It is very easy to criticize - it is harder to criticize well.
Yes, it is. For that very reason, I invite you to get your facts in order before you begin criticizing an amendment that has stood the test of time.
Certainly understand more than you do before you present your views to someone outside the gun community- not only will they cut you to pieces, but you'll make us all look bad as you lay there bleeding all over some liberal's living room.
No, we're not.
Stop yelling, or talk to someone else. Someone younger. I have grandchildren who like to yell. Try them. I'm pretty sure my children have outgrown it by now.
Political Science 097: given an American population, X percent of whom vote, and Y percent of whom don't vote, politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether X or Y is the majority. It only matters what the the majority among those who vote is.
Political Science 098, Research: It's better to do your research
before you state your views.
Political Science 099: Because you're not prepared, I'll help you.
The laws of America reflect the will of our politicians. Our politicians, more or less, reflect the views of those who elected them.
Therefore, our laws reflect, more or less, the basic will of the voters. It can vary, but that's the theory.
Furthermore, abrupt change is bad, politically speaking. Abrupt change leads to rebellion, but most change, if accomplished slowly, over a period of decades, permits populations, law enforcement and courts first to become aware of the new state of law, and then to adopt the new policy as fact.
Now, after our short introduction to American political science, I assume we agree that it's the will of the voters that counts, and that any majority you're attempting to discuss is the majority of the voters. Other majorities (moral, racial, right handed, etc.) don't matter. It's the voters that count where policy (a big word, with specific meanings, but it's the right word here) is concerned.
Basically, over a period of years, administrations, and court decisions, the idea is that it is that will, the will of the voters, that will be expressed.
Therefore, if your claim were true, we would be loosing ground, consistently, over a period of years, and our losses would be reflected as ever more restrictive weapon and carry laws, degenerating, after some number of decades, into a nightmare such as is present today in California and New York City.
Furthermore, we should be able to work backwards, and examine the trend in recent years and decades, and determine the will of the majority of voters by determining what, if any, trend there is in the change of a given set of law.
We're almost there. We're basically prepared for some facts. Basically, but if you've been reading carefully, you should be ready.
There used to be a website, that was called "Radical Gun Nuttery", (nothing like a nice, neutral title to calm everyone down and establish meaningful, constructive debate) that showed an interesting map, mapping the changes in state concealed carry laws from 1987 to 2004.
The states are divided into four categories, based on their laws regarding issuing concealed weapons permits, “No Issue”, meaning a state that will not issue a concealed weapons permit to anyone outside of law enforcement, “May Issue”, meaning a state that may issue a permit if an applicant shows good cause, “Shall Issue”, meaning a state that must issue a permit unless it can demonstrate lawful reasons not to, and “Unrestricted”, meaning a state in which anyone can carry a concealed or open weapon without any kind of permit.
The site showed that in 1986, there was one “Unrestricted” state (Vermont), eight “Shall Issue” states, twenty-two “May Issue” states, and nineteen “No Issue” states.
On a side note, this has given rise to the term “Vermont style carry”, which appears to mean unrestricted, no permit open or concealed carry of any type of weapon. Vermont style carry is a major goal of pro-gun advocates, and was most recently achieved by Alaska.
Nineteen, did you catch that?
The site went on to show that in 2004, the situation had changed dramatically, with there now being 2 “Unrestricted” states, (Vermont and Alaska), no less than 35 “Shall Issue” states, (up from eight, a 437% increase,) nine “May Issue” states, (down from twenty two, a change of 13, with all the changes becoming “Shall Issue”), and only four “No Issue” states, down from nineteen, a change of fifteen, with fourteen becoming “Shall Issue” and one going all the way to “Unrestricted”.
In other words, the progression of the law shows rather dramatically that not only are we a resounding majority in the only population that counts, voters, but that majority is having a very marked effect on our state laws.
We are making gains, and the gains are significant.
So stop yelling. The sky is not falling. We are the majority, and the changes in law reflect that majority.
Whatever you do, don't present your views at the top of your lungs to an Alaska liberal, who will still be smarting from the loss of
all legal control of firearms in that state.
They will know, as I do, that your facts are, simply put, wrong.
Don't criticize our precious amendment until, at a minimum, you have your facts straight, and are aware of more than the state of the law on your block, in your county, in your lifetime.
It is, I've heard, very easy to criticizes, but hard to criticize well.
:banghead:
