Preaching to the Choir

[Bravo Vector Tango]

If we had been on our own against the Brits -- if the French and Spanish had stayed out of it -- we might be singing "God Save The Queen" now, instead of "The Star Spangled Banner."

That's essentially the position that pro-2A people are in today. Outnumbered, waging a defensive battle, with no allies to help.

I would like to think that we would have the support of our own military or at least a part of it, elaborating further may be getting into hot water, and/or tin-foil hat territory - so I will won't go into it further.

LR1955:

True, not really a rant. perhaps just me pulling a "CYA" in case I came off the wrong way speaking about something that I am very passionate about, haha.

[JASmith]

I used to think that communist rule of countries was like a one way street. You can get on but can't get off. Then the Berlin wall fell, thanks in large part to Ronald Reagan changing the game a bit.

The protection and enhancement of our rights is very much like the sruggle between God and the devil (or good and evil for those not comfortable with God). It is never ending with some wins and some losses.

We just scored a win in the Senate: http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aiforum.cgi...1466605849.

No one believes the war is over, but this skirmish gives encouragment that we can prevail with the proviso that no victory lasts absent constant vigilance and the occasional struggle.

[stanc]

If we had been on our own against the Brits -- if the French and Spanish had stayed out of it -- we might be singing "God Save The Queen" now, instead of "The Star Spangled Banner."

That's essentially the position that pro-2A people are in today. Outnumbered, waging a defensive battle, with no allies to help.

I would like to think that we would have the support of our own military or at least a part of it, elaborating further may be getting into hot water, and/or tin-foil hat territory - so I will won't go into it further.

No point in going even that far, because it's irrelevant, anyway. When we talk about a "war" over the 2nd Amendment, we're speaking figuratively, not literally.

There is no actual armed combat going on between the two sides.

[stanc]

I used to think that communist rule if countries was like a one way street. You can get on but can't get off. Then the Berlin wall fell, thanks in large part to Ronald Reagan changing the game a bit.

The protection and enhancement of our rights is very much like the sruggle between God and the devil (or good and evil for those not comfortable with God). It is never ending with some wins and some losses.

We just scored a win in the Senate: http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aiforum.cgi...1466605849.

No one belives the war is over, but this skirmish gives encouragment that we can prevail...

Ah, the human capacity for wishful thinking always fascinates me, especially when I see it in a PRK resident.

For those who believe it's possible to win this war -- as opposed to prevailing in a skirmish now and then -- I'll repeat the question I posed on the previous page:

When has any major anti-gun law ever been repealed, anywhere?

[Slappy]

I do not think that we are going to even have to worry about repealing anything because there will never be any Major Anti-Gun Law passed here in the USA. BANG BANG!!

Come November there are fixin to be some MAJOR changes.

[stanc]

I do not think that we are going to even have to worry about repealing anything because there will never be any Major Anti-Gun Law passed here in the USA.

:confused: Not sure if you're being facetious, or if you're blissfully unaware of such matters as the 1911 Sullivan Act, the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, the 1998 California assault weapons law, etc, etc.

[bwaites]

Ah, the human capacity for wishful thinking always fascinates me, especially when I see it in a PRK resident.

For those who believe it's possible to win this war -- as opposed to prevailing in a skirmish now and then -- I'll repeat the question I posed on the previous page:

When has any major anti-gun law ever been repealed, anywhere?

Define "major". 30 years ago very few states allowed concealed carry, now all of them do, with a few very restrictive (CA, NY, IL) but the vast majority are "shall issue". That required the repeal of anti-concealed carry laws in many states. Very few states allowed open carry, now more and more do all the time. That required repeal of open carry laws. From my viewpoint, those are wins against MAJOR laws. It now appears that we will probably win the federal battle against the tax on suppressors, with no required LEO sign off already approved by the ATF. We are winning MAJOR battles, and I think the general public leans more and more to the 2A side, with the exception of the population centers in CA, NY, IL, and a few others.

[stanc]

Define "major".

See post #26 for examples.

[bwaites]

Pieces of the 1934 act are being killed slowly but surely. Interestingly, the ATF admits that they can't keep track of the machine guns supposedly in their registry, (many sales end up as re-registrations because the registry hasn't ever been computerized and cross referenced, and the original owner has documentation to prove it WAS registered at one time). So the 1934 act is mostly moot in real life. I believe we will see major changes in the rest of the laws you cite, as the nation swings more and more to 2A ideals. We tried the "gun ban period" and it didn't work, more and more people, even liberals who have been anti or non committal about 2A rights in the past, are starting to lean 2A. Look how many celebrities now are gun owners.

We are winning. Short a Hillary administration, I think we will see wins very shortly in those "Majors" you cite.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

. . . When we talk about a "war" over the 2nd Amendment, we're speaking figuratively, not literally. . . .

[SIZE="3"]It's WAR! Anti-Gunners Make Their Move - Outlaw Concealed Carry In CA (http://dailysurge.com/2016/06/war-anti-g...carry-ca/#)


[/SIZE]

[stanc]

When we talk about a "war" over the 2nd Amendment, we're speaking figuratively, not literally.

It's WAR! Anti-Gunners Make Their Move - Outlaw Concealed Carry In CA

And all of that is still speaking figuratively, not literally.

[bwaites]

Yes, the "war" terminology always has bothered me, whether it's politics, sports, banking, whatever!

