Hey guys. I have an uncle who is is always ranting about Obama and gun control saying he's taking our rights away and then comparing modern American laws to the rise of Nazi Germany. I've done a bit of digging and can't find anything that would suggest his ideas are anything more than paranoia fueled by talk radio and Jim Beam but I'd like to see if anyone here has heard of any actual evidence that this is happening. I grew up in the country hunting, shooting clays and what not so I don't understand why my uncle and myself have such varying opinions. Obviously I would be against legislation that would keep us from owning firearms but all I have found are mandatory trigger locks and increased security through background checks, which both are great steps for safety the way I see it. Anyone care to discuss this issue without falling into a ideological internet fight?

_________________

gun rights have been slowly been dried up as time went on. i'm too lazy (and i'm not going to be goaded into it) to look for sources.

-can't carry a pistol in NYC
-have to have a permit (approved totally as the discretion of the county judge for no reason)
-can't get conceal and carry in every county
-limits on ammo/gun purchases
-waiting periods
-harder and harder to get automatic and oversized weapons (i actually am on board with this, no joe schmoe needs a 50 cal or gatling gun)
-permitting restrictions do not extend beyond state borders
-registering guns

there's a list, and there's much more. i have no real pull on this topic, because there should be some restrictions even though i am a gun owner. they are not outright awful laws and restrictions, but they are really being (brilliantly, by the way, politicians) nickel and dimed to death. there are also dozens of proposed laws per year turned down (typically more local laws) that affect the right to bear arms.

meh

This came up in the 2008 election. NRA supporters worked themselves into a frenzy thinking Obama would implement strict gun control policies. I think gun control is such a low priority for Obama that you can basically say he doesn't care. I don't think he's done or said a thing about it since he's been in, which is why we haven't heard anyone making any noise about it (until now!).

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

I think it's extremely important to defend the bill of rights to the best of our ability. The founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms was such an important part of defending liberty that it was prioritized as the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. The only things more powerful than weapons are ideas, which is why the right to free speech comes first.

I think people are absolutely insane to so willingly restrict or give up our Constitutional rights. The general public has far too much blind faith in the Federal Government. Nearly every society in the history of mankind has fallen victim to an ever expanding central government to the point of a full blown revolution.

Over time, complacency sets in. When oppression is fresh in the minds of the people, they vehemently defend every single right they fought for. Over 200 years later, everything begins to think, "That can't happen to us."

Fact of the matter is, it can. And it will. Unless you insist that it doesn't. It never happens quickly; always gradually. And then, when the wrong guy gets elected, all of those powers you gave up for your perception of "safety" come back to bite you in the ass.

_________________
Wheelhouse

The whole second amendment discussion is a complex one. I studied about 20 gun control related cases in college. There are perfectly reasonable arguments for and against civilian ownership of guns when interpreting the text of the Constitution. If anything, it's one of the most poorly worded sections of the document, and open to the most interpretation either way.

Regardless, restricting gun ownership isn't something the Obama administration has made a priority. There's been very little talk of sweeping changes to gun control laws, and I doubt that changes even if he's re-elected. They have more important stuff on their plate.

There have definitely been a lot of different interpretations. I think most of them have come due to personal beliefs and biases more so than an honest interpretation of the Amendment itself.

To me, it seems pretty clear.



This was written back at a time where it was perfectly acceptable for men to settle their differences with a dual. To me, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," means, "In no way can laws be passed to restrict gun ownership."

But as you've said, the Obama administration hasn't done much of anything to mess with gun rights.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Read the opinion in DC vs. Heller. Almost the entire ruling, on both sides, focuses on the words and meanings. For example, you highlighted the operative clause in the statement, but you cannot simply ignore the prefatory clause.

One of the key points is defining what 'militia' is. One school of thought constitutes a militia as anyone able bodied to fight in military service. Another interprets militia as someone actually engaged in an organized state militia. The Constitution doesn't define a militia, and both meanings of the word were common at the time. Strict constitutionalists tend to fall back on what words meant at the time they were written, so this doesn't help matters. It's definitely not black and white.

Even in upholding the right to bear arms in Heller, the court specifically upheld the fact that restrictions CAN be placed on gun ownership.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

There are also reasonable arguments to be made (outside of Hello, in non SCOTUS decisions) that weapons for self defense are reasonable, but private citizens don't need assault weapons, and shouldn't be allowed to possess them. I tend to agree with this idea, but that's just my personal stance.

So it boils down to, yes there have been restrictions, longer waiting times, bans on carrying in city limits in certain cities and more but nothing like the end of days conspiracy stuff that I have been hearing from some right wingers. To hear some of them tell the story you'd think that Obama's big plan is to ban gun ownership, make sure the public is unarmed and then he can control them in some sort of military state. This is a recent facebook photo he posted:


I mean really?

