Fake "Gun Rights" Group Supports Gun Control - American Rifle & Pistol Assn

[Fremmer]

Yup but every once in a while we have to remind our new gun control advocating friends that there aren't going to be any more agreements to give our 2nd amendment rights away.

Interesting that the gun grabbers are so intent on getting the new background scheme in place, even more than the assault weapon and mag ban laws. As though they had big plans for all those new records some time in the future, right?

 

[Trent]

Man, there's a lot of weakness in this thread.

Seriously.

We're not giving one more inch.

Pound that in to your skulls until it sinks in.

Any "concessions" are pointless. Everything you can possibly do with a firearm to harm another human being is already covered by existing laws.

The NY Firefighter ambush blew away any false notions that background checks, assault weapons bans, or any other conciliatory rubbish would do ANY good at all.

If a convicted murderer who bashed his mother's skull in with a hammer can get out of prison in New York, the state with the strongest gun laws in the country; talk a nice girl in to buying a rifle for him (not an assault rifle, a "limited" capacity one); set fire to a house, and ambush first responders..

I hate to tell you moderate liberals, but it puts the nail in the coffin of your argument.

I read a story today where 30 children in a Nigeria school were burned to death in their sleep by Islamic militants yesterday - they doused the outside of the building they were sleeping in, with gasoline, and torched it. Shot anyone who tried to crawl out of the inferno.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE AWAY EVIL.

You can only fight it whenever, and wherever, it rears it's ugly head.

 

[Deanimator]

Interesting that the gun grabbers are so intent on getting the new background scheme in place, even more than the assault weapon and mag ban laws. As though they had big plans for all those new records some time in the future, right?

I just asked one of these guys how Chicago implemented its handgun BAN. He's never answered, and you just zeroed in on WHY...

 

[Deanimator]

I hate to tell you moderate liberals, but it puts the nail in the coffin of your argument.

By any reasonable measure, I'm a liberal and my answer to all of this deception and deceit in furtherance of repressive gun controls is:

NO, I REFUSE​

 

[jstein650]

Trent: you are, of course, correct. And, of course, JSH1's and those of his 'moderate' ilk, will retort something to the effect, 'well it won't ELIMINATE the violence, but it would HELP...' aka the 'it's a step in the right direction' argument. Which actually undermines their argument in the first place - that is that pro 2nd amendment folks have nothing to worry about giving up more freedoms for the supposed greater good.

 

[Mitlov]

If pro-2nd Amendment groups (the authentic groups) ever Were to compromise on magazines etc, then where is the compromise among the other side?

CCW statutes. Almost no states had 'em thirty years ago. Now basically all states do.

 

[Sam1911]

CCW statutes. Almost no states had 'em thirty years ago. Now basically all states do.

Right...we have that almost everywhere now. So where are "they" going to compromise, again?

It doesn't really count to say, "Well, we fought you tooth and nail across 40+ states for two decades and got our butts finally handed to us ... so we've compromised!"

Not. Giving. An. Inch.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I asked my borther, an anti, why should I agree to an impingement on my constitutional rights, I asked him, what do I get? I'm a legal gun owner who goes above and beyond, and what do I get, nothing....

he offered to pay me $10 an hour for additional paperwork
I asked him why if he wanted to complain about the 3, 4th, 6 7th etc. and domestic spying et al, why isn't the 2nd on that list...

Crickets.
Any org that supports one amendment, it's litmus should be that it supports ALL of them.

 

[Deanimator]

CCW statutes. Almost no states had 'em thirty years ago. Now basically all states do.

That's no more of an example of "compromise" than the taking of Mount Suribachi.

Like the Japanese, your side LOST.

 

[JSH1]

We've already got laws making it illegal for felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase firearms. But laws that would have sellers verify that you're not one of those three categories? The NRA is fighting tooth and nail against them. Imagine arguing that it's permissible for the government to say "no alcohol to minors" but not permissible for alcohol sellers to card buyers. They're gutting any enforcement mechanism for laws that pretty much all of us agree are good ideas.

And to add insult to injury, they portray background checks (an effective enforcement mechanism for domestic violence offender and mental illness firearms laws we already have on the books) as part of a government conspiracy to build a registry of firearms owners and then confiscate all firearms. It's not a conspiracy. It's not part of a Communist/Fascist disarmament plan. It's just an enforcement mechanism for laws we already have. And it annoys the heck out of me when the NRA argues that it's part of some secret grand plan for civilian disarmament.

My thoughts exactly. My split with the NRA has to do with their stance against background checks and other tools that law enforcement could use to fight gun violence. That includes the ban on the ATF having a searchable database of 4473 information and the ban on researching the causes of gun violence.


To answer other questions:

Am I a plant: No
Am I a member of AHSA or ARPA or any other gun group: No

Have magazine restrictions been litigated: Individually no. However both the 1994 federal assault rifle bans and individual assault rifle ban included restrictions on magazine capacity. These laws have been litigated, found constitutional, and the magazine restrictions stand.

Effectiveness of Assault Weapons Bans: No, they were not effective. The recent bans passed in the Northeast won't be effective either. As, I've said previously, to effectively prevent mass shootings we would have to do what Australia did. Australia's ban has been effective in preventing mass shootings. Yes, there was a shooting in 2002 that killed 2. It was tragic but doesn't meet the standard used by the FBI which requires the shooter to kill 4 people (not including himself) in one location. A ban similar to Australia's won't happen here and I'm not a supporter of a similar ban in the USA.

Something should be offered in exchange for background checks: I agree, but that requires two sides to negotiate. So far the NRA has not been willing to negotiate on anything and has only sought to kill any gun legislation. It may be possible to get something like nationwide concealed carry in exchange for background checks but someone needs to make that offer.

And I have just as little time for them in here as I have for them anywhere else. More members to block.

By all means block me. I find it sad though that we have reached a point in America that people prefer to live in an echo chamber and only listen to those who agree with and reinforce one's own opinion. That is what leads to such a disconnect between the two sides.

 

[Gallstones]

"Looks like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS. Sure glad I didn't step in it"

But...you ate some!

 

[Mitlov]

That's no more of an example of "compromise" than the taking of Mount Suribachi.

Like the Japanese, your side LOST.

You and I probably agree on 99% of issues. But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with you on any one issue, regardless of how much they agree with you on other issues, is the "enemy" and to be considered part of a monolithic opposition to everything you stand for? Great worldview. Anyone who disagrees with you on any one particular issue, regardless of how much you agree on, is lumped in with people who disagree with you on everything.

By all means block me. I find it sad though that we have reached a point in America that people prefer to live in an echo chamber and only listen to those who agree with and reinforce one's own opinion. That is what leads to such a disconnect between the two sides.

This, this, and more of this.

 

[SuperNaut]

You and I probably agree on 99% of issues. But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with you on any one issue, regardless of how much they agree with you on other issues, is the "enemy" and to be considered part of a monolithic opposition to everything you stand for? Great worldview. Anyone who disagrees with you on any one particular issue, regardless of how much you agree on, is lumped in with people who disagree with you on everything.

The mistake lies in the concept that we need to agree at all.

 

[Sam1911]

Mitlov,

Not "any" one issue. THIS one issue. The 2nd Amendment has been compromised FAR too much, for far too long. We've finally got the tide turned and we're in an amazing period of advancing gun rights many of us never thought we'd live to see.

Now is not the time to be "compromising" with the other side, who actually holds nothing we wish to trade for and hasn't the ability to trade up the things we DO want.

You'll perhaps have to forgive some of our members who've been fighting so very long, so very hard, if they don't really relish the idea of explaining to ONE MORE "well-intentioned" newcomer to the issues why their great idea for compromise really ISN'T. We've all been there and had that conversation (with those truly well-intentioned but uneducated, and those of ulterior, divisive motives as well) hundreds of times.

Yes, it serves us well to continue doggedly to educate and help raise up those who've not yet made the connections necessary to understand the issues fully. But it does NOT help us to coddle along the same old misinformation and blinkered untruths that we hear from the Brady Bunch, their political allies, and their AHSA-type trolls.

So, if you're here to learn, great, and I apologize for anyone who has presented a shoulder that's a bit too cold. If you're here to spread the gospel of universal background checks and other "reasonable" infringements, well...

 

[Deanimator]

You and I probably agree on 99% of issues.

I'm 100% against slavery too.

If you're 1% in favor of it, you're 100% on the wrong side.

I'm no more in favor of "compromise" on a government monopoly on the means of armed force than I am in favor of compromise on human bondage and degradation.

There isn't any more chance of "compromise" between my side and yours on gun control than there was between the Bielski brothers and Juergen Stroop.

 

[Hacker15E]

Magazine limits are completely constitutional, that legal battle has already been fought and the limits stand.

Tell me more about the SCOTUS case that ruled on magazine limits.

 

[Deanimator]

The mistake lies in the concept that we need to agree at all.

Absolutely.

I have no more need to agree with gun controllers than I need to agree with Ayman al Zawahiri.

For both of them, "compromise" is merely another word for complete and utter submission.

NO, I REFUSE.

I'm not going to "compromise" on Sharia law in the United States.

I'm not going to "compromise" on gun control here either.

 

[Hacker15E]

Have magazine restrictions been litigated: Individually no. However both the 1994 federal assault rifle bans and individual assault rifle ban included restrictions on magazine capacity. These laws have been litigated, found constitutional, and the magazine restrictions stand..

Again, please state the relevant case law where either the AWB or another magazine limit law was judged Constitutional.

 

[Deanimator]

Magazine limits are completely constitutional

The Supreme Court actually said racial segregation was "completely constitutional".

The Supreme Court also said that the Japanese internment was "completely constitutional".

"Constitutional" != "right"

So, how do you feel about "constitutional" Jim Crow?

How about "constitutional" racial concentration camps...?

It seems that a desire for an absolute governmental monopoly on the means of armed force never takes you too far from other targets of opportunity...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

JSH1: ...the ban on researching the causes of gun violence...

Katherine Christoffel, M.D.:
Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.... Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths.
in Janice Somerville, "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, January 3, 1994, p. 9.

Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control:

We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.

It was not a "ban on researching the causes of gun violence": it was a ban on using federal research funds to lobby Congress on specific policy changes. If you look at the literature, there has been a lot of research on the causes of gun violence (see the bibliography of the NAS "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" BAS 2004, NAP 2005); there has not been federal funding of CDC research intended to promote "guns as virus; eradication as cure".

What we had in the 1990s was research tailored to lobby congress to promote gun control as a foregone conclusion that guns were unquestionably bad and gun control was unquestionably good. CDC research would be funded for the goal of reducing ownership of guns by promoting gun control in the political arena.

This agenda lead to Additional Requirement 13 aka AR13 on CDC funding grants for research:
http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/additional_req.shtm#ar13

AR-13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

 

[Deanimator]

It was not a "the ban on researching the causes of gun violence": it was a ban on using federal research funds to lobby Congress.

No fair responding to their lies with the truth.

That's no way to "compromise"...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the 1924 Racial Integrity and Sterilisation Acts of the state of Virginia. That it was constututionally permissable--within the power and authority of the state to do so if it pleased--did not make it the right thing to do necessarily.

Quite frankly a lot of law is based more on whether the preceived benefits exceed the costs than on whether it is strictly constitutional. The handgun bans of D.C. and Chicago were defended more on the strength of a unquestioning belief they were beneficial than on a belief that they were constitutional: it took a lot of mental twisting to claim to believe that the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied only to the power or authority of the state to maintain a militia. That can only be explained if the supporters were so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they could ignore plain English.

 

[jstein650]

"These laws have been litigated, found constitutional, and the magazine restrictions stand."

Why do you keep parroting fiction?

" Australia's ban has been effective in preventing mass shootings. ", yet you don't support a similar ban. Why not? In your world, they are effective, no?

How long does it take to drop & swap a mag? Not to mention there are a zillion hi- cap mags out there already. Also not to mention that they are not that difficult to make. Also not to mention the black market thrives for all things 'banned', heroin, cocaine, etc. During the entire 10 year AWB here, I received mail order catalogs weekly that featured little other than hi-cap mags. ('pre-ban')

 

[MErl]

"These laws have been litigated, found constitutional, and the magazine restrictions stand."
Why do you keep parroting fiction?

Well they have been litigated and they do still stand. That litigation has all been at the state level AFAIK.

 

[jstein650]

At the state level, yes. Even so, Congress is no stranger to upending the Constitution, unfortunately. The sad thing is that IF there is a challenge, a liberal imbalance in the supreme court can and has lead to laws remaining despite constitutionality.