and you ALWAYS have to fight for them.

usmarine0352_2005
February 16, 2013, 04:54 PM
I still have a 100% legal AK74, how has the left won exactly?


But for how long?



We can never be complacent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.
.

Spymaster
February 16, 2013, 05:00 PM
Sure many of these laws are unconstitutional and would be repealed by the court,

I wouldn't hold my breath, I don't think we'll ever see another favorable ruling from the SCOTUS on gun rights again, at least not in our lifetimes.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 05:06 PM
I still have a 100% legal AK74, how has the left won exactly?

Can you pick up another AK74 made today, legally? Can you pick up another 100% legal AK74 made decades ago for a price affordable to a general consumer?

That's your answer. Just because "I got mine" doesn't mean you won anything. You just got with the program and complied to the government's NFA restrictions early on or you have disposable income.

theriflespeaks1863
February 16, 2013, 05:09 PM
Suck it up.

Stop it with the self-fulfilling prophecy crap and stand up!

Defeatism breeds defeat. If we wither just because the darkness is encroaching on us WE WILL LOSE. No one ever won a fight by "thinking realistically" or "appealing to reason" when times got tough. NEVER think a fight is over before the blade drops. There is still time, and there are still those who will fight tooth and nail, hand over fist to see that we win and our rights- in fact, our very freedom- is preserved.

I am SO tired of seeing defeatist attitudes being propagated here. I can't stop it- it's your right to free speech to post such opinions. But I'll say this right here: if we are just going to roll over and play dead NOW, then yeah, we're going to fail- in fact, we'll deserve it. But as the saying goes, the night is darkest before the dawn. Even an uphill battle is worth fighting. Do you really think it would have been better for the boys freezing to death in 1944 in the Battle of the Bulge just to give up because it looked like all hope was lost?! Because the Germans had "already won"?! NO! They told them 'NUTS' and came out on top! Are we going to sit here and whine about losing when we are FAR, FAR from defeated?! Like h*ll we are! :cuss:

If we want to have any hope of coming out on top here, we are going to pull ourselves together, get our heads screwed on straight, and keep fighting! Nobody ever won by conceding defeat! Have some guts and keep fighting, even when everything seems to be against you!

I am fighting tooth and nail here- I am in the deepest pit of statist, 'progressive,' anti-gun idiocy in the nation: a private 'liberal arts' college. :barf: All around me the darkness of ignorance, fear, meddlesome foolishness and tyranny weigh on my shoulders. But I still walk with my head up, because I am PROUD to be an American gun owner and a Patriot! I am PROUD that I am fighting this battle! I will never surrender, and I will never simply crawl into a cave and fade away like some sick animal. Who cares if the odds run long against us!? Who cares if it looks bleak!? It looked bleak in 1776, and boy did we turn that around! Who cares if it's an uphill battle?! We've always fought the uphill battle, and in the end, we've won more times than not!

So again, I say KEEP FIGHTING! No Surrender! This is not the time for 'doom and gloom,' this is when we pull ourselves together, put some steel in our gut, and carry on! Because that's what we've always done. :cool:

Enough.:fire:

Suck it up!

ZeSpectre
February 16, 2013, 05:18 PM
One of the things I LIKE about the "United States" is our "experimental lab" setup. As much as I wish for certain things across the board I LIKE the fact that this state can try one solution and that state can try another and then a few years later we can ALL look and say "okay, so how did that work out for ya".

For example, when we were having the "concealed carry in places serving alcohol" debate here in Virginia there was a lot of "what if" going on as people imagined all sorts of scenarios including the usual "blood will run in the streets <bars>".

I loved that I was able to show factual information to our legislators that 29 other states already had such rules allowing CCW, many for more than 10 years and that the "blood in the bars" simply DOES NOT HAPPEN and we have something like 260 combined years of proof. Believe it or not that huge chunk of evidence weighed very powerfully.

Now, what to do with places like Chicago that simply refuse to look at actual facts...well I don't know.

Gallstones
February 16, 2013, 05:21 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath, I don't think we'll ever see another favorable ruling from the SCOTUS on gun rights again, at least not in our lifetimes.

Why?

GAF
February 16, 2013, 05:25 PM
If gun companies go out of business, where will the government get guns and ammo from?
China !

Solo
February 16, 2013, 05:27 PM
That's... actually not a bad thing, considering the quality of Chinese goods on the market.

akv3g4n
February 16, 2013, 06:07 PM
That's... actually not a bad thing, considering the quality of Chinese goods on the market.

But it's a long commute to China and a lot of American jobs rely on firearms manufacturers and parts and ammo manufacturers.

Batty67
February 16, 2013, 06:11 PM
Sometimes I just try to wrap my brain around how a deranged d-bag murderer in CT completely threw the country into turmoil and our 2nd amendment rights are under serious attack. If a drunk driver, or even a sober deranged driver, plowed a car into a parade and killed the same amount of people, then all of the talk would be about mental illness or drunk driving...and nothing would change and it would go away after a week.

76shuvlinoff
February 16, 2013, 06:14 PM
Anti's are comfortable with cars and even with drunks, maybe even drunks in cars, but not guns.

Don't look for logic.

When push comes to shove play to win, cheat if you have to. Yeah I know "low road". Flame away.

BryanDavis
February 16, 2013, 06:52 PM
In my humble opinion, our biggest problem is that we have no charismatic leader (or leadership really) capable of pitching a better vision that can gain mindshare with the American public rather than positioning us almost universally as nothing but obstructionists to the liberal-statist enlightened and ultimately (purportedly) inevitable "solutions" to all of our ills (relating to guns or otherwise).

I agree that the 2nd Amendment lot lacks vision. Mitt Romney said in the debates that he wasn't in favor of any new gun control legislation. But what about pro-gun legislation?

Let's try and change that. Imagine that thousands upon thousands of people read this website but wouldn't dare post, even undoubtedly, a few big-wigs (which is true).

Now what is it that you want?

Where exactly is the push-back?

What about a nationalized concealed carry program?

What about taking SBS's and SBR's off the NFA?

What about background checks that don't use the 4473 and keep no record of the transaction?


We may have to eat some states falling off the bandwagon and enacting their own AWB's (at least until the SCOTUS has a chance to have their say) but that doesn't mean we should stop pushing for what we want.

JRH6856
February 16, 2013, 07:15 PM
Let's start with the 2A. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Miller says this applies to weapons suitable for the militia, Heller says it applies to weapons suitable for self defense. McDonald extends it to the states.

OK, then SBRs, SBSs and MGs should be legal to keep and bear.

Why would we want a nationalized concealed carry program? Lets have a nationalized open carry program and leave concealed carry to the states. IOW, 2A protects open carry (bearing arms) but the states may allow concealed carry with permits.

Background checks assume some people may be stripped of the right to keep or bear arms. Before we talk about BGs let's decide whether this restriction is allowed under 2A and exactly to whom the restriction is applied.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 07:23 PM
Don't bank on Republicans pushing through pro-gun legislation at the federal level. Bush had two terms, many of those years with a favorable Congress, to do that. Instead he protected our Second Amendment by saying he'd sign an AWB if it made it to his desk. Good jorb, GOP. We got conceal carry in parts from Obummer in a compromise, which we should have gotten from the "gun-friendly" GOP with open arms years before.

Reagan is a fine example that folks are willing to overlook on his gun-control stances and measures. It's been many, many decades since we've had a decent POTUS. The only thing we've had in my lifetime is a POTUS who wants to make the country after his own image, instead of give people liberties and freedoms to lead their own lives.

If the GOP is putting up someone identical to Obama in 2016 but happens to be pro-gun, I won't vote him in. The last thing this country needs is another charismatic leader trying to further the agenda of amassing executive power and getting his way, rather than running with Constitutional restraint. I'm picking between two parties that will either take away your guns or keep existing restrictions on gun rights. That's a far cry from a PRO 2A leadership that rolls back infringements. The only pro-2A leadership I see happens at the state level. The only pro-gun legislation that's being pushed through has been at the state level.

Texan Scott
February 16, 2013, 07:28 PM
How about a full-court press to define and broaden the 9th and 10th amendments? A comprehensive federal statement of the rights of States and Citizens that reigns in the power of the federal government to sane levels.

A strong statement of prejudice in FAVOR of citizens' liberties over state regulation and states' rights over federal regulation seems in order.

shafter
February 16, 2013, 07:32 PM
How do law abiding citizens win a fight where the other side is fighting dirty? It's like throwing a street fighter who doesn't play by the rules into the ring with a boxer who does follow the rules. He may put up a valiant fight but he probably isn't going to win.

For the most part gun owners in America are a pretty law abiding bunch of people. Anti-gunner's are not. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and any actions that infringe upon it, be it through legislative action or executive action is basically illegal.

We're in trouble people, we're facing a ruthless enemy who doesn't care about anything other than their agenda. We can write letters and make phone calls until we're blue in the face. The fact is that it really doesn't matter anymore. Any legislator who is against firearms doesn't care about our votes anyways. They've already bought as much as they need through social hand-out programs.

Our days of legally and freely owning firearms for hunting, shooting, protection and any other purpose are drawing very close to an end.

phil dirt
February 16, 2013, 07:42 PM
Don't run up the white flag yet. Keep calling and writing your representatives and politely but firmly let them know that we will remember who voted for and against us. If there's anything these (I'm trying to think of a polite term for them, but I can't) elected SOBs fear it's being separated from the hog trough.

