Posted on 10/09/2017 7:08:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Whether or not bump stocks end up banned is a trivial matter. The war over the Second Amendment will not hinge on the outcome of this particular battle. Both sides know this; the importance of the issue is entirely psychological.
For progressives, a win would be a move in the right direction, evidence that conservatives are vulnerable. It would be comparable to the Doolittle Raid against the Japanese homeland in 1942 – a strike of no great strategic import but invaluable as a way to shift national confidence from the Japanese to the American side.
For conservatives, there is little to be gained by thwarting this progressive gambit (which is the reason some are prepared to make a tactical retreat). Why expend resources on such an insignificant matter when winning it will not much advance the Second Amendment cause? Why, indeed! The answer is that a defensive mindset leads to defeat. Fainthearted people rarely win at war. This is no less true for a political war than it is for a military one.
If either side in a war is not totally committed to the principle for which it stands, then the other side wins. It may take a week, or it may take years, but ultimate victory almost always passes to the side that more strongly believes in its cause.
This brings us to this particular war over this particular constitutional amendment. As it stands, conservatives are doing nothing more than defending an existing arrangement. Progressives are out to change it. Let us not be deluded by any protestations that their agenda is to refine rather than eliminate the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What a complete idiot.
How do they find buffoons to write this dreck?
And do they come up with editors who aren’t too embarrassed to publish it?
Although I like the idea of gun safety courses offered to the public by the military, I don’t like the idea of making them mandatory. If you make a constitutional right contingent on taking a course you are falling in with the liberals, who view gun ownership is something the government can and should control.
Any questions?
Trade a bump stock ban for universal national concealed carry or nation-wide concealed carry reciprocity. I would consider that a big net win.
On the other hand, if they would be willing to stop blocking the SHARE act and concealed carry reciprocity I would be willing to accept the licensing of bump stocks as destructive devices, assuming we could reach a reasonable agreement on the legal definition of what a "bump stock" is.
Otherwise we should hold our ground until the hysteria passes
If you look at the three methods that could be used:
(1) Constitutional Convention. I don’t think anyone from either party wants this to occur because there could be twenty-odd changes (term-limits, deletion of the Electoral College, removal of functions for the Senate, etc).
(2) Getting two-thirds of the House and Senate to pass? It’d be a end of career job for some GOP folks if they went this direction.
(3) State by state legislatures voting on a similar piece of legislature seems unlikely. You wouldn’t find any southern state agreeing to this.
So it’s simply a lot of talk without much to be accomplished. Now, I will say...if they ever get around to defining a militia within each state, and get the Supreme Court to allow a defined status...then you might see some creative measures to occur then. If you just said that no incarcerated or convicted members could be a member of a militia....it’d likely be waved as legit, and take the first step.
What part of the article did you find idiotic?
The Second Amendment protects the First; remove the Second and the First goes away.
>
Trade a bump stock ban for universal national concealed carry or nation-wide concealed carry reciprocity. I would consider that a big net win.
>
Oh, so you mean add TWO infringements (ban on bump-stocks and the ‘permission slip’ (CCL)) to seemingly ‘restore’ what already exists (shall not be infringed = national carry)
The issue is never the issue.
Libtards don’t give a crap about “bump stocks”. Trump ran on changing the Overton Window on the 2nd Amendment. This is about preventing that. Pure and simple.
There are two fronts to fight on, emotion and logic. We already are winning on logic. What will back the Dems off is to win in the area of emotion.
NRA should run ads around:
- women defending their kids or themselves from being attacked
- men defending their family
The author was headed in the right direction but is totally wrong on bump stocks being trivial. The definition of full auto is firing two or more shots with a single actuation of the trigger. Bump stocks only allow firing one shot per actuation of the trigger = not a machine gun. So banning bumpstocks is really a ban on the ability to pull the trigger quickly and MANY was to do this other than bump stocks. A nice adjustable trigger is a great aid to shooting fast so you can see where this will go if we lose this fight. Bump firing itself is easily done without a bump stock and infact has been done long before the bump stock was even invented. Allow a ban on bump stocks and we we be on a very rapid path to banning all semi autos.
Bad trade as the Second Amendment already guarantees national carry reciprocity...concealed or not.
The resolution to ending the 2nd amendment debate in favor of the 2nd amendment is to attack the gun control acts of 1934 and 1968 to end the notion that American's 2nd amendment rights are limited. We must end the NFA and all the nonsense infringements it has forced on the American people. We should not be debating a ban on bump stock because without the NFA they would not exist. Until we wake up and realize the NFA is the source of all our problems we will continue to have this debate and will ultimately lose and be disarmed.
Shoot anyone who comes for your guns, if they say turn then then everyone show up and open fire.
“You won’t need the wnd amebdment until they try to take it away from you” this is a clue
Really? Try it in downtown Los Angeles some day. You will very shortly be on your way to jail and your weapon will be on its way to becoming part of a manhole cover.
Not fair? If you really believe that why are you not camped out on the capitol steps in Sacramento trying to change it? A lot of things in life are not fair or right or just. We all pick our fights.
Where has this tool been as conceal carry has been vastly expanded over the past couple of decades? And self-defense laws improved? The so-called assault weapons ban allowed to expire without renewal? It's been a Second Amendment juggernaut.
Oh, so you mean add TWO infringements (ban on bump-stocks and the ‘permission slip’ (CCL)) to seemingly ‘restore’ what already exists (shall not be infringed = national carry)
Calgone:
Bad trade as the Second Amendment already guarantees national carry reciprocity...concealed or not.
I would love to see those positions enacted, but the probability of that happening any time soon is nil, and succeeding in getting it isn't a given. My suggestion bypasses that difficulty and brings us much closer much more rapidly. The step from national concealed carry to national constitutional carry is not a huge one.
For us to win the 2nd Amendment “war”...just buy more guns and not be afraid to use them when the time comes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.