Should I fisk my own Law Minister?

[Aspirant]

As a firearms enthusiast in a gun-free country, it's frustrating (1) not to have any access to them whatsoever and (2) have to read the shockingly ignorant things my fellow citizens have to say following every mass shooting in the news. "Why can't they just have common-sense gun laws like the UK or Australia?" is the go-to comment on Facebook.

Now it's one thing when people on the street say this... but it's quite another when a key political figure does so. The ruling Minister for Law in my country (I won't name him here, but there's enough info for those who care to do a Google search) blamed the Parkland shooting on the following -

- Most Americans wanting tighter gun control, but the powerful gun lobby blocking those laws.

- He's 'baffled' that people are able to buy "assault rifles" and "submachine guns." (I'm not making this up.)

- People wanting free access to guns channelling money to Congress, gaining more power than the majority.

He also claims that shooting deaths exceed the toll of all America's wars in the last 50 years.

Now here's the question -- I believe that while the Minister is entitled to his opinion, he's not entitled to his own facts.

Can anyone (1) correct him on the first and third points, and (2) advise on whether I should fisk his error-ridden post, given he is a public figure and has a responsibility to get his facts right?

Thanks in advance! I know I'll catch plenty of flak from my own fellow citizens if I try this, so any advice would be much appreciated.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

Since he is repeating (almost verbatim) the anti-gun side's talking points, I doubt actual facts will have much effect on him.

Most Americans wanting tighter gun control, but the powerful gun lobby blocking those laws.

Its very popular today to say "most people want..." without a shred of proof, and often without even a flawed survey as "proof".

The gun control lobby believes that gun control, up to and including a complete ban on private ownership of ALL guns, is "just common sense" (in their words)

Therefore, any one who disagrees, anyone who opposes their agenda MUST be a shill for the gun lobby. ONLY some "huge, powerful, shadowy organization" could stop their common sense approach, so when they fail to get what they want, the cannot conceive that it might be because what they want is NOT what "most people" want, it MUST be because of the money, power, and influence of the gun lobby.

They're wrong. but cannot, and will not see it.

- He's 'baffled' that people are able to buy "assault rifles" and "submachine guns." (I'm not making this up.)

He ought to be baffled, because, apparently he does not understand US gun laws, and the proper application of terms. Understandable, since its nearly certain his only information about them comes from biased and inaccurate media reporting.

Assault rifles and submachine guns are, under US law, machine guns. These guns have been restricted under US law since 1934. In 1986, the number of legally transferable machine guns was fixed at those few thousand that were in the federal registry, NO new guns have been allowed to be added, since then. Since the supply became fixed under the law, the price of the existing legally transferrable guns has jumped hugely, and the very cheapest of them costs over between $10-20,000, and most are much more expensive.

An American citizen, with a clean record, living in a state that allows it, can buy an assault rifle, or a submachine gun, under Federal law. The required paperwork and background checks can take months, or even over a year for approval, and the gun will cost more than most cars, You can get a genuine "Tommygun", if you want, but it will cost you $40,000 or more, plus the wait for federal approval to purchase...

Most people don't know this. Most people think they are completely banned. OR they think that you can buy them in any and every gun shop in the country. Neither is true. The small number of these guns that are allowed to be purchased by private citizens are heavily restricted and very, very expensive.

What he is probably thinking of, when he says "assault rifles" and "submachine guns." are legal, ordinary semi automatics, which happen to LOOK like the military full autos, ON THE OUTSIDE, but are functionally the same as all semi autos, including .22 plinkers...

The anti-gun forces came up with a name for SEMI AUTOS that look like military arms, they named them ASSAULT WEAPONS, in a deliberate (and largely successful) attempt to confuse them with actual machineguns.

- People wanting free access to guns channelling money to Congress, gaining more power than the majority.

Again, same thing as the first point. He is repeating ONE side of the argument's mantra. He is stating OPINION, not FACT.

He also claims that shooting deaths exceed the toll of all America's wars in the last 50 years.

This is something where there is a factual number, BUT to know whether or not he is in error, you must know where his information comes from, and what the parameters of it, are.

50 years ago is a "moving target" and changes every year. 50 years ago from now was 1968. America has had no declared wars since then, other than the amorphous "War on Terror" which I am not certain qualifies as a declared war, in the same way WWII was a declared war. Vietnam was not a declared war, the official term is that it was a "police action", and I think US military operations in the middle east and asia under the "war on terror" are also in that category.

And in both cases, the body count was lower than WWII, due to the nature of the combat and the disparity in force between the sides.

IF your Minister of Law is only counting bodies from declared wars vs. the body count of every one killed in the US by criminals, by the police, and those who commit suicide, using guns, then he might actually have an accurate figure, within his particular and specific parameters.

In other words, to dispute his claim about the numbers, one needs to know what the number is, and where he got it. after that, its simple to find out if he's being accurate, or not.

Good Luck!

And, if you dispute any of their claims, DO have verifiable sources for your information, and name them, for everyone to see.

Also be prepared for "flak" and even death threats. The most intolerant fanatics I know are on the anti-gun side.

 

[Tom2]

You might just be aware that anything you read from the US press nowadays about a political issue is bound to be tainted. An agenda is nearly always involved to influence what you read online. Some sources are predictable in that respect and others maybe not always but through observation most of us have quickly been able to discern who is trying to fool us. Sad to recall that it was not always quite as rampant as it is now. So best look up reliable statistics sources rather than trust what is printed for the public from "news" sources.

 

[JohnKSa]

- Most Americans wanting tighter gun control, but the powerful gun lobby blocking those laws.

If most Americans really wanted tighter gun control we would have it. I always wonder what is going on in people's minds when they start talking about how powerful the NRA is as if it has some power of its own independent of the desires of the American people. The power of the NRA in specific, and the gun lobby in general, comes from individual contributors. http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

According to the article, the average contribution to the NRA is $35.

Even the money that it gets from companies ultimately comes from the American people.

- He's 'baffled' that people are able to buy "assault rifles" and "submachine guns."

By the standard definition, the American people in most states can buy assault rifles (select fire--fully automatic--rifles) and submachine guns subject to federal background checks, registration, paying a tax fee--and as long as they're willing to subject themselves to the federal and state rules governing such firearms--and as long as they are willing to part with enough money to buy a nice car.

When the U.S. media and U.S. gun control organizations talk about "assault rifles" they are actually using that term to refer to a semi-automatic rifle (one shot per trigger pull) which has certain cosmetic and functional features--usually a pistol grip stock and detachable magazine.

- People wanting free access to guns channelling money to Congress, gaining more power than the majority.

Congress doesn't do things that gets them "unelected". They know from experience that passing anti-gun laws is risky.

Clinton, and others credited the passage of the AWB with costing the Democrats control of Congress during his presidency.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/when-bill-clinton-passed-gun-reform/488045/

In the interest of full disclosure, in more recent times, several "analysts" have tried to discount the AWB as a factor in the big losses in Congress but I give far more credence to people who were involved in the passage of the ban and the administration at the time.

Congress avoids anti-gun legislation because they are afraid it will cost them the next election when the American people show their displeasure.

He also claims that shooting deaths exceed the toll of all America's wars in the last 50 years.

Probably true. Remember the first gulf war resulted in a lower death rate for deployed U.S. soldiers than was experienced in the U.S military who remained in the U.S.

U.S. fatalities in recent wars are relatively low--I believe the combined total for Iraq and Afghanistan (the majority of U.S. military action for the past 25-30 years) is under 8000.

The problem with that statistic is that taken in a vacuum it seems to imply something that it really doesn't. Here are some similar statistics:

In the past 50 years, significantly more U.S. citizens have died from drowning than in military combat.

Four to five times more U.S. citizens die from medical malpractice every year than died in Vietnam.

 

[zukiphile]

If this is Shanmugam, and he is baffled by US firearms laws, I don't doubt that he is genuinely baffled by them. Singapore is way out at the extreme other end of the Bell Curve of gun prohibitionism. I would bet he is baffled by US employment laws and quite a few other facets of the range or choice ordinary people exercise in the US. I don't note that in order to denigrate Singapore, but to note that firearms laws aren't the only significant difference. You might not like the way americans exercise this freedom of choice. I know I don't. Large numbers of americans chew gum, smoke around women and children, and use cell phones while driving five thousand pound trucks. I don't stop people I don't know and tell them not to chew gum in public; I also don't tell them what kind of rifle to own. It's a permissive culture.

American law on this point rests on an aspect of that cultural foundation. Firearm ownership is entirely normal. Only a half century ago, many public high schools in my part of the country had ranges in their basements for student instruction. Learning to shoot and drive are activities that are a mile marker in many parent/child relationships. We hang a lot of cultural virtues on shooting as well; honesty, focus, conscientiousness and fellowship are all re-enforced by it.

 

[Aspirant]

Thanks everyone! Yup, Zukiphile got his name right.

I'm not looking to change his mind, only to acknowledge that there's a fair point on the other side -- and stop demonising gun owners and parroting anti-gun talking points without knowing what he's talking about. If he must rail against them, at least do so from knowledge.

Unfortunately, because we're far more inclined towards safety and the government providing public order, people have a strong cultural dislike for firearms despite conscription teaching most of us how to use them. It has its advantages, I must admit -- arguments and fights can happen without worrying that the parties are packing heat.

What galled me was the arrogance coming from many people (not just him) that believe a solution applied to a small island of 6 million people is somehow applicable to a vast, incredibly diverse federated country of 320 million.

Fisking him respectfully will open a conversation, but is it one I want to have? It will come at a high social cost, and it might be wiser to build grassroots support first.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[zukiphile]

It has its advantages, I must admit -- arguments and fights can happen without worrying that the parties are packing heat.

That may not be an advantage. The possibility of real and effective defense may mean that many would be aggressors don't start a problem in the first place, or that the catalysts for arguments or fights are less common. Note Brit's post yesterday.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6580147&postcount=80

Aspirant, I have a greek friend who expressed shock at the idea that ordinary have or carry arms. His shock was as profound as your minister's. A few years later, his mother came to visit. She had to be at his side the entire time. He explained that she had never been out in public on her own. Back in Greece, even going to market, she always had at least one of her sons with her.

In the US, women, even as minors, routinely go out all on their own.

I'm not suggesting that assault or disorderly conduct are a large problem in Singapore, just that the possibility of armed people can have a regulating social influence.

If one were convicted of assaulting someone in Singapore, would he expect caning to be an element of his sentence? Having you ever known someone caned as part of a criminal sentence? Is it potentially crippling, or is it essentially the same thing a lad gets in school?

 

[fredvon4]

I had to google Fisking...a term I have never heard before

Carry on

 

[Aspirant]

If one were convicted of assaulting someone in Singapore, would he expect caning to be an element of his sentence? Having you ever known someone caned as part of a criminal sentence? Is it potentially crippling, or is it essentially the same thing a lad gets in school?

It's very possible, depends on the severity of the crime and any mitigating factors. The cane (or the rotan, as we call it in our national language of Malay) is so excruciating that 24 strokes is the maximum and it's only used on male prisoners below the age of 50.

It supposedly leaves a permanent mark, though it hasn't killed any victims yet. I don't personally know anyone who's been caned for a crime, though.

The punishment is best-known in the US for being given to a vandal named Michael Fay, who was arrested doing his thing on a trip to Singapore in 1994. He was sentenced to 6 strokes, which led to outrage in the US -- even President Clinton appealed on his behalf. We didn't want to be seen as buckling down to a big power, however, so a compromise was reached and his sentence was reduced to 4 strokes.

More on the crimes that warrant it here - http://www.corpun.com/sgjur2.htm.

Sorry, mini-essay here expanding on my earlier point about disdain for guns in a small, well-policed country.

I actually think my own country is a great window into anti-gun thought, especially since no anti here feels the need to give lip service to the Second Amendment.

Over here we've got the advantage of being sheltered by our leaders for half a century. After the British left Singapore with its independence, the previous generation under Lee Kuan Yew had to industrialise, build its infrastructure and house its people very quickly.

As such, society had to be glued together by any means necessary -- besides civilian gun use being completely banned, it's actually illegal to denigrate another racial or religious group in a way that threatens social harmony, for instance.

We have no 'freedoms' as you understand them, as the government's aim is stability and pragmatism first. Individual freedom is actually well-preserved, except you can't say or own certain things. We've achieved a lot economically and the streets are safe at night tho, and I'm thankful for that.

Because we're small and easily policed, most people here take being unarmed for granted. As a result, they see widely-available guns as a blight on society and a threat that any disturbed rando on the street might be able to kill them.

