There shall be much ado about this nothing.

[sirs]

Actually, wrong again.  A majority of the country does NOT support the controls the Government & Obama wishes to impose upon our 2nd amendment rights

[sirs]

     Next the less sure and predictable , things that are more speculative.

    There are a lot of people who sell guns less than five or ten a year. If these people are going to need a FFA, then the FFA is going to have to change. There will have to be more people monitoring the license and the license will have to be easier and cheaper to acquire.

But that's the dirty little secret, Plane.  There will be no intention to lessen any guidelines to acquiring an FFL/FFA.  In fact, the rhetoric will be crystal that in order to maintain safety and integrety of the "system", the private seller will have to obtain all the required legal parameters of all other FFL carriers.

Just ask xo if he thinks that a Federal Firearms License should be made easier and cheaper to acquire

Again, the agenda here has squat to do with preventing another mass shooting in another "gun free zone".  It has to do with making it harder and harder for legal citizens to buy and sell firearms.  The harder the Government makes it, the more people simply stop trying, and gun control is acheived by the Government, thru simple attrition

And right on cue..........Clinton supports increasing the FFL fee to $2500. Currently, fees start at $30 and go up to $200.  This will make it prohibitively expensive for individuals to sell their own guns.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sounds like a plan.

[sirs]

LOL......see what I mean Plane?  Right on cue   

[Plane]

You seem to be frustrated people clinging to God and guns.

I don't see how any wise person could respect the fucking Second Amendment types that claim they need their puny weapons to overthrow the government.  There is no chance whatever that they could do this.

And in the meantime, the more guns are out there, the more people are going to get shot.

   You don't like the first amendment either?

We do not want Puny Weapons, bigger is better in this context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39


If the Second Amendment is to be effective as it was intended , we do require a well regulated militia. this implies organization , training and equipage.

You may indeed be right that the second amendment has been watered down too much to allow the people to defend against oppressive government , but this is a very weak argument for watering it down further.

[Plane]

Sounds like a plan.

Hahaha!
That is funny.

You might like the idea of making FFL as expensive as taxi shields.

But observe , Taxi licenses being very expensive mostly defends monopoly, does little to improve the quality and expense and commonness of taxi rides.

There is already a black market for guns , you would rejoice for everyone depending on it?

If the courts uphold a serious abrogation of the second amendment , no matter the means , the main effect will be a loss of respect between the people and the courts.

[Plane]

LOL......see what I mean Plane?  Right on cue   

I do have fun with XO, so much so, I feel I owe, XO............ a little reciprocation.

There is no strong case to be made on the law or the stats for very restrictive gun control, but this does not mean that it cannot happen.

The people are persuaded to defend their second amendment right, it is not impossible that people can be persuaded otherwise.

When a strong majority decides to give up the right , or even a small majority decides to care less than enough to defend it , it can be abrogated by neglect.

Observe the loss of practical use of the tenth amendment, too few of us really understand the intended purpose so abrogation of the tenth amendment happens with little notice taken.

Fortunately we have candidates like HRC and presidents like BHO and bombasts like Bloomberg, to keep those who do care, aware and excited.

What we want to watch is membership in the NRA which typically rises in times like these, a very large number of new NRA members in coming months , along with bales of letters and e-mails to congress carry more weight than gun grabbers can cope with.

  In Australia this public outcry just didn't happen, so they lost a right to be armed that was at one time nearly as strong as our own.

  If XO opens a window for us to observe the logic and the conversation that the anti- gun citizens are having , lets be grateful.

[Xavier_Onassis]

We have a national guard and the local police, and they are probably as well regulated  or better than anything that the Founding Fathers imagined/ The original militias that existed in this country marched off to the war with Mexico and came back and then marched away to fight the Civil War and were absorbed into the US Army and the Confederate Army and never were reorganized after that. I question that we need them, what with the local police, the state police, the various state investigation agencies and the FBI.

But the Second Amendment now is unrelated to any "well regulated" anything. It is at best an assortment of gun nuts, hobbyists, antique gun collectors and hunters, regulated by nothing and no one and affiliated with one another not one whit, except they all like to ooh and aah about the ads in the NRA magazine, and hope Santa will bring them a banana clip or a scope for Christmas.

This ragtag disorganized unregulated throng has no chance of overthrowing the government. The first times citizens rose up against the government, Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, they were quashed in an embarrassingly short period of time. And I bet the moonshiners were far more well regulated than anything that exists today, including the Bundybunch holed up in Oregon.

