Quantcast

Have the anti-gunners already won?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by usmarine0352_2005, Feb 16, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    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?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  2. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    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.
     
  3. BulletArc47

    BulletArc47 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Georgia

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

    FIVETWOSEVEN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,116
    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.
     
  5. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    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.
     
  6. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    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.
     
  7. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,104
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    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.
     
  8. shafter

    shafter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,045
    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.
     
  9. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,879
    Location:
    SLC, Utah
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  10. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,854
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    How about we stop trying to assign blame to the 20% of the population we think is most culpable. And how about we stop drawing dividing lines across party affiliation.

    In the last ten years the US:
    • Has started a war based on secret evidence whose accuracy later proved, ummmm, "lacking."
    • Has embraced torture as a legitimate tool in what was previously an endeavor for law enforcement. We even ship prisoners to places like Syria to have the job performed more traditionally.
    • Has started "indefinite detention." You're not charged with a crime, and you're given a status that exempts you from the codified protections in both the law of war and under our justice system. We place you in legal limbo and keep you there forever.
    • In both of the above situations, after you're in custody the authorities will deny to your family and any legal counsel your family hires that you're even in custody.
    • All cell phone, e-mails, and other electronic traffic are routinely monitored.
    • We now have to submit to a virtual strip search to travel. The options are to be groped instead, or to not fly commercial.
    • The US Government can put your name on a list and you're no longer allowed to fly. If this happens while you're overseas, you're SOL unless you want to book passage on a ship to Canada and drive in, I guess.
    • The Administration has now taken it on itself to execute US citizens if it feels they're associated with terrorism in some way. No judge, no notice, no charges, just <bam.> And no, this is not comparable to "wanted Dead or Alive" posters we've all seen -- in those cases someone went through the process to file charges against the person, the charges are known, and there's the option to turn yourself in and exercise your rights to a fair trial, you get to confront your accusers, etc. In the "targeted killings" case, as far as you know everything's cool. Then you're dead. And maybe your 16 year old son, too.
    • Taxes? Don't get me started. Taxation now is probably 400% higher than it was in Colonial times.
    And on, and on, and on.

    The current fight over guns is the next stage in the process, but it's part of a current in American politics that's been growing stronger over time. When Bush does it, the liberals scream and the conservatives back it. When Obama does it, the conservatives scream and the liberals back it. When it's voted on in congress the debates are rarely contentious, and win by strong majorities.

    We've got a serious political problem. And it's pervasive -- you can't simply point at one party or segment of the population and lay the blame. You can try, but you're just wrong.

    The thing that bothers me is this: Check out this graphic

    Homicide+chart.+edited.gif

    If I were to recreate it I'd put all 323 homicides involving a rifle of any kind on their own line, but then you wouldn't be able to see it.

    That's the magnitude of gun violence, and rifles don't make the list. But rifles have (arguably) the strongest correlation with the second amendment and its original purpose.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  11. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    726
    Location:
    NW New Mexico
    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.
     
  12. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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.
     
  13. Deer_Freak

    Deer_Freak Member.

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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]
     
  14. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,404
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    Tired of fighting?

    Except for medical marijuana, I don't know any states in which marijuana is legal under federal law.

    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.
     
  15. Deer_Freak

    Deer_Freak Member.

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  16. RangerHAAF

    RangerHAAF Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Decatur, Georgia
    They'll do as the military does(at Ft. Benning & Quantico) and make their own, in house.
     
  17. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA

    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
     
  18. Gallstones

    Gallstones Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    Goosetown in the Pintlers
    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.
     
  19. Gallstones

    Gallstones Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    Goosetown in the Pintlers
    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.
     
  20. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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).
     
  21. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  22. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  23. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    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
     
  24. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,276
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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....
     
  25. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,649
    Location:
    Georgia
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice