I think although it is possible that the production and sales of certain types of firearms, such as semi-automatic rifles, SBRs, etc., will be outlawed in the future, it will be unlikely that our government will decide to take away our guns, am I right? After all, the constitution is on our side. When machine guns were banned in the 80s, those who lawfully possessed them before the effective date, did not have to turn in their guns.
What's the odds of our guns being taken away?
- Thread starter Tool
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
Not exactly. The Constitution is just a document of an ideal that we have put into practice. The 2nd amendment is an "amendment" proving with all the others, that the Constitution is not set in stone. People like to think that it can't be amended despite the fact that they are arguing for an amendment.
The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights, but they are amendments, and while they are held in the highest regard, what we have seen on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments is that "absolute" standard is not absolute in practical reality (not arguing what is or isn't a "God-given" or "natural law" right) as determined by various Supreme Court cases. You ever been pulled over by God or the Natural Law Cops? Been to a Natural Law Court? The ethereal appeals to disembodied authority are what we use to give credence to our claims (and cultures have used this practice for millennia to justify various claims, such as authority) but such claims don't always transfer very well to practical reality. God or the Natural Law Court isn't going to step in and slap the wrist of the US government for doing us wrong and then correct the fault by giving us back any guns or other banned weapons, right?
Actually, they DID have to turn in or destroy their guns (legally) if they didn't register them and there were people who did. Guns not registered became illegal to possess.
However, those meeting the requirements and who properly registered their guns did get to keep them. Just like that "shall not be infringed" was infringing and the right became a privilege as we see time and time again with gun laws.
Bottom line, our rights can be regulated, modified as held by the Supreme Court, even taken away. Look at abortion and alcohol amendments.
Without a lot of due diligence, we definitely could lose our guns. That we will get to keep the ones we already have, based on the previous machine gun example, is wishful thinking at best.
Constitution can be amended, and amendment can be removed, albeit difficult. They just keep chipping away a small piece at a time, or castrating the lion one ball at a time. Keep being complacent and doing stupid things with guns, one day we may find the public sentiment has turned.
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
50 shooter
New member
They add "grandfathered" to bills, so that politicians can feel good about signing a ban.
They get that "we're letting you keep what you have" attitude. Like that somehow makes it better for them and us.
Don't ever stop fighting for your rights. Make it a point to hold politicians accountable for their actions.
They get that "we're letting you keep what you have" attitude. Like that somehow makes it better for them and us.
Don't ever stop fighting for your rights. Make it a point to hold politicians accountable for their actions.
Don't suffer from wishful thinking!
I have watched California turn from a conservative gun friendly state with no waiting periods to buy a rifle to one with constant attacks on my constitutional rights and a dwindling number of places to buy guns and ammo due to over regulation. Australian style gun control is the goal for liberals. In CA 2A rights and due process are attacked from every angle by those hating the constitution and guns. They seek to take away guns, ammo, gun rights, and other politically incorrect things from the public like diesel pick up trucks while silencing opposition to their "politically correct" ideology like pride month and drag story time. Red flag laws are the most abusive avenue that will be used to take your guns away since these laws allow individuals with the help of law enforcement to make an unsubstantiated allegation to circumvent due process and disarm you. The cost to your accuser will be nothing while the cost to get your guns back may be overwhelming because it requires an expensive lawyer to clear your reputation and retrieve your personal property and restore your rights. Red flag laws are nothing more than a tool to circumvent the constitution and rig "due process" against you in the name of "public safety".
Don't be fooled by the word "grandfathered" in a law. That simply means we will go after you tomorrow after we have wider spread acceptance to do so. California passed laws with "grandfathered" provisions but once the public accepts bans, the laws are quietly changed to require the surrender or destruction of "grandfathered" items. The 9th circuit is constantly tipping the scales of justice in favor of California politicians and give the finger regularly to the Supreme Court and people of California.
I have watched California turn from a conservative gun friendly state with no waiting periods to buy a rifle to one with constant attacks on my constitutional rights and a dwindling number of places to buy guns and ammo due to over regulation. Australian style gun control is the goal for liberals. In CA 2A rights and due process are attacked from every angle by those hating the constitution and guns. They seek to take away guns, ammo, gun rights, and other politically incorrect things from the public like diesel pick up trucks while silencing opposition to their "politically correct" ideology like pride month and drag story time. Red flag laws are the most abusive avenue that will be used to take your guns away since these laws allow individuals with the help of law enforcement to make an unsubstantiated allegation to circumvent due process and disarm you. The cost to your accuser will be nothing while the cost to get your guns back may be overwhelming because it requires an expensive lawyer to clear your reputation and retrieve your personal property and restore your rights. Red flag laws are nothing more than a tool to circumvent the constitution and rig "due process" against you in the name of "public safety".
