PDA

View Full Version : Why must we play this game?


Ctwo
06-02-2011, 12:51 PM
Well, such is life...

It seems to me that the RKBA is woefully unpopular.

Why hasn't the 2nd been ammended to remove this right, or even just proposed?

Seems like a clear cut way to end the arguments and give the majority what they want.

Besides, it seems the spirit of the right was originally intended to go far beyond mere personal defense or just the right to pea shooters. Yeah, we would need tanks, drones, and nukes just the same to really say we have a right to arms.

bwiese
06-02-2011, 12:55 PM
Because the RKBA *is* popular.

Most people actually DO think it gives right to bear arms, whether they agree with it or not. Some people want to nibble around its edges, but it is still long-held popular understanding.

The antis attack it thru all sorts of shenanigans because they know they do NOT have anywhere NEAR the votes to even attempt a try at repeal.

HowardW56
06-02-2011, 1:16 PM
Why hasn't the 2nd been ammended to remove this right, or even just proposed?

Seems like a clear cut way to end the arguments and give the majority what they want.



Majority??? How about an influential minority, with the attitude of a ruling class....

zhyla
06-02-2011, 1:28 PM
woefully unpopular.

There are an estimated 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. To put that popularity in perspective, there are 160 million iPhone/iTouch/iPad devices in the world.

Glock21sfsd
06-02-2011, 1:35 PM
That is an interesting statistic! where do you find that information at? I would like to share that with some people I know but I want proof not just what I read on a message forum.

Thanks
There are an estimated 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. To put that popularity in perspective, there are 160 million iPhone/iTouch/iPad devices in the world.

BlindRacer
06-02-2011, 1:35 PM
There are an estimated 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. To put that popularity in perspective, there are 160 million iPhone/iTouch/iPad devices in the world.

Wow! Great comparison! I think there are at least 7 or 8 iPhones within about a 20 foot radius of me as I type this. To imagine that there are many more guns than this, and in just the US alone...that's staggering!

ke6guj
06-02-2011, 1:36 PM
Why hasn't the 2nd been ammended to remove this right, or even just proposed?.IIRC, just about every year someone in congress does exactly that.

MudCamper
06-02-2011, 1:39 PM
There are an estimated 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S.

That's a low estimate. The ATF estimated it at 248 million ten years ago.

sighere
06-02-2011, 1:40 PM
Thing is, few people own 8, 10 or 20 iphones. There's a lotta guys out there who own lots of guns, so the numbers don't tell all. Heck, I had to stop and count on my fingers. Then I took my shoes off. 13 is my lucky number currently.

scarville
06-02-2011, 1:54 PM
Well, such is life...

It seems to me that the RKBA is woefully unpopular.

Why hasn't the 2nd been ammended to remove this right, or even just proposed
Becase they don't have to. The Fourth Amendment has been thoroughly emasculated. The "taking clause" of the Fifth Amendment has been similarly reduced to a mere shadow of what it once was. Kelo v New London being a recent, well-known outrage. Now that the Second has been incorporated the antis will just attack it incrementally. A couple of places to start might be: Introduce more new laws in liberal enclaves -- each of which as to be fought in court if it passes. Seek new legal theories or extend old ones to the end of reducing your right to keep and bear and into a licensed privilege.

Ctwo
06-02-2011, 3:09 PM
Because the RKBA *is* popular.

Most people actually DO think it gives right to bear arms, whether they agree with it or not. Some people want to nibble around its edges, but it is still long-held popular understanding.

The antis attack it thru all sorts of shenanigans because they know they do NOT have anywhere NEAR the votes to even attempt a try at repeal.



Is it really popular enough where it matters or is there another force keeping it alive for profitable reasons?

...too much of an economic hit for us to swallow, especially now?
...too much a part of our political and legal system?

I'm starting to believe that we will never get what we want and neither will the antis...there is just too much at stake.

jwkincal
06-02-2011, 3:19 PM
The #1 ranking state in the Brady stats for gun control. Allegedly we are chock full of peaceable gun-hating folks whom are a hair's breadth away from permanently eliminating the RKBA in our fair state. There must be a tiny minority of gun owners in CA.

But there isn't. That minority is only barely so. If every one of us initiated a new gun owner we would be the majority by a huge margin.

Look around. Look carefully. I spotted many NRA and firearms manufacturers stickers on vehicles just during a trip to the store this AM. I know that at least half of my neighbors are gun owners. I myself have minted three new gun owners in the last three years; I have at least one more in the pipeline as we speak.

Going to get all the guns would be impossible. Asking for them to be turned in would be laughable. Guns can't be legislated out of existence and it will take more than a century to functionally remove them from our culture by an outright ban on manufacturing and sale -- and that would have to be done at a national level, which in any known political climate is impossible. Someday maybe, not in my lifetime or my children's...

Wherryj
06-02-2011, 3:33 PM
Wow! Great comparison! I think there are at least 7 or 8 iPhones within about a 20 foot radius of me as I type this. To imagine that there are many more guns than this, and in just the US alone...that's staggering!

Depending upon which city/area of town you are in currently, I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least 7 to 8 illegally concealed firearms within a 20 foot radius either.

Wherryj
06-02-2011, 3:37 PM
The #1 ranking state in the Brady stats for gun control. Allegedly we are chock full of peaceable gun-hating folks whom are a hair's breadth away from permanently eliminating the RKBA in our fair state. There must be a tiny minority of gun owners in CA.

But there isn't. That minority is only barely so. If every one of us initiated a new gun owner we would be the majority by a huge margin.

Look around. Look carefully. I spotted many NRA and firearms manufacturers stickers on vehicles just during a trip to the store this AM. I know that at least half of my neighbors are gun owners. I myself have minted three new gun owners in the last three years; I have at least one more in the pipeline as we speak.

Going to get all the guns would be impossible. Asking for them to be turned in would be laughable. Guns can't be legislated out of existence and it will take more than a century to functionally remove them from our culture by an outright ban on manufacturing and sale -- and that would have to be done at a national level, which in any known political climate is impossible. Someday maybe, not in my lifetime or my children's...

The issue in CA is that the majority of gun owners are either inactive or uninformed. It is too easy to believe the lies spread about "No one needs one of these evil black rifles-it's just a weapon of mass destruction" and "we need to ban open carry for the children", etc.

Thus the reason that the politicians and Bradys are very careful in nibbling around the edges of gun banning and even more careful in their wording. If these anti-consitution types ever came straight out and admitted that their goal was a total gun ban this group might be mobilized and things would swing back precipitously.

voiceofreason
06-02-2011, 3:42 PM
Based on majority, every state has RKBA shall issue permits except 3 and DC

NotEnufGarage
06-02-2011, 3:51 PM
Thing is, few people own 8, 10 or 20 iphones. There's a lotta guys out there who own lots of guns, so the numbers don't tell all. Heck, I had to stop and count on my fingers. Then I took my shoes off. 13 is my lucky number currently.

Yes, but people under 21 or 18 can own iPhones, but not guns, so larger percentage of gun owners for the given population, I'd bet.

bohoki
06-02-2011, 4:12 PM
you dont amend an amendment you amend the constitution

Librarian
06-02-2011, 4:20 PM
That's a low estimate. The ATF estimated it at 248 million ten years ago.

Nobody actually knows the number.

BATFE has manufacturing numbers, 1998 - 2009 here (http://www.atf.gov/statistics/afmer/). Import numbers are more difficult. I plotted BATF numbers from Gary Kleck with those AFMER numbers and I get around 300 million. They are, of course, not evenly distributed.

753X0
06-02-2011, 4:47 PM
Is it really popular enough where it matters or is there another force keeping it alive for profitable reasons?

...too much of an economic hit for us to swallow, especially now?
...too much a part of our political and legal system?

I'm starting to believe that we will never get what we want and neither will the antis...there is just too much at stake.

It sounds to me like you have confused the system of government in the US. It is not a democracy. Everything is NOT subject to popular will. It is a constitutional republic, wherein the only changes that can be made must be within that framework.

uyoga
06-02-2011, 5:26 PM
Why must we play this game?

Because we do not have what it takes to change it . . . . .

In Financial Resources
In Individual Dedication
In Singleness of Purpose
In Voting Power
In Public Relations
In Media Support . . . or Fairness in Reporting
In Sincere Unity among the pro Second Amendment Organizations
In . . . .

So most of us are "doing the best we can with what we have" by playing the game to win.

yellowfin
06-02-2011, 5:36 PM
If we can get #2, 3, and 7 we can get the rest or overcome the lack thereof.

Tarn_Helm
06-02-2011, 6:02 PM
Well, such is life...

It seems to me that the RKBA is woefully unpopular.

Why hasn't the 2nd been ammended to remove this right, or even just proposed?

Seems like a clear cut way to end the arguments and give the majority what they want.

Besides, it seems the spirit of the right was originally intended to go far beyond mere personal defense or just the right to pea shooters. Yeah, we would need tanks, drones, and nukes just the same to really say we have a right to arms.

At the risk of seeming offensive . . .

You are a troll. :troll:

You are attempting to incite some sort of hostile response.

Either that or you are abysmally ignorant of how to assess public opinion.

Just my $0.02.

sfbadger
06-02-2011, 6:05 PM
There are an estimated 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. To put that popularity in perspective, there are 160 million iPhone/iTouch/iPad devices in the world.

I would say your estimate is waaaay too low! If you add the amount of Antique guns in the US then the figure would have to be at least 2-3 times your number, maybe more? Truth is, no one, including the US Government, has the slightest clue as to how many firearms are in the US.

Hell, at the turn of the 20th Century, there were something like 11 firearms manufacturers in San Francisco, alone. Nobody kept track of the arms produced by smaller gun builders across the US. One of the largest gun manufacturers in the world, Winchester, had a huge fire and lost the records for millions of their guns produced but still have the records for many, many millions more, ... and that's just one manufacturer. If the true numbers were really known, Helmke would wet himself and then call Kevorkian!

Ctwo
06-02-2011, 6:25 PM
At the risk of seeming offensive . . .

You are a troll. :troll:

You are attempting to incite some sort of hostile response.

Either that or you are abysmally ignorant of how to assess public opinion.

Just my $0.02.

Blatently labeling someone you don't know or understand their motives a derogatory label seems a deliberate attempt to incite some sort of hostile response. Sorry if I came off as a troll to you.

I'm also not an expert on constitutional law, but what direct role does "Joe the Plumber" (aka, the general public) have to do with a constitutional ammendment to completely strike 2A? I understand he can vote for his reps, but that is about it (or perhaps he can fund). Again, I'm not an expert on constitutional law, much less this segment of it.

How about instead of labeling me either a troll or ignorant, you try treating me like someone who deserves a small scrap of respect?

Lets say I became of age and became interested in firearms and have just started learning about what it takes to own firearms in CA and stay out of jail, or become financially ruined, and the complexity of the situation becomes quite frustrating for me, "Joe the Plumber" who does not want to study for a degree in constitutional law, politics, or any other such field besides his field of livelyhood and genuine interest.

At best, firearms would be a hobby for me, not a living or a way of life, so the competition on getting me as a firearms owner caught breaking the law and locked up or on the financial hook is already lost. I can't compete against those who make it their life.

Maybe I'll just strike it up to another one of those "freedoms" I had that was just too risky.

Ford8N
06-02-2011, 6:31 PM
The #1 ranking state in the Brady stats for gun control. Allegedly we are chock full of peaceable gun-hating folks whom are a hair's breadth away from permanently eliminating the RKBA in our fair state. There must be a tiny minority of gun owners in CA.

