Has there ever been a push to buy more guns, make bans more difficult?

R

riffraff

New member
I was pondering this earlier in the car.

One of the things that actually helps thwart bans, at least among those in the middle of the gun control debate (those in the far left nothing matters of course), is the fact that they know in the US there are something like 300 million guns (and voting owners) and of those guns/owners various estimates point to 30 million or so being the "evil" sort - with that number climbing by a million or more every year.

I don't know if I've ever really seen it pushed so publicly, I've not always paid attention, but what would you think if as a community we encouraged mass buying of "evil" rifles. Say instead of buying up that 1 million a year we bought 10 million for a few years in a row - pumping $$ into the system to help prop up the gun lobby, adding greater numbers on paper of "evil" rifle owners and making it even less practical to accomplish a ban or anything with a ban since so many more of these guns would exist.. I believe even when challenged in court one thing that's been looked at is how common a given gun/design is too.

Another strategy, which you see some versions of today but maybe could be grown upon, would be for gun manufacturers to further confuse things by increasing the scale of the "evil" platforms - ie put your bolt action upper on an evil AR15 platform, sell it to the boy scouts cheap by the crate in a .22 LR version, make a wood stock version on the same evil lower and market it to people who otherwise would never consider a black rifle etc.. etc..

Anyway - maybe some of this has happened in the past, but it seems like making the guns they hate so much even more common is something we do have control over, and could also help. Thoughts?
 
That has already happened. In 1994 when the AWB took place the guns mentions specifically in the ban were quite rare in the hands of shooters. I didn't know anyone that owned an AR15 at the time.

During the ban from 1994-2004 AR rifles sold like hotcakes. The way the law was written as long is they didn't have a flash hider or bayonet lug it wasn't an assault weapon. Manufacturers just left off those features and started selling them as fast as they could make them.

Another segment of the AWB made it illegal to produce "NEW" magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Old magazines were legal and new ones had to be marked 'Military and LE use only". There was almost 2 months that passed between the law being passed and Clinton signing it. I have no idea why. But during that 2 month period factories were working round the clock producing "pre-ban" magazines. Plus older mags were imported all through the ban and every gun manufacturer traded new mags that were marked into LE departments in exchange for the old ones which were sold to non-LE persons.

Even during the ban there was no shortage of hi-cap magazines for MOST guns. Some guns such as the Glock 20, 21, 22, and 23 were introduced just as the ban took effect and hi cap mags for those were scarce and sold at a premium. As much as $200 each.

Today the AR 15 is the single most common rifle in the USA. Hard numbers are hard to find, but in 2013 it was estimated that there were about 14 million AR's in the USA. That is about the same number as all of the 30-30's produced by Marlin and Winchester combined since 1895.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I don't see another ban on AR's. I can see age restrictions and stiffer requirements as to background checks. But I don't see any practical way to ban a rifle that popular.
 
Gun purchases overall have continued to rise, (Sandy Hook was an exceptional year), but if you look at NICS it shows a substantial continuing pattern of growth over the years.

The best numbers for guns owned in the US in somewhere north of 400 million and south of 650 million.

We win not by simply buying more guns but by - getting more people to concealed carry or carry, getting more people into the shooting sports, getting more people to the range, getting more people investing their money and their time into guns ownership and shooting.
 
But I don't see any practical way to ban a rifle that popular.
Click to expand...

You don't?? I can see that, but THEY do believe its possible.

it wouldn't matter if there were 300 million ARs in private hands in this country. Wouldn't matter one bit. Not to them, anyway. Remember what we are up against,

"If I could have gotten 51% of the vote, Mr & Mrs America, turn them ALL in!!"

The AR-15 hit the civilian market around 1963. Between the culture of the time, and what it was, sales were not huge. Steady, profitable enough, but not a big seller. It wasn't till the 80s that sales really began to pick up, due to a combination of several factors, including improvements in the design.

But, in the 90s, sales literally exploded. The 94 ban turned them into the most popular rifle in the US. The effect continued after the Federal law sunset, despite several state laws that remain in effect.

The gun banner's won't admit it, but their efforts MADE the AR the most sought after rifle in the country.

Nothing gets people interested in a product like they get interested when it looks like it may be banned. (and for no good reason they can see)

Making more and selling more of a given gun doesn't mean it won't be banned, if they get their way. It just means more people will suffer if it becomes law.
 
jmr40 said:
But I don't see any practical way to ban a rifle that popular.
Click to expand...

I could see it, but it would be ugly.


I don't think there was ever a "Buy a gun and make the world better" sort of push, but the wave of concealed carry licensing accomplished something like that. Lots of people who hadn't concerned themselves with concealable pistols, or who hadn't any history with arms at all, suddenly had reason to get some rudimentary instruction and shop for a pistol.
 
Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I don't see another ban on AR's. I can see age restrictions and stiffer requirements as to background checks. But I don't see any practical way to ban a rifle that popular.
_______
Click to expand...

Check out several states that are banning or neutering the AR platform.

Next, you don't understand what a ban would do. It is clear that many folk may not turn them in. There is history to suggest this in the current ban states and overseas.

However (wait for it), a ban would:

1. Eliminate them from hunting applications.
2. Eliminate them from competitions
3. Eliminate them from self-defense usage (yes, it will hurt you in court)
4. Have them sit in your closet, safer or underground bunker waiting for the revolution or crash of civilization.

It would a cultural attack, that would overtime make them useless for anything but end of civilization extremis.

Now, all the work arounds will fail as the banners learned from quality criminological research how the AWB was a flop for their purposes. A new ban will simply eliminate all semi auto center fire guns and perhaps the rim fires. The precedents are found overseas and growing there. Pump guns and then lever action shotguns - see Australia for their fate. That takes care of the folks saying don't ban the AR as one can do a rampage with a shotgun.
 
Buying more guns will not make bans more difficult. Numbers of guns outstanding isn't the issue as guns are not voters and guns are not in Congress. A push to make more gun owners who are politically active certainly could make gun bans more difficult, however.

As for there being no practical way to ban such guns, the ban can go into effect through the practical legal process. Lots of laws do. Enforcing it may be problematic, but the process has occurred in other countries.
 
I turned 18 in '96, although I owned guns since I was about 15... I can't quite remember how it was I got them at the time, maybe you could buy them < 18 or maybe other people were buying them for me - it was a lot different then. Was not brought into shooting by my family rather a friends dad who was a vet...

Anyway the point there - we didn't understand the point of the AR's very much then either. One friend of mine had a couple AR's - we thought of them as fancy versions of our 10 22's because the round was so small :). And we could not afford such expensive rifles. The AK variants is what you would find on the racks at the gun stores we went to, lots of them in stock and they were cheap, those 38 round mags were easy to find, bulk surplus ammo was cheap, and there didn't seem to be anything really banned.

The motto at one local gun store though was "everyone should own a few". They took pride in undermining the attempts at gun control and propagating those guns. Not sure that strategy was global or just a couple local's in my area though.

Yep you got lefties who basically want to completely disarm the US at any cost and would like to start with black rifles - but those are the extremists. Same as calling pro gun people "US" and assuming we are all supportive of access to all things black rifle; personally I think I ought to be able to go down the street, show my ID, and walk out of the store with a suppressed full auto - not all of "US" believe that either.

I do think one of the things that's helped us though is the sheer numbers and popularity. If the AR and 30 round mags were as rarely found as bump stocks I doubt we'd still have them. Does seem like the more that are in civilian hands, the more difficult it becomes to legislate against them (not saying impossible just less likely).

Edit/Add: yes they have done it in other countries, although the difference there is they had no where near the same numbers of guns and gun owners, nor any rights to cite. In Australia they had < 10% of our guns is my understanding. I do agree legislation is always possible.
 
