can the hardnose right cause a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[luckyleftyme2]

is the right endangering our 2nd amendment



Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:36 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Could this hard nose pitch about losing control of our "gun rights" actually be endangering our chances to have weapons? run this by your mental puter: how many kids did you see hunting,or fishing last year? how many grandchildren do you have that don't hunt or fish? how many of your siblings children don't? how many in your family that no longer hunt or fish?
Well the fact is their are less and less hunters every year! you say so what people still target practice! hmmm most of those that do hunt! the point being we are losing our base support and have been for years!I'll bet that 50% of teens in maine have never fired a gun!
I'll bet that 75% of their parents think that only people that hunt should have weapons! I'll bet that in the end if we resist common sense and ignore the warning signs we will face a bill that could repeal the 22nd amendment!
you can dispute all you want ;but really think about the common sense of smaller clips(magazines for the drones) and gun show registration of all sales! no not pass downs of guns (although a receipt for new owner to stay with weapon in case they ever wanted to sell it to prove ownership)

[AndyA]

1. Huh? 22nd Amendment addresses term limits

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on February 27, 1951, limits the Presidential term. It provides that no person may be elected President more than twice. No Vice President who succeeded to the office of President, nor any other person in the line of succession who acted as President, and served for more than two years of a term to which someone else had been elected, could be elected to the Presidency more than once.

What does this have to do with gun rights?

[luckyleftyme2]

9. thank you

had a typo in first post thought I had corrected it! sorry! but glad you picked it up!
was in a hurry!

[HereSince1628]

10. Appears to be a doubling down on the 2nd Amendment

[Eleanors38]

45. I saw that! LOL

[nessa]

2. Term limits? I'm confused (nt).

.

[hlthe2b]

3. Good heavens. It appears the constitution/bill of rights is no longer being taught..22nd amendment?!

What does that have to do with "gun rights"?

[FSogol]

5. The 22nd Admendent: Our Right to Bear Tin Foil!

Maybe less people hunt and fish because:

The woods are crammed full of drunk knuckleheads with guns
In many areas around cities and suburbs, deer are vertically tame
As we become a more computerized society, catching your own food is more hassle than it is worth
Extreme drought is drying up good streams/creeks

[luckyleftyme2]

18. well

as you say their are those that abuse the right to hunt;but really its in our genes! sounds like you live in a city and the prey has become people instead of deer! I simply stated what so many of these hard ass fools haven't noticed or listened to the ripple that is becoming a wave! This isn't my idea but one I have heard several times in the past few weeks! And that is they should ban them all! And I live in a rural state! I have owned a gun since I was 12!
I started hunting when I was 12! shot my first deer at 12! I'm now in my late 70's! I have made many mistakes in my life -but refusing to look at both sides has never been one of them!

[FSogol]

28. Huh? I gave you a list of reasons why hunting/fishing numbers might be down.

I disagree with your main premise. I think more people are hunting and fishing than ever. Changes in background checks for gun purchases won't impact hunting a single iota, imo.

PS. I live in the suburbs, not the city and have never run into someone hunting people.
You should try going to the city some time. They are filled with farmer's markets, boutique tea shops, yoga supply stores, and brew pubs. They no longer look like the city in Charles Bronson movies.

[pintobean]

19. That made me laugh

[Fla_Democrat]

6. No, but I think the 21st

Needs to be looked at. Would clear up a lot of posts if we gave it some reconsideration.

[Dash87]

7. No. When did they ever express interest in doing that?

[Blue_Adept]

8. Geez, guys...

A simple typo of 22nd instead of 2nd. And yet you all play confused and unsure about what's being said. Let's use a little smarts here.

[HereSince1628]

11. A typo repeated 3 times isn't a simple typo

[luckyleftyme2]

22. hmm

and did you read the message? I didn't think that mentioned the president! yet your quick to comment on the error! which tells me your unable to think beyond your own thoughts! I would imagine in the real world your considered a dinosaur! (that's a polite way of saying whats 18 inches long and hangs in front of an a-hole some say it's the tie that boehner wears! but you know who don't ya)

[HereSince1628]

40. I did read it. I also read the comment of Blue Adept, and replied to that reply

I can see this makes you defensive, but, frankly, I'll stick to my assessment that a triple error isn't a simple typo.

I understand that you may be embarrassed about this, and I understand that motivates defensiveness and your need of calling me names.

Meh.

[luckyleftyme2]

13. exactly

but you know these types who miss the message need to exam their mental puters! they get their jollies by jumping on a typo while missing the facts! hmm gee I sound just like them!

[pintobean]

14. Maybe you should translate it for us. nt

[graham4anything]

12. I sure hope so. Reinterpret the 2nd and it's legally gone.

ALL soundbytes are history if the 2nd is reinterpreted.

I can't wait.

Because like Operation Neptune, the war is won, but the battles are still going to be fought.

wave on wave on wave on wave on wave

as all guns are born legal, nothing but the 100% removal of guns/bullets from private citizens can stop the carnage.
Used to say one could keep it in their house, however, then anyone in the house or in range outside a window, is still in danger, as is the owner if they get depressed.

So it's gotta be a reinterpreation, sell back at a good price, and then zero tolerance after say six months.

[cali]

17. lol. don't hold your breath, dear.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. In the insurance thread you said no tolerance after 21 days.

[cali]

15. why no. no it couldn't. And kids hunting and fishing are a dime a dozen where I live.

You don't know how the Constitution is amended.

[luckyleftyme2]

31. like many

your so into ur self u don't get the facts:
hunters are on the decline in most of the united states! without their support we will lose the right to have weapons! don't think so? have a look around the planet!

[Eleanors38]

48. See #45.

[Buzz Clik]

16. no.

[HappyMe]

20. No.

First, what the hell does fishing have to do with this?

There are plenty of people that still hunt and fish where I live. Same goes for WI where I used to live.

[Fla_Democrat]

23. Maybe it's the whole...

Shooting fish in a barrel.

The phrase had to come from somewhere, and since guns are needed to shoot (well, yes, there are bows and arrows.. but who is going to reach into a fishy barrel to retrieve their arrows?) there is the connection.





FWIW, around here, certain seasons it looks like Duck Dynasty* on steroids. I don't see hunting dying out in these parts.




*more deer and turkey, but the guns and camo is the comparison.

[luckyleftyme2]

26. like most who post in here

you haven't a clue eclining Deer Hunters
The deer herd in the State of Wisconsin is largely kept in check by private hunters who purchase licenses and kill deer each
fall. Not only is hunƟ ng vital to wildlife management eff orts, but it is also an important cultural acƟ vity through which people
become intricately connected to the natural world. However, the number of deer hunters in the state has declined in recent
years, causing concern about the future of the herd, the sport, and conservaƟ on eff orts. The number of gun deer hunƟ ng
licenses sold to Wisconsin residents declined from 644, 991 in 2000 to 602,791 in 2010. This is a decline of 6.5% in ten years,
despite the fact that 10 and 11 year old hunters were added for the fi rst Ɵ me in 2009 and 2010. Declines have been most
stark among males age 25-44, who have (in the recent past) hunted at high rates and killed a large number of deer.
This report is the result of a study undertaken by the
Applied PopulaƟ on Laboratory at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison at the request of the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division.
It is a collaboraƟ ve project between these two
organizaƟ ons with the goal of beƩ er understanding
how the populaƟ on of the state’s hunters is changing
over Ɵ me and to project future deer hunters. The
study takes a demographic approach invesƟ gaƟ ng
parƟ cipaƟ on in deer hunƟ ng by age over Ɵ me.
Despite the fact that the number of female hunters
is increasing and the acƟ vity is becoming more
popular among younger females, the number of
female hunters remains too small to make up for
the decline in male hunters. In 2010, 91% of gun
deer licenses sold were to males. For this reason,
this report focuses on understanding declines in
the male gun deer hunter populaƟ on.
We specifi cally examine the eff ects of Ɵ me period, age, and generaƟ onal diff erences on hunter parƟ cipaƟ on rates. Regarding
Ɵ me period, we fi nd that parƟ cipaƟ on rates dropped markedly between 2001 and 2002 with the discovery of CWD. More
importantly, rates conƟ nued to drop between 2004 and 2009 across all ages and generaƟ ons, except those over age 65 who
are hunƟ ng at higher rates than they have in the past. SƟ ll, age plays an important role in people’s likelihood to hunt, with
parƟ cipaƟ on rates dropping off signifi cantly aŌ er about age 65. At the same Ɵ me, generaƟ onal diff erences help to determine
hunter parƟ cipaƟ on rates. Males born during the Baby Boom (1946-1965) have been more likely to hunt than younger
cohorts, regardless of age. Overall, recent declines in hunter numbers have occurred through two processes. First, relaƟ vely
few young men born since 1980 (the Millenial GeneraƟ on) have been recruited into hunƟ ng. Second, retenƟ on rates year to
year among hunters age 30-55 have been relaƟ vely low over the last decade.
ProjecƟ ons of future hunters suggest that the male gun hunter populaƟ on will decline more dramaƟ cally over the next ten to
twenty years. We provide three future scenarios for male gun deer hunters using two diff erent methodological approaches
and making diff erent assumpƟ ons about future parƟ cipaƟ on rates and how they will vary by age and cohort. Overall, the
models suggest that in 2020, the number of male gun hunters will drop to about 480,000 (compared to 549,505 in 2010). If
current paƩ erns conƟ nue, the number could drop to 400,000 or fewer by 2030.
Finally, a geographic analysis of the counƟ es in which hunters reside indicates that most hunters live in urban areas, but
hunter parƟ cipaƟ on rates are highest in more rural areas of the state and parƟ cularly high in northern Wisconsin. Deer
hunter retenƟ on rates among middle aged males have shown more decline in the eastern part of the state than in the west,
with the most stark decline occurring in northeastern and southeastern Wisconsin. The proporƟ on of 20-24 year olds who
hunt (recruitment) declined in almost every county between 2000 (GeneraƟ on X) and 2009 (Millenials). This decline
was greater in eastern Wisconsin than in the western part of the state. 1
Summary
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Wisconsin Resident Gun Deer Hunters, 2000-2010
Females Other Males Males Age 25-44
Applied Population Laboratory Richelle Winkler & Rozalynn Klaas February 2011
Wisconsin’s gun deer hunter numbers are continuing to decline!

[HappyMe]

32. Okay! Whatever you say!

All the people I know still hunt and fish!

Let's talk about clueless. The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, any time soon. Neither is the 22nd.

[luckyleftyme2]

36. neither is

the horseless carriage ,paving roadways or those flying machines! but then your gene line has proven that!
roflmao!

[pintobean]

29. Here you go

[HappyMe]

34. Good grief!

Hell, we've been stupidly using poles and bait for years.

[luckyleftyme2]

33. and where is that

where you live? and where is that? what planet? hunting licenses in the usa have been on the decline for years! do a little research b-4 you comment you won't look so foolish to those that do!

[HappyMe]

35. I'm starting to wonder what planet you are on.

[LonePirate]

21. A repeal of the Second Amendment followed by a nationwide gun confiscation are sorely needed.

We need to end this gun obsession in our culture which threatens all of our lives. We might as well get to the heart of it.

[hack89]

25. And you think the American public would ever support such a thing?

how to we change our culture such that confiscation is feasible?

[HappyMe]

27. Nationwide confiscation?

How do you think that could be accomplished?

[Eleanors38]

49. "No one is coming to take your guns away." Must be rumor.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Amending the Constitution is VERY difficult.

First, the proposed amendment must pass both House and Senate with a 2/3 majority. Because of the super-majority it does not need a Presidential signature.

Then 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. If the amending bill has a time limit in it them the ratifications must be within the time limit.

I am extremely confident that you can find 13 very gun friendly states that would block ratification of a bill to repeal 2A.

Here are more than 13 who would not ratify such a bill: Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Tennessee.

[FSogol]

30. Very difficult? I'd say, next to impossible. n/t

[Ter]

37. All 50 states wouldn't ratify if

Not even NY and Cali.

[Thinkingabout]

38. I do not think one should worry about the 2nd Amendment being repealed in the US.

The AWB people are not even mentioning this, we are for reasonable sensible gun ownership, for there to be background checks which should deny purchase of weapons by criminals and those who are mentally stable. There are many gun owners who have never hunted and never will. If a hunter tells me they need the capacity to have more than ten rounds to hunt with I would tell them they are not a good marksmen and need to practice. As one who consumes game I am not able to consume what is blown away so there is not a need for the type of ammo which does this. Again it is about reasonable sensible owners.

[luckyleftyme2]

39. now your the kind we need

this common sense approach is the best way to keep our weapons and surely the majority of us gun owners respect that right! we do need to address the laws when abuse happens! we evidently cannot wipe out these gangs in cities that take so many lives! but we can make it harder for them to get weapons! we can't stop all the unstable people from getting a weapon but we can limit the amount of bullets a weapon can hold! If these steps save one life it will be worth it!

[GreenStormCloud]

41. The U.S. does not have a Dept. of Needs.

I don't have to justify my purchases based on my needs to any bureaucrat. I am sure that your home has things in it that you don't need, but that you bought to satisfy a desire. IOW, you bought them because you wanted them. Same with a high capacity magazine. Those of us who have them, bought them because we want them. It is our freedom to do so. I have a handgun that uses a 12 round magazine as its standard magazine. Why? Because I wanted it.

[Eleanors38]

50. What does hunting have to do with it?

I don't need even 3 rounds when hunting deer.

But I won't be restricted by that "limit" at the range, or for home defense. 80+% of gun-owners don't hunt anyway.

Last I checked "hunting" was relegated to that constitutional amendment that mentions "muskets."

[onenote]

42. No. And Wow. And No again.

First, taking on faith your statement that the number of hunters is declining, what is link between that decline and the opposition of the extreme anti-gun control crowd to reasonable gun control measures?

Second, the second amendment isn't going anywhere and certainly not because reasonable gun control measures are being blocked. If the legislative branches of the government at the federal and state levels can't be persuaded to pass reasonable gun control laws, how in the world are they going to be persuaded to pass a constitutional amendment. As noted, amending the constitution requires a super majority vote by the House and Senate and 2/3 of the states to ratify. Long before the country reached the point (and I doubt it ever would) where there would be sufficient support for repealing the second amendment, there would be support for reasonable gun control measures which, under your theory, would obviate the need for repealing the second amendment.

Back to my short answer: No.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. It would require a new amendment that would have to pass Congress, first...

and then receive a "yes" vote in 38 state legislatures. Amending the Constitution is very hard by design.

[Eleanors38]

44. "Hunting?" Since 80+% of gun-owners don't hunt, what is the relevancy?

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Nnnnnnope