Could Gun Rights Opinions Change This Quickly?

[CoalTrain49]

On another note, the irony of the rebel flag situation is huge. The civil war was about states rights. The federal government was shoving policy down the throats of states. Isn't it interesting that there has been a huge increase in that very behavior lately by the feds, esp the recent obamacare and gay marriage descisions?

Pay special attention to this right here. This issue of states rights is dividing the country again. There seems to be a huge disconnect here regarding states rights and civil rights. The focus now seems to be on G and L marriage (a civil right) versus a state right to ban it. Remind anyone of civil rights movements in 1860 or 1960? Looks like we're going down that same road again except this time the SC is making the new laws up instead of congress. Everyone knows congress won't act on the behalf of any political agenda so now the SC and the adm is going to throw their weight around to make it happen. To hell with the constitution.

States rights are in the constitution, weather they fit anyone's personal beliefs or not. If they weren't important 10A wouldn't exist. Where in the constitution does it say people of the same sex can marry? My understanding of constitutional law is if the BOR or federeal code doesn't address G and L rights specifically, then the states have a right to legislate their own laws regarding it. Anytime the adm. or SC doesn't honor those rights, we all lose a little a little bit of our country. Seems to be a trend these days.

Here is a good discussion of states rights and civil rights. Pretty much the whole reason for the civil war.

As the North and the South became more and more different, their goals and desires also separated. Arguments over national policy grew even fiercer. The North’s economic progress as the Southern economy began to stall fueled the fires of resentment. By the 1840s and 1850s, North and South had each evolved extreme positions that had as much to do with serving their own political interests as with the morality of slavery.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/h...srights.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[I6turbo]

OK, I'm 73! And taking it to Vegas means putting money on your beliefs. You too,I6turbo.
$1,000 to your and Shanghai's favorite charity if I am wrong on my opinion about ANY MAJOR national gun control between now and 2017. 2025 if Clinton loses, which she almost certainly will.

Send your checks to the American Lung Association.

If you're right it won't be because the decision-makers take into account facts and reality like you seem to believe they do/will. When have the anti-gunners ever been guided by the facts? When has the mainstream media ever been guided by facts regarding gun control? If nothing happens between now and 2017 it'll be only because they aren't quite to the point where they can "just do it" and get away with it. Not because of any facts or statistics or reality.

But that's all relative to something happening between now and 2017. What you said originally was

It is never going to happen in the USA.

which is a little bit longer than the period between now and 2017.

All that said, I HOPE you are right! I would be thrilled to be wrong about this, longer term.

 

[Red Wind]

But that's all relative to something happening between now and 2017. What you said originally was
Quote:
It is never going to happen in the USA.
which is a little bit longer than the period between now and 2017.

You took the bold part out of context. What I originally said was:

This is the second thread you have offered up this same Dunblane mantra. It is
never going to happen in the USA. The Brits and Aussies have no 2nd Amendment.

Meaning a event on the scale of Dunblane or Hobart,Tasmania, Australia is never going to curtail gun rights in the USA the way those 2 countries were affected.

Sandy Hook was worse than Dunblane and there was an affect, but not on a national British type scope.

I've been wrong before of course, but on this issue,long,long term ,I think you will be thrilled.

 

[jrdolall]

I don't have enough free time to train all the people that want to learn about guns. Since I had to move into town I no longer have a range in my yard so it is a 30 minute ride just to go to the farm. I have at least 7 people, men and women, that are asking me to teach them and I can't count how many first timers I have helped in the past 5 years. I am not a trainer but I do like teaching people about guns and I always recommend that they get further training before making a purchase.

 

[I6turbo]

I have at least 7 people, men and women, that are asking me to teach them and I can't count how many first timers I have helped in the past 5 years. I am not a trainer but I do like teaching people about guns and I always recommend that they get further training before making a purchase.

Great!
Make sure they join NRA. Organization and REPRESENTATION are very important in today's political world.

 

[leadcounsel]

I fear the hypocrisy of largely one-group of people that we're not allowed to mention but we all know who it is.

This nation is slowly moving toward the hellish landscape of thought police like in the novel 1984. Paring down what we can think, say, and display. After the confederate flag, what's next? George Washington was an actual slave owner. Shall we change the name of our National Capital and our state of Washington, remove his images from view, take down his bronze busts all over the nation, and scrub his image from Mt. Rushmore. ??? :banghead:

Applying this ill-logic to guns. That group we can't mention - they don't want guns in civilian hands, unless generally it's theirs or their armed guards. They only want professionals like police and military to have guns, yet protest these organizations religiously and fear and don't trust them, taking every opportunity to insult and attack them. They fail to recognize that guns are always available for bad people, and only guns generally end a gun assault.

Yes, political opinions and national polling does flow rapidly and arbitrarily. It's because 50% of the people or more vote on emotion and are sheep, doing what they are told to do. Our gun rights are always extremely close to being lost.