[JASmith]

Yes, the "war" terminology always has bothered me, whether it's politics, sports, banking, whatever!

Concur. IIRC Machiavelli felt the same way when he wrote that 'War is politics by other means.'

We are all better served using terms lke debate, struggle, political action, and so on to minimize the perception that the 2A is about violence as the first option. It is not, but has served as an effective deterrent over the years.

Emphasise defense against ... (Fill in the blank).

[Bravo Vector Tango]

Concur. IIRC Machiavelli felt the same way when he wrote that 'War is politics by other means.'

We are all better served using terms lke debate, struggle, political action, and so on to minimize the perception that the 2A is about violence as the first option. It is not, but has served as an effective deterrent over the years.

Emphasise defense against ... (Fill in the blank).

I agree and did not intent to direct the conversation toward an actual war, I feel actual conflict would be the worse case scenario, I hope and pray that peaceable solutions that diplomacy will prevail. My comments were just in response to Stan mentioning that the 2A crowd may be in it alone IF it came down to it, Which I (respectfully, although perhaps over-optimistically) disagree with.

As with all things in life I would prefer diplomacy over other less civilized measures. especially involving fellow countrymen - even those that may not see eye to eye.

No need to put too much weight in the humble opinions of this here New blood, After spending a good amount of time on these boards reading I have come to respect and value the insight shared both Grendel related and not, and I will go back to quietly reading for the most part.

[rickOshay]

Interesting perspective on the significant gap in liberal vs conservation views. Perhaps this may give us ideas on how to have better conversations with those who oppose.

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/incredib...z4CnbhHtHQ

[stanc]

I agree and did not intent to direct the conversation toward an actual war, I feel actual conflict would be the worse case scenario, I hope and pray that peaceable solutions that diplomacy will prevail. My comments were just in response to Stan mentioning that the 2A crowd may be in it alone IF it came down to it...

You obviously misunderstood my remarks. I was NOT addressing what the situation might be during any hypothetical armed rebellion in the future. I was talking about matters as they are now, with pro-2A folks outnumbered by anti-2A people (and even most gunowners not truly pro-2A), and the media seemingly biased against private ownership of rifles like the AR15.

[jkla2016]

I love talking to anti gun people. I think it is the only way that we can make things better. Don't argue, scream, yell or berate just talk. I have found that 90% of them have never held a gun much less shot one. I have had a few that were just out right "guns are the devil" type of people. Then after a calm conversation with them explaining that the gun is not the root of the problem, it is the person behind the gun. Many have come back to talk further on the subject and I have had a few that are now avid shooters. If we just sit back and complain about the current situation then nothing gets better. WE have to get out and change minds.

[bwaites]

You obviously misunderstood my remarks. I was NOT addressing what the situation might be during any hypothetical armed rebellion in the future. I was talking about matters as they are now, with pro-2A folks outnumbered by anti-2A people (and even most gunowners not truly pro-2A), and the media seemingly biased against private ownership of rifles like the AR15.

Actually, Pro 2A people are NOT outnumbered by anti 2A people. Every recent survey says that the vast majority supports the 2A. The media and the politically left don't, but the people do. The media WANTS it to appear that most people don't support it, but every survey runs counter to that. NBC ran a survey two years ago where 82% of respondents said that you should have the right to carry in public. They are running the EXACT same poll right now and the current number is 92% in favor. That's BEYOND a landslide!

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-t...uns-public

[stanc]

Actually, Pro 2A people are NOT outnumbered by anti 2A people. Every recent survey says that the vast majority supports the 2A. The media and the politically left don't, but the people do. The media WANTS it to appear that most people don't support it, but every survey runs counter to that. NBC ran a survey two years ago where 82% of respondents said that you should have the right to carry in public. They are running the EXACT same poll right now and the current number is 92% in favor. That's BEYOND a landslide!

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-t...uns-public

Yes, it is beyond a landslide. Unfortunately, that poll is not being conducted in anything that even remotely resembles a scientific manner.

How could anyone possibly know if the results are actually representative of the public at large, or if it's a "false positive" resulting from large numbers of gun enthusiasts getting mobilized to go vote, like in one of arfcom's "Fire Missions"?



I still contend that most people (including most gun owners) are not truly pro-2A, and that can be demonstrated by the answers to the following questions.

Do you think that the general public should have unfettered access (no background checks, no government approval required) to buy or possess:

- Hand grenades?
- Claymore anti-personnel mines?
- Anti-tank mines?
- Recoilless rifles?
- Rocket launchers?
- Mortars?
- Artillery?
- Anti-tank guided missiles?
- Anti-aircraft guided missiles?
- Ballistic missiles?
- Nuclear weapons?

[JASmith]

Is this list intended to get a knee-jerk reaction, or a serious discussion of what bearing arms meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?

If it is the first possibility, no further comment is needed.

For starters, current public perceptions result from media propaganda and what the public school system is permitted to teach.

If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.

The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:

[INDENT]One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.

While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess. I am pretty sure, however, that no particular restrictions were applied to artillery back then, but the stuff was far too expensive for an ordinary person to buy.

Fast forward to the first 1/3 of the 21st Century and we saw restrictions applied to who could own firearms, ostensibly because, e. g., Tommy Guns, were used by the Mafia and other semi-organized groups against the police. One speculates that the law was not a public safety measure but was enacted to prevent the need for law enforcement purchases of lots of modern firearms and training to keep up with the "Joneses."[/INDENT]