I just don't get it

[AlexanderA]

The OP wrote:

In my mind, shall not be infringed implies that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.” Period.

We need to dial this back a little. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is 100% absolute. Even freedom of speech and religion is limited -- you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't practice a religion that involves human sacrifice. Justice Scalia, in the generally pro-gun Heller decision, said that "reasonable restrictions" are OK. The debate, therefore, is about exactly what parameters apply to those "reasonable restrictions."

Just remember this -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Allowing proven violent felons, adjudicated mentally deranged, etc., unrestricted access to guns is a recipe for societal suicide.

 

[Bexar]

As previously stated by another respondent both Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have made comments about how the Democrats and especially Bill's gun control measures cost the Democrats eight years of the executive office and Nancy Pelosi blamed it for costing her...her speaker's throne.

I suspect this gun control rhetoric is being done now to gather donations but will die off as the election gets closer. The Democrats have got to realize at some point that spouting gun control is not going to create them votes as advocates will vote for them anyway but it may cost them votes of the moderate Democrats that are hunters...shooters and collectors.

It will probably get real quiet when the 2016 elections approach because the next two presidential elections are for all the SCOTUS marbles and will absolutely determine how...not if...but how socialist and French political model we become.

 

[Ryanxia]

The OP wrote:



We need to dial this back a little. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is 100% absolute. Even freedom of speech and religion is limited -- you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't practice a religion that involves human sacrifice. Justice Scalia, in the generally pro-gun Heller decision, said that "reasonable restrictions" are OK. The debate, therefore, is about exactly what parameters apply to those "reasonable restrictions."

Just remember this -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Allowing proven violent felons, adjudicated mentally deranged, etc., unrestricted access to guns is a recipe for societal suicide.

You can't shout fire, but your lips are not sewn shut when entering a movie theater. If you shout fire there are consequences, same if you misuse a firearm there are consequences.
Your ability to shout fire is not removed because.....There might be a fire.
An appropriate analogy to make would be; you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, therefore reasonably you can't go shooting your gun in the air in a crowded theater. Those are reasonable restrictions. Ones that are already in place.

If someone is a violent felon or otherwise proven dangerous to society they should not have been let out of prison. The focus should be; not letting a convicted rapist/murderer out onto the streets again, rather than trying to keep any of the 300 million guns out of his hands. Someone raped and strangled is just as dead as someone raped and shot.

 

[Bexar]

The OP wrote:



We need to dial this back a little. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is 100% absolute. Even freedom of speech and religion is limited -- you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't practice a religion that involves human sacrifice. Justice Scalia, in the generally pro-gun Heller decision, said that "reasonable restrictions" are OK. The debate, therefore, is about exactly what parameters apply to those "reasonable restrictions."

Just remember this -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Allowing proven violent felons, adjudicated mentally deranged, etc., unrestricted access to guns is a recipe for societal suicide.

According to this premise of "societal suicide" you propose would happen...I was of age in 1968 and I don't remember there being a "societal suicide" pre 1968 GCA when an individual could buy all the firearms and ammo direct mail order to their front door...including AR-15s and other magazine fed weapons regardless of age...mental health status...criminal record or needing a note from the local authorities in most cases.

We had firearms slung in the rear windows of our pick-ups in high school parking lots in suburban high schools and if we felt uneasy about our scopes being damaged in the heat we could walk down the halls with a rifle or shotgun and leave them in the principal's office. It was not uncommon for the principal to ask which one is yours when we went to retrieve our guns. If a staff member stopped us it was more to check out what scope we had or what model shotgun we were carrying.

Now a kid draws a picture of a stick gun on his notebook and he is suspended for three days while he receives counseling and his parents are investigated and have to receive counseling also.

Almost every three months we now hear of some disgruntled kid or employee shooting up a school or work place. This while further gun control measures nothing short of draconian are being proposed as we discuss this matter. Where is the "societal suicide" you express now?

 

[Ryanxia]

Well said Bexar.

 

[dodo bird]

What is the possibility of her party nominating a pro 2A candidate? I know it happens at more local levels, but is it even a possibility to have a pro 2A Democrat nominated as their party's candidate for president?

When i ride my unicorn to the range and bigfoot brings the ammo! I needed a good laugh.

 

[Warp]

The OP wrote:



We need to dial this back a little. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is 100% absolute. Even freedom of speech and religion is limited -- you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't practice a religion that involves human sacrifice. Justice Scalia, in the generally pro-gun Heller decision, said that "reasonable restrictions" are OK. The debate, therefore, is about exactly what parameters apply to those "reasonable restrictions."

Just remember this -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Allowing proven violent felons, adjudicated mentally deranged, etc., unrestricted access to guns is a recipe for societal suicide.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

 

[CoalTrain49]

Middle of the road

This rhetoric of HRC is to be expected. After all, it will be part of the platform of the dem candidate no question.

