ExRx.net

It wouldn't take an amendment to the constitution to ban all guns. All it would take is one more liberal justice on the supreme court. That would be enough to overturn the recent decision you refer to, and turn a constitutional RIGHT into a mere priveledge. Then congress, state legislatures, and even towns and cities could ban anything they want by a simple majority vote.

Every gun ban is a step toward total or near-total prohibition. It's a slippery slope ... just as banning hate speech would threaten all free speach. The same is true for stupid, arbitrary, unneccisary regulation.

"Your mindset seems to be set in another dimension. What are you scared of, liberals holding power? Do think that they will take away all ur rights and we will become a fascist country? And all this is based on a parties ideology and not on their actions?" - ironmaiden708

It's not just the liberals. I'm affraid of any politician or party that opposes my constitutional rights. It doesn't matter if it's the Second Amendment, freedom of speach, freedom of religion, due process, etc.

Never say Never...

Not to long ago, MANY (Read Majority of Americans) would have said a Black Man would NEVER be President. Now Obama is the President Elect.

Opinions and the support of the PEOPLE change with time. I hope Gun Rights activists and groups can maintain the support we currently have.

What I can't understand is why anyone would be afraid of a Law abiding Citizen owning ANY gun and maintaining their right to self Defense. The Best way to empower criminals is to remove a Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self Defense or any other purpose.

Cliff

Well Said Matt Z

Cliff

Many Seem to forget that the Supreme Court Justices truly have ALL the Power. Currently there is a good balance of Power amongst them, however, many expect the balance to end once Obama takes office and a couple of the Conservative justices retire. They will likelybe replaced with more liberal judges.

Cliff

Based on speculation and assumptions. If Obama is trying to be a moderate politician in his actions then it would be in his best interest to continue that balance of power.

Yeah one problem with that, they tried that and it didn't work. Near total prohibition, yeah ok not even close. If I wanted one I could go get one. Now if me who is an adult, no criminal history or a shady background can't get my hands on a gun due to ridiculous regulations, then I'd agree with your statement.

You obviously don't understand how that political process works. How can a judge somehow spin the second amendment soooooo much that they can interpret it as "We can ban all guns." What did you forget about the whole checks and balances system to? It's great that you brought up prohibition. Originally they banned alcohol, didn't work so what did they do? Added another amendment in its place to relift the ban, so how is it possible for a complete gun ban to fall through the cracks?

Take a guess at who influences a politicians descision? Us the people, a politician will comform to keep himself in office. As long as the majority cries out for increased regulations then their will be added regulations.

I will disagree to an extent. Politicians will conform to the "VOCAL Majority" to keep themselves in office. This may or may not be the true majority opinion.

Unfortunately, Way to many Americans just sit idly by and allow those with other views yell the loudest. Therefore, the Politicians will think the loudest must be the majority.

Cliff

I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are fallacious. Having some sort of regulation is not necessarily going to lead to total prohibition.

If we say people under 21 years of age cannot drink, then it does not mean that our right to imbibe will be taken away.

If we say convicted felons cannot vote, it does not mean that our right to vote will be taken away.


Opinion begins:
In some instances it is advantageous to to put some restrictions on our rights when it is better for our society as a whole. My rights end where yours begin.

You might argue that you having a firearm doesn't infringe upon my rights, and I agree. I'm 20 years old, but if I sat at home and drank a beer you would probably agree that it would not infringe upon your rights, either. However, the law dictates that you must be 21 before you can legally drink because the government has concluded that allowing people under the age of 21 to drink causes more harm than good. I think the same can be said of some gun laws.

I don't want convicted felons to be able to go to gun shows and buy assault rifles. I don't want 16 year olds to be able to go to gun shows and buy assault rifles.

If other law abiding citizens want to buy a firearm, then its fully within their rights. However, being put through a screening process is a small sacrifice to make to prevent those who either do not have the right or who have thrown away the right to own a firearm from getting one.

Although of course that's just my opinion. And I do not have much experience with this issue, either.

"Based on speculation and assumptions. If Obama is trying to be a moderate politician in his actions then it would be in his best interest to continue that balance of power." - Ironmaiden

I care more about voting records than I do about rhetoric, and Obama does not have a moderate voting record on Second Amendment issues.

"If I wanted one I could go get one. Now if me who is an adult, no criminal history or a shady background can't get my hands on a gun due to ridiculous regulations, then I'd agree with your statement." - Ironmaiden

So we're only supposed to concern ourselves with our freedoms AFTER they've been taken away.

You obviously don't understand how that political process works. How can a judge somehow spin the second amendment soooooo much that they can interpret it as "We can ban all guns." - Ironmaiden

Many liberals (including the four liberal justices) enterpret the right to keep and bear arms as a state POWER, not an individual RIGHT.

"Take a guess at who influences a politicians descision? Us the people, a politician will comform to keep himself in office. As long as the majority cries out for increased regulations then their will be added regulations." - Ironmaiden

Even if this were true, the Bill of Rights was created to protect individuals from the tyrany of the majority.

"You might argue that you having a firearm doesn't infringe upon my rights, and I agree. I'm 20 years old, but if I sat at home and drank a beer you would probably agree that it would not infringe upon your rights, either. However, the law dictates that you must be 21 before you can legally drink because the government has concluded that allowing people under the age of 21 to drink causes more harm than good. I think the same can be said of some gun laws." - TheHeb

Drinking isn't a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is.

"I don't want convicted felons to be able to go to gun shows and buy assault rifles. I don't want 16 year olds to be able to go to gun shows and buy assault rifles." - TheHeb

It's already illegal for convicted felons to buy guns. It's also illegal for 16-year-olds to buy guns. You must be at least 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun, and at least 21 to buy a handgun.