By Chris H.
I knew this feeling. The rush of blood, the tingle of adrenaline surge and the clenching of my jaw. I was headed for a fight, though not a physical altercation; an argument. This is a place I have been many times before as an extroverted (read: loudmouthed) 2A defender. This time was different though, as my opponent wasn’t a gun-grabber or Bloomberg supporter, but a fellow firearm enthusiast. The topic at hand this time was the National Firearms Act and the “necessity” of automatic weapons . . .
I doubt he realized how much he parroted the same talking points and catch phrases our friends at Everytown for Gun Safety have been spouting for years: “No one needs an automatic weapon”. At least he didn’t realize until I pointed it out to him. I find it hard to resist pointing out hypocrisy. It was in this moment I had an epiphany: The disarmament movement is a strong and resolute one. They’re fervent and unified in their objective and we must strive to be as well if we are to cease the erosion of our rights. Divisiveness is a fissure that grows until it breaks under the unending pounding of a sea of opposition.
They aren’t coming for your guns and they likely won’t. Not now. They aren’t really gun grabbers in the sense that they’re snatching them in a quick action. Rather the disarmament movement has taken the time-tested route of rights restriction: gradual erosion. With very few exceptions the rights of any group aren’t taken in one fell swoop but rather worn away through “common sense” measures or under the guise of being for the “greater good.” Unfortunately these concepts and ideas have burrowed into our own ranks as I discovered in my recent discussion.
This erosion is how we have gradually lost our 2A rights. The NFA of 1934 started the modern gun control restrictions by levying a prohibitively high tax ($200 was a huge sum in 1934) on automatic weapons which effectively banned them by means of financial exclusion. This came on the heels of organized crime-caused by Prohibition.
Next came the licensing of interstate dealers and recording sales. The Safe Streets Act (you have to love the names politicians come up with, as if not supporting this meant you wanted dangerous streets) and the Gun Control Act further restricting firearm sales and increasing the age to purchase and own handguns. These restrictions were brought on by the assassinations of President Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. The list goes on, but the theme is always the same. Little restrictions here and there brought on right after a tragic event. Waves crashing against boulders crack and break.
‘No one needs a FILL IN THE BLANK, therefore they should be banned/regulated/taxed etc.’ The blank can be used for open carry, silencers/suppressors, automatic weapons, or “high capacity” magazines. We’ve all heard them ad nauseam. But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with need or want; it’s all about natural rights and freedom. The freedom to defend life, liberty and property. If you are going to support your own 2A freedom, you better well be prepared to support the rights of your fellow Americans whether you agree with them or not. Pieces of those once-strong boulders will break into sand and cease to exist.
We aren’t likely to retain public support by winning over the hearts and minds of the gun grabbers. Rather we must retain as much of our own and gain new supporters from the ranks of the undecided. Admittedly this is a daunting task, but one that’s been at the forefront because of issues like open carry. Open carry has been a divisive topic, even for 2A supporters, but again we gain support for our cause when we support open carry even if we choose not to do so. Open carry has forced many people to recognize that firearms are all around them and have been for a long time, albeit concealed. Now they can see that the presence of a firearm doesn’t create an unsafe environment or dangerous situation. We now are able to erode the fear that gun grabbers use on the masses.
We must stand together and draw a line in the sand if we are to retain the rights we have left. We can then move to retake what we’ve lost by, for instance, introducing legislation like the Hearing Protection Act. “Shall not be infringed” wasn’t chosen by accident. Rights that are given up are not easily recovered. I am not saying you must change your beliefs or opinions, far from it, but remember this: When we advocate or allow the limiting of a right because we don’t agree with it or see the need, we are ultimately restricting our own rights as well and inviting further restriction.
First they came for the automatic weapons, and I did not speak out-
Because no one needs an automatic weapon.Then they came for the high capacity magazines, and I did not speak out-
Because no one needs 30 rounds.Then they came for the guns, and I did not speak out-
Because no one needs a gun.Then they came for our rights, and I did not speak out-
Because I was no longer free.
