Queasy Feeling I Just Can't Shake...

[camslam]

Leedavisone wrote:

I have been a gun owner for 45 years, and I firmly support controls on firearms.

I think all rational people agree that there needs to be SOME control of firearms to limit what a criminal can legally use. But as we have seen, laws do very little ,to absolutely nothing, to stop weapons from falling into hands they shouldn't be in.

I guess I am alone here, but what the hell... I have no fears that I will lose any rights. I have 20 pistols, rifles and shotguns. I will always have them. I have ammo for each. Confiscating firearms would be such an impossible and unworkable action that it would never happen. I sleep comfortably at night, and never dwell on my right to bear arms.

No offense, but seeing how you reside in New Mexico where even a former Democratic governor (Bill Richardson) is mostly pro-2nd amendment, that is easy and convenient for you to say. I would love for you to spend some time living in the states I mentioned in earlier posts, i.e. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, Illinois, Hawaii, etc... and let's see if you still have your laissez-faire approach to gun rights. In many of those states, you could kiss your 20 guns good bye.

Your comment:

Confiscating firearms would be such an impossible and unworkable action that it would never happen.

Perhaps you should check in with people in the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia and see if they said the same thing before their guns were magically made to disappear.

I also must take issue with your idea that gun owners are looking for a fight or looking to shoot someone. Most of them are law abiding citizens and as such would most likely follow the law and probably turn in their guns for fear of fines or imprisonment.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or call you out, but it is this exact type of attitude from gun owners that directly leads to my worrying over the future of our right to keep and bear arms.:banghead:

 

[camslam]

As I expected, it seems that so many are hopped up on fears that everything will come crashing down any moment. I just don't understand.

One other quick item, this thread and my questions aren't because I am all hopped up on fears that everything will come crashing down any moment.

I would love for you or anyone else to show me the error in watching what is happening in certain states with regards to gun laws, with anything less than caution, alarm, apprehension, awareness, prudence, vigilance, and concern.

If the assinine ideas being pushed at a local and state level are allowed to infect the rest of the country, where will we be? And sadly, with what lies ahead of us, I don't really see any reason for these types of laws to diminish.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

I share the skepticism. I am most worried about the gradual, little by little and nobody notices approach that seems to be the tatic with everything. Look around with all our rights and freedoms, not just guns. Whatever happend to I am free to do my thing as you are yours, as long as they we actuall kill one another. I may not agree with you, and you might not like me, but thats the way it works. The default condition is supposed to be freedom, not safety and cautious government looking over our shoulders. It means personal responsibility and consequences for actions, but not preemptive government control. The really funny thing is, you can apply the gun rights logic to so many other things. But even here we wont all agree, and thats fine, but remember, we all dont have to like what the other is doing or saying, we should be free to speak and act for ourselves. You dont have a right to be free of insult, or not to be offended.

 

[JKimball]

I hear you, camslam. I was a little ticked off that the Heller decision was as close as it was. I also hate the feeling I get when I think that even if Congress fails to pass an AWB, that doesn't stop them from trying again later. It just doesn't go away.

Having said that, I do sense that there is a growing appreciation for gun rights.

I do worry though, that there are a ton of gun owners who share the views of Leedavisone:

But, sadly, there are so many that think that the only way to quench the desire is to shoot someone. We should limit the weapons that they have access to. Not the .32 Smith & Wesson, or the 1911, or the Winchester 94... but the outrageous.

Maybe he can clarify, but I expect he is saying that the idea of military style semi-autos with high capacity magazines being available to the public is outrageous.

This view may be a little uncommon on THR, but I believe it is very normal amongst gun owners as a whole. (Zumbo being an obvious example.)

Too many gun owners don't even understand the 2nd Amendment. It isn't about handguns and lever actions. It is about preserving our right to have ASSAULT WEAPONS. Even on THR, people seem to be embarassed to use that phrase.

The sooner we make the phrase "Assault Weapon" synonomous with the purpose of the second amendment, the sooner an AWB will be seen for what it is - an elimination of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Mr.1973]

I look at it this way:

Buy guns. Buy the ammo. Shoot some of the ammo. Save the rest.

Buy more guns. Buy more ammo. Shoot some of the ammo. Save the rest.

When and if, in your lifetime someone comes to take away your guns.....

Shoot the rest of your ammo.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Over the past twenty years, state after state has relaxed their laws against packing side-arms. And now the Heller decision. The status of long-arms may be in doubt, but for pistols, the momentum is overwhelmingly in our favor.

 

[bogie]

Is this turning into one of those "from my cold dead fingers" kinda threads?

Here's a clue, geniuses...

Do you like cold beer? Do you like a comfy recliner? A good steak, fresh off the grill?

When Civil War II hits, you ain't gonna be able to enjoy that sort of thing.

So best you get off your asses NOW, and do little things like vote, and convince your friends and/or co-workers (especially if you're one of those union folks...) to vote, in a direction which will avoid it. Because that's the EASY way. And in this case, as in most, the easy way is the best way.

And now a couple of folks are going to post about how Baaaad the Bush is, and about how we need Change, and McCain isn't 100% for us, so we should vote for someone who is 100% against us.

Sigh.

 

[Eleven Mike]

After all, why should we protect that barrio cholo's right to have massive firepower?

What is a barrio cholo? Unless you're talking about an illegal alien, or a felon or something, we should protect "that barrio cholo's" rights because all human beings have a right to "massive firepower."

then everyone is going to start shooting. But isn't that what we all want to do secretly? I take out my shooting passion at SASS and in my back pasture, so I have no need to shoot people. But, sadly, there are so many that think that the only way to quench the desire is to shoot someone. We should limit the weapons that they have access to. Not the .32 Smith & Wesson, or the 1911, or the Winchester 94... but the outrageous. I guess I am alone here,

What the &*^% are you saying? You want to shoot people, but to avoid doing that, you shoot SASS or in the back pasture? You may need to give your guns to a friend, and seek counseling. But I really doubt that you mean to say that. You are probably just not expressing yourself very well.

And what is this outrageous of which you speak?

 

[Eleven Mike]

Too many gun owners don't even understand the 2nd Amendment. It isn't about handguns and lever actions. It is about preserving our right to have ASSAULT WEAPONS. Even on THR, people seem to be embarassed to use that phrase.

The sooner we make the phrase "Assault Weapon" synonomous with the purpose of the second amendment, the sooner an AWB will be seen for what it is - an elimination of the 2nd amendment.

Bravo.

 

[camslam]

Over the past twenty years, state after state has relaxed their laws against packing side-arms. And now the Heller decision. The status of long-arms may be in doubt, but for pistols, the momentum is overwhelmingly in our favor.

Up until a month ago, I was touting the same talking points. I think momentum is definitely in our favor when it comes to regular citizens of the good old U.S.

My problem is we are talking about people like Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Lautenburg, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Conyers, Bloomberg, Blagovich, Daley, Newsom, or any of the other numerous "big city", urban politicians, we are not talking about regular old citizens. We are talking about the liberal elite in our country that will make policy based on their wacked out perspectives. Obviously gun owners are not voting these people in, and we are talking about a relative few when it comes down to it. Their views do not reflect the U.S. society, but it won't matter because they will be the ones with power and there really won't be anything to stop them.

The problem? Those relative few are going to be literally running this country, making policy and legislative decisions, and confirming judges to the federal and Supreme Courts. That is a problem.

And getting back to my original question, are we going to be sitting here chatting in a couple of years wondering what the heck happened to our gun rights?

Is this turning into one of those "from my cold dead fingers" kinda threads?

I hope this thread doesn't turn into that, but as trite and cliched as it sounds, I really wonder how many on this forum and how many in this country, actually care about their gun rights that strongly?

My fear is there are more "I can take it or leave it" type gun owners out there, than "from my cold dead hands", and that is going to leave us on the outside looking in, a couple of years from now.

 

[mnrivrat]

Not the .32 Smith & Wesson, or the 1911, or the Winchester 94... but the outrageous. I guess I am alone here,

Perhaps not alone - but with all due respect I do NOT agree with your view .

Crime control is not about access to firearms of any nature, it is about people. It is about society and the values of the people who are in it.

I'm old enough to have seen the changes in our society that have greatly contrubuted to an increase of overall crime in this country. It has absolutely nothing to do with an inanimate object .

As for that feeling of loosing ground on ones rights - it is more than a feeling - it is reality, and it will continue because that is the path this country is on. History repeats itself , you only need to look around at the rest of the world and its history to see where we are going. Work as hard as you can to change it, or to slow it down, but eventualy freedom has a price that's not easily paid. Choice A or Choice B at the ballet box is only a small part of the formula for keeping your indivdual rights - the control over what both A and B does comes from the same source, and it is not you as an individual ,unless you yield a lot more power than your vote.

The only real power that is within the "people" is the power of violence. That is what the 2nd amendment is about ,and why it was so important to those who started this country. To many this is a radical statement in todays world . Most will give up their individual power for the same reasons they have always done so throught history. It is what it is - at least one should open their eyes and proceed in that fashion.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Regarding the "cold dead fingers" sentiment, I have struggled with this a great deal over the last few weeks.

I love my guns, understand them, train with them, attempt to be as proficient as I can with them. Each of them, for all their purposes. The rifle has a very specific purpose, and I'm not a hunter. I try to master that weapon more than any of the others.

But if a knock came at my door in the dark of night, what would I do? We all like to say "when they come for your guns, let 'em have em, BULLETS FIRST!" but I don't think, in reality, it's that easy. If each member of this thread did that, there would be thousands of dead THR members and almost as many widows and orphans. Think about that for a minute.

It's not as simple as just shooting at anyone trying to take your guns. That's self-destructive and won't get anywhere. There has to be organization, there has to be a leader, there has to be a plan.

Of course our country isn't at this point yet so I'm not asking for an organized group or a leader. But has anyone else considered these things too?

 

[Dravur]

Not the .32 Smith & Wesson, or the 1911, or the Winchester 94... but the outrageous. I guess I am alone here,

awww, yes, Mr Zumbo. You dont mind gun grabbers going after evil black rifles or guns you dont have any interest in... Because, you have all the fudd weapons you want, so the heck with the rest of us.

So, here is what I propose. I shall work to keep all the EBRs and military style weapons in in our hands and I will compromise with the gun grabbers to outlaw dangerous cowboy guns and those evil sniper hunting rifles. Surely you dont need a single action revolver that is so dangerous, you cant even load it fully. Surely, you don't need an evil lever gun that can hold all those cop killer bullets.

And don't EVEN get me started on that .30-06 Sniper rifle with the evil scope on it....

So, unfortunately, Mr Zumbo, you are not alone, but you are a huge problem. You are the one who would sell out your neighbor to the Socialists for a bit of security...until they come for your guns... Who will be there for you?

It's not as simple as just shooting at anyone trying to take your guns

We outnumber them.... If I get one or two and you get one or two, then eventually, they run out of bad guys. The ones who are left get to go to Washington.

 

[ctdonath]

When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the 200,000 Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by 400,000 German soldiers, a Swiss leader replied: "shoot twice and go home".

 

[camslam]

But if a knock came at my door in the dark of night, what would I do? We all like to say "when they come for your guns, let 'em have em, BULLETS FIRST!" but I don't think, in reality, it's that easy. If each member of this thread did that, there would be thousands of dead THR members and almost as many widows and orphans. Think about that for a minute.

It's not as simple as just shooting at anyone trying to take your guns. That's self-destructive and won't get anywhere. There has to be organization, there has to be a leader, there has to be a plan.

I don't see us being to that stage yet, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, most gun owners are law abiding citizens and I believe they would probably turn in their guns voluntarily.

Therein lies the problem. It isn't as simple as just shooting someone that comes to take your guns, and that is why I think we may look back in a couple of years and be thinking, "Why didn't we do more?"

The more I have thought about this and read the replies on this post, sadly, I think the deck is really stacked against us politically for the next few years and with that leading to a direct change on the Supreme Court where you will see a younger and perhaps more radical successor to Ginsberg and Stevens, that really makes me shutter. With all of the new lawsuits including Heller part II, we could easily see the original Heller decision overturned in just a few years.

Some people may paint me as paranoid, but if you really think about what happened in June, we literally had 4 Supreme Court Judges that totally disregarded the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment because of their personal prejudice against guns.

Buckle up folks, because it is going to be a bumpy, bumpy ride over the next few years.

 

[arthurcw]

Being a politically aware Believer in the Constitution means having a chronic smoldering gastric ulcer with occasional hemorrhagic flare-ups.

Just a little to tweak for the sake of accuracy.

 

[bogie]

Lotta new folks here...

So, how many of you FNGs have read Unintended Consequences?

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Co...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217518890&sr=8-1

If, and when, the excrement hits the air handler, we don't want to be "organized." An organization is something that can be infiltrated (the kluckers probably have more FBI agents than actual "members" and for once, I'm thinking that might be a decent use of my tax dollars...) or "rounded up."

However, individual actions, or informally formed cells of resistance, are impossible to stop. So, make friends, and not just at the gun club.

 

[Halo]

There's a saying that freedom ends as soon as the people figure out that they can vote portions of the treasury to themselves. I think that is at the core of our problem; those candidates with anti-freedom agendas simply have to promise this group and that group a little bit of gold from Uncle Sugar. I think most people would tolerate any number of onerous regulations, especially if they don't really apply to them, in exchange for a "free" this or that. In essence, freedom is difficult because you are responsible for your own fate, and apparently lots of people aren't up to the challenge, so any candidate who appeals to this innate laziness in people is assured a following.

Candidates who believe in limited government have no such advantage, because dangling a carrot in the form of yet another government program is completely contrary to their philosophy.

I share the uneasiness of the OP with regards to our future. Honestly I believe lots of our existing regulations would have prompted a revolt among our founding generation, let alone some of the proposals that pop up in legislatures across the country.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Camslam,

I'm with you man. I think you are considering the issue a little more carefully than some are.

I know many of the members here have land miles from anyone. I know many of them live alone.

Some of us live in a city, go to work in an office, have wives, have children.

The challenge is finding a way to involve and organize those who have ALOT TO LOSE, because if the ONLY people who will fight for their rights are the ones who have NOTHING to lose, that really isn't that many, after all.

I know that there are worse things than death. There definitely are. Loss of honor is one of them. Maybe one of them is dying pointlessly and leaving a widow and orphans behind to prove a point that isn't heard by anyone because there is no plan for anything real to happen. This is what I want to avoid. As a husband, I have a responsibility to protect and provide for my family.

With a plan, with organization, though, those who aren't willing to lose everything for nothing could really be effective. Think about Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver lost his son and his wife to the government, and aside from a little outrage, nothing has changed. The ATF is worse than ever.

Even if there were 10,000 Randy Weavers, or 100,000, that isn't enough to really stop a determined government. Stalin killed 20 MILLION Russians.

EDITED - Bogie, I see your point about an "organization," but there has to be at least a common goal. 1,000,000 individuals, acting alone, will never be as effective as a group that works together in SOME capacity for a common end. It doesn't have to be formal, but there has to be an objective further than just shooting the person who comes for your guns. When you do that, your life changes immediately and permanantly, and you need to be prepared to fight, possibly until you die. Some sort of plan or direction would make that fight infinitely more effective. Otherwise, it would simply be an uprising to be quickly squashed.

Also, FNG isn't a very High Road thing to say about another Member. Us "new guys" provide expanded membership and power to the movement to defend the rights we all cherish so deeply. Please show us the respect of brothers in a common cause, even if you disagree with us on an individual issue, and don't deride and alienate us.

 

[gunNoob]

I'm never giving up my guns.

