2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun

#61

Post by baldeagle »

Pawpaw wrote:I spent 22 years on the wall, doing my part to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies.

If you don't think I'll willingly spend the rest of my life protecting it from domestic enemies, you're sadly mistaken.
:iagree: Vietnam vets will not take kindly to a usurpation of our rights by communist leaders. We took an oath then, and that oath has never expired. I've already prepared my wife for the possibility that I may be killed for standing up for my rights.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member

SherwoodForest
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun

#62

Post by SherwoodForest »

I believe the time has come to frame this 2A "controversy" in the precise terms warranted.

The anti-2A sheep proclaim that the U.S. of A. has so "progressed" in the last 225 years that the 2A is out-dated and no longer serves any worthwhile purpose.

Well...if that is the argument to nullify the 2A - feel free to initiate the amendment process to achieve repeal of the 2A as provided for within the Constitution.

Oh........they can't get that done because 2/3 of the people support the 2A.......OK then...

That being the case.....I see the only viable course of action is for those states wanting do away with the 2A - to separate from the U.S. of A. and form their own confederation based upon aritcles of confederation that do not include protections for this reserved right of the people. You might want to consider naming your confederation the Union of Soviet Separatist States Restored (USSSR).

In short - it is the anti-2A advocates who need to formally separate from us. They obviously do not approve of our Constitution.
This 2A issue is one that is terminally dividing the U.S.A. into two separate unions.

There is no room for compromise by either constituency. Formal political separation or a very ugly war are the only two options I see .

The USSSR could establish NYC as its capitol with San Francisco as an annex.

The toll revenues that the U. S of A. will collect from West/Northeast Coast situated USSSR in return for the use of our highways and air space should liquidate the national debt of the U.S.A. within 10 years.

SherwoodForest
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun

#63

Post by SherwoodForest »

Actually perhaps an even better way of framing this "disagreement" over the 2A is to restate the obvious....

All 50 states have formally ratified the 2A as a pre-condition for entry into the union of the U.S. of A.

In other words.....we may just have to agree to disagree on the 2A - because it is the law of the land and there is no provision in the U.S. Constituion for override of the 2A - even though some states are in fact doing so within their jurisdictions.

All of the feined distress over tragedies that are to a great extent preventable through "reasonable" defensive measures - isn't going to stop such tragedies, and the obsene exploitation of such tragic events for political advantage is shameful.

It may also be worth noting that a significant portion of the anti-2A constituency is not surprisingly comprised of people with criminal records effectively disabling their own exercise of the 2A right. So it's not surprising that they don't respect the 2A right of the law-abiding.
User avatar

Topbuilder
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:14 pm

Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun

#64

Post by Topbuilder »

I would agree with the 2/3 oposition figure. Possibly higher. Texas... 90%?
The thing no one has touched on is the provision where the weapon is not transferable. The "liability" of owning the un-registered weapons will then be transfered to your heirs... that may be where it starts to break down some.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God, and the Bible." George Washington
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 7875
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun

#65

Post by anygunanywhere »

baldeagle wrote:
Pawpaw wrote:I spent 22 years on the wall, doing my part to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies.

If you don't think I'll willingly spend the rest of my life protecting it from domestic enemies, you're sadly mistaken.
:iagree: Vietnam vets will not take kindly to a usurpation of our rights by communist leaders. We took an oath then, and that oath has never expired. I've already prepared my wife for the possibility that I may be killed for standing up for my rights.
The very ones who used to spit on returning vets and call them babykillers are the ones running the US, many state, and local governments.

Payback time.

Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 7875
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: 2/3rds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun

#66

Post by anygunanywhere »

SherwoodForest wrote:I believe the time has come to frame this 2A "controversy" in the precise terms warranted.

The anti-2A sheep proclaim that the U.S. of A. has so "progressed" in the last 225 years that the 2A is out-dated and no longer serves any worthwhile purpose.

Well...if that is the argument to nullify the 2A - feel free to initiate the amendment process to achieve repeal of the 2A as provided for within the Constitution.

Oh........they can't get that done because 2/3 of the people support the 2A.......OK then...

That being the case.....I see the only viable course of action is for those states wanting do away with the 2A - to separate from the U.S. of A. and form their own confederation based upon aritcles of confederation that do not include protections for this reserved right of the people. You might want to consider naming your confederation the Union of Soviet Separatist States Restored (USSSR).

In short - it is the anti-2A advocates who need to formally separate from us. They obviously do not approve of our Constitution.
This 2A issue is one that is terminally dividing the U.S.A. into two separate unions.

There is no room for compromise by either constituency. Formal political separation or a very ugly war are the only two options I see .

The USSSR could establish NYC as its capitol with San Francisco as an annex.

The toll revenues that the U. S of A. will collect from West/Northeast Coast situated USSSR in return for the use of our highways and air space should liquidate the national debt of the U.S.A. within 10 years.
Even if the 2A was repealed our RKBA WOULD STILL EXIST as it is God given and cannot be eliminated.

Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”