_________________

In today's civilization, citizens don't need assault weapons. But the 2nd amendment wasn't written to defend citizens from this environment; it was written to defend them from more hostile ones.

There could very well be a time in the future where an assault weapon could be exactly what a family needs to keep themselves safe.

Pros and cons to both sides, and as you said, not so cut and dry. But I lean more towards allowing that kind of gun ownership.

_________________
Wheelhouse

One could also argue that when the second amendment was adopted, the general populace had a much greater need for self defense than they do now. In the days before phones, 911, when it was common for the nearest town to be a couple hours ride, families couldn't rely on a police response if someone was trying to break into their homes, or steal their things. Today, most areas in the country can have an armed police officer at their door within minutes, which greatly reduces the need for individual families to have a stock of firearms for protection purposes.

And to be honest, if there's ever a time in this country that I have to own an AR-15 to keep myself safe, I'm moving to another country.

like i said, lots of things are turned down. i'm more inclined to believe that things are moving toward complete gun restrictions than not. these little laws and stuff being passed are more like the death by a thousand cuts than anything else.

I tend to disagree. Anytime you have to find a middle spot on a 'slippery slope', as societies must with certain issues, it is always going to appear to the people who want NO laws that it is an inevitable creep towards the other end of the spectrum. We started with ZERO gun control laws, and we'll end up with SOME gun control laws, clearly the momentum is towards legislation, but there is no logical reason to think that we wont settle at some middle ground which the most amount of people agree with. We're never going to be a 'gun free' country (imo).

that's cool, i don't mind the discussion. i don't mind laws that are only local, but i don't like that laws with constitutional impacts are passed in large or very different areas. e.g. laws being made due to issues in NYC that then affect everyone in NYS. it's unfair. the cultures are different and very little about either regions are the same, except for the overarching political boundaries. the problem is with passing SOME gun control laws (and remember, i'm for the ones i call reasonable, yes i recognize that i'm not being definitive with that statement) is always encroaching upon what the other side considers freedoms. i am not one to sacrifice my freedoms ever (SOPA/PIPA/NDAA) and this is no different. the good thing is that micro-locale legislation gives me choices. if NYC wants to ban guns, sweet, i can move anywhere else. if i'm gay, i can move to NY, Washington(?) and like five other states to get married. but those are GRANTED freedoms previously unavailable.

meh, i'm rambling and i'm paying attention to a conference call for a project i'm working on. i think i've made my point and related points. looking forward to continuing the discussion later.

Very true, but not everyone in the country lives in an area where police can respond in minutes.

Even in the areas where police are available within minutes, minutes aren't fast enough when the guy with an AR is banging on your front door.

True, this isn't a place I'd like to live in either if it ever came to that. But then again, there are all kinds of scenarios that could inevitably lead to some pretty serious chaos enveloping our nation. And it might not be so easy to get out, either.

_________________
Wheelhouse

As long as we are able to get a gun, and have guns to protect our homes, I'm fine with whatever gun laws we have. Police take what, 5 minutes to get to the scene? By that time you could be a hostage/dead if an armed criminal is in your house.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Perfect example of the level of political discourse one finds on the internet and cable news. Those four on top also supported your right to bear children by the slaves you own and rape. Anyone who tries to speak for what our "founding fathers" would say today is only slightly above the level of those that speak for God.

Also that's a great example of the kind of propanganda many on the right feel is perfectly acceptable. People will argue with me that leftist critics would have done the same with Bush, and while I've seen many "Impeach Bush", "Bush/Cheney 1984" and other like bumper stickers, I never saw people posting pictures of Bush in a group with Hitler and Stalin.

acknowledging that photo as representative of anything but the opinions of few is just as much propaganda as the actual thing.

If I've ever seen a line that belonged in a sig... Just awesome Stu.

In my worthless opinion, a person MUST be able to feel secure in their home. That is the most basic right one can have. Secure from others, and their government(as long as they are not infringing on others). Therefore the right to have a weapon of self-defense in one's own home is paramount. The right to have one in public is a different issue altogether. I think there are many more good arguments against it than for it. I will leave my personal arguments out of this so as not to stir the pot, because I'm getting the idea that some posters are for it.


What's scarier than that is that there are forces far more powerful than the fringe elements who are actually controlling things. Things like this are merely the smokescreen, and we buy it hook, line and sinker every time.

Oh B.S, someone went to the effort to get those pictures, line them up, put that bullshit text in there and then post it all over the place.

Someone else simply thinking that picture represents more people than in reality it does is in no way 'just as much propaganda' as the person who made it.

One is purposeful and malicious, the other is caused by ignorance of statistical data regarding who does and does not believe that message. (not that that data actually exists, so it's impossible for someone to say if that belongs to a large or small subset of republicans)

So different.

Funny, I was going to point out that "just as much" was a bit of a stretch, too, but chose a more positive route. lol