The POTUS is rabidly anti-gun. We all know this, yet he was elected twice. The SCOTUS has shockingly delivered a number of very liberal decisions in the recent days, weeks, and years.

For those with their heads on the sand, consider the lucky breaks gun rights got. George Bush defeated Al Gore by a whisker on a Court decision over recounted ballots. Bush's SCOTUS appointments delivered a win 5-4 win in Heller and that precedent led to a win in McDonald and others. Had Gore been elected, his SOTUS picks likely would have been anti-gun and we would have lost Heller and individual gun rights.

Gun legislation is always just a bad election away. Combine a bad POTUS and Congress, and good-bye gun rights. There are only 4 Conservative SCOTUS Justices. And a swing vote. It's highly likely that the balance will change to 5 or 6 liberal Justices, most of whom will serve for the next 3 decades. Gun rights are going to suffer in the SCOTUS, that's almost a certainty.

Yes, our gun rights are in peril TODAY. And every day.

 

[Thermactor]

Good post leadcounsel.

 

[1911 guy]

I agree. Very good post by leadcounsel.

Want to take note of something crazy? I'm going to quote him to make the point:

largely one-group of people that we're not allowed to mention but we all know who it is.

that group we can't mention

He's right, we can't name the well known group. Why? Because some are so blinded by loyalty that they get their panties in a wad when confronted with reality. How, exactly, can we expect to claim victory when we are not even permitted to name the enemy? P.S., it's the democratic party. Not that the republicans are that great, but clearly the lesser of two evils in the firearms rights category.

 

[JRH6856]

P.S., it's the democratic party. Not that the republicans are that great, but clearly the lesser of two evils in the firearms rights category.

Or more accurately, socialist/progressives and they exist in both parties, theough they seem to favor once more than the other.

 

[jamesjames]

There's a lot of vitriol in the last string of posts. We seem to get baited too easily into this stuff. The discussion of state's rights vs. individual rights is a good one. The Supreme Court reasoned (by a narrow margin 5-4) that the rights of individuals to marry were being denied and that granting this right under the equal protection clause did not adversely affect the rest of America as much as denying the right placed an undue burden on those directly affected.

The gun control issue could play out with a similar calculus. Intellectually we know that the threat from lawful gun owners is very low. Emotionally, gun ownership becomes more attractive when there is a terror or crime threat that Americans want to address through a gun purchase. On the other emotional hand, guns seem to become an exaggerated threat whenever a mass shooting occurs, amplified by media coverage and fanned by anti-gun groups working behind the scenes and with ad-buys.

Our challenge is to get Americans to view firearms rationally. 2A is a right carved out as a part of full-fledged citizenship where we have all the rights and responsibilities of a sovereign people. It comes directly after 1A, which jams freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press all into one super amendment. But 2A comes next in the hierarchy, before protection from quartering troops, before due process, protection from unreasonable search, trial by jury, protection from cruel and unusual punishments, etc.

Jumping off the rails into the irrational will hurt us every time. The Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment tempered by the experience of revolutionary war. We have to be enlightened when we talk about the contemporary issues of gun ownership. Anti-gunners are driven by their fear of guns and their need for safety and security. Gun-owners are driven by their love of guns… and their need for safety and security. There's more that unites us than separates us.

Anti-gunners are pacifists who believe that the state will supply security to keep them safe at the state and local level. As pacifists, they are fearful of gun owners because we have guns. Gun owners believe in a strong national defense and self-reliance and personal responsibility in addition to local law-enforcement. All we need to do is demonstrate how the threat of violence from lawful gun owners is non-existent, that mass shootings are exceedingly rare, and their trend line is flat-- neither rising nor falling. Given the extreme rarity of mass shootings, they still are an unfortunate fact of a free society. The society will continue to do everything it can though the advancing techniques of threat assessment to identify and diffuse individuals contemplating a mass shooting. Lawful gun owners contribute to a secure society. We are not the cause of violence in America and we need to communicate this. In 21st century America, violence is a rare occurrence amplified by the echo chambers of news and social media. Let’s try to help everybody keep it in perspective.

 

[1911 guy]

I believe you are very well meaning, but also much informed about the nature of anti-gun people. While many do ascribe to pacifism or reliance on the state to provide security, there are a large number, especially in the legislative branch, who view disarmament as a means to their end of imposing their will on the general population.

 

[ATLDave]

Boy, people who have not had any legal training sure get turned around on stuff. "State's rights" means the rights of states to enact laws to restrict individuals. The argument of, say, NY in support of its SAFE Act is a state's right's argument... a claim that they, as a state, have the right to enact regulations regarding firearms.

Decisions in favor of personal rights (whether you like those rights or not) and against the right of a state to restrict individual rights are not generally going to be helpful precedent for those seeking to restrict other rights.

Confederate flags =/= gay marriage =/= gun control. The views of individuals on these 3 issues may be loosely correlated as a matter of historical accident, but they have NOTHING to do with one another. Certainly not from any legal perspective.

