Have the anti-gunners already won?

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.

Spymaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why?

Solo said:

If gun companies go out of business, where will the government get guns and ammo from?

Click to expand...

China !

That's... actually not a bad thing, considering the quality of Chinese goods on the market.

That's... actually not a bad thing, considering the quality of Chinese goods on the market.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

mrvco said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Progress

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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").

Click to expand...

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:



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

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

Click to expand...

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

Polls are meaningless if the sample population does not know what they are talking about.

Solo said:

Polls are meaningless if the sample population does not know what they are talking about.

Click to expand...

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.

In all seriousness, the government now has its fully brainwashed new generation coming up that vote enthusiastically for Obama and have a welfare mindset.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

NY, NJ, CA, MN, CO

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Blakenzy said:

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?

Click to expand...

I like it.