My personal attitude
….they don’t get one more gun, bullet, or piece of equipment….we fight for every one of them. There is no compromise with the anti gunners…….they use any attempt to compromise as an admission on our part that they are right….and take more with each compromise…
Wish that had been the attitude when they came for 7n6 and no one raised a stink and it was brushed under the rug.
I did. I spoke out against it, but not enough people did. I’m sure the OP did the same as me, given his current attitude.
We speak…then ignored. Anti’s win because they incur no cost. Politicians may loose an election, or resign thus preserving the party seat while paymasters float them until employed. An avocate collects coin, mocks citizens then moves to another cause.
Only when they cannot bare the cost of their tyranny will they stop. Only non violent way is the vote. The alternative…an eye, a limb or a limp…if the safety is off, we’re no better than the ones we defend ourselves against.
This is why we need school choice/vouchers as to ensure we can educate kids on the rights,role of the state and inoculate the youth against their lies.
“Never give up, never surrender!”
Additionally we need to constantly push to undo what they have done to us with past legislation. Removing silencers from the NFA looks like a good place to start, after all this is nothing more than a piece of safety equipment. After we succeed there we can working on getting rid of the ridiculous short barrel rifle piece of NFA.
All of the above will push the anti-gunners into more and more lunatic behavior, which in turn will continue to help our movement!
Agreed. I am still trying to understand how an AR 15 with 10 inch upper is so much more dangerous than one with a “legal” 16 inch one.
I’m still trying to understand how the SBR policy hasn’t been framed as sexist.
Wait a minute!
Coumo had a multi-color banner for the table he would sign it on already ready when this bill was so important that the normal 3-day review period didn’t apply (I believe he signed it within 30 minutes of passing)?
Clearly they spent more time preparing for their victory than letting people review what this bill was actually about.
Dirt bags…
Easy. The antis keep wanting to mandate traing, well just don’t mandate it, make it mandatory. You can call it the militia for a free state act. Hook it into selective service and have the military provide training. Require basic small arms training for EVERY one ages 18-24. Use federal funds, and tie it to the National Guard funding to keep states from backing out ( can’t make it mandatory for each state, limits on federal powers and all that)
I count 27 words and no mention of a training requirement. We won’t win by “compromising” on what would be the biggest infringement yet.
First, why do we have a second amendment? Look at the first part “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Regulated it this context means trained and equipped. And who is the Militia, all able body adult individuals.
Second, I will agree with you on not making training “mandatory”, but if you want any federal benefits, you will be qualified a well “regulated” member of the Militia. And I think in this context that we can agree that it is a good place to spend tax dollars.
There are two grammatically correct ways to read that clause. I honestly don’t know which is the intent.
The first is the way you cited it, and I agree that is correct. We’re all the militia, and we’re directed to be well regulated, well trained and equipped. I agree.
The second, which I also agree with, is in a more verbose summary: a well related militia is required for a free state, that militia being the very entity the people must defend AGAINST through force of arms.
The state requires a militia to operate, but what are we to do when that required militia becomes the instrument of oppression?
And I wouldn’t agree on the best use of taxes because 1) the constitution is pretty clear on what the government can spend money on, and that ain’t it and 2) roughly 90% of the federal government’s revenue is unconstitutional in the first place.
I agree there are a lot of problems with the Federal government, but that is not the argument here. The best way to protect the seconded amendment is to get people to exercise it. That is not going to happen unless they learn to shoot. So why not leverage the Militia part to accomplish that.
You could also argue that schooling kids should not be legally required, but I would not want to live in that country. People need to be trained on their rights, not just told them.
The government can’t be trusted to train anyone on their rights. Not just our government, ANY government. Because part of a government’s job is to restrict the rights of its citizens.
Take an ideal benevolent government, one that truly only exists to protect its people from foreign invaders. Even then, in performing that function, some rights would be traded for that blanket of security. It’s not evil, it just is.
Then you’d ask that government to educate its citizens on what they’re giving up in order for the government to function?
“There are two grammatically correct ways to read that clause. I honestly don’t know which is the intent.”
The intent was argued in the Federalist Papers and in the wording of the state constitutions at the time.
Case. *Closed*.
