The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 20, 2012, 08:03 AM   #151
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Geet..
My mom and dad both passed away. So did my father in law (who I was very close to).
I mourn the loss at times, even after a number of years.

Losing a child is far different. It's unexplainable. I'ts unimaginable. It's something only someone that's a member of that horrible fraternity knows.
We grieve our loss and we will grieve our loss our whole lives.

BTW - thank you for the kind words.
Hal is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:06 AM   #152
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
My biggest worry is that my AR-15's will be banned from civilian ownership and that existing privately owned AR's can not be transferred to anyone, not even from father to son/daughter. I worry that they will be have to be handed over to the local law enforcement for disposal.
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.

Last edited by Skadoosh; December 20, 2012 at 08:24 AM.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:17 AM   #153
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
I spoke with one congressman yesterday. He thinks the first step will be a reporting requirement for multiple long-gun purchases. They already have that in a few border states, and there might be a proposal for it to go national. If something has to be offered up, this might be the right thing.

Would it have stopped the shooter? No. Will it prevent another such incident? No. But neither will another AWB or magazine capacity limits.
It won't stop there, not by a long shot (pardon the pun). This is the crisis certain interests have been waiting for and they are going all out.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 02:00 PM   #154
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Also pertaining to the UK. they beefed up security at all schools after the two incidents. This is what deterred more incidents, not the gun ban.
There is no security at UK schools anybody can walk in.
manta49 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:35 PM   #155
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,756
I was thinking about unintended consequences. After 9/11 many folks stopped flying as they feared another attack. This increased the number of car accidents that produced about 2000 more deaths and many more injuries.

You still would have been safer flying.

So around here all the stores are sold out of ARs. Panic buying. Now, usually buying such a gun is a deliberate and expensive proposition. The buyer probably has given some thought to it. Now we will have thousands or tens of thousands of these guns in the hands of impulse buyers. After a bit of time, if no laws prevent this, they may sell them unwisely. Or they may use them unwisely. Thus, will we have generated more than 26 deaths (which were tragic and horrible). If the guns appreciate in price, will they go for these high prices to less legit hands?

Hopefully, they would stay in safes if they weren't with a competent user.
__________________
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 offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 06:12 PM   #156
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
If the guns appreciate in price, will they go for these high prices to less legit hands?
Very good post Glenn.

But given the history of making items illegal(guns,dope etc.) in this country and others(think Mexico when considering gun prices, think the US when speaking of dope), I don't think it will be a question of 'if' the prices would go up or 'if' some would end up in less legit hands. We know this will happen.

I'm preaching to the choir here but thugs will be thugs ,will have money to support their lifestyle's, have guns and the 'powers to be' will not be able to stop them by making new laws.
Especially when the thugs know our screwed up judicial system, know that the current existing laws and penalties for breaking them are not going to be enforced as written but rather plea bargained to a much lessor charge/sentence.
shortwave is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:38 PM   #157
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
At the rate the media is reporting guns flying off the shelves the threat of a ban has done more to put more AR 15 in citizens hands than anything else.
mayosligo is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:40 AM   #158
sthomper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Posts: 127
did the ruger mini ever fall under the assault rifle ban of years ago??

if it didnt, why not?? aesthetics alone??
sthomper is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:52 AM   #159
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
This may not belong on this thread, but I'm avoiding opening a new thread with so many open on the Newtown killings.

What role do you think gun owners will play in passing this upcoming ban on semiautomatic rifles? On firearms forums I mostly see people opposed to a ban. However on other media, like Facebook, I see a lot of gun owners supporting a ban. (Coincidentally, they don't own ARs.)

I've always felt a divide and conquer strategy would be effective on this issue. If they can get hunters and CCWers to hand AR owners over, who will stand behind CCWers when Congress pushes a handgun ban? Who will stand behind hunters or benchrest shooters when they try to ban "sniper rifles"?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 01:00 AM   #160
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,430
Quote:
However on other media, like Facebook, I see a lot of gun owners supporting a ban.
Are you sure they're gun owners? False flags are far from unknown in this fight.

On the internet, I'm really a cowboy astronaut secret agent.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 05:05 AM   #161
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
Are you sure they're gun owners? False flags are far from unknown in this fight.

On the internet, I'm really a cowboy astronaut secret agent.
Let me guess....you don't use Facebook....

