Queasy Feeling I Just Can't Shake...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll be holding my nose when I vote for my good buddy from the Valley of the Sun. He'll win this state anyways, but every vote CAN count and I can't afford to do anything that might help the other guy.

It's always fun picking the lesser of evils. What a great eletion process we have, but that is a whole other topic of conversation.

I plead with everyone I know to get out and vote because of the long term effects a certain type of presidency could have on gun rights.
 
" I have lived through many terrible things in my lifetime but most of them never happened."
Mark Twain

There is currently enough chaos in the offing that gun control may well be lost in the general salad of deminishing resources, internal fragmentation and pressures from other countries. The trends are there whether or not we have an anti-american plurality in the government We had that situation a little more than a decade ago and the reaction from it actually advanced gun rights and broke up the collectivist monopoly on news sources.
We can't really predict anything but can be certain that we live in interesting times.
 
The battlefield has changed. 2008 is not 1992--not even close. That doesn't mean our enemy is beaten, but it does mean he's not going to come charging at us across a wide open space again.

So I don't think we'll see a new AWB, let alone some broad confiscation from the feds no matter who gets elected. What we may well see are more "sideways" assaults at our flanks. Administrative regulation crushing component manufacture, for example. Adherance to international treaties making it very difficult for wholesalers to import firearms. Additional regs to make it more and more difficult for manufacturers and wholesale outfits to ship arms and ammo in-country. These are all much easier to impose than a formal ban, but in the end they have the same effect. The feds could simply ban transport of short guns on interstate air carriers. No need to get Congress involved at all. They just pass a new reg. Think of the impact that would have.
 
I think the tide is turning. Most people don't care much one way or the other. The lies the other side has been telling for the last 3 or 4 decades are coming back to haunt them, as the 80% of the people that just don't care, realize that they have been lied to all this time. The AWB did nothing to protect anyone, nor has the opening up of CC to many more people, despite the vicious lies from the other side.
 
It's always fun picking the lesser of evils. What a great eletion process we have, but that is a whole other topic of conversation.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean this system we have of electing human beings? Yup, it's always the lesser of some number evils. Two, three, four...
 
they will outlaw one thing at a time, and pretty soon you will be limited to a certain number of guns, a certain type of guns, or a certain use for guns. I don't like it, but let's be realistic, IT ALREADY IS THE LAW in several states in our country.
Click to expand...
They've been at it since 1934. They haven't gotten very far. Federally, and in most states, you can legally have anything you want except post-'86 MGs, missiles, and nukes. At worst you shell out $200 and a little paperwork*. Heller, obtuse as it was in parts, assured things will stay that way on paper.

So long as each family member can have an AR15 and a case of M855, the problem is mostly theoretical.

So long as you ask "how high?" when they say "jump!" the hobgoblin of confiscation will haunt you.

* - No, I'm not defending paperwork/licensing/permitting/taxation infringements. I'm just trying to express a sense of realistic proportion.
 
ctdonath: I'm with you on what your saying, and hopefully from my posts, it doesn't appear that I am saying, "the sky is falling."

But...

I don't think the problems are theoretical at all. It appears that you live in Georgia, which obviously isn't one of the more liberal bastions in our country. The gun laws in Georgia are night and day different in comparison to those found in the more liberal anti-gun states.

When you say, "each member of the family can have an AR-15 and a case of ammo", that just isn't the realities we are dealing with. In Georgia yes, for how much longer? Hopefully indefinitely, but when you start looking at what has happened in other states, it gets to the point that only the most hardcore, well funded, connected people are allowed to own firearms or even attempt to own them.

Then the "theoretical" problem becomes reality, where if needed, less and less of the population is armed.

It has happened in Massuchussetts on a large scale. The number of gun owners in that state has dropped to relatively nothing, because of the hurdles and hoops one must jump through to legally own a gun.

When enough of these side shots take hold, whether it be smart guns, micro-stamping, personlized guns, or any of the other kooky ideas anti-gunners have about gun safety, they will eventually creep into all parts of our country.

