Firearms Policy Coalition Responds to Demands for More Restrictions on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Wake of Recent Mass Murders

The Firearms Policy Coalition has issued the following statement in response to demands for more restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms in the wake of recent mass murders in Dayton, El Paso, and Gilroy:

We mourn for our fallen brothers and sisters whose lives were cut short or forever changed by acts of immeasurable evil. We grieve for the families, friends, and loved ones who are searching for courage and strength to confront unimaginable pain. And our hearts ache for the communities of Dayton, El Paso, and Gilroy.

Ongoing news coverage, comments by politicians, and billionaire-funded special interests – many of whom are protected by armed security details – have made it clear that these horrible tragedies, like the ones before them, will be abused in the service of their radical political agenda of authoritarianism and paternalism.

It is disingenuous and immoral to ratify and incent evil acts of the very few by responding in kind with broad restrictions on the fundamental human rights of the People that pre-exist government itself. We will not accept this as a means of affecting change in a free society. The loss of human lives will always affect and change us, but they must never be allowed to alter our fundamental principles, freedoms, and commitment to individual liberty.

To be sure, our Constitution and society are at an unprecedented crossroads. Politicians and presidential candidates now openly call for a fundamental transformation of our system of laws: from a constitutional republic of free men and women founded in federalism and individual liberty, to a nation-state of subjects ruled with an iron fist from ivory towers and Washington, D.C.

Protecting the People and their human rights and property from the tyranny of mob rule and capricious political winds is a unique feature of our Republic—one that we fiercely defend even when doing so may be unpopular.

As the Supreme Court accurately observed, “The right to keep and bear arms … is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category.” Thus, our Constitution wisely secures individual liberty against infringement not because freedom is always safe, but because it is not.

In addition to its value in securing our right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, the Second Amendment is “a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

We believe that gun control remains “one growing front of a still-cold but increasingly bitter war between those who desire a powerful government that has the ability to control its people and those who value freedom and individual liberty.” But an armed and prepared citizenry—the unorganized militia—is the last, and perhaps more and more often the first line of defense between the People and the deranged, evil, and tyrannical.

FPC’s chartered mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms. Our commitment to our Republic, to first principles, and to freedom and individual liberty will not waver—no matter the circumstances.

FPC will continue to fight for what is right, to defend and advance our Constitution’s protection of fundamental human rights, even and especially when it is difficult.

To our members, supporters, and Second Amendment advocates throughout the United States, we say this: Steel yourselves and prepare to fight for freedom. History shows that all of us, standing together, can prevail.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

comments

  1. avatar Mike V says:

    Indeed.

    Let’s go.

  2. avatar Jim in Texas says:

    Here is the basic problem however:

    If enough people in this country want gun control, it will happen irrespective of what the FPC or anyone else thinks. The Supreme Court has not shown a lot of institutional courage addressing gun laws since Heller over a decade ago, so it would not be wise to rely on them. That leaves the congress and the president, the former of which is populated by hard core gun control people while the latter has shown that he doesn’t really give a rats’s ass about protecting gun rights (bump stock ban, anyone?).

    The more news stories there are about largely angry white men taking the personal issues out on innocent life, the greater the appetite will be for highly restrictive gun laws.

    The simple fact is that more and more, people are beginning to consider mass shooters are more real threat than a potentially out of control tyrannical government. Once this flips over the critical mass, it will get very ugly indeed.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Actually, negating the Second Amendment could happen quite legally through the normal amendment process provided in the US Constitution…

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Quite legally, yes. Quite possibly, no way. Would require high hurdles through the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and finally 3/4 of all states. All it would take is 13 of our 50 states to say “nope” to amending or nullifying the 2nd Amendment, and it’s lights out for that measure. Stopped cold in its tracks.

        Considering there are now 15 states with Constitutional Carry laws on their books, I think we’re safe. Instead of a full-bore assault on the 2A, the Left is chipping away at it. Death by 1000 cuts.