The federalist papers actually suggest the second meaning. Though they do it more eloquently than I.
I’m sorry peirsonb, but you put way too much faith in individuals. The truth of the matter is most people could care less about their freedom. The only way to ensure out continued freedoms in to create institutions that promote them. The goverment is a very good way to create those institutions. Even if they were private, they would still be preforming the same actions as the goverment.
You do recognize the irony in forcing people to learn about freedom, right?
No irony at all. If you teach everyone that the emperor it divine you end up with pre WW2 Japan. What, do you think it is genetic or something in the water that makes the US special? If you really think that freedom comes without learning and training, God help us all, because surely nothing on this earth will.
Also get over it, everything is “forced” on you one time or another. I think about what happens if you never “force” a child to do anything. Let the kids chose if they go to school. Good laws train and force people what to do. Run a red light and get a ticket. Murder someone and go to jail. Do you really think your sense of freedom and rights were your idea? I hate to brake it to you, but they came from some unbelievably smart individuals over 200 years ago. And how much history before them did it take for those ideas to grow.
Nitpicking, but freedom absolutely comes without training. Otherwise we wouldn’t call it God given or natural. The CONCEPT of freedom may require training, but God help us when we rely on the government to teach it. That’s the family’s job.
Face it, decades of relying on the government to teach the concept is why the current crop of young voters overwhelmingly support democratic socialism, because it’s somehow better when you vote it in.
OK, I realize you probably don’t understand why i’m pushing training so much. Has to do with a little thing called the English Longbow and little document called the Magna Carta and why the 2nd amendment even exists (hit, there is a reason it mentions Militias). Nice web article for your reading.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/12/the_real_second_amendment.html
Oh, there is NO WAY the English bowman would ever exist if it was left up to the family
Your argument, above, was that the government has to teach people about freedom. The article, and your argument along with it, discusses the government training people in use of arms. Two separate arguments.
In either event, remember that the Magna Carta did nothing for the guy holding the bow. It did a whole lot for the guy who owned the guy holding the bow. Sure, their system of government evolved, but that’s where they started.
Also that article reinforces the point that the federal government shouldn’t be the one doing the training. The closest parallel you could draw within that context would be that it should be up to the states, that would be our closest analogue to a feudal system.
I agree with Binder. He did not say the training was in any way even related to the right to keep and bear, he just said the training should be required for everyone, 18-24. Mix in that it should be paid for by the taxpayer. I’d say it also should be annual for that 6-year period. They’re big on training? Here you go, how’s this? Is it necessary or is it not? And it should be paid for by those mandating it, right?
Maybe I’m missing the first point, I do struggle with comprehension occasionally: if training is required how does it not affect the right to keep and bear arms?
As far as the second point, our government already spends money on too many things they’re not allowed to. Now we’d like to add something their outright prevented from doing?
If you want to mandate training, leave the Second Amendment alone. Mandate a requirement for a minimum of 8 weeks of non branch specific, military basic training (male and female) between the junior and senior years of high school in order to receive a diploma. This would include pistol and rifle training and qualification.
I have no use for the draft since IMO it violates the 13th Amendment: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States…” But I have no problem with mandatory basic training without a requirement to further, involuntary, military service. If a person wishes to choose a branch and volunteer for further MOS specialized training after graduation they would be prepared to enter service with minimal refresher requirement.
There is no other right protected by The Bill of Rights that requires or authorizes government mandated training before that right may be exercised. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for such mandate regarding the Second Amendment.
I like the requirement for high school diploma, but I can already hear the complaints from the parents. I never wanted to imply that you “needed” your training for exercising you second amendment, just that training itself was required if you qualified for selective service, but if you received the training in high school you would be exempt. However, what would be a nice carrot is to go with the Swiss model and issue AR15s after successful completion with monthly access to range and ammo to practice. You could also provide 9mm NATO for personally owned handguns.
If we had mandatory gun training in this country, then the average gun owner would be as competent as the average car driver is on the streets. “Car training” is mandatory (or close enough) and almost universal, and look how well people drive. Do you really want our gun ranges to be the same as our highways and interstates?
