:rolleyes: Better go tell the people posting in the “What if Hitler were assassinated in 1939” thread to knock it off, there’s to be no reference to history 'round these parts.
Look at the timeline here:
1871 - NRA founded
1934 - National Firearms Act
1968 - Gun Control Act
1975 - NRA Institute for Legislative Action founded
1977 - The “Cincinnati Revolution”, the NRA goes fully political
What do you think sparked the NRA to change, the Gun Control Act, or the NFA?
A combination of both. It took the NRA a while to get it’s head out of the sand and realize what the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd was.
In 1968, the goal of gun control was “Law And Order”, the dogwhistle at the time for the coloreds rioting in the streets and going wild mugging and killing us decent law-abiding white folks and raping our wimmen.
It’s always under the guise of some noble cause. If Feinstein or Brady actually announced that what they really wanted was the populace completely disarmed and every single last gun melted down none of their proposed laws would have a snowballs chance.
Feinstein and Brady weren’t exactly politically active on a national level in 1968. Or are they simply the faces you’re putting on the boogiemen you’re imagining?
[Bill Lumbergh voice]Yeah, I’m going to have to go ahead and ignore you and continue this debate with the adults in the room[/Bill Lumbergh voice]
If they’re mostly scrap then wtf is the point of spending taxpayer dolalrs to buy scrap?
If 42.3% think that you should be trained before buying any gun and 14.4% think you should have ti for SOME, then you have 56.7% that want it for at least some guns. IOW, most cops SUPPORT safety training at least for some guns.
What makes you think the gun grabbers are going to have the power to make the requirements (at a federal level) onerous?
I have a CCW, the gun grabbers in my state would like to make the requirements onerous, noone pays attention to them and so it will go at the federal level.
We just defeated a bill that instituted background checks at gun shows for fucks sake. Under the bill, it was perfectly legal to walk into the parking lot of the gun show and sell the gun without the background check. It was a fig leaf so the gun grabbers would feel so bad and qwe wouldn’t even let them have THAT. What makes you think anyone pays attention to the gun grabbers at the national level?
Except for the part I mentioned.
You hear about voter registraion and voter ID laws? Voting is the most fundamental right in a democracy.
I need a license or a permit to march on Washington.
How exactly would they do that? They can’t vote, they can only try to convince voters to give them what they want.
I also oppose the NFA. I disagree with the restrictions on suppressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns. You know how long it takes to buy a suppressor? 5 minutes at the store and 6 months doing teh apperwork SIX FUCKING MONTHS to do the paperwork!!!
You’re simply wrong or grossly overstating your case. We infringe on a felon’s right to keep and bear arms while he is imprisoned and usually afterwards too. We infringe on a minor’s ability to own a firearm. We infringe on the mentally ill’s right to keep and bear arms.
No it wasn’t. I don’t know if you remember but the 1968 law was passed in response to the assassination of JFK, RFK and JFK.
This is like pretending that the second amendment was really put there for the benefit of slave patrols.
Mexicans who stay in Mexico can vote there (if otherwise eligible). They might even be able to vote absentee from abroad, IDK.
Same thing as silencers?
The Second Amendment reads…
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Factually, objectively, Any law, or any other public policy, which infringes in any way upon this right, violates this Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Constitution defines the process by which it may be amended. There is nothing unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise wrong about seeking to change it through this process. This is not at all the same thing as attempting to enact or enforce through any other process a law which clearly violates it.
If you think that there should be any legal restrictions on the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, then the only legitimate way to pursue any such policy is to begin by seeking to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes the power to impose such a restriction.
To enact or enforce any law that restricts this right, in the absence of such an amendment, is illegal and unconstitutional, and any public servant who willingly has part in it is a criminal.
Those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms will not follow this path, because they know that the public support is not there to support it. Instead of legitimately seeking to change the Constitution, they pursue their goals by seeking to illegally subvert and undermine it.
The approach of bending over, dropping one’s pants, and letting the gungrabbers have their way with us, and hoping each time that they’ll be satisfied just to do to us what they will do on each one occasion, and then let us be after that; is what has not been effective. We’ve allowed them to corrupt our government to the point that it is now nearly impossible, in most places, for a law-abiding citizen to reasonably and legitimately exercise his right to keep and bear arms, without being subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment. We’ve allowed this right to be mostly taken from us, one “reasonable restriction” at a time, until we have reached this point.
The same way they made other infringements reality, through patients and incrementalism. You’re making dangerous assumptions if you think the gun control proponents are going to continue losing.
Where does the U.S. Constitution specifically guarantee a right to vote? And where in the USC does the word “Democracy” appear?
Gun control was taken up by the Democratic party as a way of fighting the rightful perception of them as being “soft on crime”, while continuing to do nothing about fighting actual crime.
They aren’t all scrap. And even junk guns are still capable of being deadly. What, did you think it’s a purely economic transaction?
Aaron Alexis had a CCW. Do you seriously think there will be no consequences?
“We”? Will you now quit the tiresome pretense that you support them, or indeed any fucking thing else? :dubious:
I do, and those incidents were indeed part of the racial fears of the time that did indeed lead to the righties actually supporting Gun Control - at least for the coloreds, that is.
That’s been cited much more solidly than anything *you *have ever posted on guns. :rolleyes:
Article 1, Section 2; +affirmed and expanded to cover state elections in Harper.
We the People.
Fascinating document, you really should read it sometime.