        1. avatar Mercutio says:

          The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights, it enumerates them. Changing the BoR doesn’t change the right and there are many who will not roll over for the abnegation of the basis of this country’s reason for being.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Agreed. But what I said above doesn’t even refer to that aspect of the debate.

          The Left is hyper-focused on the 2A, and somehow believes that the NRA is the figurehead of the 2A. I work in an industry that leans heavily left, and have spoken personally with numerous people who subscribe to this false notion, and by extension hate the 2A. No amount of reasoning changes their minds, and they view each proposed gun control measure (in and of itself) and “common sense”. One cut at a time, over a length of time.

          The Left doesn’t understand natural rights. We see the BoR as a document stating enumerations telling the government what it cannot do. They see it as a list of things as being *from* the government telling us what we’re allowed to do.

        3. avatar Lee the Fudd says:

          Thirty four states have already signed on for a new Constitutional Convention. Every election cycle the Blue State Trifectas increase. An entirely Blue State is likely to vote to remove the Second Amendment, as would a Democratic controlled Congress, and Presidency. I fear it is only a matter of time before our entire nation will be politically blue.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Lee,

          I reiterate my point that it only takes 13 states to defeat the last step of an Article V Convention process (which is a 3/4 majority of states ratifying). We’re well safe from an elimination of the 2A. Our battlefront is the infringements.

          http://articlevinfocenter.com/article-v-process/

          ****

          To everyone here on TTAG. If *WE* are not properly educated on our Constitution – especially in reference to its roots in the DOI and our natural God-given rights – how can we adequately defend it?

          We must cease being FUDDs and Keyboard Kommandos. We need to take the time to know what we’re talking about, even with each other.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          What does a Constitutional Convention have to do with the price of rice in terms of abolishing the 2A?

          You understand that the way a convention works means that the abolishing of the 2A would have to be agreed to as part of the discussion before the Convention started, right?

        6. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @strych9,

          Are you talking to me or Lee Fuddster? Your point isn’t clear.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          Haz: I was directing that to Lee.

          The way a convention is designed it’s meant to do something Congress has failed to do.

          If we were in a situation where the States would agree to a Convention where amending the Constitution to remove the 2A were on the table we would have already lost that Amendment to a Congressional action because more than enough states to amend the Constitution would have already sent members to Congress and the Senate to do exactly that.

        8. avatar I Has A Question says:

          @strych9,

          Okay. You’re correct about the order of proceedings under Article V.

          I still (in line with my earlier comments to the others) believe we’re safe from the 2A ever being abolished or re-written. Too many states would stand in the way of ratification to let the anti-gunners achieve the 3/4 threshold. When the Dem candidates mouth off about changing the 2A and their constituents applaud, it displays their collective ignorance for all to see.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          Haz:

          I would tend to agree. Personally I’d change “ever” to “the foreseeable future” but that’s just because I’m not a fan of unconstrained statements on probability.

        10. avatar barnbwt says:

          We’re in fact much closer to being able to negate all gun control via amendment, using the Article V process, no congress, president, or SCOTUS required.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We’re in fact much closer to being able to negate all gun control via amendment, using the Article V process, no congress, president, or SCOTUS required.”

          If this is your conclusion, you have much to learn about constitutional politics.

          First, the specific wording must survive the convention (and it will not result in absolutism). Second, the ratification process: Pro-gun supporters might have the power to block, but not the power to enact. Third, an amendment proposed by the CC, after ratification, faces the same legal system that exists today. How do you think things got so screwed up for amendments that contain the words, “Congress shall make no law…”, and “…shall not be infringed.”? Are you convinced adding words, “…this time we really mean it.” will prevent erosion of the new amendment?

          And, finally, we would be looking at the prospect, for the first time ever, of the SC declaring that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

        12. avatar Jerry says:

          I think it’s great we have a Constitution and an amendment specifically for the purpose of firearms. However, I do not need ANY piece of paper to grant me permission to protect myself or my family. So…whether we maintain our current form of government or not, whether we keep, amend, or do away with the 2nd amendment or not…my position and actions will not change. Let’s hope it remains intact, but any changes made, will not change my actions. Thanks TTAG!