Dr.Rob
February 16, 2013, 07:52 PM
Don't you dare give in.

Warp
February 16, 2013, 07:56 PM
Progress

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g105/austin3161324/Firearms/bb352103.gif

Alaska444
February 16, 2013, 08:04 PM
The fight will be lost when the old dinosaurs seek the refuge from above of further asteroids and meteorites. In all seriousness, the government now has its fully brainwashed new generation coming up that vote enthusiastically for Obama and have a welfare mindset.

Even my own son sees things a whole lot different as far as what is ethical or not. Honesty, hard work by the sweat of your brow are not how these kids envision their future. They go to work and expect a pay check without doing the work.

Sorry, I believe once us old timers are gone, so will the 2A and those kids won't have a clue what they did not fight for. So in that sense, yes, it is inevitable that the 2A will be lost, but it is worth holding on to as long as possible. Unfortunately, the WWII vets are fading fast.

My dad passed away at 82 six years ago already and he was only in service the last year of the war. The average age of the WWII vets who were in service at the time of Pearl Harbor is about 89 years old.

The Baby Boomers are all approaching retirement age which by default gives control of way too many issues to a much younger generation with different core values and ethics. Yes, the anti-gunners have in a very real sense won their victory, they just have to wait for our generation to perish from this earth and the victory is theirs.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 09:13 PM
Warp, that's why state Senators and Representatives are where it's at. Most of the progress towards restoring gun rights have been at the state level. It's always been local and state government where grassroots efforts pay off the most.

Don't go blaming the "new generation" for all the ills of society. Plenty of traditional sportsmen and hunters hate assault weapons as much as gun-grabbers. It wasn't "these kids" that created programs like Social Security. That happened during the watch of the "Greatest Generation". While the liberals and conservatives have been deadlocked over this issue, the much-ignored Libertarians at Reason specifically did a detailed firearms survey inside a Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey to find out where all this anti-gun hoolpah is coming from. The YOUNG generation, are the MOST supportive age demographic of RKBA of assault weapons. It looks like it's the older generation that is most anti-assault weapon.

Young Americans ages 18-24 are more supportive of private ownership of assault weapons with 70 percent saying Americans should be allowed to own assault weapons; 27 percent think they should be prohibited. In fact, majorities support allowing Americans to own assault weapons among those under 54. In contrast, older Americans believe assault weapons should be prohibited by a 23-point margin 58 percent to 36 percent...Democrats, who normally count on the youth vote, may be surprised to find that 70 percent of 18-24 year-olds and 58 percent of 25-34 year-olds say “assault weapons should be allowed.” Similarly, Republicans, who usually rely upon the senior vote, will find that 57 percent of 55-64 year-olds and 61 percent of people over the age of 65 say assault weapons should be prohibited....These results are particularly surprising given that other national polls find majority support for federal bans of assault weapons. Even though the Reason-Rupe poll uses the same pollster as the Pew Research Center, asked a different way, Pew finds majority support for a ban on assault style weapons 55 to 40 percent. This suggests that question wording can significantly impact what considerations are brought to mind when respondents answer questions and thus impact their responses.
http://reason.com/poll/2013/01/31/poll-americans-especially-young-ones-say
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/52-percent-of-americans-say-sandy-hook-i

They also did extensive surveying to find out what laypeople defined as "assault weapons":
About two-thirds of the respondents described "assault weapons" as guns that fire rapidly, guns that can fire a large number of rounds without reloading, guns with a lot of "power," or guns used by the military. More than a quarter described them as "machine guns," "automatics," or the equivalent (e.g., "multiple rounds with just one pull of the trigger").
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/30/whats-an-assault-weapon

These are the responses to an open-ended question they ask from those to define "assault weapon"
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/assault-weapon-described

Of course, they compared the polling results based on HOW the same question is phrased. No surprise that phrasing the question differently led to different polling results:
http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/2AF298F7D6B84C5887B1911196053A38.jpg


Full poll landing page here: http://reason.com/poll/2013/01/30/january-2013-landing-page
The polling demographics amd methodology: http://reason.com/assets/db/13594414778608.pdf

JRH6856
February 16, 2013, 09:18 PM
Even though the Reason-Rupe poll uses the same pollster as the Pew Research Center, asked a different way, Pew finds majority support for a ban on assault style weapons 55

That's why I tend to ignore poll result summaries. I want to see the questions asked.

Solo
February 16, 2013, 09:20 PM
Polls are meaningless if the sample population does not know what they are talking about.

Warp
February 16, 2013, 09:22 PM
Polls are meaningless if the sample population does not know what they are talking about.

If the sample population accurately represents the whole population, the poll is still apt.

It's just an unfortunate situation at that point.

Such is life. :(

Solo
February 16, 2013, 09:23 PM
In all seriousness, the government now has its fully brainwashed new generation coming up that vote enthusiastically for Obama and have a welfare mindset.
Shall I get off your lawn?

<- Liberal college educated Democrat currently suckling tens of thousands of dollars from the teat of big government to do research in a university chemical laboratory.

Cesiumsponge
February 16, 2013, 09:25 PM
Don't forget which generation came up with the idea of Social Security. Like the thorough polling above cites, the youngest generation is overwhelmingly the most supportive of private ownership of assault weapons. These kids today don't have large swaths of Fudd sportsmen and Fudd hunters. We grew up with evil black rifles in movies, games, media, and in our gun safes.

It's easy to blame "kids these days" simply because everyone gets nostalgia and thinks theirs is the best generation, best movies, best music, best etc. Then to sit here and blame the kids instead of the parents who are responsible for raising them into decent adults.

Deanimator
February 16, 2013, 09:30 PM
NY, NJ, CA, MN, CO
And there you have it.

Are you actually surprised when Iran passes a law limiting the rights of women?

The anti-gunners have only won when we give up.

That's why there has been a steady parade of fifth columnists through THIS forum, bent on getting us to "compromise" ourselves out of existence. That's all the proof you need that THEY know they're not winning.

Blakenzy
February 16, 2013, 09:41 PM
We need to engage in suppressive fire against ant-gun advancements. You do that by a constant barrage of letters, calls, emails to state and federal representatives. You do it and do your best to get people around you to do it. Letters are bullets and we need suppressive fire, mkay?

Warp
February 16, 2013, 09:43 PM
We need to engage in suppressive fire against ant-gun advancements. You do that by a constant barrage of letters, calls, emails to state and federal representatives. You do it and do your best to get people around you to do it. Letters are bullets and we need suppressive fire, mkay?

I like it.

Trent
February 16, 2013, 10:13 PM
Derek summed it up well in his post, early on.

It *IS* bleak out there. Just as it happened last time, the media is 100% biased and virtually everyone who is getting substantial camera time, is in favor of gun control. Gun rights activists are being labeled as crazy lunatics, who care more for their evil black plastic and metal rifle, than for the welfare of the innocent children. (Who deserve a vote. A simple vote.)

Those who insist that our fundamental right is based on the ability to resist a tyrannical government are being ostracized and ridiculed. "What will you do when the Government knocks on your door with an Apache gunship?" (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence activist asked me that during a debate, I answered "Apache pilots who fire on US citizens have to sleep somewhere, don't they?")

The States' Rights issue is front and center. We're seeing states polarized by this, and other issues. That they were ALREADY polarized by serious, and compounding Federal abuses of power don't make this any easier.

What the Government is starting to realize is that while most United States Citizen will absorb heavy taxes, body scanners when traveling, and restrictive, oppressive laws with depressed resign, a small (but growing) percentage of individuals have for quite some time drawn their "line in the sand" with firearms.

Because those people realize that as bad as it is, it could easily be 1000x worse if our domestic situation takes a sudden turn for the worse. When I was young, my great grandmother (who was a young woman through the great depression) talked to me about life when she was young - she was born in 1912. Until Alzheimer's started stealing her from us, she wasted NOTHING. I mean, every consumable resource that could possibly be reused, was.

What she went through, in the 30's, shaped the entire rest of her life. Even when the decades of wasteful abandon and excess started in full swing (80's-present), she never wasted anything or failed to save a penny.

Watching my children grow up in this world, having to constantly work to raise them with a set of values that parallels my own, instead of what is broadcast on the television, is exceptionally difficult.

I do NOT like the way the world is heading.

I do NOT like that individual freedom and freewill is being subjugated by the central authority.

And make no mistake, my right to free speech, along with my other natural rights, are protected by my right to bear arms - now, until the day I'm pushing up daisies.

There's a lot at stake if we lose this fight. An awful lot.

bogon48
February 16, 2013, 10:36 PM
I don't see serious legislation passing in this congress. Still, I think we need to plan for the long fight. I support the NRA because their presence in D.C. has provided a helpful balance to the frenzy created by the liberal media and politicians, who often know nothing about firearms or have never used one to protect themselves.

Each year there are thousands of people who protect their lives and property with firearms. According to criminologist Gary Kleck, the number is in the millions. Some researchers, notably those at Harvard, have challenged his numbers. Still, the bottom line is that even if they are cut by half, that represents a lot more lives saved than those taken. As you know, the NRA publishes items in every issue of the American Rifleman and has done so for years.

Isn't it odd that we live in a time when texting while driving can kill over 5,000 people a year, and raise little or no attention in Congress, or even concern among parents. Drinking and driving claims another 10,000 or so. But you won't hear any talk about prohibition in Congress (that didn't work the first time). The net effect of these actions are worse than that of all the killings committed with "assault weapons." Yet it'll take a long, persistent effort to get people to understand that the prevention of needless death requires a greater focus on people and not things.

AnthonySmithXR
February 16, 2013, 10:37 PM
Don't forget which generation came up with the idea of Social Security. Like the thorough polling above cites, the youngest generation is overwhelmingly the most supportive of private ownership of assault weapons. These kids today don't have large swaths of Fudd sportsmen and Fudd hunters. We grew up with evil black rifles in movies, games, media, and in our gun safes.

It's easy to blame "kids these days" simply because everyone gets nostalgia and thinks theirs is the best generation, best movies, best music, best etc. Then to sit here and blame the kids instead of the parents who are responsible for raising them into decent adults.

THANK YOU! This is a serious fight, all hands on deck. Dividing 2a supporters by 'this' and 'that' generation is crap. Trust me, there's plenty of blame to go around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JRH6856
February 16, 2013, 10:45 PM
she wasted NOTHING. I mean, every consumable resource that could possibly be reused, was.

"Use it up!
Wear it out!
Make it do,
Or do without!"

Unfortunately, Trent, the way things are going, your children may soon have the opportunity to learn those same values.

Alaska444
February 16, 2013, 10:50 PM
Don't forget which generation came up with the idea of Social Security. Like the thorough polling above cites, the youngest generation is overwhelmingly the most supportive of private ownership of assault weapons. These kids today don't have large swaths of Fudd sportsmen and Fudd hunters. We grew up with evil black rifles in movies, games, media, and in our gun safes.

It's easy to blame "kids these days" simply because everyone gets nostalgia and thinks theirs is the best generation, best movies, best music, best etc. Then to sit here and blame the kids instead of the parents who are responsible for raising them into decent adults.
Dear Cesium,

Not blaming anyone, just stating that the generations before had much different ethics than today including a deep understanding and appreciation for freedom. I don't see that today in the young kids coming down the pike today. On the other hand, how could they.

This has been a long battle going on for more than a hundred years. If you want to date it, go to Teddy Roosevelt who started the concept of welfare with the relief for widows and orphans just about exactly 100 years ago.

The idea that the government is our provider instead of God is a well tread idea now well indoctrinated in this latest generation more so than before. If we look at the demographics of who this latest generation supports, it is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Hopefully they will get smarter, but I am not so hopeful given the horrific propaganda machine working against that. The last election demonstrated dramatically the demographic shifts in this nation that has traditionally been a center right nation. We can no longer make that statement.

Solo
February 16, 2013, 10:52 PM
If you want to date it, go to Teddy Roosevelt who started the concept of welfare with the relief for widows and orphans just about exactly 100 years ago.
It's been around for a bit longer. See my signature for details - Thomas Paine had some interesting ideas in The Rights of Man (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-054.htm).

Alaska444
February 16, 2013, 10:52 PM
THANK YOU! This is a serious fight, all hands on deck. Dividing 2a supporters by 'this' and 'that' generation is crap. Trust me, there's plenty of blame to go around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Once again my friend, not blaming anyone, just noting that the freedom lovers of my father's generation understood greatly the sacrifices required to maintain freedom and willingly fought against the tyranny of Nazism and the Japanese in the East.

I seriously lack any finding of that same love of freedom and the willingness to sacrifice in the kids coming up today. How could they, who is teaching them those precepts any longer?

My point is that it will only take one generation of folks who don't understand the power of freedom and the beauty of freedom. I suspect that we are just about at that point today or very close to it. Not blaming anyone, just observing cultural trends in our society. Once again, the last election demonstrated this concept concretely. We are no longer a center right nation. We are now a nation looking to the government for our provisions and safety and solutions to all of our problems.

There was a reason that my father's generation was called among other things a can do generation. Looking upon my father's life and his talents, he really was a can do person from a very young age. I didn't gather as much "can do'ness" as my own dad. I see NONE in my kids and grandkids who have grown up twiddling gadgets instead of fixing things and exploring. Yes, I will stick to my original statement, I don't see those coming behind us revering the constitution or conservative principles. Instead, they appear to embrace the welfare mentality in their work ethic. Understandably a generalization, but have you worked with any of these young kids lately.

I took my 15 yo grandson swimming at our clubhouse pool last summer with one of his friends. They swam for about 5-10 minutes then sat in the hot tub for about an hour. Sorry, but we used to play hard and work hard. Not trying to divide, but does anyone see the old fashioned work ethic in this youngest generation? Shucks, I sure don't. They don't even play hard.

velojym
February 16, 2013, 11:15 PM
Until the various (name your freedom) groups come together rather than groping for each others' throats, we'll be kept separate and scrabbling to offer up people who do things "we don't like" to the lions in the hope that we'll be eaten last.
Until we all stand up for ALL our rights, we'll all hang separately.

AnthonySmithXR
February 16, 2013, 11:22 PM
Well, I could tell you about the thousands of retirees down here in Florida I run into every day/week/year who think that the government owes them a pay check for the last 30 years of their lives along with healthcare and everything else, while they do absolutely nothing to contribute to society despite the fact that they've long received far more than they ever put in. While complaining about 'this generation' they vote down every measure that may help kids in this area, never lift a finger to help schools, families or anyone other than themselves, and pat themselves on the bal every chance they get. And they are also the reason Florida went to Obama. But that doesn't mean 'that generation' is killing America. As I said, plenty of blame to go around. Entitlements are an equal opportunity blunder. My generation isn't any more guilty of it than any other currently living. It's an American disease, not a generational one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2ifbyC
February 16, 2013, 11:38 PM
I relate more to people of my generation because we share common values and life as it used to be. I cannot say that younger generations are less dedicated to protecting our freedoms although their lifestyle is quite different from mine when growing up.

When 9/11 occurred, the Country became united against the terrorists. Today we are a polarized nation deeply fractured by ideology. We are at war with ourselves. Those that value our Constitutional rights must fight to keep them for the opposition is stomping them into oblivion.

I still retain great faith in our Nation. The pendulum may swing out of kilter but through the wisdom of founding fathers, it has managed to correct itself over time. We will win some and lose some, but no law is forever permanent.

Baron_Null
February 16, 2013, 11:41 PM
Once again my friend, not blaming anyone, just noting that the freedom lovers of my father's generation understood greatly the sacrifices required to maintain freedom and willingly fought against the tyranny of Nazism and the Japanese in the East.

I seriously lack any finding of that same love of freedom and the willingness to sacrifice in the kids coming up today. How could they, who is teaching them those precepts any longer?

My point is that it will only take one generation of folks who don't understand the power of freedom and the beauty of freedom. I suspect that we are just about at that point today or very close to it. Not blaming anyone, just observing cultural trends in our society. Once again, the last election demonstrated this concept concretely. We are no longer a center right nation. We are now a nation looking to the government for our provisions and safety and solutions to all of our problems.

There was a reason that my father's generation was called among other things a can do generation. Looking upon my father's life and his talents, he really was a can do person from a very young age. I didn't gather as much "can do'ness" as my own dad. I see NONE in my kids and grandkids who have grown up twiddling gadgets instead of fixing things and exploring. Yes, I will stick to my original statement, I don't see those coming behind us revering the constitution or conservative principles. Instead, they appear to embrace the welfare mentality in their work ethic. Understandably a generalization, but have you worked with any of these young kids lately.

I took my 15 yo grandson swimming at our clubhouse pool last summer with one of his friends. They swam for about 5-10 minutes then sat in the hot tub for about an hour. Sorry, but we used to play hard and work hard. Not trying to divide, but does anyone see the old fashioned work ethic in this youngest generation? Shucks, I sure don't. They don't even play hard.

Stop giving up on the next generation. Stop throwing them under the bus. Stop lamenting their failures before they happen. Just stop.

The only thing you're accomplishing by going on this diatribe about how awful people my age are is alienating young people who actually want to protect freedom.

And please stop viewing previous generations as the penultimate in freedom loving citizens. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the kids born in the 90s that allowed the gun control acts of 1934 and 1968 to go through.

AnthonySmithXR
February 16, 2013, 11:45 PM
And what generation created the ACLU? Plenty of blame to go around. We've got to have unity for the cause or it IS lost. Don't say you're not blaming anyone after saying 'after my generation is dead it's al going to heck'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mljdeckard
February 16, 2013, 11:51 PM
For the thousandth time, NO.

Skeptic2
February 16, 2013, 11:52 PM
I shall not rant about the current occupant of the White House. We have seen threats of control for decades. With each threat, the price of guns has risen for a while, ammunition components have sold out and people look for ways to hide their guns. People should have started buying these things the when a democrat wins the election and sell "high" while the storm passes. It is a political football and would not be surprised at insider trading by those "exempt" of SEC regulations.

In other countries, a location for the weapon must be secured in the house of the owner to control access. Most .22 weapons are surpressed, so as to not annoy the neighbors. We can't get healthcare right, nor can we get gun control right. Why? POLI-TICs as Pogo used to say. Perhaps it will succeed, if the president gets a forth term.

But what do I know? I am not inside the loop with all the bureaucrats, lobbyists and other kidders, to paraphrase Will Rogers.

michaelbsc
February 16, 2013, 11:57 PM
Michael,

I get the gist of what you are saying and can only agree. I would, however, suggest Mark Levin's Ameritopia, as picking up the "Philosophers" and reading them is not like reading a Louis Lamor book. I read his book and came away with a sense that he about summed up my first two years of college.

Chuck

I haven't read this book by Levin. Been working too many hours the past two years. But Men in Black was excellent, and a good synopsis of judicial activism.

I'll grant that reading original source is daunting. And Levin, at least on the radio, is a good interpreter.

I just looked at the liner notes for Ameritopia, and it's obviously dealing with exactly the topic I brought up. And probably far more digestible than 3-4 centuries old works in archaic dialect.

So, yeah, go for it. And kick the royalty into Levin's pocket. But I would try to find it in a real book store before supporting Amazon, who hates us.

And one admonition I would make in the long run would be to try to get back to Hobbes's Leviathan independent of Levin. While Levin will give a fair critique no doubt, his analysis will be about the problems with it. You need to hear the pro arguments from Hobbes supporters and still see the problems. When it's cast in favorable light it's more difficult to see the problems, and that's what we must learn to do.

If nothing else get the SparkNotes and read them after reading Levin. They're like CliffNotes for nonfiction. Cost a few bucks each and aimed at a modern student.

As I quoted, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

This struggle is about far more than just guns. It's about the social contract of how America functions as a society. It's about fundamentally changing America.

Bovice
February 16, 2013, 11:57 PM
I'm surprised this thread made it four pages without a moderator closing it on the grounds of "you're all wearing tinfoil hats and being paranoid."

If it gets bad, I know a lot of people would turn in their guns. You have to make the choice, live free or die hard. (I watched that movie on FX tonight)

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 12:03 AM
Stop giving up on the next generation. Stop throwing them under the bus. Stop lamenting their failures before they happen. Just stop.

The only thing you're accomplishing by going on this diatribe about how awful people my age are is alienating young people who actually want to protect freedom.

And please stop viewing previous generations as the penultimate in freedom loving citizens. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the kids born in the 90s that allowed the gun control acts of 1934 and 1968 to go through.
Not trying to offend anyone, just noting that there is a much different work ethic and sense of freedom than what I grew up with in the 50's and 60's. If you don't like my opinion on this, here are some professional articles. In any case, our society is heading into a deep slumber of entitlement. If that is not intuitively apparent, then perhaps we should discuss this.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/lynscircle/2009/07/07/the-new-welfare-generation/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/keller-the-entitled-generation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/09/30/the_new_me_generation/

But don’t take his word for it. Many students openly admit their goal is to succeed with the least amount of effort. And many universities make this easy for them. It isn’t hard to find courses where you can get good marks even if you don’t show up. Professors say it’s not uncommon for 30 per cent or 40 per cent of their students to skip any given class. And students strenuously object if they don’t get the marks they feel entitled to. “They got 80 per cent in high school and, when they get 62 per cent, they’re mad,” says Prof. Coates. “They bring assignments in late and think we’ll mark them without penalty.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/columnists/inside-the-entitlement-generation/article627319/

michaelbsc
February 17, 2013, 12:05 AM
Stop giving up on the next generation. Stop throwing them under the bus. Stop lamenting their failures before they happen. Just stop.

[...]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the kids born in the 90s that allowed the gun control acts of 1934 and 1968 to go through.

My hat is off to you young man.

Thank you.

michaelbsc
February 17, 2013, 12:16 AM
We're seeing states polarized by this, and other issues. That they were ALREADY polarized by serious, and compounding Federal abuses of power don't make this any easier.

Like it or not, there's a real limit to their abuses. The regions that perceive the central government as totally out of control have one overriding resource.


We grow the food.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 17, 2013, 12:55 AM
Can you pick up another AK74 made today, legally? Can you pick up another 100% legal AK74 made decades ago for a price affordable to a general consumer?

That's your answer. Just because "I got mine" doesn't mean you won anything. You just got with the program and complied to the government's NFA restrictions early on or you have disposable income.

By saying they've won means my rifle of choice is illegal. I don't see how they've won. The recent AWB is dead and now they are trying to sell a national registry. That looks more like we are still fighting vs. they've won.

By the way, my AK74 isn't select fire. I bought it for $540 early last year. If you know of any select fire pre '86 NFA registered AK74s, that would be absolutely amazing.


I'm tired of seeing this defeatist attitude. It's over when it's over and boy is it far from being over. No side has one yet but we actually have the upper hand. Look at gun ownership statistics and think about how the recent AWB attempt failed when the first one passed.

Deer_Freak
February 17, 2013, 12:56 AM
We have a lot of splintering going on. I am of a progressive mindset, except when it comes to the second amendment. I have tried to get active in local grass roots organizations. Once they find out that I am not a fox news watching republican they made it clear I was not wanted. I am an ardent supporter of the second amendment. I don't care about your religious or political views. If we want to protect the second amendment we have to let everyone who cares participate. One local gun shop that I spent a lot of money in drove me off because of my view on the Trayvon Martin shooting. They think you should shoot people over property. They think you should take the law in your own hands. I think they have no business owning a gun, much less a gun shop.

Baron_Null
February 17, 2013, 01:01 AM
Not trying to offend anyone, just noting that there is a much different work ethic and sense of freedom than what I grew up with in the 50's and 60's. If you don't like my opinion on this, here are some professional articles. In any case, our society is heading into a deep slumber of entitlement. If that is not intuitively apparent, then perhaps we should discuss this.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/lynscircle/2009/07/07/the-new-welfare-generation/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/keller-the-entitled-generation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/09/30/the_new_me_generation/



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/columnists/inside-the-entitlement-generation/article627319/

I honestly don't care if you mean to be offending or not. And it really doesn't matter that I am offended. I don't have a right to not be offended. My feelings have no bearing on the situation at hand.

I'm not saying that there not a lot of people out there that prefer the easy way to the right way.

What I am saying is that ranting on about how awful this generation is being isn't going to help our cause any. It's not encouraging anyone to go out and act. All it's doing is prematurely admitting defeat and blaming it all on the failures of a group that you aren't a part of.

So instead of focusing all of this energy on talking about how my generation is going to ruin everything spend that energy writing your legislators and encourage others to do the same, debate with anti-gunners, teach others about the real facts behind gun control, try to encourage other pro-2A people to do the same, ect. ect.

I'm not saying you don't already do all of this, but you're still spending precious debating energy on trying to alienate other people with the same views that you have.

My point is, if you really think everything is lost because of my generations lack of fight, prove how much better yours is.

Texshooter
February 17, 2013, 01:01 AM
Got to keep fighting from the county commish on up - to the WH.

Perhaps all politics is local.

In those states where the goal is to make honest citizens criminals, all it will take is for ONE person to stand up.

Then watch what happens.

flex28
February 17, 2013, 01:06 AM
I think the big question is, who will voluntarily turn in guns/mags/ammo the state or federal government demands.
If a decent amount of people are sheep, then yes the battle will be lost before it ever gets to the SCOTUS. Then again, if we keep electing people like Obama, the SCOTUS will be full of people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has no respect for the Constitution. The current balance of 5-4 majority could easily turn the other way or worse.
So every single person who voted for Obama will have played a role is destroying the 2nd Amendment, and eventually the rest of the Constitution.
OK , don't know how others feel but your point that everone who voted for Obama contributed to this. Wouldn't that also include those that voted for his enablers in Congress and even at the state and local level ?
I've been told that politics can't be discussed here but ... isn't that hpw we got this problem where politicians are trying to ban guns ?
No guns... nothing to discuss.
So , two local gun stores made it a policy not to sell anything on the "ban lists" to anyone who can't prove they are not registered with BHO's party.
No voter's registration stamped R or I or anything other than D ..... no guns, magazines or ammo.
I agree.
You ?

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 01:07 AM
We have a lot of splintering going on. I am of a progressive mindset, except when it comes to the second amendment. I have tried to get active in local grass roots organizations. Once they find out that I am not a fox news watching republican they made it clear I was not wanted. I am an ardent supporter of the second amendment. I don't care about your religious or political views. If we want to protect the second amendment we have to let everyone who cares participate. One local gun shop that I spent a lot of money in drove me off because of my view on the Trayvon Martin shooting. They think you should shoot people over property. They think you should take the law in your own hands. I think they have no business owning a gun, much less a gun shop.
Sorry, but if you wish to vote "progressive" then how is it that you propose to protect the 2A? I certainly don't uphold everything that the GOP does, but if you are going to vote for "progressive" candidates, how is it that you can separate that from their anti-gun stance?

I will continue to support the mindset that Dr. Benjamin Carson noted last week when he "stood up" to Obama in person. Until America returns to the ideals he promoted in his talk, then I don't care who you vote for, America is toast and so is the 2A eventually. We "fought off" the folks for years on socialized medicine, now that is a lost battle as well.

http://uneditedpolitics.com/dr-benjamin-carson-speech-at-the-national-prayer-breakfast-2713/

If you wish to vote progressive, that is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when you progressive candidates strip you of your second amendment.

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 02:03 AM
I honestly don't care if you mean to be offending or not. And it really doesn't matter that I am offended. I don't have a right to not be offended. My feelings have no bearing on the situation at hand.

I'm not saying that there not a lot of people out there that prefer the easy way to the right way.

What I am saying is that ranting on about how awful this generation is being isn't going to help our cause any. It's not encouraging anyone to go out and act. All it's doing is prematurely admitting defeat and blaming it all on the failures of a group that you aren't a part of.

So instead of focusing all of this energy on talking about how my generation is going to ruin everything spend that energy writing your legislators and encourage others to do the same, debate with anti-gunners, teach others about the real facts behind gun control, try to encourage other pro-2A people to do the same, ect. ect.

