Gun Rights: Will we lose them?

[steve1 5]

Like most honest gun owners, I wonder how long we'll have that freedom in the U.S. It seems like every day there is a new shooting in the papers.

I know this is a constitutional right, but how long will it be until the only gun you can own, might be a pop gun. In Washington D.C. they already have laws like that. I don't think that even the NRA is going to be able to stop what is coming.

The way I see it, the real problem is over-population. The more people there are, the more nut cases you have shooting people.

The more people congesting an area, the less freedom a society has. Look at the freedoms people had when our country first started. If you wanted to go dump your garbage in the river it was probably okay, because there wasn't enough garbage to do much harm.

Look at the number of laws back then compared to now. A huge difference.

With more people come a truck load of new restrictions. And then there are those who believe our growing population is not a problem.

So, my opinion is, How long will it be until we lose our right to own a gun legally? I think it's coming.

I'd like to hear your ideas on this?....

[rehmwa 2]

We won't lose them across the country. Though I suspect that most all major metro areas will not only outlaw them, but demonize them. I don't know, 1 more generation to see it happen?

Shortly after, the country will completely break down due to the culture that decided this type of personal restriction was necessary.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Look at the number of laws back then compared to now. A huge difference.

Well, it's like looking at the number of wrinkles I have now versus twenty years ago. As time goes on more laws are passed.

But it also has to do with the Populist movement. It was thought that the government should do something, anything. "There oughtta be a law."

The right to bear arms is a hot issue now with the SCOTUS taking it on. We'll find out where it goes.

The key issue, in my arrogant opinion, is the issue of Incorporation of the Second Amendment. No decision has yet held that States are required to follow the Second Amendment because of the 14th Amendment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AWL71 0]

It is a good question. It really depends on who controls the power in DC. If Hillary (or any other democrat) got into office and had a house and senate with democratic majority I think we would see dramatic new gun control laws passed. Lets hope this does not happen. Republicans have screwed up plenty but at least they leave the second amendment alone.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[masterrig 1]

That'd be just great! Then, all the bad guys would have guns and we'd be sitting ducks!


Chuck

[nerdgirl 0]

As a non-expert, I see tipping point for many of the current gun control laws and the gun control movement of the last 25 years to be the attempted assassination of President Reagan. The was an incident that led to a rise in anti-gun/gun control sentiment, which probably peaked ~5 years later, and is now declining. I'd look for a rise by pro-gun adovocates 5-10 years after that.

I don't see (admittedly, it's not an area I follow closely) the same kind of rhetoric or call for Congressional hearings today. Is that due to the success of the NRA-type advocacy, the ebb of interest in gun control, or greater preoccupation with other issues, e.g., terrorism,? I don't know.

Speculatively: was there an upswing in pro-gun control efforts following President Kennedy's assassination ... or was Communism and military observor activities in south east Asia a bigger issue?

Instead of solely arguing for rights from the 2nd Amendment, I'd look to arguments based on privacy.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

That'd be just great! Then, all the bad guys would have guns and we'd be sitting ducks!


Chuck

Now now Chuck.....the government always knows what's best for you. Be a good citizen, stop thinking independantly and let them think for you.


Now repeat after me..."guns are bad....m'kay"

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Speculatively: was there an upswing in pro-gun control efforts following President Kennedy's assassination ...

Yes. The 1968 Gun Control Act was passed because of L.H. Oswald. It put huge restrictions on everything, which are still in place today. This is why you can't buy a handgun outside your own state, and why you can't purchase a long gun from out of state without going through a licensed gun dealer.

I think that most of the general public has come to realize that gun control laws are stupid and do nothing to stop criminals, and that the anti-gun folks heyday is now in decline.

But give us Hillary for President with a fool-proof democratic majority in Congress, and watch your freedoms slip away...

[Nightingale 0]

I think we may start to get our rights back when a competent CCW holder puts a bullet in one of those psychos and saves ten lives. I think the trend may be beginning to reverse. I've seen several people in my own life flip on their gun stance because of what happened at Virginia Tech... they've decided they don't like being helpless when someone else is armed, and have realized that "Gun Free Zone!" signs don't work.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That'd be just great! Then, all the bad guys would have guns and we'd be sitting ducks!


Chuck

Now now Chuck.....the government always knows what's best for you. Be a good citizen, stop thinking independantly and let them think for you.


Now repeat after me..."guns are bad....m'kay"

NO! I won't do it! (stomps foot)


Chuck

[SkyDekker 1,150]

I think it will be interesting to see if gun rights even exist as broadly as they do now in the US.

In my personal opinion the intent of the second amendmend is now impossible to attain and as such am wondering if that does not nullify the whole thing.

Secondly, it would be good to finally get a ruling on this whole militia thing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As a non-expert, I see tipping point for many of the current gun control laws and the gun control movement of the last 25 years to be the attempted assassination of President Reagan. The was an incident that led to a rise in anti-gun/gun control sentiment, which probably peaked ~5 years later, and is now declining. I'd look for a rise by pro-gun adovocates 5-10 years after that.

The gun control mob has it's ups and downs. The late 90s was another peak, cemented by Columbine. Clinton even got Smith and Wesson (well, the British owners at the time) to capitulate. But then came the response: Gore loses with blue collar gun owners one of several deciding factors, S&W was crucified, and the Democrats quickly forgot this part of their platform, much as the GOP ignores the prolifers. 9/11 furthered the reversal.