Don't be fooled by the word "grandfathered" in a law. That simply means we will go after you tomorrow after we have wider spread acceptance to do so. California passed laws with "grandfathered" provisions but once the public accepts bans, the laws are quietly changed to require the surrender or destruction of "grandfathered" items. The 9th circuit is constantly tipping the scales of justice in favor of California politicians and give the finger regularly to the Supreme Court and people of California.
Around 1990 I purchased a USAS-12 semi-auto shotgun. Bill Clinton had his ATF reclassified an ordinary semi-auto shotgun as a destructive device. People owning them were given about 1 year to register them, or they were deemed to be criminals subject to $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. Your only alternative was to walk your butt down too your Sheriff's office, get finger printed and submit this with your photograph on a Form 1 to ATF, and subject yourself to an FBI investigation. I complied, albeit OUTSIDE of the stated registration period. I had to pay an attorney to help me with that, for fear of being arrested by ATF. So, yeah, the Democrats have and will take your guns, or threaten to throw your butt in prison!!
FrankenMauser
New member
They don't have to ban anything.
They just have to make it illegal to transfer it.
Time does the work for them.
They just have to make it illegal to transfer it.
Time does the work for them.
Machine guns were not banned in the 80s.
No, they did not. Not in the 80s. Machine guns were required to be registered from the 1934 NFA on. IF you had an unregistered machine gun in the 80s, it had been illegal to own since 1934.
Nothing done in the 80s changed what had been the legal requirements since 1934. What the Hughes amendment did was close the civilian registry, so that no new (or even newly discovered) machine guns could be added.
Prohibition was a constitutional amendment, and so was the amendment repealing it. Which one is the "abortion amendment"?? I'm not aware of that one.
The first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) are amendments, because they were not included in the original draft of the Constitution, and were added because the states would not approve the Constitution in its original draft form. They wanted more protection for their citizens, and the Amendments were added to get them. DO note that the Bill of Rights" does not grant any rights, it a list of things the Government is NOT allowed to do, regarding our rights. And, it is not an all inclusive list, either, being specifically stated as such in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
No right is absolute, all have limitations, (your right to swing your fist ends at my nose) and yes, govt has, often overstepped its lawful authority over the years. Those are, and should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and regarding firearms, we haven't done the best possible job keeping govt in check. It is a work in progress, and lately some hopeful signs have shown up, but it is an ongoing process, and righting wrongs done in the past is not a simple or easy task.
RC said I have watched California turn from a conservative gun friendly state with no waiting periods to buy a rifle to one with constant attacks on my constitutional rights and a dwindling number of places to buy guns and ammo due to over regulation."
Not quite true. I grew up in California and while there was no waiting period for rifles or shotguns, there definitely was one for handguns. I don't know went it was placed into law but by the time I wanted to buy a handgun it was one had to be 18 years old and a three day waiting period. That was back in 1957 when I learned of the law and no idea of how long it had been in effect. I left California for good back in 1968 and moved to the free world I saw what was coming and wanted no part of it. You had to wait that three days for the police to come and verify you were who you were and that you lived where you said you did, Once the did that you could pic up your handgun. I did it more than once.
Paul B.
Not quite true. I grew up in California and while there was no waiting period for rifles or shotguns, there definitely was one for handguns. I don't know went it was placed into law but by the time I wanted to buy a handgun it was one had to be 18 years old and a three day waiting period. That was back in 1957 when I learned of the law and no idea of how long it had been in effect. I left California for good back in 1968 and moved to the free world I saw what was coming and wanted no part of it. You had to wait that three days for the police to come and verify you were who you were and that you lived where you said you did, Once the did that you could pic up your handgun. I did it more than once.
Paul B.
Several states had waiting period laws for handguns, decades before the national Brady law.
The idea was (supposedly) it served as a "cooling off period" so that one would not be able to buy a gun in the heat of passion and immediately do something bad with it. Also, gave the authorities time to do a (cursory) check.
It was, of course, BS, and like our current background check system, of no use what so ever in preventing crime by anyone who already had or had access to a gun.
WA had a 3 day waiting period, when I moved here in 79, which was waived, if you had a concealed pistol license.
One of the department stores that sold pistols (and yes, back then, some did) had a 5 day wait, but that was store policy, not state law.
Today the wait is 10 days, for nearly all firearms, a concealed carry permit doesn't waive that anymore, we have 10rnd magazine limits and several other requirements as well. ALL of those were passed as law to make us "safer".
I'm not seeing it. If anything, we are less safe than we were, back then, as far as I can tell.
The idea was (supposedly) it served as a "cooling off period" so that one would not be able to buy a gun in the heat of passion and immediately do something bad with it. Also, gave the authorities time to do a (cursory) check.
It was, of course, BS, and like our current background check system, of no use what so ever in preventing crime by anyone who already had or had access to a gun.
WA had a 3 day waiting period, when I moved here in 79, which was waived, if you had a concealed pistol license.
One of the department stores that sold pistols (and yes, back then, some did) had a 5 day wait, but that was store policy, not state law.
Today the wait is 10 days, for nearly all firearms, a concealed carry permit doesn't waive that anymore, we have 10rnd magazine limits and several other requirements as well. ALL of those were passed as law to make us "safer".
I'm not seeing it. If anything, we are less safe than we were, back then, as far as I can tell.
stuckinthe60s
New member
they wont take us on barrel to barrel.
theyve already begun limiting ammo and banning certain makes and models.
and, theyve begun making laws to scare us out of having one or using one.
right out of the communist playbook.
and they are winning, because we are stupid and continue to play with them as if nothings happening.
theyve already begun limiting ammo and banning certain makes and models.
and, theyve begun making laws to scare us out of having one or using one.
right out of the communist playbook.
and they are winning, because we are stupid and continue to play with them as if nothings happening.
Bill DeShivs
New member
The reason that NFA weapons are taxed, is because the government can't outlaw them.
2wheelwander
New member
Eventually the guns in the US will go the way of Australia and Britian. I don't think in our lifetime, but it will happen. Todays generation already thinks all guns are bad. in a generation or three public opinions will sway. Those who treasure freedom and realize the slippery sloop being held at bat today will be gone. It's already happening.
FoghornLeghorn
New member
Here's an article pertaining to the subject w/"some" relevant (to the OP's) discussion. Typical antigun hysteria and misdirection but indicative of the loony liberal left's terminal myopia.
[begin article]
Get rid of the guns.
Change the U.S. Constitution, which we as a nation have managed 27 times already in this evolving democracy. Restore the Second Amendment to its original meaning — ensuring a well-regulated militia — and get rid of the guns.
Take deadly arsenals out of private hands, no matter the firearm. No assault weapons. No handguns. No rifles. Melt them down and throw them somewhere deep in the ocean.
Protect ourselves and our futures.
People will break the law, you say. That may be. But we continue to make crack cocaine and recreational fentanyl illegal. Republicans claim they want to bomb Mexico over opioid trafficking.
So pursue guns owned by individuals across this bloodstained nation with the same single-minded determination. Get rid of them, here and now, from everyone who would embark upon shooting sprees and those who fancy themselves responsible gun owners alike.
Owning a lethal firearm, however carefully, invites lethal violence. It increases the likelihood of death by suicide. It increases the likelihood that one day, sometime far in the future, you don’t behave quite so carefully and that gun falls into the hands of a toddler or criminal.
That’s all it takes.
[end excerpt; more at link]
This is their end game and it's a no-holds-barred fight to the finish. However incrementally they attack our rights, they want us completely disarmed. That's why we cannot give them any concessions. To them, that spells weakness and they keep demanding more. While "more" is never enough.
The above link:
https://kansasreflector.com/2024/02...-amend-the-constitution-and-protect-our-kids/
[begin article]
Get rid of the guns.
Change the U.S. Constitution, which we as a nation have managed 27 times already in this evolving democracy. Restore the Second Amendment to its original meaning — ensuring a well-regulated militia — and get rid of the guns.
Take deadly arsenals out of private hands, no matter the firearm. No assault weapons. No handguns. No rifles. Melt them down and throw them somewhere deep in the ocean.
Protect ourselves and our futures.
People will break the law, you say. That may be. But we continue to make crack cocaine and recreational fentanyl illegal. Republicans claim they want to bomb Mexico over opioid trafficking.
