Question of the Day: Will Americans’ Gun Rights Ever Be Fully Restored?

Just a quick reminder from someone who believes that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to keep and bear machine guns: it ain’t happening. In fact, the day when [well-heeled] Americans can buy a M2HB-QCB (or similar) without a background check is the day that our gun rights will have been fully restored. Although I’m not entirely comfortable contemplating some of the paths that would lead to that goal, I can imagine a day when it would happen. You?

comments

  1. avatar JoshuaS says:

    Short of either a revolution, or a SCOTUS decision based on some technicality with the NFA, no, don’t see it. And in the latter, Congress would just amend the NFA as they did in the 1960’s

    MAYBE you could undo the damage of FOPA. That would be great. But some form of tighter control will remain

    1. avatar Ross says:

      I’m going with “short of a revolution” it’s not happing.

  2. avatar Nathan says:

    Do you seriously not understand that background checks, as intended, are not a violation of one’s 2A rights? As intended, all a background check should do is determine whether or not a customer is a law-abiding citizen, AKA someone who has all their constitutional rights intact. If a background check determines that they are not a law-abiding citizen, AKA someone who does not have all their constitutional rights intact, they do not get to buy a gun. As intended, background checks are completely constitutional because they do not violate any constitutional rights (security, liberty, property, privacy, etc.) of law-abiding citizens.

    However, background checks (more often than not) are not used as intended, which is why people like you believe they violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. It is not the inherent nature of background checks that does this, but rather, the abuse of them – which is what we (you) should be working against.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      “AKA someone who has all their constitutional rights intact. If a background check determines that they are not a law-abiding citizen, AKA someone who does not have all their constitutional rights intact, they do not get to buy a gun. As intended, background checks are completely constitutional because they do not violate any constitutional rights (security, liberty, property, privacy, etc.) of law-abiding citizens.”

      You DO realize, don’t you, that a number of law-abiding citizens suddenly find themselves on “no-fly” lists, simply because they happen to have the same name (or merely a similar one) as someone accused of being a “terrorist”, right? And that returning military personnel, congressmen, Justice Department officials, and even children under the age of five have suddenly found themselves on the “no-fly” list, simply because their name RESEMBLED that of others who may or may not have been legitimately place on “no-fly” lists?

      In many, or even most instances, being on a “no fly” list could be enough to become red-flagged when attempting to purchase a firearm.

      Most people would agree these people have been denied their Constitutional rights, which would make you wrong.

      1. avatar Nathan says:

        None of that is inherently associated with background checks. That is an entirely different problem that requires an entirely different approach. Why does it makes sense to you that because SOME people are mistakenly put on lists such as the “no-fly” list, that background checks are to blame? Is it not the fault of the people who put them on the list in the first place? Why are you not directing your anger/effort at that, rather than complain that ‘background checks are unconstitutional’ when there is no reason they should be?

        1. avatar Akira says:

          “None of that is inherently associated with background checks. That is an entirely different problem that requires an entirely different approach.”

          It’s an entirely different problem, until a state like New Jersey passes a law prohibiting anyone on the FBI’s “terrorist watch list” from buying a gun. True story.

      2. avatar James K Gruetzner says:

        There does seem to be a simple solution. Require that the purchaser of a firearm present his or her valid and current voter registration card. (A database where the registration number and name can be verified would likely be appropriate.) If a person is a citizen trustworthy to vote, then that person should likewise be assumed trustworthy with a firearm. Neither voting nor firearms — both the province of free citizens — should be denied without criminal intent or mental defect, and both requiring due process of law.
        May take some tweeking, but the basic principle appearst to be sound.

        1. avatar 505markf says:

          Won’t work. Resident aliens (green card holders) have the full rights of the 2nd Amendment, too.

        2. avatar James K Gruetzner says:

          That comes under “tweaking”. 🙂 A green card will do just fine.

    2. avatar jeremy says:

      Nathan-

      Just like how you lose your first amendment rights when you are convicted of a crime…right? And similar to the way you lose the protection of the fifth amendment? Does the government get to quarter troops in a felon’s residence during peacetime as well?

      1. avatar Brian says:

        You do lose your right to vote and to serve on a jury.

        1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

          Don’t some states allow felons to vote (even while in jail)? Or was I just imagining that?

        2. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

          Where is there a right to vote? Serve on a jury? Not in bill of rights. Sure some later laws on voting but I personally don’t see how that’s a God given right.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      Nathan,

      What Jeremy, and the others said. An American citizen DOES NOT lose his natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights just because he has been accused of or convicted of a crime. There is nothing in the Second Amendment (I checked) that says it only applies to non-criminals. As a matter of fact there is nothing giving ANY government entity the authority to restrict it in any manner. I am of the opinion that the Founding Fathers who wrote this amendment actually knew what they were about.

      The SCOTUS is a government entity and is made up of men and women with their own personal prejudices. One of those, in many cases, seems to be to protect the government they are an entity of which means they will twist a meaning out of the Constitution to fit their own ideas of what it SHOULD mean to say, rather than what it does say.

      If you/we allow the concept that the government has the authority to restrict an American citizen from exercising their 2A rights if they are convicted of some crime or judged to be mentally unfit, which government authority now has the right to decide which crimes or what level of mental instability are to be applied to this test? What about jurisdictions where the mere CHARGE of domestic violence is enough to lose your 2A rights?

      Any means test established by the government to determine eligibility to exercise a right changes it from a right to a license and that license is now a privilege granted by the government, not a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

    4. avatar MacBeth51 says:

      Background checks in any shape, or form are a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

    5. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      BGC = fox guarding hen house.

    6. avatar GS650G says:

      Nathan,
      Define the limits of background checks. A true back check can take months and cost thousands of dollars. We tend to think of background checks as a simple phone call when they are not.
      Besides, the WNY shooter.not only passed a background check, he had a clearance awarded a month before. Background checks are a waste of time. However they can be used to twart rights and impose burdens on law abiding.
      We need to focus on the actions of people not inanimate objects.

  3. avatar Jim R says:

    No, I can’t.
    We’re not going to get those back no matter how hard we try. And since the major bodies (like the NRA) are only interested in not losing any more ground, we’ll never get any back. Eventually though that “hold the line” strategy is going to fail and we’re going to lose even more. You can only hold off someone for so long.

    Maybe I’m a pessimist, but as far as I see it, we’re one or two more acts of senseless mass violence away from having universal registration and some kind of major firearms ban (with no grandfathering–Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in) It CAN happen. The only question is when. A year? Two years? Five years? Don’t know, but if it does, I guarantee it’ll be before the end of this decade.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      the major bodies (like the NRA) are only interested in not losing any more ground

      You’re kidding, right? Heller, McDonald, Shepard were not about not losing any more ground. The recent pro-gun changes in Arkansas and Mississippi were not about not losing any more ground. You must have no idea at all about what’s happened since 1985 when Florida became one of the very first “shall issue” states and now there are at least 40 that are shall issue or better.

      You need to take another look around.

  4. avatar Steve says:

    Sadly the Liberal left knows that it’s an incremental game, and given enough time will win the long war. The more their socialistic policies require people to depend on the government, the more voters they’ll have in their pocket. Their voters may not want gun control, but they’ll vote to keep their welfare and free items and easy lives, and their politicians will be the ones rushing gun control through; exactly as they did in 2009 with Obamacare.

    The average person is just too stupid to realize that socialistic polices don’t work and that’s why they keep voting in the left, and the left keeps voting to take away firearms. Instead, they vote for those politicians, and then as the states go down in flames due to socialistic policies, they migrate to other, more free states and the process starts all over. Look at the influx of California Liberals into Colorado and see what it did to them, a former strongly red state. They’re trying it again in Texas.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Sadly the Liberal left knows that it’s an incremental game…”

      For those of you who believe it will take a revolution to get our 2A rights re-established (not back), look at this statement. There HAS BEEN a revolution going on in America for at least 100 years now. The liberal and Progressive politicians have been fighting, successfully, to erode or republican system of government, our capitalist social structure, and our Constitutionally protected rights. And they are winning because most people think that a revolution involves running around shooting people who disagree with you. But there is more than one way to take over a government and a country.

      They attack our Second Amendment rights because they know that to implement the next step in their revolution they have to be absolutely certain that we CANNOT resort to arms to resist them once a sufficient number of Americans realize what they’re up to and how much of a threat it represents.

      Other than a resort to armed insurrection our only choice is to defeat them politically and that means taking back the Republican party from career bureaucrats and career political hacks who care more about their positions of power than they do about the Constitution and the people. Failing that, keep your powder dry (and well hidden).

  5. It will never happen because “pro-gun” bloggers and others aren’t so “pro-gun”.

    If you think open carry of a rifle in a locked case is a bad idea and anyone who carries in that manner should be stopped, detained, questioned, arrested, and charged you are part of that “pro-gun” group.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Might I suggest some Preparation H for that chronically sore bum?

      1. avatar Ross says:

        Love it

      2. avatar jwm says:

        In his own mind Leonard is a hero. In his own mind. It pisses him off that none of the rest of us recognize his hero status.

        Or, he could just be deeply in the pocket of MAIG. I haven’t decided which yet.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      “If you’re not with me entirely, you’re against me!”

      Well… okay, if you insist…

  6. avatar ST says:

    Yes….for some Americans.

    For the Amerikanski in New Jersey, New York, California, and elsewhere ….not so much.

  7. avatar Salty Bear says:

    We need SCOTUS or Congress to dismantle the NFA for us, and that will never happen in a hundred years.

    Either that, or wide-scale, simultaneous non-compliance. e.g. an entire state has to say, “Sorry, 2A is the only gun law there is, and our citizens will now be able to own whatever they want, and any fed that says otherwise is a criminal.” They’d be completely justified in doing so, and I don’t know why it hasn’t happened yet in some of the free states.

    1. avatar jwestham says:

      They did that in Montana.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      A number of states did that with the ACA (or Obamacare). Look how that turned out.

    3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      They did that in Kansas.

      While they do recognize that the Interstate Commerce clause affects importation, and were nice enough to the Feds to not grandfather in any weapons made elsewhere but presently residing in Kansas, they basically told the Feds to sod off, pound sand and choke on their own privates.

      Until the last Grabber in Chief is strangled with his or her own entrails it’ll not be really over, but there is hope in some quarters.

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        So is this the answer then? Can the NRA go from state to state and encourage the passage of bills that reject unconstitutional federal laws? Maybe it’s hopeless to get the feds to change their minds about 2A, but if the states can fight back. Make enforcement of federal gun laws a felony.

  8. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I’ve always been a ‘glass half full’ kind of person. So, yes. I think we will get these orders and other crud rescinded.

    “If there be trouble, let it be in my time, that my child may have peace”

    It’s why I continue to write, donate, read, try to understand, and fight.

  9. avatar Matt in FL says:

    If you define “fully restored” as the ability to freely purchase and possess the two items mentioned and pictured above, my answer is “not in my lifetime.”

    At the same time, Jim R is right in his comments above, that if all People of the Gun go for is maintaining the status quo and not losing anything, then we will inevitably eventually lose everything. Think of it in terms of the old adage about the eternal battle between weapons and armor, and how in the end, weapons will always win. If we only try to maintain the status quo, we’re the armor. They’ll make it through, and we’ll strengthen the armor, but then they’ll find a way to get through again. Every time they get through, we lose another sliver of liberty, and getting better armor doesn’t get it back, it just delays the loss of the next sliver.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Matt, the adage is that when you find yourself in a hole the most important thing is to STOP DIGGING. or in this case, make THEM stop digging. I think that’s the position we’re in right now – they’ve dug us a hole (trap) and we’re in it. We have to find a way to prevent that hole/trap from getting any deeper, THEN find a way to start filling it in again. I cannot proclaim any specific plan or vision as to how to make that happen, since it will undoubtedly require the help of a large number of people not in the hole, but not digging, turning to our point of view. But the first step is and must be to force them to stop digging or they will reach a point where they will simply start throwing the dirt back in on top of us.

