Good article from Forbes after the Biden request to Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,769
Location
0 hrs east of TN
I assume we've all read the Biden request to Congress for UBCs, another Clinton/Biden AWB, and repeal of liability protection for firearms manufacturers for what a criminal does with a product.

This article in Forbes looks at the potential for success in that call to ban firearms that kill fewer people than hands and feet every year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisd...nforce-unconstitutional-laws/?sh=590254da631e

President Biden’s remarks last week on the three-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, shooting that saw a gunman kill 17 students and wound another 17, was seen by gun rights advocates as the administration’s first salvo in what is expected to be a fierce and prolonged battle over Second Amendment rights in America. “I am calling on Congress to enact common sense gun law reforms,” said Biden, “including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

“President Biden’s demand that Congress ban the modern sporting rifle (MSR), which he knowingly mislabels as an ‘assault rifle’ and ‘weapon of war,’ denies the reality that more murders are committed with knives, fists and clubs than all rifles combined,” responded the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry’s influential advocacy arm. “Over 20 million MSR’s are in circulation today, used daily for lawful purposes. And rolling back protections on lawful manufacturers of firearms would be akin to allowing activist lawyers to sue Ford for the wrongful deaths caused by drunk drivers.”

MSR’s are most commonly used for hunting, recreational target shooting and for personal protection. As a practical matter, these are semi-automatic firearms which means you must squeeze the trigger every time you want to fire a single round (the sale of fully automatic weapons was banned in 1986 as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act). That functionality is no different than hundreds of other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns used for everything from duck and dove to deer and boar hunting as well as target shooting and self-defense. Most U.S. soldiers, on the other hand, are issued fully automatic M4 Carbines capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute (press the trigger and the bullets keep flying), so while they may look like MSR’s, a military relegated to using semi-automatic rifles would be at a decided disadvantage in any modern warfare scenario.

Gun control rhetoric from Dems is nothing new, but by holding slim majorities in the House and Senate and with Biden in the White House, they’re feeling emboldened that now is the time to move on a wide variety of gun control measures that had heretofore been stymied by a gun-friendly Trump administration and Republican majorities in at least one of two legislative bodies.
 
Regrettably, the sort of folk that read Forbes and take its articles and opinions seriously are probably not the type of folk that are opposing the RKBA movement.

Still, it is always good to see more balanced reporting in any portion of the media these days. We can only win the hearts and minds one reader at a time, right?
 
If we talk about it here the thread will be immediately locked so what is the point?
Well, don't drift in to partisan politics, name calling, or non THR behavior and it will be fine. If it is too hard to have a conversation about a contentious subject without reverting to hyperbole, generalizations, or useless whining then I don't really know what to say. Maybe THR is not the right place for some folks. This type of thread is very important to use as gun owners. But we have to be better than the knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, chest thumping morons they take us for. But sadly, many of us embrace that stereotype and run with it.

If the crux of your argument is, "All Dems are gun grabbing commies," then by all means, sit this one out. Yes, the Democrats are after our rights with a renewed passion. But there are republicans that would gladly jump on board.

We are here, not to bash one side of the aisle, but to bring together gun owners from every walk of live and educate them on their rights and how to protect those rights. Beating them over the head with anger and frustration will only drive them away. Sadly, a good number of our members do not understand that not every gun owner looks and acts like they do.
 
We can only win the hearts and minds one reader at a time, right?

YES!

The purpose of posting this was to help inform, not inflame. If you can't control your emotions you can't effectively work to oppose Antis. If you don't learn everything you can about them and their efforts you can't be effective against them. We know that there's a struggle, but you can't just become enraged when there's work to be done.

What work? Learn what you can. Make yourself a familiar rational voice to your elected officials by communicating with them your opposition for the irrational "gun control/safety" proposals like an AWB that the last AWB showed provided no reduction in violent crime rate. Join and participate in local, state, and national pro 2A groups that are calmly and rationally working day by day to oppose the baseless claims of Anti 2A organizations and personalities and the pointless restrictions they want to impose on the law abiding. Be the reasonable, rational, "good neighbor" introducing the new gun owners to safely and enjoyably learning to use their new guns.
 
