ConservativeMetalhead
Member
I know this had probably been asked a thousand times but I haven't been told. I know this is a stupid question but I just want to hear opinions. WILL GUN CONTROL EVER GO AWAY? Please, explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer.
Will Gun Control Go Away?
- Thread starter ConservativeMetalhead
- Start date
- Status
Is this a legal question or philosophical?
What do you mean by "gun control"? Local, state or fed?
We can safely say that there will always be some laws regulating the sale, possession and carry of some sort of firearms so in a very real sense the answer to your question, assuming you meant wrt laws, is that there will always be some sort of law at the federal, state and local level regulating firearms possession and use.
What do you mean by "gun control"? Local, state or fed?
We can safely say that there will always be some laws regulating the sale, possession and carry of some sort of firearms so in a very real sense the answer to your question, assuming you meant wrt laws, is that there will always be some sort of law at the federal, state and local level regulating firearms possession and use.
BeerSleeper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 688
As long as there are people dumb enough to believe you can reduce gun crime by attempting to deny lawful citizens access to guns, there will be some degree of gun control. When 100% of the population can be educated beyond that minimum level of understanding, gun control can go away. Unfortunately, one good long look at the general public gives a pretty good demonstration of how difficult it is to educate them.
Jframe.38
Member
Reader's digest answer - No
Long answer - As long as there are power grabbers who want to disarm the law-abiding citizenry we will always have efforts to disarm us. Some thought that Heller and soon to be McDonald would stop this. It hasn't. Just look at NRAnews.com. In New York they are trying to pass microstamping. In Pennsylvania the Brady Bunch want to do away with reciprocity. Every day there is an article on a new assault on our freedoms.
I am staying politically aware and active.
Long answer - As long as there are power grabbers who want to disarm the law-abiding citizenry we will always have efforts to disarm us. Some thought that Heller and soon to be McDonald would stop this. It hasn't. Just look at NRAnews.com. In New York they are trying to pass microstamping. In Pennsylvania the Brady Bunch want to do away with reciprocity. Every day there is an article on a new assault on our freedoms.
I am staying politically aware and active.
Like other issues, it waxes and wanes in political popularity. I don't expect anything on the federal level for the next two years, but if Obama gets a 2nd term, I would expect the gloves to come off and new legislation develop. Now is a good time to stock up on things you want, they will never be cheaper than they are right now.
AirForceShooter
Member
No it's never going away. At least control in some form.
I figure every court decision in the future will contain the words "subject to reasonable restriction".
There are too many Brady types and people that are just plain terrified of guns.
AFS
I figure every court decision in the future will contain the words "subject to reasonable restriction".
There are too many Brady types and people that are just plain terrified of guns.
AFS
No. Ain't gonna happen. Obama doesn't write laws - Congress does. Both parties (please remember the anti-gun policies of Nixon and Reagan) have tried to enact more restrictive gun laws in the past and both paid a heavy price for it. It's political suicide and a third rail and most of 'em seem to have gotten the message loud and clear.
But we do need some level of gun control. Can't have felons, children, drug addicts, foreigners or the mentally ill buying guns. All of the above eventually could, potentially, obtain firearms but they need to change their status in some way first.
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."
There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go a long with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.
We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.
Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.
Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.
How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.
So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.
We're left with opportunities to influence how much.
There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go a long with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.
We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.
Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.
Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.
How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.
So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.
We're left with opportunities to influence how much.
In a perfect world that’s envisioned by some, everyone respects and obeys laws. In the real world that doesn’t happen. While laws can be passed to prohibit certain people from doing certain things, as long as whatever they want is available in one form or another they’ll either do or get what they want. A perfect example is so called “controlled substances,” or “illegal drugs,” which are completely prohibited at every level (federal, state and local), and in every respect (importation or manufacture, sale, and possession or use). Yet they are widely available, and will continue to be so as long as there is a demand.
So long as there is a desire or demand for guns they will be available, even in the unlikely event that laws are passed to control firearms in the same manner and to the same degree as those that are on the books concerning illegal drugs.
Most of the support for firearms regulation, as well as most everything else, comes from urban areas and those with a leftist perspective that believes in big government and “community interests,” over individual freedom. As long as they prevail gun control, both as laws and as a political issue won’t go away.
But the prime question might be, do statutes prohibiting murder really affect the murder rate? Without question, they punish those that commit the crime if they are caught and convicted, but that doesn't really do much for the victim.
Gun control laws are designed in theory to prevent the "wrong people" from obtaining weapons. But like those that cover illegal drugs, that don't do particularly well in accomplishing the intent. More often they have the unintended (?) consequence of disarming potential victims who obey the laws. One could go so far as to point out that they actually encourage crime. In this sense they are different then those that may eventually punish killers.
mljdeckard
Member
Ultimately no. There will always exist a desire to control the population, and this is not possible while the have effective means to resist.
The momentum is in our favor right now, but this will change eventually.
The momentum is in our favor right now, but this will change eventually.
Actually the question is, what is the purpose of the law? Murder laws are there to punish after the fact. No society can condone murder and be called civilized. Even if not a single murder were prevented (and it is rash assumption to say that is so) we would still want such laws to punish after the fact.
Yes, gun control laws are designed to prevent "the wrong people" from having guns. And lots of people fall into that category, rightfully so. How many convicted felons (and violent ones at that) get caught with a gun at a traffic stop? How many crimes did that prevent?
We can argue as to what "reasonable" means. But ultimately that is up to society.
Not in the slightest. Nobody believes that. We have this discussion over and over and yet somehow, this idea persists that laws making it illegal for felons, drug addicts, violent spouse-beating savages, the mentally ill, etc., to own firearms are invalid because said person can go to Crazy Larry's Underground Street Emporium of Black Market Guns and arm up anyway.
Of course they can. Of course they do. Everybody knows that. So let's ditch that tired old argument, OK? The point is that if such persons are caught with firearms, they go to jail.
livewire98801
Member
Even if it were to go away completely, gun control would be back. There are always two groups of people that want our guns. Those who believe guns are evil (victims of crime that blame the tool over the perp), and those that know gun control is the best way to control the people. The second group plays off the first group and gets things done.
That why even if we were to win the fight, we can't truly relax, someone will always dig it up.
That why even if we were to win the fight, we can't truly relax, someone will always dig it up.
rainbowbob
Member
To what purpose?
Old Fuff has eloquently covered why they are useless in post #10 & #12.
Punishment is NOT prevention. If the prohibition laws are meant to protect public safety (and that is the at least the official justification for them) - then it can easily be demonstrated they don't work.
Since there are already plenty of laws designed to segregate and punish those that commit criminal violence (regardless of the tool used) - gun laws that merely add to that punishment are redundant, particularly if the punishments for criminal violence are effectively designed and applied (i.e., keep violent felons away from the rest of us).
Again, the justification for that is to increase public safety, right? But disarming whole classifications of persons based on our fear of them do nothing to prevent a few of them from attacking us, while infringing the rights of most of them who do not attack us.
Denying certain persons the ability to defend themselves from attack, persons who are otherwise free to operate in society, does NOTHING to increase public safety.
Last edited:
I think its insane when people talk about gun control. How about we control drugs/alcohol/cars/vehicles/knifes. Gun is just another object to kill someone with. Sure gun crimes could be higher than other but do not blaime the gun. Look people sit behind a wheel drunk or some people murder people with vehciles... Why not have "car control"?
If the US have 0 guns some day people will still murder. There is other tools... Do not blaime the guns, its the person behind it. A gun can not go off by it self. Just like a knife can not kill someone with out someone holding it.
If the US have 0 guns some day people will still murder. There is other tools... Do not blaime the guns, its the person behind it. A gun can not go off by it self. Just like a knife can not kill someone with out someone holding it.
livewire98801
Member
This exchange right here is both our problem in the current fight, and an example of why we will always have bureaucracy surrounding gun ownership. We don't present a unified front (chanting the 2nd in every fight), instead some of us say "cold, dead hands" and some say "well, we can give up a little here".
We need to stick together. . .
highorder
Member
IMO those people haven't thought it all the way through, or they have and they do not support gun ownership to the extent they pretend to.
livewire98801
Member
In another forum, someone said that shooters will vehemently defend their own shooting sport, but not shooting sports as a whole. Precision shooters don't see a reason for having 'evil black rifles', trap/skeet shooters don't see a reason to have handguns with more than 10 rounds, etc. Few of us (like you and I, highorder) will defend ALL shooting sports.
Of course, most people also miss the real reason the 2nd ammendment, and personal arms as a whole really, exist in the first place. Shooting sports are ways to practice for the main reason to carry arms. Personal defense, prevention of tyranny, and hunting game are my reasons for keeping up with the 'sports'.
Of course, most people also miss the real reason the 2nd ammendment, and personal arms as a whole really, exist in the first place. Shooting sports are ways to practice for the main reason to carry arms. Personal defense, prevention of tyranny, and hunting game are my reasons for keeping up with the 'sports'.
William Lee
Member
Keep your fingers crossed for a favorable outcome in McDonald v. Chicago. If the case is decided in favor of second amendment incorporation (meaning that the second amendment applies to state as well as federal governments), we might see a nation-wide reduction in gun control. However, if it is not incorporated, be on the lookout for more draconian municipal restrictions that make oh-so-much sense in a globalist world where national borders (let alone municipal ones) are increasingly meaningless.
livewire98801
Member
Even so, there will still be "common-sense gun control". Common-sense to the Regime of the area, at any rate. Look at DC.
- Status
