• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

With health care out of the way, time to define 'reasonable gun control' looms

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,

Wheelgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Kingston, Washington, USA
imported post

Attacks on gun rights, especially at the Federal level under Obama, would be an incredibly stupid move.

Given the power grab that took place on Sunday I don't think that there would need to be much more to trigger a response from the citizens that would change the Cold Civil War that is going on right now in the USA to hot. States have already declared that guns are off limits to federal encroachment and suspicions are high. Can you imagine a "Waco" level event now being anything other than an utter disaster?

Federal snatches of firearms, house to house searches, seizure if you defend yourself and call the police, or anything that smacks of disarmament, especially in the wake of Heller, would trigger a conflagration too terrible to contemplate.

Good Article Dave, as usual
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:
Attacks on gun rights, especially at the Federal level under Obama, would be an incredibly stupid move.

Given the power grab that took place on Sunday I don't think that there would need to be much more to trigger a response from the citizens that would change the Cold Civil War that is going on right now in the USA to hot. States have already declared that guns are off limits to federal encroachment and suspicions are high. Can you imagine a "Waco" level event now being anything other than an utter disaster?

Federal snatches of firearms, house to house searches, seizure if you defend yourself and call the police, or anything that smacks of disarmament, especially in the wake of Heller, would trigger a conflagration too terrible to contemplate.

Good Article Dave, as usual
They'd never do that, though. It'd be something simple, like an ever-increasing tax on owning firearms. They could do it like they did the healthcare bill - taxes go up to 100% of your income, but there's an 85% tax break if you don't own guns.

They'll come after us one at a time, slowly. There won't be any one thing we can point to and say "this is the last straw, we're marching on capitol hill", and the people in power are smart enough to keep it that way.
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

The health care fight isn't over.

But to put in my .02c, Dave, I think once McDonald vs. Chicago is won things will definitely start to shift the way of pro-gun.

WA State incorporating the 2nd Amendment was a good step forward, as it became case law to be used in McD vs. Chikago.
 

SpokaneIrish

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

The article says the following:
"If Democrats retain control of Congress, expect the next “big item” on the political agenda next year to be an attempt to renew the ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which are far better defined as Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR). They are, after all, widely known as "the party of gun control." If the Congress can get away with such a ban, then even if the Supreme Court rules favorably as anticipated that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, Legislatures across the landscape will start considering seriously ratcheting down on gun rights."

This is a silly article. Expect this based upon what? Based upon they the fact that they are known as the party of gun control? The whole thing is just an elaborate exercise in creating a straw man.

Are you saying that something has been proposed?
]
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

WA Atty Gen McKenna has said he will mount a legal challenge to the recent health care debacle
 

rickomatic

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
43
Location
, ,
imported post

WA Atty Gen McKenna has said he will mount a legal challenge to the recent health care debacle

He has already joined attorneys general from at least 9 other states to do so. And as one would expect, Queen Christine is not at all pleased. Screw her, and the phony ballots she rode in on.
I sent a thank your email to McKenna earlier today.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

I believe that in many repsects the country is becoming generally more liberal.....that is with the exception of firearms...Americans on both sides agree that law-abiding citizens have a right to firearms for self-defense--and sport.


An "assault weapons ban" is a losing battle that the (D) will not engage in. There are some (D) that would support it but most (D) would not. Unlike the healthcare bill, a "assault weapons ban" would be political suicide.
I am sure there will be some "you f-ing commie" accusation :celebrate
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:
rickomatic wrote:
Screw her, and the phony ballots she rode in on.
I would love to see the data on this.
She won only one out of three ballot counts. She complained until they were counted in her favor, then she was satisfied. I can only imagine how loud Dino Rossi's facepalm was.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

I still cant believe Obama bin laden has held his presidency as long as he has. I keep thinking "America" will stand up together and take him out of office. All the polls I see have had the majority against everything he has done, cash for junkers, CEO bonus bailouts, 1st time homeowner, forget those losing their homes bailout, and health care "control", And comming soon to asouthern statenear you, Operation open borders...
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:
WA Atty Gen McKenna has said he will mount a legal challenge to the recent health care debacle
What will happen is that the State Legislature early next year can prohibit funds from being spent on the lawsuit and force his withdraw from the case. He may be attorney general, but the Legislature controls the money and the purse strings.
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
I still cant believe Obama bin laden has held his presidency as long as he has. I keep thinking "America" will stand up together and take him out of office. All the polls I see have had the majority against everything he has done, cash for junkers, CEO bonus bailouts, 1st time homeowner, forget those losing their homes bailout, and health care "control", And comming soon to asouthern statenear you, Operation open borders...
You know what I'm all for immigrants coming to this country to work hard start business's and what not but those people won't be coming anymore thanks to the police state, now you'll have Americans leeching off the wealth of others until it's too much of a burden for those who create wealth.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

My own response, which I'll post over in Dave's GRE:

I disagree with the belief that the Democrats will go right after gun control and gun regulation right after the 2010 elections. In fact, SCOTUS and the federal court system will put most gun control laws out of the reach of the political class. There is almost 2 dozen already filed or potentially to be filed against the Assault Weapons bans, carry bans, other restrictive laws. Every time SCOTUS has spoken about the RKBA, the political opinion of the country tilts more and more towards further RKBA freedoms.

A lot of folk will say "Well, 60 percent of the country was against the Health Care thing", but you need to look at the reasons WHY they're are against it in terms of underlying reasons for it's opposition. Too many people in the 2A community that I've seen (again, seen, not actually seen here) are way too skin-deep in terms of seeing underlying problems and analysis to be effective arguers of your point. Let me demonstrate the point:

Pro-HCR Arguer: Well, it'll save people's lives.

Con-HCR Arguer: Well, 60 percent of the people don't support it.

Pro-HCR arguer: The only reason they won't support it because there's no governmental option to compete against the private insurers. You put in the "public option" its support for the overall bill goes up to 65 percent.

Con-HCR arguer: Well...SIXTY PERCENT ARE AGAINST IT! COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, NAZI-ISM!

That isn't the way to make arguments in terms of dealing with political debates. You folks need to educate yourselves on polling statistics in arguments, because if the only method of modern organizing the gun rights movement emulates the Tea Party movement, GUN OWNERS ARE BEYOND SCREWED IN THE POLITICAL ARENA. Right now, the only shot at taking down the HCR bill is through the legal arena, which is also a dicey game when it isn't involving a fundamental constitutional right. It ain't gonna happen.

The National Parks Gun ban repeal passed by 67 votes last year. The CCW reciprocity bill got 58 votes. We can rely on 57 of those votes (Mark Pryor is an obvious D-bag opportunist), so we're two votes short. Post McDonald, we'll probably have the votes to do it.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

People will support anything that gives them money at others' expense - and that's how capitalism works when a society loses its work ethic and morality. Neither ethics nor morality can (or should) be forced or legislated, so the 30% of Americans that have it are screwed because of the 70% that don't. We need to find a way to use peoples' worst tendencies to work for society, not against it, and the answer is not socialism's forced "equality".
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
[...]
A lot of folk will say "Well, 60 percent of the country was against the Health Care thing", but you need to look at the reasons WHY they're are against it in terms of underlying reasons for it's opposition. Too many people in the 2A community that I've seen (again, seen, not actually seen here) are way too skin-deep in terms of seeing underlying problems and analysis to be effective arguers of your point. Let me demonstrate the point:

Pro-HCR Arguer: Well, it'll save people's lives.

Con-HCR Arguer: Well, 60 percent of the people don't support it.

Pro-HCR arguer: The only reason they won't support it because there's no governmental option to compete against the private insurers. You put in the "public option" its support for the overall bill goes up to 65 percent.

Con-HCR arguer: Well...SIXTY PERCENT ARE AGAINST IT! COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, NAZI-ISM!

That isn't the way to make arguments in terms of dealing with political debates. You folks need to educate yourselves on polling statistics in arguments, because if the only method of modern organizing the gun rights movement emulates the Tea Party movement, GUN OWNERS ARE BEYOND SCREWED IN THE POLITICAL ARENA. Right now, the only shot at taking down the HCR bill is through the legal arena, which is also a dicey game when it isn't involving a fundamental constitutional right. It ain't gonna happen.
[...]
The argument "con-HCR" was being forced to pay for a good or service to live in America, as well as your obvious bias against people thinking they have to earn what they have.

In 2014 I'm gonna have to buy health care whether I like it or not, or be fined for it. Last time I checked, my Constitution said nothing about that.

Paying out of my split for an insurance policy when I'm perfectly fine so I can fund the next Coffee Party member who runs to the emergency room because he has a headache.

Just saying.
 
Top