The Swiss survive it perfectly fine.
You’re not really “free” if you have a homicide rate higher than africa and south america.
Your not really “free” if you have congressmen and politicians that are constantly bribed and owned by freedom-oppressive tyrants like the NRA and other “gun rights” groups.
Your not really “free” if you were aware that you are 50X more likely to commit suicide or murder a loved one with your own firearm than stop a criminal attack.
Still to this very day.
I still don’t see europe, japan or australia turning into orwellian nightmares.
That was the most awesome post I’ve seen here. I hope you never get to experience what your ignorance of history says is coming.
European election candidate was quoting an anti-Islamic passage from Winston Churchill book when he was arrested
In Japan they can arrest and hold you for a week, an the local cops will stop by once or twice a year to interview you.
You’re ignorant if you don’t know how terrible Nippon’s police and the standards they treat citizens by are.
You’re blind if you don’t see what’s going on in Europe.
Care to post any links to credible studies that provide evidence supporting your assertions? Oh right, trivial shit like facts and non-biased studies don’t fit the narrative.
Your comment about the NRA and other similar groups owning politicians and exerting their influence on the legal system cracks me up. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY MILLIONS OF GUN OWNERS DONATE MONEY TO THESE GROUPS. The whole purpose of a gun rights organization is to further the cause. They are not some evil group of rich business men trying to push for firearms freedoms against our will, just guys like me contributing what they can to help keep and expand our freedoms.
If you think Europe, Japan, and Australia are so great, pack your shit and move there.
So the 3 defensive gun uses that occurred in my parents’ home means those guns are now 150 times as likely to do something bad, right, Willy? ‘Cuz your imaginary statistics say so?
And have you actually ever looked at a genuine statistic on how the USA compares to the murder rates on the continents you mention?
Oh crap, feeding a troll… sorry folks.
You’re not really “free” if you have a homicide rate higher than africa and south america.
You can’t compare what are two large continents to what is an individual country, the United States. And most of our homicides occur in the inner cities due to gang violence, which itself is a product of many factors that has nothing to do with guns.
Your not really “free” if you have congressmen and politicians that are constantly bribed and owned by freedom-oppressive tyrants like the NRA and other “gun rights” groups.
The NRA is a civil rights organization, the largest in America. It is not an industrial lobby. The gun manufacturing industry is very tiny. There is no way it could have such influence on the American government. What gives the NRA its influence are the American people. The NRA’s influence is thus not an example of our system of democratic government being hijacked but rather said system of democratic government functioning exactly the way that it is supposed to.
Your not really “free” if you were aware that you are 50X more likely to commit suicide or murder a loved one with your own firearm than stop a criminal attack.
This is an age-old claim that has been refuted ad nauseum. You are going by the assumption that “stopping a criminal attack” entails shooting and killing the criminal. But the reality is that most defensive gun uses do not involve killing anybody, or even shooting anybody for that matter. As such, you are more likely to use your gun to defend yourself/family then to murder a loved one or commit suicide.
And two things on those; for one, the suicide rate has nothing to do with the number of guns in society. Japan for example has virtually no guns and yet has a higher suicide rate than the United States, and they have a sizeable population (120 million). In addition, why is it people always want to subject guns to these statistics? If you own a swimming pool, you and/or your child are statistically more likely to drown in it. If you own a multistory home, you’re more likely to fall down the stairs and paralyze yourself or die. If you own a sports car, you’re more likely to be killed speeding. And so forth.
Still to this very day.
I still don’t see europe, japan or australia turning into orwellian nightmares.
You do not have near the rights in those countries with regards to law enforcement and government surveillance that you do in the United States. And just because a country lacks the protection of a right and hasn’t become an Orwellian nightmare doesn’t mean said right shouldn’t still be vigorously protected. You do not have a protected right to free speech in the United Kingdom, but the U.K. isn’t Orwellian at the moment, but that doesn’t mean the right should not continue to be vigorously protected here.
You’re wasting your time. In order to recognize an “Orwellian nightmare” he’d have to first recognize that it IS a nightmare, rather than an ideal.
Well stated, sir. Bravo.
I still don’t see europe, japan or australia turning into orwellian nightmares.
Europe is doing a good job of it.
I’d call it more Mohammedan, but yeah, still a nightmare…
Now for the reality check. Looking at Wikipedia’s page on homicide rates by country, the U.S. has a rate of 3.8/100k. Africa as a whole has a rate of 12.5/100k, and South America had a rate of 22.7.
That’s reality, Willy. I hope some day you’ll join us here.
Willy, you are familiar with Google searches, are you not? It would not seem evident based on the BS in your comment, all of the supposed statistics which can be refuted in minutes by simple Internet queries. Many of the South American countries, especially Brazil, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Colombia have homicide rates dramatically higher than the U.S. Suicide rates, which have been discussed here many times, are not directly related to the availability of firearms except that even suicidal people will choose the most efficient tool available to them and many of the 100 million or so homes in America that have firearms have not and will never see a family member injured or killed by any of the 300+ million firearms stored in those domiciles.
And as for the NRA (of which I am not a member) and other “gun rights” groups, how in the world are they suppressing freedom when they are all voluntary organizations working for the Second Amendment protected rights of ALL Americans, not just those who decide to join and participate?
You sir are a fool.
Europe, Japan, and Australia are very Orwellian if you look into it. In Germany, for example, you can be fined and bought to trial for speech the government deems “hateful”. Yes, Nazi propaganda is offensive but it shouldn’t be banned or regulated.
In Australia, internet connections are routinely throttled and monitored for objectionable content “for the good of society”.
Japan? All that and more, except they are super-crazy 100%.
All these societies are also huge on warrantless surveillance.
I’m currently working on a letter to all 20 Republican primary candidates for my district and state’s senate seat (Neither office has an incumbent running for it). Got everything I wanted to say down to one page and I’ll send it in as soon as I hear back from the people I showed it to for copy-editing.
“Nobody needs and automatic weapon”
Whenever someone says this I tell them I’m sure none of the victims of EO9066 needed an automatic when the cripple’s goon squad broke down their door for having the wrong ancestry.
By way of editing, you have one too many “d”s in that sentence.
I don’t get it.
Whenever someone says I don’t need an automatic, I point to the victims of EO9066 who were jailed indefinitely without trial for being the wrong race.
I’ve got a 1 page (barely managed to fit everything) letter demanding a pledge of NFA repeal to send to all 20 primary contenders for my district’s representative and Florida’s senate seat (none of whom are incumbents for that office.) I’m sending as soon as I hear back from some people I asked to help proofread it.
If Empress Clinton is elected, the long game will be over and the vicious gungrabbing will begin.
Laws don’t matter to that female crime lord. She thinks that she can get away with anything, and I’m not sure she’s wrong.
Extortion, murder, perjury, sedition, and probably treason so far. I’d wager you’re right.
If that FLAME DELETED Hillary is elected, it will be war because of a complete failure of Justice.
I believe many people are done eating FLAME DELETED from the elite. It is time they DELETED.
No there wont, because all thing being even, America is still better than almost anytime in its history. And don’t give me any of that 50s crap, the truth is we were is such bad shape (never mind the rest of the world) that all the improvements looked fantastic., Oh the 60s, with the US and Russia scared shitless that some 3rth wold crap would start the bombs flying. 40s – WW2 30s- Great Depression, 20, maybe, but I like my current life expectancy, before that ww1 and then things just kind of sucked.
Some things that the Antis keep forgetting. If we create a situation where the bad guys would be thinking,” this guy or gal could be carrying so I better not mess with them”, then I believe the crime rate would take a serious hit. Since they know that the majority of people are not carrying, hence their courage to do whatever they want. I wonder what it’s going to take for educated people to understand that simple fact. It’s perception more than anything else that is our protection with our 2A rights intact. If the erosion continues, then the bad guys will not have to worry about law-abiding citizens defending themselves, they’ll be able to just grind us into the ground before a cop will show up. Then it’ll take them days to figure out what happened and the victims will wind up being treated like suspects. Be prepared to defend you and yours and chances are, you’ll survive any attack.
