A thought on AWB

[StukaJU87]

This may have already been brought up and if so please delete this thread.

Let me start out by saying I'm a huge supporter of any law abiding citizens right to own any firearm they choose and am strongly against any form of a weapons ban. We all know, as well as the gun grabbers do, that current gun legislation does very little to curb gun violence because criminals don't follow the law. Therefore, if criminals don't follow current laws, logic dictates that criminals won't follow any future laws either, making future AWBs pointless.

With that being said, after hearing arguments from both sides, I've noticed that they seem to be reading from the same script. By that I mean that both sides point their finger at the other side and say "How dare you use a tragedy and the fear of future tragedies to further your personal agenda!"

We say the politicians are using our fear of future tragedies to take away our rights, while the gun gabbers claim we are using the fear of future tragedies to justify more gun and gun related sales.

How many of us have been at a LGS or show and heard the speech: "buy now because tomorrow might be too late!" While this may be true, how is this any different then their argument to ban guns? Their argument is "ban today because tomorrow might be to late!"

I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying if you listen closely, it sounds like both sides are saying the same thing, using the same excuses, and whether we realize it or not, both sides are using a tragedy to further their own agenda. They want our guns, we want to keep our guns. It's that simple.

Two sides of the same coin using the same examples and fears to strengthen their numbers. It's an argument that has probaly gone on since guns were invented and I'm sure it will continue long after we're gone, provided they don't take away the 2nd Ammendment.

Anyways, I feel the idea of gun bans are a joke because guns are the result of violence. Look at the "Old West". Wasn't it guns that brought law and order to the west?

There was violence long before guns were invented. Violence is not the result of guns, but of man himself.

End of rant. Lol

[cen]

Very well said.

[Jeremiah/Az]

I have never heard anyone blame a car for the drunk driver. Why blame the gun? Media hype?

[LRChops]

Citizens face the same threats as LEO's and potentially the same as military. Therefore citizens should be armed with the same firearms as law enforcement and the military. That is the #2 Ammendment!

[kraigwy]

Kelly the NYPD Police Commissioner (I think his name is Kelly) was on the week end news talk show saying, "yeah get rid of Assault Weapons, but they aren't the problem, the problem is concealable hand guns".

Kind of blows holes in the AW problem doesn't it?

Anyway, the way the Republican Leaders and Harry Reid are talking now, I don't see the Fienstine ban even coming up for a vote in the senate.

They can't come close to getting the 60 votes for closure and Reid says he's not going to force his Reagan Democrats to vote for something that would cost them their job in two years.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD LET UP, Keep writing and calling your congressman and senators.

[dlb435]

"Kelly the NYPD Police Commissioner (I think his name is Kelly) was on the week end news talk show saying, "yeah get rid of Assault Weapons, but they aren't the problem, the problem is concealable hand guns"."
There you have the true issue. The problem is that neither side in the gun control debate wants to address it. The anti-gun people always want to point to "assault weapons" when they are not the problem, but those black, ugly guns are easy to identify. For most anti-gun people they are scarry. There is no thought process involved, it's just a gut reaction.
For the pro-gun side few advocates want to talk about handguns. Almost half of all handgun deaths are suicides. If you start talking about handguns this uncomfortable fact quickly comes up.
I live near New Orleans and the murder rate is very high. Almost all are handguns, almost all involve people that are either too young to own a handgun or have a criminal history. We already laws that make that cover this. The problem is not a lack of laws but enforcement of what is already on the books.
The police just want to hit the "easy" button. It takes a lot of time and effort to get the comminity to work with the police. In our area the police are not trusted by many of the local people. They have a history of corruption, violence, malfeasance and even murder. Before they could even hope to get any help from the areas hit hardest by violence they need to establish themselves as a trustworthy organization.

[DaleA]

Yup, both sides pointing fingers.

I'd say this though, the anti-gun folk started it!

We were just sitting around minding our own business and the gun control crowd got all wound up again this time with the 'assault weapon' slogan as their rallying cry. We just reacted to what they may actually bring about.

I might not mention the Wild West too much though...didn't some of the legendary sheriffs and marshals calm down their towns by confiscating guns from the cowboys when they rode in?

[Gaerek]

Anyway, the way the Republican Leaders and Harry Reid are talking now, I don't see the Fienstine ban even coming up for a vote in the senate.

They can't come close to getting the 60 votes for closure and Reid says he's not going to force his Reagan Democrats to vote for something that would cost them their job in two years.

Let's keep in mind that even if it did pass the Senate (and last I saw, they are expecting a 51 to 49, against if it were voted right now, and a 50/50 means Crazy Uncle Joe gets to vote), there's no way it could pass the House.

But here's the real issue. The Feinstein bill won't pass. However, they could water that thing down enough to get enough votes. Limiting magazine capacity seems to be something that could be easy to pass...and possibly in the House as well because it's what they consider a common sense measure (we all know the truth). Something is going to come out of all of this. And it's likely something that won't make either side happy.

[SPEMack618]

What is with all this defeatism?

I read some posts here that make it seem like we're in a French HQ in April of 1940. The Panzers aren't knocking at the door.

Write/call/email/fax your Congressional reps. We don't have to budge on one single thing.

As General Forrest said so eloquently "Keep up the skeer."

[TailGator]

The illogic of gun control activists would be hilarious were it not so dangerous.

FBI statistics show only about 2% of murders are committed with any type of rifle, but banning ugly rifles is supposed to solve the crime problem.

Since 30-round magazines have been used in some shootings, the solution is to ban magazines over 10 rounds. Everyone knows there are no numbers between 10 and 30. And our goal is to create momentary pauses in mass shootings?

Also regarding magazine limits: Has it occurred to them that restricting magazines to 10 rounds is going to create market pressure in favor of the smaller more concealable handguns that they fear?

[Armorer-at-Law]

We say the politicians are using our fear of future tragedies to take away our rights, while the gun gabbers claim we are using the fear of future tragedies to justify more gun and gun related sales.

How many of us have been at a LGS or show and heard the speech: "buy now because tomorrow might be too late!" While this may be true, how is this any different then their argument to ban guns? Their argument is "ban today because tomorrow might be to late!"

I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying if you listen closely, it sounds like both sides are saying the same thing, using the same excuses, and whether we realize it or not, both sides are using a tragedy to further their own agenda. They want our guns, we want to keep our guns. It's that simple.

I don't follow (or agree with) your logic. The pro-freedom side (us) is not using "the fear of future tragedies to justify more gun and gun related sales," unless you are calling a possible future AWB a "tragedy." Both sides are not saying the same thing at all.

[Alizard]

Clearly both sides are fear mongering to motivate their followers, but not fear of the same things.

The reason they are going after assault weapons is that there is legal precedent for banning weapons too dangerous for public usage (machine guns used to be legal to own, now are banned). An AR is not a machine gun, but with a 50 round mag, it could be argued it has similar firepower. Whether the argument flies would be decided by the courts.

[Alizard]

I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying if you listen closely, it sounds like both sides are saying the same thing, using the same excuses, and whether we realize it or not, both sides are using a tragedy to further their own agenda. They want our guns, we want to keep our guns. It's that simple.

The problem is this: the antis like Feinstein and the rest REALLY DO WANT ALL GUNS BANNED. If you could open their skulls and look into their brains, you would see that. They are lying about claiming they want to keep the 2A intact. So, the NRA is not paranoid in saying that, it really is true. And anything gun owners "give away" is just taking a step toward their end game.

We are all lucky the SCOTUS affirmed 2A in the Heller decision. That stopped them dead in their tracks. It's the reason Obama has not done anything on gun control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

[Skans]

By that I mean that both sides point their finger at the other side and say "How dare you use a tragedy and the fear of future tragedies to further your personal agenda!"

No gun owner is trying to politicize recent events. That is 100% on the anti-gun crowd.

How many of us have been at a LGS or show and heard the speech: "buy now because tomorrow might be too late!" While this may be true, how is this any different then their argument to ban guns? Their argument is "ban today because tomorrow might be to late!"

It's very different because:
1. gun salesmen are just that - salesmen, no different than a car salesman. How many times have you heard a car salesman tell you "I have 3 people interested in that car, it won't be here tomorrow"...
2. The president, vice president, a large number of your Senators and even some House members are working on banning, restricting, regulating, and taxing your ability to own guns - they are spending gobs of money and tons of political capital trying to convince Americans that more gun bans are needed. That is a genuine threat, not simple salesmanship.
3. I've never head any anti argument that goes "ban today because tomorrow might be too late". No, they just use any opportunity to ramp up their gun-ban network.

Taking away something that I lawfully own and my right to purchase something that I should be legally allowed to own IS NOT THE SAME as me wanting to keep my guns. That's just plain nuts! It is not "two sides to the same coin". Not even close.

Anyways, I feel the idea of gun bans are a joke because guns are the result of violence. Look at the "Old West". Wasn't it guns that brought law and order to the west?

More bad logic. First, gun bans are not a joke. Not for me, anyway. I have lived through 3 gun bans (86, 89, and 94) - and all of them have whittled away at our 2nd Amendment rights and ability to defend ourselves against criminals and against tyranny. Guns are not the result of violence. Death, and physical injury are the result of violence. Guns are the result of a specific set of manufacturing process in response to people's demands to be able to adequately defend themselves.

One more thing: Guns neither brought anarchy or law and order to the Old West. People did.

[StukaJU87]

3. I've never head any anti argument that goes "ban today because tomorrow might be too late".

I meant they're trying to say ban now because if you wait, it will be too late to save a life. They're playing on emotions and fears.

More bad logic. First, gun bans are not a joke.

Again, you missunderstood my meaning. By joke, I didn't mean funny, I meant that they serve no real purpose since they don't do anything to reduce or remove violence.

Also, I wasn't trying to say gun owners were using a recent tragedy, I was pointing out that the gun grabbers are saying the LGS are using fear itself to further their sales. Fear of not being able purchase guns and the fear of not being able to protect our loved ones due to a gun ban, which would be a "future tragedy".

Both sides are not saying the same thing at all.

Not word for word, but both side are fueled by fear and use potential scenerios to gain support. They say there will be more crime and violence if they don't ban, we say there will be more crime and violence if they do ban. Both sides claim either action will cause the same result, how is that not the same thing?

Sorry if my thoughts didnt come across clearly.

I might not mention the Wild West too much though...didn't some of the legendary sheriffs and marshals calm down their towns by confiscating guns from the cowboys when they rode in?

You are correct. A little fact that I managed to overlook while on my pro gun rant. Lol
Unfortunately, right or wrong, this just goes to show that gun owners have always had to deal with varying forms of gun control.

[Skans]

we say there will be more crime and violence if they do ban. Both sides claim either action will cause the same result, how is that not the same thing?

Because if you think that's all pro-gun people are saying, you are missing the most important part of the conversation. Having a "safe" society, whether its with more or less guns has never been OUR concern - this is something the antis like to raise "if only one life is saved....." Our quoting crime statistics to rebut their false presumption that more guns means more violence, is just that - a rebuttal to a stupid argument.

My (and many others) main position is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear (carry and/or use) arms. Notice that there is no restriction on what kind of arms, or limitations on why we can keep and bear arms. However, it is understood that our guns are mainly to provide individuals with the ability to combat a foreign insurgence or a tyrant from taking over our government. When our leaders who are elected and work for us fear "the people" so much that they want to take our guns away, that is an indication of a government that may be working more for itself and not for us. Private citizens owning guns are a crucial "check" in our system of checks and balances.

[StukaJU87]

You'll get no argument from me. I agree with everything you just said.

[BlueTrain]

Not to throw a monkey wrench into the works but I've heard certain cars blamed for a lot of accidents, though not for drunk driving. You see, there does seem to be a propensity for a few high performance cars to be driven fast and, sometimes, recklessly, like it or not. But perhaps you don't get out on the highway very much and you aren't aware of that.

[Skans]

BlueTrain, are we really going to equate getting behind the wheel of a sportscar or motorcycle and pushing it well past the speed limit to wanting to try out your AR-15 and murdering as many people as you can???

Let me say this, I have a fast motorcycle and a bunch of military style rifles with very large magazines. While I have driven that motorcycle over 100mph on a couple of occasions, the thought of killing another human being "just to test it out" or for "thrills" or for any dang reason is sickeningly repugnant to me.