I couldn't believe it, but this year, even in Arizona, we had someone trying to pass a bullet micro-stamp bill. Thankfully it didn't pass, but the fact that it was even being discussed is ridiculous.

I'm telling you, there are no gun rights that are safe, especially with what is looming politically.
 
Until I finally “saw the light” about gun ownership, self-defense, and the Second Amendment; I used to be one of those well-meaning people who was either ambivalent about - or supportive of – “reasonable” restrictions.

I get a queasy feeling when I think of how many people there are in this country that believe as I once did. I am quite certain that the vast majority of such people are convinced that “reasonable’ restrictions will make America “safer”. A safer society is what we all desire. Unfortunately, many, many people have been deluded into believing that such restrictions will effectively reduce crime without appreciably infringing the rights of law-abiding citizens. Of course they could not be more wrong - but they mean well.

I get a queasy feeling when I read about “reasonable” schemes such as firing pin engraving and bullet serialization. Anyone studying these proposed schemes would quickly realize that they will do nothing to reduce or solve crimes. What they WILL do is add enormous financial burdens to firearm and ammunition manufacturers, gun owners, and tax-payers.

The problem is that many well-meaning people will abdicate their reasoning abilities when presented with “reasonable” arguments by “reasonable” people about “reasonable” restrictions. They will assume that the people they depend on to solve the rest of society’s problems must have thought this through – so they don’t have to.

The solution is for us to be sure we are seen as reasonable people providing thoughtful analyses of these schemes. The key to that is to widely publicize the overwhelming evidence proving they will provide little or no forensic benefit at great cost to EVERYONE.
 
rainbowbob,

I was very much in the same position as you were up until about a year or so ago. I thought that many firearm restrictions were very reasonable, that they don't hurt people like me. A good example is the banning of .50BMG rifles - I don't have one and don't plan on one, so I agreed that there is no need for any civilian to have one, since they could be criminally misused so terribly.

Man how my views have changed. I feel like I've woken up to the realization that firearm ownership has nothing to do about need and everything to do with freedom. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to ask for permission from their government to do something that is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution as being free from infringement.

When they do, the meaning of the Constitution has been maligned and cast aside, and there is a serious problem.

Keep in mind I've really, really liked guns - and lurked on THR for years and years - and have only come to this realization within the last year or so.

I'd say that, of the 80 million gun owners in this country, maybe 10% (here I go with my questionable statistics again:confused:) understand our perspective, and probably alot less.

It's important that we "prosyletize" every chance we get. I can't tell you how many anti's, or just people who are ambivalent, I've convinced of this since I just started talking to them. It's not hard - just explain that the Constitution is about freedom, not about needs or worst of all, hunting, and that to infringe that freedom means an affront to the founding document of our nation. People will listen to you. People need to hear it. Start close - with family and friends. If you can convince them, they will spread the good news further:)

Of course, I don't mean to do this IN LIEU of joining the NRA and voting... but it's a terrific supplement. We need to grow our ranks every chance we get, and not always by reproducing! ;)
 
rainbowbob wrote:

Until I finally “saw the light” about gun ownership, self-defense, and the Second Amendment; I used to be one of those well-meaning people who was either ambivalent about - or supportive of – “reasonable” restrictions.
Click to expand...

elChupacabra! wrote:

Man how my views have changed. I feel like I've woken up to the realization that firearm ownership has nothing to do about need and everything to do with freedom. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to ask for permission from their government to do something that is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution as being free from infringement.
Click to expand...

The lightbulb came on in my head about 5 years ago and I have never looked back. What scares me is that most gun owners are casual owners at best. I think about my peer group and luckily it is probably 50/50 for those that are hardcore 2nd amendment folks, and the rest just happy to own a gun, shoot occasionally, etc... But in the general public, you know it isn't close to that ratio.

I have battled with anti's over this, but when you finally understand WHY the 2nd amendment is so important, it is truly an awakening. It is the defender of the the rest of our liberties and without it, we are no better off or different than many of the tough places in this world.

