After their bans, did Britain and Australia purge their political house like we did in 1994?
That jab aside, Daniel Hannan rules!
NRA Removes Facebook Page
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
After their bans, did Britain and Australia purge their political house like we did in 1994?
That jab aside, Daniel Hannan rules!
Purging the political house AFTER a ban will do little good.
They won't be so stupid as to include a sunset date in the next one. Count on it.
What I've seen over the last weekend?
I see a bunch of emotional people trying to trade the safety, security, and heritage of my children and grandchildren away for a false sense of security.
And I feel like I'm standing ALONE when I'm arguing against the tide of those voices.
Maybe I am. In the end is doesn't matter.
My voice is being heard LOUD and CLEAR.
They won't be so stupid as to include a sunset date in the next one. Count on it.
What I've seen over the last weekend?
I see a bunch of emotional people trying to trade the safety, security, and heritage of my children and grandchildren away for a false sense of security.
And I feel like I'm standing ALONE when I'm arguing against the tide of those voices.
Maybe I am. In the end is doesn't matter.
My voice is being heard LOUD and CLEAR.
The purge in 1994 did a huge amount of good, it assured that there would be nothing placed on Bush's desk to sign in 2004. It also assured that there will not be any ban in the future.
t
Blackstone
Member
In the UK, the handgun ban was introduced by the Conservative government as the Firearms Amendment Act 1997. This banned all pistols except for .22 ones. The Labour party which won the election in that same year introduced a further amendment to ban .22 pistols as well. So yeah, we did purge our political house, though it made things worse.
Quite funny that banning the pistols didn't win the Conservatives the election anyway.
Quite funny that banning the pistols didn't win the Conservatives the election anyway.
I mentioned Daniel Hannan upthread, how is he viewed by you and your friends and what (if any) is his stance on gun ownership?
t
Thou shalt not count thine chickens before they hatch...
We're a long way off from 1994.
The country is so equally divided on so many issues that you can't conclusively say that ANY side has an upper hand, anywhere.
We're already seeing evidence of previously well-regarded (as far as RTKBA) politicians "changing sides."
Low, and vile, to change your stance on an issue when it is politically convenient to do so, yes, but it IS happening regardless of how vile it is to trick your constituency for personal gain.
That (relatively) small gap in the house and senate is not sufficient to weather a storm of this magnitude without staunch resolve. So far, I'm only seeing the level of resolve required from Texas.
Plan2Live
Member
What's Facebook? I hear a lot about this silly fad but have never felt compelled to join the Conga line.
It's actually proven quite effective at promoting social agendas of all types.
Just this week I've posted up and sold 4 guns through Facebook. Let that fly in the face of the anti's making their arguments. You want to be friends with me? The cost is a constant stream of pro-gun propaganda, civilian self-defense stories, and reviews of firearms stuff.
Plus the occasional fiery debate against anti-gunners. They always leave with their tails tucked between their legs, I'm getting pretty damn good at the whole debate thing.
Blackstone
Member
I've actually never heard of him nor heard him mentioned in my shooting circles. He appears to be pro-gun, or at least anti control legislation according to this article he wrote in 2010:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...ay-signals-an-end-to-declamatory-legislation/
Has anyone called the NRA? I did today. They're waiting for the children to be buried and then they're going to be on the scene. The NRA is planning strategy and urging all members to start contacting their reps and get ready to get busy. Why does it seem like I'm the only one to remember the atmosphere in the country after Colombine in 99? It was just as bad. The NRA waited for a few days and then moved into the political fray. I agree. Let the anti's do all their screaming and then get to work. The last few days would have only been a screeching session with the rabif anti's pointing their fingers at pro-gun people and shouting them down with the assistance of the so-called "hosts".
From this article, page 3:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4a8dae-4869-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html
Their silence is deafening me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4a8dae-4869-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html
Their silence is deafening me.
Phatty
Member
Ok, time to add my two cents. At first, I didn't mind the NRA's silence. I understand the reason for not making statements during the initial confusion and before the victims have even been buried.
BUT, as everyone can see, the gun-grabbers have put together the strongest, most concerted effort I've seen in my lifetime to push for new gun control laws. The NRA cannot sit idly by and have the people of the United States (most of whom are sheep who will believe whatever they're told) hear a completely one-sided view. The gun grabbers have dominated the discussion to the point that any average joe who has turned on a television in the last week or picked up a newspaper, will assume it is a foregone conclusion that more gun control is needed. Just look at the numerous posts here of supposedly pro-gun individuals seemingly accepting that conclusion.