What work? Learn what you can. Make yourself a familiar rational voice to your elected officials by communicating with them your opposition for the irrational "gun control/safety" proposals like an AWB that the last AWB showed provided no reduction in violent crime rate. Join and participate in local, state, and national pro 2A groups that are calmly and rationally working day by day to oppose the baseless claims of Anti 2A organizations and personalities and the pointless restrictions they want to impose on the law abiding. Be the reasonable, rational, "good neighbor" introducing the new gun owners to safely and enjoyably learning to use their new guns.

Bwa, ha ha. If that works, then anytime you want to visit, your food and range ammo are on me.

That worked well 20 years ago. Got ccw rolling. I'd love to see it happen again.

Ya'll have to keep in mind, the worlds biggest conservative movement, gave all three branches of government to the left. So keep on playing nice, it's working well.
 
If we talk about it here the thread will be immediately locked so what is the point?

I hear ya. Social media has been shutting down almost all conservative pro 2nd Amendment dialogue. At the very time when anti 2nd voices are the loudest and the 1st and 2nd Amendments are under their most aggressive attack in two centuries our side seems to be concerned with being too "political". Just feaking nuts!
 
If that works

It is still working. That's how Constitutional Carry & 2A Preservation gets passed and signed in states recently. It also is how you make sure a not quite committed Congress Critter understands that you represent the opinion of another hundred voters and that their vote matters to you and that you're watching and informing others.

Ranting is wasted effort and giving up is not an option because they're not. Organizing and coordinating has always worked regardless of the cause.

I know because I'm involved and have been involved with successful efforts.
 
You can call me naive if you like, but I still believe that gun control is going to be low on the list of priorities in the 1st two years. The Parkland anniversary was an opportune time for Biden to make a low impact gesture to one of his campaign promises. That's not to say, don't worry, everything is fine.... This seems to me a flyer to test the waters. So absolutely do contact your representatives and let them know how you feel. Congress is held by some slim margins, the Supreme Court landscape has changed dramatically since the 94 AWB, and the majority party has precious little political capital to spend. So the sky is not falling...but keep an umbrella handy....
 
Whining and crying will get nothing done. Unfortunately that seems to be the mode of operation for many so-called pre 2A folks. We are our own worst enemy. Bluster and pompousness, pulling the rug out from under your peers with negativity solves nothing but I am sure it does feed one’s ego.

All you have to do to see this is mention the support of one RKBA organization and then watch as your peers tear that support to pieces with opinionated vitriol. We can’t even come together in our own support system so why would anyone think we can successfully fight to preserve our rights. The other side knows this and they use it against us.

Biden had a meeting with all the anti-2A groups recently and they all worked together to form a plan to undermine our rights.
When was the last time Pro-2A groups and politicians sat down to hash out a plan to defeat anti-gunners? Until we come together in unison they will tear us apart a little bit at a time...or maybe all at once in one fell swoop. Then many can go back to whining and crying...it’s what many are very good at.
 
That's not what I meant. What I meant can't be posted here. Wake me up when the history books predict the future, once again.

View attachment 979666
We actually have a thread on the subject you are hinting at over at NoTechTyranny titled "Time to Call it Quits?" Feel free to discuss it (surprisingly) openly and seriously over there if you like. I think there were some good points made by both camps on the subject.
 
If we talk about it here the thread will be immediately locked so what is the point?

IMO, this bill would set economy wide legal liability precedents, far across the board. I could sue Ford, for my father's fatal car accident, and Jack Daniels, because my uncle drank himself to death. At that point, financially, I'd be secure enough, to be able to use the same status the Elites, use, and ring myself, with a phalanx of armed security, wielding fully automatic assault weapons, just like Shotgun Joe and Hillary, in order to protect myself, and my family.

So, what the hey, I could surrender a few gun rights, if we are going to start holding all manufacturers responsible, for every fart, in a hurricane...
 
Let's talk about the article as compared to going off topic as Hso warned. My view is that if a Federal ban is passed you have to consider the following:

1. Sheriffs saying they won't enforce it, is basically a good PR move showing opposition to ban. My law enforcement sources say there is no law that makes states and local LEO enforce Federal law. Thus, a ban would not mandate local enforcement. However, if the Feds wanted local cooperation, a jurisdiction may not supply such. The was the case in the Fugitive Slave laws debate.

2. The article uses the MSR euphemism. The goal of this is to make the guns sound less dangerous and 'nice'

This is a subtle point. It is good to point out that the guns are not fully auto. However, this throws lightening up the NFA restrictions under the bus as you just said those guns are too dangerous.

The article says that semi auto guns aren't that useful militarily. That's not true as full auto is not always a recommended usage. The semi auto Garand was the finest battle rifle ever - Patton. So you are not going to make them look less dangerous. Look at a carbine competition and the rate of semi fire is not slow in the absolute. The rampages with semis show how dangerous the guns are.

Thus, you are not going to make them nice. It is true that guns which look not as military styled have the same lethality. That's why researchers who found the AWB did nothing to crime rates suggest stricter bans. A new one if well drafted by antis will take out the guns that were missed, such as the Mini--14s and pistol caliber guns such as the Rugers. Folks have noticed the massacres in Canada and Norway with Minis - and they are getting banned.

A sports emphasis is useless as an RKBA principle argument as the RKBA is not about sport. Pushing that we own them for sport suggests regulation. They are dangerous for misuse. But you want to play with them. Solution - have them locked up at the range and checked out for usage. This is done in some countries. Rachel Maddow, who would have thunk it, is a gun fan. She shoots ARs and 1911s. She takes her significant others to the range on first dates. However, she says the guns should be locked up at the range for recreational purposes.

Practically, I agree with the view that gun control will be pushed on a PR level but not much will be done on the Federal level unless we have a moral panic as after Las Vegas. Recall the NRA has stated that enough of the GOP and Trump were going to go with an inclusive ban until they diverted Donald to the bump ban.

The state ban level is more of a risk - unless Scotus acts. Roberts was the traitor to the RKBA. It remains to be seen if the current court takes a real case or two on carry and bans. I'm not sanguine about that. It would be years anyway.

The self-defense argument is problematic as it leads to restrictions also. Practically, one might say three shots at three feet or 5 is enough. That is a common debate here but the problem is when some in the gun world denounce those who might want a 30 round mag in an AR or a Glock 17 with 17 rounds as gun lunatics or psychos. Yep, a revolver is a fine gun but if you push that in terms of denouncing the others, why not ban the higher caps as they are too dangerous in massacres or other higher intensity crimes. Joe - is good with a 2 shot double barrel. Unfortunately, Heller emphasized SD and gave an opening for bans on the lower and local levels. Quite a few cases denied the necessity of higher cap weapons for self-defense. IIRC, expert testimony by folks like Gary Kleck was dismissed by anti judges.

Instances like the officer using 12 shots on the attacking guy that we discussed in Strategy are countervailing. But every person who denounces carrying a higher cap gun or extra mag (as compared to discussing the dress concerns) is a friend of Uncle Joe.

3. Confiscation - I doubt because of the numbers involved and various legal issues that we would see door to door confiscation. The effect of the bans would be:

a. You get busted as an example
b. The guns become useless for hunting, and competition. No organized venue or range will put on a massive show of illegal weapons. In TX, we had carbine matches with 60 shooters. Quite a few local AND federal law - that isn't going to happen. My fond memory is shooting 5 stages with only 3 points down. AR with an Eotech. Time not so hot as I am old and slow.
c. A risk in self-defense - use an illegal gun, you get negative vibes from the jury and gun charges on top of shooting charges.
d. The after market industries disappear. Massive hit on civilian sales of all kinds of things.
e. A problem for your heirs. They might not be gun folks and all of a sudden they are criminals because of your stash.
f. You get turned in - your kid blabs at school. Your neighbor who is anti and used to see you going to the range blabs. EX marks the spot. So now you are going to the lawyers. How about the property and support numbers - hmm? Or they just squeal on you for spite. Look at some of the 1/6 idiots. Folks couldn't wait to turn them in.

4. Demand a conservative monoculture - as is surfacing in this thread. Terrible mistake. We need to have an inclusive view of the RKBA from the general and diverse population of the country. The rise is minority purchasing is not for their supporting Conservative viewpoints. It is in part because of the most unpleasant aspect of that viewpoint and perceived LEO discrimination. You may go hair on fire but if you want just a club with only your politics, you throw away more than half the country.

The RKBA has to be presented as a good thing for the general public and with reasons. Appeals to authority, such as God give right, won't work. Modern times demand modern reasoning. My view is that self-defense (including extreme incidents) and defense against tyranny (which is NOT the conspiracy world's view but ecletic for threats from the right, the left, religious extremists or any other liberty deniers) are the reasons to be put forth.
 
“As elected officials and law enforcement officers,” says Larry Keane, counsel for the NSSF, “Sheriffs take an oath to defend the constitution. That oath extends to the Second Amendment which the Supreme Court held applies to the States and local government. Sheriffs have a legal obligation not to enforce laws that blatantly violate the Second Amendment.”

I wonder if some of our elected Officials could be impeached for failing to uphold their oath to defend the constitution. But I guess it is for the courts to (re)decide what the 2nd Amendment really means.
 
The antis are in a great position right now, so the best we can do for the time being is put pressure on legislatures, and try to paint gun owners in a positive light on TV and in print.

Midterms: Vote against all politicians who vote anti, don't pay attention to what they say, look at how they vote, don't care about what party they claim, look at how they vote. Then do it again in four years. Meanwhile, keep the pressure on while supporting pro gun politicians, and voting against anti gun politicians, at every level in the country. Stop trying to tell your self that your favorite, for other reasons, anti gun politician won't continue to vote that way. Find another politician that won't support anti gun legislation, but will still support your other beliefs.
 
Let's talk about the article as compared to going off topic as Hso warned. My view is that if a Federal ban is passed you have to consider the following:

1. Sheriffs saying they won't enforce it, is basically a good PR move showing opposition to ban. My law enforcement sources say there is no law that makes states and local LEO enforce Federal law. Thus, a ban would not mandate local enforcement. However, if the Feds wanted local cooperation, a jurisdiction may not supply such. The was the case in the Fugitive Slave laws debate.

2. The article uses the MSR euphemism. The goal of this is to make the guns sound less dangerous and 'nice'

This is a subtle point. It is good to point out that the guns are not fully auto. However, this throws lightening up the NFA restrictions under the bus as you just said those guns are too dangerous.

The article says that semi auto guns aren't that useful militarily. That's not true as full auto is not always a recommended usage. The semi auto Garand was the finest battle rifle ever - Patton. So you are not going to make them look less dangerous. Look at a carbine competition and the rate of semi fire is not slow in the absolute. The rampages with semis show how dangerous the guns are.

Thus, you are not going to make them nice. It is true that guns which look not as military styled have the same lethality. That's why researchers who found the AWB did nothing to crime rates suggest stricter bans. A new one if well drafted by antis will take out the guns that were missed, such as the Mini--14s and pistol caliber guns such as the Rugers. Folks have noticed the massacres in Canada and Norway with Minis - and they are getting banned.

A sports emphasis is useless as an RKBA principle argument as the RKBA is not about sport. Pushing that we own them for sport suggests regulation. They are dangerous for misuse. But you want to play with them. Solution - have them locked up at the range and checked out for usage. This is done in some countries. Rachel Maddow, who would have thunk it, is a gun fan. She shoots ARs and 1911s. She takes her significant others to the range on first dates. However, she says the guns should be locked up at the range for recreational purposes.

Practically, I agree with the view that gun control will be pushed on a PR level but not much will be done on the Federal level unless we have a moral panic as after Las Vegas. Recall the NRA has stated that enough of the GOP and Trump were going to go with an inclusive ban until they diverted Donald to the bump ban.

The state ban level is more of a risk - unless Scotus acts. Roberts was the traitor to the RKBA. It remains to be seen if the current court takes a real case or two on carry and bans. I'm not sanguine about that. It would be years anyway.