You can give whatever kind of example you want, i.e. .50 BMG, assault rifle, battle rifle, black rifle, machine gun, automatic weapons, etc... Someone, somewhere, is always going to tell you why you DON'T NEED that weapon, but I'm here to tell you, that one time that particular weapon would have some use, you'll wish you had it.
 
I'm sure what he means is, how nice it would be if we could ever vote FOR someone rather than always having to vote AGAINST the other guy.
Click to expand...

I know. I just like to debunk the "lesser of two evils" complaint as often as possible. :)
 
What really irritates me are the folks who say "Candidate A is not 100% for us, so we should vote for Candidate B," while conveniently leaving out the fact that Candidate B is completely against us. Someone, somewhere, may understand their logic, but it's beyond me.

And I'm smarter than Bush.
 
It has happened in Massuchussetts on a large scale. The number of gun owners in that state has dropped to relatively nothing, because of the hurdles and hoops one must jump through to legally own a gun.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a pain in the ass, but there are still tons of MA gun owners that even actively shoot/compete and have CCW permits. I know many of them and have friends there. I'm in Connecticut and a stone's throw away from MA.

Not every place in the northeast/New England is a complete wreck for gun ownership. Heck, Vermont is what we ALL wish for when it comes to CCW permit requirements, which is NONE as long as you can legally possess a handgun. CT is pretty much shall issue with VERY few restrictions on where we cannot carry. Even bar carry is legal. Here's an interesting fact... CT is the 4th highest state in which the percentage of people that can legally have a pistol/carry permit actually have one as compared to the total people eligible to get one. Higher than some of the most gun loving states like FL, TX, AZ...
 
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, I could not have said it better than that if I'd pondered on it for weeks. I was HATED at work because I was so outspoken about politics that ran counter to the UAW. What a bunch of putzes! If Adolf Hitler came back and ran as a Democrat, the UAW would support him because, by God, he's a Democrat. I had a small group of compatriots that thought like me and, not surprisingly, most were gun people and Second Amendment afficionados. Probably numbered about 5-6% of the building's population. Unfortunately, most were afraid to spout their beliefs before a bunch of demo-robots. Now that I am retired, I am afraid that the building will fall off completely, because frankly, I didn't know anybody else there that would go toe-to-toe with the opposition's mouthpieces. But it's definitely time for the younger guys to step up. This is their rights were talking about, also. Yes, I'm going to hold my nose when I vote for McCain. I don't like everything he stands for, but I like NOTHING O'Bama stands for. Duh, tough choice. Bob Barr? Forget it. Campaign for him all you want, I would encourage it. Try to change the minds of the Americans that think this is a 2 party only system and everybody else can go to hell. If you can do that, fine, I'll vote for Bob myself. But for God's sake, keep an eye on the polls, and when you see that Republicans are going to get 48% of the vote, Democrats are going to get 48% of the vote, Libertarians are going to get 2% of the vote, and you see that this doesn't change as the polls get closer to the election, YOU ARE THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY WHEN YOU VOTE LIBERTARIAN. You are taking votes from the Republican that, more than likely, thinks most like you OF THE 2 THAT HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN. Ron Paul figured this out, that's why he ran for the Republican nod. Do your campaigning again in the next election and again try to wean people off their 2 party teet.

No wasted votes? Oh, yes they absolutely can be!
 
Someone, somewhere, is always going to tell you why you DON'T NEED that weapon, but I'm here to tell you, that one time that particular weapon would have some use, you'll wish you had it.
Click to expand...

Yup... Guns are like parachutes. If you really, really, really NEED one and don't have it? You're never going to need it again...
 
People will listen to you. People need to hear it. Start close - with family and friends.
Click to expand...

That is definately my strategy. I don't know how many - if any - I've converted. But I am certain I have caused many people to at least stop and consider whether the "received wisdom" they have taken for granted and never questioned might not be flawed.

It seems I'm not the only convert to "come out of the closet" here. Since we have become convinced to change our views - we know it is possible to convince others.

