The gun grabbers are turning up the heat: confidence or desperation?

[breakingcontact]

It appears to me that the anti crowd is really turning up the heat.

-Shotgun Joe has sound bites in the news daily now on gun control. Increasingly mocking any gun owners except hunters that agree with him.

-MO Highway Patrol turning over list of carry permit holders to the Feds and the Feds asking for it.

-Many of the antis and those who haul water for them, increasingly misusing terms, misleading the public (aka lying)

-FLOTUS now making emotional appeals to those trapped in failed communities in Chicago(communities that the left destroyed)

-Talking points being hammered over and over again (reasonable gun control, common sense gun control, responsible gun owners (just shotgun hunters))

Are these examples (and many others) evidence of the gun grabbers becoming more confident or more desperate?

[Tom Servo]

I think it's just petulance and foot-stomping. Sandy Hook was a golden opportunity for the gun-control crowd to get everything they wanted, and they thought they could get it rammed through without too much effort.

Two of the three main items on their agenda (AWB and magazine restrictions) have now been tabled, and the third is being whittled down to the point of ineffectiveness as we speak.

Joe Biden was put on point for spearheading this, and his rhetoric is a decent barometer. He has gone from arrogance to pleading ("c'mon, you don't need an AR-15") to childish mockery (this week's "black helicopter" comments).

Yes, they're getting desperate. Still, we're far from being out of the woods.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think we have seen a net loss, so far - if the new Background bill (whatever that is to be) goes through without some provision that extends gun rights as a fair trade compromise. Heard a guy from the National Review state this and I agree.

1. Heller - praise be! But reasonable restrictions and common usage are used and it will take years until the SCOTUS overturns laws like NY, CT or UT - IF they do. Don't count on it. We think they protect - but remember the claim that shall not be infringed was a magic spell. Didn't work out that way.

2. The Background check bill is seen clearly as a first step and they await new election results for more moves on antigun attempts. If gun rights stays the restricted domain of a subset of the GOP that will be all she wrote. Progun democrats (Manchin - ) or fair weather friends like Toomey will jump on that band wagon.

3. Major states will go for gun bans. How long till the SCOTUS actually deals with things like the SAFE act - come back in many years from now.

So, I don't see a watered down background check as any sort of victory.

[lcpiper]

if the new Background bill (whatever that is to be) goes through without some provision that extends gun rights as a fair trade compromise. Heard a guy from the National Review state this and I agree.

No matter how "reasonable" or even beneficial in the short term. The long term effect is a precedent that the Federal Government has the authority to set policy on these issues. This should be challenged as a violation of the 10th and we can fight this battle in each and every state instead of playing this game for keepers at the "whole enchilada" level.

The President and his ilk say "Something must be done"

They don't care about the little people, if they did they wouldn't be dragging these Sandy Hook Moms out there to be used like they are. That is not even a decent thing to do but they are shameless and will do anything for their cause.

Guys like Toomey are liable to use this as a bargaining chip for something else and then the damage will be done.

[csmsss]

I'm not sure how I'd characterize this - I'm not sure either adjective is exactly the case. The gun-grabbers unfailingly reach for every opportunity to push the agenda. These opportunities come periodically, and not last week a poll came out that claims that 90% of Americans support enhanced background checks - so they're exploiting what they see as an opening there to push other agenda items at the same time. Nothing we haven't seen before and won't see again each time an exploitable event occurs.

[sigcurious]

until the SCOTUS overturns laws like NY, CT or UT

Quick aside, did I miss something in UT?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to know a fancy term from the literature - Something must be done is known as a moral panic.

Something terrible happens and action must be taken even if the measure is known to be ineffectual or even damaging. Seen in the video game debates, drug war and DARE and other social problems.

[csmsss]

Quick aside, did I miss something in UT

Unless that's a total flub, I must have too. Perhaps he/she meant Maryland, which no one seems to be talking about.

[pnac]

If you want to know a fancy term from the literature - Something must be done is known as a moral panic.

Something terrible happens and action must be taken even if the measure is known to be ineffectual or even damaging. Seen in the video game debates, drug war and DARE and other social problems.

That's what we "ol' timers" call fear mongering, Glenn. It's been going on as long as I can remember. I recall well the nuclear-bomb-proof desks we were drilled to hide under in elem. school, to protect us when the "Red Menace" struck. How the adults could scare kids this way has always amazed me, or maybe the teachers were as gullible as the kids were.

[BarryLee]

This was part of Mr. Obama’s Party Platform clearly stating before the election or any other event occurred what he would do and he has. So, no surprises and he’ll keep at it for at least the next four years, so get ready.

“We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.” Democratic Party Platform 2012

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We need fancy terms so I can make a living.

[Tom Servo]

These opportunities come periodically, and not last week a poll came out that claims that 90% of Americans support enhanced background checks

I keep seeing that number, but I haven't seen the data to back it. Chances are, it was a limited pool of respondents and the question was misleading.

"Mr. Smith, do support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously insane?"

"Well, sure."

"So, do you support universal background checks for all gun sales?"

"Well, that depends on..."

"Thanks, Mr. Smith. We'll mark that as a 'yes.' Have a good night."

In this month's American Rifleman, the NRA quotes a study showing 91% opposition to UBC's. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[Double Naught Spy]

In this month's American Rifleman, the NRA quotes a study showing 91% opposition to UBC's. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The truth may be in the middle as well as what people believe the truth to be. Both sides are quick to discount the claims, polls, data, interpretations of the other, often on such grounds as you suggest (misleading questions, fudged responses, etc.). I am not even sure the "truth" even matters anymore. It seems to be more about how the situations can be spin doctored.

