But ok, I'm not going to argue with you further if you want to claim that all non-sporting rifles were banned from import at one point and then more non-sporting rifles were banned later and then even more non-sporting rifles were banned later BUT that all the non-sporting rifles were definitely banned the first time. I admire your creativity for one thing, and also the comedic value in the argument.
Of course, it's a red herring. It doesn't call into question the fact that it makes no sense vote for an anti-gun president based on the idea that the NRA will be able to stop the president from enacting gun control. Clearly the NRA (and everyone else) is helpless to prevent certain types of gun control (e.g. executive action import bans) from being enacted.
It also doesn't contradict the fact that democratic candidates have historically and statistically been more prolific than republican candidates in terms of passing/enacting/supporting various gun control measures. In fact this topic (executive action import bans) provides a good example.
Are the republicans the only choice?
- Thread starter Oolong
- Start date
- Status
There is no red herring. I'm not claiming anything more than what is "non-sporting" is arbitrary, and whatever it is has been defined as was 100% banned at each stage.
You are claiming that every time that arbitrary definition changes, that definition reaches back in time. I think there is some comedy in that. The SR9 was created to be an importable "sporting rifle" - and it was for many years. Then the SL8 was created to be an importable sporting rifle - and it currently is. When the government bans all imports of semi-autos in the future, does that make the SL8 non-sporting today?
You are claiming that every time that arbitrary definition changes, that definition reaches back in time. I think there is some comedy in that. The SR9 was created to be an importable "sporting rifle" - and it was for many years. Then the SL8 was created to be an importable sporting rifle - and it currently is. When the government bans all imports of semi-autos in the future, does that make the SL8 non-sporting today?
An argument presented that does not contradict/attack the claim at which it was directed is a red herring. It attempts to distract from a valid point by diverting the attention to another topic.
The whole argument about the details of the Bush import ban is a red herring because...
John, I'm only arguing with your claim that "non-sporting rifles" were still imported after '89. That's all. Don't make that into an argument about Democrats, because I'm not saying anything about that. Bush was wrong, Clinton was wrong. Banning importation of things that are legal to make domestically is stupid. But the bans at the time were complete and nothing slipped through.
Yes, I realize that. You are focused on the red herring.
That's the point of a red herring. It distracts from the valid point made. It wouldn't work if you also responded to the initial point I made--and therefore you've been very careful not to--focusing exclusively on the Bush ban ever since you brought it up.
I foolishly responded to your initial red herring about the Bush ban and since then, the thread topic has been the Bush ban instead of the valid point which is that the NRA is not going to be able to eliminate the possibility of gun control via executive action.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Off topic: A lot of currently importable Curio & Relic firearms are "non-sporting". Collection of antiques, curios and relics including militaria is a legitimate (lawful and traditional) use of arms.
Another lawful and traditional use of non-sporting firearms is pre-service civilian marksmanship training which should include familiarization wth the arms of our military and the arms of potential allies and enemies.
History of the 1968 Gun Control Act -- even by pro-gun control academic Frank Zimring among others -- points out that the "sporting purposes" import restriction was mainly to protect the domestic sporting arms industry from competition -- all the folks buying military surplus rifles in the 1950s and 1960s as poor man's hunting rifles.
But back to Dem's v Rep's. I think people fed up with the national parties -- Rep and Dem both -- it looks like many are voting for Trump as a message to politics-as-usual. Trump as a pox on both parties. Trump as "none of the above".
Another lawful and traditional use of non-sporting firearms is pre-service civilian marksmanship training which should include familiarization wth the arms of our military and the arms of potential allies and enemies.
History of the 1968 Gun Control Act -- even by pro-gun control academic Frank Zimring among others -- points out that the "sporting purposes" import restriction was mainly to protect the domestic sporting arms industry from competition -- all the folks buying military surplus rifles in the 1950s and 1960s as poor man's hunting rifles.
But back to Dem's v Rep's. I think people fed up with the national parties -- Rep and Dem both -- it looks like many are voting for Trump as a message to politics-as-usual. Trump as a pox on both parties. Trump as "none of the above".
John, all I said was "Or the 1980s when Bush banned all the imported non-sporting rifles." My statement was correct and could have just stood on its own, since Bush did ban every rifle considered non-sporting at the time.
You have been the one who wanted to make a big argument out of my accurate statement, and when the argument starts frustrating you, you accuse me of taking the subject off topic.
You're a better person than that. I made a simple statement that was true and was only provided as another example of what you were talking about. I have no idea why you feel the need to disagree and then make it sound like I'm up to something for participating in YOUR argument. If you don't want to talk about what a non-sporting rifle is, then don't start an argument about it.
You are correct. It is an additional example of executive action gun control that a president can enact which the NRA would be powerless to stop/neuter.
Therefore the idea that it makes no difference who gets elected because the NRA will stop them from enacting gun control is badly flawed.
Of course, it would also be a mistake to use the Bush example to argue that both major parties are equally dedicated to gun control. This particular type of gun control provides a good example where the Democrats were at least 4x more active than republicans.
