Some random thoughts, with UBC and other restrictions potentially on the horizon

[GEM]

They will just ban semi automatic long guns. Haven't folks read some of the proposed legislation? You can run around saying 'assault' isn't this or that all you want. You are useless in the real battle. As far as people going to the range, the spray and pray semi shooters are just PR for banners.

I just shake my head at the useless semantic picky arguments that occur in the choir and have no meaning in the actual legislative behavior. If you followed the literature on the original AWB, it was pointed out that the problem was semi auto guns that the original ban didn't cover and the existing stock. This was presented by DOJ sponsored research to conferences such as the American Society for Criminology in the mid 2000s.

While politicians use assault for PR and mention clips (and you guys get all excited as if correcting that will change the metric), the laws will take out all semi auto guns. If you pay attention the media has switched to military style semi auto rifles. They heard the message. So the usage is correct. Have the ban advocates given up. NO.

You are wasting your time if you think the term makes a difference. I pointed that out quite clearly and I only can conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse as you want to bluster.

As far as no compromise, I REFUSE - that's a way to end up on a hill in the Philippines REFUSING to acknowledge WWII is over. You'd better see if that some legislation is unstoppable, there are ways to mitigate the effects and/or gain something. Of course, on the Internet, you can posture all you want.

 

[Tommygunn]

"You'd better see if that some legislation is unstoppable, there are ways to mitigate the effects and/or gain something."

While I agree that debating semantics like "clip" vs. "magazine" is unhelpful, I question the concept of mitigation.
Resisting (legally through letters/e-mail/ phone call) seems eminently reasonable. Trying to vote out supposed republicans who renege on support for 2A seems reasonable as well.
My problem with "mitigation" is that the antis will not stop. If they get 100% of what they want, they WILL come back for more. If they get 80% they will be back --- and so forth .
I don't necessarily object to mitigation; I might accept red flag type laws BUT some of the western states that have them allow a neighbor or other individual to register a complaint and the red flag order is issued and the guns get seized. There's too much potential for abuse and I would not like this at all.
But .... even if I accept the red flag law, properly written, with due process protected, it won't be the end.
They started decades ago....1934, 1938, 1968, 1994.... plus some 20,000+ laws local, county, state and federal.
Being dead-set again everything may be no-win.... but giving in on some thing only seems to be losing by degrees --- the "death by a thousand bites."
I wonder if there IS a strategy to victory that doesn't include changing the minds of 300+ million people in a changing demographic?

Our founders knew that freedom could be eaten away by degrees . Sad to see it happening ....

 

[GEM]

I agree that there can be a death by slow cuts. However, absolutism is problem if it contains no strategy but a tantrum. I've always said the weakness of the gun rights movement is an inability to come up with convincing arguments for the RKBA that work outside the choir. The successful concealed carry movement is an example of how a reasonable proposition carried the day in many places. There hasn't been a similarly successful push on other issues. In fact, on the Federal level, the supposed pro-gun party flees from pushing gun rights legislation with any vigor. They push for tax cuts, rail against Obamacare but put no effort into gun rights. They fold whenever they can. Tax cut Ryan couldn't wait to ditch the HPA. Reciprocity , a similar failure.

Support the right for ARs - the best they got is to call them MSRs and wail about assault rifle definitions.

We are supposed to hope that the golden Boys of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will lead SCOTUS to take a case that clearly voids the state bans, onerous carry restrictions and the like. If only when and if it isn't full of weasel words and unintended consequences like Heller. Compromises like were made for Kennedy might be made for Roberts and leave loopholes to continue bans and restrictions.

I wonder if there IS a strategy to victory that doesn't include changing the minds of 300+ million people in a changing demographic?

That's the problem. A cultural shift away from respecting gun ownership is a significant threat. I don't see arguments in many progun social outlets that will reverse that. Saying hammers kill more, Japan didn't invade us, they are trying to control us (how - Medicare for all?), the guns are MSRs and thus nice sporting toys - don't have force for the general public who only sees the threat.

Self-defense has force but can easily lead to limits. Look at the '5 is enough' crowd who insult those who might carry more. Defense against tyranny - well, the NRA marketing types say that message doesn't sell, so they don't push it. Also, they would have to suggest that the latest instantiation of a potential tyrant is guess who? That is contrary to their most important purpose (as said by President Carol) of getting guess who relected. The growth on minority progun groups is because of a perceived threat of resurgent racism and perhaps government support for such.

A constant drum beat of rampages will lead to restrictions without a reasonable counter rhetoric. Whining about hammers and definitions of 'assault' won't do it and indicate those who do think that are ignorant of psychological and attitude change principles. They feel good in the insular nature of the choir and lose the battle.

 

[Ignition Override]

One word, for those still selling, or seeking fairly common guns, by which deals —all done in person /FTF— have been reliable and safe, (send me a ‘pm’):

“Armslist”. Common sense is required.

 

[Basura Blanca]

As far as no compromise, I REFUSE - that's a way to end up on a hill in the Philippines REFUSING to acknowledge WWII is over. You'd better see if that some legislation is unstoppable, there are ways to mitigate the effects and/or gain something. Of course, on the Internet, you can posture all you want.

There's no guarantee we get a seat at the table, let alone a voice in mitigating anything. I also don't believe certain bills are inevitable/unstoppable. There's also value in not coming to the table if we don't believe in the cause. Lending our name in support of laws which none of us believe will accomplish their stated goals is a terrible pr move. Think how that can be spun by our opposition to help further more of their agenda. It's a losing proposition imo.