If the current gun blowhards really believed all the crap they spew about how utterly dictatorial and oppressive Obama is, they would have tried to overthrow him long ago. But they were only fantasizing, and not one bunch of them has attempted anything. They know that they would end up cuffed in uncomfortable postures and deprived of their favorite snack foods for an extended period of time.  Their Duck Dynasty dohickies would not cause any professional soldiers to fear them or admire them.  And everyone, including their wives and children would laugh, point and jeer at them. And rightfully so.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As I have said, I do not think that we will have any confiscations of guns in this country. Life will go on, and we will have weekly and biweekly gun nut shootings in our malls and offices and schools and  some fools will demand action and get none, and others will go out and buy even more guns. It will be something like what happened in Holland with tulips. Eventually, the market will collapse and a new generation will sell grandpa's arsenals for scrap.

And thousands more Americans will shoot others and themselves. Whee.The French obsession with wine and cheese is a far less dangerous and more nutritious obsession, and no one much dies from cheese.

[Plane]

  The NRA is an organization with a large membership.

    The NRA has supported training programs .
     
       The NRA has supported and lobbied for and against legislation.
     
         The NRA has supported some lawmakers and chastised others.

           The NRA criticizes and recommends products including weapons and accepts advertising from makers of products the membership is prone to buy.

               The NRA has been known to spank manufacturers that do not toe the line.

         For all that the one thing the NRA does not have is an armed wing, so it is not a militia, it is a civil rights organization.

           A militia is a good idea to go along with the right to own weapons , if for nothing else, a better minimum level of discipline among weapon owners.

         But when the second amendment was written a difficult and dangerous revolution was recent history, and many of the representatives who discussed and voted on it were participants in that revolution, when they wrote of a militia , they understood each other specifically well.

[sirs]

I do enjoy the opportunities that I get to educate the "professor", especially on matters of our Constitution   

Xo.....the Bill of Rights, was put together, by our founders as a stop-gap measure, to limit the power of an authoritative regime.  They had just fought a Revolutionary war, to win their Independence, from just such a regime.  And following that victory, set forth in motion the guiding principals that our NEW government should follow. 

Please, correct me where you feel I'm in error

Following the Declaration of Independence, those guiding principals were largely pulled from the Federalist papers, and following some pretty time consuming brainstorming, set forth our rule-book by which the new Government would function....the Constitution.  It's that simple.....its our rule-book, complete with our fundamental rights, the laws we are to abide by, and the mechanisms to amend those rules, if a vast majority of the population deems that the rule-book needs amending.  Without a rule of Law, we are no different than a banana republic.  We don't get to chose which rules/laws we'll abide by and which ones we can ignore. 

The Bill of Rights are the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution.  These were rights of the INDIVIDUAL, when it came to what the Government could or could not do.  Leading with what the founders believed was the most important right....that of Free Speech, Press, & Freedom of Religion.  No longer would anyone be in fear of a Government coming after them if they spoke up negatively or reported on them negatively.  No one would be forced to be a member of some nationalized church, people would have the freedom to follow whatever faith they wished.  Or even chose not to follow any faith.

The 2nd amendment is CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  It's worded precisely that way.  While it may be a good idea to have a "well regulated & organized militia", considering that would be very important to the security of this nation against enemies of this country, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  In the case pf the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms.  Not muskets, not for hunting slaves, or hunting anything for that matter.  It's simply a legal/constitutional mechanism to help the individuals of this country, defend themselves from a Government that they perceive is becoming overtly oppressive.  It's perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, in defending the American citizen against an over-reaching, oppressive-becoming government

So, the 2nd amendment is NOT about militias, regulated or otherwise.  Its NOT about overthrowing a Government.  It's there, just as every other amendment, to defend and protect the freedoms of this country, that so many others do not have.  The 1st amendment would not exist, if not for the 2nd amendment.  Now, you may not like the 2nd amendment, or my right to have firearms, but you do have that 1st amendment right to say so.  And ironically, I would use my 2nd amendment right to defend your 1st amendment right

Again, I invite you to provide specific examples of where I'm in error.  Not your opinion, but specific points to which I'm in error, and how so

[sirs]

I do enjoy the opportunities that I get to educate the "professor", especially on matters of our Constitution   
......

Again, I invite you to provide specific examples of where I'm in error.  Not your opinion, but specific points to which I'm in error, and how so

Didn't think so