I remember there being a thread(which I can’t seem to find right now) asking what people would do if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, and the general consensus seemed to be that it wouldn’t matter-many professed that they would keep their weapons(and some claimed that they would stockpile even more weapons), because it was their God Given/Natural Right, and that the 2nd Amendment was merely a formality that affirmed that Right, the SCOTUS be damned.
You should probably mention that you don’t have the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
I should probably mention that that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.
I don’t think it would be difficult to find threads on gun-related forums where the majority felt that way, but I would be surprised if a majority of gun owners on SDMB felt that way. I’m sure there are a few.
You don’t know the name of the party and you don’t know its positions. charming
I’ll never understand what the point of referring to it as “the Democrat Party” is?
I get that it’s supposed to be an insult but it’s not clear what about it is supposed to be insulting so it generally comes across as making the user look dumb.
NM-Too insulty for this forum.
I don’t get what the point is in getting upset about it.
Right - can we focus on the fact that claiming Pelosi and/or the whole party want “registration and confiscation of all firearms” is ignorant bullshit?
I think it’s too late for any real gun control legislation in the US. There’s literally hundreds of millions of guns out there and a mindset that says it’s a God given right, a constitutional right and gun owners regard any changes as involuntary castration.
But we are constantly reassured that they’re all “law-abiding citizens”. Well, except for the ones who aren’t. So should we not accept their own word that they’d continue to abide by the law?
Sure. Some time, generations from now, perhaps, there may be enough interest in changing things that they elect people who will do that, and they’ll be okay with it. In the meantime, yay, guns! Oh, and, murder.
I’m not upset about it. If anything I’m amused by the people who seem to think its some huge slam.
Well, I don’t know. Social change often seems to happen glacially slowly over many years, and then suddenly the iceberg breaks loose. There’s no telling when exactly that’s going to happen, but when you start hearing faint cracking noises that weren’t there before, watch out.
Cruxish point. There is a big difference between treating the 2nd Amendment as just that, a law-on-books, and treating it as a (in itself or part of a larger) sacred value.
To further the point, to successfully enter a discussion with someone holding the 2nd Amendment as a sacred value probably requires a different engagement mode, and I think a great deal of debating time is wasted presenting facts to someone in a faith-based mode (NOT judging, not a dig; we're human and we have our faiths, under all definitions of the word). A clue to this mode is just what Superdude upthread complained about, an inflexible interpretation of a kind of scripture: [because of a treatment of the 2nd Amendment as "sacrosanct"] "There can't be any suggestion of enhanced background checks, or an assault weapons ban, or a ban on armor piercing bullets, or any number of other things that just might save lives." For example, you will not get very far with presenting facts to a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (again, all due respect to that faith, not meant as a criticism)--the engagement mode has to be different.
Terr, how do laws against murder stop murders?
How is that different than the way other parts of the Bill of Rights are treated?
People are certainly equally passionate about the First Amendment and other Amendments related to due process.
I’m sure you remember plenty of rhetoric complaining about how George Bush and Dick Cheney were “trashing the Constitution” and so forth?
The 2nd Amendment HAS been discussed. Over, and over, and over. Do you have any new way to define the term - shall not be infringed? If we discuss it one more time, do you think either side will change their mind?
Eventually, the conversation comes down to a vote. The anti-2nd, anti-firearms zealots do not have the votes to make their dreams come true.
This may seem an inopportune moment to ask, Dean Wormer… but do you think you could give us one more chance?
-Robert Hoover (Animal House)
It’s just a dog whistle, a way to indicate you’re a Rush listener, or “Ditto Head” in the vernacular. I believe he started doing it, and all his fans think it’s cute now. I’m not bent out of shape about it either, but i do find it removes whatever credibility the speaker might have started with.
Even if hundreds of more laws were passed, criminals still would be able to get hand guns. So I think that we would be better served by strictly enforcing the laws we have. NYC has the extremely tough “Sullivan” Laws-that hasn’t prevented gun crimes in NYC.