This isn't about being a hardliner for the sake of being a hardliner. There's more to it than just the immediate.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I might accept red flag type laws BUT some of the western states that have them allow a neighbor or other individual to register a complaint and the red flag order is issued and the guns get seized.

I'm in California so I don't have a lot of skin in the national game. We have GVRO (aka "red flag"), UBC and registration, a three decade multi-count amended "assault weapon" ban and on and on everything else. We didn't get here overnight either. It's also the reason I encourage people not to just cave to something in order to kick the can down the road a bit.

Anyway, the whole premise of red flag is based on antiscience. It's predicated on the belief that violent behavior can be accurately predicted somehow. But behavioral specialists have said precisely the opposite. I posted a link on another thread to a comprehensive government study about this. The idea that we can "red flag" a person and have untrained people like LE make some on the spot determination as to their mental state is absurd. This is especially so when you consider real doctors in this field aren't even capable of that task.

So I question why any gun owners would want to put their stamp of approval on this one.

 

[Deanimator]

As far as no compromise, I REFUSE - that's a way to end up on a hill in the Philippines REFUSING to acknowledge WWII is over.

Those who plan for defeat inevitably achieve it.

There is no "mitigation" for gun owners any more than there was for Mordecai Anilewicz and the Bielski brothers. If you give up there's only one destination.

 

[GEM]

So what’s your plan? You say you won’t but what will you do?

Going to move into the woods as gueriila or partisan as a few escaping from the Holocaust did?

BTW, did you ever go through a NICS check or get a carry license? Did you refuse to do that?

 

[Deanimator]

So what’s your plan? You say you won’t but what will you do?

Going to move into the woods as gueriila or partisan as a few escaping from the Holocaust did?

BTW, did you ever go through a NICS check or get a carry license? Did you refuse to do that?

Step one of my plan is to not cravenly surrender, much less work to advance the goals of the enemy by doing his work for him.

 

[GEM]

So you have nothing.

 

[Deanimator]

So you have nothing.

I have nothing involving surrender and collaboration.

 

[GEM]

I see.

 

[orpington]

Post #77 stated if there might be a strategy to victory that doesn't involve changing the minds of 300+ million Americans in a changing demographic. Also, that freedom can be eaten away in degrees.

THAT could very well be the strategy of those who wish to see stringent gun control measures, not necessarily because they believe this, but because it garnishes a vote from their constituency.

The demographic is not in the favour of those who relish gun ownership. Without sounding racist or sexist, the vast majority of gun owners were and are white males. As this becomes increasingly less common, perhaps the approach is if you don't succeed, try, try again. It's only a matter of time before the demographics favour those who are not at all interested in firearms ownership and pastimes. If the demographic isn't changing, the lifestyle sure is. How many of you live in a truly rural environment anymore? And those interested in doing so, such as myself, sure had better have deep pockets. A rural lifestyle usually means less economic opportunities for lack of good employment, the need to purchase large tracts of costly land, or both.

 

[Deanimator]

Post #77 stated if there might be a strategy to victory that doesn't involve changing the minds of 300+ million Americans in a changing demographic. Also, that freedom can be eaten away in degrees.

THAT could very well be the strategy of those who wish to see stringent gun control measures, not necessarily because they believe this, but because it garnishes a vote from their constituency.

The demographic is not in the favour of those who relish gun ownership. Without sounding racist or sexist, the vast majority of gun owners were and are white males. As this becomes increasingly less common, perhaps the approach is if you don't succeed, try, try again. It's only a matter of time before the demographics favour those who are not at all interested in firearms ownership and pastimes. If the demographic isn't changing, the lifestyle sure is. How many of you live in a truly rural environment anymore? And those interested in doing so, such as myself, sure had better have deep pockets. A rural lifestyle usually means less economic opportunities for lack of good employment, the need to purchase large tracts of costly land, or both.

Here's an idea:

Point out the White supremacist history of gun control in North America.

The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a "safe working environment".

Racially invidious gun controls are a way to ensure that the intended victims of violence, be they Indian, Black or Jewish, are disarmed and unable to defend themselves.

When Eric Swalwell talks about nuking gun owners, he's not thinking of Kenilworth, Pepper Pike or Chapaqua.

 

[Deanimator]

Likewise, what is the purpose, or goal of any new regulation or infringement? Will it improve society in a discernible way, or is proposed and passed legislation merely a means to influence voters in coming elections? If we get an AWB and UBC tomorrow, what will we, as a society, get from the legislation? Will we be safer? Will violent crime be reduced? What is the purpose of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, will such legislation achieve that purpose, and is that purpose something worth serving?

To someone who hates, despises and fears individual liberty, anything which diminishes or eliminates it is a good thing.

 

[orpington]

Why would anyone hate, despise, or fear individual liberty? Isn't this the basis this country was founded upon?

 

[orpington]

Furthermore, it would be impossible to discuss the early formative years without alluding to the importance of firearms. Without firearms, America never would have existed and if it somehow had formed in the absence of firearms, it would have long ago ceased to exist.

This is what anyone anti 2A fails to recognize.

 

[Deanimator]

Why would anyone hate, despise, or fear individual liberty? Isn't this the basis this country was founded upon?

Some people are nihilists. They don't care about this country's founding principles. They care about power over others.

If you have plans that would likely starve millions of people and impoverish tens of millions more, it wouldn't do for the intended victims to have the means to resist with force.