Will Americans Give Up Their Rights Also?

[Kevatc]

At what point do you fight back and say enough is enough?

When they come knockin' at my door demanding my guns. In a more general sense, people have been "fighting" back for the past 20 years give or take. Gun ownership is way up, concealed permits are way up, public opinion of guns has become considerably more positive, and there have been some significant legal cases that have been positive for gun rights. Is there room for improvement? You bet ... and lots.

I belive in the constitution as it was written by our founding fathers.
To me this means no restrictions/regulations on what i can own, where i can buy/sell or where i can go with any arms, within the USA.

Regulation = Infringed

The Founding Fathers were certainly some bright and forward thinking folks and what they came up with in terms of the Constitution is a legacy worth fighting for. However, they could not possibly have envisioned the country's gun issues as they exist today. It sounds to me that if you feel any regulation = infringement then you feel that the Loughner, Cho's, and Holmes of the country should have unfettered access to guns. I would argue that keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable folks is worthy of greater regulation.


To address the topic as brought up in the OP, the evidence doesn't support greater gun control measures of recent years but as noted above things have actually improved dramatically over the past decade or two. However, there are some gun folks who must have a vested interest (NRA as an example) in dire predictions of gun control and keeping the pot of paranoia well stirred. This has been the case more in the past few years than at any other time I can remember.

 

[Misterbill]

What the Heck is going on with this board lately?

The kook and paranoia quotient seems to have gone up a lot.

We've had a long string of victories on gun rights at every level, skyrocketing gun ownership, CCW license holders, and support for guns and gun rights.

And all of a sudden, at a time even most Democrats in congress wouldn't touch gun control with a ten foot pole, we're supposed to get all paranoid about an event that is NOT going to happen?

There's a process for removing the second amendment from the constitution. It hasn't got a prayer. No way in Hell is that going to get past the voters.

The SC is not going to suddenly reverse Heller. Reversals take place DECADES later, if ever.

An AWB at a federal level is NOT going to happen. At most, I could see a very slim possibility of requiring sales to go through a NICS check.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Because it's a big state with a lot of job and business opportunities. Because some people are born there and lived their entire life there. Because guns is not the primary objective in life for majority of NORMAL people. I'm sure there are tons of reasons why

I know people that have just gotten stuck in CA due to divorce - they could leave but they would be further from their children. One of those individuals moved to NV because he is not interested in supporting Socialism.
I moved from CA for the same reason.

CA is the way it is because of the above attitude. If CA citizens never rolled over and thought, "Oh well, it is not that big of a deal" most of the things that have happened there would not have. Never appologize for your Rights. CA is a good example of what will happen if you do.

You cannot own a .50 caliber rifle in CA. It is a felony to posses one as a CA citizen however, a .416 caliber rifle is perfectly fine. "Their" reasoning is that a .50 cal rifle is too dangerous for a citizen - that citizen turn into
a crazy terrorist and start running around killing people with fully automatic .50 cal fire from the him in a tower just because they own and enjoy a .50 cal rifle. If that same person is only allowed to own a .416 cal rifle,
they will not become a domestic terrorist simply because it is not a .50 cal.

A CA citizen cannot posses a handgun magazine that is capable of holding over 10 rounds. It is a felony. Their, "Reasoning" for this absurd law is the same as their rules for a citizen not being able to posses a .50 cal.

A CA citizen cannot posses an AR that does not have pinned magazines. It is a felony. Their, "Reasoning" for this is, again, the same as their rules restricting .50 cals.

There is a reason people call California, The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

 

[fd15k]

I know people that have just gotten stuck in CA due to divorce - they could leave but they would be further from their children. One of those individuals moved to NV because he is not interested in supporting Socialism.
I moved from CA for the same reason.

Socialism is everywhere, not just in CA.

CA is the way it is because of the above attitude. If CA citizens never rolled over and thought, "Oh well, it is not that big of a deal" most of the things that have happened there would not have. Never appologize for your Rights. CA is a good example of what will happen if you do.

What attitude ? I don't understand.

You cannot own a .50 caliber rifle in CA. It is a felony to posses one as a CA citizen however, a .416 caliber rifle is perfectly fine. "Their" reasoning is that a .50 cal rifle is too dangerous for a citizen - that citizen turn into
a crazy terrorist and start running around killing people with fully automatic .50 cal fire from the him in a tower just because they own and enjoy a .50 cal rifle. If that same person is only allowed to own a .416 cal rifle,
they will not become a domestic terrorist simply because it is not a .50 cal.

