We are going to have to give up something

[2ifbyC]

Suggesting that we not alienate those that do not have the same view on the right to bear arms is rather naive. Those that do not choose to own an AR-15 have no call to impose this sentiment on others.The 2nd amendment is not to be parsed into what you like or dislike and then demand compliance to your view.

Do you believe we may alienate defenders of the 1st amendment by imposing restrictions as to what we believe is acceptable/unacceptable speech?

The POTUS himself has used the phrase “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Ironic isn’t it? Do you think this may have alienated anyone? I grew up in Pennsylvania and I guess I’m still clinging to my guns and religion. At this point, I’m not too concerned about offending or alienating others who are determined to diminish my rights.

 

[Sniper66]

You can bet that Obama's hoodlums will go after everything. We are living in an era of "compromise", which for Obama means do it mostly my way and I'll ignore all of your ideas. When we don't do it his way, he "compromises" and does it mostly his way. They would go after complete confiscation if they could get away with it. They will probably succeed in getting something enacted against AR types rifles and possibly against the private transfer of guns. Then 4 years frorm now if another gun hating liberal is elected they will go after some other aspect of gun control. Why? Because if the murder rate goes down, they will point to gun conntrol as the reason. If it goes up ,they will say it's because they didn't go far enough. That's why we cannot, must not, cave on our principles.

 

[razorback2003]

I remember when there was no background check when buying a gun from a dealer and some remember when you could mail order guns. Compromise again? And what will it solve?

This guy should have been in a mental institution and it appears now that his mother was in the process of having him judicially committed. He was probably not legal to possess a firearm but did anyway.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Suggesting that we not alienate those that do not have the same view on the right to bear arms is rather naive.

No, it isn't. There are but a few hard-line anti gun activists - far fewer than there are of us. There are, however, a lot of fence sitters who are more easily swayed with the appeals to their emotional side than the use of reason to their logical side, especially when it's concerning such a depraved act as Newtown.

Nobody believes that a gun pulls it's own trigger. People just aren't as dumb as we suggest with such tired rhetoric, and saying things like that is disingenuous to us and them. Ranting "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", "Cars kill more people than guns" or "Screw you, it's my right" will not bring the moderates over to our way of thinking. But compassionate, thoughtful and articulate discourse just might.

 

[RP88]

guys,

if we, the gun-owning population of enthusiasts/sportsmen/etc. think that we have to give something up because of what some psycho did to get his own wikipedia page next to Harris and Klebold, then what we are doing is saying that this is OUR fault and WE need to make amends.

This is not our fault. This is not my fault. This is only the fault of a deranged psycho who killed his own parents and nearly two dozen more people.

We don't owe anyone anything - or at least don't owe them our freedoms.

These freedoms aren't the NRA's to toy with and barter off, either. I agree in no-compromise for gun rights.

These are our rights, not our things to be held guilty for at the whim of those who would marginalize a collective because they dislike us.

 

[David White]

What would be the difference if the "scary AR15" had been banned? What if the shooter chose instead to use a Ruger mini 14 (or thirty) instead?
Both fire the same rounds (virtually I mean of course), the only difference being appearance.
One is black with detachable magazines. The other is wood stock with the same detachable magazines.

What would change as far as lethality goes?

Wait for it.......

NOTHING!

Typical mindset. Ban the tool and don't bothers with the user.
Can't wait to see what happens when these lunatics start using power tool in stead of gun!

"Excuse me sir. Do you have a permit for that drill?".

 

[michaelbsc]

But compassionate, thoughtful and articulate discourse just might.

Which is exactly what I have been up most of the night trying to say to people on this board.

We, the gun owners, need to be the ones standing on the Senators's and Representatives's desks demanding changes to the country's mental healthcare delivery system as a deterrent to things like this happening. We need to be in charge.

The pittance of a excise tax I proposed to earmark for mental health isn't "giving up" anything. It's bait to get them in our corner. The medical industry despises gun owners. You think they're coming over without an inticement? Get real.

 

[mgmorden]

What if the shooter chose instead to use a Ruger mini 14 (or thirty) instead?

Actually most of the latest drafts of the AWB that they had been trying to get out of committee were banning guns by name/type rather than by cosmetic features this time around, and the Ruger Mini-14 and 30 were on the list as assault weapons.

Basically, it looked like they were naming just about everything semi-auto outside of the really old styled guns (Remington 74x series, Browning BAR, Garand).

While I don't think a bill will make it past the house, you can be certain that any new bill won't make the same mistake as the previous ones. AR15's won't just be restricted to flat tops without bayonet lugs and such - they'll be specifically banned by name.

 

[Skribs]

A ban by name would be easy to circumvent. Make a new design and rename it. In order to keep up with an evolving industry that seeks to exploit these loopholes (as the GC crowd says) the law would have to be on specific features.

So let's say they get rid of every rifle that isn't bolt or lever-action. Do you really think he would have killed less people with a lever-action .357 magnum or .30-30 rifle?

 

[mgmorden]

A ban by name would be easy to circumvent. Make a new design and rename it. In order to keep up with an evolving industry that seeks to exploit these loopholes (as the GC crowd says) the law would have to be on specific features.

IIRC, the texts of those bills ALSO banned the same features of the previous bill in an attempt to prevent what you're saying - its just that it banned basically everything else by name that they didn't like.

 

[Skribs]

Ah, okay. Still, I stand by the notion that with a loaded .357 magnum lever-action rifle and a single 50-round box of magazines would both be legal and have killed just as many people. If legislation kept him from getting a grandfathered-in AR or getting an illegal gun off the black market. If they want to start banning those, then even the "I like guns but we don't need an AR" folks will start going "wait, what?"

Once you start getting into the subject of internal magazines, capacity starts to matter even less. The difference between a 5-shot tube and a 4-shot tube isn't 1 shot every reload, it's 1 extra shot before the first reload. Granted reloading 5 at once will be slightly faster, but if you have to manually load every round, your overall time per round fired doesn't get much slower.

 

[HoosierQ]

I'd probably reverse the list.

Online sales? Bye bye even though that has nothing to do with any of this business. I know lots of people buy online but buying guns "online" is the kind of thing loaded with buzz words.

Hi-Cap mags? Maybe. My hope would be maybe some sort of language like "no magazine more than the standard OEN mag or 20 rounds max...which ever is less". That one get's rid of the mag that was used in Tuscon and, if reports are true, CT while leaving us with USGI. Dreaming's free I guess. The freaking thing is a nightmare.

The rest of the AWB (bayo lugs and whatnot) means nothing even to these pointy headed politicians.

I think if they foist it off on us, it'll be about capacity. If they stick to 20, we could tough it out well enough...again, dreaming's free. 10 would not be good as we'd spend the next 2 or 3 years trying get our hands on replacements...presuming they don't grandfather anything this time.

 

[481]

All of this academic scratching and clawing is meaningless- the proposed reinstatement of the 94 AWB will solve nothing despite what the antis claim. It failed to stop a similar tragic event, Columbine in '99, and it did nothing to stop the last incident- CT has in force a virtual duplicate of the 94 AWB- so actually the law has failed twice, now.

The liberals will NEVER get it.

 

[HoosierQ]

Ah, okay. Still, I stand by the notion that with a loaded .357 magnum lever-action rifle and a single 50-round box of magazines would both be legal and have killed just as many people. If legislation kept him from getting a grandfathered-in AR or getting an illegal gun off the black market. If they want to start banning those, then even the "I like guns but we don't need an AR" folks will start going "wait, what?"

Once you start getting into the subject of internal magazines, capacity starts to matter even less. The difference between a 5-shot tube and a 4-shot tube isn't 1 shot every reload, it's 1 extra shot before the first reload. Granted reloading 5 at once will be slightly faster, but if you have to manually load every round, your overall time per round fired doesn't get much slower.

I would offer that with same (and a revolver of the same cartridge) a man is pretty darned well armed. We're not looking at armageddon here.

 

[morcey2]

Even with a fixed magazine, things can work pretty fast. Someone with a stock SKS and a bunch of full 10-round stripper clips who had practiced just a little bit can probably get 90 aimed rounds off in about the same amount of time it takes for someone to shoot 3 30 round removable magazines.

Matt

 

[morcey2]

All of this academic scratching and clawing is meaningless- the proposed reinstatement of the 94 AWB will solve nothing despite what the antis claim. It failed to stop a similar tragic event, Columbine in '99, and it did nothing to stop the last incident- CT has in force a virtual duplicate of the 94 AWB- so actually the law has failed twice, now.

The liberals will NEVER get it.

It's not "despite what they claim", many of them have admitted that it won't do anything, but it will make people _feel_ safer. :banghead:

 

[Skribs]

The problem is your average citizen is just going to carry a revolver and not a whole box of replacement ammo. A person planning a mass murder will bring that box of ammo. There's also a difference in what you can do with a certain platform against unarmed victims vs. an armed and determined attacker.

If the politicians take anything, it's going to be because they took it, and not because I gave it to them. I am not willing to compromise for the sake of being politically correct, when the ammendment I'm defending is the only ammendment it is politically correct to disagree with. I submit that the current laws are too strong, and simply holding is a compromise.