  10. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Not unless they could pass a constitutional amendment saying something along the lines of “the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      This is what makes us so hopeless. We have a constitutional amendment – the most powerful kind of law there is – on or side, and it does nothing for us. All our legal battles are based on other things because those in power sneer at the idea that 2A means what it says.

      All it should take is for a lawyer (actually, it’s so simple that it doesn’t even require a lawyer) to stand up and say, “Is it an “arm”? Then it’s legal.”

      SCOTUS made a major blunder in Heller when they said that 2A doesn’t give us the right to have any kind of gun. As someone who’s never even applied to law school, even I know that unless a law explicitly says something then it’s not law. No judge may make inferences about whether the 2nd Amendment applies to all guns, or whether it applies to all public places, because the amendment doesn’t say that there are circumstances in which it doesn’t apply.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Well I was being ironic, but in all seriousness, no constitution is any stronger than it’s adherents will to adhere to it.

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          I caught your irony. I was just restating how ridiculous it is that those in power refuse to see what the 2nd amendment means.

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          But, but, but, single shot muskets! But, but, but, regulated militia! But, but, but, for the children™!

      2. avatar DrVino says:

        Heller’s reference to ‘reasonable restrictions’ stems from Miller.

  11. avatar stateisevil says:

    No, not with full auto’s, the Hollywood misconception is too strong and the desire to own them is too weak. Our rights are based in too large a part on cultural considerations, that is, how many people enjoy the gun hobby and what people feel they need for self defense. While a small caliber full auto would be very nice for self defense for many people, these same people are more than content with semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns. And really, semi-auto is more effective in many situations. They don’t see the “need” for it.

    The gun movement is making a little headway on suppressors, overcoming the anti’s lies and Hollywood misconceptions.

    Also, why in the world is gun grabber Bush’s “Import Ban” still in effect 20 years later? I don’t see how it would survive in today’s climate, in a post-Heller world.

  12. avatar Gary Slider says:

    Things have opened up in some ways for those with firearms. States allowing Concealed Carry etc but only see it moving in the other direction. Things will get more restrictive one state at a time. This restriction and then another little restriction and someday it will be very difficult to even own a firearm. Reason I say this is the direction our country is moving in. I can remember when I could walk into my little local hardware store and clunk down some money and walk out with 22 rifle, Shotgun or even a deer rifle. No paperwork nothing. I was only 16.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      ” States allowing Concealed Carry etc…”
      Gary, the complacency when stating or writing this phrase is what is the main problem we need to work against. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that gives the federal or state governments the authority to allow, or disallow concealed carry. To assume that there is such authority is to agree that the Second Amendment is NOT a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right, but a privilege granted by the government at its own discretion. Until we defeat that exact concept we will NOT take this right back from those who have stolen it from us.

  13. avatar anglosaxongamer says:

    Until we get civvy XM 25 ownership, I say it’s not over.

  14. avatar Hal J. says:

    We might eventually repeal the ’86 ban on newly manufactured machine guns, but the odds are very much against it.

    We will never again have the right to purchase a full auto through the mail, as we did until 1934.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I’m going to be very optimistic here and say the ’86 ban is going to virtually meaningless in about 20 years when additive manufacturing allows everyone with $150 – $400 to be their own manufacturer.

      1. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:

        +1

      2. avatar Layne says:

        Irrelevant. Lots of people with skills and tools could already make illegal machine guns. A few do and they go to prison for decades, which is why most don’t. But you propose that if thousands of people without skills or tools can suddenly make machine guns, they’ll just stop enforcing the laws concerning them? I seriously doubt that. It will only strengthen their resolve, much like the war on drugs.

    2. avatar karlb says:

      While it is true that we can no longer purchase machine guns as could be done prior to 1934, there are other ways that the 2nd is much healthier than it was in ’34. Think of the large number of people who were kept from owning firearms at that time because of race and ethnicity. If I remember my history correctly, the NRA at that time supported keeping minorities from owning weapons.

      Depending upon the way that we look at it, we could say that there has been a great liberalizing of the laws concerning gun ownership–though that perspective still isn’t going to get me some of the guns I would love to own.

  15. avatar MothaLova says:

    Might was well push for it. Since we’ll never get everything we want, we should demand twice as much as we do now and we might end up getting a quarter or more of it.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Correct! THAT is the art of skillful negotiating.

    2. avatar Keith M says:

      ^
      Don’t just go for concealed carry, go for open carry and/or Constitutional carry.
      Eventually you may get them all, but two out of three ain’t bad.

  16. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I don’t think we will see major changes in my lifetime and I have quite a ways to go before I take a long dirt nap. We might see a few minor changes, but I believe with the changing demographics of the country, “education” and a few other areas we will lose ground. This means pro 2A organizations need to go on the offense. Defense is a losing game. Offense means attacking bad legislation, court battles, elections and taking the demographics that are not as 2A friendly to the range. Teach them about self defense and safety. That way we can elect more pro-2A people who will be less likely to vote for garbage liberty killing legislation. Once that legislation is in place, it takes an act of god to remove it.(ie. NFA, GCA, FOPA with Hughes amendment)

  17. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

    Nope. We are always on the defense and never play any offense. The gun rights groups file suits when there is a denial of some sort. What about all the old garbage laws that are on the books? I know defense wins championships but those same teams also play offense.

  18. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    Doubtful, really, unless we take initiative against the media and stop falling into the stereotypes they set for us. We keep putting the egg on our own face instead of pushing forward and crushing the stereotypes

  19. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Tbh I’m not comfortable with people owning machine guns for a lot of reasons. I think most people could live without a fun switch. I also fear that easier access to full auto would be something that criminals would opt for more often than not. Weapons like tge uzi and mac 10 were cheap to make because they were open bolt guns. I didn’t like the way ATF manhandled gun makers who made them but I believe I understand the reason. Is it elitist? Probably. I know I’m gonna take flac for this so go easy on me. I think everything else in gun design (silencers, SBRs, etc.) are fine, but I’m iffy on unrestricted fun switches.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’m not comfortable with people owning machine guns

      I’m not comfortable with your comfort having anything to do with what I can and cannot own.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Um, criminals already HAVE machine guns…

      1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        Not really actually. Full autos have always made up a statistically irrelevant percentage of all gun crime. Movies and the media may tell a different story, but even during the gangster era of prohibition and Miami in the 80’s actual full autos turned up quite rarely.

        1. avatar Chucky says:

          So, let’s apply this logic to BigRed’s comment. When full-auto guns were not regulated they were hardly used by criminals, why then do we need the regulations?

        2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          I agree with you. In fact, before the ’86 closure of the registry I believe 0 people were murdered with legally owned MG’s. Even since then the total number is 4 or 5.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        Not really, actually…

        Yes, despite TV and movies loving to show the bad guys running around emptying their full-auto assault rifles complete with high-capacity banana style magazine clips, such occurrences in the real world are extremely rare. But more to the point, if criminals WANTED full-automatic, they would have them. If they thought the utility would outweigh the risk of federal prosecution they would have them. They’re CRIMINALS! The only reason they do not use full automatic is that for most of their criminal activities it is an entirely unnecessary tool and an added risk. In gang wars of the prohibition era or mass bank robberies of the depression this was not necessarily true, but for today’s gangs and criminals the intimidation factor of the weapon is more important than its rate of fire since they are REALLY hoping, in most cases, that they don’t have to actually shoot anyone to get what they want, much less fire off long bursts of full auto.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Criminals can’t make automatic guns appear out of thin air by wishing. If automatics become more prevalent, you WILL see them being used by criminals: see, Mexico.

          The machineguns regulation has served its purpose fairly well in the United States.Whether that purpose is worth the infringement on the 2nd Amendment is another story.

    3. avatar stateisevil says:

      Hey big red, screw you. Disgusting.

    4. avatar Anmut says:

      Look, DiFi reads and comments at TTAG!

  20. avatar TX says:

    Frankly, never. Circa 1968 NFA laws is about as far as firearms laws will ever “roll back”, and even that has about a .0000001% chance of occurring.

  21. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Quite the contrary, I believe they have been fully surrendered, along with the vast majority of our other god given and contitutionally protected rights. Its death by a thousand cuts here in the good ol’ USSA.

    Its further accelerated when the Pro 2A crowd tears itself apart from within, becasue they cant help but be critical of how other americans are excercising their rights.

    The only way this republic, the constitution, and our rights are fully restored is if they are taken back at the tip of the spear.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If the gungrabbers get their way, the tip of a spear is all we’ll have.

      1. avatar Ross says:

        Ralph,

        Durning the gun ban in Australia in 96, spear guns (diving) were also banned, so we won’t have the spear either, don’t about you but I’ll be going with the tried and true Katana.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Archery can be a fun sport. Especially with broadheads.

  22. avatar Jim says:

    I think there will be a national CCW permit at some point which would hopefully force even the most restrictive areas into compliance. I dont really have a problem with background checks as they are now. I do know of at least one person that was denied a CCW permit based on past drug convictions that continues to be a drug user and fairly heavy drinker, so maybe that person should not carry a firearm. I can’t imagine a return to pre ’68 laws as there is just too much hysteria surrounding the entire issue of guns and there are a lot of ignorant folks out there that let their TV’s do their thinking for them. If I could have my own choice of what laws I would lime to see change they would be national CCW and get rid of the idiotic SBR and SBS rules.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “I think there will be a national CCW permit at some point…”

      There already is one. It’s called a badge. What could possibly go wrong with that?
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-forgets-gun-plane-article-1.1497382

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Aww… a .38 revolver. How quaint!

        Seriously, though, while I’ve no real problem with a detective armed on a ‘plane, I’ve a real problem with armed idiots anywhere.

        Idiot he is, because unless “they” forgot to mention an attempted skyjacking, why in Blue Hell was his gun out of its holster?!?

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          “Idiot he is, because unless “they” forgot to mention an attempted skyjacking, why in Blue Hell was his gun out of its holster?!?”

          And that was my point. And God help you if that cowboy used his weapon in the plane at altitude. Ever hear of explosive decompression?

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Ever hear of explosive decompression?

          Yeah, but a gunshot won’t cause that. The hole is waaaaaaaaaay too small.

        3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Yes; drilled for it, too. Pilot, y’know.

          It’s not so bad as that, actually; a lot of Hollywood and not so much realism are the public idea of DC, but mostly it ranges from embarrassing as one craps oneself (because the intestines are suddenly way overpressure with relation to ambient) to debilitating agony if one has a lot of trapped gas.

          That’s why MRE menus featuring the “bean component” are not permitted for consumption on aircraft. Seriously.

          Oh, you’d get some damaged eardrums and nosebleeds, but noone sucked through a window.

          Besides, modern windows are pretty damned tough.

          In some older ‘planes, though, a round in just the wrong place can compromise a critical system such as landing gear or concievably the rear engine in a tri-jet and cause some real ickyness.

          In theory, one shot just wrong can bring down a ‘plane, but it’s a billion to one shot thanks to redundant systems and lots of not-do-bad places for a shot to go. In other words, not worth considering from a commercial perspective but still something the FAA has to take into account.

          While a slug hitting a blade just wrong, causing a fracture and a fan flying apart with the pieces shredding the hydraulics, rods and cables is technically possible, it’s like winning lotto five times in a row.

          So far, it’s only happened twice in a row, so we’re “safe.”

          Personally, though, I think frangible should be required for in-air carry, but that’s just me.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        “I think there will be a national CCW permit at some point…”

        There already is one – it’s called the Second Amendment. See my commentary above. If we agree that any government authority has the power to issue a permit before we can exercise our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights then we are agreeing that they are NOT natural, civil and Constitutionally protected, but privileges granted to us by a (hopefully) benevolent government and subject to restriction or repeal by that government.

        1. avatar Jim says:

          While I fully agree with you, numerous states and jurisdictions see things differently. I cannot imagine the day coming when all firearm restrictions are wiped off the books and unlicensed open or concealed carry is acceptable to all. With that in mind I find that a national CCW permit would be an acceptable alternative.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          Jim,
          Of course you are right. I went through the process of getting the illegal Washington CPL because I know they can put me in jail if I didn’t. They have all the power and they have cooked the laws so that it looks like what they are doing is legal. If there was a national CCW I would probably jump through the hoops and apply for that, then find some cow manure to eat to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

          The sad fact is that until we can figure out how to get real conservatives back in control of all three branches of the federal government there is zero chance that any of these unconstitutional violations of the Bill of Rights will be reversed or repealed. I can’t really see the SCOUTUS having the balls to really and truly address this issue – Heller proved that.

          I cannot see any bloodless way this can ever be resolved. “The tree of Liberty…blood of patriots”, as stated by Jefferson. We may well be approaching that point.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        There are some jurisdictions- Hawaii, for example- that try and make it as restrictive as possible to carry a firearm, despite federal law for police officers.

        It’s because of these places I doubt that there will ever be a national conceal permit, unfortunately… though I’ve yet to figure out how we can have driver’s licenses forcibly honored but not a CWP.

  23. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    I can imagine it and see it as possible, but it’s not likely.

    Fully automatic weapons simply frighten too many people to come back en masse short of a revolution either in politics or police effectiveness.

    We must accept that this tyrany by the majority will continue into the firseeabe future, although I like it not one whit. We’ll likely have daily domestic drone strikes ere we’ve free access to superguns.

    As to background checks, that’s another matter. While 2A extends Constitutional protection to the right to keep and bear arms, it does not guarantee speedy and simple purchases of same.

    While they’re not a panacea, they likely do some good and as intended are a hinderance only to those who’ve had free exercise of certain rights curtailed through due process. Granted, the system is flawed and prone to misuse, but it is not unconstitutional.

    Laws specifically preventing or causing unreasonable delay to the acquisition or deployment of arms in whole or by subclass, on the other hand… methinks they violate both the letter and spirit of the highest law o’ the land.

    NFA is borderline at best. After all, keep and bear is permitted under it, and the levying of taxes is permitted under the Constitution.

    Hell, once upon a time one could be jailed for failure to pay [Constitutionally mandated] poll taxes.

    NFA stinks, true, but it’s legal — at least insofar as a bloke in Utah wishing to acquire a machinegun made in Wyoming is concerned.

    Legislation on the parts of various States to tell the Feds that intrastate commerce is none of their damned business constitute the promise of a [partial] return to sanity, but New Jersey, Connecticut, N.Y.C, Калифорния and so on are a powerful negative as well.

    I don’t see this ending without either the blood hitting the walls or an ED209 standing in every doorway.

    Sorry.

  24. avatar vioshi says:

    Yes but it’s the same dream where I become the supreme benevolent dictator. My first act is to throw out all gun laws and tax code. second convert the White House bowling lanes in to a shooting range.

  25. avatar Akira says:

    I think it’s possible that gun prohibition can go the way of alcohol prohibition.

    The only question is whether or not it will take a hellish period of trying to effectively ban them all before people finally come around and realize that banning guns solves nothing and creates a plethora of new problems.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      You are apparently not familiar with the ridiculous restrictions on alcohol that are still in place (production, sales, shipping), or that most of them are still left over from the Volstead act.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Very true, Blinky, but the right to manufacture and sell alcoholic beverages (there was never a prohibition against consumption) was never part of the Bill of Rights. It was an add-on amendment that was later repealed. That turned the regulation of alcohol back to a state’s rights issue.

        As for the Bill of Rights, we will know the battle is on when they are successful in repealing or revising ANY of the first ten amendments. Unlike all subsequent amendments that are generally procedural, the Bill of Rights is, and was intended to enumerate those basic natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights that no government entity was authorized to control or repeal.

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          I view alcohol as a religious freedom protected under the 1st amendment.

          In all seriousness, I agree with you, but I also think there are some post BOR amendments that hold equal importance. I’d use the 13th and 19th as examples.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Hey, isn’t Ganja a Rasta sacrament? %-}

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    Guys, if you look at what’s happened since 1985 when Florida passed its “shall issue” law, then take into account that 40 other states are now shall issue — even Illinois! — then take into account Heller, McDonald, Shepard and a lot of other cases, the recalls in Colorado and the fact that even Traitor Joe Manchin is pulling out of the gun control game and you will see that we are winning, and winning big.

    Laws like Clinton’s AWB were the libturds’ attempt to hold the line against the Second Amendment, and it finally failed. The fact that no new gun control measures came out of Congress even after Newtown proves the point.

    I’m not arguing against vigilance or continuing the fight, and I’m not claiming that the NFA is going to be repealed. What I am saying is that the disarmament lobby is rending its garments over its inability to get anything done.

    The only think the Democrats have left is Bloomberg’s money. After we drain Bloomberg’s discretionary spending account, the field will be ours and ours alone. Let his wallet die the death of a thousand cuts, or let him drop dead. Either one works for me.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Um, why not both?

    2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Oh snap. Ralph and I agree again.

    3. avatar stateisevil says:

      Well said Ralph. While NFA will never be repealed, at this rate I think the day may come when the average person will be able to carry a concealed handgun, maybe even a (shriek) openly (oohhh myyy god!) carried handgun in Central Park. If we keep fighting.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        On the day that Open Carry is legal for any American citizen in Central Park, on THAT day I will consider visiting New York and walking in that park. Not before. Same goes for Golden Gate park in San Francisco.

    4. avatar benny says:

      +100
      I’m fairly optimistic about this. if Illinois can be shall issue, then i have hope for Kommiefornia. Once Bloomy’s money is gone and Feinstein is gone, California MAY come back to sanity. not that im gonna put my money on that horse, but seriously, think about it!!! The anti gun’s modus opperandi has been used, proven worthless, and USED AGAIN!!! They keep using the SAME DAMN TACTICS that have already proven useless to them. in short, they are running out of ideas. Newtown was their ONE AND ONLY chance to get feel-good legislation passed at a federal level and it failed. Naturally (screw natch) they then passed it in their own states where it would ACTUALLY pass. There is no federal battleground now. we will never see another Clinton style AWB get signed by congress again and THAT speaks volumes to me. even the UN treaty was given the finger by congress, much to Kerry’s dismay. Now the only fields of battle left are in the the states and courts.
      any victory, no matter how small, is still a victory.

    5. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      Once the NPIC (new pinko in charge) takes hold of the reins in NYC, Bloomy will be less than a historical footnote down the road. DeBlasio doesn’t have his juice or his bankroll.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Doesn’t mean a petty tyrant like Bloomberg will just go away, just because he is not mayor any more. George Soros isn’t an elected anything and he certainly delights in throwing his money into Liberal/Progressive/Socialist causes.

    6. avatar jwm says:

      I see it the same way,Ralph. The 68 gca was a wake up call for us. We’ve been fighting ever since and it shows. Shall issue is nearly national now. When I left WV for CA, WV, Ohio and KY were may issue. If we break CA and NYC of the gun control habit we’ve broken the anti gun movement. At that point we may get a shot at doing away with the NFA stuff as well.

      My dream is constitutional carry nationwide.

  27. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    If you want machine guns to be legal, or at least for the NFA registry to be re-opened, you’ll face just a big a fight from certain people in the gun industry as you would from anti’s. All those NFA dealers, collectors and investors aren’t just going to roll over and let that $20,000, 25 year old M-16 drop to a few hundred bucks. Just sayin’.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I am in complete agreement with this statement. I do not for a second believe that most of these collectors will allow their gun advocacy and patriotism to outweigh the protection of their investments. I fully believe this is one group of people for whom the idea of “I got mine, screw the rest of you” is well and truly in force.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

        Diane Feinstein.

        Okay, it was Lenin, but it’s hard to tell one from the other.

        1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Big difference.

          As troubled and troubling as Lenin’s solutions were, they were to a truly unpleasant set of problems. Few of us can imagine Tsarist Russia. For me it’s family history, and I had that history at the knees of people who’d actually been there.

          Feinkenstein on the other hand has systematically worked to impose a New Order™ on a place which was until recently pretty damned cool.

          Hey jwm, care to tell Ralph about what Californa was like?

        2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Come on Ralph; that’s low. Lenin wasn’t nearly that ugly.

  28. avatar ST says:

    We face two problems here.

    Problem one: the culture of our kids is becoming more anti gun by the minute.While we pat ourselves on the back for beating back the current monsters like Obama and Feinstein, we are ignoring the new ones being made every day in public schools across the country.Especially the ones in urban centers all over America.One day, the people who voted for shall issue CCW today will die and their kids will take up a ballot-and those will be kids who grew up in zero tolerance academies where classmates were expelled for even wearing pro gun attire.

    That leads us into Problem Two:The Constitutions only as good as the people who interpret it.As Mexico demonstrates, when the majority of the population is culturally indoctrinated to support civil disarmament, an enumerated right to keep and bear arms is worth a mouse cart.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Teach your children well. That will take care of the first problem. No kid who has been taught to shoot will ever joint the community of gungrabbers.

      The second problem is more, uh, problematic. It’s why the Democrats want to import more and more culturally indoctrinated low-information automatons who will live on government handouts for a generation or two.

      A lot of those new imports will become quite successful despite all the efforts of the Welfare State to keep them captive. But there will always be a relative or two (or a hundred) left behind somewhere to whom the Democrats can pander.

    2. avatar JeffR says:

      Actually, those in their 20’s are surprisingly pro-gun and pro-freedom, despite having grown up in gun free school zones during the assault weapons ban period. It’s the baby boomers who have been the bane of the pro-gun movement.

      1. avatar Brock says:

        +1. All these new gun owners, and there are many, aren’t in their 60s. They are in their 20s and 30s.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          There’s really no way to know this for sure. Pew Research guesses that the largest gun-owning demographic are males 50+.

          http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

        2. avatar Brock says:

          I agree with that assessment. I would guess there are also a higher percentage of boat owners in their 50s than 30s. It’s possible that has more to do with disposable income than political leanings though.

          Of course my sample,size is small, but I know of a lot more new gun owners in my age group (early 30s), than in their 50s(i work with engineers in their 20s up to construction managers in their 60s)The older guys (and girls) have had a long time to come up with their belief systems. A kid fresh out of college is just starting to understand that maybe the real world doesn’t match what their professors told them.

          I was already a gun owner when the slaughter at sandy hook happened, but I know a lot of young professionals who weren’t, and are now. Maybe the group of “skilled” folks I work with isn’t a good representation of the county as a whole, but I have to believe its a sign we are moving in the right direction.

          Kind of off topic. I believe the “everyone gets a trophy” “you are a special snowflake” mentality the libs have been pushing on our children will backfire. It will be painful for them, but these kids will one day, wake up, and understand they’ve been lied to. One day they will realize that they are responsible for themselves and part of that responsibility will be for their own families safety. They will seek out the best tools possible with which to provide that security and safety.

          End rant/

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          So this “Largest gun-owning demographic number” – does that apply to the number of guns owned? If the statistic actually measures the quantity of weapons owned by a particular demographic that would make sense for over 50s to have more disposable income and have had more time to spend it on collecting firearms.

          But what is the statistic when you only ask the question: “Do you own at least ONE gun of any type?”

    3. avatar benny says:

      educate, educate, EDUCATE. those three words can solve most of our problems. Not to mention, have you seen how popular FPS games like Call of Duty and Battlefield are? in some ways, the game industry has done more for firearms freedom than we could have ever hoped for.

  29. avatar the ruester says:

    Actually, Holders’ “brainwashing” isn’t really taking too well, according to all the polls. This, plus the explosion of female ccw’s gives us the momentum socially, but when it comes to nfa I’m afraid only a red dawn type event can convince the majority.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Yes, there is an active effort to convert school children to the anti-gun cause, but how many of them then go home and play FPS video games? I think maybe, hopefully, these brainwashing efforts are a wash. (pun intended.)

  30. avatar Harold says:

    The next time we have Republican control of both Congress and the White House, we need to push hard to get “silencers” i.e. suppressors out of the NFA. I think it is a reasonable step. Hearing protection and decreasing outdoor range “noise pollution” are things lots of people can get behind. Hell, I think once people get used to them, there would be states and localities that would want you to get a special permit to run unsuppressed.

