Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle
Well as to THAT..I'll remain silent.
But...a few cherry picked activists..is not indicative of the whole country..or most Democrats, for that matter. the 2nd is not in danger..and never has been. When you show me the successful petitions for a new amendment to repeal the 2nd..when you can show me a SCOTUS decision that states that Americans cannot bear arms..then I might buy into the madness.
For now..my position is that gun control..does not equal the 'slippery slope' so beloved of NRA aficionados.
Because someone has an extreme position does not mean they have a chance in heII of implementing it.
|
We already have gun control. There are already thousand's of federal, state and local laws that address both the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms. Along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. This does not even include the thousands of civil liability laws. We don't need any more laws.
Every time there is another sensationalized shooting the demand increases for more laws and additional laws are passed. Some are only minor, some major. If that's not a "slippery slope" I don't know what is? The question now becomes how long will it be before the 2nd Amendment for all intents and purposes, is legislated out of existence? Sure you may still have the 2nd Amendment but it will be limited to single shot muzzle loaders as some of your beloved gun control activists have suggested ad nauseam.
So called "assault weapons" can cover a broad range of firearms, as any type of firearm can and has been used to assault someone. Same for so called "weapons of war" as just about every type of firearm was once used in war. If you can ban one you can ban them all. Just come up with different terminology for different types of weapons then call for a ban. Shotguns have been called "riot guns". What do you need a shotgun for? To start a riot? Bolt action rifles have been called "sniper rifles". What do you need one of those for? To shoot people from under cover? Handguns have been called "Saturday Night Specials". Nobody needs one of those, they're only designed to kill at close range. I've heard it over and over again.
Yeah, I guess you could say I cherry picked that list, however those were just the ones that immediately came to my mind. If I spent the time and researched every federal, state and local Democrat legislator's position on the 2nd Amendment I'd probably come up with hundreds if not thousands more, both past and present. Thousand's more if I included celebrities and journalists. I guess you've never watched any of those anti gun marches? Where there were thousands of banners and signs calling for the repeal of the the 2nd Amendment. Not too mention thousand's of banners and signs labeling
LAWFUL gun owners and the organizations they belong to as
TERRORISTS. You must be living under a rock or holed up in a cave if you truly believe that the 2nd Amendment is not in any danger.
As far as SCOTUS goes all it would take is five John Paul Stevens on the bench, as of now we've already got four. The Heller/McDonald decision was 5 to 4 in confirming the 2nd Amendment as an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to weapons that are in "common use". The makeup of SCOTUS and the federal judiciary is my main motivation for voting. As the damage that can be done to the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights from the bench by activist judges will reverberate long after those who have appointed them are out of office. My God! You must really think we are that stupid to not understand this? Maybe you don't? Which is pretty obvious if you honestly believe that the courts wouldn't rule against us as many of the lower courts already have. Just look at some of the decisions made by the 9th circus er circuit.
I do get what your goal is, to lull us into complacency. To try and convince us that the 2nd Amendment is not in any danger and that you too believe in it. After all "you can keep your shotgun and hunting rifle". I've heard that ad nauseam too. At any rate myself and tens of millions of others are not buying any of your bulls**t. We plan on fighting tooth and nail at every level any erosion of the 2nd Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights for that matter.
Quote:
“A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals [or psychos] dictates the scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense ‘fights’ crime.”
For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to turn the force of law against the innocent and law-abiding. Far from fighting crime, the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities represents a society in retreat from crime. This is a society desperately accommodating itself to crime.”
— Jeff Snyder
|