Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control

[joeschmoe]

It seems most Americans have forgotten this is a Republic where the government has LIMITED powers and actually does not have the power to fix or do everything/anything that the majority want.

The government has no power to outlaw arms. Writing a new law won't change that.

 

[DammitBoy]

I have no problem believing what we will face is a series of executive orders because "I can't wait for congress to act".

 

[zorro45]

We as gun owners have done a poor job over the years of articulating the reasons for the Second Amendment, even to the point that many gun owning "sportsmen" do not understand that 2A is not about duck hunting or personal defense. It behooves all of us to do a little reading at www.jpfo.com in case you need to discuss this with anyone. Word of advice, don't even try this with a drunk person. It is very frustrating.

 

[goon]

Be that as it may, Heller confirms the Second Amendment's protection of a right to self-defense with weapons in common use. I believe that resistance to tyranny was mentioned, but only in passing, and I am not aware of any Supreme Court ruling that solidly enumerates resisting oppressive government specifically.
Don't get me wrong, I totally support your understanding of the Second Amendment. But right now, what we have is a ruling that protects self defense, and the AR-15 (and other semi-auto rifles) are both common and damn fine tools for that purpose. That's the ground that most of my arguments stand on right now.

 

[X-Rap]

I think to many of us think that there is or will be some sort of rational disscussion on this gun debate.
More and more I think the subjects of this country really do believe guns kill people and with great malice just like blizzards, tornados, hurricanes, and SUV's. As I listen to the news reports on the latest winter storm I can't help but wonder what the news media's facination with body counts is but if they can attach mayhem to a news item they sure will do it. Just listen to the reports on how 12 were killed by the latest storm as though we should be up in arms about how to stom the carnage.
Many Americans have been duped by the 24 hr news cycle and their hunger to report something.
Don Henley says it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o

 

[BSA1]

There is the more likely option that any additional gun control laws will not gain enough support for anything to change for the worse and the role of the gun for self-defense will become more accepted. Consider that;

Gun owners will turn off the naysayer on THR that are convinced that some restrictions on gun ownership are impossible to stop.

Gun owners will turn off the naysayer on other forums that are convinced that some restrictions on gun ownership are impossible to stop.

Gun owners will turn off the naysayer on the media such as TV that are using a full court press to convince the public that some restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to protect children and impossible to stop.

Talk radio and the Internet will effectively counter the governments and mass media misinformation campaign.

The majority of people will examine the effect of the Clinton AWB ban 1994 – 2004 and conclude it did not have the effect on reducing crime as the media would have us to believe.

The majority of people will realize that the proposed gun control bans are just more of the same failed policies in the past.

The vast legalization of CCW in most states have made many voters to realize S.D. is a personal responsibily.

Mass shootings such as Columbine and malls prove the police are totally ineffective in responding in time to prevent the damage caused by the shooters.

The presence of a armed citizen at the scene has prevented many injuries and deaths.

Gun owners are our own worse enemies.

 

[CoRoMo]

Anti-gun laws will likely be along party lines, with a few swing voters.

I tend to believe that there will be plenty of swing voters from both parties. Several republicans will hope to garner favor in the media by voting for gun control and there will be some Democrats that can't support gun control lest they lose their elected seat given to them by the district that they come from.

I keep going back and forth, believing that there will be something or nothing able to pass at all. With the majority in the House, it seems unlikely that anything will get passed, but it all depends on how 'hot' this issue remains as we gain distance from the day of the tragedy. Like most prominent issues of our day -and you can see one very shining example occurring right now- this legislation will likely be debated and kicked around congress for this spring session, only to be presented for a vote, in whatever remnant form exists, just before congress breaks for summer come Memorial Day.

 

[waidmann]

Both G.H.W. Bush and W.J. Clinton in 1989 and 1994 issued Ex. Orders we live with. I expect some more in the import of weapons, parts and magazines.

When Schumer was managing the election campaign that produced the Democratic majority in the Senate he conceeded that in order to elect and retain the loyalty of Blue Dogs, reproductive and firearms issues were off limits for the foreseeable future. Those folks are still in the Senate. So far only Manchin of WV has indicated a change of heart.

In response to the 1996 Port Aurthur massacre Australia voted a gun grab. They paid A$ 500 million (about $350 m. US) for between 631,000-643,000 firearms. Later they restricted handguns paying A$21 million for 18,814 handguns and then had to permit 15,184 import replacements. They like we have requirements for just compensation. I don't think they can simply defer this into a conversion to an NFA default on transfer. Ditto on magazines, I doubt they can avoid either buying or grandfathering.

The reality seems to distill down to how to separate mad men from guns, which seems doubtful. And, failing that how many magazine changes will we require a mad man to make?