But there isn't. That minority is only barely so. If every one of us initiated a new gun owner we would be the majority by a huge margin.

Look around. Look carefully. I spotted many NRA and firearms manufacturers stickers on vehicles just during a trip to the store this AM. I know that at least half of my neighbors are gun owners. I myself have minted three new gun owners in the last three years; I have at least one more in the pipeline as we speak.

Going to get all the guns would be impossible. Asking for them to be turned in would be laughable. Guns can't be legislated out of existence and it will take more than a century to functionally remove them from our culture by an outright ban on manufacturing and sale -- and that would have to be done at a national level, which in any known political climate is impossible. Someday maybe, not in my lifetime or my children's...

THIS is the answer.

The problem is there isn't any place to legally shoot anymore. Yea, there are shooting ranges that want money, but it's not the same as walking out your front door and going down a dirt road plinking at random targets or poping off a ground squirrel. That's what got me into the hobby. Wonderful memories.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 6:48 PM
Lets say I became of age and became interested in firearms and have just started learning about what it takes to own firearms in CA and stay out of jail, or become financially ruined, and the complexity of the situation becomes quite frustrating for me, "Joe the Plumber" who does not want to study for a degree in constitutional law, politics, or any other such field besides his field of livelyhood and genuine interest.

Indeed, let's say that is the case.

You have made a good start by coming here - and answering questions is kind of what we do.

So, please ask questions, but 'little bites'.

The United States is approximately in a new version of the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's. The Supreme Court victories of Heller/DC and McDonald/Chicago are the Second Amendment's analogous cases to Brown v Board of Education - that case was 1954. Self-defense, and the right to carry a gun to accomplish that, is a civil right.

California is somewhat of a 'lagging indicator', in that cases now in Federal Courts here seem likely to get to the Supreme Court later than some already at the Circuit Court level in other districts.

Until local governments (state, county, city) become convinced that their anti-civil-rights positions are sure losers in Federal court, each and every stupid restrictive law will have to be litigated - and the government people making the decisions are not playing with their own money.

As to amending the constitution, that procedure is specified in the constitution itself: Article 5 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), slightly reformatted below:Article. V.

The Congress,

whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,

shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,

when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

or [when ratified] by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It's not easy.

Ctwo
06-02-2011, 7:43 PM
So, please ask questions, but 'little bites'.


It is a fundamental question - and I know not very fitting for the environment here- so I don't know how to ask a yes/no question in small bites.

I could not imagine any other fundamental right being as restricted, could you? So, there must be good reason...

While I have not done the research on this, it seems to me that two thirds of the Legislatures of several States (I guess all?) would support a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of the Constitution, and that three fourths of the Legislatures of several (all?) States would ratify such an ammendment.

or [when ratified] by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Maybe I don't percieve these branches' postions accurately.

707electrician
06-02-2011, 7:47 PM
I think what a lot of people in CA forget is there are only a few states that don't believe in the 2A. While most of the U.S. does believe and uphold the 2A. Things are bad here (but I truly believe they are getting better, inch by inch), and since we are struggling to get our rights here we think that is how it is in the rest of the country.

However, I believe the U.S. as a whole is trending toward "the 2A definitely isn't going anywhere"

Take a look at this map for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

jpigeon
06-02-2011, 7:51 PM
Well, such is life...

It seems to me that the RKBA is woefully unpopular.

Why hasn't the 2nd been ammended to remove this right, or even just proposed?

Seems like a clear cut way to end the arguments and give the majority what they want.

Besides, it seems the spirit of the right was originally intended to go far beyond mere personal defense or just the right to pea shooters. Yeah, we would need tanks, drones, and nukes just the same to really say we have a right to arms.

If you dont like it get the hell out. There are plenty of other countries your little whiney butt can go that does not provide this great individual liberty.

jwkincal
06-02-2011, 7:52 PM
It is a fundamental question - and I know not very fitting for the environment here- so I don't know how to ask a yes/no question in small bites.

I could not imagine any other fundamental right being as restricted, could you? So, there must be good reason...

While I have not done the research on this, it seems to me that two thirds of the Legislatures of several States (I guess all?) would support a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of the Constitution, and that three fourths of the Legislatures of several (all?) States would ratify such an ammendment.

or [when ratified] by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Maybe I don't percieve these branches' postions accurately.

Not clear what you are asking:

Why don't the collective state legislatures or US Congress rescind the second amendment? (in which case, yes, you don't perceive these branches' positions accurately)

OR

Why don't the collective state legislatures or US Congress reauthor the second amendment in such a way as to make it irrefutably clear? (in which case the "way too difficult" condition applies)

jpigeon
06-02-2011, 7:59 PM
I have been noticing more and more anti RKBA trolls like the OP on CG lately... What gives? But we welcome the other side of the argument.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 8:00 PM
It is a fundamental question - and I know not very fitting for the environment here- so I don't know how to ask a yes/no question in small bites.

I could not imagine any other fundamental right being as restricted, could you? So, there must be good reason...


A good reason?

Well....

I'm afraid the answer to that question occupies books full of writing. It's relatively easy, but if it isn't your primary interest, it's going to look like a lot of work.

Please start reading the amicus filings for Heller (http://dcguncase.com/blog/) and McDonald (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/). That's a lot. One a day will keep you busy for over a month.

Start with this one from CORE (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07290bsacCongressofRacialEquality.pdf).

No, there is no strong general desire to amend the right to carry guns out of the constitution. Not only is it not so unpopular as extreme opponents would wish to present it, but the idea of a Constitutional Convention terrifies most politicians. Good Heavens - what might the People do! :eek:

CaliforniaLiberal
06-02-2011, 8:04 PM
It is a fundamental question - and I know not very fitting for the environment here- so I don't know how to ask a yes/no question in small bites.

I could not imagine any other fundamental right being as restricted, could you? So, there must be good reason...

While I have not done the research on this, it seems to me that two thirds of the Legislatures of several States (I guess all?) would support a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of the Constitution, and that three fourths of the Legislatures of several (all?) States would ratify such an ammendment.

or [when ratified] by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Maybe I don't percieve these branches' postions accurately.


It's time to git to researchin' boy.

I think you'll find that only 4 or 5 state legislatures in the US would even consider support of repealing the 2nd Amendment. State legislatures across the country in the last 20 have been passing laws making gun ownership and carry easier. I believe that your world view has been distorted by living in California.

Have you had a look at this? I believe it was posted already up the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

gunsandrockets
06-02-2011, 9:40 PM
It is a fundamental question - and I know not very fitting for the environment here- so I don't know how to ask a yes/no question in small bites.

I could not imagine any other fundamental right being as restricted, could you? So, there must be good reason...

While I have not done the research on this, it seems to me that two thirds of the Legislatures of several States (I guess all?) would support a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of the Constitution, and that three fourths of the Legislatures of several (all?) States would ratify such an ammendment.

or [when ratified] by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Maybe I don't percieve these branches' postions accurately.

Okay I understand you are frustrated. Hell I'm frustrated! You may have just fallen into an awareness of the snake-pit of California's anti-gun laws, but I've watched some the worst excesses of California anti-gun laws grow from the 1980's on.

The bad news is, this is a long term battle over fundamental rights that has been waged since the 1960's. And just like the fight over Jim Crow laws, these kind of abuses don't end over night. It can take decades.

The good news is the enemies strength (nationally) peaked in 1994 and has never recovered. And now that DC v Heller (in 2008) and McDonald v Chicago (in 2010) have been decided in our favor by the U.S. Supreme Court, the momentum has swung tremendously back towards us.

