What Federal Gun Control laws have been rolled back recently? Did I miss something?
As you stated, the recent assault weapons it was allowed to die.
Keep in mind, that your idea has some serious flaws. For starters, if the Government succeeds in making semi-automatic ("assault") rifles illegal to own, there will be one heck of a lot of those rifles destroyed. There will, of course, be people killed trying to defend their God-given rights, and trying to infringe upon them. No amount of electoral pandering will fix that. The legislature, at any level, won't bring the dead back to life, restore the firearms to their owners (likely destroyed en masse), or fix lives. All I see here is another slick attempt to convince people to take another step down the road to totalitarianism. "It's Okay, you can always turn around, you can go back", is not a puersuasive argument for me at this point. You see, my grandfather taught me to shoot a rifle when I was a young man. In that area, now, he would have been violating a host of laaws for handing me a rifle, a cartridge, and shooting on the beach where we went to shoot, even though we endangered no one. He was very careful and would not have allowed me to shoot had there been anyone within a mile or visible in that direction (in a boat on the water). My uncle had bought a rifle that same year, he put the money order in the envelope with the order form, addressed it, and put the 4 cent stamo on it, and a few weeks later, here was his rifle, delivered by the United States' Post Office. Now, that is the freedom I recall. When we get that back, you can tell me how easy it is to put the right back. One bad SCOTUS ruling, a fast frenzy by the anti-gunners, and some well televised blood in the streets, and you will not recognize this country. You can't repeal the consequences, and if history is any guide, the reaction to the law will be used as the justification for more. There is no good done at the State level which cannot be undone by people who would not know freedom from dog poop at the Federal level. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land...kinda cool" may have been the remark of a Democrat, but I can see where Republicans would buy into that (especially lately when the idea of a set stance on issues and a party platform is being tossed out at every turn).As for anti-gun Congressmen, there should be no such thing, except in personal emotion. To vote that way is a violation of their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Which is why, frankly, none of the Republican front 4, and especially not the Democrats, have any credibility with me as candidates whatsoever. I have seen this sort of medicine show skunk oil sales nonsense before. As they say in these parts, this ain't my first rodeo. I'm not buying.
Well, that was alot of doom and gloom!
The pro-gun forces in this nation have the anti-gunners terrifed!
No Democrat would overtly attack guns today and expect to survive an election in the South and West.
The right to own weapons is being discussed as a personal right for the first time in decades.
But for some reason Conservatives have this penchant for predicting the imminent end of the freedom, so lets just forget our responsibilities to vote.
One thing that conservatives could learn from liberals is their eternal optimism and determination.
No matter how often they are defeated, they keep coming because they have faith in their cause.
Would that conservatives had that same kind of faith in theirs, instead of 'I am going to hunker down with my rifle and ammo and wait for the United States to collapse'.
THat it was not renewed shows how desperate you are to tout a victory.
The right to own weapons is being discussed as a personal right for the first time in decades.
Yep, before it was taken for granted.
Note in Miller the scotus did not rule the collective right, but tha the weapon involved was not a militia weapon. Of course, a little defense (Miller was dead), might have pointed out that a short barrelled shotgun has numerous applications as a military weapon, thus the premise of the ruling was in error: the court was misinformed.
But for some reason Conservatives have this penchant for predicting the imminent end of the freedom, so lets just forget our responsibilities to vote.
Yes! Because complacency guarantees the end of freedom. If every statute is not studied in its worst light, its greatest potential abuse, then it will eventually be used that way. Best to nip it in the bud.
Keep in mind, too, that we are the ones who have had our core issues nibbled away at by the herd who would mouth nonsense about waiting until next time, about lesser evils, and how you get 80%, so what if you don't get the other 20? No loss of freedom is tolerable to conservatives, it is those who tout compromise who are selling our liberty piecemeal for convenience.
One thing that conservatives could learn from liberals is their eternal optimism and determination.
First, we are about as determined as it gets. We are still here, even though the purveyors of Republican-ism have crapped on us time and time again. We have not given up.
Second, I have a positive attitude. I am positive, that given any advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, my government will continue to amass to itself power at the expense of my liberty. That is human nature, and to get starry-eyed and start doing the happy-feely kumbaya bit might work for the socialists' drones, but they are oblivious to the freedom they are losing in the process.
No matter how often they are defeated, they keep coming because they have faith in their cause.
As do we. Faith in our cause, in God, in the ultimate desire of people to live secure, productive, and happy lives--and to pass those freedoms, that security, and the fruits of our labors on to our progeny.
The biggest difference is in how we desire to attain that goal.
I have a mother and a father, God Bless them, and I learned the concepts of personal responsibility at their knee. I do not need the State to act as a surrogate, not then, and certainly not now, when I am a great-grandfather.
Would that conservatives had that same kind of faith in theirs, instead of 'I am going to hunker down with my rifle and ammo and wait for the United States to collapse'.
Perhaps a few do have that idea in mind, but most of us would rather prevent that collapse. If you or anyone else wants an idea what happens to a modern city in a year of warfare, look at Sarajevo, the jewell of the Balkans, and site of the Winter olympics (I forget the year). No one wants that for America except our enemies. No one wants to live like East Germany in the '60s either.
But, in extremis, the rifle and ammo are there--and will continue to be, regardless.
The important word is "overtly". They'll just wait until after the election, and then "just do it". Probably in the dark of night, by "unanimous consent" and/or voice votes. That voice vote (of questionable authenticity) is how we got the machine gun ban amendment to the otherwise laudatory Firearm Owners Protection Act. Unanimous consent in a nearly empty Senate is how we got the Brady computerized registration scheme.(unanimous consent in a nearly empty Senate).