    1. avatar vioshi says:

      This. I think if it was successful it will mean we have the general public thinking logically and rationally about guns.

  31. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    I’m betting on the post-apocalyptic world scenario. Think Mad Max beyond Thunderdome but without Tina Turner.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      MM and RW, sure, but BT? Gods, I hope not.

      I couldn’t hack living in such a poorly written and directed world.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Somebody want to explain to me how they could pump up crude, refine gasoline, keep high performance cars, dune buggy’s and even gyro copters flying but they could not keep muskets working? They had to use bows and swords from the backs of cycles, they couldn’t figure black powder and smoothbores out?

      And don’t get me started on the football shoulder pads and as@less chaps. Mad Max world was truly effed up.

  32. avatar Albaniaaaa says:

    There are a few problems. One is that are a lot of pro-gun people try to curtail freedom in other ways. Gay marriage is an example. Also… The NRA saying video games after Sandy Hook? Come now.

    Another problem is following the unconstitutional laws in the first place. I am a law abiding citizen. I carry in ANY state I please. We need more civil disobedience.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Well, to be fair, I think the criticism of video games is a more broad attack on the hypocrisy of entertainment and media elite’s antagonism of the gun culture. Our legal and responsible ownership of firearms, and the gun industry’s enthusiasm for increasing that ownership, is portrayed as the primary cause of all gun violence in America, while their products, which actually GLORIFY the depraved acts of crime and murder with which we have been charged, are somehow sacrosanct. Not that I agree AT ALL with either of these views, but I can see how a person who has been told that his love of shooting paper targets in an open field makes him responsible for the genocide of children in a schoolhouse might react this way.

  33. avatar Carry.45 says:

    Nope.

  34. avatar Knoxville says:

    One major problem is that the left constantly misuses the word “compromise” and get away with it. To them, compromise means “we want an AWB, magazine restrictions, universal background checks, ammo taxes, etc etc . . . But right now we’ll settle for background checks”. In other words, they get part of what they want & we get nothing.

    A true compromise would be something like expanding background checks to cover private sales while also removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA.

    Note: this isn’t meant to endorse any specific policies, just to note how things should work

  35. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Sure, if the Nullification Movement ever gets any traction:

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I seem to remember that issue being settled by the Civil War.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        That’s what they want you to believe. You can read about nullification in general here and an actual example here.

  36. avatar C says:

    Lets just work on SBR/S’s for now. And maybe suppressors. Boiled frogs and all that.

  37. avatar Jay1987 says:

    We may see them come back one of two ways.
    1) we continue to maintain the initiative from court victories and political victories we’ve had thus far. this scenario relies on us pushing our legislators and groups like the NRA to carry the fight beyond the issues at hand and may take time.
    2) less likely but may as well; this lil cultural hippie bloodless revolution becomes a shooting war much like the civil war. where, due to the feds mucking everything up and over reaching at every chance, the free states secede from the Union. This scenario relies on our side winning due to the military refusing to follow the order to fight and our side being tactically and technically superior.

  38. avatar pat says:

    Well, looking at where gun rights were in the 50’s compared to now, and looking at the long but steady march from may to shall issue to constitutional carry, I say there is hope. We have to win the generational arguments and consistently use facts and classical-liberal philosophical arguments to turn the younger generation pro-2A. It may be hard to get rid of people like pelosi and Finestein via elections, but politicians have lifespans just like everyone else and as the old guard for gun control die off we will slowly but surely continue in the pro-2a and pro-rights direction. Because we are right.

  39. avatar Excedrine says:

    I’m not holding my breath.

    If it does ever happen, which I seriously doubt, it certainly won’t happen in my lifetime. I even doubt it will happen in my grand children’s lifetimes, and that’s assuming there is even an America left for them to inherit.

    Yes, we’ve made some strides lately. Heller, McDonald, and Shepard, while definitely far and away from ideal decisions, were major victories for us. But for every step forward, we end up taking two steps back somewhere. This brings me to the heart of my assessment on this matter.

    The People of the Gun have “compromised” enough with the fascistic regressive liberal demagogues that infest our political arena and our populace. We should not be digging in our heels to hold the line where it is, but to muscle forward every inch we can, everywhere we can, whenever we can, and refuse to give up even a hair’s width anywhere else. We should be the unassailable, impenetrable wall.

    We are going to have to push our opposition right over the proverbial cliff and let them forever wallow in their defeat in order to force them to face reality: our rights are absolutely non-negotiable and you are not going to impugn on our ability to exercise them.

    Our current predicament comes, firstly, from the foolish notion that we can negotiate the limitations of our rights with those who would sooner strip them from us and leave us for dead rather than leave us be at peace and, secondarily, from our willing participation in that otherwise UNLAWFUL process.

    This isn’t about “argument. This is isn’t about “debate”. This isn’t about “compromise”. It never was or will be. This is about complete and total capitulation, and the fascistic regressive liberal demagogues will not stop until they achieve this and ONLY this. It is the ONLY thing that they will ever accept. They can’t get it wholesale, hence why they play the incrementalist game: death by 1,000 cuts.

    We’ve been very slow to catch on to this, and equally reticent to adopt it. But, I think it’s high time we started besting them at their own game. It sucks that we can’t get our rights back wholesale, but chipping away at the chains the fascistic regressive liberal demagogues are trying to bind us with can certainly work.

  40. avatar Chris says:

    First step will be SCOTUS hopefully upholding the Montana firearm freedom act. If it stays inside a states borders the Feds should have no say in it.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Failing the Supremes, there’s always Nullification, like they did in Easton, KS.

  41. avatar Sean says:

    Never going to happen unless the government disappeared.

  42. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Absolutely yes. But only after the American Revolution V3.0.

  43. avatar Michael says:

    Thanks to the NRA and most of the Republican party, you are right, it will never happen. Hence why I, like many others who have come to realize this belong to neither.

    Also to answer your ” comfortableness” with Americans being able to by a select fire with a suppressor, or a belt feed, with a quote from President Jefferson who stated,”I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.” .