I'm not saying you don't already do all of this, but you're still spending precious debating energy on trying to alienate other people with the same views that you have.

My point is, if you really think everything is lost because of my generations lack of fight, prove how much better yours is.
Is my generation perfect or the one before? Of course not.

Perhaps you are not understanding the original context of my answer to the question whether we have already lost the battle.

The answer to that in many ways is yes since they have already put in place the concept of dumbing down American kids. They have taken God out of schools and are trying to do the same with our entire society in many ways. The highest scores in the SAT's came in the 1960's, a bit before me as well since I graduated in the mid 70's. Since then, it has plummeted.

The focus here on THR is "fighting" for our gun rights, but the foundations that hold up all of our fundamental rights are being destroyed before our very eyes. If we do not restore the foundations that are the source of our "God given" rights that the constitution is supposed to protect, then what good is the constitution any longer?

As a born again Christian since 1994, I don't see this nation restoring the foundations that made our country the great nation it once was. Please go and read the founding documents and how the constitution and the bill of rights were designed not to grant rights, to protect those that God had already given to man. These rights were called "natural" rights.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html

Today, those foundations and understanding of natural rights is no longer taught to our kids in public schools. If they fail to understand why we have a bill of rights, what the issues were with the bill of rights, then where is the motivation to protect those God given rights that would require sacrifice on their part?

Sorry, but in a very large manner, we have already lost the battle since I don't see the restoration of the fundamental foundation of all of our rights. It will come to a point some day where folks believe the notion that it is the government that supplies these rights and has the authority to rescind them for the "public good" if needed.

This nation is in great danger, perhaps not irreversibly at this point, but we don't have a lot of time to correct the direction and course this nation is headed. If those that follow our generation do lack these basic understandings that we were taught in our public school educations, then yes, they will and are likely to lose the battle.

So fight all you want for gun rights, but if we don't restore the foundations, then what is it that we will in the end preserve?

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 02:08 AM
By saying they've won means my rifle of choice is illegal. I don't see how they've won. The recent AWB is dead and now they are trying to sell a national registry. That looks more like we are still fighting vs. they've won.

By the way, my AK74 isn't select fire. I bought it for $540 early last year. If you know of any select fire pre '86 NFA registered AK74s, that would be absolutely amazing.


I'm tired of seeing this defeatist attitude. It's over when it's over and boy is it far from being over. No side has one yet but we actually have the upper hand. Look at gun ownership statistics and think about how the recent AWB attempt failed when the first one passed.
Really, they voted already on the AWB and it was defeated? Where did I miss that?

We all thought on the right that with the election of Scott Brown that Obamacare was defeated as well.

This whole fight is FAR from over including the AWB.

BulletArc47
February 17, 2013, 02:31 AM
My guess is that as soon as these state laws start taking efect the NRA and others will file a bucket full of lawsuits and tie them up in court. We have lost nothing yet and frankly, I'm getting tired of all these defeatest posts.


I totally agree. These defeatist mindsets only serve to hurt our argument, and morale.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 17, 2013, 02:39 AM
Really, they voted already on the AWB and it was defeated? Where did I miss that?


The fact that no one seems to be talking about it anymore and no one in power, even Obama and Feinstein, see it surviving in the Senate. Also add to it that all their attention after signing those pathetic executive orders has shifted to the universal "background check" and even then?

I've been paying close attention to these things since Sandy Hook.

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 02:41 AM
It is not defeatist to delineate where the battle really is. Focusing only on battling the anti-gun legislation already passed is not where America is losing the battle.

Fighting for the 2A without holding up the foundations of "natural rights" at the same time throughout our entire society will only end in eventual defeat.

I plan to teach my grandkids all about natural rights and where they originate in accordance with our founding documents. That is where I shall fight this battle within my own home. If we fail to teach our kids this foundation, then yes, we have lost the battle since they will not have any basis for defending the constitution and bill of rights. Many today advocate getting rid of the constitution. POTUS is one for sure that advocates that in his actions.

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 02:45 AM
The fact that no one seems to be talking about it anymore and no one in power, even Obama and Feinstein, see it surviving in the Senate. Also add to it that all their attention after signing those pathetic executive orders has shifted to the universal "background check" and even then?

I've been paying close attention to these things since Sandy Hook.
All we need is another Sandy Hook with everything already to go and it may indeed be a different picture. Time is on their side, not ours since statistically, a major mass shooting will occur before Obama's term expires. No, it is not over, nor will it ever be over while so many antis are in power.

OilyPablo
February 17, 2013, 06:57 AM
For the most part if you vote Democrat you are part of the problem.

Not saying all Democrats are anti-gun and all Republicans are pro-gun, but the differences in party platform are pronounced and then when you look and see who is introducing all these bills against our 2nd Amendment it becomes very clear. So by voting for this party, you are indeed voting against our Constitution.

shafter
February 17, 2013, 08:25 AM
Today, those foundations and understanding of natural rights is no longer taught to our kids in public schools. If they fail to understand why we have a bill of rights, what the issues were with the bill of rights, then where is the motivation to protect those God given rights that would require sacrifice on their part?

Sorry, but in a very large manner, we have already lost the battle since I don't see the restoration of the fundamental foundation of all of our rights. It will come to a point some day where folks believe the notion that it is the government that supplies these rights and has the authority to rescind them for the "public good" if needed.

This nation is in great danger, perhaps not irreversibly at this point, but we don't have a lot of time to correct the direction and course this nation is headed. If those that follow our generation do lack these basic understandings that we were taught in our public school educations, then yes, they will and are likely to lose the battle.

So fight all you want for gun rights, but if we don't restore the foundations, then what is it that we will in the end preserve?

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excellent point! If the foundation is crumbling it doesn't matter how hard you work to save the rest of the house. It's all gonna come down sooner or later. Gun control is really just a symptom of this.

Again, well said.

SuperNaut
February 17, 2013, 09:54 AM
My point is that it will only take one generation of folks who don't understand the power of freedom and the beauty of freedom. I suspect that we are just about at that point today or very close to it. Not blaming anyone, just observing cultural trends in our society. Once again, the last election demonstrated this concept concretely. We are no longer a center right nation. We are now a nation looking to the government for our provisions and safety and solutions to all of our problems.

There was a reason that my father's generation was called among other things a can do generation. Looking upon my father's life and his talents, he really was a can do person from a very young age. I didn't gather as much "can do'ness" as my own dad. I see NONE in my kids and grandkids who have grown up twiddling gadgets instead of fixing things and exploring. Yes, I will stick to my original statement, I don't see those coming behind us revering the constitution or conservative principles. Instead, they appear to embrace the welfare mentality in their work ethic. Understandably a generalization, but have you worked with any of these young kids lately.

I took my 15 yo grandson swimming at our clubhouse pool last summer with one of his friends. They swam for about 5-10 minutes then sat in the hot tub for about an hour. Sorry, but we used to play hard and work hard. Not trying to divide, but does anyone see the old fashioned work ethic in this youngest generation? Shucks, I sure don't. They don't even play hard.
So is it the kids making decisions? So it the kids who are in Congress? So is it the kids fronting all of the anti-gun orgs? Feinstein, Cuomo, Brady, Obama, Morgan, Murdock, Nocero, Blow, and all the other Neo-Trotskyites are far from young.

Sorry pal, this all about the moral bankruptcy of the Boomers.

Derek Zeanah
February 17, 2013, 10:19 AM
How about we stop trying to assign blame to the 20% of the population we think is most culpable. And how about we stop drawing dividing lines across party affiliation.

In the last ten years the US: Has started a war based on secret evidence whose accuracy later proved, ummmm, "lacking."
Has embraced torture as a legitimate tool in what was previously an endeavor for law enforcement. We even ship prisoners to places like Syria to have the job performed more traditionally.
Has started "indefinite detention." You're not charged with a crime, and you're given a status that exempts you from the codified protections in both the law of war and under our justice system. We place you in legal limbo and keep you there forever.
In both of the above situations, after you're in custody the authorities will deny to your family and any legal counsel your family hires that you're even in custody.
All cell phone, e-mails, and other electronic traffic are routinely monitored.
We now have to submit to a virtual strip search to travel. The options are to be groped instead, or to not fly commercial.
The US Government can put your name on a list and you're no longer allowed to fly. If this happens while you're overseas, you're SOL unless you want to book passage on a ship to Canada and drive in, I guess.
The Administration has now taken it on itself to execute US citizens if it feels they're associated with terrorism in some way. No judge, no notice, no charges, just <bam.> And no, this is not comparable to "wanted Dead or Alive" posters we've all seen -- in those cases someone went through the process to file charges against the person, the charges are known, and there's the option to turn yourself in and exercise your rights to a fair trial, you get to confront your accusers, etc. In the "targeted killings" case, as far as you know everything's cool. Then you're dead. And maybe your 16 year old son, too.
Taxes? Don't get me started. Taxation now is probably 400% higher than it was in Colonial times.And on, and on, and on.

The current fight over guns is the next stage in the process, but it's part of a current in American politics that's been growing stronger over time. When Bush does it, the liberals scream and the conservatives back it. When Obama does it, the conservatives scream and the liberals back it. When it's voted on in congress the debates are rarely contentious, and win by strong majorities.

We've got a serious political problem. And it's pervasive -- you can't simply point at one party or segment of the population and lay the blame. You can try, but you're just wrong.

The thing that bothers me is this: Check out this graphic

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AAvhc7mzaSg/UQ7y1H-tWsI/AAAAAAAAFa8/RI7zQ0cA88k/s1600/Homicide+chart.+edited.gif

If I were to recreate it I'd put all 323 homicides involving a rifle of any kind on their own line, but then you wouldn't be able to see it.

That's the magnitude of gun violence, and rifles don't make the list. But rifles have (arguably) the strongest correlation with the second amendment and its original purpose.

xfyrfiter
February 17, 2013, 11:02 AM
I'm not sure who said this but it fits our political situation as well as anything I have heard "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", all of the politicians that are in office, if not corrupt when they are elected, by their second term are.

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 12:26 PM
The following has be misattributed so often that I won't attempt to identify a source. But it does seem applicable:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.


As a nation, we appear to be somewhere between 5 and 7 with progressives forging ahead and conservatives trying to hold back. But it is a slippery slope and at best, we can only slow the descent.

Deer_Freak
February 17, 2013, 12:49 PM
People defend the taxation of the rich yet they are paying the lowest taxes of the modern era. We became the greatest nation on the planet with a much higher tax rate for the rich. If you notice the national debt is directly linked to lower taxes on the rich.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page where I acquired this information. It is much easier to read and understand in a table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Year Brackets Rate Rate Income Adj. 2011 Comment
1913 7 1% 7% $500,000 $11.3M First permanent income tax
1917 21 2% 67% $2,000,000 $35M World War I financing
1925 23 1.5% 25% $100,000 $1.28M Post war reductions
1932 55 4% 63% $1,000,000 $16.4M Depression era
1936 31 4% 79% $5,000,000 $80.7M
1941 32 10% 81% $5,000,000 $76.3M World War II
1942 24 19% 88% $200,000 $2.75M Revenue Act of 1942
1944 24 23% 91% $200,000 $2.54M Individual Income Tax Act of 1944
1946 24 20% 91% $200,000 $2.30M
1964 26 16% 77% $400,000 $2.85M Tax reduction during Vietnam war
1965 25 14% 70% $200,000 $1.42M
1981 16 14% 70% $212,000 $532k Reagan era tax cuts
1982 14 12% 50% $106,000 $199k Reagan era tax cuts
1987 5 11% 38.5% $90,000 $178k Reagan era tax cuts
1988 2 15% 28% $29,750 $56k Reagan era tax cuts
1991 3 15% 31% $82,150 $135k
1993 5 15% 39.6% $250,000 $388k Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
2003 6 10% 35% $311,950 $380k Bush tax cuts
2011 6 10% 35% $379,150 $379k
2013 7 10% 39.6% $400,000 $400k[disputed – discuss]

Double Naught Spy
February 17, 2013, 01:00 PM
Have the anti-gunners already won?

Tired of fighting?

Pot possession is a mere misdemeanor in most states and not illegal in others.
Except for medical marijuana, I don't know any states in which marijuana is legal under federal law.

It *IS* bleak out there. Just as it happened last time, the media is 100% biased and virtually everyone who is getting substantial camera time, is in favor of gun control.

If the media is 100% biased, then why do we see positive news? Is John Stossel no longer part of the media?

The media largely does like sensationalism, especially when there are victims. Many times has been the case that the media shouts wolf when no wolf exists, but when they can make money on pro-gun news, they do that as well. Their allegiance is to how they work the stories for a buck and it is easy to work against guns than for guns in most cases.

Deer_Freak
February 17, 2013, 01:01 PM
For the most part if you vote Democrat you are part of the problem.

Not saying all Democrats are anti-gun and all Republicans are pro-gun, but the differences in party platform are pronounced and then when you look and see who is introducing all these bills against our 2nd Amendment it becomes very clear. So by voting for this party, you are indeed voting against our Constitution.
Lots of people believe that idea. Mitt Romney was a known gun grabber yet gun owners were quick to back him. I am not saying Obama was a better choice. I am saying we had no choice in the last election. If you pay attention to who sponsors 90% of all anti gun legislation it is only a handful of Democrats. The JPFO has a name for this group of people "the jews in name only." I am a Gentile but the JPFO has some interesting reading and ways to defend the second amendment without ever mentioning the second amendment. I called Diane Feinsteins office. Her staff is so used to saying the bills she sponsors do not infringe on the second amendment, they had no answers nor were they prepared to discuss her bills on the social level. They just kept trying to say the bills do not infringe on the second amendment. Yet I never mentioned the second amendment. They were like just shut up and accept it. I don't know how the people of CA elect people who can not prepare their staff to answer basic questions about the legislation they sponsor.

Kay Hagan is a NC Democrat that is a big wheel on the senate armed forces committee. If you have a son or daughter that is thinking of enlisting they will tell you in a hurry what your child is getting into both good and bad. When she sponsors a bill her staff can explain it in common English that most people can understand.

RangerHAAF
February 17, 2013, 01:16 PM
If gun companies go out of business, where will the government get guns and ammo from?
They'll do as the military does(at Ft. Benning & Quantico) and make their own, in house.

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 01:41 PM
Since they can't get a federal bill up and running, they've retreated to state government, where it's easier to pass such things under much less media scrutiny. That's just political strategy, regardless of what issue or what side of the issue.


True but it's also the more legal way to go about it, Constitutionally. It's been determined that gun laws are generally state's issues.

IMO, it's also easier for concerned local people to make a difference...it's easier to influence a state legislature...they've outlined in our newspapers the feedback they've gotten and how it's factored in the laws that they've either changed or dropped completely

Gallstones
February 17, 2013, 01:59 PM
OK , don't know how others feel but your point that everone who voted for Obama contributed to this. Wouldn't that also include those that voted for his enablers in Congress and even at the state and local level ?
I've been told that politics can't be discussed here but ... isn't that hpw we got this problem where politicians are trying to ban guns ?
No guns... nothing to discuss.So , two local gun stores made it a policy not to sell anything on the "ban lists" to anyone who can't prove they are not registered with BHO's party.
No voter's registration stamped R or I or anything other than D ..... no guns, magazines or ammo.
I agree.
You ?

I think it's a stupid idea.
Alienating people because of alleged party affiliation--FYI not all states require a person to declare a party and can vote any ballot for a Primary--is cutting off potential like minded allies. Also, a person may have voted Democratic but could be disallusioned now with the way some things are shaking out. They need to be given an open door not have it slammed in their face. Better to have few groups of large numbers working together despite some differences than numerous small number groups who are holding to petty ideological competitions.

Gallstones
February 17, 2013, 02:08 PM
The following has be misattributed so often that I won't attempt to identify a source. But it does seem applicable:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.


As a nation, we appear to be somewhere between 5 and 7 with progressives forging ahead and conservatives trying to hold back. But it is a slippery slope and at best, we can only slow the descent.

That is a depressing list.

I have been talking to people who aspire to total dependance on the government for everything and think attaining that is the definition of utopia.

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 02:08 PM
As to your presumed analogy, pot smokers are criminals and do not turn in anything, they smoke their supply.

Many gun owners consider themselves law abiding even though they have no idea how easy some places have made it to lose their 2nd Amendment rights, even for some misdemeanor offenses.



`

Huh, pot smokers are not criminals in this state. At all. Same in some other states.

See how that works with laws that are unConstitutional or serve no real purpose? Or are even detrimental?

And it's also an example of getting useless laws changed....

(And no, I dont smoke pot).

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 02:12 PM
How do you feel about a comparison with methamphetamines?

Another stupid, useless law.

Let them kill themselves. Just enforce safety and code laws that shut down any meth lab, as that is a legitimate danger to the public and already covered under current laws.

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 02:36 PM
Well, I could tell you about the thousands of retirees down here in Florida I run into every day/week/year who think that the government owes them a pay check for the last 30 years of their lives along with healthcare and everything else, while they do absolutely nothing to contribute to society despite the fact that they've long received far more than they ever put in.

Are you kidding? That is one broad brush you are painting a load of junk with.

For one thing, those people PAID for their social security. AND medicaid.

And plenty of seniors still contribute. Ever hear of the Sowers? THey are a nation-wide group of retirees that go around the country BUILDING community centers, churches, additions to schools, etc. There are plenty of groups like that and many retirees are still in Rotary, Moose clubs, etc also working and DONATING time and $.

My folks, retired, now mostly in FL, took physical and computer tests (regulations, etc) after 9/11 to join the Coast Guard auxiliary and still spend hours volunteering on the boats AND in the community for the CG. They also helped physically and financially build a community center down there and volunteer at the high school. They are far from exceptions (altho I am very proud of them), as I meet plenty of their friends and acquaintences who are part of many different organizations and churches.

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 02:37 PM
Most drug laws are justified by citing the affects of drug use upon society. This can range from crimes committed to support the habit to the cost for public healthcare for the users who barely have the money to pay for their drugs.

Consider this. Obamacare is a compromise. What the progressives really want is a single payer government provided, universal healthcare system. Why? Because anything a person does can affect their health. And if the government is responsible for a person's health care, the government can legitimately claim the rightful authority to regulate anything that person might do that might affect their health. Anything

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 02:47 PM
For the most part if you vote Democrat you are part of the problem.

.

LOL

Romney's record on guns in MA is a joke, and he would have crumbled after Sandy Hook too. And good luck with Christie of un-gun-friendly NJ coming up...he's a prime candidate for Republicans in 2016.

I think most politicians, including president would have reacted after Sandy Hook. Not that I agree with that, but politicians are politicians....

Warp
February 17, 2013, 02:52 PM
Most drug laws are justified by citing the affects of drug use upon society. This can range from crimes committed to support the habit to the cost for public healthcare for the users who barely have the money to pay for their drugs.

Consider this. Obamacare is a compromise. What the progressives really want is a single payer government provided, universal healthcare system. Why? Because anything a person does can affect their health. And if the government is responsible for a person's health care, the government can legitimately claim the rightful authority to regulate anything that person might do that might affect their health. Anything

That is NOT a compromise!

I'm sick and tired of them proposing something, then only sticking us with half of the something that was proposed, and calling it a compromise. It's not!

In a compromise both sides give something and both sides get something. All they do is take less than what the first proposed to take. But what's the only thing that happens? They TAKE

The_Armed_Therapist
February 17, 2013, 02:53 PM
Any issue goes the same way. The anti-liberty folks win battle after battle, easily winning most of them. This can continue for years, decades, or even centuries. That liberty decreases and decreases until people either fight back (with something besides a stupid ballot) or roll over and give up.

YES, the anti-gunners are winning. They haven't won, however, until they've successfully removed the rifles from the citizens. In most countries they've won the war. They WON'T win the war in the United States, however.

george shaffer
February 17, 2013, 03:00 PM
I can tell by your mos you could never concede to the anti gunners

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 03:02 PM
Any issue goes the same way. The anti-liberty folks win battle after battle, easily winning most of them. This can continue for years, decades, or even centuries. That liberty decreases and decreases until people either fight back (with something besides a stupid ballot) or roll over and give up.

YES, the anti-gunners are winning. They haven't won, however, until they've successfully removed the rifles from the citizens. In most countries they've won the war. They WON'T win the war in the United States, however.
The 2A is at great risk from another mass shooting while Obama is in office.

The constitution is at great risk from another 911 or WMD while any president is in office.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Sadly, it is very likely that both will occur if we were taking odds on them happening.

phil dirt
February 17, 2013, 03:04 PM
Here in Wa State we have had a few of the typical onerous gun grabbing bills introduced in the state legislature and supported by our local leftist anti gun rag, the Seattle Times. This morning it was reported that the duffus idiots who wrote the bill neglected the fact that they are unconstitutional. Now with egg smeared all over their faces, they have been forced to remove the warrantless search provisions that was originally the main point of their bill. The long and the short of all of this is that it looks like very little of what the progressive/communist left wanted is going to happen. Score: good guys 1, commies 0. So, the rest of you guys ....... don't give up the fight. We are winning!

OilyPablo
February 17, 2013, 03:16 PM
LOL

Romney's record on guns in MA is a joke, and he would have crumbled after Sandy Hook too. And good luck with Christie of un-gun-friendly NJ coming up...he's a prime candidate for Republicans in 2016.

I think most politicians, including president would have reacted after Sandy Hook. Not that I agree with that, but politicians are politicians....

Good job on not using my whole post.

Not saying all Democrats are anti-gun and all Republicans are pro-gun, but the differences in party platform are pronounced and then when you look and see who is introducing all these bills against our 2nd Amendment it becomes very clear. So by voting for this party, you are indeed voting against our Constitution.

Democrats by and large have been introducing all these terrible bills. If you are a member of that party, you are part of the problem. You cannot deny this, unless somehow you are successfully changing your party. This is not saying the Republicans are much better, but they ARE currently better at gun legislation. Period. And yes I know about, Reagan, Bush, Romney, Christie, etc..........and again how much legislation are they currently introducing?

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 03:17 PM
So is it the kids making decisions? So it the kids who are in Congress? So is it the kids fronting all of the anti-gun orgs? Feinstein, Cuomo, Brady, Obama, Morgan, Murdock, Nocero, Blow, and all the other Neo-Trotskyites are far from young.

Sorry pal, this all about the moral bankruptcy of the Boomers.
I don't believe that we will see the end of the 2A in my lifetime. I am now 54. If we do lose the 2A in my generation, then yes, you are correct.

However, I believe it will hang on for a bit longer. We are indeed a morally bankrupt generation in many ways, but we are also the last generation who grew up playing outside running around where ever we wished and home at dark.

There is a fundamental change in the way I grew up compared to my kids. My dad ran around in the same manner we all did. We learned about freedom early as children. Our parents granted us the same freedoms that they had. Today, doing so would be considered child abuse quite sadly but in a real sense, you can no longer let young children run free as we did.

Yes, there is a significant generational change that we are seeing emerge but not fully encompassed at this time. We are experiencing a complete breakdown of morality and conservative values in this nation. All of these demographic and societal factors are what truly put the 2A and the entire constitution at risk. Have you listened to how many people openly state we need to scrap the entire constitution and start over with a "modern" document? God forbid that happens any time soon.

Warp
February 17, 2013, 03:17 PM
Democrats by and large have been introducing all these terrible bills.

This is true, and has been true for awhile.

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 03:31 PM
That is NOT a compromise!

I'm sick and tired of them proposing something, then only sticking us with half of the something that was proposed, and calling it a compromise. It's not!

In a compromise both sides give something and both sides get something. All they do is take less than what the first proposed to take. But what's the only thing that happens? They TAKE
There is more than one definition of compromise:

Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

In this case, I am using #1b Obamacare is a blending of measures, not the ultimate goal.

In the matter of gun control, we seek to apply definition #1a. They want us to apply definition #2 and concede.

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 04:04 PM
There is more than one definition of compromise:

Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

In this case, I am using #1b Obamacare is a blending of measures, not the ultimate goal.

In the matter of gun control, we seek to apply definition #1a. They want us to apply definition #2 and concede.
The compromise was within he Dems themselves for Obamacare. Many did want a single payor system and Obamacare over time will give them that.

For gun control, the GOP has more say than they did with Obamacare. Hopefully that will keep further controls at bay for now.

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 04:20 PM
Good job on not using my whole post.





The rest of your post was not relevant to the very specific response I made. However it does highlight the misconception of the rest of your post....the fact that major Republican candidates are just as bad as Democrats....it's denial to think otherwise. There is a definite 'lean' by Republicans but if your major runners are losers on the 2A, it doesnt make much difference. The difference must be made up elsewhere.

konrado
February 17, 2013, 04:46 PM
I read this in the paper today. I think it helps explain what is going.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/02/13/a-minority-view-n1509825/page/full/

Cesiumsponge
February 17, 2013, 04:47 PM
The Republican party of today is NOT the Republican party of the 1960's. The Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 30's. These parties have championed the same titles for a century but their core values have shifted with time and trend. Maybe if the Republicans would actually FOCUS on being fiscal conservatives instead of focusing on chasing out people with brown skin, gays, marijuana, and competing with Obama on who can pass bigger defense spending budgets and who can spend the most, they might actually rally up some support.

Instead, they've squandered the very conservative Hispanic vote, conservative gay voters, and a large Libertarian and Constitutional demographic by chasing off everyone. It's this "stupid kids today" attitude that has turned the GOP into an old, crusty, curmudgeon party. The GOP hasn't been a party of individuality or freedom since the 60's when they fought against racist Democrats for civil rights for African Americans. Most of us left to the Libertarian party to carry on that tradition of fiscal conservationism and social liberties.

Like I posted on page 3, there was a thorough poll done on exactly what age demographic was most anti-assault weapon and it turns out it's the 54+ age demographic, while the youngest demographic was most supportive of ownership of assault weapons. That is completely contrary to the "kids today" attitude and blaming the youngest generation as the cause of all ills in society. Which age demographic do you think is the wealthiest and most influential? It's not those entering the workforce for the first time. Which age demographic is the one who'll boot any Congressman out if they touch Medicare or Medicade? It's not 20-somethings. The age of the anti-gun legislators who keep pushing these anti-gun bills year after year?

This isn't an argument to adopt a "those old people" attitude. This is meant to point out we're ALL in this game together. We've had turncoats in every generation. My generation, my father's generation, and those before him. The sooner we recognize this instead of trying to alienate groups by age, the sooner we can work on the problems. It's this divisiveness that's driving people away. All this anger can be focused in a much more constructive manner. I worked summers and weekends all throughout high school. I worked during college. I work now. I've never stopped being a productive member of society. Don't throw people under 30 under the bus for social ills that have been brooding for generations.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 05:02 PM
Any issue goes the same way. The anti-liberty folks win battle after battle, easily winning most of them. This can continue for years, decades, or even centuries. That liberty decreases and decreases until people either fight back (with something besides a stupid ballot) or roll over and give up.

YES, the anti-gunners are winning. They haven't won, however, until they've successfully removed the rifles from the citizens. In most countries they've won the war. They WON'T win the war in the United States, however.

What? What battles have they won? None on the national level.

v Heller? Nope.
v McDonald? Nope.
v Lopez? Nope.
AWB? Nope.
AWB II? Nope.
CCW? Nope.
Reciprocity? Nope.
National parks carry? Nope.
Stand your ground laws? Nope.
Executive orders? Nope.

We won all those battles in the last 20 years.

Locally? Some wild proposals that have or will die before enacted. A few (minority of) states have passed some draconian laws that will probably be struck down.
Most (a majority) of states have passed CCW, stand your ground laws and reciprocity. My state added a silencer bill signed by a Democrat into law!

That is hardly what I call anti's "winning" the war.

We are in a much better position than we were 20 years ago. The anti's are in no way "winning". Not even close. They've been getting the beat down for so long they are just grasping at straws. They have been loosing and will keep losing.

There will be no federal bans, confiscations, sweeping EO's or UBC. States are supposed to have more flexability, but even they cannot infringe upon the 2nd right to arms. Most of NY's laws will be tossed and most of thier politicians need to be replaced anyway.

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 05:30 PM
Heller is one of those wonderful SCOTUS rulings that closes a door while opening a window.

AWB II is not yet decided conclusively, CCW, Reciprocity, National parks carry, Stand your ground laws are all laws that are subject to being repealed at the state level and in some cases, superseded at the federal level.

Executive orders? Well, the term is young. This is not the time for counting chickens.

Warp
February 17, 2013, 05:35 PM
There is more than one definition of compromise:

Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

In this case, I am using #1b Obamacare is a blending of measures, not the ultimate goal.

In the matter of gun control, we seek to apply definition #1a. They want us to apply definition #2 and concede.

It still isn't compromise!

"mutual concessions"

What concessions do the gun-grabbers agree to?

That they will take less of our Rights and Liberties than they really want to (because they can take the rest later).

How about in exchange for universal background checks, the machine gun registry is re-opened and suppressors are no longer an NFA item? THAT would be compromise.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 05:40 PM
How about in exchange for universal background checks, the machine gun registry is re-opened and suppressors are no longer an NFA item? THAT would be compromise.
That's not a compromise.

Repeal the NFA '34 and ELIMINATE the registry?

Now THAT'S a compromise.

Warp
February 17, 2013, 05:41 PM
That's not a compromise.

Repeal the NFA '34 and ELIMINATE the registry?

Now THAT'S a compromise.

No it isn't. That is simply restoring unconstitutionally violated rights. Compromise would mean they get something out of it, too.

Proposing that and getting what I posted, while they propose a national registration and get background checks...that's compromise.

Not that compromise is acceptable, because it isn't...but we may as well understand what compromise would actually be. This is a pretty simple and straightfoward term that nobody seems to be willing or able to understand.

Derek Zeanah
February 17, 2013, 05:46 PM
I'd swap UBC's for the elimination of both the NFA and the GCA. I'd see that as a win, personally.

OilyPablo
February 17, 2013, 05:53 PM
Fine Democrat bill:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 05:58 PM
I'd swap UBC's for the elimination of both the NFA and the GCA. I'd see that as a win, personally.
Without GCA 68, there are no FFLs. Who does the UBCs?

Derek Zeanah
February 17, 2013, 06:00 PM
Without GCA 68, there are no FFLs. Who does the UBCs?
You'd need to devise a new system that did the same thing. We've already got NICS -- just make it Internet, telephone, and smart-phone app enabled and there you go. Give it a name and state driver's license number and get a yes/no in seconds.

Deer_Freak
February 17, 2013, 06:03 PM
Most drug laws are justified by citing the affects of drug use upon society. This can range from crimes committed to support the habit to the cost for public healthcare for the users who barely have the money to pay for their drugs.

Consider this. Obamacare is a compromise. What the progressives really want is a single payer government provided, universal healthcare system. Why? Because anything a person does can affect their health. And if the government is responsible for a person's health care, the government can legitimately claim the rightful authority to regulate anything that person might do that might affect their health. Anything

Health care is eating up 18% of our GDP. Something has to be done to reign in healthcare costs and make healthcare available to everyone. When people have two jobs and their wife is working part time yet they still can't afford healthcare, something has to be done. We are the only industrialized nation on this planet that doesn't have socialized healthcare. At least Obamacare is trying to deal with the problem. What are we going to do, wait until doctors own the entire country?

Warp
February 17, 2013, 06:06 PM
You'd need to devise a new system that did the same thing. We've already got NICS -- just make it Internet, telephone, and smart-phone app enabled and there you go. Give it a name and state driver's license number and get a yes/no in seconds.

You shouldn't have to have a driver license to buy a gun.

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 06:08 PM
Fine Democrat bill:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html
There is something ironic about anti-gunners that shoot themselves in the foot (before stuffing it in their mouth).

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 06:12 PM
You'd need to devise a new system that did the same thing. We've already got NICS -- just make it Internet, telephone, and smart-phone app enabled and there you go. Give it a name and state driver's license number and get a yes/no in seconds.
That creates privacy issues if anyone can access the system and I would prefer the BGCs not be tied to purchases. Most states issue some form of photo ID. Just add a code indicating the person is cleared to purchase a firearm.

Derek Zeanah
February 17, 2013, 06:15 PM
That creates privacy issues if anyone can access the system and I would prefer the BGCs not be tied to purchases. Most states issue some form of photo ID. Just add a code indicating the person is cleared to purchase a firearm.
That works too. I'm not a fan of the concept, but to remove the 4473's, get rid of the "sporting purposes" clause, allow catalog sales and internet sales direct to the buyer (after the UBC, of course), do away with the machine gun registry, get rid of the stupid taxes on suppressors, full-auto, destructive devices, and SBRs?

You bet I'd make that trade. I'd make it yesterday.

Solo
February 17, 2013, 06:23 PM
Like I posted on page 3, there was a thorough poll done on exactly what age demographic was most anti-assault weapon and it turns out it's the 54+ age demographic, while the youngest demographic was most supportive of ownership of assault weapons. That is completely contrary to the "kids today" attitude and blaming the youngest generation as the cause of all ills in society. Which age demographic do you think is the wealthiest and most influential? It's not those entering the workforce for the first time. Which age demographic is the one who'll boot any Congressman out if they touch Medicare or Medicade? It's not 20-somethings. The age of the anti-gun legislators who keep pushing these anti-gun bills year after year?
Interesting; does that mean when the younger generation gets older, we could see a swing in the other direction when it comes to things such as assault weapon bans?

michaelbsc
February 17, 2013, 07:21 PM
Interesting; does that mean when the younger generation gets older, we could see a swing in the other direction when it comes to things such as assault weapon bans?

Not if it's gone already. If we don't hold the line for them now it will be a memory in a scrap book.

So do it for the children.

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 08:01 PM
Not if it's gone already. If we don't hold the line for them now it will be a memory in a scrap book.

So do it for the children.
Yes, we have already lost much since I was a kid. To lose any more is reprehensible. However, what are the foundations of our rights? The founding fathers had unity on that issue. It seems that we have already lost that common understanding and in such, that is the greatest threat to keeping those rights.

JRH6856
February 17, 2013, 08:15 PM
It seems that we have already lost that common understanding and in such, that is the greatest threat to keeping those rights.

When that common understanding is lost, one can either seek to restore it (in vain unless the desire is mutual) or seek the obvious alternative solution. For this, I refer you to the first paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 09:27 PM
Heller is one of those wonderful SCOTUS rulings that closes a door while opening a window.

AWB II is not yet decided conclusively, CCW, Reciprocity, National parks carry, Stand your ground laws are all laws that are subject to being repealed at the state level and in some cases, superseded at the federal level.

Executive orders? Well, the term is young. This is not the time for counting chickens.

It's time to learn how our government works.
EO's can't change any of those things. Congress can't pass sweeping bans or confiscations.
Federal power in this area has gone about as far as it can. Obama and company see the writting on the wall and are moving to a campaign to get the states to do what they cannot do on a federal level. They are little more than cheerleaders for the losing team. They have already lost, the clock is running out for them to try some Hail Mary's. They will fail, again.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 09:28 PM
Yes, we have already lost much since I was a kid.

Really? Like what?

55flhhd
February 17, 2013, 09:46 PM
When I was a kid the Sears catalog that got sent out before Christmas had page after page of guns in it. Could be ordered in the mail. No ffl, no 4473direct delivery to your door. I used to cut out the gun pictures and make a scrap book out of them, there were so many. They called it the big book, it was 2-3 inches thick. In the late sixties I bought my own 22 ammo, I was under 16. Bought in the Gambles hardware store.

9MMare
February 17, 2013, 09:51 PM
Really? Like what?

Open space

Warp
February 17, 2013, 10:23 PM
It's time to learn how our government works.
EO's can't change any of those things. Congress can't pass sweeping bans or confiscations.
Federal power in this area has gone about as far as it can. Obama and company see the writting on the wall and are moving to a campaign to get the states to do what they cannot do on a federal level. They are little more than cheerleaders for the losing team. They have already lost, the clock is running out for them to try some Hail Mary's. They will fail, again.

They can and have. Look to the 1994 ban as the biggest example.

Now, is it Constitutional for them to do so? Technically that is up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Is it Right for them to do so? That is for the people to decide.

Alaska444
February 17, 2013, 11:13 PM
Really? Like what?
Go live in CA, NY, MA, NJ, IL to speak of a few and know what we had when I was a kid, yes, we have lost much, but I seriously doubt I will change your mind about anything. You still operate under the delusion that the constitution has the power it once did. It doesn't because the politicians are seeking the power that the constitution prohibits and they keep gaining every year and the constitution keeps losing a bit more of its power. Ask the states how the 9th and 10th are working for them now.

In any case, did you not read what I posted previously about buying handgun ammo at age 9 and my own shotgun at age 16 in the Kittery Trading post in about 1974? America has LOST MUCH since I was a kid that the latest generation shall NEVER experience as we did. Yes, we have lost much.

Robert
February 17, 2013, 11:37 PM
Oh enough. The fight is not over, not yet anyway. There is still a lot left to be done. Writing, calling and protesting can still make us heard. To say that we have lost little to nothing is just silly. But we have also gained much, well in the last few years. Let's take a deep breath and call this one done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Have the anti-gunners already won?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!