Last edited:
Ok - a reminder, stop using the term lefties. When you do that, it is implies a simplistic view of the gun debate. Next time, it gets edited or deleted as we don't do politics.

Also, let's not be naive - of course, legislation is possible. Look at history and the states. Calling them leftist extremists is to put yourself in the simplistic choir bubble

I'm getting a little sick and tired of reminding folks of all the so-called conservatives who support or support gun bans.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Ok - a reminder, stop using the term lefties. When you do that, it is implies a simplistic view of the gun debate. Next time, it gets edited or deleted as we don't do politics.

Also, let's not be naive - of course, legislation is possible. Look at history and the states. Calling them leftist extremists is to put yourself in the simplistic choir bubble

I'm getting a little sick and tired of reminding folks of all the so-called conservatives who support or support gun bans.
Click to expand...

Then why do you do it?

Posting a quarter century old video of Warren Burger as "a Conservative Republican denouncing the 2nd Amend" when his tenure really marked a continuation of the direction set by the prior chief doesn't give anyone direction about the current issues and a post Heller shift.

Though I would expect us to disagree on several points, I do not object to you bringing these matters up. I try to avoid simple electoral politics where they don't pertain to the underlying civil rights involved.
 
I dont see an AWB happening nationally especially one without a grandfather clause in it.
Even Florida could not pass one since they are too popular and commonly used to ban outright. What is likely to pass if we dont push against it is age raised to 21 to buy any gun,universal background checks,"Extreme risk"confiscation, and more mental health provisions added.
 
Zukiphile - you missed the point completely. Mine was that using liberal or conservative as markers for gun rights positions is not that useful. That is because folks identified as conservatives opposed gun rights.

There are currently self-identified conservatives that oppose gun rights. Knowing that such sentiments spread across a long time spread and the supposed conservative-liberal divide is useful.
 
Glenn, I understood your point.

Glenn E Meyer said:
Mine was that using liberal or conservative as markers for gun rights positions is not that useful. That is because folks identified as conservatives opposed gun rights.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

Your conclusion, the first sentence above, doesn't follow from the second. That you can find a conservative who currently believes that the 2d Am. doesn't describe an individual right indicates that you can find an outlier. That you can find video of a bland chief justice with a republican party affiliation who died more than a decade before Heller was announced who thinks the 2d Am. doesn't mean what Heller says it means should not indicate to you an absence of correlation between general constitutional philosophy and constitutional philosophy on this issue.

There is a movement who hold the COTUS to be a living breathing document the meaning of which shifts handily with their policy preferences. There is another movement who hold the meaning of the COTUS to be found in its text, with varying degrees of deference to the intent of those who ratified as manifested by that text.

These movements typically, though not in every instance, break along ideological lines that since the 1980s strongly correlate to party affiliation in federal office holders. That Kirsten Gillibrand used to have nice things to say about gun owners and Joe Manchin still might doesn't indicate a lack of utility in associating the position carried overwhelmingly by their party and the ideology that dominates that party with that party and ideology.

I understand your point, but it has modest merit. That people associate the dems and the left with the gun control issue isn't because there are no exceptions to the association, but because people recognise the correlation.

I re-iterate that I have no objection to you expressing the point, even though I don't endorse it.
 
The empirical question will be if 'conservative' opponents will continue to be outliers. Also, moderate correlations do not predict all of the variance in decision statistics. My point is quite simple - having folks act as if the correlation is almost perfect (quite common on the Internet) is not useful. Also, declared positions on the political spectrum is not totally predictive of the politicians behavior.

Can we get folks independent of spectrum identification to support the RKBA? You might think we cannot. I prefer not to be as defeatist as you seem to be. Your position or any other certainly be presented here as long as forum rules are followed.

Ranting about 'libs' is common in such debates. It is useless. Expecting RKBA purity in 'conservatives' is a terrible risk. Many conservatives are not outliers on the RKBA using a Mahalanobis Distance. They don't support it. We can find liberals that do support it.