Clearly the Democrats are slightly more likely to pass gun control, or at least talk about it openly to the public. And just as clearly, Republicans originate and pass gun control. And, in the 8th year of a Democratic president, we don't seem to have any special Executive gun control action, despite his 4x proclivity to do so.
An Executive action could be stopped by Congress, should the NRA be able to influence Congress. It's all a crap shoot.
An Executive action could be stopped by Congress, should the NRA be able to influence Congress. It's all a crap shoot.
Obama has actually restricted small arms imports from Russia via executive action.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ation-bans-import-of-popular-russian-firearms
It is clear, as you say, and, at least in this particular case, the difference is not accurately described as "slightly more likely".
How could an import restriction, enacted by executive action, be stopped by congress?
Last edited:
I said "slightly" because both brand of Presidents seem to like to pass gun control, and have.
I wouldn't call banning Russian gun imports gun control. Plenty of other ex-Soviet countries to choose from for that kind of stuff.
I said it's not "slightly more likely" because while both brands of presidents have pursued and enacted gun control, one brand does so at a rate that is more than "slightly more likely" than the other.
One restrictive aspect of attempting to communicate with others is that one doesn't have free reign to redefine commonly used terms to suit his current purposes.
I'm not sure why you're pushing back on this. You do remember saying this, right?
Are you now saying that you had another motive besides only providing another example of what I was talking about?
Last edited:
No, I responded to your post. My response has nothing to do with a previous post.
As I have said in other places, I think gun control is an election year talking point, like "border security", lowering taxes and a bunch of other baloney that doesn't seem to ever get legislated near as often as it is discussed. The real work of elected officials (when they actually do any), can't usually be articulated in a Tweet or sound bite, so they resort to this kind of nonsense to sound presidential and to appear partisan enough to the their supporters.
Which doesn't mean that I don't think Democrats won't pass gun control if they think they can, AND get re-elected. In 1994 crime in the US was high, and it isn't now. The Crime Bill AWB came and went, and no one really cared. Polls show there isn't a lot of support for a new ban.
Right now the biggest problem we're likely facing is UWBs, and that is happening state to state regardless of a national law. People in strong gun states don't have to worry about that happening in their states, but with the exception of TX many of those states have more economic problems for their populations to worry about.
This election is ridiculous. Your choices are third party candidates who can't win, a Democrat and a reality TV star. There is no good choice.
jhb
Member
yes, but not all Republicans. some are as bad as the clintons in voting records. on this presidential race..... hillary is the worst choice for 2nd amendment. there is no disputing this. any vote besides trump is a vote for Hillary. thats all you really need to know.
i disike trump but the primary voters set us all up for no other choice. so be it.
i disike trump but the primary voters set us all up for no other choice. so be it.
jhb,
That's been demonstrated as false except in the so-called "battleground states" and the two proportionally awarded states. For the rest of the country the winner of the Electoral College votes in those states is already a given. We have to face the reality that the fate of the country lies in what happens in just a handful of states at this point and the rest of us are not important in the decision if all we're doing is voting.
Are republicans the only choice? Let me double check... Yep. I would think a true libertarian would be alright, but rarely do they have a stones throw chance. So unfortunately libertarians can be a wasted vote. Democrats will say whatever if takes. Many who claim to be "pro gun" and "respect the second amendment" are fudds who think the Constitution guarantees the RTKBA for hunting or only if you are in the militia- which they hate.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
The best thing we could hope for is happening, one party is hopelessly backing a criminal the other if he wins will have fragged the party into pieces. If she wins her entire time in office will be under investigation by Congress or those in DOJ who still care. If he wins and does what he says he'll do he will create a viable third party from the defectors of the current 2. If he falls to the status quo or Hillary wins and carrys Congress we're in for a long cold winter.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
And to be perfectly honest, in the closest election (Bush/Gore) in our lifetimes in the closest state (FL) the difference was 537 votes. So even then a solidarity, individual vote only mattered a fraction, literally.......1/537th
Not that we shouldn't vote, of course we should, just do it knowing that your vote is a very small drop in a very large bucket. Individual drops just aren't effective, it's when we come together and pour in that counts.
The libertarians say in this election a vote for Trump or Clinton will either get you Trump or Clinton, and is therefore a wasted vote.... I think I agree with them.
They'd have a stronger argument if their VP candidate wasn't so anti-gun. That's not the sort of statement I'd choose to make.
Congress can pass a law which Trump executive actions. Now a president wouldn't sign a individual law to overturn his executive action so it would need to be added as an amendment to a must pass bill. Something big enough that vetoing over something little like a import ban would look bad.
That is how we got concealed carry in National Parks.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
Hillary Clinton does have a record on Guns, and it's not good. One Her first acts as Secretary of State was to go to Mexico City, Mexico and start laying the ground work for another Assault Weapons Ban, due to the number of "American" guns involved in Cartel Crime in Mexico. This is before the "Gun Running / Fast and Furious" Scandal Broke, where we learned that it was actually our government knowing allowing guns to flow into Mexico....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