 

[exavid]

One thing that is helping give us some time to cool off on gun control is the "fiscal cliff", more and more media time is being taken up with that as is a lot of pressure in congress and the executive. All of that is slowing the kneejerk response to the CT atrocity. Now if only the real problem, the mental health issue, will come to the forefront that will take more pressure off gun control.

 

[DammitBoy]

Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[exavid]

It's not even necessary for the government to attack the second amendment directly. The EPA could make it nearly impossible to get ammunition by simple regulation. Lead shot is pretty well on the way out, lead bullets in general could go the same way. Gun powder emits a good bit of carbon as it burns, the EPA is on a crusade now to reduce carbon emission. Then there are the primers that have chemical mixtures that could be restricted by EPA fiat. We have to keep watch on more than just Congress and the Executive Branch. If the EPA causes ammo prices to quadruple or worse, it's not going to matter what kind of firearm you own, shooting will be greatly restricted just due to cost.

 

[klyph]

Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms.

And there are free men all over this country that refuse to abide by them. Their numbers are growing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms.

Not until a court so rules. Your opinion doesn't really count.

And there are free men all over this country that refuse to abide by them. Their numbers are growing.

And they're called criminals. Be advised that on THR it is not acceptable to support or encourage violating the law.

 

[velojym]

The sensitivity of the FAA to "mental health" issues and the ease with which they will pull a pilot's certificates over even innocuous quirks has kept many commercial pilots from seeking help when they do have a problem. After all, they put incredible amounts of money, time, and effort into getting those ratings.
To a lesser extent, but still pretty important, applying arbitrary "mental health" limits on a human being's rights, will have much the same effect... especially considering the types of people who are in charge of determining where the line is to be drawn.
You know, people like Carolyn McCarthy, who is still scratching her head on what the heck a barrel shroud is... even after she included it specifically in her legislation.

 

[joeschmoe]

They're certainly room for reasonable debate on what might be "grey" areas of "reasonable" limits. Before you say they're aren't any, I'll remind you that no rights are unlimited, never have been, never will be. But fundamental rights, like arms and speech, have significant limits on government powers.

The original '94 so-callled AWB is a good example. It did NOT ban "assault weapons" as most people think. It only banned certain cosmetic features. You could still go to the store and buy a Bushmaster XM15, with a fixed stock, no flash hider, no bayonet lug.
Are those "reasonable"? Most of us would say no, Congress thought yes. We voted them out and then it expired.
They could NOT ban all semi-auto rifles or all AR15's. I think the courts would strike it down as an unConstitutional restriction on the right to arms.


Any such law would have to pass 2 hurdles. Politics and legal. Any serious "ban" would fail at one or both. Incrimentalism is dangerous, but they're will not be a total ban on "arms".

 

[goon]

I am more worried about a magazine capacity ban than an AW ban (although both are troubling).
They could legalize M-16's tomorrow and make them available in every grocery store, and it wouldn't make any difference if we were limited to three round magazines.
For self defense, and for the Second Amendment's original mission as an obstacle to tyranny, we need high capacity magazines.

 

[Wolfman131]

c. Deeper mental health ownership restrictions. Possibly for anyone that has sought mental health treatment, including PTSD and TBI. I Possibly a total ban for you or anyone in your household, much like felony restrictions. think this will happen.

It has already happened, congress passed a law summarily stripping veterans suffering from PTSD, of their 2nd amendment rights. Thousands of men & women who sacrificed by serving this nation, have been staked through the heart in exactly this fashion.

So, there is a precedent, isn't there.

 

[Pointshoot]

BSA 1 - VERY WELL SAID !

Since this thread is about the REALITY of all this, here's my take on it - - -

Youre more likely to be struck by lightening than be a victim in one of these mass shootings (just check the 10 year statistics for both events). None of the proposals or counter-proposals are likely to have any significant impact on such unlikely, rare events anyway. It'd make more 'sense' to enact new laws 'to protect us' from being struck by lightening.

This is all being driven by emotionalism after the last tragic shooting involving young children. "Never let a crisis go to waste." Those on the anti side at the highest levels are likely to be just as aware of the statistics showing a decrease in violent crime over the last decade, as we are. They are likely to be as aware as we are that the sunset of the 'Assault Weapons' Ban on certain 'scary' looking external features on rifles - had no impact on violent crime. They know that a place like the UK, where many guns are banned and the others are highly restricted - - - have much higher violent crime rates than the US. They just use clubs, knives, hands, etc to do the violence.

Their agenda is to disarm the American people. Not to 'prevent another tragedy' (remember the lightening strikes) - but because they fear an armed citizenry, for whatever reason. They use whatever methods they can get away with - new laws through Congress, possible executive orders and administrative orders to various agencies to make purchasing more difficult, one sided media reporting, or international treaties to go around Congress.

