ChanceMcCall
Member
The recent Texas school shooting was accomplished with a pump shotgun and a revolver. The well-paid anti gun entity leaders have been strangely quite. I would suggest that maybe the reason is that an active shooter using guns not normally classified as "assault weapons" impugns their case against the guns they have been targeting. A few of them have become more honest in their real goals of banning and confiscating all firearms, which I see as progress.
Most gun owners know many other gun owners who do not own, and don't want to own, many of the guns broadly classified as "assault weapons". The reasons for not owning them vary with the individual, but the fact they don't own them often makes them feel safe from the anti gun movement. I know at least 20 gun owners for every gun owner that belongs to even one pro gun organization, and I would bet that is actually a very low estimate. Many of these people own only one gun and that is often a gun passed down from family. They may, or may not, shoot them for fun or practice. That does not mean that they do not value those guns and that they wouldn't be upset or even angry if they thought they would lose the right to own the gun they do own.
If a serious movement to ban all firearms started to emerge, I would suspect that a couple of things might happen:
If you do not agree, why? What dangers do you see that I and perhaps others aren't seeing in this idea?
Most gun owners know many other gun owners who do not own, and don't want to own, many of the guns broadly classified as "assault weapons". The reasons for not owning them vary with the individual, but the fact they don't own them often makes them feel safe from the anti gun movement. I know at least 20 gun owners for every gun owner that belongs to even one pro gun organization, and I would bet that is actually a very low estimate. Many of these people own only one gun and that is often a gun passed down from family. They may, or may not, shoot them for fun or practice. That does not mean that they do not value those guns and that they wouldn't be upset or even angry if they thought they would lose the right to own the gun they do own.
If a serious movement to ban all firearms started to emerge, I would suspect that a couple of things might happen:
- Even some non-gun owners would object to the idea of a total gun ban especially if it involved criminalizing gun owners and forced confiscation;
- Many now passive gun owners would suddenly wake up to the danger and actively join and support pro gun organizations;
- The courts might suddenly realize the potential constitutional crisis and despite their liberal bents would feel compelled to rule against anti-gun legislation.
If you do not agree, why? What dangers do you see that I and perhaps others aren't seeing in this idea?
Last edited: