2nd Ammendment or NRA -- what REALLY protects our rights?

[BobRyan]

Don't get me wrong - I am all for not have automatic weapons such as we saw in the Vegas tragedy...

But I hear a lot of noise from one side of the debate telling us that they would gladly take away the guns were it not for the NRA.

I can't figure out why they don't say "if it were not for the second amendment to the constitution". Why do they focus so much on the NRA is if tossing the constitution under a bus "were no big deal" and the real challenge is to "defeat the NRA"??

Seems kind of odd to me.

 

[szechuan]

Don't get me wrong - I am all for not have automatic weapons such as we saw in the Vegas tragedy...

But I hear a lot of noise from one side of the debate telling us that they would gladly take away the guns were it not for the NRA.

I can't figure out why they don't say "if it were not for the second amendment to the constitution". Why do they focus so much on the NRA is if tossing the constitution under a bus "were no big deal" and the real challenge is to "defeat the NRA"??

Seems kind of odd to me.

Because the NRA doesn't want any checks and balances on Gun Rights.

 

[sfs]

But I hear a lot of noise from one side of the debate telling us that they would gladly take away the guns were it not for the NRA.

Are you sure you're hearing from the other side, and not from the NRA? What I hear from proponents of gun control is almost always proposals for stricter controls on gun ownership, all perfectly allowable under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Tanj]

Also, there were no automatic weapons in the LV shooting, the guy used bump stocks, which are perfectly legal in the USA, thanks to the NRA.

 

[cow451]

Because the NRA doesn't want any checks and balances on Gun Rights.

Correct.

 

[miamited]

Hi bob,

I think that it's because most people understand and are able to read in the constitution 'why' the new nation wanted people to be able to own firearms. Today we have a well regulated militia and so the purpose and intent of giving people this 'right' to bear firearms no longer exists. Secondly, I believe that most people also understand that in writing that piece of the constitution, those men had absolutely no idea what firearms would become and are fairly confident that if they had known, they wouldn't have written it that way.

Finally, I think those same people also understand that this specific 'right' isn't what defines us as a nation nor has anything whatsoever to do with how well, or not, our government operates. Our government operates as well as it does because of the way the form of our government was established. We can still have the exact same government that we have, governing over us in the exact same way that it does, without every man, woman and child walking around like we're still living in the wild west of an untamed outdoors.

For me, if the majority of the people want to continue living in a nation that is defined as the wild west of civilization, that's fine. I'm not in agreement with it, but I do respect the form and establishment of our government. I simply trust that God will watch over my way and while I live in a nation of heathens, He has the power and authority to protect me from such people. Just like Paul has told us, we live among those outside the church and we must do so for the only option in that is to be taken out of this world. But, we don't have to live like they do.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[mark46]

Don't get me wrong - I am all for not have automatic weapons such as we saw in the Vegas tragedy...

But I hear a lot of noise from one side of the debate telling us that they would gladly take away the guns were it not for the NRA.

I can't figure out why they don't say "if it were not for the second amendment to the constitution". Why do they focus so much on the NRA is if tossing the constitution under a bus "were no big deal" and the real challenge is to "defeat the NRA"??

Seems kind of odd to me.

By some accounts, over 90% of Americans would like to have gun registration and some addition gun regulation. The NRA threatens anyone who votes for any gun control legislation with primary challenges, and lot of money used against them. Gun control laws cannot even be discussed in Congress. There is even a law against studying the effects of gun legislation. Like them or not, the NRA "deserves" a lot of credit. It is really difficult to prevent Congress from doing what the people clearly want.

It matters NOT AT ALL what law enforcement wants. IMHO, it should. For me, I think that the needs and judgement of law enforcement should be the primary factor in developing legislation.

For republicans, having as as many unregistered guns as you wish, with no restriction is a God-given right, and that the solution to gun violence is for everyone to carry a gun. For democrats, almost any gun legislation is better than what we have now, as there would likely be fewer deaths. For them, the best case would be if no one but law enforcement carried guns, except when hunting or traveling in ver rural areas.

 

[Tanj]

For them, the best case would be if no one but law enforcement carried guns, except when hunting or traveling in ver rural areas.

That's not actually true Mark. There might be some people that think this a good idea, but I think you will find most democrats just want sensible legislation that helps curb gun violence.

 

[paul1149]

most democrats just want sensible legislation that helps curb gun violence

I would say most Democrats want legislation they think is sensible. The problem is, gun control seldom works, and usually makes it harder for the good guys to defend themselves. That is why there is the tendency for gun control to grow, until it becomes outright prohibition. Today's leaders are not as open, but in the old days, Howard Metzenbaum (sp?), a father of the GC movement, used to say that nothing will work "until you ban them all". . I can understand that thinking, but the problem is you can't actually ban them all. They're too easy to manufacture and to obtain.

