The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 18, 2012, 03:59 PM   #101
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,601
Personally, I think the NRAs response is exactly right, assuming they've done it out of respect for the families. Unfortunately, they haven't really said much, so we're kind of guessing.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 04:08 PM   #102
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
I don't think they did it out of respect for the families. I also think it was the right move however. Better to not give people your facebook page to rage back and forth over the issue. There isn't a winning tweet available in this situation so also a wise move. Let the shock and passions stirred up die down. The best analogy I could come up with, is they were carrying concealed and walked into a shouting match. They're extricating from the situation before it gets worse, and it really does become their fault for throwing proverbial gasoline on the fire.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 04:09 PM   #103
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
Here's what a progun life long hunter Senator Manchin says:

Quote:
The President called me this afternoon. We agree that as Americans and parents, all of our children belong to all of us – and we must work together to keep our precious children safe.

I believe that we must have a dialogue and bring parties from all sides to the table. I know my friends at the NRA and those who support our Second Amendment rights will participate because I know that their hearts are aching for the families in Newtown, just like all Americans.

To have a productive dialogue, we also need to address a number of critical issues, including our mental health system, safety in our schools and a media and entertainment culture that glorifies unspeakable violence.

What I have learned since coming to Washington is that there are some who will vilify you for being open to a conversation with anyone you might not agree with. That’s wrong – as Americans, we all need to sit down and have a serious, adult conversation about the best actions to move forward. The deaths of these children demand that each and every one of us in Washington and the United States be willing to talk with each other.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old December 18, 2012, 07:38 PM   #104
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
I am hoping that our pro gun allies in the senate and house will stand firm with us. But just in case I went out today and bought extra mags for my AR-15, AK47, and Glock 21SF.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 07:56 PM   #105
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
Today I sent an emergency contribution to the NRA-ILA, contacted both senators and house member. Am networking with everyone I can online.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:30 PM   #106
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
I believe that we must have a dialogue and bring parties from all sides to the table. I know my friends at the NRA and those who support our Second Amendment rights will participate because I know that their hearts are aching for the families in Newtown, just like all Americans.

To have a productive dialogue, we also need to address a number of critical issues, including our mental health system, safety in our schools and a media and entertainment culture that glorifies unspeakable violence.
Sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to know what concessions will be coming from the antis. So far it's always been us giving up something.

Forget Lawdog's analogies about cake - making deals with these people is like dealing with the mob (the TV mob, I'm really not sure how the real one works). You can pay up or get your legs broken. Still don't want to pay up? Say goodbye to the use of your hands. So now you give them what they want and they leave you alone for awhile - too bad you're now crippled.

Yes, let's be reasonable
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:47 PM   #107
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239
Let's consider the people who want to have this conversation with us.

Dianne Feinstein, on the original Ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Charles Schumer, on the same: "Clearly, this is just a start."

Aside from both having held concealed-carry permits in areas that others cannot, they have it in common that they both spoke of a desire for total bans on firearms in the early 1990's. They made it clear that they wanted all guns banned. Full stop.

It would be a mistake to assume that their positions have changed. They're not looking for negotiation or compromise; they're looking to get their foot in the door so they can throw it wide later.

We don't owe them the dignity of a negotiation. In a way, this is the last stand for a very beleaguered gun-control lobby. They couldn't get anything passed when they had near total control of two branches of government. The Newtown shooting gives them an impetus and mindshare they haven't had in nearly 20 years.

If this doesn't do it for them, they're toast. Expect them to fight hard.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:54 PM   #108
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
We don't owe them the dignity of a negotiation.
He gets it
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 08:57 PM   #109
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
I agree. If the starting point was that all folks agreed that we can have guns for self-defense then you might say - let's talk. However, when the starting point is unconditional surrender for you - why bother?

Schumer seems gleeful underneath.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old December 19, 2012, 03:51 AM   #110
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
I have seen comments that state we need to stop claiming the militia clause in the 2nd ammendment because it does not apply to most people; this is not currently true. The militias that defended and protected this country from invasion were many times required to maintain and bring their own gun to the fight.

If the militia clause is not applicable to the modern/common citizen, if it is truely outdated or otherwise non-applicable because of our better organized active duty military, and state & national guard forces; then the Constitution once again needs to be amended, as it has been in the past such as with prohibition. I am not saying the 2nd Ammendment is not outdated, that's another argument....I'm arguing the constitution as written.