Glenn may be right that we might be at something of a net loss right now from where we were. What I am surprised to be seeing is that instead of a moving of the proverbial Overton Window to a new societal norm/compromise, there seems to be some serious polarization at state levels where some are going more restrictive and others going less restrictive.

Turning up the heat? That gets back to the sort of truth issue again. Are they really turning up the heat or are you just now more aware of the activities going on than you were previously? More media coverage or awareness of media coverage does not necessarily mean more activity. However, if you can't readily discern whether the reason for the activity is confidence or desperation, does it really then matter if it is confidence or desperation? Either way, you still have to fight it.

[Tom Servo]

Glenn may be right that we might be at something of a net loss right now from where we were.

I don't think of it in terms of net gain/loss. Any new restrictions are a loss, period.

I've heard plenty of rhetoric from the other side about how "universal" background checks, no matter how feebly implemented, is "a good first step." That implies that it's not the last thing we'll be seeing.

Now, say they give us something in return (the much-vaunted "compromise" they discuss). They will immediately set to work chipping away at it, all the while trying to get new restrictions passed.

If they win at any aspect of this, no matter if it's even a token regulation, they will be emboldened, and things will get worse in subsequent sessions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is the total sum of actions. My proposal (which I sent to the NRA buddies) was that if gun show, private sales went through NICS (an inconvenience) the trade would be that NO state could impose checks or waiting periods and/or weapons type / equipment bans on top of those at the Federal level. Thus, the NY, CO, UT laws would be voided.

That is something I would accept for guys going through NICS at the gun show.

That is what I was thinking about. I think that the rash of states imposing draconian laws is a terrible loss. I also don't think they will overturned by the SCOTUS anytime soon. I think, yet again, that Scalias reasonable restrictions and common usage were a terrible hole and a net loss. The right to have a double barrel in your home may be the only thing that survives those terms. I know we have posted long analyses of the decisions but I think I have it operatively correct.

Anybody want to bet that the NY SAFE ACT is overturned by the SCOTUS:

This year
Next year
5 years
Never

[Onward Allusion]

The issue is polarizing. There are fewer and fewer in the middle. The doo-doo will hit the fan at some point. Be it a massive change in 2014 or something else.

The thing about this whole gun control issue is that all the anti's are ignoring ONE MAJOR FACT. If everyone is so in favor of gun control, why the hell is ammo and new guns flying off the shelves? Surely you can't tell me that it is because EXISTING gun owners are grabbing everything up. Can you imagine how many people are arming themselves because the current administration and its cronies are pushing for more gun control? These are people who had been in the middle. . .

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Can you imagine how many people are arming themselves because the current administration and its cronies are pushing for more gun control? These are people who had been in the middle. . .

Unfortunately, it's doubtful that many of those people will suddenly become activists. They're behaving like consumers, which isn't the same thing, by a long shot, as behaving like citizens.

[Battler]

I would say the vast majority of guns and ammo fleeing the shelves is from existing owners buying up new toys. I had a new "take a new shooter shooting" prospect recently who seriously hampered logistically by the shortages. Longer-term gunowners, from experience, are more inclined to (know to) stockpile and are more savvy in how to buy things earlier in the sales channel.

[Tom Servo]

Be it a massive change in 2014 or something else.

A lot of folks seem to be counting on a big sea-change in 2014. Don't bet on it. We heard predictions of the same in 2010 and 2012. Didn't happen. Folks aren't voting. We can't count on an apathetic and poorly informed electorate. We need to plant our heels now.

That is something I would accept for guys going through NICS at the gun show.

In all honesty, I can't see us getting any sort of quid pro quo arrangement with the other side. Sure, they might dangle a carrot in exchange for what they want, but it will end up being repealed at some point, while the restrictions we agree to will remain. The very premise expects honest dealings from people who are hardly known for that.

[breakingcontact]

I was defending my Senators today on twitter for this very reason. People criticize the legislators who didn't want to go along with this most recent set of "common sense" proposals (whatever they may be).

We won't allow ourselves to be dictated to while it is being called compromise.

The criminal justice and mental healthcare systems need alteration, not our unalienable right to arms.

[SIGSHR]

It's a polarizing issue because, like the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, it's an either-or issue. Those people back then said they were entitled to certain rights that could not be restricted or taken away merely because they were the wrong color, so it is with us today.

[BarryLee]

A lot of folks seem to be counting on a big sea-change in 2014. Don't bet on it. We heard predictions of the same in 2010 and 2012. Didn't happen. Folks aren't voting. We can't count on an apathetic and poorly informed electorate. We need to plant our heels now.

Is the problem that people aren’t voting or that they are voting for the idea of security over freedom?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

People have many day-to-day concerns and being informed on legislation isn't one of them. As a result, many voters have little or no information even on legislation they are interested in and those that do have information often get the majority or all of it from a single biased source.

I've been reading the WaPo's account of Toomey's role in gun control and it basically boils down to he needs suburban soccer moms who will only know what they read in the Philadelphia Inquirer to win. Most of those voters couldn't tell you anything about firearms or even what existing gun laws are; but now they may well determine the law for all 300 million of us.

[Double Naught Spy]

Is the problem that people aren’t voting or that they are voting for the idea of security over freedom?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/presid...er-statistics/

Well in the last Presidential election, we had the highest turnout since 1968 with an estimated 57.5% of the voting age population voting. That is pretty good, but still leaves a huge chunk of the population NOT voting.

[MLeake]

What amazes me is that some of the biggest loudmouths, the guys who rant and rave about politics at work, don't vote - they say our votes don't count, or that the system is rigged, or that they don't like either candidate.

Sometimes they are so hard right or left that nobody can pass their purity test.

Other non-voters are just lazy, but that should come as no surprise.