What's in danger of being banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PILMAN

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida Panhandle
Would you say "assault rifles" or "handguns" are in more danger of being banned?


Personally at this point I feel handguns are being targeted as the liberals will use the excuse they have no "use" for hunting and that they are concealable and most common in crimes. I feel handguns will be targeted much more than "assault rifles" (I hate using that term as an assault rifle doesn't exist).
 
(I hate using that term as an assault rifle doesn't exist)

"Assault rifles" do indeed exist. Depending who you ask, an assault rifle generally describes a rifle with automatic capability in a low-power rifle cartridge. M16, AK-47, StG-44, FAMAS, etc.

"Assault weapons" exist only in the realm of leprechauns and unicorns. This term had a techinical legal definition in the US from 1994-2004, but now only exists as a legal term in certain backwards states.

Important distinction.

-MV
 
I agree with others on this forum that I don't think the Democrats are going to go crazy for the next two years. They don't have enough of a majority to over ride a presidential veto and the don't want to alienate anyone hoping it will help them get Hillary or whoever in the White House in 08. If that happens then they'll cut loose with their agenda. I can't believe I've seen people on this forum say if its Hilary and Guilianni in 08 they would vote for Hillary, I'm not especailly fond of Guilianni but Hillary is EVIL. I would vote for Godzilla before I ever voted for Hillary. Both of the Clintons are evil.

The 08 election is critical because if the Democrats win the White House and keep their majority in Congress I suspect first another AWB and then they'll go for everything else.

A lot of people are one issue voters. A one issue candidate has no chance of winning anywhere in this country. Some here will vote for a 100% 2A candidate regardless of their stand on other things. I'd rather vote for a candidate that's 85-90% 2A and also for lower taxes, less regulation overall, and a hard stance with our enemies in this world.
 
What do you feel is more of a "threat" to liberals though? Seems like handguns have been banned in Canada, Australia, the UK and parts of the US. My guess is it's because handguns are easy to conceal compared to an AK47 or AR15.
 
All depends what kind of massacre sparks their feeding frenzy, really. Could be another highly-publicized school shooting, a bank robbery, a "DC sniper" type incident - anything.

Me, personally, I think they're going to try and go through the back door, as it were, and ban ammunition. It won't be immediate, and it probably won't be even obvious to most people. They'll just ban imports of certain kinds of ammo at first - milsurp obviously, hollowpoint, expanding, whatever. I suspect they'll levy taxes on everything else, too. Say goodbye to cheap import ammo, to be sure.

Granted, they want to pull us out of Iraq, which would free up a massive amount of ammo production for civilian use, but I figure they'll do something else in terms of regulation, maybe "ammunition producers can not sell to the military if they have civilian markets". I'm just postulating here.

I also think that stuff like the Barrett .50 will be the first ones to go - pretty much anything currently sensationalized due to terrorism (or whtaever the excuse) and illegal in California.
 
I kind of wish they would just get it over with and do what they are going to do so that pissed off people can do what they do.

It doesn't matter though IMO. I don't think most people care about guns anymore anyways. Even some of my most conservative friends don't care about it. Infact, some even think gun control is a good thing. :what:
 
I worry about the 50BMG.

I worry about suppressors.

I worry about any Class III weapon in private ownership.

I worry about any NATO standard round.

I worry about any AP rifle round.

I worry about mil-surp ammo that even hints at the word "steel core," even though the steel used in mil-surp bullets is about as strong as copper.

Buy them now and set them in a dusty corner, out of site.

Even though terrorists haven't even attempted rifle attacks, machine gun attacks, silenced weapons attacks, or anything but "slash and grab" on planes or "kaboom!" with bombs, Dems will use any excuse under the guise of homeland security or patriotism to further restrict gun ownership.

They (Dems) are split, as can be seen by the bitterly contested Senate Majority Leader election. Thank G*d that Pelosi's mutt in the race, Murtha, lost to a blue dog. That makes me think the Senate may stand against some of the soccer-mom-san-francisco-values-fecal-drivel that comes from Pelosi's hole.
 
As far as individual items, they'll probably demonize small things that can become big things, I.E. folders like the Kel-Tec line. Never mind that none have ever been used in any crimes...they COULD, you know. :rolleyes:
 
Manedwolf said:
As far as individual items, they'll probably demonize small things that can become big things, I.E. folders like the Kel-Tec line. Never mind that none have ever been used in any crimes...they COULD, you know.
They were used in a crime. The crime of existing.
 
Actually you got it backwards. We wanted Murtha (A Rated by the NRA), not Hoyer, the Tammany Hall style machine candidate who doesn't give a rat's patootie about the issues and is just a machine pol.

To all those who've doubted the veracity of this argument, take heed--Pelosi was willing to back a guy who's been anything but her friend on gun control. The Dems might try to gather up some sort of idealogical unity on a social issue, but it won't be gun control.
 
Wether they do in january, or wait till 2008, they're going to go after another *assault weapons* ban first. Why? They already accomplished this once.

Before they go any farther than that, they've got to gain back the ground we took from them.

I see them going after >10 round magazines really hard. And going after ammo storage as well. We've beat them back on banning actual guns long enough, and effectively enough, I think thier angle of attack is going to change.
 
Last edited:
I think the Dems now know that more gun control is politcal suicide. Gore lost his run for the Presidency largely due to his stance on gun control. He couldn't even win his home state of TN. However, Dems being Dems and now run by the far left, they may try another "assault weapon" or handgun ban. Look for them to try to replace guns with "smart guns" like NJ is going to.
 
I think they'll try to replicate their success with the Lautenberg amendment, sneak an amendment into some bill which has the effect of increasing the number of people barred from owning guns.

And I think counting on Bush to veto anything is remarkably stupid, given both his track record, AND his record of support for various forms of gun control. The Dems could hurt us badly just by passing things Bush has pledged to sign. We stop gun control in Congress, or not at all. Given the election outcome, probably in the Senate by filibuster.

If the Republicans aren't stupid enough to throw away the filibuster to get votes on a handful of Bush judicial nominees, which I hear rumors they're considering doing during the lame duck session.
 
Both. You may not be aware of this, but the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was originally proposed as a way to gain momentum for a ban on handguns.

Straight from the horse's mouth--this is from the paper by Josh Sugarmann that hatched the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, circa 1986-1987 IIRC.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

...assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:

It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate. Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

Also, note the part about deliberately playing off the public's confusion about black rifles. The AWB was a deliberate lie, and the purpose wasn't to reduce rifle misuse (which is practically nonexistent), but simply to bash gun owners and build momentum for a handgun ban.
 
Lots of people have handguns. More to the point, lots and lots of "non-gun" people have handguns. The banning crowd has been trying for those on and off for the better part of a century, and outside of the urban cesspools hasn't made a lick of progress. I'd say they're safe. Un-gelded mags on the other hand....

I agree re-enactment of the AWB will likely be first on their plate, with language more similar to CA's "anything on an AR or AK receiver" approach than feature count. I think they're still mad about gelded ARs and such staying on the market through the ban.

One things for sure, they won't be stupid enough to declare possession of what we own already illegal. Sale and transfer yes - possession no. Any kind of "turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America" will result in a lot of good people getting shot, and I think they know that as well as we do.
 
Another thing: They regard the timing of their AWB fight, so close to an election, as having been a major tactical error. I expect they'll either lay low until after the 2008 elections, or go for something early, in the hope of giving us plenty of "cool down" time before we vote. So I'm looking for an early attack, or none at all for a couple of years.
 
Any kind of "turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America" will result in a lot of good people getting shot, and I think they know that as well as we do.

But do you honestly think they care? After all, they won't be the ones kicking in your door, it will be some cop who is 'just doing his job'.
 
I think Kaylee is right about no gun round ups. Even the most far flung wacky liberal wound not dream of it. Blood would run in the streets, any congress critter that voted in favor of it would lose their seat in the next race. Nope I dont think anybody wants to grab that hot potato. I feel California style laws comming . Buy what you want now cause I do believe you will not be able to do so after the next two years
 
They may not have to place an outright 'ban' on anything. All they need to do is to levy a heavy tax on guns or, better yet the ammo. Something on the order of 50 cents per round, or maybe even more, enough that it would make an average trip to the range cost-prohibitive for most. The 2A may protect our guns, but iirc the ammo isn't mentioned at all, and that could be our achillies heel.
 
Personally I think the .50 BMG is the most likely suspect. It is very expensive, not very widespread, can be argued effectively to the masses that it is completely useless for any legal uses and due to gun owners being such a fragmented lot is likely to only see any real screaming and shouting from the owners of them and people like us, which is a very small minority in the gun culture.

Just as a reminder if something like a .50 ban does come up, write your letters, make your calls and make some noise. I have ABSOLUTELY NO desire for a big .50 firearm but you can bet your A$$ I will try to do my part to keep it legal. Please do the same for any firearm that comes in the crosshairs of the anti's even if you personally have no use for them. Unity is powerful.

Chris
 
Cslinger-

I have one credit card with a $0.00 balance, just waiting for the *no more 50* ban to take place.

Don't get me wrong, I'll fight it as hard as I can. But *if* it gets through, I'm going to buy one out of pure spite/resentment.:fire:

I'm still betting that thier first target is going to be magazines.
 
But do you honestly think they care? After all, they won't be the ones kicking in your door, it will be some cop who is 'just doing his job'.

That is the problem.. And alot of it has to do with the fact that gun owners are a law abiding lot (probably more so than most people). Unfortunately you are correct. There was a time in US history when a Bureaucrat would have had to fear for his safety if they passed a law that so blatantly crapped on the rights of the People.

And once again the founders turn in their graves..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top