Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: After Heller, The Gun Lobby’s “Slippery Slope” Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead

  1. #1
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    I'm just amazed at no matter how badly they are beaten they squirm out and completely spin it to their advantage.
    [line]After Heller, The Gun Lobby’s “Slippery Slope” Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead


    Almost two years ago, I became President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. A great deal has happened in the gun violence prevention movement since then, but one of the most important has been the debate in the Supreme Court over the meaning of the Second Amendment.
    I was in the Supreme Court chambers during oral arguments in March, and I listened intently to the dialogue between the attorneys and Justices. I was back in the courtroom on Thursday when Justice Scalia read the majority decision and Justice Stevens read his dissent. Now that the Court has issued their opinions, there are a few points that should be discussed.
    By way of introduction to new readers of the blog, I was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana for 12 years. I was proud to be the 1998 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Indiana. I have also been for common-sense gun control throughout my life.
    Over the years, I have seen the gun lobby effectively thwart efforts to pass many sensible gun laws by arguing that even modest gun control would lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. It is the classic “slippery slope” argument, and it has served the gun lobby well politically.
    The “slippery slope,” however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table yesterday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from “taking away” the guns of law-abiding Americans.
    Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a “first step on the road to gun confiscation.”
    While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District’s ban on handguns, they also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms. As Justice Scalia said, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” When the dust settles, most Americans – and I believe even most in the gun violence prevention movement – will come to see that there are some positives in this decision.
    Elected officials will no longer be able to use a mistaken, absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence in our country. Politicians can’t hide behind the Second Amendment anymore.
    In public and political terms, gun control advocates “lost” the battle over the Second Amendment a long time ago. According to a recent Washington Post poll, about 75% of the American people believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a gun for private purposes before the Heller decision was announced. Given that Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg and the national Democratic Party platform all said basically the same thing prior to this ruling, a Supreme Court decision to the contrary would really have confused the general public.
    What is fascinating, however, is that the same Washington Post poll shows almost 60% of Americans also approving the system of gun laws in the District of Columbia in effect before the Court’s decision.
    The American people support an “individual right” and they also support most “gun control” laws.
    Unfortunately, this new court ruling will almost certainly embolden criminal defendants as well as the gun lobby to file new legal attacks on many existing gun laws. Prior to Heller, such challenges would have been dismissed out of hand under the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    Nevertheless, with the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, most of those new challenges can be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety. I am also confident we will prevail in advancing good new legislation to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons because the battle lines will be drawn not on abstract Constitutional history, but on common sense gun policy in the here-and-now.
    Approximately 80 Americans continue to die from guns every 24 hours in this country.
    Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries that occur each year in the United States. Our efforts need to focus on reducing these deaths and injuries.
    We must keep up the fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities. The Brady Campaign will continue to lead the charge.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Since we now know that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual civil right, those that oppose that right are no better than those that opposed other civil rights. We should organize a demonstration in front of the Brady Bunch HQ, sing we shall overcome, shout victim disarmament is discrimination, etc, etc, etc.

    Similar demonstrations in front of ACLU offices - The ACLU promotes the violation of basic human rights, etc.

    Hit hard on the racist roots of gun control.

    Remember we are not clinging to our guns, we are clinging to our basic human rights.

    *******

    Reasonable regulation = literacy test

    no inexpensive handguns (Saturday night specials) = poll tax

    Brady Center = KKK

    Paul Helmke = Grand Dragon of the Brady Center

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Weak or non-existent guns laws? Huh? What does he imagine he's talking about? I got run in over an ambiguously written and arbitrarily enforced state gun law. I'd also be in violation of gun laws for merely not having a copy of my license andposters of certain gun laws up on the wall at the shop here. And the last I checked, the ATF was having no trouble taking down the .1% of dealers who might be corrupt. Nonsense.

    There have never been as many gun laws as there as there are now, and if laws were the solution, the problem would have been mitigated with the passing of all these swell laws. Enforce the existing ones and punish the bad actors. People commit serious crimes with sandwich baggies all the time, and there's no call for "reasonable regulation" of them, even without a recognized right to have them at all.

    -ljp

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    no inexpensive handguns (Saturday night specials) = poll tax
    The way I see it....

    If the right to bear arms is a indivitual right, ....basic human IMO...that would mean one could make the argument that tax/tariffs/licensings fees/ectra on a firearm is = to a poll tax. Such monatary burdens make harder for people of lesser means to exercise a basic right!









  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    DonTreadOnMe wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    no inexpensive handguns (Saturday night specials) = poll tax
    The way I see it....

    If the right to bear arms is a indivitual right, ....basic human IMO...that would mean one could make the argument that tax/tariffs/licensings fees/ectra on a firearm is = to a poll tax. Such monatary burdens make harder for people of lesser means to exercise a basic right!
    ...and if we want to be over the top for fun I could say:


    Now if you really want to make DC squrim compare it to the right to legal defence.



    If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you


    If you cannot afford a firearm, one will be provided for you...
    :what:


    LOL, no I dont need to be giving them away. That said, just get out of peoples way to excersize there legal, constitutional and human right. No over the top fees...the goverment should be financially neutral on the exercising of a right.



  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Alright let me see if I can extract the main points out of this....


    1. The 'Slippery Slope' Argument is no longer valid because the supreme court says guns can't be confiscated due to an individual right, which they fought tooth and nail to deny the American public.
    2. Bloomberg, NObama, H. Clinton say the believed in the individual right to bear arms, despite at least NObama and Bloomberg claiming that they support gun bans such as the one in D.C. which the court deemed unconstitutional because it denies an individual right.
    3. The Constitutional Ruling was Abstract and 'here and now' gun control laws make more sense than those who founded this country.
    Backwards BS. however, I've learned not to expect anything less from the GunGrabbers.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    If laws prevented crimes we would just repeal all firearms laws nationwide and pass a law reading: The use of a firearm in the commission of any criminal act shall be prohibited.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    It is against the law to "MURDER" people. Dose it really matter with what a person was murdered by. Thou shall not murder. There, a gun law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    What's useful is that the "slippery slope" argument is indeed gone, or at least greatly diminished.

    Now it's not so much a concern of becoming like the UK (well, assuming that the states don't abuse the lack of incorporation and end up making DC the gun-friendliest jurisdiction in the country), but of how much infringement we can avoid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •