Will we have (legally) guns in 2100?

L

Lavan

New member
Even with all our efforts, how many of you think we will be allowed to have our gun rights 100 years from now?

I think the answer is "no" just from GB and our trend to allow and even support broken families and undereducate about 2 more generations. The yuppies have already done a de facto disarmament on toy guns.

I hope I am dead wrong. I know I will be dead.
 
IMHO: It'll be much less than 100 years before we lose our remaining 'rights'. In another generation (maybe 20 years) it'll be much more than a question of simple legality. Gosh, I hope I'm wrong. But looking at GB, Australia, and even Canada, the PC trend seems obvious and, yes, inevitable. I, for one, will not go quietly- whether it's tomorrow or 40 years from now (if I stay in good health). Each has to make up his/her mind, since it has been said here many times: We all hang together or we hang separately... There will always 'illegal' guns, but that gives me little comfort to know that we all soon may be "outlaws". And what once was a 'right', became a restricted priviledge, and someday soon may become nothing at all... I truly hope that I'm wrong; if not, I'll be dead, right.

------------------
ff ...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make.
 
I hope so, I just hope this country makes it that far.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

One thing is for sure, if we don't get more paople on our side, we won't.

Let's make a New Years Resolution to introduce a person to the benifits of firearms.



------------------
The new guy.

"I'm totin, this pistol because my dang SKS won't fit in my holster"
 
Aw, c'mon, Ernest. Don't be tacky. And don't waste your "last stand" by being alone.

Hit and retreat. Listen to Oleg. Get your arms from your neighbors and your enemy.
 
In 2100, I'll be there in spirit also.

Seriously, unless trends stop and some offensive rather than defensive action is taken, guns will be gone. I predict, Ta DA,
that some states like MA, CA will totally ban
all guns soon. Perhaps, some rich dude skeet guns will survive.

Strategies that are defensive will not work.
I would push for more CCW bills. I think
they are a prime strategy to make the case that Americans want and need firearms for
self-defense. To be blunt, I don't think
2nd Amend. arguments mean squat to the public
and even less in the future.

I think we should adapt a civil rights strategy. One could argue that the Constitution gave all the right to vote but we know that we needed specific legislation to enforce it.

I would suggest that we even take a hit on
something like NICS checks for private sales at gun shows if we could add things to the bill that are pro-gun like:

1. National reciprocity
2. Let CHLS buy hi-cap mags with NICS checks
3. A law that says all Americans that pass a
NICS like check must be allowed to own
firearms and keep them in their place
of residence or business. This would
dramatically impact places like NYC.

You might argue that the 2nd Amend gives us all we need but that's not practical politics.

Antis nibble away gun rights. We can try to gobble them back. The strategy work in Oregon where as a trade for a ban on carrying assault weapons in public, we got a CCW law.

If such actions, protect and expand important rights, that is progress. The CCW story is the only success in years. Add a proactive measure to every control measure. Want to make it a law that each gun has a lock sold with it
(actually a good idea), then give us something with it, like reciprocity.

Please spare me the Vermont, registration and 2nd Amend. flames. I see such strategies as leading to the eventual loss of guns.
 
Sorry, Glenn. Your suggestions remain open to discussion (as do mine ;)).

Now about NICS:
- NICS should be an *instant* check system. If Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, nearly every gasoline credit card, etc. can do it, so can the government.
- NICS should register ONLY those people NOT authorized to have guns, e.g.felons, mentally incompetent, etc. After all, isn't the goal to keep guns out of the hands of the WRONG people? Good people should NOT be registered - nor should guns. (Ignore or deny it, but registration DOES lead to confiscation. I've seen it. I've lived it.)

As far as "carry", our natural (or "God-given") Right to keep and bear arms does not have any "except for" phrases. Therefore, we should be able to carry whatever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want.

It should be a capital felony to take a firearm from anyone (police or otherwise) by use of force, coercion, subterfuge, etc. etc.
It would be an affirmative defense that the gun holder was not authorized to have a gun or was presenting a threat to innocent people, etc.
------

If you're willing to compromise that's fine. But then you are in the same group with those who believe we should compromise less or more than your specific compromises. To keep firearms out of the hands of good people (as opposed to bad guys) is the only acceptable goal.

We can debate upon the methods used to achieve that goal (to accomodate "practial politics"). The goal itself, however, is not to be forgotten or compromised. (Similar to being "a little bit pregnant".)

Just my 2 rubles.
 
The Rock says this.

Glenn where have you been?

Are you seeing what The Rock is seeing?

The NRA, Republicrats, et al. has done comprimized us up the creek without the well-know paddle. All we have left to paddle with is our hands, which are about as efficient as a 1 armed man in a paper hanging contest.

The Rock believes that the whole jabroni, candy-ass lot of the them ought to be tried, convicted of treason and crimes against the people and at the very least, expelled from my nation forever. If they even place one foot back they will be shot on sight by citizens.

To qoute another radical man in another dark time:
"Give me liberty or give me death, Jabroni!"

The Rock

------------------
The Rock says this: A dog does three things
 
NO MORE COMPROMISES!!! If we don't make a stand now, there won't be anything left to make a stand with... just my 1/2 cent worth

------------------
ff ...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make.
 
&$&@(0w90!@%$(**

I did not say Compromise. What I say was the just saying NO COMPROMISE as a purely defensive strategy will LOSE. Bury your guns in PVC pipes and stew in your bunker. :)

I suggested tactical measures that will start turning the tide for us. One way to
do this is if you give a little ground to the enemy you can suck them into to giving you more ground back.

If you haven't been paying attention there have been no reversals of major gun laws.
The suits are having an effect on the industries.