California is an outlier. An aberration. One of the worst places in the nation for violating fundamental gun rights. That is our burden to bear as California residents. But it also makes California the front line in the national battle over gun control.

Odds are the unjust laws of California will serve as the key the Supreme Court will use to finally destroy the crusade against guns. Gun-control will end up as dead and buried as "separate but equal" state imposed segregation. The only problem is it takes time.

Be patient. We will get there. And if you tire of waiting you can always escape across the border of California and flee into Free America!

sixtus
06-03-2011, 2:26 AM
Why do we fight? Because all most of us really want to do is go to the range with our "evil black rifles" and plink at targets at varying distances. And we're willing to fight for what we believe in.

We also fight because a lot of the laws make no sense to begin with. I for one find a lot of them to be non-sensical, even lacking in evidence as to the reason they were implemented in the first place.

The reason they want to pass these laws is because they're afraid. Either having seen too many movies as their firearms "experience" or one bad nut ruining the whole bushel. But that's how it is.

And you're right, we as civilians don't need nukes or other massive weapons like artillery. But we're not asking for them either.

Bruce
06-03-2011, 5:19 AM
After reading the OP a couple of times, he sounds like someone who is rather young (under 21) and has been fed anti-RKBA indoctrination under the guise of "education"in some public scool. Then there's the favorable publicity that the Brady bunch gets, and the negative publicity the pro-gun side gets and it's understandable that he feels the RKBA is unpopular. I'd guess too that his life experience is limited to the state of California and he doesn't realize that the people and laws in 43 others states are much more pro RKBA. (CA, MA, NY, IL, NJ, MD, & HI being the negative states) Those 43 others stand in the way of an "18th Amendment on guns" as it were, so the anti's have been playing games with a Constitutional right much the same as the KKK played games with the Constitional rights of the black man.

In answer to the OP's title question of "Why must we play this game?" Because it's the right thing to do to stand up for our rights,that's why.

Ctwo
06-03-2011, 11:08 AM
I'd just like to qualify that I'm not anti gun or pro regulation. I bought my first rifle when I was 12. I walked into a big-box type store and convinced the guy behind the counter to sell it to me. I walked around with it everywhere for the summer and shot just about everything I could from varmint to all sorts of make-shift targets. Nobody cared, nobody died, and it was a lot of fun...and it was not in California. But I still enjoy going out to the range when I can.

The only anti-RKBA indoctrination I’ve read is encoded as state and federal law – and various postings on the calguns forum.

Right now, I'm mostly miffed with the federal GFSZ act. The original act was narrowly defeated, and then quickly reenacted, and (B)(i) is practically stricken from the act via judicial precedence.

If the other 43 states are so much more pro RKBA, then how do these things go…oh, they are not the “popular votes” that count, and I don’t see the makeup of the powers that be changing in our favor.

Reading federal, state, and local penal codes is not so hard, if you manage to find all the codes that apply…it getting into reading case law to understand how the courts may ultimately interpret the law that is getting a bit unbearable – and for a fundamental right.

Anyway, thanks to the fine folks here that spent the time to cite, reference, and link the relevant information.

loose_electron
06-03-2011, 2:17 PM
50 states...

The 2A is not going away from the constitution, adding amendments is very very difficult, if not impossible. (majority of states need to ratify, and a bunch of other things.

Last amendment - Voting adge of 18 - and this happened when the voting age was 21, and there was an active draft, and Vietname war was in full swing.

That went thru based on the statement: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote."

I have worked on a political campaign for a constitutional amendment "Equal Rights Amendment" Simply stated: "Both men and women shall have equal rights" - sounds simple right? Well, guess what? It made it thru Congress, but never got enough states to ratify it. Utterly stupid, but still quite true.

Most law/political types know they cant get the 2A removed, so they chose to "pick away" at various aspects of it, within the state laws making it more and more difficult to keep arms.