|
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 |
January 11, 2013, 11:15 AM | #351 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 123
|
Quote:
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone. |
|
January 11, 2013, 02:08 PM | #352 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
The longer things drag out, the more the chance that another "event" will occur. Nothing has been done to alleviate any of the root causes for the shootings. If anything, conditions that cause them have gotten worse. & I'm not talking about guns here,,,,,but,,,you can bet that the anti gun side is going to jump all over the sudden demand that's taken place... If another event that matched Dec. 14th's scope of horror were to take place in the near future - you'd be lucky to be able to register a BB gun in this country... |
|
February 19, 2013, 04:36 AM | #353 |
Member
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 49
|
The temporary anti-gun sentiment
Looks like the anti-gun rally is losing steam:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/op...rticle_sidebar Here's to hoping calmer heads prevail over this anti-gun sentiment. |
February 19, 2013, 08:52 AM | #354 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
I don't know about it loosing steam. Looks like the administration is going "state by state" manipulating state legislatures.
|
February 19, 2013, 10:41 AM | #355 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Oh, they're definitely losing steam.
Colorado is the only place outside of the usual anti-gun enclaves where they appear to be getting anything done. The President is one of the very few remaining federal level politicians still pushing for more gun control (and it appears that nobody in Congress is listening... bans are off the table there). In the various states, while ban bills have been introduced, in the vast majority they have been stuffed into dark holes from which they shall not return. Moreover, the anti gun folks are showing themselves to have overreached- the confiscation bills in MO and MN that are dead in the water and the confiscation/unconstitutional search bill in WA that supposedly was put out there "in error."* This particular set of battles in legislatures is in wind-down phase. If we keep the pressure on the anti-gun forces will get nothing. Then it's off to the courts to see if some of the recent legislation (such as in NY) will stand up to the new Heller based scrutiny. I rather wonder if they won't... if that is the case, then we may even see magazine and politically incorrect gun bans struck down nationwide. *Error, sure. It's pretty clear these bills are written by outside lobbying groups and they got carried away with their wish lists. While those groups have their politicians willing to introduce bills, very few are willing to sign on to such things. |
February 19, 2013, 11:15 AM | #356 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
Technosavant, I hope you are right, and I am wrong. NY, California, now Colorado... State by state.
|
February 19, 2013, 11:21 AM | #357 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,552
|
I agree that the anti's have lost the momentum.
But... we are a country of over 300 million. The bills are all written and the media groundwork has been laid. The other side can patiently wait for the next mass shooting. Could be a month or could be a year. But it is hard to argue there won't be one.... we better be ready. I agree the AWB is dead at this point. I hope the magazine capacity bills are dead but something _could_ still happen there if we don't watch them. And then there is the whole "universal background check" thing. Seems like they are in full court press mode on that one. I'm just hoping people like Sen Coburn are going to be able to deflect them into just improving reporting and the whole mental health thing. This one isn't over yet. As far as the states go... well, I'm not totally against this sort of thing. I'm against the actual legislation but... I'm a lot happier when they do it state by state. Rather than having a large and intrusive Federal Government shoving it down our throats. Pro-gun people can control their states and the crazy people that want to live in the super high density population zones can have theirs. I'm sad for the pro-gun people that live in NY but I would rather see that outcome than a national law created to "help NYC and Chicago" that affects gun owners in Oklahoma. And we all know it is easier to effect change at the state level. I can drive to OKC. I can actually talk to my state Reps and Senators. They come through my home town all the time. The Federal Government is much more insulated from public input. Gregg |
February 19, 2013, 11:54 AM | #358 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Quote:
So far, with the exception of NY (already a morass of gun control) and CO (more and more overrun by folks intent on turning it into California 2: Electric Boogaloo), they've won nothing. Not one thing. And even in CO the limit is 15 rounds... not the ten they often try for and certainly not the seven the poor folks in NY had rammed down their throats. So they want to come out with some kind of victory. Two months ago I was thinking that if we escaped with nothing more than background checks on all transfers, we got out of this storm in surprisingly good shape. I'm still thinking that may be the case, but then again, by no means do we even need to give on that... rather, we can even take part in that discussion and shape it if it can't be quashed. Why did this happen? Is it because of the money involved, as the Chicago police commissioner claims? Hardly. It's because people like us contacted our legislators and made our wishes very clear. As said, that's easier to do on a more local basis... state by state action is much harder for the antis to fight since there's still not that many places amenable to their desires. If we keep it up, we'll keep winning. This is the kind of groundswell that just didn't happen in 1994 (not until after the ban passed, that is). We're showing them that the election results of '94 were not a fluke. We're still here. We still care. And we're paying very close attention. |
|
February 19, 2013, 12:20 PM | #359 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
It will be interesting to see what happens to the legislators in the states pushing for stricter gun control when election time comes. Hopefully a lot of the anti supporters will loose their seats, and send a message to the politicians similar to what happened when the Clinton ban was voted in.
|
February 19, 2013, 01:05 PM | #360 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Yipee. Some folks finally got out and voted, but it was too late at that point. We still had the ban for another ten years. We need to be proactive, not reactive.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 19, 2013, 01:21 PM | #361 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
Proactive yes. The Clinton ARB is one reason the one the reasons the Obama administration is running into resistance now.
|
February 19, 2013, 03:27 PM | #362 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
I wonder how much of this may actually be part of a strategy. It quickly became apparent that legislation could not be moved at the federal level before public support waned, but the states were a different story. There was suddenly an excuse to rush forward with new laws in confirmed anti-gun states and to make inroads in other, more gun-friendly states.
The national effort may be a diversion while our flanks are attacked in the states. More gun control IS being imposed, not nationally but on a large part of the population. Harsher restrictions in CA, NY, MA, MD, CO, and CT will cover 79 million people or 25% of the country's population. One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard. |
February 19, 2013, 03:34 PM | #363 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
|
|
February 19, 2013, 04:14 PM | #364 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Quote:
Look at how much guns have been going mainstream over the last 4-5 years. Guns were removed from many Walmarts and then were brought back, this time with AR-15s. Gun shops have gone from the land o' stereotypes to places willingly visited by first time buyers. You no longer need to feel like a leper if you're into guns, in fact, you likely have found people who will happily discuss guns with you at work, church, or anywhere else. Moreover, the people buying guns are not just hunters and that crazy dude down the street, but they're people like soccer moms and grandmothers. If they are to have any hope at all of getting new bans passed they HAVE to roll back this mainstreaming of firearms ownership. If they can shove us back in the closet they're halfway there. |
|
February 19, 2013, 06:12 PM | #365 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Of course, McDonald incorporated the Heller provisions against the states, so these laws are ripe fodder for a lawsuit. While it's little consolation to the residents of affected states in the immediate future, at least the damage will be relatively confined while we proceed with litigation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 19, 2013, 06:37 PM | #366 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
I think that is the strategy...states like CA do laws that clearly are outside and wait for a lawsuit, do a slow roll through the state judiciary system before it gets to the federal circuit, and in the meantime hope we all run out of money and time going from state to state, while they confiscate firearms and "lose" them, as Nagin did.
I might have this wrong, but it seems like the strategy is to take as much possible and make us bleed all the more to fight back state by state. Confiscate as much as they can and claim ineptitude or forgiveness when it turns out the arms have been destroyed one way or another. Cynical. What a brave new world.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
February 19, 2013, 06:45 PM | #367 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
|
|
February 20, 2013, 08:41 AM | #368 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
Lets not forget that the gun community and shooting as a sport has risen in popularity due in part to the media. Shows like Top Shot and Sons of Guns certainly have been helping with piquing the interest of people more, not to mention video games as much as I'd hate to admit. For better or worse, recreational shooting has become more recognized as a sport and not just something you do for hunting or self defense.
|
February 21, 2013, 02:27 AM | #369 |
Member
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 49
|
How to make their plans backfire
This may be premature but I have to wonder, if they pass universal background checks that cover all forms of mental issues, even common ones (and this I oppose), shouldn't we ask for something in return? For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.
I know a lot of you will say that this is excessive and unfeasible, but I know for a fact that a select-fire rifle will not do any more harm than a semi-automatic in the hands of a proven responsible gun owner. I think this is fair. They get theirs, we get ours. I am tired of having the anti-gun folks keep taking from us. They always reach for the low-hanging fruit and the next day they do it all over again. |
February 21, 2013, 07:57 AM | #370 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
They get checks, we get the Hughes Amendment repealed.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
February 21, 2013, 09:04 AM | #371 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
|
Yup
Here in Connecticut WE are toast... The Legislature will soon roll out the 'new' laws...done deal... the antis here will mop the floor.. 2A is going bye bye here, and our Washington crowd is leading the parade... Blumenthal didn't even reply to any correspondence.. Murphy did, with the the typical anti bs (40%, blah blah) The locals from Hartford din't do much better...just a few responces thanking me for my letter ( {Read} We've already done the deals, so we don't want your input) NONE have ever publicly supported 2A... So when the laws pass, and the rush is over, they can say '" we tried " to help, I can't wait until the NEXT election *** I hope I am Wrong ***
__________________
**** NRA Life Member ***** Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box, Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy" |
February 21, 2013, 09:45 AM | #372 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
|
|
February 21, 2013, 10:20 AM | #373 | |
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 21, 2013, 10:50 AM | #374 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
|
The federal push means nothing to me because I live in Massachusetts, and it's already stricter than the fed proposals, and they're trying to pass even more insane stuff.
Forced liability insurance when no insurers will insure you, meaning you surrender your guns - law? Check. Forced storage of "large capacity" weapons at ranges with no storage capacity? - Check Restricting buying to 1 firearm per month? - Check! On and on.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!) Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun |
February 21, 2013, 11:50 AM | #375 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
And we'd be better off demanding things like a National Carry Permit. Second, the background check cannot cover "all forms" of mental illness. You still have to touch base with due process in some way or another- Adjudicated mentally deficient. A judge or panel has to say your mental illness is so bad you can't take care of yourself... either through a civil hearing, or a NG by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect non-conviction conviction. There was story in my local paper about a woman who was arrested with a gun, and had been in all sorts of trouble. She should never have had a gun. No one disputes this. But the anti writing the story didn't make the connection that this woman hadn't had the due process take her right away. The background check didn't fail, and she didn't avoid it, the system failed to follow through enough to flag her. Charges were dropped when she plead Not Guilty by.. yadda yadda. So her plea didn't count. She'd been arrested for other things other times, but again charges were dropped... she had no criminal record and had never actually been adjudicated mentally deficient. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|