      2. avatar Jerry says:

        I think it’s great we have a Constitution and an amendment specifically for the purpose of firearms. However, I do not need ANY piece of paper to grant me permission to protect myself or my family. So…whether we maintain our current form of government or not, whether we keep, amend, or do away with the 2nd amendment or not…my position and actions will not change. Let’s hope it remains intact, but any changes made, will not change my actions.

    2. avatar changeacoming says:

      I advise you google 18-280 and actually read all the attached documentation. A big SC decision is coming and it will change the landscape FOR the pro 2a in a way that has NEVER been done before. Of course it will take additional court decisions in reistant states to get them in line but it will happen. Dont let emotion control your responses…be smart and beat these people at their own games.

      Good things come to those that wait….NEXT SC SESSION…OOOORAH!

      1. avatar CC says:

        Without at least one more on the court, ie without a Trump reelection, the odds of this court conferring strict scrutiny on the second via NYSNRPA or any other gun case are close to zero.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I advise you google 18-280 and actually read all the attached documentation. ”

        Curious as to what you expect the SC to actually do. SC loves them some narrow cases, so they can issue narrow rulings. Plus, there aren’t five pro-constitution justices on the court.

        SC cannot take up matters not at issue. That is, SC cannot rule that because of NY/NYC law being unconstitutional, the Second Amendment is absolute. The most that could be expected is the court rules that laws regarding transporting firearms in and through a city must receive strict scrutiny. And “strict scrutiny” is not Kryptonite to gun control at large. Indeed, “strict scrutiny” permits (if not endorses) constitutional infringements…provided the infringement meets two criteria: a) “compelling government objective/interest; b) narrowly tailored (as is specific to a remedy) to achieve the intended result. Both these criteria limit the matter to NY/NYC law concerning transport of legal firearms within the state and NYC. The farthermost application would be that such ruling applies across the nation.

        The 18-280 will not invalidate all gun control laws across the country, nor will it create a general reinforcement of the Second Amendment as near-inviolable.

        And then, we have Chief Justice Roberts.

    3. avatar Aleric says:

      Per the Constitution we have the right, nay the RESPONISBILITY to rise up and remove the people and institutions that try to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

  3. avatar Enuf says:

    We do need Red Flag and Orders of Protection and to repair those already existing laws. But only if we are using legal/legislative experts on our side to write the language of due process protections.

    Start by proposing improvements to existing laws that address the worst examples.

    The guy that was noted as a scary wannabe school shooter dozens of times and had written online threats and his dreams of killing the most people.

    The guy who was booted out of his community college for scaring the crap out of classmates.

    The guy who was pending a psych/risk assessment in his state’s university when he went into a movie theater to kill people.

    The guy who had been taken out of high school by police for making lists of boys he wanted to kill and girls he wanted to rape, openly talking about wanting to kill people by name.

    We have much of what is already needed in existing law. What we lack is both due process protections, civil rights protections for the wrongly accused and the money and infrastructure to lock up the violent crazy people.

    Our side should be proposing such legislation. Written to solve the problem of violent nut jobs who should not have guns or be running about free to kill, at the same time creating the checks and balances that the very concept of “Due Process” is intended to provide.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      Nice sentiment, but red flag laws and due process are mutually exclusive. Any red flag law that has any teeth has to violate due process. Any red flag law that adheres to due process is impotent.

      1. avatar Tiks895 says:

        I agree with your statement 100%!

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        And we know how red flag laws are going to be used and abused.

      3. avatar Draven says:

        Any red flag law that does not violate due process- exists in most states already.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Any red flag law that does not violate due process- exists in most states already.”

          That’s curious. Do you have the actual text of one of those that does not violate “due process”, as in does not start with a judge hearing only the complainant, and ending with the target having to prove innocence?

