|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 17, 2013, 08:45 PM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
I got better for awhile, and given all the gains we've made lately, I started to get optimistic. The problem is, I'm hearing all the same drivel I heard from gun owners 20 years ago. In the last couple of supposedly pivotal elections, voter turnout has been pathetic. Joe Bob wants to yell at me about "the ban," but he doesn't know which one. He hasn't made even the most perfunctory attempt to contact his representatives. Heck, he can't even name them. Sorry gang, but when the vast majority of gun owners can't be troubled to so much as get off the couch, we deserve what we get.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 17, 2013, 09:45 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
Sadly, whatever they get, we get too. |
|
February 18, 2013, 06:15 AM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
What we need to do ... somehow ... is get through to these people that their new home defense Megablaster X27 is NOT grandfathered forever. It's only safe until the antis choose to ban it. Heck, in New York many people even on the gun forums don't understand that an 8-round 1911 magazine is only grandfathered for one year. I don't know how to get people to wake up and (as the late Ann Landers used to say) smell the coffee. Note - the post that this responds to, was deleted as it had some problems. So let it go. It is a shame that folks cannot abide by some simple rules. Sigh. - GEM. Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; February 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM. |
|
February 18, 2013, 08:30 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
NY state residents will soon be required to dispose of their evil semi-auto rifles. |
|
February 18, 2013, 10:20 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 311
|
Its time to choose a side
"We must all hang together or we will hang seperately" Benjamin Franklin! The attack on our Constitional rights is in full swing. Someone said if guns are banned he would be on the side of the law. The law of our land is that we have the right to bear arms. PERIOD! Any law taking away our rights is invalid. Passing a law capping the maximum number of rounds allowed in a magazine is as stupid as passing a law capping the maximum number of people one is allowed to kill! Criminals don't follow laws. How about a law stopping criminals from being out of jail! Maybe someone in our government will enforce the 20,000+ gun laws we already have and keep dangerous criminals where they belong! More laws are not needed. MORE enforcement and keeping criminals off the streets will do more good than passing an endless list of more laws that punish law abiding citizens!
|
February 18, 2013, 12:05 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
The original article describes a phenomenon I have observed with frustrating frequency; most gun owners believe that their arms are protected while the arms of different sorts are on necessary or not protected by the Second Amendment.
I have found this most egregiously amongst the clay and trap expensive shotgun owners. To be charitable, they analogize the use to which they put their own arms, a highly social sport, to all legitimate use of all arms everywhere. To be less charitable, the discomfort they feel at people unlike them possessing firearms is exactly the kind of discomfort that drives gun bans politically. They are not the only group to display this pattern. I have known competitive rifle shooters who can't quite wrap their minds around private possession of semiautomatic firearms. Perhaps they are so enthralled by the beauty and challenge involved in landing a single round precisely that other uses seem to distant in terms of utility. Often, the deer hunter who shoots one or two dozen rounds per year with some friends does not consider himself a "gun guy" and does not see himself as exercising a right in any way connected with three gun competitions. Although I read these sentiment less frequently now, I can remember 25 years ago reading articles by "experts" that maintained that a permit to carry should only be issued to the highly trained and subsequently state certified user. Part of the preparation work for defending a civil right involves explaining to the people affected the nature of the right involved. Only if they understand that they all engage in a specific exercise of a broad and general right can they then come to understand that infringement of a specific exercise they may oppose is also an infringement of the right they share.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
February 18, 2013, 12:42 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Using the term 'modern sporting rifle' is a step on the road to losing them.