I'm not a single issue voter but I can say that I have voted in every pres election since 1972. I wasn't in the country in 1968.

We always have to take elections seriously, not just the pres election, but your state and local elections too.

I think far too many people put way too much emphasis on pres candidates and don't pay enough attention to the state and congressional elections.

In the upcoming election it will be far more important to make sure the GOP has control of the house. It will also be important that you keep the GOP in the majority at the state level.

States have more rights than many realize when it comes gun control. Don't get distracted by a pres candidate. Nothing much is going to change at the fed level until congress and the supreme court says it's going to change and that will be a CDIH.

HRC won't make the cut even if she decides to run. Too many mistakes have been made by the present adm and she was part of it.

 

[hso]

Folks,

Huskerguy is probably right, but let's pretend we can control ourselves for something this important. If you can't resist the urge to broaden this into general political rants and this can't stay focused on how to keep Ms. Clinton out of the Whitehouse it can't stay open.

This is a serious enough threat that we would hope we'd set our favorite political party axe to grind aside and focus on HOW we might ensure Ms. Clinton doesn't get nominated or how she doesn't get elected.

 

[Midwest]

Sounds like we almost have the same thread here.........

"I just don't get it"


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=751496



"In a Washington Times article today, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation’s gun culture has gotten “way out of balance” and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”

.

 

[Tinpig]

What is the possibility of her party nominating a pro 2A candidate?

I had hopes for Jim Webb for awhile, but it seems like politics really isn't his thing. Hard to hold that against him.

Tinpig

 

[GBExpat]

I'm an independent votor, and approach each election with an open mind. However, 2A is non-negotiable for me. I won't be voting for Clinton. I'll have to see how the Republican and Libertarian candidates compare.

I agree with you on the 2A being non-negotiable.

I have voted in every presidential election since the early '70s. In only one of those have I voted for a candidate (Reagan '84) ... in every other case I have voted against The Other Guy.

Please do not cast a vote for the Libertarian candidate if that ends up being the equivalent of a vote for Clinton (assuming she runs) ... unless, o'course, you prefer Clinton to the Republican candidate.

That is how we in Virginia ended up with McAuliffe as governor in this last election cycle.

BTW, I did not post the above as a shot against Democrats, but as an appeal to all to make their voting choices both intelligently & thoughtfully.

 

[Agsalaska]

The OP wrote:



We need to dial this back a little. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is 100% absolute. Even freedom of speech and religion is limited -- you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't practice a religion that involves human sacrifice. Justice Scalia, in the generally pro-gun Heller decision, said that "reasonable restrictions" are OK. The debate, therefore, is about exactly what parameters apply to those "reasonable restrictions."

Just remember this -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Allowing proven violent felons, adjudicated mentally deranged, etc., unrestricted access to guns is a recipe for societal suicide.

I do not like the analogy, but the preface is correct. I understand that this will be VERY unpopular on this board, but 'shall not be infringed' does not prevent reasonable restrictions. If you dont believe me, and the point the person I quoted was trying to make, there is 200+ years of case law about it. Thats why it is a bad argument and one that we are destined to lose. Every time you try to make that argument you will come off as ignorant in a real debate.

The problem is, IMHO, it is difficult to debate 'reasonable restrictions' rationally when a good portion of the other side believe gun ownership should be banned. I think it would be much easier to find the right balance surrounding gun ownership if I felt the other side was acting in good faith. But they are not. Because of that it is impossible for us to give an inch knowing they will be back for more tomorrow. We have tried that in the past and spent the bette rpart of the last two decades trying to reverse it.

 

[BryanDavis]

I think Rand Paul has a very good chance of defeating Mrs. Clinton in the general election, if he can just get past the Republican Primary.

So now would be a good time to register to vote in the Republican 2016 Primary...

I haven't yet, I'm still a registered Democrat, but have been voting Republican ever since Obama first ran for office.

I saw on CNN just today the talk about Monica Lewinsky's piece in Vanity Fair. They love her more than they do Obama. Which is interesting. A large part of why Obama won in 2008 is because he was such a media darling. It doesn't seem that Mrs. Clinton has that kind of pull.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see what happens in 2016. If the Republicans can score a trifecta and win the house, the senate and the white house. The door opens to all sorts of pro-gun legislation, even repealing the 1968 Gun Control Act. At the very least we would get nation-wide concealed carry reciprocity which has been reintroduced over and over and over.

But I see such a focus on concealed carry and small handguns. Make it clear to your representatives that owning something a bit bigger for home defense like an AR-15 isn't unreasonable.

