The black market is going to need a new product with the way that weed is going. Might as well be guns. Organized crime is quick on the uptake, so there should be a nice explosion of new crime and some great reasons to create new task forces.
That should usher in an exciting new era of home invasions and armed robbery committed with impunity too.
In my opinion it would increase the price which would put some out of the market , it would be an interesting experiment
The fact that people in this country think we have a gun problem instead of a mental health and morals problem in this country is frightening.
Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world.
It also has some of the most strict gun laws on the planet.
I thought everyone knew this stuff?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Political Earthquake Shocks Washington Establishment – GOA-backed candidate defeats House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, went down in a stunning defeat to GOA-supported David Brat.
Cantor, who represents Virginia’s 7th District, vastly outspent Brat, an economics professor at Virginia’s Randolph-Macon College.
On Monday evening, Gun Owners of America blanketed the district with phone calls to registered voters, hitting Cantor for his recent vote to expand gun control and noting that Brat stands 100% for the right to keep and bear arms.
On Tuesday morning, political commentators predicted a landslide win for Cantor, but voters rejected his support for bigger government and, in particular, his support of amnesty for illegal aliens.
Since the district is considered safe Republican, Brat is heavily favored to win the general election in November.
~GOA newsletter[/quote]
His pollster is blaming the pesky democrats. Lol.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
…in direct violation of the Constitution.[/quote]
I’m assuming he means after an amendment to the Constitution.
[/quote]
They won’t amend it, they will just redefine it, it’s way easier. Or slip something in under the Patriot Act since you have already “Sacrificed Liberty for Security” there.[/quote]
I think this would be the most likely way it would happen. It would only take a state or federal govt. to pass laws banning guns, have it challenged to the supreme court, and 5 liberal judges uphold it by interpreting that the 2nd amendment only applies to a well regulated militia and not the individual.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
by interpreting that the 2nd amendment only applies to a well regulated militia and not the individual. [/quote]
See, though this is precisely the problem that those of us on the pro-gun rights side of the argument make for ourselves: we hear the opposition’s statement that “the 2nd amendment only applies to militia”, and object to it on the grounds that we imagine a “militia” to be like the National Guard, which is not much different in its organization and regulation from the regular military. “Nuh UH,” we say, it’s not just for militias, it’s an INDIVIDUAL right!
This is a grave error, in my estimation.
We should admit that yes, the Second Amendment applies to the militia. But then we should inform our opponents what a militia actually is.
The Second Amendment is about arming the people (individually)so that they may BE the well-regulated (which means “skilled and well-drilled in the craft of warfare”) militia described by Tench Coxe, Eldridge Berry, Alexander Hamilton! James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others.
Because the military can only defend the federal government.
Only the militia, that is you and I, can defend a free state.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
by interpreting that the 2nd amendment only applies to a well regulated militia and not the individual. [/quote]
See, though this is precisely the problem that those of us on the pro-gun rights side of the argument make for ourselves: we hear the opposition’s statement that “the 2nd amendment only applies to militia”, and object to it on the grounds that we imagine a “militia” to be like the National Guard, which is not much different in its organization and regulation from the regular military. “Nuh UH,” we say, it’s not just for militias, it’s an INDIVIDUAL right!
This is a grave error, in my estimation.
We should admit that yes, the Second Amendment applies to the militia. But then we should inform our opponents what a militia actually is.
The Second Amendment is about arming the people (individually)so that they may BE the well-regulated (which means “skilled and well-drilled in the craft of warfare”) militia described by Tench Coxe, Eldridge Berry, Alexander Hamilton! James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others.
Because the military can only defend the federal government.
Only the militia, that is you and I, can defend a free state.
[/quote]
The way you described it is the way I think the 2nd amendment was intended to be interpreted. Especially with the “being necessary to the security of a free state” wording. I think there is a chance 5 out of 9 justices, one day, won’t interpret it that way. Cases such as McDonald v Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller, only 5-4 decisions, scare me.
I’m just saying it would be more likely for the case law determining weapons bans before a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would happen. Kind of like how as a condition of being alive in this contry, we all have to buy a certain service or we will be taxed.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe.
Who knows?[/quote]
I’ve long believed that in my lifetime, something drastic is going to happen to where current rights will be curtailed. My observations are all anecdotal and personal opinion, but I discuss this issue from time to time with a growing number of younger (e.g., 45 and under) people who are products of an environments where guns are not part of the equation, and never were, and thus they just don’t see the Second Amendment as sacrosanct in near the same regard as, say, the First Amendment or the Fourth.
When you have an increasing populace who is indifferent to a right, it can set the stage for easier refinement down the road. I guess what I am trying to get at here is that this situation is analogous, where gun rights are concerned, to why certain states are voting more blue as a whole - changing attitudes among certain segments of the population.
The fact that some of these cases have been 5-4 is concerning, at least to me. As previous posters noted, the Constitution can be interpreted to mean whatever a majority of the High Court justices decide that it means. The Heller case, for example, left open plenty of room for regulation too - i.e., it affirmed that the right is not unlimited in scope, albeit individual and unrelated to militia service. I agree that a new amendment is unlikely, but there is wide latitude going forward - e.g., increasingly onerous regulation that passes judicial scrutiny or even a future case decided by a much more liberal court that basically reverses recent decisions such as Heller, McDonald or Nordyke.
Finally, I think some in the pro-gun crowd do more harm than good here. Just because it’s your right to do something doesn’t make it a good idea or the right thing to do. Bringing guns to town hall meetings to prove a point, fighting with the bank who has a no concealed carry sign on their private property, or openly carrying in sensitive places simply to make a statement doesn’t help the cause much.
Try this for comparison (warning, read it to the end).
http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu.com/Blog/Entries/2014/5/27_Guns_and_Japan.html
– jj
Edit: He makes the very well supported claim that Japan has a higher rate of violent death than the US, just people are screwing with numbers to further their agendas.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Try this for comparison (warning, read it to the end).
http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu.com/Blog/Entries/2014/5/27_Guns_and_Japan.html
– jj
Edit: He makes the very well supported claim that Japan has a higher rate of violent death than the US, just people are screwing with numbers to further their agendas. [/quote]
Brilliant article. I had to check the author bio to make sure that Chushin didn’t write it. He is spot on, and I’ve made the same point on other gun threads: “it’s the culture, stupid!”
I especially liked this bit: [quote]Most non-Japanese tend to not learn much of the language and stick around other non-Japanese and yet those are the ones that seem to talk the most about what Japanese are and are not like.[/quote]
Boy, if that ain’t the fucking truth. This thread is the proof:
[quote]pennstate29 wrote:
I definately have my view on this issue but I was wanting to know what everyone else thinks? Granted this tough question to answer given how many guns are in circulation and how difficult it would be to do, but this is the interwebz so what do you think?
[/quote]
*** Three things to keep in mind on this issue:
#1 A gun ban means an exponential increase in crime.
#2 Gun bans were one of the first policies implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. They knew they couldn’t show up and drag people away to their death if they could defend themselves. This is the dirty little secret of the Final Solution. A gun ban made it possible.
#3 Take away the four largest cities in America with the strictest gun control laws, and America has one of the lowest murder rates on Earth.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
[quote]Krinks wrote:
[quote]pennstate29 wrote:
I definately have my view on this issue but I was wanting to know what everyone else thinks? Granted this tough question to answer given how many guns are in circulation and how difficult it would be to do, but this is the interwebz so what do you think?
[/quote]
*** Three things to keep in mind on this issue:
#1 A gun ban means an exponential increase in crime.
#2 Gun bans were one of the first policies implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. They knew they couldn’t show up and drag people away to their death if they could defend themselves. This is the dirty little secret of the Final Solution. A gun ban made it possible.
#3 Take away the four largest cities in America with the strictest gun control laws, and America has one of the lowest murder rates on Earth. [/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Krinks wrote:
[quote]pennstate29 wrote:
I definately have my view on this issue but I was wanting to know what everyone else thinks? Granted this tough question to answer given how many guns are in circulation and how difficult it would be to do, but this is the interwebz so what do you think?
[/quote]
*** Three things to keep in mind on this issue:
#1 A gun ban means an exponential increase in crime.
#2 Gun bans were one of the first policies implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. They knew they couldn’t show up and drag people away to their death if they could defend themselves. This is the dirty little secret of the Final Solution. A gun ban made it possible.
#3 Take away the four largest cities in America with the strictest gun control laws, and America has one of the lowest murder rates on Earth. [/quote]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3072854/posts[/quote]
Ha! The article doesn’t come right out and say it, but it’s implying that America would be just as safe and civilised as Switzerland, if it wasn’t for all the blacks and Mexicans. That’s FreeRepublic for you.
[quote]Krinks wrote:
*** Three things to keep in mind on this issue:
#1 A gun ban means an exponential increase in crime.
#2 Gun bans were one of the first policies implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. They knew they couldn’t show up and drag people away to their death if they could defend themselves. This is the dirty little secret of the Final Solution. A gun ban made it possible.
[/quote]
#2 is absolute fantasy. The Weimar Republic had far stricter gun control laws than Nazi Germany. Hitler relaxed gun control laws. Hitler “completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition” and “the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”