But 7 years later, we might be in another reversal. Crime stats, which declined in the late 90s are now on the upswing. Cause of both is likely simple demographics wrt the number of the young adult men in the population. San Francisco and Oakland are seeing 2-3 murders a week, and less than half of the time is someone arrested for it.

As for the shootings of late - seems like the unholy combination of media and nutjob copycatting. Whenever you have a well covered event (dog biting, for example, for the next few weeks any similar event gets national coverage whereas normally it gets more local reporting. And the attention paid to the shooters entices others. I hope and believe it will calm down soon (after the holidays)

[piper17 1]

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

The above statement is taken verbatim from the Connecticut State Constitution and seems to make it very clear that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in their own defense as well as that of the state. It has NOTHING in regard to having to belong to a militia.

From what I have read, the vast majority of the states has similar wording in their constitutions. Check yours!

It is not hard to find the original intent of the second amendment if you will do some research and read what the various political leaders of that period in our history had to say.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Secondly, it would be good to finally get a ruling on this whole militia thing.

Yup, they've danced around that issue for years. A grammatical analysis as well as the writings of the founders of the document support an individual, not a collective, right.

"A well trained chef, being necessary for the creation of a tasty dessert, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed."

Who gets the tasty treat - the chef, or the people at the table?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

The fat fuckers who are in charge of the sheeple?

[warpedskydiver 0]

To try and remove the right of the People to keep and Bear Arms, is a desireable endeavour for many persons of power and influence in our country.

But they would like to retain that right for themselves as well.

All that would result in the Second Amendment being repealed or decided upon as a collective right is a large scale civil war.

Make no bones about it but our country is armed to the teeth, and many millions of ordinary Americans have knowledge and real life experience to commandeer, and utilize every weapons platform that our military could possibly be forced to use upon it's own people.

That, coupled with the fact that many military commanders would not follow an unconstitutional order to fire upon the PEOPLE, makes a huge mess.

You would see divisions of soldiers defecting to the free nation forces while there would be others quite happy to serve their totalarian masters.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Very good point!

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

I think we may start to get our rights back when a competent CCW holder puts a bullet in one of those psychos and saves ten lives. I think the trend may be beginning to reverse. I've seen several people in my own life flip on their gun stance because of what happened at Virginia Tech... they've decided they don't like being helpless when someone else is armed, and have realized that "Gun Free Zone!" signs don't work.

We'll see; the Church shooting appears to have been stopped by a CCW-wielding 'volunteer' security guard. Funny how the media just says "security guard" though, huh?

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

The above statement is taken verbatim from the Connecticut State Constitution and seems to make it very clear that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in their own defense as well as that of the state. It has NOTHING in regard to having to belong to a militia.

From what I have read, the vast majority of the states has similar wording in their constitutions. Check yours!

It is not hard to find the original intent of the second amendment if you will do some research and read what the various political leaders of that period in our history had to say.

I don't live in a state.

I know that many have strong opinions on the 2nd amendmend, but there hasn't been a definitive ruling on what the wording really means. It is yet to be seen if thise ruling from the SC will do that, but it might.

I doubt whatever ruling would come from it would result in a full scale civil war though, as one poster seems confident it will.

I also think that history has shown that not all military commanders or soldiers would be hesitant to follow orders to shoot at their own population.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the Church shooting appears to have been stopped by a CCW-wielding 'volunteer' security guard. Funny how the media just says "security guard" though, huh?

It's also ironic that in many states it's illegal to carry a firearm in a church, and she would be a criminal herself for doing so, subject to years in prison. Even though she may have saved a hundred lives.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

the Church shooting appears to have been stopped by a CCW-wielding 'volunteer' security guard. Funny how the media just says "security guard" though, huh?

It's also ironic that in many states it's illegal to carry a firearm in a church, and she would be a criminal herself for doing so, subject to years in prison. Even though she may have saved a hundred lives.

I didn't know that. In Washington, I know it's illegal for even a CCW to carry in a bar. When I used to bounce, finding a gun while engaged with someone belligerent ensured they would be stopping by the hospital on their way to jail. I have no idea a similar that law extends to churches here, but I kind of doubt it.

I'm on your side in this argument, but I'm still rolling my eyes every time someone says this woman saved "hundreds of lives." At least you limited it to "may have saved a hundred lives", to which all I can say is she also may have saved a million. By the same token, the kid may have saved a hundred lives by offing himself.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

I'm on your side in this argument, but I'm still rolling my eyes every time someone says this woman saved "hundreds of lives." At least you limited it to "may have saved a hundred lives", to which all I can say is she also may have saved a million. By the same token, the kid may have saved a hundred lives by offing himself.

Even without the hyperbole, it's fair to say that she saved lives that day.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[billvon 2,452]

>it's fair to say that she saved lives that day.

'cept she didn't kill him; he died of a self inflicted gunshot wound. (She's still a hero for standing up to him, of course.)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>it's fair to say that she saved lives that day.

'cept she didn't kill him; he died of a self inflicted gunshot wound. (She's still a hero for standing up to him, of course.)

News quote:

"The death of Matthew Murray has been ruled a suicide," police say in a press release. "It should be noted that he was struck multiple times by the security officer which put him down. He then fired a single round killing himself."

It's still fair to say that she saved lives. She knocked his ass down, and it was the fact that he was meeting armed resistance that made him realize his dreams of carnage were thwarted, and therefore left him his only other planned option - to commit suicide. This does not diminish the brave security guards actions.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

his dreams of carnage were thwarted

I say he committed quite the carnage. 5 people dead is a carnage in my books.