      4. avatar SoBe says:

        All Red Flag laws are by their own definition a suspension of Constitutional Due Process. There is no reconciling Red Flag laws with Due Process. Red Flag is inherently a suspension of Due Process. They are the modern “baby” version suspension of Habeus Corpus.
        Abraham Lincoln repeatedly suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War (and was later found to not have had the legal basis to do so) because it was an “emergency.” Just as now they cry that we need Red Flag laws because we have a national emergency.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      You um know that threatening to kill people or rape them is already in violation of the law right? A law not enforced is barely worth toilet paper. With the “criminal justice reform” types wanting people to NOT charge anyone with anything in terms of existing laws then why should we be making laws?

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Tell you what. Instead of advancing these Red Flag/ERPO laws, let’s have nation wide Constitutional Carry. Let everyone carry, period. Everywhere. We’ll all see 90% of this mass shooter nonsense stop after the first few get their bells rung by private citizens slinging lead and sending them into the Hereafter with an express ticket.

      FIFY

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Bravo!!

      2. avatar Darlene J Byard says:

        I remember the statement of Archie Bunker from “All in the Family” TV show in the ’70’s when armed gunmen were hijacking planes to Cuba and Meathead asked Archie what he thought was the best way to stop that situation. Archie replied, “It’s simple…..just issue everyone on the plane a gun”.
        The only way to get rid of a bad man with a gun is for a good man with a gun. Enough said.

    4. avatar Biatec says:

      All laws in relation to guns, destructive devices and machine guns violations. We need to be repealing laws not stacking more or fixing them.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        are violations of rights*

    5. avatar Evan says:

      Red flag laws violate not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth and Fifth.

      They are utterly unacceptable in every way.

    6. avatar LifeSavor says:

      @Enuf, I get your intention: add due process to red flag to prevent abuse of red flags, and to stay within the boundaries set by the constitution. My concern is that so many judges seem to do as they wish, evidence or law notwithstanding.

      The theory behind red flag laws seems to be the expeditious removal of weapons from someone who some other person perceives to be a threat. If we add due process provisions we may improve the law but still provide the foundation for prejudiced enforcement.

      We need to make it difficult to suspend the 2nd amendment for a named individual who has been convicted of nothing.

      Due process can be expensive. Even if due process is attached to red flag laws, gun owners can be harassed and forced to spend a lot of time and money defending themselves against spurious charges.

      1. ….That is why they are Unconstitutional! Derp!
        People mixing Apples and oranges when it comes dowm to Freedom, Life, Liberty 🗽,and the Pursuit of Happiness…

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Derp?

    7. avatar CC says:

      The seriously mentally ill kill more people with non gun means.
      So your beef is with the ACLU, and unrelated to gun laws.

      I had a neighbor murdered in a triple homicide by a mentally ill person. He stabbed all three victims to death. After that I did some research.

      The fact is for all the whining about making the US like the UK, Australia, Japan,and the EU countries with gun laws, in those countries it is profoundly easier for police to take into custody a person suspected of being mentally ill, the thresholds at which they are judged mentally ill are lower than the US. The thresholds to commit them and force mandatory treatment are much lower as well.

      The issue is not the “violent nut job’s,” access to knives, hammers, guns, axes or baseball bats — but their access to victims.

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Great statement from FPC.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Agree!

  5. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Absolutely correct. +1

      If you can boil this down to about half the length of what you wrote above, you’ll have an excellent cut-and-paste comment at the ready.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        He’s posted the same speech countless times. Don’t encourage him.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Perhaps, but it’s good. If he/she can whittle it down to a length that an average reader will pay attention to (and choose to read thoroughly), then I’d consider cut-and-pasting it myself for future use. I’d say one-half to one-third the length.

          You can write the best comment in the world that answers all of life’s questions and cures all ills, but if it’s too long, people will skip over it and miss the nuggets of wisdom contained therein.

    2. avatar CC says:

      you have your facts wrong on the NRA positions on those, and you ave repeated it despite being debunked even by people generally critical of the NRA themselves.

