And who are going to be conducting these raids? And how are they going to know where to go for those 17 Million 'assault type' weapons. Where is the manpower and $ going to come from? It's fine to show support for various parts of gun ownership but some reality please.
House Judiciary Committee Sends Magazine Ban to the Floor for Vote
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Members of the GOP who are facing an election in 2020 are in a tough spot. Support these things and rile their base..No support and rile the YUGE moderate middle who are on the fence about candidates but are 'seemingly' supportive of those acronyms, UBC, RFL, AWB...
Red Flag Law..
by the best (rough) numbers I've seen, once the American Revolution got underway, about 1/3 of the people supported the revolution, 1/3 were Crown Loyalists, and 1/3 just wanted to be left the hell alone to live their lives in relative peace.
And, of course, the body count in a civil war is horrifying, because both sides are the same nationality.
No, it absolutely won't play out like Red Dawn, where there was a foreign aggressor, if it came down to armed resistance to the govt in this country, there's a factor that's almost always overlooked.
And that is, that we and they are co-mingled. Some of their people are mixed in with us, and some of us are mixed in with their people. And both sides will be throwing as much sand in the other side's gears as possible.
your neighbor down the block, or a member of your family might rat you out. Or your granddaughter in the dispatch office might warn you a raid is going to happen...etc.
Never forget that if they can do something to one Constitutionally enumerated right, they can do it to the others as well. If we ever get to the point of house to house raids (over anything), how well do you expect that same government to respect our rights to free speech and assembly?
And, if/when they don't, what's your option? Take them to a government court?? (after you get out of jail, assuming, you do???
)
No, we aren't the same people we were in 1776. In some ways we are greater, but in many ways, we are so much lesser than we were.
I never did understand how banning ownership of a spring loaded box above a certain size prevented murder....
We have a system, its flawed, but then, so are we. But it can work, providing the people in it are looking at reality, and not what a poll says.
That seems like an uphill battle these days...
And, of course, the body count in a civil war is horrifying, because both sides are the same nationality.
No, it absolutely won't play out like Red Dawn, where there was a foreign aggressor, if it came down to armed resistance to the govt in this country, there's a factor that's almost always overlooked.
And that is, that we and they are co-mingled. Some of their people are mixed in with us, and some of us are mixed in with their people. And both sides will be throwing as much sand in the other side's gears as possible.
your neighbor down the block, or a member of your family might rat you out. Or your granddaughter in the dispatch office might warn you a raid is going to happen...etc.
Never forget that if they can do something to one Constitutionally enumerated right, they can do it to the others as well. If we ever get to the point of house to house raids (over anything), how well do you expect that same government to respect our rights to free speech and assembly?
And, if/when they don't, what's your option? Take them to a government court?? (after you get out of jail, assuming, you do???
)No, we aren't the same people we were in 1776. In some ways we are greater, but in many ways, we are so much lesser than we were.
I never did understand how banning ownership of a spring loaded box above a certain size prevented murder....
We have a system, its flawed, but then, so are we. But it can work, providing the people in it are looking at reality, and not what a poll says.
That seems like an uphill battle these days...
I wasn't implying that we shouldn't resist new proposals, nor that we shouldn't be very concerned. I'm saying that politicians, and those on the left in particular, often have lofty ideas but rarely follow through with them.
Any new laws passed will be mostly unenforced and ineffective which will give an excuse for the next wave of restrictions.
The extremism of some of the Presidential candidates proposals certainly remind one of the importance of and reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but I can't see any of them going all out Stalin on us. Not yet anyway.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
USNRet93 said:
First, I’m not implying anything. I’m stating an unequivocal fact. The list of who sponsored HR 1186 to ban normal magazines is right there for everyone to read.
Second, if you know of Republicans who support unconstitutional gun control, then by all means lets name and shame them. I have no objection to that and have done it myself on many occasions. However, the number of national Republicans who support AWBs is next to zero. There is that one King guy from NY and who else? You don’t have to conflate three different categories of proposed gun control to get “many” with the other party.
Not to mention there is a difference between supporting a red flag law that offers due process protections or a universal background check that protects gun owner privacy. Tom Cotton was a GOA A+ Senator - he supported universal background checks, just not based on the current system of firearms laws. His bill never even got heard on the floor during 2013.
And yet look at all the GOP cosponsors on that list - heck, even GOP candidates who support bans are missing. If what you are describing were actually happening, wouldn’t House candidates in suburban and urban districts be all over that? I mean, they don’t even have to risk it becoming law since they can let the Senate or White House kill it. So, they can have their cake and eat it too if the reality you describe is correct. Why do you think they aren’t doing that?
Last edited:
Donald J Trump for starters. As somebody said, the only 'poll' that matters are the ones in November.
So many howl when Cory Booker(who?) or Beto O'Rourke says something about increased gun control, even got a trump twitter-response....as if it's really, really a BIG problem but when a member of the GOP says something about increasing gun control..'nothing to see here'...
They are and are mostly democrats..why the representative nature of the House is so much different than the Senate-> 2 members, representing the entire state.
Last edited:
The first successful, college educated, law abiding citizen that gets killed resisting confiscation because they were made a criminal at the stroke of pen in Washington DC will start the ball rolling.
