Have the anti-gunners already won?

Baron_Null said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

FIVETWOSEVEN said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

61Woody said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Really, they voted already on the AWB and it was defeated? Where did I miss that?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

FIVETWOSEVEN said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

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

Click to expand...

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.

Alaska444 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'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.

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:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. 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.

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]

Have the anti-gunners already won?

Click to expand...

Tired of fighting?

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

OilyPablo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Solo said:

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

Click to expand...

They'll do as the military does(at Ft. Benning & Quantico) and make their own, in house.

Cesiumsponge said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

flex28 said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

MicroTecniqs said:

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:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Vector said:

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.



`

Click to expand...

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).

Solo said:

How do you feel about a comparison with methamphetamines?

Click to expand...

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.

AnthonySmithXR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

OilyPablo said:

For the most part if you vote Democrat you are part of the problem.

.

Click to expand...

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....

MicroTecniqs said:

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

Click to expand...

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