      The NRA fought tooth and nail agains the Clinton assault rifle ban, the only aspect they “supported” was the inclusion of sunset and grandfather amendment provisions — which is a good thing. If the only voice at that time had been the GOA we would have had an AR Ban in 1990s’, still in place, with no sunset and no grandfather The same thing has happened with red flag and anyone saying the NRA out of hand “support” red flag the only proving they don’t know the history of the legalization. NRA has worked to block red flag where it can be blocked, and where it is not politically fable to block red flag has worked to defang it.

      As far as 1934 that was 80 years ago, three generations ago, and ALL evidence is that their membership agreed. Were they supposed to go against membership?

  6. avatar User1 gets banned says:

    America can’t let the white terrorists win.

    Remember when we couldn’t let the Muslim terrorists win, but we did? Are we to repeat that, Republicans?

    1. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

      Muslims hate America.

      Democrats hate America.

      Democrats love Muslims.

      All you need to know.

      1. avatar User1 gets banned says:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        White supremacists hate America too. They want to bring back a collectivist system that benefits the white male. They do not like individualism and diversity, which are some of the ideals of America. They want to rule with their police and military state. The religious ones want to legislate their religion into U.S. law.

        Modern Republicans support the destruction of America. They go against what the founders intended. They spit on the U.S. Constitution and call patriots sovereign citizen loons.

        I am an American, I’m not a Democrat nor a Republican, just an American.

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Not a registered Republican or Democrat but please, spare us the sacrosanct nonsense. Democrats don’t even believe in national sovereignty or following the same laws they helped pass.

        2. avatar CC says:

          You are a hard core Democrat and your prior posts prove it.

          You prior posts also show you claim gun murder rate rose in the past generation, when in fact it has fallen by 50%. You have called semi auto rifles “machine guns.”

          Your posts are laughable. You even invert who is committing terrorism in the US when an anifa and BLM supporter just shot nine people in Dayton (the 38th shooting by an antifa or BLM supporter in just four years).

          Of mainstream political candidate supporters the highest mass shooting rate has been by by Bernie Sanders supporters, second by Elizabeth warren supporters.

    2. avatar CC says:

      African Americas commit much higher rates of murder, multiple shootings, and mass shootings per capita than whites do.

      And the Dayton shooter was a Elizabeth Warren and Sanders supporter, and Antifa supporter as well.

  7. avatar Reno says:

    Someday they will come for the guns.people will have to somewhat unite except that will be difficult because in most cases you wont know who to trust when the blood flows in the streets many are going to die including Leo’s.as a nation were doomed

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    They think this is going to be OZ, the UK, or NZ. Just tell everyone to bring it down for collection. 100 dollars per handgun, 150 for long guns. Go ahead and drop ammo in that 55 gallon drum over there.

    Sadly it’s not going to be such a happy affair. After the celebrations and speeches it’s going to get ugly. And that genie is not going back in the bottle.

    Look at the Baltics. Post Ww2 eastern Europe. And triple it. I don’t want my kids to go through that but it’s out of my hands, that’s for sure. We’ll see what happens.

    Hopefully cooler heads and adults will prevail.

    1. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

      Adults? Have any of the anti-gun left given you the impression that they can act like adults?

  9. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    No compromise! They have my support!

  10. avatar Sam I Am says:

    We need to understand the Bogey Man called “A Constitutional Convention”. One belief is that a constitutional convention will overturn all the unconstitutional things that have happened since the founding….constitutional amendments that will be in the hands of the same politician and jurists who currently preside over the country. Another belief is that a constitutional convention will be hijacked by anti-constitutionalists who will proceed to destroy the nation with amendments that overturn all the work of the founders.

    Some background…Article 5 sets no rules for the operation of a constitutional convention, other than the minimum required states to form such a convention, and the requirement to send amendments to the states for ratification in a manner prescribed by the sitting congress. Article 5; look it up.