 

[leadcounsel]

Decisions in favor of personal rights (whether you like those rights or not) and against the right of a state to restrict individual rights are not generally going to be helpful precedent for those seeking to restrict other rights.

Confederate flags =/= gay marriage =/= gun control. The views of individuals on these 3 issues may be loosely correlated as a matter of historical accident, but they have NOTHING to do with one another. Certainly not from any legal perspective.

It is intellectually hypocritical, that is for sure.

At the state level it's denouncing the 1st Amendment (the flag), while at the Federal level upholding the 14th Amendment for equal rights. I'm encouraged that gun rights, intellectually, should follow suit.

Take Arizona, a very good pro-gun state, versus New Jersey, a very anti-gun state. Wildly different laws. The gay-marriage ruling should apply to the 2nd Amendment, as it is an original enumerated one. All states should have equally strong gun rights, like Arizona. One should not surrender his (marriage or gun rights) just because he passes into another United State.

 

[22-rimfire]

If the major retailers have stopped selling them, then the small retailers will take up the slack for people who want them. Where as it was just a historical flag to me before, now it's a statement and as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with slavery or racism. I view it much like the "Don't Tread on Me" flags.

All of a sudden I'm seeing confederate flags where I never saw flags before. I could care less if the confederate flag was taken down on SC government buildings.

 

[Red Wind]

^Agree 100%.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

What's next, are we going to outlaw the playing of the song "Dixie"...?

 

[mold maker]

Dixie

It's already banned in many venues.
There is to be no pride in Southern anything. We didn't win the war of aggression so we have nothing to be proud of.
Makes me mad as heck.

 

[Red Wind]

Don't give up hope, mold maker. The next time, we'll get that last 10 yards at Gettysburg!

 

[22-rimfire]

It's already banned in many venues.
There is to be no pride in Southern anything. We didn't win the war of aggression so we have nothing to be proud of.

Aaah. I guess that's why all the folks from the Northern States have been flocking to the South for jobs. The South has a lot to be proud of these days. If there ever was another "war of aggression", it may well go a bit differently this time, but I think VA would likely become a Yankee state.

 

[wojownik]

Don't give up hope, mold maker. The next time, we'll get that last 10 yards at Gettysburg!

No you won't - probably would just end up getting run over by some tourists on Steinwehr Blvd. on your way over to the stone wall. :^p

On the bright side and more on topic for this forum take a look at the results of this recent poll - even in the aftermath of recent events, the majority of Americans do not support any more gun control efforts. Of course the research is getting very little coverage in the media. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-most-americans-arent-interested-gun-control_981870.html

Back off topic again, the following is just stupid.

From USA Today

TV Land pulls 'Dukes of Hazzard' over flag

http://usat.ly/1LVilEX

 

[22-rimfire]

Gun rights views have not changed much even after a cooling off period following Sandy Hook. The changes if they occur would happen at the State level now.

 

[PowerG]

I'm with leadcounsel, public opinion could change in a day, under the right circumstances. He pointed out just how close it was in the Bush/Gore election, and I agree that if Gore had won we would have a very different playing field on the gun issue today. To go with the comparison in the OP, the debate on the battle flag being on the Mississippi state flag is absolutely on fire here, it's on every local newscast, every day. There is strong and very vocal advocacy for removing it, and I believe it will be removed sooner rather than later. It wouldn't take very many percentage points to swing the gun issue the other way, and sustained lobbying after the right set of events could very easily push public opinion in an negative direction.

 

[JRH6856]

Take Arizona, a very good pro-gun state, versus New Jersey, a very anti-gun state. Wildly different laws. The gay-marriage ruling should apply to the 2nd Amendment, as it is an original enumerated one. All states should have equally strong gun rights, like Arizona. One should not surrender his (marriage or gun rights) just because he passes into another United State.

Agreed. this is certainly how we would like it to be.

SCOTUS could easily look at the history of RKBA, decide that while the right protected is an individual right and includes the right to self defense, the right was historically protected by the 2A support the securtiy of the state and that states have the right to regulate as they deem necessary to their own security.

Much depends on minds of justices that eventually hear the deciding case.

 

[Red Wind]

But Gore didn't win,PowerG! Move along,please! Close, horseshoes and hand grenades,remember? Same with Heller and McDonald.

We won. Be happy!

 

[X-Rap]

As far as I'm concerned we are treading on new ground, I think recent SCOTUS decisions will only help to embolden those who wish to force this minority view change upon us all.
MSM, Bloggers, and enemies of the country are all twisting and manipulating the internet at the speed of light. That has never happened before to this magnitude so far as I can recall.
The flag discussion is relevant just as Trump being fired from the network and Miss Universe being canceled on another.
People are acting with knee jerk reactions in a time in space in which our country is rapidly changing so yes I think we could wake up some morning and watch the whole 2A enchilada going down the drain.