The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
I'd say it is more of the phobias the right wing have against our government (BUY GOLD FOR THE UPCOMING TAKEOVER BY THE FRENCH AND COMMUNIST EUROPEANS) moreso than the legislations.
Click to expand...

If that was true, then AR prices wouldn't have quadrupled after Feinstein's bill was announced, and these gun shows would have had record numbers last year instead of this year. Such was not the case. You have only yourself to blame for the mass proliferation of guns and ammo. Pat yourself on the back! You're the gun industry's best buddy!

Also when you say failed miserably, a majority voted for the law there...
Click to expand...

What you fail to see is that even if it had gotten through the Senate, it was doomed for failure in the House. If even the Senate couldn't muster a 60% vote while a majority are Democrats, then getting more than 50% in the House where Republicans hold a strong majority is a fantasy. You went storming up a hill against an enemy that vastly outnumbered you and vastly out-powered you, and now you're mad at a filibuster rule that didn't even change the ultimate outcome. Get over it.
 
As everyone knows the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution made it a living document that would needed to be changed over time. So when everyone quotes these fathers with certainty and absolution over guns from the 18th Century, keep it in perspective that their views could have changed if they were still around today. Also, ATN_Pilot when you claim I want to 'take away your rights', keep in mind that when the document was around, it was also your right to own another man.

With the special interests today surrounding the pro gun point of view, the founding fathers could have never imagined the extra difficulty it would be to change the 2nd Amendment even when common sense clearly states change is needed concerning our society and guns in America.
 
Seggy said:
As everyone knows the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution made it a living document that would needed to be changed over time.
Click to expand...

Sure. So why aren't you advocating a Constitutional amendment? I would still disagree, but at least it would show some integrity instead of trying to skirt the Constitution.

Also, ATN_Pilot when you claim I want to 'take away your rights', keep in mind that when the document was around, it was also your right to own another man.
Click to expand...

Which was changed with amendments.
 
I would love the 2nd Amendment changed. Never going to happen in today's system, but would love it changed.
 
Seggy said:
I would love the 2nd Amendment changed. Never going to happen in today's system, but would love it changed.
Click to expand...

Knowing that the public doesn't support your true goal doesn't justify trying to violate the Constitution. If the public doesn't back an amendment, then you should be focusing your energy on changing their minds. Not on pushing through unconstitutional laws.
 
Seggy said:
How do you know what the public wants? I made it quite clear in my quote of your post above.
Click to expand...
Constitutional amendments are ratified at what seems to be a once per 20 year clip. If people really wanted to change the "living" document, we would see much more frequent amendments.

I'd be willing to support change if I thought it would do anything. I refuse to stand behind change simply done in the name of change. None of the bills presented would do much of anything, so no... I can't support them
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You're the one who said that you couldn't get the amendment done in the current environment, so it seems to me that you're the one saying that you know what the public wants.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the fact the NRA would spend millions to defeat any amendment.
 
Seggy said:
As everyone knows the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution made it a living document that would needed to be changed over time. So when everyone quotes these fathers with certainty and absolution over guns from the 18th Century, keep it in perspective that their views could have changed if they were still around today. Also, ATN_Pilot when you claim I want to 'take away your rights', keep in mind that when the document was around, it was also your right to own another man.

With the special interests today surrounding the pro gun point of view, the founding fathers could have never imagined the extra difficulty it would be to change the 2nd Amendment even when common sense clearly states change is needed concerning our society and guns in America.
Click to expand...

'Murica.
 
I, for one, like knowing that when my step-brother gets out of prison I can gift him a gun if I want to. Because he probably won't have one when he gets out, so...
 
Seggy said:
I was referring to the fact the NRA would spend millions to defeat any amendment.
Click to expand...

The NRA only has millions of dollars to spend because millions of people like me contribute to it. If gun control is so popular, where is the vast organization with equivalent resources to fight back? Answer: the support just isn't there.
 
Seggy said:
I was referring to the fact the NRA would spend millions to defeat any amendment.
Click to expand...



So when an organization spends millions for what it believes in it's now a bad thing? What say you about an organization of pilots that would spend millions lobbying for what it believes in? Good thing or bad thing?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The NRA only has millions of dollars to spend because millions of people like me contribute to it. If gun control is so popular, where is the vast organization with equivalent resources to fight back? Answer: the support just isn't there.
Click to expand...
In order to shoot at a range around me, I have to be an NRA member. There is no reasonable alternative.
 
Pilotdude3407 said:
How about this...you enforce the laws you already have and when that is complete then you come tell me you want more laws. Here is the problem...once again, if you make a law, law ABIDING citizens will follow it while criminals won't.
Click to expand...

Because the flow in illegal guns in large part starts with legal owners and private sales. Finding ways to prevent guns from making it to criminal hands seems like a policy worth investing in, especially when it does not limit what law abiding citizens may own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top