Problems countering new gun legislation

This is a discussion on Problems countering new gun legislation within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Far too many people either do not know what the 2nd amendment is or do not understand it. You are 100% correct in stating that ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69
Like Tree59Likes

Thread: Problems countering new gun legislation

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Far too many people either do not know what the 2nd amendment is or do not understand it. You are 100% correct in stating that many people only care how something affects them personally. I would venture to say that a surprising amount of hunters(even long term hunters) favor the magazine and/or "looks evil" rifle ban.

    We are a minority group(2nd amendment advocates) within a minority group(gun owners) and have one heck of a battle coming up. We need to go on offense and fight the fight like other minority groups in America fought to get what they were seeking.
    Hoganbeg and bombthrower77 like this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    148
    tl;dr - but, I'll respond to these two points by saying that you are sadly, IMO, exactly right, and it's exactly what's wrong with many conservative voters in this country. Details below...

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    1. My niece is a lesbian as well as her partner. They both CC. If given a choice to vote for a pro LGBT person who will ban AR's and AK's they would vote for that person instead of a conservative who is opposed to such a ban. I talked to my niece about this and almost all of her friends would vote the same way. Also, I know a lesbian and gay dude in school and they echo the same sentiment. They do acknoledge that it could be like mission creep where they start with the AWB and it gets expanded over time but since a gun is not part of their everyday life and being who they are is, voting for the 2A comes secondary.
    This is true, and it comes from the perspective of them wanting civil liberties and equal rights and representation under the law. Principles which, if you are truly a conservative... if you are truly a constitutionalist... you should support too.

    Show me a fiscally conservative constitutionalist who believes that EVERYONE deserves exactly EQUAL treatment and representation under the law, including gays who wish to marry so that they may receive the same tax or healthcare benefits as straight couples. Show me a candidate who believes that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as their actions do not harm others, including taking drugs, loving and marrying who they want, believing in whatever god (or lack thereof) that they choose, and so on.

    Show me that candidate, and you'll have a winner in my book.

    Freedom does not mean "only free to do what someone else approves that you do."

    As soon as we step away from those principles, then it's a tiny step to stripping away all our freedoms.

    To gays and lesbians... they ALREADY do not enjoy the freedoms that the rest of us do.

    Arguably... the truly conservative perspective on this is "Why does the government get involved in marriages *AT ALL*?" If we got out of that business... that would solve the problem too.

    You could say "Well, the government doesn't say they can't love someone." But it DOES say they can't marry the person they love (in some states) while allowing other couples to marry. That is a huge injustice.



    2. I know many people of Hispanic descent and/or legally in this country and are citizens that are avid gun owners. They also not prioritize the 2A over what they percieve as immoral immigartain and deportation policies. Therefore they are more likely to vote for a politician that leans more to the left on this issue and as long as their 10 round pistol and thier hunting rifles are not affected and the politician is more in line with thier views on immigration and Hispanic issues.
    I'm not 100% sure on the history here, but I'd be curious to know when we, as a country, created the immigration and naturalization service. I'd bet it wasn't in 1789...

    If we really believe that ALL men are created equal and that ALL men are free to do as they please... then why do we get involved in picking and choosing who can come to america via the immigration service anyway? Open the borders... let them come and go as they please.

    The most common argument here is "Well, they steal from our social security and welfare, and ...."

    Well, a true conservative/constitutionalist would say "Why do we have these entitlement programs anyway?"

    A lot of our problems are solved if we just go back to basics, IMO.
    TX expat, Hoganbeg and peckman28 like this.

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Gary Johnson didn't have a chance either, but I voted for him.
    That's where my heart really was, but after four years of Obama I basically went down the list checking every name that had an "R" next to it.
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,791
    Yeah, let's throw the borders open with no regulation or checks on the people wanting to come in. You're a known terrorist that has dedicated his life to killing those that don't believe in your religion? Welcome to America! You are a recently released murderer that can't get a fair shake in your home country because of your violent past? Come to America!

    Sometimes I really do just have to shake my head while reading what people write.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    KCMO
    Posts
    3,417
    You've made good points, however, voting for someone b/c one issue is more important and writing to the same person disputing a different issue are not mutually exclusive. Also, the number of average gun owners who own AR15's has exploded in the past few years (not including buying b/c Obama got elected) and people that are around those people see that they are fun to shoot and not the domain of the "militia" type. Democrats lost their butts after the last AWB and AR's weren't anywhere near as popular or accepted and information wasn't nearly as available as it is now. Not saying it's a slam dunk by any means or don't worry about writing the Congress critters, but I think we'll come out ok. Like I said in another thread, I'm still wondering/concerned about any deals being made to achieve spending cuts.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    Um..... look up above. You missed my obvious joke.

    Got it now. Sorry I missed it first time.

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    I think you're right concerning single issue voters, but I still don't think it will result in us losing our 2nd Amendment argument. As evidenced by the last presidential election, the people that vote for a living out voted the people that work for a living. Who wouldn't vote for Santa Claus right? After the Chic Fil A dustup, I thought it would have turned out different. Shows what I know.

    Having said all of that, I still don't believe there are enough votes in the Senate and the House to change the laws, if enough people, and the NRA continue to offer opposition. As long as we continue to point out the obvious flaws in anymore gun laws that don't work, we'll prevail. Call me an optimist if you like, and I'll embrace that label. :) I believe we'll end up with some cockamamie Executive Order, to ban high cap mag's or something, but I don't think it will go beyond that.

    How could anyone trust an administration that armed a Mexican Drug Cartel, to take our weapons away? Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me.
    ppkheat and bombthrower77 like this.
    " But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.

  9. #23
    Member Array Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    148
    I know you know better than this and you're just being provocative... but what the heck... ;)

    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    Yeah, let's throw the borders open with no regulation or checks on the people wanting to come in. You're a known terrorist that has dedicated his life to killing those that don't believe in your religion?
    A "known" terrorist who has committed a crime? By all means, let him come so we can arrest him!

    Welcome to America! You are a recently released murderer that can't get a fair shake in your home country because of your violent past? Come to America!
    Did the crime and paid his debt to society? Hasn't re-offended? Sure. Why not? Maybe he needs a fresh start. If he commits a crime here, then we arrest him and deal with him.

    Sometimes I really do just have to shake my head while reading what people write.
    Indeed... me too.

    Actually... reading the original immigration law of 1790... it states that naturalization be given to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character".

    Change that wording to "free persons" of "good moral character" and I think we're covered.

    But again, you knew this right? You were just being silly.
    bombthrower77 likes this.

  10. #24
    Member Array cayman_shen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Here is my dilemma, which is maybe similar to others:

    I believe in the Second Amendment as written. The other ones, too.
    I believe in a woman's right to choose.
    I don't want teachers imposing their religious views on kids.
    Sex education needs to be more than "wait till marriage".
    The use of all drugs should be de-criminalized.
    Consenting adults should be allowed to get married if they want to.
    If you pay people to do nothing, that is what many of them will do.
    If you punish people for working, many of them won't.


    Given all that, there is much for me to consider on election day.
    I am in the same boat. I support protecting the environment as well, to add that to your list. So I have to choose between a candidate whom I believe will sell me out to unregulated and unelected corporate emperors who will turn my food, air, water, and land into poison and financially oppress whomever they can, a candidate who would turn the USA into some Christian version of Afghanistan, a candidate who will push descriminatory legislation against women and LGBT people, annnnnnd....a candidate that will tax us to death, leave us undefended against criminals, kill our sense of civic duty by paying people not to work and disincentivizing innovation and self-reliance, and attempt to enforce tolerance at the cost of the first ammendment. I hate voting. I have to hold my nose. Both parties just appall me.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,791
    But Bardo you want to do things like we did in 1790. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we have slaves and they count as 3/5 of a person and the only true free citizens are white male land owners or we admit that we've moved forward as a society and have made needed changes. I'm not saying that I like our government or that I think it does much of anything well. But I'm also not going to pretend that we had everything right 225 years ago.

    We didn't have speed limits in 1790, so I guess we don't need them now. Of course, the government didn't build roads either, so I guess we won't need them. There were no laws against child porn, so I guess that is OK- maybe even protected under the first amendment. Wire fraud wasn't illegal according to any law that I'm aware of, so it must be OK now. The FDA didn't exist so drug companies should be able to sell you anything and make any claims about their benefit no matter how harmful that substance may be. The government didn't regulate power companies, so your local electric company can feel free to charge you anything they please- but since you wouldn't have power lines, sewer lines, or other utilities I guess it doesn't matter what people want to charge for a service we can't have.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  12. #26
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,393
    We also have to consider that while we can recognize a larger number of threats, some threats to us are more imminent or have further reaching consequences than others, and so require a higher priority. Until the recent economic disasters this has always put 2nd Amendment issues near or at the top of my personal list. Lately the competition for first priority has been fierce.

    As far as civil issues like gay marriage, I don't see that as anybody's business except those directly involved. In those cases, less government intrusion is better.

  13. #27
    Member Array TXTIGR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    DALLAS TX
    Posts
    21
    The Second amendment is not about voting or other beliefs it is about the Constitution.The politicians who are promoting Gun bans to legal citizens is paramount to violating their oath of office.Maybe even treason.People who think that one part of the Bill of Rights can be changed are fooling themselves.All must exist or none will.

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,064
    The one issue all voters have in common is "freedom", and losing/diluting the 2A is the beginning of losing/diluting other freedoms as well. Some are looking at a tree and not seeing the forest.

    BTW, we had a statewide vote here to amend out constitution during the November 2012 election. A pro-gun amendment passed with 73% of the vote.

    Contact your legislators, join a pro-gun organization, encourage your family and friends to do the same. Lather, rinse and repeat.
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,803
    Quote Originally Posted by TXTIGR View Post
    The Second amendment is not about voting or other beliefs it is about the Constitution.The politicians who are promoting Gun bans to legal citizens is paramount to violating their oath of office.Maybe even treason.People who think that one part of the Bill of Rights can be changed are fooling themselves.All must exist or none will.
    A little hyperbole this morning? Treason? Not even in the grid square.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  16. #30
    Member Array BuckNekkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi Coast
    Posts
    91
    I have only voted "for" someone in the general election twice, 1980 and 1984 when I voted for Reagan, Been voting against one SOB or another ever since. So that leaves me free to say:

    If Congress wants to affect any Constitutional amendment, they should do it properly through the amendment process, period.

    I don't care who marries whom, as I think losing half your stuff in a divorce is an educational experience.

    Immigration should be a three step process: Investigation,(criminal history), Innoculations (my kids had to have those for public school) and Congratulations, here's your ssn, start paying IN....

    All that said, yeah I check for their NRA rating, and the result has been rising on my list.
    bombthrower77 and d2jlking like this.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gun law discussion

,

new gun law in a nutshell

,

providence gun ban

,

serious discussion topic on new gun laws

Click on a term to search for related topics.