There are very energetic efforts to call a Constitutional Convention. And the number of states required to approve was not a vast number.

 

Obviously if that convention is called the 2nd Amendment is toast.

 

 

It takes 2/3 of the states to call a constitutional convention. Then it takes 3/4 of the states to pass amendments made in that convention.

If we get a majority thinking that way? Hell yes. Swampland is all we'd have left. You, PP92 and RM can be smug and scoff all you want, but that kind of thinking is not a good thing for America or for freedom.

 

It takes more than a majority. Good luck getting 2/3 of congress to agree on anything in the near future--let alone on something as controversial as gun confiscation.

It takes more than a majority. Good luck getting 2/3 of congress to agree on anything in the near future--let alone on something as controversial as gun confiscation.

You assume a complete ban all at once. Again, little by little over the years like I've said several times now.

 

But then again, if we go PP92's route of throwing out our Constitution for a new one (God help us) it could be much quicker I guess.

It takes more than a majority. Good luck getting 2/3 of congress to agree on anything in the near future--let alone on something as controversial as gun confiscation.

 

Again, ain't gonna happen.

 

How do I know? I'm more liberal than about 90% of the country and about 99.4% of BGP and I wouldn't agree to it.:lol2:

Well, since guns RIGHTS are a granted RIGHT that has to be protected from those that would take away that right...and there are many that would do just that if they could snap their fingers and make it happen...then I would say it is the most important.

Again, ain't gonna happen.

 

How do I know? I'm more liberal than about 90% of the country and about 99.4% of BGP and I wouldn't agree to it.:lol2:

You or I don't know the future. Like I said, never say never. Most liberals in this country would disagree with you on banning guns. They, unlike you, want it. 20, 50 or more years down the road, who knows. You can say you don't think it can happen, but you don't know it. Otherwise, I need proof from you and you (or anyone else on here) can't give me any proof or a guarantee. This country leans more and more left all the time.

You or I don't know the future. Like I said, never say never. Most liberals in this country would disagree with you on banning guns. They, unlike you, want it. 20, 50 or more years down the road, who knows. You can say you don't think it can happen, but you don't know it. Otherwise, I need proof from you and you (or anyone else on here) can't give me any proof or a guarantee. This country leans more and more left all the time.

 

I disagree. Hence the poll numbers.

Yes. Make a new one.

 

If you think big dollar lobbying is bad now, just imagine the type of money that would be thrown at politicians if it would affect this new constitution. I say keep the current one and update it perodically with amendments to keep it as relevant as it was 200+ years ago.

Seriously? You think that's gonna happen in the near future?

 

I have some swampland...

 

I don't see an outright ban any time soon but I could see regulations required in the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition that would make the more expensive and/or more difficult to own. Clinton started that trend when he British company that owned Smith and Wesson agreed to go along with Clinton in its manufacturing. Fortunately the new owners of Smith wised up and rescinded on the agreement.

 

One method California wanted to enforce was micro stamping. The concept is, each time a gun fires, the gun would leave a tiny stamp on the spent shell casing ejected from the gun of some type of code that could tie it back to the gun and its owner. If you ignore the increased cost of manufacturing a gun with this feature, I guess this may sound great to some but, my guess is criminals would most likely just switch to revolvers (spent shells do not fly out of revolvers like they do semi automatic pistols) or they would just the contraptions some reloaders use to make keeping their shells easier.

 

Despite the limitations on its effectiveness, despite the fact that such a feature would add significantly to the cost of the gun, many California politicians still wanted to pass the legislation. I believe the only reason the legislation failed was because gun manufacturers agreed that if passed, they manufaturers would refuse to sell their fire arms to California, including state and local police departments. I believe that is what caused the bill to fail.

I disagree. Hence the poll numbers.

Yeah, that's we have Obamacare, because we lean so far right.

What?:eek: Heck, politically speaking this country is extremely far more left/liberal than...well, any time in the past I guess. Go back 40 years and look at today...some would tell you they couldn't conceive we would be today where we are. Far more liberal today...heck I don't think it's even debatable.

 

 

I disagree. Hence the poll numbers.