Said this many times. The guns exist for their lethal potential for SD and protect against tyranny. They are too dangerous for simple sports. They are constitutional protected because they are that dangerous. They are not bowling balls (sports) or hammers (tools). NO antigun person is deceived by 'modern sporting rifle'.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 18, 2013, 12:48 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
||
February 18, 2013, 01:01 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
EDIT: I know that there is some overlap in the hunting / sniper rifle category. But I do not think there is in the semi / select fire category currently being scrutinized.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
February 18, 2013, 01:08 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
For what it is worth, my take is that when the neutral person gets two presentations for the AR:
1. Sporting gun 2. Weapons of War - they will go with #2. They certainly if buying into sport, will go for the mag ban.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 18, 2013, 01:24 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
|
We're all remembering that the first country to ban "military style weapons" in the modern era was Nazi Germany right?
"The Gesetz über die Entwaffnung der Bevölkerung (Law on the Disarmament of the People), passed on August 7, 1920, provided for a Reichskommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population. He was empowered to define which weapons were “military weapons” and thus subject to seizure. The bolt action Mauser rifles Models 1888/98, which had 5-shot magazines, were put in the same class as hand grenades. Persons with knowledge of unlawful arms caches were required to inform the Disarmament Commission." Sounds almost identical to a number our opponents proposals doesn't it? I've found quoting from these laws, without sourcing the quote initially, then asking an anti if they agree with these measures to be very effective when I inform the entire room that the source of the quote and the context afterward. The purpose of the law was to disarm political opponents and make it possible to violently suppress opposition. More on these laws. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513066
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado |
February 18, 2013, 01:25 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
I have a harder time with the magazine capacity issue. I do not currently have any of the long guns under scrutiny and not many hand guns with high capacity magazines. But I am doing my best to advocate for all gun owners not just the guns I own. When asked about the need for the magazines I am at a bit of a loss. I can not think of many reasons I need one that do not sound like I want to be prepared for an armed insurrection, I try not to scare the receptive people in the middle or give ammunition(pun intended) to the anti crowd. But I also can not think of any reason I should not have them. If someone could help me clarify my arguments on the magazine issue I would be grateful.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
February 18, 2013, 01:33 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
February 18, 2013, 01:38 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
|
Chaz, you and I posted at the same time, try my methods listed above.
It will make your whole day to see the look on some anti's face when you've provedto an entire roomful of people that they are perfectly okay with following in the footsteps(goosesteps?) of Nazi Germany. I'm particularly fond of the shade of eggplant purple one man's face turned when I used the phrase "well then you and Hitler are solidly in the same corner on this issue aren't you", then was able to prove what I said. It is a particularly effective argument against people who talk about "you're being paranoid"." I'm sure lot's of the Nazi's opponents were told exactly that, look how that attitude turned out.", causes a lot of frowns and reconsidering faces on people who will listen.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado |
February 18, 2013, 01:55 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
|
I think we posted at the same time again.
Yes, Hitler increased access to guns for the people who supported him. If you read through the entire article I referenced above (click through the the thread link) as I recall it addresses this. The majority of people who are for this sort of gun laws won't be affected by them.In other words, for the people who don't own guns, only shoot skeet, hunters etc. who don't own, or plan to own, this type of weapon all that's happening is their opponents are being disarmed. Anti gun politicians have a long history of not feeling like these restrictions apply to them, so this is only disarming the opposition, that for the most part, stands in the way of their plans.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado Last edited by scrubcedar; February 18, 2013 at 05:06 PM. |
February 18, 2013, 05:23 PM | #41 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
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. |
||
February 18, 2013, 05:49 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. Last edited by Chaz88; February 18, 2013 at 05:56 PM. |
|
February 18, 2013, 06:41 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
February 18, 2013, 07:18 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
|
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?
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado |
February 18, 2013, 08:31 PM | #45 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
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. |
|
February 18, 2013, 09:47 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
|
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.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado |
February 18, 2013, 10:37 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 728
|
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.
|
February 19, 2013, 09:48 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 311
|
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!
|
February 19, 2013, 10:14 PM | #49 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 20, 2013, 02:16 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
|
Re: It's Time to Choose a Side
Quote:
Last edited by Spats McGee; February 20, 2013 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Correcting quotation codes |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|