You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill
- Thread starter bfskinnerpunk
- Start date
The law prohibited the manufacture or sale of new "assault" weapons made after the date of enactment. Guns already in circulation were not affected and could be bought and sold.So during the Clinton ban, how did "assault" rifle owners sell the firearms?
Warrior1256
New member
I suggest we all give an emergency donation to the pro-gun organization of your choice immediately. Gun owners are going to be catching it heavy for awhile.
bfskinnerpunk
New member
I can tolerate a Clinton-style ban so long as we can circulate the existing ones.
I'm talking like this because I predict that gun rights are really in for trouble. We've had three shootings in fairly quick succession...and all with presidential attention.
The political winds are too strong.
If we can get away with a Clinton ban, I would call that "lucky" at this point.
I'm talking like this because I predict that gun rights are really in for trouble. We've had three shootings in fairly quick succession...and all with presidential attention.
The political winds are too strong.
If we can get away with a Clinton ban, I would call that "lucky" at this point.
So, when the magazines for your guns are $150, that'll be tolerable? How about $2000 for a new upper for your AR? Because that's what's going to happen.I can tolerate a Clinton-style ban so long as we can circulate the existing ones.
Some manufacturers will go out of business, and others will have to raise prices on their non-banned wares to make ends meet. Things will be rough across the board.
What's more, if they get away with one ban, you can certainly expect others to follow.
"I can tolerate a Clinton-style ban so long as we can circulate the existing ones."
This is what gets us into trouble. Next year they will just want to ban something else. It will never end. We have to fight everything they throw at us to the bitter end.
I'd rather we focus on enforcing existing laws. Less plea deals. Get mentally unhealthy people the help they need.
This is what gets us into trouble. Next year they will just want to ban something else. It will never end. We have to fight everything they throw at us to the bitter end.
I'd rather we focus on enforcing existing laws. Less plea deals. Get mentally unhealthy people the help they need.
What's more, if they get away with one ban, you can certainly expect others to follow.
This is the bigger issue that gets overlooked by the public. Many of the hardcore anti-gun crowd have a goal of eliminating civilian ownership of firearms. They see each law, fee, tax or ban as just one more step toward their ultimate goal. No I don’t think I’m paranoid I heard them state just this on the show Fresh Air on NPR one afternoon.
bfskinnerpunk
New member
Oh, I think gun folks are screwed.
With that, I am speaking of levels of being screwed. So, if they ban all "assault" rifles and prohibit the sale of them from person-to-person.... that's bad.... if they ban them and then make us all register what we have for a fee, that's bad.... and if they ban them and have us turn them in, that's even worse.
Perhaps I am being cynical, but I would say that we are getting off light to have a Clinton type ban.
I understand the slippery slope. We've been riding that slope for decades now and, now that we have a full generation of people who see government as parent, it is getting more slippery.
With that, I am speaking of levels of being screwed. So, if they ban all "assault" rifles and prohibit the sale of them from person-to-person.... that's bad.... if they ban them and then make us all register what we have for a fee, that's bad.... and if they ban them and have us turn them in, that's even worse.
Perhaps I am being cynical, but I would say that we are getting off light to have a Clinton type ban.
I understand the slippery slope. We've been riding that slope for decades now and, now that we have a full generation of people who see government as parent, it is getting more slippery.
We are if we allow ourselves to be.Oh, I think gun folks are screwed.
I remember the leadup to the 1994 ban all too well. I worked a phone bank for the NRA, and everyone I called yelled at me for interrupting their dinner or the Twin Peaks marathon. We couldn't get anyone mobilized because of fatalism and/or apathy.
Things are a little different now, and we can make them very different by getting in touch with our legislators.
bfskinnerpunk
New member
Twin Peaks marathon! (sorry for the aside)
I think the Twin Peaks TV show was on during the very late 80's... and maybe 1990. Perhaps they brought it back as a marathon in '94.
At the time, I had no awareness of guns at all. I first started considering gun ownership in 2009.
I donate to the NRA with every purchase, I'm a registered libertarian
The re-election of Obama reflects the changing demographics of America. It ain't pretty.
I think the Twin Peaks TV show was on during the very late 80's... and maybe 1990. Perhaps they brought it back as a marathon in '94.
At the time, I had no awareness of guns at all. I first started considering gun ownership in 2009.
I donate to the NRA with every purchase, I'm a registered libertarian
The re-election of Obama reflects the changing demographics of America. It ain't pretty.
coyota1 said:Yes the demographics are shifting away from the traditional gun owner.
Yes, demographics have shifted away from traditional gun owners - and thank goodness they have.
40 years ago, the typical gun owner was probably a hunter and typical guns were bolt-action or lever-action rifles, pump shotguns, and maybe a revolver as a nightstand gun. We would be in serious trouble if gun rights depended on the steadily declining number of hunters in our country.
Luckily, the demographics of gun ownership have changed dramatically in the last 40 years. The growth in recreational shooters and people who own guns for self defense have more than offset the losses in hunters. And those new demographic groups continue to grow at an increasing rate.
The changes in demographics of gun ownership are also important in defeating any major new gun control laws. Even in 1994, a large percentage of the "traditional" gun owners did not care whether the AWB passed because it did not affect the guns they owned. Today, a very substantially larger portion of the firearms community owns guns that would be affected by a 1994-style AWB.
Consider two facts: over 8 million Floridians voted in the 2012 general election; Florida is very near (possibly this week) reaching its one-millionth outstanding concealed carry license. Forgetting all other gun owners in Florida, just the concealed carry license holders in that state are a very potent voting bloc that Florida politicians will not ignore.
Heck, they've changed in the last 20 years. I remember when you had to join a club if you wanted to shoot. Everybody had matching plaid vests. It was so adorable. Guns were tools for recreation and hunting.Luckily, the demographics of gun ownership have changed dramatically in the last 40 years.
That was the culture, and many of them saw no loss in the AWB. At least not until they decided to buy a pistol and realized they were limited to 10-round magazines. Then they'd gripe at me for not having done enough to stop it. Yeesh.
Today's gun owners are different. Most are very cognizant of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment. For them, guns can be tools for recreation and hunting, but they're also important tools for self-defense. While most might not be opposed to things like background checks, they are vehemently opposed to bans.
Today's gun owner is more likely to take offense to further restrictions, and is more vocal. Hopefully, some percentage of that will translate to action.
wasn't the Clinton AWB the result of the California school play yard where some whackjob used an AK47? This deal is gonna stick just because young kids were involved. Dont know what will happen but there will be some type of executive order or congress will cave in to public pressure and allow something thru to save face.
The ball started rolling with the 1989 Stockton shooting, which is what I think you're recalling. That resulted in the formalization of the semiauto import ban during the Bush administration. It also inspired the Roberto-Roos act in California, which was a model for the AWB.wasn't the Clinton AWB the result of the California school play yard where some whackjob used an AK47?
What can we do?
I mean that literally, not facetiously. I understand I may contact my legislators but I would like to see a proper,vetted, form letter so I don't come off as a nut or say something foolish.
I see a few pro-gun legislators seem to have backed off and are bowing to the pressure.
I'm curious when the NRA will come out and say something and give a little leadership.
I mean that literally, not facetiously. I understand I may contact my legislators but I would like to see a proper,vetted, form letter so I don't come off as a nut or say something foolish.
I see a few pro-gun legislators seem to have backed off and are bowing to the pressure.
I'm curious when the NRA will come out and say something and give a little leadership.
Dear Representative _______,
Like all other Americans, I am shocked to the core by the recent shooting in Connecticut. I can understand the pressure that any leader feels to address such a tragedy.
However, HB ___ does not provide the answers we need. A ban on ____ was enacted in 1994. In the ten years it was in effect, it was shown by numerous sources, both private and governmental, to have had no measurable effect on violent crime. The only result was to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The Supreme Court has made the scope of the 2nd Amendment clear. It guarantees individual citizens the right to self-defense with weapons in common use. The ____ is such a weapon. A ban on it runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution and serves only to punish millions of citizens who have no intention of using it to inflict violence.
I'm sure you'll agree that we cannot abrogate the rights of the many for the sins of a few.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote against HB ____. On behalf of myself and your other constitutents, I thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.
Like all other Americans, I am shocked to the core by the recent shooting in Connecticut. I can understand the pressure that any leader feels to address such a tragedy.
However, HB ___ does not provide the answers we need. A ban on ____ was enacted in 1994. In the ten years it was in effect, it was shown by numerous sources, both private and governmental, to have had no measurable effect on violent crime. The only result was to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The Supreme Court has made the scope of the 2nd Amendment clear. It guarantees individual citizens the right to self-defense with weapons in common use. The ____ is such a weapon. A ban on it runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution and serves only to punish millions of citizens who have no intention of using it to inflict violence.
I'm sure you'll agree that we cannot abrogate the rights of the many for the sins of a few.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote against HB ____. On behalf of myself and your other constitutents, I thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.