 

You or I don't know the future. Like I said, never say never. Most liberals in this country would disagree with you on banning guns. They, unlike you, want it. 20, 50 or more years down the road, who knows. You can say you don't think it can happen, but you don't know it. Otherwise, I need proof from you and you (or anyone else on here) can't give me any proof or a guarantee. This country leans more and more left all the time.

We will have to agree to disagree, I guess. The country was much more liberal in many respects in the 1960's and early 1970's that it is now, IMHO.

 

Heck, I can remember when "liberal" wasn't a dirty word!

What?:eek: Heck, politically speaking this country is extremely far more left/liberal than...well, any time in the past I guess. Go back 40 years and look at today...some would tell you they couldn't conceive we would be today where we are. Far more liberal today...heck I don't think it's even debatable.

 

At the moment, I think gun views are the only area where the US has swung a little more back to the right. Pre Prohibition, I think gun control was absolutly detested by Americans. I think the US saw that as something monarchies, fascist governments and other non democracies used to control their subjects. Then came prohibition and the rise of organized crime along with it spurning some Americans to feel the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals so the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. The Act primarily regulated the ownership of fully automatic weapons, short barreled shot guns, short barreled rifles and suppressors. At this point, I think most Americans were satisfied and went on with life and I believe the terms of the original act were lightened .

 

Then JFK, RFK, Malcom X and MLK Jr. were all assassinated within a short time frame so the desire for gun control came back and the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. This act affect the sale of fire arms over state lines and prohibiting ownership by those with criminal records. Had control stopped at this point, I doubt the RTS's of the world would be all that concerned about gun control. However, things still kept going as the country became more "liberal" with gun control. This all reached its max in 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This piece of legislation had to be written by someone who knew nothing about guns based on how a simple hunting rifle could suddenly become an assault weapon based upon a few cosmetic changes that had no affect on the functionality (and certainly the lethality) of the gun. I think as this point, the US was as far left as it had ever been in terms of gun control. Also, the left did a masterful job of villifying the NRA and turning public opinion against the NRA. Granted, the NRA did a few bone headed things to contribute to that.

 

Shortly after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, many Midwestern, Southwestern and Southern states (such as KY) began passing concealed carry legislation. Wailing and gnashing of teeth followed with predictions of violence breaking out in the streets with road rage or simple fist fights turning into shoot outs and crime would sprawl. However, something crazy happened, crime started going down for the insane 80's and early 90's. I don't know one can definitely conclude that concealed carry was responsible for this but, I think one can conclude that concealed carry DOES NOT RESULT IN HIGHER GUN CRIME. At this point, I think the US stopped going left on gun control and started slowly going back to the right in its views of gun control.

 

In 2004, something else happened. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. Magazines were no longer limited to 10 (or whatever the limit was) rounds, rifles could have pistol grips, etc.. And after the ban expired, gun crime CONTINUED to keep falling. At this point, many more Americans began to change their thinking of gun control. I am one of these too. I began to reconsider all my original views which supported gun control. Last year a survey was taken and public opinion of the NRA was the highest it has been in years. So while Sandy Hook, Aurora and other events may have given gun contral a short bump, those tend to fade away once the emotion has calmed down and reality sets back in.

We will have to agree to disagree, I guess. The country was much more liberal in many respects in the 1960's and early 1970's that it is now, IMHO.

 

Heck, I can remember when "liberal" wasn't a dirty word!

 

Maybe in some ways but I think things such as the country's acceptance of gay marriage would have only flown in the the hippie culture, the vast majority of Americans would have still be dead set against gay marriage. Same with legalization of marijuana. Hippies, yes, most of America, no.

 

Also cultural views. Today, someone having a kid out of wedlock is not "shocking" where as it was scandalous back in the 60's and 70's.

 

What sticks out to me with the 60's and 70's was HOW FAST views changed. Where as in the 80's and beyond, those views really didn't go back to the right, the just moved left at a much slower pace if that makes sense.

I think that the Republican side of the aisle is MUCH more conservative that they used to be. Presidents Nixon and Reagan would be centrists (if not left-leaners) in today's political landscape.