Skeptilius wrote:Jim Longley wrote: And a couple of years ago the economy showed an upward trend, are you saying that trends don't change?
Well, duh, of course trends change -they have and they do. When they change I'll deal with them in whatever manner is appropriate at the time. If the government ever seriously tried to prevent gun ownership in this country I'll be there with all the rest of you protesting. But until them I'm not going to work myself up into a lather worrying about something that will probably never happen. That is really all I was trying to say in my original post.
So you see no reason to be prepared for such a change before it takes place? Excuse me, but that's lie going out and buying smoke detectors and fire extinguishers just after your house cathces on fire.
Skeptilius wrote:Obama can't eliminate gun rights on his own, it would take an act of Congress to even try to do that.
True, at least to some extent, but that doesn't stop him from claiming some epiphany, connected to a Binghamton or VT, that open th door for him to start campaigning to ban "assault weapons" and institute "common sense" laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, children and others who should not have them. Obama has filed such legislation as a Chicago politician and there is no reason to expect that he has changed his spots. Yes, he has paid lip service to the 2nd, but he added modifiers that are enough to suspect that the first chance he gets to sign a really draconian gun he will do so.
Skeptilius wrote:Then there is the Supreme Court to deal with and I don't believe this conservative court would ever approve a violation of the 2nd amendment like that - unless Congress is willing to re-write the Constitution - and I don't see any interest in doing that at all.
So you're willing to be the test case if the above takes place? First the case has to get to the level of the supremes, and then they have to agree to hear it, and then we have to hope that the makeup of the court hasn't changed by that time. Challenges to other laws have survived despite their being obviously (to us with real common sense) unconstitutional, trusting the supremes to rectify a bad law is just too much of a dice roll.
Skeptilius wrote:Vigilance is fine, staying alert is fine, but hysteria is irrational and impractical. Keeping a cool head, not listening to hearsay and rumor and slanted propaganda makes more sense to me.
So you see what I said as hysteria? Not cool headed? based on hearsay or rumor?
Skeptilius wrote:I'm a very pro-gun guy, but I'm also a very level headed and methodical kind of guy. That is all I was ever trying to say when I started this thread. If some people got the wrong impression, well, sorry bout that.
And all I was every trying to say was that taking his word until he changes it is neither level headed nor methodical. This is a time to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. Trends change, sometimes very rapidly and unexpectedly. I have been politically involved in various venues for more than forty years and have seen things happen that should have been good, which turned into something bad. I have seen Presidents, Governors, and legislators change their minds after they were elected, after they were "persuaded" by lobbiests, or even just because they felt like it, and we, the electorate have had little we could do except wait for the next election cycle for revenge.
Having lived in Illinois when Ryan was working his way up to being Governor, and having been there at the meeting when then Illinois representative Blagojevich made promises he went back on, I see absolutely no reason to be complacent about bambam and his appointees, quite the contrary, I see a lot of reason to be prepared for some kind of sneak attack.
