Obama to possibly push gun control soon... - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Obama to possibly push gun control soon...

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomhusker View Post
    Not really the point. I may not need a 30+ mag, but if they get that "inch," how long before they go for the "Mile?"
    I've got to agree with Ed on this. I'd rather concede (compromise) on something which has virtually no practical ramifications to any sport or home defense user and instead pick our battles wisely. If we as a community dig in on absolutely everything, no matter how impractical, I'm of the opinion we stand a much higher chance of losing the things that really matter to us due to an all-out assault by the antis.

    The SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will always be a split decision, driven largely by the politics of the nominating president and the confirming majority when new justices are needed. And like it or not, jobs, the economy and defense rather than gun rights are much more apt to be on the majority of voters' minds when they pull that voting booth handle. A move to a more liberal-minded (anti-gun) court could very quickly happen if that party has a better message on the things which resonate with the voting majority in 2012. So let's don't become known as a bunch of obstinate SOBs who can't find any middle ground on anything related to gun rights. Because going down that path could easily result in the latest gains being erased if the SCOTUS swing voters move left.


    3X PM

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Progressive liberals have been stealing our freedoms and trashing the US Constitution for years. It's either for safety or the children or the poor or the old, you name it. We have set around and let them get away with it by re-electing them time after time. Now here we are deep in dept and less freedom. Freedom is never free and requires personal responsibility.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    I've got to agree with Ed on this. I'd rather concede (compromise) on something which has virtually no practical ramifications to any sport or home defense user and instead pick our battles wisely. If we as a community dig in on absolutely everything, no matter how impractical, I'm of the opinion we stand a much higher chance of losing the things that really matter to us due to an all-out assault by the antis.

    The SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will always be a split decision, driven largely by the politics of the nominating president and the confirming majority when new justices are needed. And like it or not, jobs, the economy and defense rather than gun rights are much more apt to be on the majority of voters' minds when they pull that voting booth handle. A move to a more liberal-minded (anti-gun) court could very quickly happen if that party has a better message on the things which resonate with the voting majority in 2012. So let's don't become known as a bunch of obstinate SOBs who can't find any middle ground on anything related to gun rights. Because going down that path could easily result in the latest gains being erased if the SCOTUS swing voters move left.
    We don't actually have to compromise on anything. The Second Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed," for a reason. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    We don't actually have to compromise on anything. The Second Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed," for a reason. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
    Well, you'd better hope the make-up of the SCOTUS doesn't move any further left...they are the nine who interpret the "intended" meaning of the Second Amendment passage you quoted. What did we have, a 5 - 4 ruling last June? I take it you'll be out there volunteering your time to knock on doors and providing financial resources to help get conservatives elected in 2012 and the out years. Because all it's going to take is for one conservative justice to retire and be replaced by an anti-gun Associate Justice...and then that toughly won affirmation of an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service will get another look and likely be severely constrained the next time around. You're right, we won't have to compromise, it'll merely be rammed down our throats.

    I still say we need to take a more strategic look at this and find anti-antagonistic common ground with the left. Ed Hamberger had it right IMO, why make a big issue over something like 30+ round magazines. Let 'em have the easy ones (under the guise of compromising) that don't significantly affect any law abiding citizen; rather, marshal our resources for the tough fights that have crucial long-term ramifications to our cause.


    3X PM

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Johns Island, SC
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    Well, you'd better hope the make-up of the SCOTUS doesn't move any further left...they are the nine who interpret the "intended" meaning of the Second Amendment passage you quoted. What did we have, a 5 - 4 ruling last June? I take it you'll be out there volunteering your time to knock on doors and providing financial resources to help get conservatives elected in 2012 and the out years. Because all it's going to take is for one conservative justice to retire and be replaced by an anti-gun Associate Justice...and then that toughly won affirmation of an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service will get another look and likely be severely constrained the next time around. You're right, we won't have to compromise, it'll merely be rammed down our throats.

    I still say we need to take a more strategic look at this and find anti-antagonistic common ground with the left. Ed Hamberger had it right IMO, why make a big issue over something like 30+ round magazines. Let 'em have the easy ones (under the guise of compromising) that don't significantly affect any law abiding citizen; rather, marshal our resources for the tough fights that have crucial long-term ramifications to our cause.
    This is most likely the most realistic way of approaching this. Annoying yes, but if giving up 30 ct magazines makes libs feel better so be it. BUT do not take away my freedom to own guns!!!!!!!

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Ditto if you give up a freedom you lose a freedom, O is an moron, who has sucked the T of America his entire life free education, never promoted or pass a bill as O senator or US, this guy is a loser who has surrounded himself with radicals, traitors, terrorist his entire life, he has never earned a penny of profit in his life or managed a business of any kind. I vote and anyone trying to change the 2nd amendment and remove firearms from me will have to pry them out of my hands. 2nd Amendment protects the rest of them.

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubs View Post
    BUT do not take away my freedom to own guns!!!!!!!
    Naw, that wouldn't happen...too oppressive, too overt.

    It would be a narrower ruling on a case brought before them...something along the lines of permitting the states and/or local jurisdictions more power to pass additional restrictions for the "protection" of their constituency. And as we've seen before last June's preemptive McDonald v. Chicago ruling put the kibosh on that practice against a Second Amendment backdrop, local antis, when in a political majority, can put some pretty onerous constraints in place.


    3X PM

  9. #18
    Hopefully, nothing Obama wants will make it past the house for the next two years.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by liquidr1 View Post
    Hopefully, nothing Obama wants will make it past the house for the next two years.
    This and he seems to want the house united, he is happy to have the left and right sitting with each other. He may not want to go there, maybe just the high cap issue.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    I still say we need to take a more strategic look at this and find anti-antagonistic common ground with the left. Ed Hamberger had it right IMO, why make a big issue over something like 30+ round magazines. Let 'em have the easy ones (under the guise of compromising) that don't significantly affect any law abiding citizen; rather, marshal our resources for the tough fights that have crucial long-term ramifications to our cause.
    What is the "magic" number of rounds in a magazine? If you compromise on this, then next will you compromise on banning magazine fed weapons of any kind? Felix, you've already surrendered your "man card". You don't get it! If you're law abiding, why should you compromise on your rights?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast