Gun Control Fight Not Over Yet

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/u...etly-seek-a-new-path-on-gun-control.html?_r=0

While the AWB and mag ban are likely dead until 2015, the universal background check push is still very much alive, and given that the only bill to propose no recordkeeping (Coburn Amendment) never got a vote and was opposed by Schumer, you can bet keeping records of legal sales is still a high priority in the new legislation they are working on.

Two Senators they are targeting are Sen. Kelly Ayotte of NH and Sen. Mitch McConnell of KY. Additionally, OFA supporters are planning to spend all next week protesting Senators who voted with us.

They are counting on taking control of the narrative while all of us sit back and think the battle is over and we won; but S.649 can come back very quickly now. Please keep the pressure on your legislators and let those who supported us know you appreciate them.
 
Good luck with trying to get Mitch McConnell to switch sides. Whether he is honestly a pro-gun person or not he has already cast his lot with pro-gunners. He is also very aware that Kentucky is one of the leading pro-gun states in the Union. Not something to be taken lightly.
 
The antis want their feel good gun control passed this year. If they get their ubc passed this year many pro gunners will have forgotten about it by election time 2014.

The antis are well aware that pushing gun control in 2014 is a losing proposition for them. In 1994 they pushed gun control in a congressional election year and lost the farm.

Keep the pressure on US house members. We don't know how speaker Boehner will react if the US senate passes ubc.
 
Nearing 70 I've seen the gun control battle rage since the death of President Kennedy the left wants total confiscation nothing short perhaps allowing shotgun or 22lr and that is it.

Join the NRA we should have all gun owners join but they simply will not, second buy only from pro gun states, money talks politicians love it much like lettuce to a rabbit,;) hurt the anti gun crowd via the pocketbook is one way to defeat them forever.
 
¶ Meanwhile, a separate gun measure, an anti-trafficking bill, is the subject of talks between Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and two Republican senators who voted no on the background check bill. The Republicans, Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, are discussing ways they might support the bill, which would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm.

Isn't this already illegal?

I don't see how the ubc passes without some safeguards against a national registry and some major concessions from the anti-gun folks, like national reciprocity, GFSZ repeal, or NFA repeal.
 
I thought that was already illegal also, but watch out because they will keep trying to sneak things into new law. Gillibrand was all progun and her entire family is a shooting family, she shoots skeet and trap. As soon as she got in with senator Schumer also from NY she did an about face and is now anti gun. It seems she has not only turned her back on us gun opwners but also on her own family. Ah the lure of politics must have got to her or Chuck Schumer took her under his wing and is guiding her along his chosen path as anti gunner.
When a politician runs for election on their word and on there beliefs and then completely change once elected I feel there should be a recourse to remove them from office, like a recall or impeachment. All the anti gun politicians should be impeached for the acts of trying to defeat the 2nd amendment of the Constitution that they swore to uphold.
 
I think pound for pound pro-gun people are relatively more "amped up" than antigun people are. Despite the claims that the NRA is just the lobbying arm for gunmakers, they have 5 million members behind them (and non-member proguns). People with a deeper interest (being directly affected by the laws). The man in the street is antigun; but he's not going to buy a membership hat for it.

I'm guessing there are already people that gauge the temper of the population via social media traffic; but I'll just use a sample of one. There was a poster very prominent in his field (nothing to do with guns, tech/programming) who, post-newtown, let loose a deluge of antigun tweets and responses visible to his full audience.

The last I could find was from mid-January, and was kind of prophetic and sums up what I mean here:

"If you people would just stop talking about all this gun violence all the time, we could more effectively ignore it."

He ran out of juice, he got bored and moved on to something else.

You can whip up the whole population in anger and indignation for a short period of time; but eventually they'll get bored with it. I don't see how the antigun side's lot is *improving* within the year.
 
It will never be over, this gun control fight will go on forever because of our Gov.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth in the above statement.
However maybe it's time as gun owners we go on the offence instead of the defense.
Maybe we need to write the pro gun senators and representatives and give them a list of gun control laws we want to see abolished.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
I think pound for pound pro-gun people are relatively more "amped up" than antigun people are.
Click to expand...
Yep. How many members does the Brady Campaign actually have? Not many. Mayors Against Illegal Guns? A few politicians, and that's it. Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC? He's the only contributor.

That said, they've gotten smart about marshalling what resources they do have, and they're good at generating guilt over Sandy Hook. We're not out of the woods yet, but if we can keep our momentum up, we'll get there.
 
Be always vigillant

There will always be a politician ready to strip you of your rights and say it's for the public good while he sleeps under the protection of people with guns. This is the politician that believes he knows better than you how to protect your family.
 
What responsibilities or obligations do the 2nd Amendment defenders have in regards to not just defending the 2nd Amendment, but to promoting the actual solutions to crime?
 
Well, let's see....in states with high rates of citizen carry, where thousands of responsible gun owners have become licensed and are now what can be termed First Defenders when a crime is committed in their presence, the rate of crime has gone far lower than in states without substantial numbers of carrying citizens.

As far as actual political solutions to crime, that is the job of our elected officials. Our defense of the 2nd Amendment is our main concern because too many of our elected officials have refused to offer actual solutions in favor of political pandering and vote-shilling instead.
 
breaking contact said:
What responsibilities or obligations do the 2nd Amendment defenders have in regards to not just defending the 2nd Amendment, but to promoting the actual solutions to crime?
Click to expand...
There are two possible answers to this question, IMHO:

1) None

2) Exactly the same responsibilities or obligations as those who who are attacking the 2nd Amendment.

Personally, I choose answer number 1. My responsibility is to protect myself and my family. I have not run for public office, I have not taken a job as a social scientist, I have not proclaimed myself to be an expert on crime prevention, and I am not a public school teacher indoctrinating youths that they have a "right" to not have their self-esteem damaged irrespective of how stupidly they behave. Let the people who take those jobs and who have created the crime problem find the solutions ... but don't make stripping me of the means of self-defense your "solution."
 
Last edited:
We need very much to at least double the size of the NRA membership.

We have got to find a way to get our message out to people that are only listening to the news media now.

We have got to, effectively, get the true definition of "assault weapons" out there and how they are already controlled, to tell people that there is no "gun show loophole" (that what the antis are lying about is FtF), things such as these.

We must continue our, forgive the phrase, hand to hand fight while at the same time getting real, "common sense" people to understand.
 
breakingcontact said:
What responsibilities or obligations do the 2nd Amendment defenders have in regards to not just defending the 2nd Amendment, but to promoting the actual solutions to crime?
Click to expand...
We can start by encouraging our legislators to budget funds for enforcement of existing laws. We can put more cops on the streets, and we can get better training for them. Incentives for youth outreach programs would also help.

However, why is this OUR responsibility? The question implies that I should pay for the preservation of an enumerated right by doing more than those who choose not to exercise it.
 
kilimanjaro

Well, let's see....in states with high rates of citizen carry, where thousands of responsible gun owners have become licensed and are now what can be termed First Defenders when a crime is committed in their presence, the rate of crime has gone far lower than in states without substantial numbers of carrying citizens.
Click to expand...

If you look at general statistics like the violent crime rate versus Brady Rankings, there is very little correlation with either increased crime rates or decreased crime rates with Brady Rankings. If you do very sophisticated analysis like Lott did you can show a correlation between more guns and less crime but it is not a huge effect.

It is certainly true that the large increase in guns in recent years and some reductions in gun restrictions in some states have not led to an increase in gun deaths either during crimes or by accidents.
 
Tom Servo said:
However, why is this OUR responsibility? The question implies that I should pay for the preservation of an enumerated right by doing more than those who choose not to exercise it.
Click to expand...

I agree in part that it simply isn't our lane to offer up solutions to crime. However, pragmatically...my concern is...God forbid another mass shooting happens, the gun grabbers will point at our side very directly and say "they didn't agree to the reasonable restrictions which would have stopped this massacre". Our position can't only be the opposite of the gun grabbers. We need to offer up our own proposals and call them reasonable and force them to deny our requests, then when something horrible happens again, we can be the ones leading the charge in public, not them.

So we should support the things that very often would have stopped these mass shootings.

-Expanded rights for the law abiding citizens who make choose to carry guns.
-Better security in public places.
-More enforcement of current laws.
-Prosecute criminals who try to buy guns.
-Keeping violent career criminals locked up.
-Keeping guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill.
-Psychiatrists/psychologists being listened to when they warn authorities about dangerous people.

Those are all very real and to borrow the antis term "reasonable" measures that would have an effect on crime.

As far as the big "social science" picture, well that would be a much larger endeavor to be pursued over time. Namely restoring traditional families, restoring communities, bringing back compassion and humanity to our culture.
 
my concern is...God forbid another mass shooting happens, the gun grabbers will point at our side very directly and say "they didn't agree to the reasonable restrictions which would have stopped this massacre".
Click to expand...
But they'll do that anyway. Even if they'd gotten S. 649 passed, the next tragedy would be a call for more gun controls.
 
The impetus of the progressives is constant change. A never ending beat of the drums to "change". Without being confused with political terms, we are more holding onto a conservative position, not wanting our rights eroded than the progressives who insist a change is needed. I have to argue that history is on the side or progressives, those who seek change, not the conservatives who just want to stand over history yelling "stop" (W F Buckley).

So what we need to do is be progressive and demand more recognition of our rights, promote more and better solutions to gun crime and not conservative or reactionary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top