Politics affects everyone, so all publicly visible figures of any stripe should feel justified in broadly expressing their views; but of course the second amendment, and most of the first 19 or 20, are important enough that they should have permanent advocacy groups like the NRA.
If a poll says your group represents the views of a plurality of Americans "always" or "most of the time", I'd say that's solidly in the mainstream.
Interesting that the gun lobby is doing a victory dance around the latest Gallup poll. Some times you do need to look at trends... the same poll was taken in the spring of this year and that poll found that two-thirds of respondents had a favorable view of the NRA. So while over 50% still view favorably... the percentage dropped significantly...
The country should not be held hostage by a fringe group of crazies that would rather see guns in the hands of a psychopath than do what is right the country.
....nobody is being held hostage. The NRA does not want further regulation and infringement by taking rights and freedoms away. I am 100 % with that. Doing what is right for the country is to make sure we don't take away things based on the misplaced, irrational and ignorant fear.
I find it funny that you say that people that want gun control are basing that decision on misplaced, irrational, and ignorant fear while the vast majority of gun nuts do exactly that with regards to the government, home security, etc. The arsenals that gun nuts posses cannot fight off the military. Ever. And it is asinine to think otherwise. While I believe everyone has a right to defend their family and property it can be done with something that isn't semi automatic and/or with mega clips. Everything else is just irresponsible.
No one wants to take away your rights. But fair enough. You can keep your single shot muzzle loaders as the framers envisioned. No need for 100 round clips or assault rifles.
I'd hardly consider myself a gun nut, but you might disagree. If you're a "no guns at all" advocate, then we'll agree to disagree, but based on what I've read here and elsewhere, and conversations I've had with friends, family, and co-workers, I'd absolutely say it's based on "misplaced, irrational, and ignorant fear." As to gun nuts 'doing the same thing re: the government,' isn't the conversation about removal of a right? At a minimum, it's about minimizing that right. What constitutes a "mega clip?" Who determines this arbitrary number and what is that number? And how much longer before someone wants to decrease that number again, and then again? You might think it paranoid, but it's certainly justified for those who see what is a Constitutional Right being taken away.. As to an inability to "fight off the military," well, rebellions and guerrilla warfare have proven the opposite worldwide throughout history. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the people from tyranny. Hunting and home defense is secondary. Nice. I'd prefer to determine what I need and don't need, thanks.
Clearly folks that are ignorant to current gun laws and guns in general trying to be experts and give their opinions in the matter. Stop with all this Semi-Automatic BS. Unless your buying a 1st generation revolver or muzzle loader then most of your weapons are semi-auto, even shotguns. Want to ban automatic weapons...already done...want to be the sell of suppressors and muzzle flashes...already done. What do you experts out there in the bbs wish to happen exactly? Give a little detail instead of irresponsible opinion posts that your making... Might as well call you BBS Fox News...
I believe a 4 pronged approach is necessary - 1. For gun owners to get laid. Sexual repression, inadequacy and inability to bone a girl under 200 lbs is the #1 cause for gun related violence. FACT. 2. To hand in all guns with exception of historical artifacts and 1 chamber pistol per person. 3. To take lessons in sophistication - with more education, simple minded people can see the long term benefits of disarmament 4. To remove solidiers from Iraq and send them into the ghetto's to crackdown on gun ownership and violence - without fighting our own civil war, we cannot continue to steal resources from others with a hollow core. Misunderstanding is the real enemy here.
The framers were incredibly smart men. I seriously doubt that they thought weapon technology had permanently stagnated in 1789 after thousands of years of advancement.
Yeah, they were so forward-thinking they probably thought slaves would become four-fifths of a person. As intelligent as anyone might be, every human has an extraordinarily bad penchant for predicting what might happen three or four years down the road, nevermind a century or two. just take a look at modern economics.
2nd amandement was cleary not done correctly by the founding fathers, if they could see the future, I bet they would not craft it the way they did if they even have a 2nd amandement at all.
The counter argument to these tragedies has been that if more people had CHLs, then they could take down these shooters in kind. But if these nutsos don high powered rifles with decent armor, I don't think CH carriers would have a fighting chance. Fair point. I claimed ignorance because I'm open to both sides of the conversation and because I don't really care to think about real firearms 99% of the time. People having it is fine by me if the same people are all responsible. The reason everyone here has an opinion is fairly obvious though, and it's not by choice.
The 3/5 compromise was a political expediency that brought the south into the union. It wasn't a lack of foresight, the nation simply would not have been made without it. None of the founders were going to give the vote to the slaves, the northern states were not going to let the slaves count 100% in calculating representation and the southern states were not going to accept slaves not counting at all for representation. The existence of slavery and the 3/5 compromise is no argument at all that the founders intended the 2nd amendment to mean muskets forever after. These were men steeped in history and science. They certainly studied the Greeks and Romans extensively. To think that these same men could not foresee that weapons technology would continue to develop is asinine, especially since it is clear that they took several steps looking toward the future. Some examples of the founders' forethought include the ability to amend the constitution, a changing division of representation based on a census, procedures for admitting new states, etc. Body armor would certainly reduce the effectiveness of a concealed handgun. The North Hollywood shootout illustrated that point quite well. One more reason not to prevent law abiding citizens from having access to semi-automatic rifles. On the other hand, at the ranges these mass shootings (and nearly all gun homicides generally) occur, a gunman having a high powered rifle does not reduce the effectiveness of a pistol. In tight confines, a pistol could even prove advantageous over a bulkier weapon. Of course, since no one is talking about body armor bans, that is hardly relevant to the discussion. More importantly, these mass shootings are a complete anomaly and should not drive policies that affect the rights of tens of millions of law abiding Americans. Especially when the proposed "solutions" do not seem like they would be particularly effective in solving this very rare and specific problem, given that handguns are just as popular and effective in mass shootings.
