04-11-2017, 01:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2017, 01:13 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-27-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:(02-27-2017, 12:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:(02-27-2017, 11:46 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Obama's problem was he poked a few too many Red hornets' nests. The worst one was poking gun owners and those who support gun owners. He also poked a few other ones that were bound to get the Red factions up in arms.
Don't assume this is a dead issue. If the 2nd Amendment folks get sideways with law enforcement, and a gun battle ensues, that may be the trigger that finally turns the mildly anti-gun crowd as vehement as the pro-gun crowd.
I dunno, Dave, lotsa militia groups have done that, and nothing has happened. Did the murder of cops by black militants (well, mostly just random losers) turn you against BLM?
At the end of the day the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, with centuries of case law behind it, and the only way to really get the restrictions you seek is with a constitutional amendment.
Which, you know, you don't really have the votes for. Sorry.
At the risk of beating a dead horse....
I'd say, that Obama poked the gun lovers because some young people in Newtown CT got seriously poked, and that poked Obama's feelings. Before Newtown (Dec.14, 2012), Obama was going easy on the gun lovers and gun pokers.
I suspect David is exactly right, and this is basically the scenario I predicted to happen late in the 4T, on a much larger scale than we have seen so far.
And the constitution does not need to be amended; only the recent Scalia interpretation, and perhaps not even a change to that (which may be relevant with the new Gorsuck Court). Fully-constitutional gun controls could ignite the gun nuts anyway, who have no understanding of the constitution. They think the 2nd amendment means that no regulation is needed of the militia, which is patently false and ignores the 2nd.