You and I can own a .50 caliber rifle. What we can't own is a .50BMG rifle, but a lot of guys who had them prior to 2004 can keep on owning them. Also anybody can own M2. Your explanation of why it is like that sounds pretty silly.

A CA citizen cannot posses a handgun magazine that is capable of holding over 10 rounds. It is a felony. Their, "Reasoning" for this absurd law is the same as their rules for a citizen not being able to posses a .50 cal.

That is not correct. Feeding devices over 10 rounds for any firearm can be owned by CA residents if they owned them in CA before 2000. There are some exceptions to the rule too. Also it is a wobbler violation, and not a plain felony.

A CA citizen cannot posses an AR that does not have pinned magazines. It is a felony. Their, "Reasoning" for this is, again, the same as their rules restricting .50 cals.

That is not correct either. Not only older purchased rifles are grandfathered, but also any semi-automatic rifle can be owned without any special tweaks to magazine releases if there is no pistol grip and a few other "features". There are AR15's configuration that fit into such requirements. This is also a wobbler, most people get charged with a misdemeanor. Another thing to keep in mind there is no constructive possession - upper separated from the lower removes the rifle from the Assault Weapon status, as long as the lower is not listed by make/model in the list that hasn't been updated since 1989 (most modern AR's are not on the list).

There is a reason people call California, The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

Putting labels on things you don't understand to provoke an emotional response is silly.

 

[nwwoodsman]

PM me your address, I will come to your place and drink your beer. After all, I have an unconditional right to move freely, and that right of mine trumps your right of private property, security in your own home, and so on

If you came to my house in search of untaxed alcohol I I would find you in violation of the 3rd, 4th and 13th amendment in which case I would practice my 2nd amendment rights. After which I would probably have to use my 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights. Be glad the 21st amendment allows you the freedom which the 18th did not.

 

[Flyingswords]

If you came to my house in search of untaxed alcohol I I would find you in violation of the 3rd, 4th and 13th amendment in which case I would practice my 2nd amendment rights. After which I would probably have to use my 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights. Be glad the 21st amendment allows you the freedom which the 18th did not.

hahaha

CHECKMATE

 

[Grunwald]

There are already restrictions on the 1st. Want to see how one works go on National TV and say the 7 dirty words. And you will find that your moderated, restricted, and maybe fined.

Go into a theator and scream fire. etc.

Not the same thing. Right now anyone can expresx their opinion. I can insult the president or the pope or Mohamed and not worry that the government will lock me up or take my stuff. Try it in France and you'll discover that things are different there.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Socialism is everywhere, not just in CA.



What attitude ? I don't understand.



You and I can own a .50 caliber rifle. What we can't own is a .50BMG rifle, but a lot of guys who had them prior to 2004 can keep on owning them. Also anybody can own M2. Your explanation of why it is like that sounds pretty silly.



That is not correct. Feeding devices over 10 rounds for any firearm can be owned by CA residents if they owned them in CA before 2000. There are some exceptions to the rule too. Also it is a wobbler violation, and not a plain felony.



That is not correct either. Not only older purchased rifles are grandfathered, but also any semi-automatic rifle can be owned without any special tweaks to magazine releases if there is no pistol grip and a few other "features". There are AR15's configuration that fit into such requirements. This is also a wobbler, most people get charged with a misdemeanor. Another thing to keep in mind there is no constructive possession - upper separated from the lower removes the rifle from the Assault Weapon status, as long as the lower is not listed by make/model in the list that hasn't been updated since 1989 (most modern AR's are not on the list).




Putting labels on things you don't understand to provoke an emotional response is silly.

It does not sound like you have spent too much time in CA - Disneyland does not count.

You can split hairs all you want. All you would be doing is the same thing that every other looney Liberal does - attempt to spin facts to better suit their argument/agenda.

Sure, you can own a .50 cal rifle - as long as it is a muzzle loader. You are welcome to move right on down to CA and shoot muzzle loaders all day since you cannot own a .50 cal rifle without being a felon.
You cannot walk into a store are purchase a .50 cal unless it is a muzzle loader. If you think that is reasonable you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

The Police in CA do not care when you technically purchased your magazine. Carry your firearm with a magazine that holds over 10 rounds down there and find out what the response is to the law abiding citizen yourself.

