Donations accepted for 2nd amendment documentary

[Orignal Earl]

I'll bet a lot of people have gotten started on such documentries, but when they get to the parts like in the old West when they banned carrying guns in most cities, their main points start to fall apart

 

[PrinceofWands]

What an intelligent rebuttal!

He doesn't deserve intelligent rebuttal, given the ignorant tripe he spouts.

 

[irishScott]

I'll bet a lot of people have gotten started on such documentries, but when they get to the parts like in the old West when they banned carrying guns in most cities, their main points start to fall apart

Meanwhile, the gun control advocates will let me own the main US infantry combat rifle of 1958, but not the main US infantry combat rifle of 1959. On the premise that the latter is "too deadly", but the former isn't.

 

[tcsenter]

I'll bet a lot of people have gotten started on such documentries, but when they get to the parts like in the old West when they banned carrying guns in most cities, their main points start to fall apart

Not really. We know that constitutional violations of RKBA were rampant across the country by city ordinances and fiat by county sheriffs, but for a long time it escaped challenge because they largely were careful to enforce them against blacks, Indians, Italians, poor whites, and other 'undesirables' who didn't have the clout, money, or political power to fight it. They never prevented the rich and influential members in their community from having as much firepower as they wanted; friends, family, political supporters, security and 'detectives' for corporations, too.

To the extent there were any legal challenges during this time or arising from these laws, it usually ended in the state arguing (successfully) that the 2nd A only restricts the federal government (Congress) from passing such laws, the states could do what they wanted (states rights). In fact, some states even argued, to paraphrase (in effect), "We agree the 2nd A. would prevent Congress from passing such laws, but we ain't Congress or the federal government."

Even when the state itself had a rather strong RKBA clause in their own constitution, and a challenge was brought based on the state constitution, judges often ignored it or treated it as some antiquated part of the constitution, because the plaintiff was often rather unsympathetic (e.g. an armed robber who was challenging his conviction or prosecution for using a gun in the commission of a crime or unlawfully carrying a gun). Of course, judges always got their gun permits, anyone related to judges always got their gun permits, good friends of judges always got their gun permits.

Its exactly why the 14th amendment was passed. And also why the RKBA movement came about.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Oh dear.

Looking forward to the new political discussion forum.

i expect it to be very heavily policed, and anything that isn't intelligent discussion will result in removal from the forum.

some of the vitriol and toxicity that comes from P&N is both shocking and sad.

 

[shortylickens]

I just remembered why I put princeofwands on my ignore list.

 

[Doppel]

My opinion on this matter is now a thoroughly confused one. My first reaction was like many, I wanted "assault" rifles out of this country and stricter controls for all guns...then I tried to buy a pistol. Living in california, I knew we had more controls, but I did not understand just how bad it was already here.
I wanted a target pistol, something very accurate and easy to shoot for recreation. I learned that the majority of these pistols are banned due to larger than 10 round clips. Furthermore, any new models of handguns are also banned in an arbitrary way, regardless of magazine capacity or other features, because they have not been "approved" and added to a list of approved hand guns. They are deemed "unsafe" until money is paid to the state and the gun is tested and added. This is a back door approach to banning/limiting hand guns and hand gun choices in california.
My rights were suddenly under threat and my opinion changed. I felt I was being treated unfairly. I got to watch people on gunbroker.com from other states bid on their favorite handguns while I had to sit by and watch the pistol I wanted be purchased by someone else. If this is not an infringement on the 2nd amandment then I don't know what is.
I then became fearful (yes, fearful) that the American public would no longer possess deterence capabilities from corruption in government if our weapons of choice for self defense were taken away. They are not going after target/hunting rifles, they are going after the class of weapon (really the only weapon available to us) that is ideally suited for self defense against anything more than a single burglar.
So then I read some statistics, and I became even more worried. Long guns of any type are so rarely used in crimes that it became as clear as day to me that this was not about, and could not be about trying to protect americans. I strongly feel that it is about disarming the public from effective weapons, period.
That said, I have confused emotions about wanting to protect people from slaughter, but I am no longer sure that banning any kind of gun will do that. I would donate to a legitimate documentary, but I would be wary of being taken advantage of.

Actually your experience and thoughts parallel some of mine. Until this recent gun control debate came up I basically didn't care about guns much either way. But then I decided to look into the issue, and I I see a lot of stupidity and it seems to be primarily coming from the gun-control activists.

I will be buying my first shotgun in the very near future. I no longer thing it will wake up in the middle of the night by itself and shoot my house up, nor do I suspect it will encourage me to go on a homicidal rampage.

The left has really done a disservice in this topic and thrown reason/science/stats out the window and become blitheringlhy rabid psychopaths over it. Left needs to buck the fuck up if they want to be taken seriously on this and that is why the gun owners fight tooth and nail to resist anything, because they know that in the face of an irrational adversary no reason can stop them. I simply don't want to be associated with people who are ignoring statistics while happily trying to disarm a nation with no evidence that what they are doing is to anybody's benefit.

Oh, and Craig234, and others, before you keep getting so butthurt, it doesn't matter what you think of the 2nd amendment, nor really what most in this thread think of it. You're arguing something that's already been well and truly put to bed. You missed the bus. 2008 Heller ruling said 2nd amendment gives a person right to bear arms for personal protection with "commonly used" arms, so you can prattle on all you like about what it means and who should have what, but you're arguing with SCOTUS to a great degree and they don't care about your opinion and it won't be overruled within your life time, so suck it up butter cup.

 

[Lithium381]

Good to see some of you waking up to your rights under fire! TAKE YOUR FRIENDS SHOOTING and explain the importance of the 2nd Amendment. . . write your representatives in congress, both state and federal. Be active!