What has changed far more than gun technology or availability over the past several decades is the American public itself. There used to be shooting clubs in high schools, and the kids would bring their rifles into school. At home kids were taught responsible gun use from an early age. I'm unaware of there having been many problems. That, of course, would be unthinkable today.

What we have is the breakdown of marriage and the family, the glorification of sex and exaltation of promiscuity, the exclusion of God from the public square, and the assertion of radical individual rights. And we have the attendant consequences. The fracturing of society to the point of ungovernability, the rise of criminality, sexually-involved kids who can't handle their emotions, and a literal tsunami of maintenance psychotropics usage. Many murders, mass murders and suicides have been connected to the use of psychotropics, though you will very seldom see that angle explored in our very mediocre media.

I'm not proposing any practical GC solutions at this time, just pointing out some facts and raising some warnings. And I'm identifying the real root of the problem. Without dealing with that root, any measures taken will ultimately fail and lead to "unintended consequences". America needs to repent and return to God. The family needs to come together again. And the church needs to start acting like the church. Get those foundation stones in place, and people and society can begin to heal. It's the long way home, to be sure, but it's the best way home, and actually, it's the only way home.

 

[dgiharris]

I can't figure out why they don't say "if it were not for the second amendment to the constitution". Why do they focus so much on the NRA is if tossing the constitution under a bus "were no big deal" and the real challenge is to "defeat the NRA"??

Seems kind of odd to me.

The NRA is a very powerful political faction that has somehow made itself a litmus test category of the GOP.

THere are certain boxes that you have to check if you want to be considered a bonafide "real" Republican and not a fake RINO republican.

The NRA has positioned themselves as one of the boxes. You want to be a "real" republican, then you have to be an ardent supporter of the NRA.

There is a saying in the book "Brave New World" that I've come to recognize as the way the world really works. In Brave New World the State perpetuates certain myths and says them over and over again in the media. Say something 8,000 or so times and it becomes the truth.

Well, the NRA has done that with the 2nd amendment and "right to bear arms".

There is this fantasy that many gun enthusiasts believe. They believe that a well armed populace is what keeps the Government in check. Having served in government and in the military I can tell you thatf the Government does not fear the combat capability of the populace one iota. In fact, if the government (i.e. military and police) decided to enslave the country, our so-called well armed populace wouldn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell. It is a Red Dawn fanboy fantasy that the population could keep our military in check.

Yet you hear that argument all the time. It is so laughably absurd it is all I can do to not giggle myself into a coma whenever someone says it like it's the truth spoken to them by a burning bush.

 

[Thedictator]

Because the NRA doesn't want any checks and balances on Gun Rights.

Hay if you want checks and balances on the second Amendment, I'm willing to compromise. I say we will put limits on the first Amendment speech, No more Violent movies, music, or videos. No more movies, music, or videos with guns, No more glorifying criminal activity. Then we can move to the second Amendment limitations.

 

[jgarden]

2nd Ammendment or NRA -- what REALLY protects our rights?

What's the purpose of spending $ billions annually on the military, homeland security, Trump's "WALL" and the Muslim ban - only to protect the rights of a deranged individual to acquire enough assault weapons with the firepower to kill/wound almost 600 innocent victims in less than 11 minutes!

 

[Tanj]

I would say most Democrats want legislation they think is sensible.

I would say you are wrong.

The problem is, gun control seldom works

Rubbish. Sensible, effective gun control works quite nicely. Look at the Czech republic.

Howard Metzinger (sp?), a father of the GC movement, used to say that nothing will work "until you ban them all". . I can understand that thinking, but the problem is you can't actually ban them all. They're too easy to manufacture and to obtain.

Well, you (as in the USA) can't. Sure. For a few countries it's an achievable goal. However, since we can all agree that total gun ban is an complete fools errand in the USA and the exact opposite of effective, sensible gun control, the only real question is why did you raise it?

What we have is the breakdown of marriage and the family, the glorification of sex and exaltation of promiscuity, the exclusion of God from the public square, and the assertion of radical individual rights.

Every Western country has EXACTLY the same conditions. It's only yours that has a mass shooting every day.

just pointing out some facts and raising some warnings. And I'm identifying the real root of the problem.

You are doing none of these things, although I understand that in all seriousness you actually thought you were.

