This is a discussion on Why we're ultimately going to lose our gun rights within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Jeanlouise You could not be more wrong about that. Do you seriously mean to tell me that you think retired military people ...
I'm currently reading a book that was written in 1997. It talks about a $5 trillion dollar debt and the corruption in Washington. Things haven't changed for decades.
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.
Okay then, Dave.
I'm standing down... Shoot, you guys and the lobbyists in DC gots it all under control... NRA's got our back, chillax folks... Nothing to see here... just wait for the final result... we're gonna win.
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
Now, this is what I really think:
The new AWB may not pass in toto.
There may be a mag ban... maybe not ten rounds. would you take 20?
They will close the non existent gun show loophole... there will be some sort of UBC...
And the last one will happen even if we keep fighting, and keep fighting hard. And the other two will happen if we stop.
How can I say this... Well we still got the first amendment, and it isn't political, and it's about guns, and it's about the second amendment, so I'm even covered under the forum rules.
But aside from that, I look at the history of the thing... this gun issue... and I see the antis with a much more tailored message, and I see the conservative side being oh so conservative.
Adjective= Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun= A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
But I'm not talking religion or politics... I'm talking tactics... our side, our leadership, is conservative in their tactics. And you may say it's worked before... But I ask, did it really?
Q:What would the 1994 AWB have been, if we hadn't negotiated so hard?
A:It would have been permanent. That useless law that dealt with accessories for the most part, would have been permanent.... And we would be living with a ten round limit still today... the only "give" the traditional, conservative, lobbying method got us was a sunset clause. And we had to wait ten years, and rattle our sabres again, to make sure it was allowed to expire.
Back then, it was for the most part, one law. On a national level (and maybe Massachusetts). You now have a dozen or more laws at state levels, local levels, and the federal level.
If you walk into a swarm of bees... will you not get stung, even once?
The antis talk about common sense, and we say they have none... When they get their UBCs, and if they get mag limits... They'll say... "yeah, we gots no common sense. Lookee there, y'all clingers was asleep at the switch, wasn't yaz..? Well, Bless your hearts, better luck next time..."
It could be worse!
I'm done making predictions because I was one who thought Obama would LOSE in 2012. So now I just assume the worst.
Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.- Mark Twain
With rational elected representatives and engagement directly with them, there's every chance the mass media-directed slanting and undermining of "the will of the people" can be outflanked. But it takes a heavy, concerted and continuous effort on the part of people who are passionate and care about the cause, and a similar effort by those lobby groups who can additionally bring pressure to bear.
Write, fax, phone, meet them in person ... every little bit helps, when it comes to engaging our temporarily-elected staff we've inserted (elected) into offices in our states and congress.
The one thing we've got to get them to do is fairly straightforward, difficult though that appears to be: hold them to their blood oath to both protect and defend the Constitution. The more frequently they are each reminded of their sworn oath and duty, and our position with regard not only the 2A but all of our rights and their responsibilities, the better off we'll all be. Feet to the raging fire, in this regard, can go a long way.
The whole push toward lawful concealed carry that's occurred in the past 20+ years is heartening. Though, there have been some setbacks here and there, along with year-after-year anti-gunner attempts to destroy the Second Amendment's purpose and meaning. IMO, that fight will never end, not so long as we have a SCOTUS that fails to recognize the 2A as disallowing infringement.
I think you meant never END until SCOTUS changes...
And yes, we've got to keep our reps feet to the fire... But, if they vote for some new restrictions... even if we replace them, the likelihood that any current changes would be undone (at the fed level)is very slim.
Somehow, we've got to get John Q. Public... some of the ~50% of this nation that don't own firearms, to understand.. And to join the fight for the 2nd. John Q. has to learn that infringing on the second, can, over time, erode his other rights under the constitution...
Now, that IS a challenge... go out on the street and ask someone what the bill of rights guarantees... Which are the rights guaranteed under it? They can maybe name one or two... What about the rest? How do they affect them?
Now, since they don't know many of them, how can it be important to them to protect any of them?
And so, we see the crux of the problem...
And John Q. doesn't want to be educated... he doesn't want to know... he's got his big screen tv, and his weekends, and his casinos.. and his dog parks... life is good...
It could be worse!
"To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly."
My crystal ball says:The new AWB may not pass in toto. Agree
There may be a mag ban... maybe not ten rounds. would you take 20? Agree that it will not likely pass - and no I would not take 20 - , but if it does pass, it will be found unconstitutional if <30
They will close the non existent gun show loophole... there will be some sort of UBC...Agree, and if done properly, I do not think it will be a major burden (though I am not holding my breath that it will be done properly). Broader checks will not be found to be unconstituitonal
And the last one will happen even if we keep fighting, and keep fighting hard. And the other two will happen if we stop. Agree
Any more "burden" than we have right now is too much.
And no matter what, they will not get it right, and it will only burden the law abiding.
It could be worse!
"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."