You can purchase old components and put them in new tubes to get over 10 rounds. The Police know this. They are trained on it. They do not care when you say you purchased your 12, 15, 17, or 20 round magazine.

Democrats and Liberals are driving CA into the ground; their motivation is almost purely driven by their own person agendas and it has only gotten worse and worse over the last two decades. A new Governor was just elected who is a Democrat. No body who lived there wanted that to happen, yet, it did. His decisions are had negative effects on the State - he of course, does not seem to mind since his rules to not apply to himself or his cohorts.

Feel free to move there. But before you do, do not forget to sell any pistol or rifle (your AR's) that holds more than 10 rounds - otherwise, you will be an Enemy or the State.
Vehicles are even checked at the NV border. If you have magazines that hold over 10 rounds and you have a CA ID/residence, you are probably going to take a little trip to the gray bar motel.


PS

The citizens call the State of CA The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. The people that liveand work there.
Mention The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia the next time you are visiting Disneyland when you go into a gas station and see the response. No one will tell you are nuts. They will complain about their State.

 

[Kevatc]

Not the same thing. Right now anyone can expresx their opinion. I can insult the president or the pope or Mohamed and not worry that the government will lock me up or take my stuff. Try it in France and you'll discover that things are different there.

France? I'm in France? Who knew?

 

[fd15k]

If you came to my house in search of untaxed alcohol I I would find you in violation of the 3rd, 4th and 13th amendment in which case I would practice my 2nd amendment rights. After which I would probably have to use my 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights. Be glad the 21st amendment allows you the freedom which the 18th did not.

I'm glad our socialist school system taught you to count to 21... or was it Blackjack ?

Anyway, imagine I am your neighbor, and I have a stockpile of Second Amendment protected grenade launchers in my garage. What amendment are you going to invoke to protect your family against my stupidity ?

 

[fd15k]

It does not sound like you have spent too much time in CA - Disneyland does not count.

I lived in Los Angeles for 6 years prior to moving to Portland.

You can split hairs all you want. All you would be doing is the same thing that every other looney Liberal does - attempt to spin facts to better suit their argument/agenda.

Spinning is what I do. It's in my nature. Oh wait...

Sure, you can own a .50 cal rifle - as long as it is a muzzle loader. You are welcome to move right on down to CA and shoot muzzle loaders all day since you cannot own a .50 cal rifle without being a felon.
You cannot walk into a store are purchase a .50 cal unless it is a muzzle loader. If you think that is reasonable you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

See, that's exactly why I was "spinning" - you simply don't know what the laws in California are. Only .50BMG shoulder-fired firearms are banned. .50DTC, or any other center-fire, semi-auto or bolt-action .50 are okay. Also the keyword is shoulder-fired - M2 is not a shoulder-fired firearm, thus buying one in CA is perfectly okay.

The Police in CA do not care when you technically purchased your magazine. Carry your firearm with a magazine that holds over 10 rounds down there and find out what the response is to the law abiding citizen yourself.

Once again, you are pulling some emotions out of your... hat. Please go to Calguns Foundation and learn about various legal realities in California.

You can purchase old components and put them in new tubes to get over 10 rounds. The Police know this. They are trained on it. They do not care when you say you purchased your 12, 15, 17, or 20 round magazine.

Democrats and Liberals are driving CA into the ground; their motivation is almost purely driven by their own person agendas and it has only gotten worse and worse over the last two decades. A new Governor was just elected who is a Democrat. No body who lived there wanted that to happen, yet, it did. His decisions are had negative effects on the State - he of course, does not seem to mind since his rules to not apply to himself or his cohorts.

Feel free to move there. But before you do, do not forget to sell any pistol or rifle (your AR's) that holds more than 10 rounds - otherwise, you will be an Enemy or the State.
Vehicles are even checked at the NV border. If you have magazines that hold over 10 rounds and you have a CA ID/residence, you are probably going to take a little trip to the gray bar motel.


PS

The citizens call the State of CA The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. The people that liveand work there.
Mention The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia the next time you are visiting Disneyland when you go into a gas station and see the response. No one will tell you are nuts. They will complain about their State.

I won't comment any further. Thanks for your attention.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

I lived in Los Angeles for 6 years prior to moving to Portland.



Spinning is what I do. It's in my nature. Oh wait...



See, that's exactly why I was "spinning" - you simply don't know what the laws in California are. Only .50BMG shoulder-fired firearms are banned. .50DTC, or any other center-fire, semi-auto or bolt-action .50 are okay. Also the keyword is shoulder-fired - M2 is not a shoulder-fired firearm, thus buying one in CA is perfectly okay.



Once again, you are pulling some emotions out of your... hat. Please go to Calguns Foundation and learn about various legal realities in California.




I won't comment any further. Thanks for your attention.

You are spinning something to try to one up pixels on a screen because you support CA? Cool.

Drive on down to CA with your high capacity magazines and come back with a new Barrett.

Emotions? Funny. I have not insulted anyone - not how I roll. You keep making silly references to emotion and you have shown that you used a search engine. That is fantistic for you but it does not show anything other than you attempting to support absurd laws.

Saying a .50 cal is perfectly fine to own in CA is like saying a M240 is perfectly fine to own in CA.
You are using an M2, a HMG, as a basis in your, "Argument?" Funny.

If you think a .50 cal muzzle loader is a good substitute for an M107A1/M82A1, then have fun with your muzzle loaders.

I have spent a significant amount of time in CA over the last two decades. I chose to not live there because I do not support the decisions that come out of CA.

If you want to give up your Barrett for a DTC because some nut job told you that you are not safe with what you want then you might as well move there and support them.

I feel bad/embarrassed for CA residents during rifle classes - everyone else is able to fire 28-30 times before empty while CA residents get in a whopping 10 rounds before lock back. Clearly CA has done everything right....

Since the 1st of this year, Open Carry has not been legal in CA. Mr. Brown, the pundit that is now the Governor of CA is a large reason why Open Carry is no longer legal. I guess people did not pay attention to his destruction of CA the first time around so they gave him another chance at really degrading their lives.

Have fun.


PS

There is another saying in CA, "Everything in the State of CA is known to give you Cancer." I am sure you are familiar with the saying being that you lived there for a whole 6 years and everything.

 

[Bob D]

I think you're seriously misreading what fd15k has been writing. I don't think he has expressed support for California's current gun laws at all. He's mostly just been pointing out that you seem to not know what they are, and he's correct.

You're taking a very concrete and easy to research issue: "California's Current Laws Restricting the Sale and Use of Firearms" and using falsified facts to make it sound scarier than it is. This has a net negative effect on gun rights in this country, primarily because it makes us seem like gullible paranoid political separatists who would sooner start shooting up courthouses than vote responsibly.

We've got to legalize the sale of AT-4s to everyone including felons. Otherwise the godless gay liberal communist muslim illegals win. Or, you know... level-headed sanity, That's always an option.

In Somalia, the sale of pretty much all weapons is unregulated. You can buy a tank if you have enough money. What a Utopian society. They must really enjoy their capitalistic freedoms.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

I think you're seriously misreading what fd15k has been writing. I don't think he has expressed support for California's current gun laws at all. He's mostly just been pointing out that you seem to not know what they are, and he's correct.

You're taking a very concrete and easy to research issue: "California's Current Laws Restricting the Sale and Use of Firearms" and using falsified facts to make it sound scarier than it is. This has a net negative effect on gun rights in this country, primarily because it makes us seem like gullible paranoid political separatists who would sooner start shooting up courthouses than vote responsibly.

We've got to legalize the sale of AT-4s to everyone including felons. Otherwise the godless gay liberal communist muslim illegals win. Or, you know... level-headed sanity, That's always an option.

In Somalia, the sale of pretty much all weapons is unregulated. You can buy a tank if you have enough money. What a Utopian society. They must really enjoy their capitalistic freedoms.

If you read what he has been saying, he is taking offense to pixels on his screen and attempting to insult another user. Very mature approach.

I lived in CA before it was trash. I lived in CA after it was trash. I choose to not live there in its current state.

Are you implying that the current Governor is good for CA; more importantly, the people of CA? If you are, you surely have not lived there or at least lived there within the last decade.

In nearly every State I have been to/lived in I have seen firearm commercials on public television. This is not so in CA. Such commercials are banned, "For your safety." Is that fabricated too? Have I always just happen to flip channels at exactly the wrong time?


Now, you are talking about AT-4's - well that sure seems reasonable and to the point. I will bet there is even a package deal - Buy two AT-4's and get an M2 free. Only redeamable in CA of course.