It won't be an immediate uprising but history will note just like John Brown's raid, the beginnings.
It won't be an immediate uprising but history will note just like John Brown's raid, the beginnings.
I wonder why you chose that description. It does imply that any (and all of us) who aren't college educated, and perhaps don't meet an arbitrary definition of successful aren't worthy enough??
Seems to imply that violating the rights of the college educated and successful is a matter of great import, and violating the same rights of the "ignorant poor" or "the great unwashed" is not.
Is that really what you meant??
I think that NONE of us should be made criminals with a stroke of a pen, and all our rights matter, no matter what our "social status".
John Brown's raid was a turning point, there are many in history. You might consider the Boston Massacre to be one, as well.
USNRet93 said:
Who says that? I just read Hal, a member here, complaining about Kasich. I've recently noted Mike DeWine's dismal performance on RFLs, and it is a commonly expressed sentiment that DJT can be useful, but few trust him. Respect for his intuition on constitutionality is quite low, and he wasn't even endorsed by the National Review. The reaction here when he decided to torture English to ban bump stocks wasn't positive.
Contrary to your sense above, it is taken quite seriously when DJT fires up the tweet machine and endorses UBCs precisely because no one can tell whether he is serious and the energy of the repub party stands in opposition to UBCs.
In contrast, when Robert Francis O'Rourke says "Hell, yes, we are going to take..." it is taken seriously because it is akin to what attorneys recognize as an admission against interest. Gun restrictions aren't ever presented by legislative sponsors as part of a progression that ends in confiscation, but the suspicion is that each new regulation is confiscation in installments. When RFO says "Hell, yes..." he confirms a long held suspicion. That is sort of a big deal.
Looking for the condemnations from other putative candidates on the stage of RFO's admission? There were none. This isn't an issue on which dem candidates at this level seem divided. That's significant.
Ted Strickland, a dem, was elected governor of Ohio after Bob Taft, a repub. Bob Taft deceived people about supporting a concealed carry law (said he would sign, then didn't wen elected), and Ted Strickland was generally OK on guns. That specific instances like those occur doesn't support a thesis that at the national level the major parties are fungible on this issue.
44AMP said:
I don't concur in his thesis, but I know what he meant. He meant that when the kind of people who make up ordinary middle class suburban voters are seen being abused, that will have a greater political impact, than if, for example, some odd Mormons occupy a bird sanctuary, or a backwoods racist is besieged by federal agents when they fail to entrap him on weapons charges.
People with whom we would identify can be expected to generate greater general sympathy than people we can't fathom.
I think the violation of rights implicit in a buy back is going to have an impact on a lot of people who don't identify publicly as "2d Am. people". Having police, who are targets of Black Lives Matter messaging, run through minority neighborhoods violating the rights of people of color will be an odd fit for many activists.
Last edited:
I don't know where you have been the last few years but an update on the current state of affairs in America.
It's a left - right thing. Typically the left picks good victims for their outrage. They have to be a non-Asian minority or suffer from some other kind of social stigma such as being an immigrant or gay. Sometimes women too if it suits their purpose. But they have to be on the left side or they don't count.
The right tends to favor young college educated men victims with "lots of potential" that if it were not for their unfair treatment from the left they would be knocking the ball out of the park. Now if you look at Katrina they stuck strictly with the right (the 2A right itself) and did not focus on the victim so much, but that is not the norm. But that was 14 years ago. Sometimes also they will go with traditional families.
When the government starts killing people over guns the left will ignore it, except to point at that rich and powerful people are getting away with it. And of course to blame the police because it is always their fault for killing people that are threatening to kill them.
(edited for clarity)
Last edited:
USNRet93 said:
[Incorrect information removed]. Joe Manchin also spoke up about RFO's outburst, and Manchin's statement was stronger than a gentle statement of reservation about the political wisdom of RFO's words. Neither he nor Coons are putative democat presidential nominees. [Incorrect information removed]
Last edited:
That's not entirely true. Biden pointed out that it was unconstitutional and was laughed at by Harris who said that it could be done, although she offered no reasoning for it. She then said Beto was courageous for bringing it up. Buttigieg suggested working with the Republicans to get it done and was then mocked by Beto for thinking that was possible.
Biden, Sanders and Warren have all previously expressed support for mandatory government buy ups of guns (they called them "Buy backs", but I don't recall the government ever selling AR15's so I am not sure what they are talking about.).
Yang wants "perpetual buy backs".
Cory Booker wants to throw people in jail if they don't participate in "buy backs".
Castro wants buy backs and to make it illegal for those who have committed crimes of domestic violence to be barred from ownership, which I am pretty sure is already the law but hey... double illegal right?
Kloubacher all by her lonesome supports voluntary "buy backs". This makes her the most moderate of all dem candidates on gun control.
MTT TL said:
I thank you for the correction. I hadn't seen that.
I confess that this leaves me unclear about his position.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...am_making_assault_weapons_illegal_period.html
Last edited:
back when Biden was VP, not only did he say the reason the govt barely prosecuted prohibited persons trying to buy a gun was "we don't have time for that", but he also made statements about how all that was needed for self defense was a double barrel shotgun, and how all one needed to do was shoot it in the air...
I don't have any doubts about his position concerning our rights.
I don't have any doubts about his position concerning our rights.