What are they really after?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

g.willikers

New member
Are restrictions of the ownership of semiauto rifles and larger capacity magazines the main goal?
Or are they actually after something else?
Tom Gresham, on his Guntalk podcast, has been discussing this.
Maybe what they are really going for is the so called universal background check, expanded to a firearms owner database.
And that could easily lead to a form of gun registration, making confiscation easier.
Could this be the administration's true ambitions?
 
I personally believe that the AWB ban portion of the bill is a sacrificial lamb, in order to make the rest of the bill seem very unobtrusive. They would certainly love it if it passed, but they're willing to offer it as a bargaining chip. The optimal outcome is if *none* of it passes. Even the universal background checks is worthless if all guns aren't registered, and they know that. So the next round, they'll say "in light of NEW unpredictable disasters, we now need to register all firearms so that the system will be more effective". Exactly what they're saying now- they will never change their tune, and we know that.
 
Registration, taxation, liability, and eventually confiscation, of all firearms ; automatic, semi-automatic, revolvers, black powder, antiques, all of them. Just ask the British what happened to the SMLE over the fireplace if you want to know what the plan is.
 
There's not even a question. We have "their" own words. "They" want a complete and total ban on firearms, which will culminate in confiscation.

The bigger question is, who are "they" and who are simply the well-meaning, clueless minions.
 
I've been mulling over the concept that the clueless minions are 'counting coup' against us - their ideological opposition.

They know their solutions won't fix anything. They know they can't get everything they want. Yet still they have to "score" against us otherwise they feel inadequate.

"Couting coup" might explain it.

* Couting coup was the native american practice of getting close enough to touch your enemy or dangerous prey with a stick rather than killing or injuring him. A dangerous game.
 
We have "their" own words. "They" want a complete and total ban on firearms, which will culminate in confiscation.
Click to expand...
One of the primary architects once said in 1994 that she'd have taken every one of them if she'd only had the votes.

Why am I supposed to believe this person when she throws around words like "reasonable" and "compromise" now?
 
It depends on the individual or "crowd"

Some want to get rid of anything that is not a "hunting" firearm. I think most anti gunners fall in this category. I believe this is because they have no sense of history or current world events.

Some want to get rid of all handguns and semi automatic rifles because they believe they are a danger to society and have no place in our "modern" society.

Some want to take EVERYTHING. I personally believe this is the minority but it really does not matter as they are all looking in the wrong direction.

The problem is that they just don't value the right. If they don't value the right they have a hard time understanding how anyone needs it if they don't need or want it. Its this way with many Anti crowds be it gay rights, abortion rights, labor rights, free speech or freedom of the press. If they don't value it no amount of facts or information will sway their opinion.

This will be a fight until the end of humanity I believe and we will have losses and victories. As someone who values freedom in every form possible I believe we are in the right and on the right side of history. Anyone who does not accept freedom even if they don't agree with it needs to take a look at their value system.
 
jason_iowa said:
Some want to get rid of anything that is not a "hunting" firearm.
Click to expand...

They only want that because they believe that the Evil Black Rifles are the source of the problem.

If we made a machine tomorrow that would vaporize every semi-auto rifle in America, "those people" would only be happy until the next nutjob shot up a room with a bolt-action, because it was all he could get, and then "they" would ban those.


Make no mistake, it's the Slippery Slope... or "Creeping Incrementalism", if you prefer... and it won't stop until we're at the bottom.

There's two types of Antis. The intentional and the clueless along for the ride.
 
BINGO!!!
You hit the nail on the head.



Are restrictions of the ownership of semiauto rifles and larger capacity magazines the main goal?
Or are they actually after something else?
Tom Gresham, on his Guntalk podcast, has been discussing this.
Maybe what they are really going for is the so called universal background check, expanded to a firearms owner database.
And that could easily lead to a form of gun registration, making confiscation easier.
Could this be the administration's true ambitions?
 
There is nothing unreasonable in the classes of weapons we are currently allowed to own, (in most states).

You are correct. The people actually pushing this thing again know they will probably lose, but any win at all is a win in their book. Think it through, every state that has passed new gun-control legislation is a feather in their cap. Another state closer to to the final solution.

But on the other side there is a strong push back. Win a state lose a state, maybe more. This is becoming a very polarizing issue and it's exactly this kind of thing that can bring about dramatic shifts in the overall scheme of things.

As soon as the line becomes sharply divided it becomes easier to count the votes and know if it's time for a new Constitutional Amendment or time to shut it down and move on to the next item on the agenda.
 
It's as simple as this: There are people out there that just can't STAND others having something they can't have or do not want for whatever reason. So, these people, who don't want to own any guns themselves, simply don't want others to have them.

There really is no other way to put this. These same people, if they couldn't have a black car, or simply don't want one, wouldn't want you to have one either. And, they would come up with all sorts of crazy half-cocked reasons why black cars are "evil". In fact, California had passed a law against black cars some years back.

The bottom line is that there are ignorant people, jealous people and stupid people in this world. Gun banners are all that rolled up into one. You really don't want to pander or appease these types of people. It's like pandering to or appeasing Momar Khadafi.
 
I know many non-gun people that think there already is a data base of gun owners by serial number. They think whenever a gun is found the police can check the serial number and find out who the owner is immediately.

Actually I've met a couple of people that have bought guns recently that thought the same thing. That is, when they bought the gun the serial number and their name went directly to a federal database.

If (and I only say 'if') we have to accept universal background checks do you think we could limit it to a check that is done and disappears and NOT let it became a universal gun owner database?
 
The gun debate is just like any other debate. There's moderates on both sides, and there's extremists on both sides. Right now, the moderates are still in control. I've seen a lot of outlandish proposals thrown out (psych evals before buying, no semi-auto anything, no more "armor piercing pistol ammo" whatever that is, etc).

Fortunately, the extreme anti's for the most part don't have enough sway to push those extreme laws. What they are doing is rallying the moderate anti's for what's currently on the table. I doubt a new AWB gets passed, but I am a little less confident about being able to stave off the background checks and mag bans.

I fear we're fighting a losing battle in the long run. As more Americans move to the cities, they have less use for a gun. As anyone that lives in the city and doesn't own or have access to land in the country can tell you, going shooting or hunting is a PITA. As shooting becomes less available to more and more Americans, the idea of what's reasonable is probably going to shift more towards the anti side.

I read on these forums a lot of people looking down their noses at those who don't have much use for a gun. Us telling them they need one for protection is like telling someone they need more exercise. True, yes. Will it be done? History says no. These people who don't have much use for a gun since they don't plink or hunt then get caught up in the gun debate and tend to fall towards more restrictions.

The whole "if you don't like guns, you're a pinko commie trying to make us eat soy burgers and do yoga blah blah" argument is what drives them that way. If you want to encourage more people to lean our way, you have to provide them with a reason to, for reasons I outlined above.

Everyone is ignorant on some issues, there's plenty of issues I'd be willing to bet not everyone hear has full knowledge but still has an opinion about. Same with the moderate anti's.
 
They're goal goes far beyond firearms. The destruction of the 2nd Amendment is a necessary step in achieving complete control. They will compile databases, create taxes related to firearms, limit magazine capacity to 10 then 7 and then anything at all.

They may not be able to just go door to door confiscating but they will begin the slow squeaze. They will do it through congress if they can or by executive order if they can't.

Pretty soon all but the most hardcore freedom lovers will have given up on gun ownership. There will be too much red tape, too expensive, and too impractical. How many people will hang onto their AR's if they become illegal to pocess? Most will turn them once they realize that although no one knows they own it they will never be able to shoot it again.

I think this current wave of gun buying across the country is similar to the tea party in 2010. A wave of people with good intentions but ultimately not very effective. I think the clock is ticking for us gun owners.
 
I think the clock is ticking for us gun owners.
Click to expand...

Sadly Shafter I agree with this statement. The progressives want to disarm America and I am afraid it will eventually happen. It may not be in the next 4 years, but they are a patient bunch and will chip away at gun rights until they are a thing of the past. I think the majority of gun owners will hand them over when instructed to do so. Those who do not will now become felons despite being law abiding, productive citizens their entire lives. Once the 2A is gone they will start on your other rights, it is already happening with religion, then will come free speech, etc.
 
Or are they actually after something else?
Click to expand...

Their plan is to end all "civilian" firearm ownership. They may not get there, but they will certainly try and their plan is very simple. All they need to do is get a toe in the door by banning certain "highly dangerous" guns, aka assault weapons. Once they can subjectively ban guns, not a single gun is safe.

Additionally, they want to sue gun makers out of existence and tried that route before. Now that they feel the climate has changed, they hope to be able to go down that road again.

Banning guns based on looks, causing makers to shutter their doors, creating a gun owner database..... Yeah, that means they want more than back ground checks and magazine limits.

They want the guns that you are not "responsible" enough to own. Believe it.
 
You don't have to go any further than to listen to Dianne Frankenfeinstein to know what they want. They want all firearms out of the hands of the common folk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top