Somalia? Another very reasonable point of, "Argument." The Government has virtually no control and they do not care to - unless it directly serves them, not the populance. There is a reason that Somalia (Socialist rule), is considered by everybody but the Somalian Government, of course, to be a Failed State.


Statement:
CA firearm laws are absurd.

Retort:
Oh yeah, well in Somalia....

Uh huh.

 

[Bob D]

Are you implying that the current Governor is good for CA; more importantly, the people of CA?

No one has implied that. I think California's gun laws are absurd. But, I do know what California's gun laws ARE.

In nearly every State I have been to/lived in I have seen firearm commercials on public television. This is not so in CA. Such commercials are banned, "For your safety." Is that fabricated too?

I have no idea about whether firearm advertisements are illegal in California. but a quick Google search could tell me. I do know that your observations are unsubstantiated, as is this statement: In 30 years of living in Oregon, I don't think I've ever seen a "firearm commercial" on public television.

Now, you are talking about AT-4's - well that sure seems reasonable and to the point. I will bet there is even a package deal - Buy two AT-4's and get an M2 free. Only redeamable in CA of course.

Hmmm... incredulously serious answer to an obviously sarcastic statement... and then more sarcasm from your end... I'm having trouble understanding this communication tactic. I'm pretty sure M2s are just as easy to get in California as they are in almost every other state.

Somalia? Another very reasonable point of, "Argument." The Government has virtually no control and they do not care to - unless it directly serves them, not the populance. There is a reason that Somalia (Socialist rule), is considered by everybody but the Somalian Government, of course, to be a Failed State.

Somalia is socialist-ruled? Not for the last 20 years, according to everybody but the Somalian Government, of course. It's a good thing too, because their free trade on weapons didn't really kick in until after their democratic revolution started. Now, every citizen can own their own RPG for home defense.

Statement:
CA firearm laws are absurd.

Retort:
Oh yeah, well in Somalia....

I agree. CA Firearm laws are absurd. BUT, it is possible to legally purchase .50 caliber weapons and semi-automatic assault rifles there. You were basing a lot of your hype on false statements, which really doesn't need to be done. You can just use the actual facts, and their over-regulation still seems absurd, as does the complete lack of regulation in Mogadishu.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

I agree. CA Firearm laws are absurd. BUT, it is possible to legally purchase .50 caliber weapons and semi-automatic assault rifles there. You were basing a lot of your hype on false statements, which really doesn't need to be done. You can just use the actual facts, and their over-regulation still seems absurd, as does the complete lack of regulation in Mogadishu.

Yeah, that is it.

All hype.

Open Carry is not illegal in CA. That is all just hype.

Barrett must make their M82A1 in .416 with a non detachable magazine all because of, "Hype."

The California Legislature has banned the .50 BMG from its good citizens, violating their rights and the constitution of our republic.
Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any California government agencies.

That sure is some pretty big, "Hype."

Scroll down to the bottom of page 6 for, "Hype:"

<broken link removed>

Looks like someone needs to call up Barrett and advise them to stop buying into all the, "Hype." And quickly, they are losing money over this.


You can have a detachable magazine with a pistol grip on your centerfire AR too, anyone that says otherwise is clearly spouting jibberish.

CA PC 12276.1 is probably just, "Hype."

12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200. (b) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG cartridge" means a cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center fire rifle and that meets all of the following criteria: (1) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the tip of the bullet. (2) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and including, .511 inch. (3) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to, and including, .804 inch. (4) The cartridge case length is 3.91 inches. (c) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any "antique firearm," nor any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (d) As used in this section, "antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

"Hype" sure is an annoyance.

 

[fd15k]

Yeah, that is it.

All hype.

Open Carry is not illegal in CA. That is all just hype.

I posted this picture earlier, I guess you missed it :



This is what got open carry banned in California some 30+ years ago. Recent open carry legislation was purely symbolic
since it only affected unloaded carry of handguns, which was impractical for defensive purposes.

Now is California the only state that bans open carry ? No, it's not. It's not even something that only "socialists" like
to do.



Does this mean nothing can't be done, and nothing will be done in CA to improve ? Absolutely not. States nationwide are still shaping their policies towards permissive carry. And if not through legislature, then through the court system.

Barrett must make their M82A1 in .416 with a non detachable magazine all because of, "Hype."

That sure is some pretty big, "Hype."

Scroll down to the bottom of page 6 for, "Hype:"

<broken link removed>

Looks like someone needs to call up Barrett and advise them to stop buying into all the, "Hype." And quickly, they are losing money over this.

Yes, Barrett won't sell whole 3 (three) M82's to CA government. Not sure why it has become an ultimate test of freedom for you, but
you are still not getting the point. If you don't know what's broken, you can't fix it.

You can have a detachable magazine with a pistol grip on your centerfire AR too, anyone that says otherwise is clearly spouting jibberish.

CA PC 12276.1 is probably just, "Hype."

"Hype" sure is an annoyance.

Now I assume that was sarcasm, but why ? Nobody said CA doesn't restrict firearms. Your misrepresentation of the facts and important details was what spawned this conversation. Once again - if you don't know what's broken, you can't fix it.

 

[Firesweep]

There are already restrictions on the 1st. Want to see how one works go on National TV and say the 7 dirty words. And you will find that your moderated, restricted, and maybe fined.

Go into a theator and scream fire. etc.

Or if you're famous or a celebrity... You can be fired, lose sponsors or be forced to make a public apology! Nappy headed Ho's! (Can I say that here?)

 

[Bob D]

Kentucky, let me point out the information in your original post that is wrong, and perhaps you'll see how information like this creates "hype," not "support."

The red text is factually incorrect:

You cannot own a .50 caliber rifle in CA. It is a felony to posses one as a CA citizen however, a .416 caliber rifle is perfectly fine. "Their" reasoning is that a .50 cal rifle is too dangerous for a citizen - that citizen turn into a crazy terrorist and start running around killing people with fully automatic .50 cal fire from the him in a tower just because they own and enjoy a .50 cal rifle. If that same person is only allowed to own a .416 cal rifle,
they will not become a domestic terrorist simply because it is not a .50 cal.

A CA citizen cannot posses a handgun magazine that is capable of holding over 10 rounds. It is a felony. Their, "Reasoning" for this absurd law is the same as their rules for a citizen not being able to posses a .50 cal.

A CA citizen cannot posses an AR that does not have pinned magazines. It is a felony. Their, "Reasoning" for this is, again, the same as their rules restricting .50 cals.

Every "fact" in your post related to California's gun laws was false. The persuasiveness of your point, (that California's restrictive gun laws are bad,) is reliant on those facts being correct. No one here disagrees with your premise, but your method of expressing it is not helpfully addressing it.

 

[Firesweep]

What the Heck is going on with this board lately?

The kook and paranoia quotient seems to have gone up a lot.

We've had a long string of victories on gun rights at every level, skyrocketing gun ownership, CCW license holders, and support for guns and gun rights.

And all of a sudden, at a time even most Democrats in congress wouldn't touch gun control with a ten foot pole, we're supposed to get all paranoid about an event that is NOT going to happen?

There's a process for removing the second amendment from the constitution. It hasn't got a prayer. No way in Hell is that going to get past the voters.

The SC is not going to suddenly reverse Heller. Reversals take place DECADES later, if ever.

An AWB at a federal level is NOT going to happen. At most, I could see a very slim possibility of requiring sales to go through a NICS check.

Your right! The second amendment will not be removed. Americans will have the right to own a gun. However, it's only a matter of time when the government decides exactly which type of firearm THEY will allow you to own. They will regulate the amount of ammunition we can purchase, how much we can possess and by which means i.e. No online sales. Laws will also regulate magazine capacity and whether or not a semi-automatic is necessary. I believe we the people, should always have a right to bear arms equal to our government. How else can we defend our country against tyranny?
Here's my Kook response for the day I believe the Obama regime hired these recent shooters (Theater, church etc.) as hit men. Not necessarily to really push gun control, but rather divert America's attention from upcoming campaign to gun control. Who is airing Obama's failures? Who's talking about our failed economy the unemployment rates, housing market, Wall Street? Where are all the election polls, reports and interviews? I suppose the shootings along with all the media coverage does aid in the push for the revised and permanent assault weapon ban. I don't know, I find it odd that nobody in the entire country seems to have a true drive to run for President. Santorum quit early, Ron Paul gets zero press coverage and Romney has no real strong desire or ambition. To be the president of the United States used to be the most desired and honorable position in our country. I will say Obama is not stupid, he's brilliant arrogant and determined. He has the drive that Romney needs! Obama is also a very good speaker he can baffle anyone with his "Brilliance". He doesn't have my vote but my vote doesn't count anyways.