doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Two Different Worlds

Whatever a candidate's personal "beliefs" are, the political reality in this country is such that gun rights are not going away. I breathed a sigh of relief when Romney won the primary - he is sufficiently sane that most progressives can live with him.

Approximately a third of gun owners are Democrats. The right-wing does not have a monopoly on gun ownership. Most of the guys I shoot and hunt with are far to the left of me. The yahoos on some gun and hunting shows do far more harm than the anti-gun crowd (many of whom are political conservatives). Thank you to chopperlump for this thread!

There's a good article in last week's New Yorker magazine. The au was clearly anti-gun but she traced the NRA's involvement in the gun rights issue with some clarity that I had not seen before.

If confirmed by the Senate. That's why its important that if Obama wins don't give him a Democratic House or Senate, both would make Obama's Presidency a living Hell and either one can effectively checkmate him.

Gnomon, if one was to assume that Obama was able to appoint like minded judges to the SC, you would have to agree that the SC can and likely would interpret the 2cd in such a way as to likely curtail firearm ownership from how it exists today. Impossible to know how much but it would be different. It is within their rights as the SC to do so.

The point I was trying to make is that interpretation rests in the hands of a very small number of people, not the much larger group of gun owning Democrats.

And I agree that yahoos don't do anyone, even themselves, any favours.

I'll have to get that issue of the New Yorker. Always a good read.

There are two primary dangers to our constitional rights should Obama get a second term:
1. As a lame duck facing no more elections he no longer will have to pursue the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment and the institution of severe firearms ownership restrictions "under the radar". A real concern should he regain control of the House.
2. He is ONE Supreme Court appointment away,should one of the conservative justices retire ,from reversing Heller vs. Washington and negating the decision that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
Another Ginsburg, Kagan,Sotomayor appointment etc. would set the tone of the Court for years and I suspect we would lose far more than our firearms rights.

He needs to go period. An if some of the liberals who supported him in 2008 agree all the better.
Jim

Very true - but it's to some extent a myth that one can appoint "conservative" (whatever that is) or "liberal" (whatever that is) justices and expect them to vote in a predictable way. Especially on social issues - and gun rights is a social issue. Just look at the expectation regarding how the current Court might vote on the Arizona immigration laws. It really isn't an"us" vs "them" situation but is far more nuanced.

The New Yorker article has a good summary of gun laws in the US from the early 19th c on - it also clarifies (at least to me) how the NRA changed in the last half of the 20th c. The NRA of today isn't the NRA of 40 years ago.

I'm glad the NRA has changed to meet the times as the opposition has gone over the top in it's efforts to disarm America.The "sheeple" of America, probably 50% of the adult population,are easily led and we could lose it all as far as gun rights are concerned if it wasn't for a very vocal and powerful "gun lobby."

I would vastly prefer to see shows chronicalling the differnt manufactures and the historical significance of their guns, Colt, S&W, Ruger, Winhester, etc ect including the european makers. The current crap on TV is in response to "car chase Shootem up". I think it was Samuel Goldwny who said nobody ever went broke under estimating the taste of the American public. Chops

H.L. Mencken. But you're right, which I suppose is why "black guns" are so popular.

"Black guns" are also popular with the people who have survived an encounter with 2 legged predators intent on doing them harm.The finest double in the world, or even a matched pair with loaders, is not a match for most firefights with hostiles armed with rifles.

I'm astounded that you would put up the words conservative and liberal and then add "(whatever that is)", as if there isn't a distinct and easily recognizable difference. It is common knowledge that four of the current SCOTUS justices are commonly referred to as the liberal wing. They are pretty easy to identify. They are the ones who voted in Heller that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. The other five justices are the ones who are commonly referred to as the conservative wing. All five of them agreed in Heller that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says... not some twisted perverted interpretation of the truth which is supported by the words and papers of the framers of the Constitution themselves.

The four liberals vainly tried to twist the truth. The five conservatives affirmed the truth. That is statistically significant.

It is not, as you say, very nuanced. Admittedly, there are no guarantees that any justice will vote in a totally predictable way. Justice Stevens is a perfect example of that. But the 5-4 decision in Heller came as a surprise to no-one. And when it comes to preserving the Second Amendment, we would be wise to stack the odds in our favor. Supporting Obama does exactly the opposite.

Fortunately, voting on the Supreme Court is watched more closely than voting in Vermont or Chicago, because almost certainly, a couple dead liberal justices would have voted to deny our individual right to keep and bear arms.

Both of Obama's first term Supreme Court nominees shared his vehemently anti-gun vision. Both of them lied about that during their confirmation hearings. All too often, that is a way to tell the liberal from the conservative. But you already know that. Please don't try again to convince anyone that Obama is not a threat to gun rights and gun ownership. It will only make you appear stupid. Again.