Are there any politicians out there seeking such an Ammendment?

In my opinion, restricting firearms from citizens without a consitutional Ammendment is non-constitutional. I am not an attorney, but my Masters is Criminal Justice Administration, and I have argued/defended this position successfully in class.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 07:26 AM   #111
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
With each day, the language gets stronger and stronger in favor of powerful gun controls.

I haven't been watching FoxNews, so I don't know what they're doing, but the rest of the news outlets are utterly certain that we need to prohibit the right to possess the high capacity type firearms.

Even during the Clinton ban, there wasn't THIS kind of political pressure to act strong against guns.
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 08:05 AM   #112
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/l...r-18-2012.html

From yesterday's White House Briefing:

Quote:
MR. CARNEY: And the President is moving forward, as he said he would, in having discussions here at the White House with members of his team, having discussions moments ago with Senator Manchin and others who have introduced important ideas about how we can move forward and whose decision to break from past positions and -- in how they look at this is heartening, and perhaps harbors an opportunity to move forward in a constructive way. But we are still early in a process.

And I just want to be clear that, in addition to his support for a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which has long been stated and if it does take form in legislation that Senator Feinstein introduces, then that would obviously be something that would win his support, but it goes beyond that. His view is that we need to address this in a way that, as I said yesterday, acknowledges that no single piece of legislation, no single restriction on access to a certain type of weapon will solve this problem and that we need to address it more broadly.
Whatever more broadly means...

I'm beginng to get a sick feeling that a new AWB won't be the same as the old AWB. My gut feeling is that it'll point out that the old AWB had no effect because it wasn't restrictive enough.
Hal is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 08:05 AM   #113
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Schumer seems gleeful underneath.
I've gone to some effort to keep the recent news out of my home, but after the kids were put to bed, I saw Lawrence O'Donnell speaking with a couple of like minded guests about putative restrictions and bans.

The palpable excitement amongst them as they discussed the episode was offputting. I doubt my reaction to the barely containable glee is unique.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 08:16 AM   #114
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
"Dancing in the blood" is how one of the past members of staff here (DC) liked to state those types of actions.
Hal is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 11:31 AM   #115
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfskinnerpunk
I haven't been watching FoxNews, so I don't know what they're doing, but the rest of the news outlets are utterly certain that we need to prohibit the right to possess the high capacity type firearms.
What's new? News outlets were utterly certain that "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips" needed to be banned after the Virginia Tech shootings, the Giffords shootings, and the Aurora theater shootings. After each recent mass shooting, anti-gun types in the media tried their best to persuade people to endorse gun control without thinking about anything but sympathy for the victims.

Wait for the media's sympathy blitz to burn out. Right now, there is no pretense of rational discussion; the media's response to pro-gun arguments is to run stories about the funerals of small children. After the funerals are done, and everyone enjoys the holidays, and the media's focus shifts to the 'fiscal cliff' wrangling, things will look much different.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 12:16 PM   #116
wingman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,074
One thing is certain in my mind the left will never be satisfied until all firearms are removed from the hands of American citizens, this is the goal nothing short of that no matter what they say about the second amendment.

It is difficult to have a common sense conversation with folks who wish to take your freedom.
wingman is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 12:53 PM   #117
DesertFox5768
Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2002
Posts: 32
The danger here is the media, which sees ratings in the deaths of these poor souls and always hated guns to begin with. Seeing as most of the American media is state-run for all intents and purposes, we can expect a narrative wherein the noble Democrats righteously seek to strip the awful "assault weapons" from evil Republicans who seek to sow carnage with them.

This is where everything we've learned about gun rights must be employed in representing ourselves as a community (a community that virtually never includes these sort of psychopaths, who often just pick up the gun right before their evil deeds). Our representatives must be lobbied, and perhaps more importantly, held accountable for their actions. There might be some dark days ahead for gun owners, but the future is not yet written.
DesertFox5768 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 12:53 PM   #118
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Quote:
One thing is certain in my mind the left will never be satisfied until all firearms are removed from the hands of American citizens, this is the goal nothing short of that no matter what they say about the second amendment.
This is why concessions should not be made to the anti gun lobby. It will only embolden them to take bigger bites down the line.
coyota1 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 01:02 PM   #119
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,880
Quote:
What's new? News outlets were utterly certain that "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips" needed to be banned after the Virginia Tech shootings, the Giffords shootings, and the Aurora theater shootings. After each recent mass shooting, anti-gun types in the media tried their best to persuade people to endorse gun control without thinking about anything but sympathy for the victims.

Wait for the media's sympathy blitz to burn out. Right now, there is no pretense of rational discussion; the media's response to pro-gun arguments is to run stories about the funerals of small children. After the funerals are done, and everyone enjoys the holidays, and the media's focus shifts to the 'fiscal cliff' wrangling, things will look much different.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with this. Aside from the usual suspects like Feinstein, McCarthy, Schumer, and the various pundits on a cable news channel that will remain unnamed, most of the democratic party seems to be addressing the issue rather tentatively. The president himself seems very hesitant to mention specifics about what should be done and nearly everyone seems to agree that gun control, in and of itself, isn't going to solve the problem. Gun ownership is more widespread and mainstream now that it's probably been in the last 30 years and the percentage of gun owners who are interested only in "sporting" guns is dwindling quickly. Also, most of the "swing" states that both parties need in order to win elections are midwestern, southern, or western states like Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico where gun control isn't popular.

Also bear in mind that there really hasn't been any debate thus far because only one side has been talking. I've yet to see any comment from the NRA, SAF, or any other notable pro-2A group. Once they weigh in (the NRA is supposed to have a press conference on Friday), I doubt the argument will be so one-sided. Basically, I think the politicians are testing the waters on this right now and, if there seems to be much chance of a backlash due to new gun control, they'll likely let the issue be buried in committee to quietly die.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is online now  
Old December 19, 2012, 01:14 PM   #120
DesertFox5768
Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2002
Posts: 32
I would add that, and this is important, things could get even worse should *another* high profile shooting rampage occurs soon. It doesn't even have to have a particularly high body count or sensational circumstances, because right now, the media is interested in making it look like these events are happening constantly, all the time, and that everyone is likely to be shot at least once by a psycho by the time the year is over.

That said, to some degree the fervor will die down a bit, at least assuming the above doesn't happen again soon. A couple of politicians that are sympathetic to gun control this moment could be swayed by constituent backlash.

Hopefully, if another AWB just has to happen, the gun rights side can muster enough energy to dilute it as much as possible. A sunset provision, expanding the number of guns exempted, making transfer and sale of pre-existing guns and magazines legal, etc. I'd even like to see them add something like a higher cap on a mag ban (15 rds instead of 10, for example) or a national concealed carry reciprocity, though that's probably just an utter fantasy.
DesertFox5768 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 01:19 PM   #121
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
They need more than straight gun control as political cover anyway. Look at what happened to Clinton's allies in congress when he passed the '94 ban. Ask Tom Foley.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 07:59 PM   #122
Hog Red
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2010
Posts: 124
so far the ar-15's have been the object of the anti-gun's symbol of hate due to the Aurora and CT shootings. Even folks that i come in contact with that are in favor on concealed carry are asking why do we need these type of non-sporting long guns with huge magazine capacity. My answer is what will happen when the next whackjob uses a hunting rifle to off a group of people.
Hog Red is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 08:26 PM   #123
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,307
Diane Fientstine (Sp?) has had a gun control bill drafted for every time the senate meets. They change the bill number, and a couple of words, or sentence structure. Her bill has been nit picked by an army of liberal lawyers for a few years. The thing is it most times fails to get enough votes to go to the floor.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 08:38 PM   #124
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
The thing is it most times fails to get enough votes to go to the floor.
To the best of my knowledge, it's never gotten to the floor.

The difference this time is that it's been given grim impetus by the Sandy Hook shooting.

Quote:
Look at what happened to Clinton's allies in congress when he passed the '94 ban. Ask Tom Foley.
That's true, but we were still stuck with the ban for another 10 years. All the so-called reformers didn't do much to repeal it, either.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 09:28 PM   #125
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
There's still some light on the horizon. The CCW group didn't exist back in the 90's when the assault ban first took effect. When things cool down as it already is the members of congress will only be interested in the bottom line, and that is getting re elected.
coyota1 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15343 seconds with 8 queries