So pursue guns owned by individuals across this bloodstained nation with the same single-minded determination. Get rid of them, here and now, from everyone who would embark upon shooting sprees and those who fancy themselves responsible gun owners alike.
Owning a lethal firearm, however carefully, invites lethal violence. It increases the likelihood of death by suicide. It increases the likelihood that one day, sometime far in the future, you don’t behave quite so carefully and that gun falls into the hands of a toddler or criminal.
That’s all it takes.
[end excerpt; more at link]
This is their end game and it's a no-holds-barred fight to the finish. However incrementally they attack our rights, they want us completely disarmed. That's why we cannot give them any concessions. To them, that spells weakness and they keep demanding more. While "more" is never enough.
The above link:
https://kansasreflector.com/2024/02...-amend-the-constitution-and-protect-our-kids/
The Verminator
Moderator
Maybe a better question would be........
What are the odds of them TRYING to take our guns away?
I really doubt they'll ever get into that mode.
It's fraught with peril.
georgehwbush
New member
"keep our children safe"
"safer society"
"for our safety"
all of these "talking points" boil down to one thing, "keep us (the elite) safe from the american general public" that's the reason they don't want you and me to own a gun, period.
i quite frankly expect it to escalate, and then at some point explode. it appears to me like "they" have been pushing us to start some sort of civil war for about two decades now. and we just wont cooperate with them at all. but that's just me.
"safer society"
"for our safety"
all of these "talking points" boil down to one thing, "keep us (the elite) safe from the american general public" that's the reason they don't want you and me to own a gun, period.
i quite frankly expect it to escalate, and then at some point explode. it appears to me like "they" have been pushing us to start some sort of civil war for about two decades now. and we just wont cooperate with them at all. but that's just me.
Bill DeShivs
New member
If push came to shove, and the Supreme Court was forced to rule on the Second Amendment, the only way they could legitimately rule is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now what is "infringed?" It's exactly what the liberals don't want to hear.
Technically, federal gun laws would be null and void.
Now what is "infringed?" It's exactly what the liberals don't want to hear.
Technically, federal gun laws would be null and void.
stuckinthe60s
New member
they are smart. matter of fact, they are smarter than us.
they will never take our guns away.
they got us focused on gun ownership rights.
but guns are worthless w/o ammo and gunpowder. they will take it first. they already started. and we go on like all is well and act like the issue is just cost....while american companies scale back and let the euro market take the lead in usa.
then....in one fell swoop, our left govt shuts the boarders and there goes our supply.
back to bows and arrows we go....against their smart weapons from drones hunting us down....and finding our stashes with infa-red xray technology.
it aint gonna be pretty.
guns dont kill people.......ammo does.
they will never take our guns away.
they got us focused on gun ownership rights.
but guns are worthless w/o ammo and gunpowder. they will take it first. they already started. and we go on like all is well and act like the issue is just cost....while american companies scale back and let the euro market take the lead in usa.
then....in one fell swoop, our left govt shuts the boarders and there goes our supply.
back to bows and arrows we go....against their smart weapons from drones hunting us down....and finding our stashes with infa-red xray technology.
it aint gonna be pretty.
guns dont kill people.......ammo does.
Last edited:
Some of them are smart, though I don't feel they are smarter than us, they may have better grammar..
having gone to the "right schools" and gotten a "good education" (as they define it)For many of them, its a combination of the elitist mindset they've been raised (and trained) to have, along with a sizeable dose of "projection".
They don't know guns, don't need them in their lives, aren't safe with them, so, no one else could possibly be, since they aren't.
I would point out that after the terrorist attack on 9/11 the major mouthpieces for gun control SHUT UP! And they kept their mouths shut and their heads down for several years. One of them actually had the integrity to publicly admit that 9/11 showed him how wrong he had been and that guns in the hands of private citizens were not the biggest threat to our safety he had been taught they were. That particular fellow hasn't been in the media much since then, I think his anti gun friends don't care for him much, these days.
They're not going to stop trying to ban ALL guns in private hands. Because they are convinced they are right and we are not. They do go quiet when a more dangerous and more immediate threat shows up, but after that is dealt with (by people who have guns) they crawl back out of their holes and go right back to what they were doing before.
Are we in danger of house to house searches and confiscation? Not in the foreseeable future from where I sit. Prohibition of certain types of arms, regulations increasing the cost and effort needed to own arms?, abso-freakin-lutely.