You want to get to the actual root of the problem then ring your congressman and get him to repeal the Dickey amendment so that the CDC can do actual research to determine what is the real root of the problem.

 

[wing2000]

None of the above.

 

[Paulos23]

Honestly, I am for background checks, passing safety courses, and getting a license once you have done all that, with retesting at set periods. A firearm is just as deadly as a car, and one of them you have to learn to use to even use one in all states. Can't see why we wouldn't treat firearms the same way.

The second amendment does say a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control laws fit under regulated in my view.

 

[Armoured]

What do you mean "gun control seldom works"? Gun control works perfectly well everywhere else in the developed world. The US is the only place these tragedies happen with any regularity.

 

[dgiharris]

What do you mean "gun control seldom works"? Gun control works perfectly well everywhere else in the developed world. The US is the only place these tragedies happen with any regularity.

Whenever the gun control debate comes up, or any debate that questions how we govern ourselves, we Americans love to invoke what I think of as the Snowflake Argument.

You see, we Americans are special little snowflakes, and because we are special and unique and chosen by god, all the stuff that works in other countries can't possibly work in our country. In effect, the laws of math, science, and the universe are different in America.

So you can take all your fancy data and stats and so-called scientific evidence and you can just jump in a lake with them... because we are Americans and all that stuff just won't work in this country.

Why you might ask? Well, ummm... ahhhh.... because!!!! Thats why!!!

 

[szechuan]

What do you mean "gun control seldom works"? Gun control works perfectly well everywhere else in the developed world. The US is the only place these tragedies happen with any regularity.

Japan has Gun Control down quite well.

 

[Gene2memE]

I would say most Democrats want legislation they think is sensible. The problem is, gun control seldom works, and usually makes it harder for the good guys to defend themselves. That is why there is the tendency for gun control to grow, until it becomes outright prohibition.

Gun owner here, living in Australia. Former resident of Japan and the UK.

All three states have strong gun control. I got to go hunting and shooting in all three. Control does not equate to prohibition - but that's a nice slippery slope you're heading down.

I've also lived for a short time (less than 4 months) in the US. In Oregon. As someone who comes from a rural family, where plinking rabbits, foxes and kangaroos was what you did on a summer evening, the gun culture in the US scared the coprolites out of me.

Today's leaders are not as open, but in the old days, Howard Metzenbaum (sp?), a father of the GC movement, used to say that nothing will work "until you ban them all". . I can understand that thinking, but the problem is you can't actually ban them all. They're too easy to manufacture and to obtain.

I dont agree with these statements but I do agree with the sentiment.

An outright ban in the US will never work - that bird flew the coop sometime around the early 1950s.

An Australian-style gun buyback wont work, as ~200-250 million firearms would need to be taken out of circulation, and the US has a large firearms manufacturing industry and large land borders that make enforcing any restrictions practically impossible.

What we have is the breakdown of marriage and the family, the glorification of sex and exaltation of promiscuity, the exclusion of God from the public square, and the assertion of radical individual rights. And we have the attendant consequences. The fracturing of society to the point of ungovernability, the rise of criminality, sexually-involved kids who can't handle their emotions, and a literal tsunami of maintenance psychotropics usage. Many murders, mass murders and suicides have been connected to the use of psychotropics, though you will very seldom see that angle explored in our very mediocre media.

Wah wah wah. Complaining about the previous generation is as old as the ancient greeks. Seriously, there are quotes about it.

You think things are ungovernable now? Look at the US in the 1970s and 1980s - crime rates were DOUBLE what they are now. Homicide rates were TRIPLE what they are now. Same for violent crime rates.

Teenage pregnancy rates are less than half what they were in the 1980s. Same for teenage abortions.

It's not "the breakdown of marriage and the family, the glorification of sex and exaltation of promiscuity, the exclusion of God from the public square, and the assertion of radical individual rights" that has led to these sort of mass shootings either.

Mass shooting AREN'T increasing when measured against population - its just that the number of victims from several in the past 15 years have been atypically high.

 

[Armoured]

Whenever the gun control debate comes up, or any debate that questions how we govern ourselves, we Americans love to invoke what I think of as the Snowflake Argument.

You see, we Americans are special little snowflakes, and because we are special and unique and chosen by god, all the stuff that works in other countries can't possibly work in our country. In effect, the laws of math, science, and the universe are different in America.

So you can take all your fancy data and stats and so-called scientific evidence and you can just jump in a lake with them... because we are Americans and all that stuff just won't work in this country.

Why you might ask? Well, ummm... ahhhh.... because!!!! Thats why!!!

yes, I've experienced that . Discussions about health care too. It can get very frustrating.