I get the NRA didn't want to "politicize" the tragedy, but once that had already taken place by the opposing groups (and at a historically massive level) it had no choice but to speak out. Why can't it give them a taste of their own medicine and change the story line: there are numerous angles that could be taken to show that the tragedy actually demonstrates the need for greater gun rights, not restrictions. They could point out that this is yet another example of a "gun free zone" failing miserably. That it is another example of unarmed victims being at the mercy of a bad guy with no way to fight back. That this is another example that the police cannot be there to protect people from harm. That the assault weapon ban in Connecticut did nothing to prevent this tragedy. That the numerous laws on the books restricting this shooter from possessing those weapons or shooting the victims did nothing to prevent the tragedy.
Seriously, get off your ass and do something NRA. I'm starting to get the feeling (and the media has already begun insinuating this) that they almost feel guilty right now to be a pro-gun organization and are sulking off in the corner hoping nobody notices that they are a gun group out of fear of shame and embarrassment. What a disgrace.
BUT, as everyone can see, the gun-grabbers have put together the strongest, most concerted effort I've seen in my lifetime to push for new gun control laws. The NRA cannot sit idly by and have the people of the United States (most of whom are sheep who will believe whatever they're told) hear a completely one-sided view. The gun grabbers have dominated the discussion to the point that any average joe who has turned on a television in the last week or picked up a newspaper, will assume it is a foregone conclusion that more gun control is needed. Just look at the numerous posts here of supposedly pro-gun individuals seemingly accepting that conclusion.
I get the NRA didn't want to "politicize" the tragedy, but once that had already taken place by the opposing groups (and at a historically massive level) it had no choice but to speak out. Why can't it give them a taste of their own medicine and change the story line: there are numerous angles that could be taken to show that the tragedy actually demonstrates the need for greater gun rights, not restrictions. They could point out that this is yet another example of a "gun free zone" failing miserably. That it is another example of unarmed victims being at the mercy of a bad guy with no way to fight back. That this is another example that the police cannot be there to protect people from harm. That the assault weapon ban in Connecticut did nothing to prevent this tragedy. That the numerous laws on the books restricting this shooter from possessing those weapons or shooting the victims did nothing to prevent the tragedy.
Seriously, get off your ass and do something NRA. I'm starting to get the feeling (and the media has already begun insinuating this) that they almost feel guilty right now to be a pro-gun organization and are sulking off in the corner hoping nobody notices that they are a gun group out of fear of shame and embarrassment. What a disgrace.
Phatty
Member
Let me also just add that the gun control fight is largely a battle of public opinion. The gun grabbers now have a huge head start in molding public opinion following this tragedy. I guess the NRA will start making statements once the story is largely dead and nobody is tuning in any more. Even horrible tragedies like this have a relatively short shelf life before the next story pops up and captures the front page.
Going after the legislators only won't cut it. If the NRA is telling them one thing, but their constituents are telling them something else, the NRA isn't going to come out on top. I think this is why so many legislators that were endorsed by the NRA have given anti-gun remarks in the last couple of days. With the deafening silence from the NRA, they were left flailing in the wind and assumed, "well, if the NRA is keeping quiet I guess we really do need to do something." If the NRA had gotten on top of this situation right away, they could have at least provided some talking points to these legislators so that they would have had ammunition when being interviewed by the press.
Going after the legislators only won't cut it. If the NRA is telling them one thing, but their constituents are telling them something else, the NRA isn't going to come out on top. I think this is why so many legislators that were endorsed by the NRA have given anti-gun remarks in the last couple of days. With the deafening silence from the NRA, they were left flailing in the wind and assumed, "well, if the NRA is keeping quiet I guess we really do need to do something." If the NRA had gotten on top of this situation right away, they could have at least provided some talking points to these legislators so that they would have had ammunition when being interviewed by the press.
Phatty
Member
From a Washington Post headline today:
"Landscape on gun issues continues to shift as businesses react and more lawmakers change their stances on regulations."
It's hard to disagree. And the NRA will go down in history as remaining silent while the walls fell down around them.
I'm bumping into normal everyday people who've never mentioned guns to me in the past that are now saying something needs to be done. These same people didn't utter a single word about gun control to me after any of the other recent mass shootings. So what's different now? The gun grabbers have picked this as the perfect opportunity to go all for broke. It's right out of the liberal playbook because they can get almost any law passed when its "all about the children." They are feeding on the fear of people that little children are at risk of being gunned down in school to convince them that a curtailing of their rights is necessary to save the kids.