 

[Palehorseman]

The last survey I recall was in 2007 which showed there were 270 million firearms and 90 million gun owners in the USA. One would think with those numbers gun owners would be the most powerful political force the antis have to reckon with. But not so, we are fractured from top to bottom and the antis do everything in their power to increase those fractures into irreparable open cracks. I constantly read here on THR diatribes against joining the NRA because it does not address everyone’s specific individual concerns. No it does not, because it cannot address the individual concerns for a herd of cats, for their strategy and tactics must concentrate on the overall big picture.

The current membership of the NRA is around 5 million, if we could increase that to 15 or even 20 million, it would dishearten and rattle the antis to no end.

 

[Warp]

I agree with you on the 2A being non-negotiable.

I have voted in every presidential election since the early '70s. In only one of those have I voted for a candidate (Reagan '84) ... in every other case I have voted against The Other Guy.

Please do not cast a vote for the Libertarian candidate if that ends up being the equivalent of a vote for Clinton (assuming she runs) ... unless, o'course, you prefer Clinton to the Republican candidate.

That is how we in Virginia ended up with McAuliffe as governor in this last election cycle.

BTW, I did not post the above as a shot against Democrats, but as an appeal to all to make their voting choices both intelligently & thoughtfully.

My personal policy is not to vote for anybody unless I want them to get the job.

If a particular group or party is incapable of putting forth a candidate that does -not- suck, that's on them.

You are of course free to use your vote however you see fit.

 

[MtnCreek]

Bryan D,

If you have to register per party, take a hard look at who's in the primaries for the '14 election. You may find someone in the other party that you want to get behind.

Don't think Mrs. Clinton won't be the media darling if she runs. IMO, the media had their reason for pulling the way they did last time, but that's behind us now. The only way she will not be is if they find something more bedazzling between now and then.

 

[19-3Ben]

They have always tried to disarm the populace by talking about "illegal guns" and "going after criminals." But this is now diferent.

HRC is talking about:

Clinton told attendees at the mental health conference that "at the rate we're going, we're going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated"

So here is, as far as I can see, the first time that they are openly attacking legal gun owners. She is saying that people who are licensed and "fully validated" (whatever the heck that means) are a problem.
They have always maneuvered and concealed their true intentions the way they did with the new rules here in CT where they wanted to ban AWs and the folks who have a license are the "oh, so sorry" collateral damage. Now she is not even talking about guns in the hands of criminals.

My question is, does this much more brazen, and much less tactful attack make the antis vulnerable? Is there a way that HRC being exposed here could serve as the fulcrum with which we exert leverage on the other side and gain back the ground that we lost after the Sandy Hook shooting?

 

[Panzerschwein]

I hope Hillary doesn't make it! Will vote just to vota AGAINST her!

 

[Bexar]

Agsalaska...The problem is, IMHO, it is difficult to debate 'reasonable restrictions' rationally when a good portion of the other side believe gun ownership should be banned. I think it would be much easier to find the right balance surrounding gun ownership if I felt the other side was acting in good faith. But they are not. Because of that it is impossible for us to give an inch knowing they will be back for more tomorrow. We have tried that in the past and spent the bette rpart of the last two decades trying to reverse it.

Yep...I remember the Democrats extolling during the run-up to the Brady bill their declaring this is all we want and that's it. Yep...sure. There's a teen-ager with his girlfriend in the back seat analogy of this. Pelosi losing her seat...the dems the House...Colorado punting those anti-gun reps over the fence and Connecticut's damn near having a revolution on their hands kinda shows it's not up to the liberals to draw the line in the sand...it's up to us.

 

[Bexar]

Speaking of Connecticut and New York...what's going on up there with their gun grab?

 

[Grassman]

This is easy, she has to ride the fence till she gets elected, then her true anti position will be enacted. It's very simple, it's a campaign lie pure and simple. Dems do it all the time.

 

[tomrkba]

It's not a "gun" issue! It's a mental health issue... sad thing is that some of most evil, unbalanced minds can also be quite clever... and there's the rub: Weeding out the freaks.

There are no mental health exceptions in the Second Amendment. NONE.

"Mental health" is just another manufactured reason to limit forearms ownership. They do this in foreign countries since it is so subjective. That is the point: they want to have the ability to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone at any time.

 

[tomrkba]

Speaking of Connecticut and New York...what's going on up there with their gun grab?

I think they are still mulling it over. Perhaps Bunkerville is making them think it through since it demonstrated that citizens are now willing to use force against government agents.

 

[Agsalaska]

There are no mental health exceptions in the Second Amendment. NONE.

"Mental health" is just another manufactured reason to limit forearms ownership. They do this in foreign countries since it is so subjective. That is the point: they want to have the ability to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone at any time.

See this is my point. This is the kind of comment that is impossible to defend. Do not directly reference any amendment as absolute or you lose all credibility. I get your frustration, but the fact that there are no mental health exceptions written directly into the amendment is pointless.