The self-defense argument is problematic as it leads to restrictions also. Practically, one might say three shots at three feet or 5 is enough. That is a common debate here but the problem is when some in the gun world denounce those who might want a 30 round mag in an AR or a Glock 17 with 17 rounds as gun lunatics or psychos. Yep, a revolver is a fine gun but if you push that in terms of denouncing the others, why not ban the higher caps as they are too dangerous in massacres or other higher intensity crimes. Joe - is good with a 2 shot double barrel. Unfortunately, Heller emphasized SD and gave an opening for bans on the lower and local levels. Quite a few cases denied the necessity of higher cap weapons for self-defense. IIRC, expert testimony by folks like Gary Kleck was dismissed by anti judges.

Instances like the officer using 12 shots on the attacking guy that we discussed in Strategy are countervailing. But every person who denounces carrying a higher cap gun or extra mag (as compared to discussing the dress concerns) is a friend of Uncle Joe.

3. Confiscation - I doubt because of the numbers involved and various legal issues that we would see door to door confiscation. The effect of the bans would be:

a. You get busted as an example
b. The guns become useless for hunting, and competition. No organized venue or range will put on a massive show of illegal weapons. In TX, we had carbine matches with 60 shooters. Quite a few local AND federal law - that isn't going to happen. My fond memory is shooting 5 stages with only 3 points down. AR with an Eotech. Time not so hot as I am old and slow.
c. A risk in self-defense - use an illegal gun, you get negative vibes from the jury and gun charges on top of shooting charges.
d. The after market industries disappear. Massive hit on civilian sales of all kinds of things.
e. A problem for your heirs. They might not be gun folks and all of a sudden they are criminals because of your stash.
f. You get turned in - your kid blabs at school. Your neighbor who is anti and used to see you going to the range blabs. EX marks the spot. So now you are going to the lawyers. How about the property and support numbers - hmm? Or they just squeal on you for spite. Look at some of the 1/6 idiots. Folks couldn't wait to turn them in.

4. Demand a conservative monoculture - as is surfacing in this thread. Terrible mistake. We need to have an inclusive view of the RKBA from the general and diverse population of the country. The rise is minority purchasing is not for their supporting Conservative viewpoints. It is in part because of the most unpleasant aspect of that viewpoint and perceived LEO discrimination. You may go hair on fire but if you want just a club with only your politics, you throw away more than half the country.

The RKBA has to be presented as a good thing for the general public and with reasons. Appeals to authority, such as God give right, won't work. Modern times demand modern reasoning. My view is that self-defense (including extreme incidents) and defense against tyranny (which is NOT the conspiracy world's view but ecletic for threats from the right, the left, religious extremists or any other liberty deniers) are the reasons to be put forth.


Point #2. The distinction between what the military issues, and what the government is working to restrict or ban is important. The case is being made that an AR-15 is military hardware. It is not what the military issues and highlighting the distinction is worthwhile, especially in the light of overall violent crime #'s. I think it is also worthwhile to point out how seriously racist focusing on MSR's and high capacity magazines used in mass shootings in gun control actually is. Look at who suffers violent crime and what is used, by racial components, and you'll see that people of color suffer violent crime committed with handguns dis-proportionally, and yet the legislative focus is on protecting white suburban school children. Assault Weapon Bans are racist at their core.

Point #4. I couldn't agree more. I took a kid from church target shooting and hunting. His parents are strong Democrats and English Professors at the local university. He's taken two bucks, they now own multiple firearms, and his mother now hunts and took a doe. RKBA might be less likely to be a single vote issue for Democrats, but if politicians need to articulate their justifications for legislative proposals to restrict civil rights protected in the Bill of Rights to their constituents, it will be tougher for them to seem wise and representative of their voting base.
 
Let's talk about the article as compared to going off topic as Hso warned. My view is that if a Federal ban is passed you have to consider the following:

1. Sheriffs saying they won't enforce it, is basically a good PR move showing opposition to ban. My law enforcement sources say there is no law that makes states and local LEO enforce Federal law. Thus, a ban would not mandate local enforcement. However, if the Feds wanted local cooperation, a jurisdiction may not supply such. The was the case in the Fugitive Slave laws debate.

2. The article uses the MSR euphemism. The goal of this is to make the guns sound less dangerous and 'nice'

This is a subtle point. It is good to point out that the guns are not fully auto. However, this throws lightening up the NFA restrictions under the bus as you just said those guns are too dangerous.

The article says that semi auto guns aren't that useful militarily. That's not true as full auto is not always a recommended usage. The semi auto Garand was the finest battle rifle ever - Patton. So you are not going to make them look less dangerous. Look at a carbine competition and the rate of semi fire is not slow in the absolute. The rampages with semis show how dangerous the guns are.

Thus, you are not going to make them nice. It is true that guns which look not as military styled have the same lethality. That's why researchers who found the AWB did nothing to crime rates suggest stricter bans. A new one if well drafted by antis will take out the guns that were missed, such as the Mini--14s and pistol caliber guns such as the Rugers. Folks have noticed the massacres in Canada and Norway with Minis - and they are getting banned.

A sports emphasis is useless as an RKBA principle argument as the RKBA is not about sport. Pushing that we own them for sport suggests regulation. They are dangerous for misuse. But you want to play with them. Solution - have them locked up at the range and checked out for usage. This is done in some countries. Rachel Maddow, who would have thunk it, is a gun fan. She shoots ARs and 1911s. She takes her significant others to the range on first dates. However, she says the guns should be locked up at the range for recreational purposes.

Practically, I agree with the view that gun control will be pushed on a PR level but not much will be done on the Federal level unless we have a moral panic as after Las Vegas. Recall the NRA has stated that enough of the GOP and Trump were going to go with an inclusive ban until they diverted Donald to the bump ban.

The state ban level is more of a risk - unless Scotus acts. Roberts was the traitor to the RKBA. It remains to be seen if the current court takes a real case or two on carry and bans. I'm not sanguine about that. It would be years anyway.

The self-defense argument is problematic as it leads to restrictions also. Practically, one might say three shots at three feet or 5 is enough. That is a common debate here but the problem is when some in the gun world denounce those who might want a 30 round mag in an AR or a Glock 17 with 17 rounds as gun lunatics or psychos. Yep, a revolver is a fine gun but if you push that in terms of denouncing the others, why not ban the higher caps as they are too dangerous in massacres or other higher intensity crimes. Joe - is good with a 2 shot double barrel. Unfortunately, Heller emphasized SD and gave an opening for bans on the lower and local levels. Quite a few cases denied the necessity of higher cap weapons for self-defense. IIRC, expert testimony by folks like Gary Kleck was dismissed by anti judges.

Instances like the officer using 12 shots on the attacking guy that we discussed in Strategy are countervailing. But every person who denounces carrying a higher cap gun or extra mag (as compared to discussing the dress concerns) is a friend of Uncle Joe.

3. Confiscation - I doubt because of the numbers involved and various legal issues that we would see door to door confiscation. The effect of the bans would be:

a. You get busted as an example
b. The guns become useless for hunting, and competition. No organized venue or range will put on a massive show of illegal weapons. In TX, we had carbine matches with 60 shooters. Quite a few local AND federal law - that isn't going to happen. My fond memory is shooting 5 stages with only 3 points down. AR with an Eotech. Time not so hot as I am old and slow.
c. A risk in self-defense - use an illegal gun, you get negative vibes from the jury and gun charges on top of shooting charges.
d. The after market industries disappear. Massive hit on civilian sales of all kinds of things.
e. A problem for your heirs. They might not be gun folks and all of a sudden they are criminals because of your stash.
f. You get turned in - your kid blabs at school. Your neighbor who is anti and used to see you going to the range blabs. EX marks the spot. So now you are going to the lawyers. How about the property and support numbers - hmm? Or they just squeal on you for spite. Look at some of the 1/6 idiots. Folks couldn't wait to turn them in.

4. Demand a conservative monoculture - as is surfacing in this thread. Terrible mistake. We need to have an inclusive view of the RKBA from the general and diverse population of the country. The rise is minority purchasing is not for their supporting Conservative viewpoints. It is in part because of the most unpleasant aspect of that viewpoint and perceived LEO discrimination. You may go hair on fire but if you want just a club with only your politics, you throw away more than half the country.

The RKBA has to be presented as a good thing for the general public and with reasons. Appeals to authority, such as God give right, won't work. Modern times demand modern reasoning. My view is that self-defense (including extreme incidents) and defense against tyranny (which is NOT the conspiracy world's view but ecletic for threats from the right, the left, religious extremists or any other liberty deniers) are the reasons to be put forth.
Self defense is probably the best argument now because it is universal in spite of ones political stance- and it is now backed up by Heller.