"Landscape on gun issues continues to shift as businesses react and more lawmakers change their stances on regulations."
It's hard to disagree. And the NRA will go down in history as remaining silent while the walls fell down around them.
I'm bumping into normal everyday people who've never mentioned guns to me in the past that are now saying something needs to be done. These same people didn't utter a single word about gun control to me after any of the other recent mass shootings. So what's different now? The gun grabbers have picked this as the perfect opportunity to go all for broke. It's right out of the liberal playbook because they can get almost any law passed when its "all about the children." They are feeding on the fear of people that little children are at risk of being gunned down in school to convince them that a curtailing of their rights is necessary to save the kids.
Is there a Bill on the House floor that we haven't heard about? Did the President make Sarah Brady a czar? Getting impatient and screaming at the NRA isn't the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
t
lobo9er
Member
The NRA isn't what they used to be In my opinion. I think GOA will be picking up where NRA left off in the future. We will see Friday, as they said they are holding a press conference. As of now I support GOA, depending what happens friday I would consider supporting both. I have run into alot of brain washed folks that believe being disarmed is the best thing for us. Its going to be an interesting 2013.... if the world doesnt end in a few days.... (J/K of course about the dooms day thing)
Phatty
Member
I stated that the fight is not solely at the legislative level. There is also the matter of public opinion. Letting the other side have exclusive control of the message that is provided to the public is a bad strategy. Ultimately, legislators answer to the public, so if you lose the battle for public opinion, all the lobbying in the world won't make a difference.
lobo9er
Member
This is looking alot like Australia in the media. If you go back on youtube and watch some clips of how hosts on news and morning shows and on radio began talking about guns its eerie similar.
Phatty
Member
Yes. I probably wouldn't really care what the NRA does if I wasn't a member. As for what I'm doing I've contacted my local politicians and told them that new gun control laws are not the solution. Ok, I'll admit that I haven't contacted Senator Durbin but he is a lost cause and it would have been a waste of my time. But I've had to contact both state and federal politicians because Illinois is also involved in its own battle currently.
Phatty
Member
The playbook has already been written. They're just reading off of a script right now. What really irks me is that I know there are people in this country that were gleeful when they heard the tragic news because they have been waiting for this golden opportunity a long time. They know they'll never get a more perfect set of circumstances than what they have going for them right now, which is why we've seen the absolute full-court press these last few days.
When the "assault weapons ban" was passed in 1994, all existing "assault weapons" were exempt.
There's a clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, (Clause 3) which states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." And this clause applies more specifically to criminal law.
Just a WAG, but whatever "assault weapons" are out there today, would have to remain legal. The Firearms Act of 1934, which created "Class III" weapons, could probably be amended, requiring registration, etc. And good luck with that. The Feds would never be able to confiscate the weapons, because no one knows where they all are, not even a fraction of them.
The down-side to any of this type legislation, is getting it through the House of Representatives. They're not in the mood, regardless the outcry from the left, to entertain any legislation. They also have two full years for things to cool down.
There's also the cost to implement. In 1934, there were relatively few fully automatic weapons. Today, there are millions of "assault weapons" out there, both in "A4", or similar configuration, and less "menacing-looking". There are also a lot out there being used in high power rifle competition, etc.
Things to think about. Things that right now are not being looked at in all the hysteria on both sides.
There's a clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, (Clause 3) which states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." And this clause applies more specifically to criminal law.
Just a WAG, but whatever "assault weapons" are out there today, would have to remain legal. The Firearms Act of 1934, which created "Class III" weapons, could probably be amended, requiring registration, etc. And good luck with that. The Feds would never be able to confiscate the weapons, because no one knows where they all are, not even a fraction of them.
The down-side to any of this type legislation, is getting it through the House of Representatives. They're not in the mood, regardless the outcry from the left, to entertain any legislation. They also have two full years for things to cool down.
There's also the cost to implement. In 1934, there were relatively few fully automatic weapons. Today, there are millions of "assault weapons" out there, both in "A4", or similar configuration, and less "menacing-looking". There are also a lot out there being used in high power rifle competition, etc.
Things to think about. Things that right now are not being looked at in all the hysteria on both sides.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,415
Good post, Checkman.
We need to act wisely and proactively- letters and e-mails to our elected officials containing intelligently worded arguments supporting our 2A rights are our best bet.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
The NRA has issued a statement that out of respect for the victims they will not comment until Friday at which time they will hold a press conference.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