 

[camslam]

The challenge is finding a way to involve and organize those who have ALOT TO LOSE, because if the ONLY people who will fight for their rights are the ones who have NOTHING to lose, that really isn't that many, after all.

See, this is the problem to me. I think most gun owners don't realize what has already been lost and what is being lost in every legislative session in certain areas and states of our country.

Take a quick cruise through some current headlines in Legal here at THR:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381810

-This guy has a concealed carry permit, but it does him no good because he works at a university where even law enforcement can't carry guns unless there is an emergency. The OP says:

I am in Pennsylvania. I have a License to carry here which my sheriff indicates is only for concealed carry that is fine with me. I have an interesting situation I currently am employed by a University and am not allowed to even have a firearm secured in my car while on campus property. The local Police are not even allowed to have their weapons on them if they are called to campus. The college oficials when asked about being able to carry with a CCW informed me that if they wanted to they would be able ot search my vehical at any time it was on campus property if they so desired.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381767

-This guy has a concealed carry permit in New York and it miraculously came back from an update, no longer valid to carry a concealed weapon.

Is anybody here from the New York Area? Particularly Rockland County? I have had a concealed carry permit since 1991. Recently I had the license amended to add a pistol (for all you hardware junkies it was a MarkIII Trooper). Anyhoo, my new license came back with a restriction that read: "MAY NOT CARRY CONCEALED". I wrote letters to the top courthouse in the area, to the Commission on Judicial Conduct in New York City and the NRA. I just got a reply back from the courthouse that basically said because of the wording in Heller v DC the judge was within his rights to put the restriction on my license.

Is anyone familiar with Judge Victor Alfieri?

Does anyone have any advice about where I could get some help getting this restriction removed? Senators, congresspeople?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381233

-This guy is clarifying the laws of Hawaii that deal with bringing a gun to the island, which last I checked were still American soil.

Please note that there is no provision for bringing a firearm into the State for anything other than hunting or organized "target" shooting and to qualify to register a firearm for those purposes you must have a valid Hawaii hunting license or a letter from the organizer of the shooting event you are to participate in. There is no provision for self-defense purposes for the duration of your visit here and that possession of an unregistered firearm is a felony.

These are injustices and problems that are happening RIGHT NOW with regards to gun ownership. Is it surprising to see we don't have many posters from some of these areas in our country.

This is what I'm talking about, call me paranoid, but these are everyday laws, rules, and ordinances that are going to continue to erode and make our ownership of guns whither under the next administration of this country.

 

[ctdonath]

SWAT team shows up at your front door demanding 'em.
Your wife calls from another room "honey, what's going on?" while nursing your baby daughter.
You're not armed, having just gotten out of the shower & thrown on jeans & t-shirt to answer the door.
One wrong twitch and you'll be on the floor in cuffs.
Try something dangerous and you won't be walking your daughter down the aisle, or even see her first step.

Now, what was that about "never"?

 

[elChupacabra!]

Camslam,

I agree with you, I don't mean to say that we aren't losing our freedoms. I know those are slowly eroding away.

When I talk about "alot to lose," what I'm really talking about is the transition away from peaceful methods of resisting change, like voting, writing representatives, joining the NRA, etc. to forcibly defending a right.

I'm really trying to add some texture to the common "I'll never give up my guns" discussion. I think alot of people haven't considered what that entails.

But you're right, we ALL have ALOT to lose on the liberty front - some of us just haven't lost it yet, but that doesn't mean we wont.

 

[elChupacabra!]

ctdonath -

EXACTLY. THANK YOU.

 

[gunNoob]

SWAT team shows up at your front door demanding 'em.
Your wife calls from another room "honey, what's going on?" while nursing your baby daughter.
You're not armed, having just gotten out of the shower & thrown on jeans & t-shirt to answer the door.
One wrong twitch and you'll be on the floor in cuffs.
Try something dangerous and you won't be walking your daughter down the aisle, or even see her first step.

Now, what was that about "never"?

yeah... It's just hard to believe that this could actually happen... sucks to think about. guess we will all find out sooner or later.