It is the thoughtful, well-meaning gun control supporters that are the biggest danger to our freedoms. They must be - and can be - brought to the light.
 
When people ask why anyone needs a [black rifle, .50BMG thrower, suppressor, bayonet, phased plasma rifle etc...] I fully agree with them, and then follow by saying "In fact, why do we need tobacco, alcohol, swimming pools or fast food? Lets throw it all out and make America safer :)"

The light bulb tends to flicker on after that, but I usually follow with a few statistics from the Gun Facts document.
 
Election strategy:

Say you have a small town. It has 100 people in it. It ONLY has 100 voters - no more, no less (votes are NOT limitless, despite what they do in Chicago).

The votes are split:

Candidate A: Probably 49
Candidate B: Probably 49
Candidate C: Probably 2

And now, you're one of those 100 votes. And you're figuring on more than likely supporting Candidate A.

If you do, things come out tied. But hey, maybe someone from Candidate B will change sides or stay home. You never know.

HOWEVER...

If you stay home:

Candidate A actual: 48
Candidate B actual: 49
Candidate C actual: 2
American Idle: 1

Or if you vote for Candidate C

Candidate A actual: 48
Candidate B actual: 49
Candidate C actual: 3

Either of these two scenarios are just fine with Candidate B - his handlers realize that Hitler's gonna be ice skating before you vote for Candidate B, and that's okay - they just want to keep you from voting for Candidate A - because that way they come out ahead.
 
Last edited:
Even if Heller had failed, what is Uncle Sam going to do? An instantaneous nationwide gun grab would result in a whole lot of havoc. After about the 100th media coverage of local officials and law abiding citizens getting shot in an attempt to take a homeowners weapons, the president would HAVE to issue some sort of hold on that crap, or risk a second civil war. A nationwide gun grab would NOT be a Katrinaesque event, where imported cops storm in and intimidate old women. There would be carnage.
 
An instantaneous nationwide gun grab would result in a whole lot of havoc. After about the 100th media coverage of local officials and law abiding citizens getting shot in an attempt to take a homeowners weapons,
Click to expand...

We have discussed that this is not the way it would go down. If Heller had gone the other way, it would simply have led to quicker, more stringent, controls on our firearms. With the eventual goal of disarming America.

Keep in mind, it is not entirely unlikely with the judges that will be put in by the likely next president, that we will see Heller overturned at some point in the next 8 years. That is my guess anyhow.

Just like the libs squealed like stuck pigs when Roberts and Alito were confirmed, I have a feeling that gun owners are going to be weeping when we see what the next administration has in store. I have a sneaking hunch Ginsberg is going to look like a cute, fuzzy, wittle, bunny, when compared to who they will replace her with. Stevens too. We are in for a long, bumpy ride.
 
Winning the Heller case was BIG, and in general, things have turned around in favor of shooters over recent years. However, as has been pointed out, we CAN'T BECOME COMPLACENT! The gun control types can see the general drift of things too, and they're working harder and harder on regulations involving ammunition and ways to make guns more expensive through manufacturing regulations. We've turned the tide a bit, but we have to stay VIGILANT and keep FIGHTING. The anti 2nd Amendment crowd will never give up.
The stakes will get higher and the fight more difficult as we move into a period with a Democrat Congress with a staunch anti-gun president, (Obama) or a mildly anti-gun president, (McCain.)
At least McCain would be more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices that may pay some attention to the Constitution instead of Obama's, who will "know what it's like to be a single mother, an african american, poor, or gay."
I'll hold my nose and vote McCain.
Marty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
FireMission- Lee Amendment
Replies
4
Views
487
Queen_of_Thunder
Q
Grandpa Shooter
  • Locked
I pledge allegiance...
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
tws3b2
  • Locked
Finally Figured it Out.
Replies
12
Views
793
GEM
G
C
  • Locked
I Just Found this Letter to the Editor
Replies
9
Views
726
GEM
G
N
  • Locked
Robert Levy, an American Hero
Replies
23
Views
617
Aguila Blanca
A
Back
Top