Our minister says as much -- he's met some mentally unstable people, and believes our blanket ban eliminates the damage they could do with a rifle. (Yes, I know they can also use cars or knives, but a gun would make it easier for them if they got their hands on one.)

In other words, my countrymen don't see rights to self-defence and resistance to tyranny in the Second Amendment. Instead, when they think of civilian gun ownership, they picture casualties like the Parkland students and Las Vegas concert goers (rightly or wrongly), Chris Kyle and Christina Grimmie, and other victims of armed lunatics.

They don't necessarily believe that good people shouldn't defend themselves -- they believe that they shouldn't have to, and often share stats from Europe and Australia, as misleading as we know them to be. They're also more likely to ignorantly push for 'assault weapon bans' and even disarmament.

The more I think about the messaging, the more I feel this is the future of anti-gun thought -- portraying firearms as a menace to society and a threat to peace of mind. That Americans have the right to own them is demonised as selfish, and dead children and random killings supposedly being the 'price they pay for their rights.'

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Aspirant]

Granted, our situations are very different. But I hope my summary provides some insight into the antis' thought patterns -- and helps us form better responses.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Rob228]

I've been to Singapore a few times over the years and enjoyed it thoroughly, but have been glad to come home to the 2nd Amendment

 

[Lohman446]

One of the problems here is the anti-gun lobby has stolen the term "common-sense gun legislation" and stripped it of all realistic meaning. So while there are many Americans who would support some changes to gun legislation, even members on these boards, many less would go as far as these "common-sense" approaches that are near total bans.

For instance one proposed "assault weapons ban of 2018" references any semi-automatic pistol or rifle with a detachable magazine. While I am certain there is some counter example out there this ended up being basically every semi-automatic pistol ever produced as well as a good share of rifles that are not in any way a "weapon of war". The Ruger 10/22 for instance goes and that is just one example. The proposals effectively result in a long term forfeiture of property as they ban transfer. By destroying the legal market it WILL create a black market while depriving those who follow the law of full rights of ownership including selling.

So while I would be at least willing to discuss some measures (yep many on these boards are going to say I'm a traitor) that MIGHT make us safer I am only willing to do so in a manner that extends and protects the rights of law abiding citizens (national reciprocity, a transfer system that is effective, government funded, and removes civil and legal penalties for the transferer that uses them, silencers, etc.). I am not willing to simply jump on the "next" step when the past steps have not been effective. I am not willing to set the goal as "not one more life" because that is unrealistic - even countries with extreme gun control will not meet this goal. The supposed "common-sense" proponents are willing to count me as "supporting" stricter gun control and ignore the fact that I do not support any solution they have actually advanced towards the legislature.

It should be noted, due to the rural nature of where I live, it is expected that you are prepared to handle most situations on your own because a police response in a timely manner is not a realistic option. I have had an emergency operator, on more than one occasion, verify that I had a gun with the clear understanding that if the situation escalated I would be expected to use it.

 

[ofitg]

Now it's one thing when people on the street say this... but it's quite another when a key political figure does so. The ruling Minister for Law in my country (I won't name him here, but there's enough info for those who care to do a Google search) blamed the Parkland shooting on the following -

- Most Americans wanting tighter gun control, but the powerful gun lobby blocking those laws.

Foreign observers - including the Minister for Law - should be advised that U.S. news broadcasts are rather "light" on facts and "heavy" on agenda.
Somehow, this little tidbit slipped past the propaganda screen in 2015 -

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

More recently, a reputable polling firm published this report -

http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

As 44 AMP pointed out, even the term "assault weapons" is fallacious..... but now it is commonly used.
The U.S. news/entertainment industry does an impressive job of leading the politicians around by the nose - and unfortunately, that's how they achieve the agenda - but a great many of us do not swallow the lies.

...

 

[RC20]

The Singapore minster is nothing more than a reflection of most.

Sporting guns are by most taken as hunting or target guns and the AR is not that.

The reality from my perspective is that the small percentage of what I call never pry it from my cold dead hands people don't get that most people do not give a hoot about the nuances of a semi automatic vs a full automatic.

The Purpose of an M-16 was a combat rifle. While its possible to hunt with, its not a military weapon that makes for a low cost replacement hunting rifle that the Model of 1917, 1903 did and were.

M1s did not become hunting rifle for the most part.

Someone seeing an AR or an AK with full justification associated those with Assault Rifles, and could care less about the nuance of semi auto vs full auto. It black, its short, it has a large magazine and its purpose is to shoot people.

The gun magazine industry tried to convince people that they should be called an MSA.

And in many of the shootings that resulted in significant dead, they have been the gun of choice.

The AR moniker is a clear and easy one.

Probably 60-80% of the population has some to total discomfort with ARs.

Vast majority of the people I see shooting them are nebulous looking and acting.

That goes from appearance of gang members to clueless.

People I never thought I would hear it from have made remarks to the affect its time to make every gun owner have a license. That is followed by earned not just given.

Sticking to a nuanced argument is not going to change the perceptions and you can shout all you want its not fair.

Life is not fair, its not always just, you deal with what is in front of you as best you can.

 

[Lohman446]

People I never thought I would hear it from have made remarks to the affect its time to make every gun owner have a license.

My concern is not some license. The thing that is normally tacked on behind that is "an insurance, like cars. For each gun owned and due annually" It would become possible, through pressure on private companies to raise rates and law suits against insurance companies to raise costs to make firearm ownership a right reserved for the wealthy.

 

[zukiphile]

The Singapore minster is nothing more than a reflection of most.

A law minister in a very small country with some commonwealth traditions, but a decidedly authoritarian tradition as well, just reflects what most people think? That's not plausible.

Sporting guns are by most taken as hunting or target guns and the AR is not that.

That is factually incorrect. ARs are commonly used in hunting and varminting.

As to their use as target rifles, one can perform an image search for "camp perry" and see that they are in common use as target rifles. One criticism of the A2 is that it is a known distance range queen thanks to its too easily adjusted rear sight and little daytime aperture, but not as good a weapon overall as the A1.

The reality from my perspective is that the small percentage of what I call never pry it from my cold dead hands people don't get that most people do not give a hoot about the nuances of a semi automatic vs a full automatic.

When is failure to grasp nuance ever a virtue?

The Purpose of an M-16 was a combat rifle. While its possible to hunt with, its not a military weapon that makes for a low cost replacement hunting rifle that the Model of 1917, 1903 did and were.

An inanimate object can't itself have purpose. It can have utility. It can be put to a purpose by a person, or be created for a purpose by a person.

The idea that an AR isn't a low cost hunting rifle is only true if you buy an expensive one.

M1s did not become hunting rifle for the most part.

And? Were they offered commercially in large numbers? Were lots of them dumped into the retail market as surplus?

Carbines were popular items when they were cheap and the ammunition was widely available. The idea that an arm that is adopted by armed services for durability, ease of maintenance and economy isn't a viable commercial item is disproven by AR pattern sales.

Someone seeing an AR or an AK with full justification associated those with Assault Rifles, and could care less about the nuance of semi auto vs full auto. It black, its short, it has a large magazine and its purpose is to shoot people.

My ARs only shoot bullets. That's the purpose to which I put them.

And in many of the shootings that resulted in significant dead, they have been the gun of choice.

Except for the many more in which it wasn't the "gun of choice", right?

This is literally nothing more than raw recitation of a ban advocacy cliche.

Probably 60-80% of the population has some to total discomfort with ARs.

Something a lot of sloppy polling data can demonstrate is that we are fortunate to not live in a democracy.

Vast majority of the people I see shooting them are nebulous looking and acting.

Could it just be your glasses?

That goes from appearance of gang members to clueless.

What does a gang member look like?

People I never thought I would hear it from have made remarks to the affect its time to make every gun owner have a license. That is followed by earned not just given.

Civil liberties are frequently hard to appreciate in the midst of emotionally fed moral panic. Your story illustrates the value of the BOR.

Sticking to a nuanced argument is not going to change the perceptions and you can shout all you want its not fair.

Life is not fair, its not always just, you deal with what is in front of you as best you can.

If you deal with it by becoming unfair and proposing injustice, you make life worse.

 

[RC20]

Frankly I don't see most of the points let alone anything that changes things.

I can talk to you all day long about Switchgear, what an open transition vs closed transition and the issues with emergency ATS transfer is. A
non electrical type (or even one that pulls wires for a living) your eyes simply glaze over as its not anything you remotely have contact (that's an electrical pun) with.

Non gun owners don't see your nuance, many gun owners do not as well. What they do see is a black nasty purposely designed gun that was military. Show them a bolt action gun in a wooden stock and its vastly less.

And the bump stock aspect has just proven it, yep, they are auto after all. If it quack like a duck, flies like a duck, has duck webbed feet and duck DNA they no one cares if your species differentiation assessment says its not a duck.

Yes AR types are sued for Varmint hunting, some are also used for other kinds of hunting.

People don't see that. AS I noted, the place where the public at large sees them is at these larger group shootings.

There is a reason for the Term Tacti Cool and why they are popular.

I do take serous umbrage with you telling me to open my eyes. I have been working form 55 years, I started at a very young age.

The scariest groups at the range are AR owners and Pistol owners.

I took a friend pistol shooting several times. Her first comment was, those people are not handling the guns the way you said they should.

I told her, its like the world you work in, some are very capable, most are somewhere in between and at the other end of the bell curve, they are dangerous to themselves and their community.

I took another friend shooting, gun owner. He looks at all the ARs and he could not fathom why they had them. He is as died in the wool conservative as you will ever meet. That is your typical gun owner. Serious about 2nd amendment, been around guns all his life, uses them, and he sees them as a tool, not some Tactic Cool thing to take to the range to blast off copious amount of ammo at targets 25 yards way they can't hit.

They often try to put them out at 10 yards, the range had to make it 25 mandatory minimum.

When I grew up, you were not allowed to handle a gun until you proved your competence at it under supervised conditions. I had mine taken away at one point for violating the safety rules.

Now, anyone walks into a store, never seen a gun, pick it up and can do anything with it.

I have always wondered what the Constitution writers would have done if they had known where it was going?

Their world was one where you had to know a lot and learn a whole manual of loading to even fire a gun.

 

[WW2]

After the ARs they will then take all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, followed by sniper rifles (bolt action hunting rifles), then all long guns and finally handguns.

RC20 you are clearly a gun control advocate. I am a gun freedom advocate. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[44 AMP]

AS I noted, the place where the public at large sees them is at these larger group shootings.

And the reason they see them is that the news shows them pictures 24/7 for days or weeks, and about every single time the issue is talked about.

35-40 years ago, any story about any crime, anywhere had a picture of a revolver behind the talking head. Today, its an AR or an AK or a Glock...

I lay the blame for the whole mess at the feet of the anti-gun crowd of the last few generations, and the unintended consequences of their acts.

Their very effective work demonizing gun ownership, hunting, shooting sports, and recreational shooting in general, and their especially effective laws and regulations that ensure it is nearly impossible to actually teach children about guns has led to a state where too many people know only what they see on TV, and who, when they reach the legal age, get a gun without any real knowledge about it.

Why are ARs so popular today?? Again, thank the ban the gun crowd. The AR-15 hit the civilian market in the early 60s (63??). They sold enough to make it worthwhile, but AR sales and ownership were not large. Neither were sales of other contemporary semis like the FAL. They were expensive, not well suited for hunting (by being awkward, some were quite heavy) and not being all that accurate compared to the bolt action standards.

The AR and other guns now being called assault weapons, simply weren't very popular. Until the people in govt started talking about banning and restricting them.

Yes, there was an increase in interest and ownership in the 80s, technical changes in the AR had made it much more accurate, and people were getting a bit more interested. But after the 86 Stockton shooting (with an AK variant) the antis and their friends in the press began calling for restrictions, up to complete bans.

Popularity of the AR (and about everything else in the class) EXPLODED!!

Nothing gets people (who never before were interested) into buying something than the threat that it will be banned.

Nothing.

Nothing is as tasty as forbidden fruit. Even if its something you never liked before...

The American spirit of rebellion still exists, and getting something the "establishment" wants banned is a thumb your nose at authority gesture, and very popular with lots of people simply because of that.

Doesn't matter if its dope, music, guns, or anything else, try to ban it, and you attract people TO it! And once they have some, then a ban is taking away their personal property, and people don't like that much, either.

So, thanks anti-gunners, you made your own worst nightmare. Trouble is, you're still working hard to turn your dreams into MY nightmare.