The “Gun Control Act” is accurately named but we’ll never see a “Gun Control Act 2” because while that’s exactly what these people want to do they don’t have the intellectual honesty to say it.
You mention NFA 1934 which imposed a heavy tax but did not ban full autos, but you forgot the gun owners protection act of 1986 that outright bans full autos made after 1986 from citizen ownership. 18 USC Sec. 922(o). How come?
According to the author “we have gradually lost our 2A rights.”
Get real.
I’m no fan of the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the now expired Assault Weapon’s Ban. The slippery slope arguments are overused. The status of our rights can change in both directions.
I was born in the ’40’s. IRT firearms (and a lot of other things too!) I’m not as free as I used to be. I have gradually lost my 2A rights. When, pray tell, will the status of my rights change back in the other direction?
Well admittedly, I can’t speak to your experience. I was born in the 70s. In the shorter arc of my life, it has never been easier for me to keep and bear arms. The situation in our respective states may also differ.
Many pro-gun rulings and laws in my lifetime. The year 2014 alone saw 85 pro-gun bills go into effect.
Significant credit to the transparency created by the internet. It is harder for the news media to sway public opinion. I believe that will continue to work in favor of our rights.
No, he is exactly right, and it’s not just gun rights they are after it’s all rights.
Creeping incrementalism. Look at taxation, and inflation – why should the buying power of a dollar erode over time? It should not, and the reason it does so is the state.
All the state ever does is take away your freedoms, look at Obamacare, and before it the HMO. You aren’t free to see any doctor you want, and they are making it worse day by day.
Where are the jobs? Are you free to start a business? To invent a new manufacturing process? Sure, ‘technically’ you can, but functionally you have to ask the state permission to do most anything.
Even literally take a dump. You cannot take a dump in anything but a state approved toilet anymore.
And you tell me our rights are not under attack?
Good gravy, wake up and smell the poop.
The buying power of ANYTHING changes over time. A 100% gold backed currency and ending fractional reserve banking wouldn’t magically stop a change in purchasing power (but it would make a deflationary spiral much more likely). I’ve run with gold bugs, but I’ve never gotten the feeling that they have any idea how it would work in practice.
Currently, our economy is dependent on consumers spending most of their dollars every paycheck. When people aren’t spending or investing money, the economy suffers. But it wasn’t always that way. Used to be that politicians wouldn’t scold people for saving money. If inflation were to suddenly end, I’d bet we’d have a market crash within 10 years. So if we’re going to end inflation, it needs to happen gradually.
On the other end of it, if we keep things going the way they are, something’s eventually going to happen that’ll make the world lose faith in the dollar, and the crash will be worse than anything you can imagine. I’d say it’d be better to end inflation now, have a market crash, then work our way out of it instead of letting things continue to build.
“The buying power of ANYTHING changes over time.”
You didn’t and can’t support that statement.
A gallon of gasoline has a known a known amount of energy in it, and this does not change (assuming for the sake of argument the exact same product, additives etc.) depending on what year it is you buy it. It doesn’t change in value. So why would money change in value?
Let’s say we use gasoline instead of dollars (or gold or whatever). A gallon of gas has x amount of power now and the same thing in ten years (again, for arguments sake ignore the fact that it would deteriorate over time, that’s why we don’t use such a consumable as a currency).
Yes, buying power of your currency changes – but my point is why does it do so? It should not. I spend an hour of my time to produce xyz widget, in ten years it would take the same hour to produce the same widget.
It is the state’s interference in the market that does this, and they do it for one reason and one reason only; that it is to their benefit to control the currency as it allows them to inflate the value of the currency thereby forcing a hidden tax onto the consumer. We all know this, it’s not something that you can argue isn’t true.
My point is why do we allow them to do this to us, it’s completely unnecessary! It’s the state, stealing the things we produce, meaning of course, stealing time away from us as that is what we taxpayers need to do to produce things. Put in plain English, this is just another form of slavery.
You can’t just say ‘the power of the currency changes over time’, by itself it does not! ‘The power of the currency is changed over time by the state as a hidden tax’ is the correct statement.
This is exactly my point here as you see all the time when people are talking about various things and say suchlike ‘in 1960 dollars that is …’, and just pass it off like it’s normal and acceptable. It is very definitely not and if more people were aware of how they are being robbed all the time it might be something the people took a stand on and started demanding to change.
Yes it’s difficult to educate large numbers of people on things like this, but that is the only thing that would ever get it to change.
Look, if we all got together and stopped working to-freaking-day, and demanded that our tax code be fixed and the IRS abolished and a sensible system put in place to address it, it would happen and without much violence. The hard part of course is to get all these people mobilized and coordinated, but stranger things have happened.
No taxation without representation! I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t feel like I have much in the way of representation right now, but I sure as hell am being taxed.
Makes me shiver.
It feels very much like it is happening in good old Europe, where you’re no longer allowed to think freely in many matters.
Guns are on the hit-list of the EU Parliament.
Imagine what they are planning to do!
Fudd.
2A right is changed and change sometime require for the better one.
2A right has changed and some time change required for the better one.
For clarification, as it seems to be frequently required:
There is no “2A right”, there is only “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”, which is a Constitutional PROTECTION of a basic natural right.
Therefore, our “2A right” has not changed and cannot change. The only thing that can change is the level of unconstitutional infringement of that right.
I agree with the authors’ statements “…The disarmament movement is a strong and resolute one. They’re fervent and unified in their objective and we must strive to be as well if we are to cease the erosion of our rights.” With Hillary vowing to affect gun ownership on day 1 of her presidency, probably by executive action no less, we need to be prepared to counter with massive resistance. The NRA is organized in their efforts but I don’t see any organized efforts otherwise. I wonder how many of us are willing to ascend on Washington to protest anti-gun actions against law-abiding gun owners. Talk is cheap, actions are needed. Two-million person gun-supporter march on Washington anyone?
You forgot
They banned them in NJ, and I didn’t speak out.
Because I don’t live in NJ.
As for full auto, I think they are a waste of money even if I could get one for under 1,000.
Full auto’s are the equivalent of Porsche’s and Ferrari’s (insert compensating joke here), they are a waste of valuable ammo, they are quite literally “spray and pray”.
That being said, if you have the money and choose to waste it, that is your right. The NFA needs to be abolished.
As to full auto, with the regulations on them, you don’t see designs idealized for civilian use.
How about a 300 round helical magazine (like a Calico) in 25 or 32ACP, integral suppressor, and a high rate of fire as a home defense weapon? A serial shotgun, basically. Who is your government market for this, but it might be a very reasonable home defense weapon.
Also, as bad as it it with guns, we ban the heck out of plants.
I’l never quite understand my fellow “liberals”. I’m pretty darn liberal in most areas politically minus gun control…which I don’t understand why that’s a “liberal” cause in the first place…but I digress. I’ve won a few (including my dad) over to the dark side of understanding gun rights, but it’s a battle. Frankly, and hopefully some of you here don’t take offense to this, what I argue with my liberal peers about why private firearm ownership is important is, well, “you” guys all have guns. Us liberals need to realize that the second amendment is their to protect OUR rights as much as it is anything. With as much fear and anger as the left has toward the idea of a Trump presidency, you’d think they’d finally understand that a armed citizenry is the only true way to defend your individual rights, be it from a Hillary or a Trump.
I don’t usually drop back to page two to comment, too much stuff going on. But I had to on this one:
A true liberal mindset doesn’t believe in individual rights, deep down. They may not even know it. But really, truly examine liberal causes.
For the sake of argument, take abortion. I don’t like abortion, I personally think it’s a crime against nature of nothing else. But I also believe in personal choice. You want one, have at it.
But the modern liberal thought process in this country is not only that they should be allowed (which I agree with, personal choice) but that it should be subsidized by the government. So now they want me to financially support a practice I don’t believe in.
It’s the same with most “liberal” viewpoints. Someone has to pay, and that someone is everyone. Those that don’t agree were just robbed of the freedom to not support an idea.
I need a full auto because I want one.
I’m a little Curious on the issue of “compromise”, What have they ever given up?