Your gun rights were never under threat

If there is one thing have played on conservative fears over the last few decades, it is that of their second amendement rights to guns. Each year there is always something new from the blogosphere, from conservative media outlets about how your gun rights are under threat. The fact is, the support for private gun ownership is strong in this nation and will be for time to come. No force has been able to change this fact and despite the ever increasing gun violence, gun statistics, having the highest in the world, private gun ownership has remained strong.

So with all the deregulation of gun ownership over the last few decades, for most recently in DC:
www.vanityfair.com...

and the coming inevitable supreme court ruling in Chicago:
www.chicagobreakingnews.com...

Why do people continue to spread fear about their guns being stripped away? There has infact been more deregulation going over gun rights under this current administration than prior administrations. So why the fear? Because the pundits, politicians and blog writers know that this accusation is a great way to mount opposition for another agenda. The fact is, gun sales were record highs in recent years despite the fact deregulation was going on more so than any sort of regulation. It didn't matter whether the facts did not add up, people still insisted some coming martial law, that has time and time come and passed, have insisted that some anti-gun law would be in place. Its just fear and speculation and there are people using this fear to push their own agendas.

Your guns were never under threat and the pundits and politicians know this. Many citizens know this already, but this excuse of some threat is a great way smear, mislead and spread disinformation to the public.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

You should wait u til everyone who lived under Clintons AWB dies off, CA becomes a shall issue state, the last states still clinging to the AWB let it go and gun-free zones disappear before making that claim.

The least a holocaust denier can do after all is wait for the camp survivors to pass on before calling them liars.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


So with all the deregulation of gun ownership over the last few decades, for most recently in DC:
www.vanityfair.com...

The very fact that you used the word deregulated tells me you didnt think your post through well enough. For something to deregulated it has to be regulated first.

And like the guy said if you were not around for the Clinton years then you dont understand.

Because FEAR is the RNC platform.

FEAR turns voters to the GOP so that they can be protected.

FEAR gets votes, FEAR is the game the GOP is playing.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You should wait u til everyone who lived under Clintons AWB dies off,

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent you from owning arms. It barred certain types of weapons but it did not stop you from owning guns. It also didnt change our crime problem significantly. Where I lived crime actually gradually got worse into the 2000's.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by whatukno
Because FEAR is the RNC platform.

FEAR turns voters to the GOP so that they can be protected.

FEAR gets votes, FEAR is the game the GOP is playing.

Exactly, it is all about the fear. The NRA is having a ball I tell ya. They hold all the cards, they know full well they are safe under the constitution and under the strong support for weapons in this country.... yet they still manage to lead their members at will, under fear. Its this illusion of fear that works well and the facts dont matter.

Obama to seek new assault weapons ban.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

That, from your Attorney General a year ago. It doesn't get any more clear than that. They've backed off due to the political climate, but that's a pretty clear indication of an interest in curbing some gun rights. I'm sure I can find several Congressional bills also aimed at instituting gun restrictions, if you'd like.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
Obama to seek new assault weapons ban.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

That, from your Attorney General. It doesn't get any more clear than that. They've backed off due to the political climate,

They and anybody seeking gun regulation laws never had a chance. If look back at history these laws either never come into place, or never seem to stay in place. There is strong support and conservatives know this full well. The argument of some inevitable gun ban is just a way to keep the voters at bay against the opposition. Its a fear tactic against the opposition.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Criminals will always get weapons no matter what. Any sort of regulation only hurts responsible people that purchase them and use them for defense. Left wing uses the same "fear" BS against guns as the right uses the "fear" of losing them. Well I tell you what I am a responsible gun owner, if someone wants to take it away, I hope they've got a bulletproof bubble around them.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


That same type of ban already happened once not so many years ago. Who is to say that the political winds won't shift again soon so that it could happen again? The fact that such a powerful official as the Attorney General, not to mention the sitting President, have expressed interest in such a ban should lead one to realize that its still a major issue.

And what of all the bans at the state and local level across the country. Try telling the people living under those laws that their gun rights are not under threat.


[edit on 5-3-2010 by vor78]

reply to post by vor78




The guberment ain't taken away yer gunz.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent you from owning arms. It barred certain types of weapons but it did not stop you from owning guns. It also didnt change our crime problem significantly. Where I lived crime actually gradually got worse into the 2000's.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Do you know the definition of shall not be infringed?

From your posting, evidently not.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You have acknowledged a federal assault weapons ban, but then you still try to say they aren't trying to take gun rights away. That doesn't make sense to me.

If we were given the right to bear arms and the founders intent was that we should bare them in order to protect ourself from a government gone mad, then shouldn't we have every right to bear whatever arms government troops are allowed to use?

To top it all off you say that it is a GOP tactic to leverage fear, but isnt the fear founded in reality since they already banned assault weapons?

The truth is, if it were up to Liberals they would have this place running like Britain where you cannot have weapons. So it is important for somebody to stay ahead of the game and make sure people dont loose sight of the fact that their guns could be taken away with just one bill from their state or federal government.

reply to post by whatukno


Not now. As I said before, in this political climate, they have been forced to concentrate on other more important domestic agenda items. I don't expect them to push for one during this term.

Had the healthcare debate not destroyed the Dems approval ratings, I think the situation would be quite different.

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Criminals will always get weapons no matter what.

I agree, the AWB law did little to nothing to change that. This issue of gun violence in our nations goes beyond access to guns.

Any sort of regulation only hurts responsible people that purchase them

I disagree. I believe regulations to the individual are effective, keeping the 2nd ammendment rights away from those individuals who abused it, who committed previous crimes.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I'll ask once more: Do you know the definition of "shall not be infringed"?

It seems you are ignorant as to the meaning of those words.

reply to post by brainwrek


Sorry, in my opinion if you are a felon, especially one who has committed a violent crime, you gave up that right willingly.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You have acknowledged a federal assault weapons ban, but then you still try to say they aren't trying to take gun rights away. That doesn't make sense to me.

It does to me. While the AWB law did little to nothing to change gun violence in this nation, the law itself never stopped you from owning guns. Tell me, did the law prevent you from buying a gun?

To top it all off you say that it is a GOP tactic to leverage fear, but isnt the fear founded in reality since they already banned assault weapons?

Not by the GOP. This fear has been used by all sorts of people. While the AWB law came in to place, it never barred you from owning guns. It barred you froming owning certain fire arms, but it didnt prevent you from buying guns.

Last time I checked it is against the law to own a fully automatic weapon. That is an infringement of the 2nd amendment plain and simple. To say that they won't go after semi autos or double barrels or anything else for that matter is not out of the question. The guys in Washington want guns abolished for their sakes. They are all lawyers and none of them seem to understand the constitution. For that reason I will cling to the belief that they are scared of the masses and want to disarm us. Our rights are always under attack. It may not be an open attack but there are talks and strategies going on behind closed doors.