  44. avatar JoshuaS says:

    Surprised by the despair seen here.

    Two facts are encouraging. The percentage of people who think handguns should be outlawed has dropped dramatically. It was once a majority (pre-1960’s), and has shrunk since. Indeed, the major “victory” of the NRA in 1934 with the NFA was to get them not to include handguns with machine guns, SBRs, etc. Now there is no threat, in the foreseeable future, to handguns (in general). That is a change.

    The spread of CCW laws and/or their application. Even in California, while it is not much better legally than it was in the 1920’s (always been may issue), there have been steps forward here. 2011, they eased the burden to get a CCW and passed an NRA backed bill…not shall issue, but the numbers speak for themselves. Even before that, there was a jump from 27,000 to 32,000 CA CCW holder in 2010-2011. Now there are about 40,000. And most counties have trended upwards since the 1990’s (in Los Angeles went from 366 permits in 1987 to almost 1300 in 1998, then Baca became sheriff and the number plummeted the next year). Paltry compared to Florida, but still indicative.

    The problem with NFA items, specifically “machine guns” is a mixture of popular conception about them, and simple inertia of the laws. I could imagine the Hughes amendment being overturned or challenged. But at the very least the NFA provisions would remain, if not any new restrictions.

    I rather, frankly, focus on solidifying CCW gains, eroding restrictions in states like New York or California (in that order…at least I don’t need a permit to own a handgun in CA). As far as NFA goes, suppressors and then short barrels, in that order. The former are only feared based on complete BS, and the fact that they are not restricted in Europe speaks volumes. And the SBR/SBS proviso was aimed at concealable firearms, in an era where concealed was associated with criminality. That perception is already change.

    But machine guns? Good luck

  45. avatar Stuck in CA says:

    I think it will be a long and difficult fight, but I think that if we do it right, firearms freedom will be ours. The main issue will definitely be getting the low-information voters on our side. Also, don’t give up on states like California. My Biology teacher was as liberal as they come, but in a discussion in class last year revealed his opposition to gun control. Pretty much the whole class agreed, with a few people in favor of magazine limitations and AWBs, but the overall consensus was pro-2A. Keep in mind this is Silicon Valley, bluest of the blue. All we need to do is show them just how important gun rights are, since I have a feeling most of the people there would grow up to vote for the baddies.

  46. avatar Arod529 says:

    I doubt it, but we keep on fighting anyway.

  47. avatar DerryM says:

    Yes. I can imagine it. It may be awhile yet and there are some major hurdles to overcome, but it could happen.

  48. avatar Michael B. says:

    In the future the government will be so lawless that no one will respect their edicts anymore and just discreetly live their lives as they see fit.

    I imagine that out in some of the more rural parts of the country they already ignore these laws but they just don’t openly talk about it.

  49. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

    The only thing I see partially “restoring” a more robust 2A would involve some sort of grand state/federal bargain along the lines of UBC and Mag Capacity limits in exchange for NFA repeal and nationwide CCW. It would take the Prez, Congress, the mayors of NYC, Chicago, LA, and the Governors of NY, Texas, Florida and CA to all be on board. Other than that, the piecemeal local skirmishes with the occasional D.C. battle will continue.

  50. avatar Robert M says:

    Yes and No. I can’t see us getting to a point were we no longer have to deal with any kind of background check. I can see something like what is happening in a few states right now were you can use a conceal carry permit as proof you have passed the check and no other check is needed.

    Also I can see a relaxing and finally a reopening of the machine gun registry allowing highly regulated Machine Guns to be produced.

    Is it something I can see in my lifetime yes. Do I think we will return to the days were there is zero regulation on the purchase of firearm’s anything is possible but as of right now I can’t see it.

    Thanks
    Robert

    1. avatar Jacob K says:

      What if we had the concept of “shooter registration” – basically take the concept of the CCW permit to the federal level. They check your background very closely, there is a waiting period and what not, but the moment you get it, no more restrictions on possession of firearms apply to you: you can carry concealed, carry openly, possess machine guns, etc., and you’re covered in any state and any federal territory.

  51. avatar Jacob K says:

    1) Restriction on fully automatic weapons goes away.
    Contrary to the common belief, the founding fathers did not intend to grant me the right to own a musket. The founding fathers intended to grant me the right to own the same weapon as the infantrymen of my times.

    2) “One Nation Indivisible?”
    Okay, then national right to carry reciprocity. If I can carry in Tennessee, I can carry in California. And I mean open carry, if I choose to. No, a handgun is not a tool for intimidation. If it was, I’d ask that cops switch to concealed carry.

    3) “Gun free” zones go away.
    If we believe in gun free zones, let’s fire all the TSA personnel and put “bomb free zone” stickers on airplanes. Otherwise, let’s end the “shoot the fish in the barrel” zones for mental individuals. Whoever introduced that concept has the blood of the school shootings victims on his/her hands.

    4) No more restrictions on cosmetic features: pistol grips, vertical front grips, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, flash suppressors. No restriction on “high capacity” magazines. If the AR is meant for a 30 round magazine, than that’s what it come with, if the FNX is meant to come with a 15 rounds of 45 magazine, than that’s what it comes with. The bad guys will print what they want with a 3D printer.

    Possible? Not unimaginable. It would probably require some major gun legislation overhaul that would kill all the old legislation and replace it with completely new legislation, free of the old restrictions.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “founding father did not intend to grant me the right …”

      The Founding Fathers didn’t “grant” anybody any “rights.” The Constitution doesn’t “grant” anybody any “rights.”

      We were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

      The Founding Fathers merely sought to codify and delineate these fundamental human rights and specifically forbid any government from infringing a few of the most important ones.

      You’ve got the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness regardless of what anybody else says about it. (well, you can be overpowered or killed, but that’s what guns are to protect yourself from.)

      1. avatar Jacob K says:

        Oh man, I am pro-gunner and getting hammered by a pro-gunner?
        Okay, founding fathers codified my God-given rights.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Thanks. I just get tired of the meme that somehow a person has to get someone else’s permission to be free.

          So, nothing personal, OK?

        2. avatar Jacob K says:

          No, no, it’s all good.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email