I do not believe I need a rifle capable of reaching 1000 yards. I am not about to support any legislation that bans "high powered sniper rifles" because I believe we should have every right to have them. Just because I don't do long range target shooting doesn't mean others can't either.

I'll also argue that just because something is a media buzz word doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

 

[lykoris]

No.

Now quit trolling.

 

[mgmorden]

It's not "despite what they claim", many of them have admitted that it won't do anything, but it will make people _feel_ safer.

You have to understand their thought process. They know that an AWB will not solve this, but they're also not stupid. In their mind total and utter confiscation is all that will stop these types of shootings - its just that they can't get that right now. They see the AWB as a stepping stone towards that goal. Take the "assault weapons" now, and when that doesn't work then they argue for some more "reasonable restrictions" on "sniper rifles" (anything centerfire with an optical sight). Rinse and repeat until we're all left with smoothbore muskets.

 

[razorback2003]

We as gun owners have to stick together. The guys with Bolt Win 70's have to stick up for the guys who own machine guns.

If we do not stick together, we will all be keeping our guns locked up at a gun club or police department and only allowed one basic handgun and a box of shells because the politicians will say "Well here is your protection for the home".

 

[HoosierQ]

No.

Now quit trolling.

Not being to your liking does not trolling make. Sorry.

 

[stonecutter2]

We shape it by not giving in at all. If they're going to pass something, they're going to pass it under extreme protest. They want, they expect us to "compromise" under duress. We cannot. There is no compromise that benefits us in any way, and so there can be no compromise.

You want to do something, write your representatives telling them you will accept no form of gun control. Send money to the NRA, GOA, NAGR, and your local gun rights groups. They know how to lobby, and they have the attorneys to do it right. Instead of buying ammo or mags at ridiculously bloated prices, use that money to help fight a battle that will bring those prices back down if we win.

I won't write my representative with any such statement. Firstly, because it's not my opinion on the matter. And second, because the American public at large will expect changes - solely because of the dead children.

I am already a member of the NRA and ISRA (Illinois State Rifle Association). Both won us the court victory recently in Illinois. I'm not sending them any more of my money at this point.

 

[stonecutter2]

guys,

if we, the gun-owning population of enthusiasts/sportsmen/etc. think that we have to give something up because of what some psycho did to get his own wikipedia page next to Harris and Klebold, then what we are doing is saying that this is OUR fault and WE need to make amends.

This is not our fault. This is not my fault. This is only the fault of a deranged psycho who killed his own parents and nearly two dozen more people.

We don't owe anyone anything - or at least don't owe them our freedoms.

These freedoms aren't the NRA's to toy with and barter off, either. I agree in no-compromise for gun rights.

These are our rights, not our things to be held guilty for at the whim of those who would marginalize a collective because they dislike us.

I am admitting no such fault.

We don't owe anyone anything.

But the public at large is going to expect something. There is a difference.

 

[Jim Watson]

I am very pessimistic.
I think Old Fuff's post is about the least unlikely scenario, but least unlikely is still unlikely.
The responsiveness of our elected representatives, even the Republicans in the House, is greatly overrated. They operate on the go along to get along system. Few of them really care much about much, but they are in the business of swapping votes and influence to back their pet projects.

If you want a nightmare scenario, consider the tobacco industry.
Several years ago, the powers that be concluded that smoking is bad for you and Something Would Be Done. So there were state lawsuits against the tobacco companies, with the verdicts preordained. The states got a lot of money, some of which trickled down to sick smokers, but not a lot, we have administrative expenses, don'cha know. The lawyers got a whole lot of money and not a lot of ways to have to split it. And lawyers are the pool from which legislators emerge.

But none of these damages were great enough to put the tobacco companies out of buisness and there were certainly no cigarette prohibition laws. That would have left the lawyers unpaid and the tobacco business in the hands of the mob along with the other recreational drugs.
So the lawyers get paid, and the state administrators get paid.
The companies still run at a profit out of which the governments get tobacco taxes, corporate income taxes, and shareholder income taxes.

The do-gooders can wag their fingers at an unsavory business and still milk the cash cow.


Guns could go the same way. There has already been a proposal to add semiautomatics to the NFA along with full autos, with an increase in central registration, more transfer taxes, and increased bureaucratic employment to run it all. The manufacturers will still be there, cranking out ever more expensive guns and gear and paying taxes. So Something Will Have Been Done without loss of government revenue and power.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I won't write my representative with any such statement.

Then you are part of the problem.

Appeasing them might make them go away.........for now. But they'll be back, wanting more, until there's nothing left to take. These people won't be satisfied until Nerf foam dart launchers and suction cup pistols are banned