That's the point. Continue to misunderstand it as I support your right to do so.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Can we get folks independent of spectrum identification to support the RKBA? You might think we cannot. I prefer not to be as defeatist as you seem to be.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got that, Glenn. Obviously we have liberals who support the 2d Am, right. Alan Dershowitz, a liberal, supports the individual right. He also refers to people who try to reason the right into oblivion as "foolish liberals". There is no defeatism in associating a position with the school of thought known for embracing it.

Glenn E Meyer said:
Ranting about 'libs' is common in such debates. It is useless. Expecting RKBA purity in 'conservatives' is a terrible risk. Many conservatives are not outliers on the RKBA using a Mahalanobis Distance. They don't support it. We can find liberals that do support it.

That's the point. Continue to misunderstand it as I support your right to do so.
Click to expand...

It's peculiar to assert that I've misunderstood your point. Since I just set forth typical patterns as well as exceptions to them, your suggestion your point is being misunderstood reads as synthetic.

Of course we can find exceptions to patterns, but that doesn't make observation of the pattern itself an error, or an assertion that the pattern is a perfect predictor. JFK wasn't soft on communism, but when people made that accusation of democrats in the 1980s, they weren't asserting it about every individual democrat now and through out history. It's a generalization.

I agree that careless or thoughtless use of labels isn't useful; it can obscure thought rather than facilitate it.

Glenn E Meyer said:
The empirical question will be if 'conservative' opponents will continue to be outliers. Also, moderate correlations do not predict all of the variance in decision statistics. My point is quite simple - having folks act as if the correlation is almost perfect (quite common on the Internet) is not useful. Also, declared positions on the political spectrum is not totally predictive of the politicians behavior.
Click to expand...

I agree that your point is simple, that there is distance between declaration and action, and that the correlations aren't perfect. None of that renders a generalization unjust or useless.


I have a well kept secret: most attorneys I know are fine people who try to improve their communities, and perform a lot of charity work. Yet, "Why don't sharks attack lawyers? Professional courtesy." is still a funny joke, and when a layman wants to have a bit of a fit about lawyers ruining the world, taking it personally serves no good end.

I hope you haven't taken my comments on this subject personally; you seem to have a excellent temperament with an equanimity that allows you to enjoy unpacking these things.
 
wow this went sideways - noted: *remember not to us the L word*, not too hard :)..

Double - ya that's what I've been saying, I fully expect a destroy/surrender decree on bump stocks and my belief on why it happens that way, versus a grandfather clause, is because of the limited deployment of them - very few people impacted.
 
Zukiphile, the point Glenn is making isn't about abstract notions of when one is or isn't justified in making generalizations. It's a really, really simple one: many liberals do support gun rights, and many others are on the fence about the issue. When we attack "liberals" as some sort of monolithic group, we will very likely alienate these people. Keep in mind that we aren't just preaching to the choir here -- we are representing gun owners to the public at large.

This is why it's a matter of TFL policy that we refer to "anti-gun" and "pro-gun," and we don't use political parties or points on the general political spectrum as stand-ins for those positions. Glenn is being polite, and very patiently trying to explain the "why" of it to you. I am less patient; it's not up for debate, and it would be a very good idea to stop debating it.

riffraff said:
...noted: *remember not to us the L word*, not too hard
Click to expand...
See -- it's easy. :)
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Do you also see bumpfire stocks and other trigger devices also being grandfathered in with current proposed legislation?
Click to expand...
Not that I saw and the problem is they can make the argument that they are just "accessories" not "arms" and are not covered under the 2nd amendment.Since they banned akins accelerator and other such devices in the past without a grandfather clause just ATF reclassifying them was enough.The second they ban possession of a legally bought rifle nationwide without any legal recourse to keep them will then open up lawsuits that will eventually go to the supreme court and cause the ban to be either repealed to include a grandfather clause or be declared unconstitutional depending on the national outrage it causes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top