It is also a REALITY that gun and ammo sales are at incredibly high levels. NICS background checks have been at extremely high levels. Most of us have gone into stores where weve bought for years, only to find lots of very thinly stocked shelves and gun racks.

We hear from the news media that 'the American people want more sensible gun regulation'. Many seem to think that we'll have to 'appear sensible' and go along with some further (and irrelevant to mass shootings) restrictions. But is this often repeated claim by the media true ? Given the quality of 'news reporting' today, who knows what the REALITY is regarding what Americans want.

Americans do seem to be voting on this . . . with their wallets.

I hope people on our side aren't bluffed into actions that would be un-necessary and make no impact on lightening strikes or on mass shootings. The more and longer the actual facts are put out there, the better is is for the 2A.

 

[DammitBoy]

Not until a court so rules. Your opinion doesn't really count.

And when will the courts rule? And is the NRA doing anything to speed up or support these rulings being in our favor?

Why is it against the law for states to infringe on any other of the Bill of Rights amendments, but the 2nd is fair game?

No state can take away a woman's right to vote, but they can infringe willy nilly on my right to bear arms.

 

[blaisenguns]

The majority of people will examine the effect of the Clinton AWB ban 1994 – 2004 and conclude it did not have the effect on reducing crime as the media would have us to believe.

The problem is this fact goes un noticed. Even the NRA isnt putting this out like it should be. The Department of Justice said it was ineffective!

No state can take away a woman's right to vote, but they can infringe willy nilly on my right to bear arms.

But that is "common sense restrictions" propogated by people who support the second amend ment BUT...

The problem is Obama is going to put his political machine to work on this, his very, very effective political machine. If we do not mobilize in the same fashion we are done.

 

[michaelbsc]

...The problem is Obama is going to put his political machine to work on this, his very, very effective political machine. If we do not mobilize in the same fashion we are done.

Bingo!

And he isn't even being sneaky about it.

There exist two groups that hurt us most. The Obama worshipers and the Obama demonizers. Neither of those groups is rational most of the time.

I'm not going to defend O's positions, since I disagree with most of them. But I am going to defend that the guy is not a foreign operative purposely undermining the country for nefarious controllers feeding him instructions.

He's a slick politician out for personal gain at the expense of dupes. He'll take left wing and right wing dupes as necessary.

We do not want to become his dupes.

 

[muskoka4444]

---

 

[goldie]

They will have to put more restrictions than the '94 ban or they & the public will think it was not effective; they have a big agenda to prove something is being done this time,& its going to be worse than anything that was done in '94.

 

[miles1]

Ok........So let me get this striaght.Obama is going to put the AR and 10 round ban to vote on the Senate?Is that the next step?If so.....from what im reading so far it looks like he won't get his wish.correct?

 

[goon]

Miles - right now I think the big push Obama is going to make is for mandatory background checks (which could still be done without a 4473 being filled out, so I'd support that), magazine capacity ban (which I don't support) and an "assault weapons" ban, which I also don't support.
I admit that I'm a bit of an extremist on gun rights. I think if the Court ever got hold of a real case, they may have to find that belt-fed MG's and even RPG's are covered under the Second Amendment, but I'm not holding my breath.

But the banning of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms based on how they look, or on the fact that they are semi-automatic, is even more extreme on the other side. A centrist could approach this in a lot of ways aside from a total ban. I wouldn't shed tears about showing a DL or something to buy some accessories - I've had to do that with some places I buy online from already. But none of these people are the slightest bit concerned with even coming up with a solution that could work for everyone. They want a total ban on anything more powerful than a pitchfork.
Every time I feel like responding to an online discussion anymore, I am going to write a letter to a representative or Senator or send a check to the NRA.

Having said that, what is the NRA doing? They don't seem so on top of this. Where is our public relations? Where are the people plinking aluminum cans in NY with their Ruger 10/22's who will be lawbreakers in two months? Where is the mom from Georgia who emptied that gun into an intruder without stopping him? Why isn't the biggest and most well-funded organization taking a more aggressive stance?

Right now, Obama is trying to mobilize his supporters to lobby some key Congressmen and Senators who are afraid of losing their seats if they would vote in favor of more gun control. I have read that his strategy is to show them that they would still have support from their constituents if they vote in favor of more restrictions. About 200,000 supporters was the number I read.
I don't think these people can stay in it as long as we can. I don't think they're willing to send $100 to an anti-gun senator's opponent's campaign fund, but many of us are. But we still have to stay on them with a constant barrage of public outcry.
And I don't know why the NRA isn't mobilizing its entire membership to do exactly that.