Have the anti-gunners already won?

[The_Armed_Therapist]

Any issue goes the same way. The anti-liberty folks win battle after battle, easily winning most of them. This can continue for years, decades, or even centuries. That liberty decreases and decreases until people either fight back (with something besides a stupid ballot) or roll over and give up.

YES, the anti-gunners are winning. They haven't won, however, until they've successfully removed the rifles from the citizens. In most countries they've won the war. They WON'T win the war in the United States, however.

 

[george shaffer]

I can tell by your mos you could never concede to the anti gunners

 

[Alaska444]

Any issue goes the same way. The anti-liberty folks win battle after battle, easily winning most of them. This can continue for years, decades, or even centuries. That liberty decreases and decreases until people either fight back (with something besides a stupid ballot) or roll over and give up.

YES, the anti-gunners are winning. They haven't won, however, until they've successfully removed the rifles from the citizens. In most countries they've won the war. They WON'T win the war in the United States, however.

The 2A is at great risk from another mass shooting while Obama is in office.

The constitution is at great risk from another 911 or WMD while any president is in office.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Sadly, it is very likely that both will occur if we were taking odds on them happening.

 

[phil dirt]

Here in Wa State we have had a few of the typical onerous gun grabbing bills introduced in the state legislature and supported by our local leftist anti gun rag, the Seattle Times. This morning it was reported that the duffus idiots who wrote the bill neglected the fact that they are unconstitutional. Now with egg smeared all over their faces, they have been forced to remove the warrantless search provisions that was originally the main point of their bill. The long and the short of all of this is that it looks like very little of what the progressive/communist left wanted is going to happen. Score: good guys 1, commies 0. So, the rest of you guys ....... don't give up the fight. We are winning!

 

[OilyPablo]

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....

Good job on not using my whole post.

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.

Democrats by and large have been introducing all these terrible bills. If you are a member of that party, you are part of the problem. You cannot deny this, unless somehow you are successfully changing your party. This is not saying the Republicans are much better, but they ARE currently better at gun legislation. Period. And yes I know about, Reagan, Bush, Romney, Christie, etc..........and again how much legislation are they currently introducing?

 

[Alaska444]

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 don't believe that we will see the end of the 2A in my lifetime. I am now 54. If we do lose the 2A in my generation, then yes, you are correct.

However, I believe it will hang on for a bit longer. We are indeed a morally bankrupt generation in many ways, but we are also the last generation who grew up playing outside running around where ever we wished and home at dark.

There is a fundamental change in the way I grew up compared to my kids. My dad ran around in the same manner we all did. We learned about freedom early as children. Our parents granted us the same freedoms that they had. Today, doing so would be considered child abuse quite sadly but in a real sense, you can no longer let young children run free as we did.

Yes, there is a significant generational change that we are seeing emerge but not fully encompassed at this time. We are experiencing a complete breakdown of morality and conservative values in this nation. All of these demographic and societal factors are what truly put the 2A and the entire constitution at risk. Have you listened to how many people openly state we need to scrap the entire constitution and start over with a "modern" document? God forbid that happens any time soon.

 

[Warp]

Democrats by and large have been introducing all these terrible bills.

This is true, and has been true for awhile.

 

[JRH6856]

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

There is more than one definition of compromise:

Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

In this case, I am using #1b Obamacare is a blending of measures, not the ultimate goal.

In the matter of gun control, we seek to apply definition #1a. They want us to apply definition #2 and concede.

 

[Alaska444]

There is more than one definition of compromise:

Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

In this case, I am using #1b Obamacare is a blending of measures, not the ultimate goal.

In the matter of gun control, we seek to apply definition #1a. They want us to apply definition #2 and concede.

The compromise was within he Dems themselves for Obamacare. Many did want a single payor system and Obamacare over time will give them that.

For gun control, the GOP has more say than they did with Obamacare. Hopefully that will keep further controls at bay for now.

 

[9MMare]

Good job on not using my whole post.

The rest of your post was not relevant to the very specific response I made. However it does highlight the misconception of the rest of your post....the fact that major Republican candidates are just as bad as Democrats....it's denial to think otherwise. There is a definite 'lean' by Republicans but if your major runners are losers on the 2A, it doesnt make much difference. The difference must be made up elsewhere.

 

[konrado]

Walter E. Williams

I read this in the paper today. I think it helps explain what is going.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/02/13/a-minority-view-n1509825/page/full/

 

[Cesiumsponge]

The Republican party of today is NOT the Republican party of the 1960's. The Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 30's. These parties have championed the same titles for a century but their core values have shifted with time and trend. Maybe if the Republicans would actually FOCUS on being fiscal conservatives instead of focusing on chasing out people with brown skin, gays, marijuana, and competing with Obama on who can pass bigger defense spending budgets and who can spend the most, they might actually rally up some support.

Instead, they've squandered the very conservative Hispanic vote, conservative gay voters, and a large Libertarian and Constitutional demographic by chasing off everyone. It's this "stupid kids today" attitude that has turned the GOP into an old, crusty, curmudgeon party. The GOP hasn't been a party of individuality or freedom since the 60's when they fought against racist Democrats for civil rights for African Americans. Most of us left to the Libertarian party to carry on that tradition of fiscal conservationism and social liberties.

Like I posted on page 3, there was a thorough poll done on exactly what age demographic was most anti-assault weapon and it turns out it's the 54+ age demographic, while the youngest demographic was most supportive of ownership of assault weapons. That is completely contrary to the "kids today" attitude and blaming the youngest generation as the cause of all ills in society. Which age demographic do you think is the wealthiest and most influential? It's not those entering the workforce for the first time. Which age demographic is the one who'll boot any Congressman out if they touch Medicare or Medicade? It's not 20-somethings. The age of the anti-gun legislators who keep pushing these anti-gun bills year after year?

This isn't an argument to adopt a "those old people" attitude. This is meant to point out we're ALL in this game together. We've had turncoats in every generation. My generation, my father's generation, and those before him. The sooner we recognize this instead of trying to alienate groups by age, the sooner we can work on the problems. It's this divisiveness that's driving people away. All this anger can be focused in a much more constructive manner. I worked summers and weekends all throughout high school. I worked during college. I work now. I've never stopped being a productive member of society. Don't throw people under 30 under the bus for social ills that have been brooding for generations.

 

[joeschmoe]

Any issue goes the same way. The anti-liberty folks win battle after battle, easily winning most of them. This can continue for years, decades, or even centuries. That liberty decreases and decreases until people either fight back (with something besides a stupid ballot) or roll over and give up.

YES, the anti-gunners are winning. They haven't won, however, until they've successfully removed the rifles from the citizens. In most countries they've won the war. They WON'T win the war in the United States, however.

What? What battles have they won? None on the national level.

v Heller? Nope.
v McDonald? Nope.
v Lopez? Nope.
AWB? Nope.
AWB II? Nope.
CCW? Nope.
Reciprocity? Nope.
National parks carry? Nope.
Stand your ground laws? Nope.
Executive orders? Nope.

We won all those battles in the last 20 years.

Locally? Some wild proposals that have or will die before enacted. A few (minority of) states have passed some draconian laws that will probably be struck down.
Most (a majority) of states have passed CCW, stand your ground laws and reciprocity. My state added a silencer bill signed by a Democrat into law!

That is hardly what I call anti's "winning" the war.

We are in a much better position than we were 20 years ago. The anti's are in no way "winning". Not even close. They've been getting the beat down for so long they are just grasping at straws. They have been loosing and will keep losing.

There will be no federal bans, confiscations, sweeping EO's or UBC. States are supposed to have more flexability, but even they cannot infringe upon the 2nd right to arms. Most of NY's laws will be tossed and most of thier politicians need to be replaced anyway.

 

[JRH6856]

Heller is one of those wonderful SCOTUS rulings that closes a door while opening a window.

AWB II is not yet decided conclusively, CCW, Reciprocity, National parks carry, Stand your ground laws are all laws that are subject to being repealed at the state level and in some cases, superseded at the federal level.

Executive orders? Well, the term is young. This is not the time for counting chickens.

 

[Warp]

There is more than one definition of compromise:

Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

In this case, I am using #1b Obamacare is a blending of measures, not the ultimate goal.

In the matter of gun control, we seek to apply definition #1a. They want us to apply definition #2 and concede.

It still isn't compromise!

"mutual concessions"

What concessions do the gun-grabbers agree to?

That they will take less of our Rights and Liberties than they really want to (because they can take the rest later).

How about in exchange for universal background checks, the machine gun registry is re-opened and suppressors are no longer an NFA item? THAT would be compromise.

 

[Deanimator]

How about in exchange for universal background checks, the machine gun registry is re-opened and suppressors are no longer an NFA item? THAT would be compromise.

That's not a compromise.

Repeal the NFA '34 and ELIMINATE the registry?

Now THAT'S a compromise.

 

[Warp]

That's not a compromise.

Repeal the NFA '34 and ELIMINATE the registry?

Now THAT'S a compromise.

No it isn't. That is simply restoring unconstitutionally violated rights. Compromise would mean they get something out of it, too.

Proposing that and getting what I posted, while they propose a national registration and get background checks...that's compromise.

Not that compromise is acceptable, because it isn't...but we may as well understand what compromise would actually be. This is a pretty simple and straightfoward term that nobody seems to be willing or able to understand.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I'd swap UBC's for the elimination of both the NFA and the GCA. I'd see that as a win, personally.

 

[OilyPablo]

Fine Democrat bill:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

 

[JRH6856]

I'd swap UBC's for the elimination of both the NFA and the GCA. I'd see that as a win, personally.

Without GCA 68, there are no FFLs. Who does the UBCs?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Without GCA 68, there are no FFLs. Who does the UBCs?

You'd need to devise a new system that did the same thing. We've already got NICS -- just make it Internet, telephone, and smart-phone app enabled and there you go. Give it a name and state driver's license number and get a yes/no in seconds.

 

[Deer_Freak]

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

Health care is eating up 18% of our GDP. Something has to be done to reign in healthcare costs and make healthcare available to everyone. When people have two jobs and their wife is working part time yet they still can't afford healthcare, something has to be done. We are the only industrialized nation on this planet that doesn't have socialized healthcare. At least Obamacare is trying to deal with the problem. What are we going to do, wait until doctors own the entire country?

 

[Warp]

You'd need to devise a new system that did the same thing. We've already got NICS -- just make it Internet, telephone, and smart-phone app enabled and there you go. Give it a name and state driver's license number and get a yes/no in seconds.

You shouldn't have to have a driver license to buy a gun.

 

[JRH6856]

Fine Democrat bill:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

There is something ironic about anti-gunners that shoot themselves in the foot (before stuffing it in their mouth).

 

[JRH6856]

You'd need to devise a new system that did the same thing. We've already got NICS -- just make it Internet, telephone, and smart-phone app enabled and there you go. Give it a name and state driver's license number and get a yes/no in seconds.

That creates privacy issues if anyone can access the system and I would prefer the BGCs not be tied to purchases. Most states issue some form of photo ID. Just add a code indicating the person is cleared to purchase a firearm.