House Judiciary Committee Sends Magazine Ban to the Floor for Vote

Gun owners will simply comply with gun laws as always. If you don’t, then you aren’t a law abiding citizen.
I don’t think they are trying to start a war with the political rhetoric, but I do believe that they are wishing to trigger extremist(s) into committing acts of political or hate related violence. I suspect that more tragedies are to come as the election heats up.

The repeated calls for civil war aren’t helping our cause either. On every political story, including those about gun control, there’s idiots in the comments calling for civil war... just adds to the image that gun owners are blood thirsty and itching for violence.
 
I don’t think they are trying to start a war with the political rhetoric, but I do believe that they are wishing to trigger extremist(s) into committing acts of political or hate related violence. I suspect that more tragedies are to come as the election heats up.
Click to expand...

If shooters were motivated by fears of rifle confiscation, that might make sense. The Dayton shooter seems to have been troubled by many of life's challenges, but without a doctrinal motive. The El Paso shooter was a zero population growth environmentalist.

The reason debate participants would offer strident gun confiscation rhetoric is the "hold my beer" phenomenon present when a couple dozen people think they have a shot at winning the allegiance of a small but important activist audience. If Amy Klobuchar quietly affirms that she is for confiscation, she is one-upped by RFO, who says the same thing more loudly and crudely. If you are the sort of emotionally driven activist looking for the least tolerance of opposing views, you won't stop to wonder why RFO didn't take that position running against Ted Cruz. You'll just notice his unreserved demeanor.
 
The repeated calls for civil war aren’t helping our cause either. On every political story, including those about gun control, there’s idiots in the comments calling for civil war... just adds to the image that gun owners are blood thirsty and itching for violence.
Click to expand...
I'm not calling for one. I'm predicting one. And the first shots won't be fired by us.
 
There have been a number of countries where guns were banned and or confiscated in the last 100 years. In every case I know of the majority of citizens turned in their applicable arms, most of the citizens choosing to remain law abiding.
 
zxcvbob,

Wasn’t directed at you, but your post did remind me of the nonstop calls for civil war by news-comments-trolls
 
Sorry. The average gun owner has a family and a career, and he doesn't fancy having the ATF bulldoze his house or hold his family at gunpoint. He certainly doesn't want to go to prison and watch the media brand him a domestic terrorist.

A revolution would take leadership, organization, and will. Considering that the vast majority of gun owners can't even take five minutes to email their congressman about a bill, I find it hard to believe they're going to take up arms against the government.
Click to expand...

Sure, the average gun owner.

What about the 1% at the fringe? If 150,000,000 people in the US own guns then 1% of them outnumber every law enforcement agency at every level in the country combined. If we raise the number of fringe owners to 4% they now outnumber the entire US military and all law enforcement agencies combined.

The US freaks out every time there is carnage from a mass shooting. If a President Beto plays in to the fears of fringe gun owners and tries a confiscation scheme the chaos and resulting damage could be insane. Instead of targeting schools and Walmarts they will start targeting Federal Buildings and legislatures. It could actually destabilize the government.
 
I just don’t see that as a likely scenario. A “fringe” gun owner would probably be someone that either is a prohibited person, or very close to being a prohibited person. This wouldn’t really affect fringe people, they would just keep on doing what they are doing.

There have been other moments in history when gun owners should have opposed gun control...1934, 1968, 1994... the gun owners complied then, and they will simply comply now.

No strong opposition to the unconstitutional bumpstock ban that was enacted through executive action and some creative linguistics.

There will be some resistance when all we have left are single shot rifles, break over shotguns and revolvers... it will be far too late by then
 
MTT TL said:
The US freaks out every time there is carnage from a mass shooting. If a President Beto plays in to the fears of fringe gun owners and tries a confiscation scheme the chaos and resulting damage could be insane. Instead of targeting schools and Walmarts they will start targeting Federal Buildings and legislatures. It could actually destabilize the government.
Click to expand...

Sounds much less costly and more effective to make political donations and vote.
 
Our best hope would be a Rosa Parks, civil disobedient moment that catches the majority off guard.

My guess is that we will need a lot more bad laws and more extreme hate speech to create the perfect storm necessary to jolt the public.

And it won't be an old, white guy like me sitting on the bench. It will have to be someone who is and looks harmless while being harassed.

I wouldn't count on this happening but it would be the best way to turn the tide.
 
I think there is some faulty thinking on how resistance to gun laws might look. For all those who are saying gun owners will quietly comply, I’d just point out the states of New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and California are all still waiting for that to happen - as is New Zealand. Heck, they found an old Maxim machinegun from WWI that might have been linked to Sgt. York - it wasn’t in the registry though. Gun owners have been practicing “Irish democracy” for some time now and will continue to do so.

Of course, some of those guys are going to be caught; but then what? The system can’t afford to remove violent, repeat felons for firearms violations right now - and these are guys inflicting actual economic costs on society. What community can then afford to start turning productive tax-paying citizens into tax drains? And when they ruin some guy’s life to “make an example of him” then what? What’s that guy’s incentive to comply then? If they are going to make an outlaw of you, at least you have the freedom of an outlaw. How effective have draconian drug laws been?

Which brings me to my final point, many of the people who deeply value their 2A rights ARE the system. They are pilots, prosecutors, judges, federal and state law enforcement, military officers, etc. If they feel betrayed by their government, they aren’t going to pick up an AR15 and shoot it out with a SWAT team like some gun show reject with “Born to Lose” tattooed on his face. They’ll turn in their ARs quietly and then pick up a pen and wreak real havoc, or have a quiet drink with the local scandal sheet. The 60s were full of radical “guerilla” groups who thought they could shoot their way to a new society. But the people who changed society were the ones who got involved in the bureaucracy - Bill Ayers put down the bombs and became a teacher to Barack Obama.
 
What good is a banned item if you need to keep it squirreled away and hidden.
That’s the real effect of banning a firearm accessory; some will turn them in, many will get hidden for the unlikely event the apocalypse happens during our lifetime (therefore unusable) and I doubt criminals will change anything (except criminals will benefit from the flood of black market magazines).

Some states have bans but don’t carry the full force of the federal government, or as many of the laws, they need clarification so law enforcement can advance. Also, I’d agree that disinterested LEO and LEO that are refusing to enforce the laws are helpful in those areas.

I think federal laws will be followed zealously, especially in the present time because gun owners, the Republican Party and the NRA are thought of as hate groups and domestic terrorists.
 
Which brings me to my final point, many of the people who deeply value their 2A rights ARE the system. They are pilots, prosecutors, judges, federal and state law enforcement, military officers,
Click to expand...

After 30 years doing some of the above I can tell you I don't know any trigger pullers who are in favor of not following the constitution in this regard. There was this one Marine Reservist about 12 years ago who was an exception and of course the military officers that get bitten by the political bug who spout all kinds of nonsense but the farther away from the flagpole you get the more stalwart defenders you find.


There have been other moments in history when gun owners should have opposed gun control...1934, 1968, 1994... the gun owners complied then, and they will simply comply now.
Click to expand...

1994? Gun owners did oppose gun control. There was an endgame there and it played out. Rights are stronger now than they have ever been.

But lest we forget we also had Timothy McVeigh blow up a Federal Building. Partly because he was a racist maniac and at least partially because he was unhappy about the AWB. Now try to imagine several dozen nutjobs running doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
rickyrick said:
I think federal laws will be followed zealously, especially in the present time because gun owners, the Republican Party and the NRA are thought of as hate groups and domestic terrorists.
Click to expand...

Current Federal gun laws are rarely prosecuted, why would new laws be any different?
 
So our only saving grace is sporadic enforcement? Wouldn’t it be better to prevent new laws instead of letting them happen and hope someone doesn’t enforce it?