If you read polling and I've done some also,

"The 2nd Amend and God given rights argument"

is not persuasive except to the choir and some technical scholars. The public may buy the self-defense argument. That is any opening to start the process of understanding gun rights.

The antigunners won't be arrested, God isn't going to appear personally to give you the right to carry. No antigunner is going to be charged with treason.

What I proposed where ways for guerrilla warfare type gains to get back some of the things lost and start to convince the centrist public that gun rights should be defended.

Missouri had a CCW bill defeat originally as some hardliners fought against a training requirement as anti RKBA. Then the referendum went down because the big city folk taught guns and carry were for nutsos. If you don't reach these folks, it is all over except for illegal ownership.

That's what I'm saying. I propose ways to get things done.

Ever take the martial arts, sometimes you take
a step back or to the side to accomplish your goal. Is that a compromise? No way.

Techncial quibbles with my buddy, Dennis.

If we are stuck with NICS, let the damn
GOP scream and holler to fix it. They are more interested in the stock market and tax cuts for the rich. The leadership takes gunowners for granted.

I state this again, I would trade a NICS check for private sales at shows for national reciprocity. The latter would be far more important. Since, I have a slew of guns bought through dealers, I'm already registered. My article for the TSRA newsletter registered me as my membership in othe organizations.

About carrying anywhere, Dennis - that's one of my things to have a fit about. I think signs that ban carry are horrors and should be declared unconstitutional as most gun laws.

Except in very specific instances you should be able to carry everywhere. Specific might be: on plans (have to think abou that) or
going to the doctor where you have to leave your clothes in room A and go to room B. Even in that case - there should be lock boxes.

However, when I say in TX that employers and stores, locations, etc. shouldn't be able to put up 30.06 signs, I'm told that:

1. The bill wouldn't get passed without that
provision. How about that, Rocky!
2. Private property rights supercede my rights
to defend myself. It's my castle!!
I buy that for your home but not your
business. I regard it as heinous as banning
people by race or ethnicity. At this point,
some progunner tells me that according to
some conservative scholars you should be
able to ban those of different races from
your business. I don't buy that as I would
be one that would typically be banned.

So Dennis, I am absolutist on some things but
I wouldn't not take the bill because of the 30.06 and earlier provisions.

In conclusion - strategy and tactics is not
compromise. I've studied military history and
you need more depth of manouvere and indirect approaches than just expressed by NO COMPROMISE.

I understand your emotion and feel your pain but there's more to the game than that :)
 
I thought of a good example. Remember the Second World War. We asked for the unconditional surrender of Japan. We didn't get it. We allowed the Emperor to stay on the throne. The Australians and Dutch wanted him to be tried as a war criminal. It was thought that if we did push this, we would still have
to invade after we used up our few A-Bombs.

So did we compromise?

Right now we are losing except for the CCW bills. And some RKBA people are against them.
 
Glenn,

We agree on just about everything. For example, I believe we agree on the final solution being restoration of all our Constitutional rights. We merely have thought out different approaches to that goal.

I think the reason "compromise" pulls my chain is the term has been abused to mean gun owners give up Rights in return for HCI getting the additional restrictions they demand during the next round of compromises.

As someone pointed out, in a compromise "both" sides give up something. But the brownshirts only "give up" what they never had! We give up natural Rights!

It's time to play by the rules which win. Let's demand more than we can get, compromise, then turn around and demand more than we can get, etc. etc. and so forth!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander but it's time to quite gandering and time to give them .... well,... you know.
 
Now in the year 2100 - guess what number
Glock will be out

The 36. And it'll be announced on Glock's web site (yeah right!) :)



------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
If I may be so bold...

Glenn is pointing out the difference and efficacy between seige positions and pro-active aggressive positions.
Point is, we all have the seige position as a back up and ain't no one can take that away til ya die. Hunkering down isn't going to win us a thing.

Its finally dawned on me the difference between liberals and conservatives: Libs know the game is never over and know that what is law now may not be law later. Conservatives think if they win one battle, its over and they can go home and sit on their fat ass. Until the liberal/socialist/facist ideology has been totally and inexorably discredited, the war will not be over.

Ya'll best think about this and go for the long haul. If ya play the siege route, it will all be a non-sequitur.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
The attack on guns is being encouraged by the current President. The last President to have his picture taken with guns is LBJ. We need a pro-gun President to stop the onslaught.
The second thing one is battling is changing demographics. The growing number of mega-cities vs rural populations. Just as in the days of Dodge City and Tombstone, gun control was necessary in the cities. Except instead of amking it a local issue, mega cities are making it a national issue.
Third and final battle is education. The anti-gun forces new tactic is to confuse the populace into believing that the Second Amendment is not INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS but STATES RIGHTS. Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling the debate continues.
My two cents.
 
Some excellent replies to my thread. My observations are based on the old "follow the money" basis for prediction and direction. Enormous wealth is now flowing to a new generation of computer and internet entrepreneurs who do not have guns in their past, present or future and regard them as irrelevant. Also there is a distinct lack of citizens who have been "hunting with dad."
I am in agreement with those advocating compromise rather than a last stand, which tactic Custer can defend.
The decision makers of this generation must view us as rational. It is our only chance.
We need an organization that stops preaching to the pulpit and starts promotions that the public can see. Sweepstakes, gun safety videos for classrooms, a stand against the guns that we know are crap and not many of us would miss if we never saw them on another firing line, contributions to an adopted charity, etc. Anything that makes us "look" like the good guys.
Keep up the suggestions. With enough tactical intelligence, we should be able to make more than a last stand.
 
Our gun rights will be zero if we continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats!

My conviction is that they are going to make felons out of all of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top