I hate to say it, but the original intent of the 2A, as a deterrent to tyranny, is probably a lost cause at this point. When written, the tyranny they referred to was clearly recognised and opposed by the vast majority of the US population (save for a few Torries). It was a hedge against the formation of a new monarchy.

But now, with our current sociopolitical divide, tyranny from one camp is seen as utopian, or at least desirable, to the other- on both sides. There is no consensus on whose tyranny we are being defended from.

Then, of course, you could make the argument that most Americans couldnt care less about tyranny as long as they get keep getting free stuff. So I surrender some rights....I wasnt using them anyway. Now, where are my .Gov drugs, cheap gas, free internet, etc? Self defense may still get some traction with the masses, but how many on either side are up for marching to sound of the guns for freedom?

Naw, Id have to put down my phone for that. Pass. (Sarcasm)
 
The antis are in a great position right now, so the best we can do for the time being is put pressure on legislatures, and try to paint gun owners in a positive light on TV and in print.
As much as I agree with this, we don’t control the TV or print. What gets written in G&A means nothing to those on the left. And those on the left, either won’t read it, or will read it and dismiss it. We are fighting a VERY uphill battle. The rampant murders with guns in Chicago (or pick any major city) aren’t reported because they aren’t new and would bring attention to rampant crime in a Democrat city. The person (male, female, black, white, or any other “color”) who defends themself from a home invasion, rape, robbery etc. isn’t reported past local news because it paints firearms and their responsible use, in a positive light. But if you can show a white kid, with no coping skills, who goes crazy and shoots up a school, prepare yourself for weeks (if not months) of national coverage. Show someone who shoots up a nightclub or concert, same thing.

While I agree with your sentiment about us acting like knuckledraggers, the truth, that so many fail to see, is that it doesn’t really matter how we act. We will be portrayed how the media wants us portrayed. And that is what the people will see. Now, should we give them more fodder? Absolutely not. But I bet you can’t tell the difference between a video played on the news (if you’ve never seen the footage before) that’s 2 years old, 2 months old, 2 weeks old, 2 days old, or 2 minutes old. Feel free to substitute the 2 with any number up to probably 10. Lots of archived footage and photos. People also don’t read the fine print on photos. The see the picture, associate it with the story, and that’s their truth. There’s also a lot of this country where people aren’t as educated and refined. Truthfully, those tend to be the people I prefer to associate with because I place character above education. But it’s easy footage for tv audiences.
 
Last edited:
We already have a constitutional right, supposedly the highest law in the land, to keep and bear arms. If that’s not enough then all of the political persuasion, etc. is not going to make a bit of difference. Millions of men and women in the streets, is what will make politicians pay attention. AnyThing else is just kidding ourselves. Politically we have to get rid of every judge and every politician who is anti-or gives lip service to the second amendment.
 
We already have a constitutional right, supposedly the highest law in the land, to keep and bear arms. If that’s not enough then all of the political persuasion, etc. is not going to make a bit of difference.

One problem that the right is not a magic formula. None of the BOR are actually. In the Heller decision we learned that 4 out of 5 Justices did not think the 2nd Amendment meant what we usually think it does. Recently, we learned that Justice Robert seemingly thinks so little of an expansive 2nd Amendment (beyond a gun in your underwear drawer) that the 4 positive justices wouldn't take on the 10 cases that would have solved most of our concerns. I would remind you that Justice Berger and would be Justice Bork thought little of the 2nd. Point being that they were hard core conservatives. Hard core conservative Bob Dole was a fan of the AWB. The responsive bleat would be that they were RINOS. Yawn.

We've seen people happily propose violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments when it fit their ideology or purposes.

You can't get rid of all the anti politicians if half the country doesn't believe you are correct. The only solutions, IMHO, are:

1. Work on purple district politicians to convince them they could lose - so they can moderate their anti views.
2. Get Scotus off its butt
3. Promote an inclusive RKBA. I don't think some of the gun world and the NRA is up for that, to be blunt.I can't continue the later's strategy without going pure politics, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top