It's Time to Choose a Side

Chaz88 said:
That was 1994. Nowadays I'm hearing, "well, I got my AR-15, so let the ban come."
Click to expand...
I have been trying to get the ones saying that to rethink it. I have been pointing out the newly proposed law in Missouri would require them to turn in, destroy, or remove their banned gun from the state within 90 days. They then point out to me that we are not in that state and it has little chance of passing and being held as constitutional. I agree. But then I point out that they should be outraged that such a thing is even contemplated let alone submitted for consideration as a new law. Some then get it and some shrug and move on.
Click to expand...
And too many just don't ... want ... to ... listen.

I have a very basic, budget model AR-15 that was purchased during the span of the Federal AWB, so mine has no bayonet lug, a solid stock (which is fine for me, because it's what I carried in Vietnam), and no flash hider. In fact, it has a bare muzzle. It came with a 10-round magazine, which I still have, but I have since purchased some 30-rounders.

My rifle would be illegal under the new NY law. My rifle would be illegal under Feinstein's proposed AWB, which (as I understand it) will now allow only ONE "evil" feature rather than two. My rifle would be illegal under several of the bills being proposed in CT and MA and NJ.

But it was completely legal and fully compliant when I bought it! I have owned it for about fifteen years and it hasn't snuck out of the gun safe and gone off by itself to kill anybody yet, so why should it suddenly become contraband?

That's the part the deniers don't understand. They don't "get" that the anti's will not be satisfied with JUST banning the so-called assault weapons. They'll ban those first, then they'll be back for the conventional-looking semi-autos, then they'll go after the bolt actions and the lever actions, then it'll be the pump and semi-auto shotguns, and finally they'll take away the double barrel shotguns. I just don't know how to get "those people" to understand what the end game really is for the gun grabbers.
 
My rifle would be illegal under the new NY law. My rifle would be illegal under Feinstein's proposed AWB, which (as I understand it) will now allow only ONE "evil" feature rather than two. My rifle would be illegal under several of the bills being proposed in CT and MA and NJ.
Click to expand...

In a sort of twisted reverse logic it would make more sense to ban the carefully finished engraved select walnut stocked guns. *read in as sarcastic a tone as you can* They are obviously just hiding their evil intent under a false veneer. Keep all of the other ones so we can readily identify the evil in them and discriminate against them based on color and visible features alone.

EDIT: Now just hold on a second! Now I am talking about banning most of my guns. Maybe I should start caring about the effects on all gun owners. No, mine are pretty they will never ban them.
 
Last edited:
It’s Time to Choose a Side
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I got lost at the original premise. The elections just occurred and our president and congress folks are there for another 2-4 yards. Saying that it is now time to chose a side is a bit like trying to close the gate after the cattle got out. Either you cared about the cattle or you didn't. The question now is whether or not you are going to bother chasing them down. As noted by Tom Servo, a lot aren't going to get off the couch and go get them.
 
So how do we convince the folks who think they would never want the type of weapon that's being targeted this time, but still own a gun that their fat is on the fire too?
The only approach I've seen work is this. "Assuming an AWB ban works, how long is it until those same people start using (the type of gun they
own) to kill large numbers of people? How long after that will it be before they come after your guns?
This has been only minimally effective, but it's better than anything else I've tried.
Anything you guys have seen that works better?
 
scrubcedar said:
The only approach I've seen work is this. "Assuming an AWB ban works, how long is it until those same people start using (the type of gun they own) to kill large numbers of people? How long after that will it be before they come after your guns?
This has been only minimally effective, but it's better than anything else I've tried.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that hasn't been effective, since there are very few murders committed with rifles of any sort. FBI statistics show significantly more murders by blunt instrument than by rifle. And how many drive-by bayonetings have there been in your city in the past five years?

The sporting and hunting use folks -- in large measure -- seem to be nearly impossible to convince. Logic doesn't work. History doesn't work. "We must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately" doesn't seem to work. I don't like being negative, but after the incident in the gun shop a few weeks ago I have pretty much given up. I try to hold up my end by writing my elected critters regularly, but mine are all solidly anti-gun anyway so mostly I'm doing it so I can't be accused of not doing it. I'm 99.97% certain I'm not making any difference.
 
I wish I could argue with you, tell you I was changing minds. I can't. Whatever else I am, or am not capable of I'm good with words. I still get nowhere.
 
