Any real legitimate threat put out by the NRA?

[slik pak]

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

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

 

[Hypnogator]

Yes, slik pak, there is a threat!

The major threat to our gun rights by an Obama re-election would be in case one of the pro-2nd Amendment judges on the Supreme Court would suddenly die or be incapacitated through illness. The liberal minority of justices have made it plain that they regard Heller as an aberration, and would vote to overturn or limit it in a heartbeat, and stare decisis be damned!

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

Awaiting thread lock .....

 

[slik pak]

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

 

[Colonel]

I read Wayn'es comments about justice Ginsburg's statement regarding the constitution, as much as I detest her remarks, are there any real legitimate threats to the 2A?

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

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

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

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

 

[Standing Wolf]

If you don't think the "Justice" Department's operation Fast & Furious is a direct threat to the Second Amendment, I've got some lovely mountain property in Florida to sell you.

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

 

[slik pak]

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

 

[Hypnogator]

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

 

[PapaG]

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

 

[mack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[slik pak]

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

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

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

 

[mack]

The worst that could happen? Other than getting hit by an asteroid, nuclear war, worldwide pandemic, or total financial and economic collapse? But restricted to the RKBA.

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

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

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

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

 

[Art Eatman]

There is always a possibility of bad regulation on the periphery: EPA and lead, e.g. Or legislation which indirectly affects the availability of reloading components.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jim K]

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

Jim

 

[kozak6]

Absolutely. It's under continuous assault, 24/7. Don't you get their mailings?

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

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

 

[andrewstorm]

aussies lost their guns overnight by executive order

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

 

[mortablunt]

The NRA is like any other group with an agenda and it trolls for support and funding.

 

[Bubbles]

- 0bama's nominees for federal judges, not just USSC judges, will affect RKBA for decades to come.

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

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

 

[RatDrall]

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

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

 

[mortablunt]

^ Read the Constitution. There is the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. The states have a sort of limited sovereignty, and the current interpretation is that Federal Law is a guideline, and the states can either adhere to that guideline or impose tougher standards of their own.

 

[Neverwinter]

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

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

Sent from Tapatalk

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm more worried about the size of the D majority on the Hill. Obama is going to get reelected regardless.

 

[beatledog7]

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

 

[Tipro]

USSC Justices

Two things are important to remember when talking about the United States Supreme Court.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ZeSpectre]

Last time around only took one election cycle to devastate our Second Amendment Rights. We simply can not afford to be "asleep at the wheel" again.

 

[Colonel]

Obama is going to get reelected regardless.

That's the spirit!