    Once a convention is called, the delegates determine everything about the shape, frame and footprint of the convention. It was hard enough to get 13 colonies to agree on a new constitution. 34 states agreeing on where, when, how much, who runs things, which ideas will be presented, debated, and proposed as amendments? 34 states; really? In short, a CC cannot be established to actually accomplish anything for quite some time. During that time, the mood of the delegates, and their states can become so variegated as cripple any serious effort on the part of a CC.

    But let’s assume a convention agrees to a single amendment: repeal the current 2d Amendment. Now what? The “what” is that a procedure for notifying all 50 states of the proposed amendment would be needed (maybe already determined). Next, the ratification process is determined by the sitting Congress of the US: ratification by legislatures of 37 states, or ratification conventions convened in 37 states. Then what?

    The next step is that the single amendment must be ratified by a full 37 states. For that to happen, the political environment in 37 states must already exist for ratification. If that is true, then ultimately, the voters in those 37 states represent the overwhelming majority opinion of the electorate, no matter how wrong (yes, slavery could be reinstated by a constitutional convention proposed amendment ratified by 37 states). If we are at the juncture where the electorate is already primed to ratify repeal of the 2d amendment, the game is over before the constitutional convention convenes, the wave cannot be turned back.

    1. avatar CC says:

      Over 75% of Americans support Heller as a minimum protection of 2A rights.

      Even in DC where it is 95% Democrat population, support for bans ran 80% in the 1980, support for DC’s position in Heller was 51% in the 2017 Washington Post ten year anniversary poll.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Over 75% of Americans support Heller as a minimum protection of 2A rights.”

        You do understand the fatal element of statistics, do you not? 96% of Americans support stronger, deeper, better background checks, including “universal” checks.

        But you missed the wider point: time, politics and lawyers.

        Time – a convention will take time to reach authority to convene, time to conduct, time to ratify an amendment. During all the “time”, the body politic drifts further left.

        Politics – see above

        Lawyers – we are in the constitutional mess we are in because lawyers, suits, judicial politics. Any new amendment will fall prey to the same system that rapes the constitution today. Heller/Mac are ignored by lower courts, with no means to enforce the SC ruling on those courts. Into that same briarpatch will fall any pro-gun amendment issued by a CC.

        Just so you know, I would love to see a CC convened. Real-life examples of the constitution at work are always interesting, and often entertaining. My point is, manage your expectations so that you think and act clearly in the environment that exists.

  11. avatar SoBe says:

    Mob rule got the Eighteenth Amendment passed. The wealthy and the politicians did not give a rat’s arse since they had a preexisting stash. Even the president had his barrels of ethanol transferred to the White House. As a side effect of this gut reaction short sighted commonsense Constitutional Amendment organized crime got a boost and in an effort to curb organized crime we got the NFA as a direct consequence of the Eighteenth Amendment. As we all know, that gun control act forever ended all criminal activity in the USA, right?? Eventually even the wealthiest started running down their legally stashed ethanol stores, convincing all that it had been a futile experiment that failed. And so the 21st Amendment was ratified, returning the country to exactly where it was before the failed social experiment, or did it? The damage was done.

  12. avatar kap says:

    This El Paso shooting and murders were because of the Democratic party, and their Anti- American stances, especially one for unfettered immigration, free; money, food, housing, medical, education etc: the Shooter may be all the things they say about him but the Evil side was triggered by the Democratic Party Hatred of the American People and Constitution of the USA !

  13. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    To paraphrase: If you surrender freedom for a little safety you will not get or deserve either. If some action is required do things such as making a straw purchase or presenting in any way shape or form to a restricted person, a 25 year sentence and when a murder results the charge should be felony murder. And many, many non domestic and non employment mass shootings occur in what I call free fire zones or as the silly people say, “Gun Free Zone”.

  14. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    The left wants all these gun control laws so that the average American is totally disarmed and will be unable to fight against the new socialist system. (Of coarse they will control the ballot box [it’s the Chicago way] so we will have no recourse there.) We all know that is their game plan. Fight the devil now while we still have a nonviolent means to do so.

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