What Matt Devito writes about sounds like the gun club I belong to. Shotgunners don't care about the rifle shooters, rifle shooters don't care about the shotgunners, and the pistol shooters are everyone's red headed step-children.
 
Chose a side

R1145! You said "the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation." Please show me where in the Second Ammendment does it say, Subject to reasonable regulation? Do you trust Feinstein or Obama to pass reasonable regulation? No law taking away our right to own ANY GUN is valid or reasonable!
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I'm not surprised that hasn't been effective, since there are very few murders committed with rifles of any sort. FBI statistics show significantly more murders by blunt instrument than by rifle. And how many drive-by bayonetings have there been in your city in the past five years?
Click to expand...

The same basic reasoning works for magazine limits. Ask them what they hope to accomplish by restricting standard capacity magazines. Chances are the answer will be to reduce the number of people who die in mass shootings. Then point out that in 2012 there were fewer than 20 mass shootings (3 or more people) resulting in fewer than 100 deaths. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning than to be involved in one of these things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Servo said:
That would be the part that was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008.
Click to expand...
And your fellow moderator, Frank Ettin, periodically reminds me that the Constitution doesn't say what it says, it says what the Supreme Court says it says. (Okay, that's not exactly what Frank tells me ... but close.) I understand that Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller said that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. But ... that's what Justice Scalia said, that is NOT what the 2nd Amendment said. That only means for now we must proceed as if that's what the 2nd Amendment says, but the reality is (if I may be so bold): Justice Scalia was wrong.

There is quite simply nothing in the 2nd Amendment that opens the door in any way to regulation -- reasonable or unreasonable. Frank points to precedent, to the fact that other rights have historically been regulated. So what? The language is clear and unequivocal: "Shall not be infringed." A regulation IS an infringement. I have pointed out before that the Founders knew the concept of reasonableness. They clearly wrote in the 4th Amendment that we are to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Certainly, then, if they had intended for the RKBA to be free from "unreasonable" infringement they would have said so. But they didn't. They wrote a clear, complete, unrestricted prohibition against ALL regulation of the RKBA.

It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional. It's unlikely Joe Cowpoke in 1873 Abilene had any idea that he could sue the town marshal and take his case to some bunch of old men in Washington. Joe Cowpoke may not even have known where Washington was.

Reasonable regulation is what we have to live with, but it is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says.
 
It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional.
Click to expand...

Though I'm not the scholar most of the learned folks here are, I recall that a lot of those towns were in territories, not states. Some weren't even territories when such regulations were enacted at the local level. I fail to see how a challenge could even be made to SCOTUS since they were not part of the United States of America.
 
Reasonable regulation is what we have to live with, but it is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says.
Click to expand...
The 1st Amendment reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in there about parade permits, hate speech, or shouting fire in a crowded theater. Yet, such laws have been passed and found constitutional.

Like it or not, there we are. Statements like "where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment" or "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand" might carry some philosophical weight, but they're naive in light of the contemporary situation.
 
Tom Servo said:
Like it or not, there we are. Statements like "where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment" or "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand" might carry some philosophical weight, but they're naive in light of the contemporary situation.
Click to expand...
No, not naive at all. I acknowledge that "reasonable regulation" is what we have to live with because that's what the SCOTUS has ruled, but that doesn't mean we have to forget Reading Comprehension 101 and ignore the reality that the SCOTUS opinion simply is not supported by the language of the law itself.

While I fully acknowledge that we're stuck with it for now, I prefer to always keep in mind what the 2nd Amendment actually says as a reminder to keep the pressure on at all times and at all levels in an effort to move us back to where we should be.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the whole point of the BOR was to restrict the Federal Government. Surely the states wouldn't have insisted on the BOR in order to restrict themselves nor would they have ratified the Constitution if they didn't think they could leave at any time.

A big part of our political trouble today is that everything has been federalized so a person who feels strongly about something no longer has the option of just moving to a state that does things their way.
 
I have written and called my congressman and two senators numerous times. I have also signed up four new members to the NRA. Of course there are opinion blogs on the internet also. We need to be very vocal.
 
I chose my side the first time I ever pulled the trigger on a firearm, and it put a smile on my face when I discovered the beginning of my new favorite hobby, collecting guns and plinking with them. I have written to my government officials numerous times, and while I don't see a full ban happening anytime soon, if guns are outlawed... I'll be an outlaw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top