1994? Gun owners did oppose gun control. There was an endgame there and it played out. Rights are stronger now than they have ever been.
Click to expand...

Apparently not enough gun owners opposed it. Also, the opposition to gun ownership has never been higher.

In my opinion, gun rights are not strong enough yet. The second amendment doesn’t have the punch that the other civil rights have. While some people are enjoying more gun freedom than ever before, more are loosing their gun rights faster than ever. Gun owners simply do not have the political clout or the will apparently to stop future bans; gun owners definitely do not have the clout to get any gun laws reversed. We pour billions into gun lobbyist without much return.

When other rights are violated somewhere in the country, activists act... they’ go across the country to support those that have had their rights violated.
Gun owners merely get online and complain, they’re complacent and don’t care if people in another state looses rights. At the current pace, in the current political climate, we will all loose gun rights in time.
 
Apparently not enough gun owners opposed it.
Click to expand...

The 1994 AWB is no more, it has been gone for 15 years. I'd say it was just the right amount.

Instituting the AWB, showing it did nothing and then letting it lapse actually proved a useful point to many people at the time that bans don't work. The rebound after the ban resulted in sales of guns never before seen in this country. The AWB motivated people into working together in different states which led to a huge revamp of CCL's that reverberate throughout the country today.

In many ways the 94 AWB was a gift.

We pour billions into gun lobbyist without much return.
Click to expand...

Billions of what? :confused:
 
RR said:
So our only saving grace is sporadic enforcement? Wouldn’t it be better to prevent new laws instead of letting them happen and hope someone doesn’t enforce it?
Click to expand...

Surely.

RR said:
In my opinion, gun rights are not strong enough yet. The second amendment doesn’t have the punch that the other civil rights have.
Click to expand...

True.

RR said:
When other rights are violated somewhere in the country, activists act... they’ go across the country to support those that have had their rights violated.
Gun owners merely get online and complain, they’re complacent and don’t care if people in another state looses rights.
Click to expand...

One group who don't believe that are the congressional dems who lost control of the Senate and House just a couple of months after passing the 94 AWB.

Voting actually sort of works, whereas getting on a bus to go cross country and chant dopey rhymes for cameras isn't yet a part of our formal political process.
 
Now try to imagine several dozen nutjobs running doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

That's what scares me. Any "revolution" scenario involves the very real possibility of harming people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a dark calculus when we have to decide if that's acceptable, and if so, how much of it would be.

It's not going to play out like Red Dawn. Innocent people will be hurt. Then there's the destabilization of the country that would inevitably follow. I suppose we could rephrase the question: how much suffering am I willing to inflict on my fellow citizens over a gun law?

This is what bothers me about the folks who scream "time for a revolution" every time something doesn't go their way. They're displaying a shockingly cavalier attitude about human life.

It's also worth noting that those guys admit to engaging in little or no legitimate political involvement. People who've told me the don't even vote are quick to call for armed revolt. I really do hope it's all just hot air.
 
It's not going to play out like Red Dawn. Innocent people will be hurt.
Click to expand...

Actually lots of innocent people were hurt in Red Dawn (at least fictionally). The movie opens with the execution of a school teacher. Most of the main cast dies by the end of the movie.


This is what bothers me about the folks who scream "time for a revolution" every time something doesn't go their way. They're displaying a shockingly cavalier attitude about human life.
Click to expand...

No kidding. The people I see screaming that have never fired a shot in anger and have no clue how these things work. Civil Wars are the worst possible wars to get in to. They tend to go on for generations or until one side is so annihilated they are either all dead or starving and naked.

It's also worth noting that those guys admit to engaging in little or no legitimate political involvement. People who've told me the don't even vote are quick to call for armed revolt. I really do hope it's all just hot air.
Click to expand...

Internet commandos aside there are going to be a few crazies.
 
Total up the American dead in just two revolutions fought in our land. The American Revolution and the Civil War. Terrible cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top