You are wrong. In the real world, if you wish to participate in a discussion that is grounded in reality, this is not how it works. Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of law. Only the courts get to decide what is or what isn’t constitutional. I believe the right to arms is fundamental and exists independent of the constitution personally, but that’s just me. In a nation of laws what I think doesn’t matter. The law says that the courts get to decide what is and what isn’t constitutional - not you. Do you really dispute this?
(my bold)
I’d like to know how you are actually defining that word because as it stands it seems to be tautological. It is incredibly arrogant to believe you can decide what is or what is not legitimate, however you are defining that word. Almost as arrogant as presuming to supersede the court’s judgment on what is or what isn’t constitutional.
What state do you live in? 40 of the 50 states in this nation are shall issue. Heller was won in 2008, McDonald in 2010. Gun rights advocates are winning, badly. It’s not a contest. I hope that trend continues even further and donate to the cause, but to suggest or imply that the RTKBA is losing at a federal level is nonsense. There’s a lot left to be done both at the federal level (50 state reciprocity, repealing NFA and the 68 GCA,), and at each individual locality (CA, NY, NJ, HI) but through targeted litigation these things will make progress.
People who understand the law, work within it to change it, and can speak like a non-lunatic have the best chance at making these reforms happen. Spouting nonsense absolutism like ‘any gun control law is unconstitutional’ and those that vote for them should be jailed is ridiculous rubbish and not helpful to the cause in any way. I think people like **BG **are so far wrong that I’m not sure we’re even in the same country, let alone speaking the same language. But he can say and advocate and vote for any gun control he wants and I would defend his ability to do so and have here I believe. Would you?
Anyways, not sure why I even got into this, this has nothing to do with gun buybacks which are stupid as shit. And I want a fucking suppressor to help protect my hearing.
Indeed, I think we have reached an important turning point now. The biggest indication, at the federal level, was earlier this year, after several notorious mass shootings. As has happened many times before, the Democratic party, on the premise that what gun control laws were already in effect weren’t enough, put forth a new batch of “reasonable” proposals. The President and his allies campaigned hard for these proposals. Somewhere, they came up with some phony polls claiming as much as 90% public support for some of these proposals.
But this time, it was different. The people started writing their senators and congresscritters, and when it was all over, even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, they couldn’t get even one of these proposals to pass; much less have any hope of getting it past the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
The representatives in both houses of Congress were reminded of what happened back in 1994, after their predecessors enacted the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban, and enough of them this time decided that they wanted to keep their jobs.
Then, there’s what just happened in Colorado. That state passed a new batch of gun control laws, and two the the legislators responsible for these laws were recalled. The majority of those remaining who supported these new gun control laws will probably not survive the next election cycle. It’ll be like the federal-level 1994 elections all over again, except that this time, those who are going to lose have already been given a harsh warning, so there won’t be nearly the surprise and shock. Colorado’s legislature, and its Governor’s Mansion, are inhabited, in large part, by dead men walking, and they know it.
Yes, I absolutely do. Thomas Jefferson did, as well.
“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson
I will admit that there are some points of Constitutional law which are not entirely clear, and that there is a need for a process to sort out the details and priorities; and that judges are an important part of that process.
But the right to keep and bear arms is not one of these areas. The Constitution could not possibly be any more clear about it than it is. It affirms a right of the people, and it explicitly forbids this right from being infringed. Period.
That various state and federal laws have been enacted which infringe upon this right, and that these laws have been upheld by the courts, only goes to prove the truth of the objection and the warning that Jefferson gave here.
It’s not so difficult to understand, is it? The Constitution is the highest law of the land. All public servants are required by oath to obey it. To disobey it by passing, upholding, or enforcing a law which is unconstitutional is illegitimate. If one disagrees with part of the Constitution, then the Constitution itself provides for a means of legitimately amending it. It is not disobedience to the Constitution to seek to amend it by this process.
Alas, I live in one of the very worst states of all, California. I have little hope for any progress to be made in this wretched hellhole of a state, until much progress is made outside of it first.
I see much hope for things to get better in the rest of the nation, but for the time being, California is still circling the drain. It’ll probably have to get much worse here, for the ignorant, apathetic sheep that infest this state to wake up and start working to make things better.
The Constitution is the highest of all law. To work against it—or to surrender to those who do so—is not to work within the law.
Those who have had a part in enacting and enforcing gun control policies have already gone outside the law. Why is it my side that must work “within the law”, while the opposing side is allowed to violate the law with impunity?
It’s not “nonsense absolutism”; it’s the plain truth. The Second Amendment absolutely forbids any and all gun control laws.
Absolutely. Everyone has the right to advocate whatever they will. But the right to advocate a policy is not the right of any public servant to carry out a policy that is blatantly unconstitutional.
But, it isn’t.
What makes it any different from the others?
Not this, to be sure:
Competing variant interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, including of the most basic question of whether it enshrines an individual or a collective right, have been going on in the courts and elsewhere since the 1820s. That would not be the case if the case were so plain and clear as you think.
See post #175.
The motive behind the National Firearms Act was concern over 1930s gangland violence.
The gun control movement as we know it today came into organized existence much later. President Lyndon Johnson was a staunch gun control advocate, and a driving force behind the Gun Control Act. Read his remarks upon signing the GCA, you’ll recognize the gun control talking points that are still in use today.
The National Council to Control Handguns, which is now the Brady Campaign, was founded in 1974. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns, which is now the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, was also founded in 1974.
That environment is what led to the Cincinnati Revolt, and Harlon Carter’s New Guard taking over the NRA in 1977. The NFA of 1934 was not involved.