It doesn't work that way.
Facebook "friends" are, by a huge, huge margin, people that you know pretty well - not a bunch of anonymous "handles".
Hal is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 08:20 AM   #162
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,928
Quote:
What role do you think gun owners will play in passing this upcoming ban on semiautomatic rifles? On firearms forums I mostly see people opposed to a ban. However on other media, like Facebook, I see a lot of gun owners supporting a ban. (Coincidentally, they don't own ARs.)

I've always felt a divide and conquer strategy would be effective on this issue. If they can get hunters and CCWers to hand AR owners over, who will stand behind CCWers when Congress pushes a handgun ban? Who will stand behind hunters or benchrest shooters when they try to ban "sniper rifles"?
I don't think that the divide and conquer strategy will be as easy for the anti's to use as it was in the past. The demographic of gun owners is quite different than it was in the years leading up to the '94 AWB. Back then, the majority of gun owners were hunters, target shooters, or other "sportsmen" that had little or no interest in "assault weapons". Likewise, handgun ownership was not as prevalent in part because many states did not allow concealed carry thus rendering the primary usefulness of a handgun a moot point.

In that sort of environment, it was much easier to characterize shooters who were interested in handguns or "assault weapons" as an extremist fringe group. Back then there were enough gun owners willing to throw others under the bus so long as their deer rifles and trap guns were promised to be left alone that the AWB was able to pass though with barely enough votes.

Today, things are very different. While hunting continues to decline, gun sales are at record highs and the NRA is registering 8,000 new members a day. Likewise, "assault weapons" are increasingly used for hunting and other sporting purposes with AR-15 derivatives being particularly popular. The big sellers in the gun industry have been handguns and "assault weapons" for several years. This is because the largest and fastest growing segment of gun owners are those interested in guns for self-defense and, while the anti's don't want to admit it, handguns and "assault weapons" are among the best types for self-defense.
__________________
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 offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 08:43 AM   #163
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Since we this title has realistic assessment, how about the Gov. Of NY floating the confiscation idea? How irresponsible is this? I cannot imagine what lawful gun owners in that state are thinking about that, but it comes as a shock to me as someone who studies history. This echoes back to pre-Revolutionary rifle confiscation of the British.
mayosligo is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:05 AM   #164
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal View Post
Let me guess....you don't use Facebook....

It doesn't work that way.
Facebook "friends" are, by a huge, huge margin, people that you know pretty well - not a bunch of anonymous "handles".
Actually my experience with FB is the opposite. Many, if not most people simply "friend" anybody they can just so they have lots of "friends". I no longer use Facebook but when I did I had a couple hundred "friends", no small number of whom I had never met in person. Beyond that, work associates and people from school daze and such are very common. They're acquaintances, sure, but there's no reason to believe they share your worldview. In my experience, the "huge, huge margin", was exactly the other way. 5:1 were people you barely know.

Besides which, being an "actual gun owner" means less than nothing. Biden, Pelosi and Feinstein are "actual gun owners".
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:07 AM   #165
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,430
I will confess that I barely use Facebook out of concern for privacy issues. However, I'm with Brian on this. 90% of the "friend" requests are from people I've never heard of.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:40 AM   #166
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
First of all I don't see confiscation becoming a reality.

Secondly how are they going to know what I own, and what I have sold, if there are no record-keeping regulations in my state for private sales?

Even if they track my purchases through dealers, how can they prove I haven't sold them in private sales transactions?

Sorry, no guns in this house. Sold 'em all.
AH.74 is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:28 AM   #167
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
AH. I hear you. I just thought it was irresponsible to even suggest. Confiscation of citizen's legally purchased possessions flies in the face of so many rights that it was a bit surprising - even for New York.
mayosligo is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:42 AM   #168
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,130
I use Facebook on a daily basis. Social media are a very powerful force in public opinion these days, and we should not overlook those outlets as a means to sway the "fence sitters." (We'll never get the hardcore antis to jump the fence, so attempting to do so is wasted energy, IMO.)

I kept my mouth shut for the first few days after the Sandy Hook shooting while I "took the pulse" of my FB friends, all of whom I know in real life. Then I composed a long post containing my thoughts on Sandy Hook, the 2A, and the RKBA. I had several requests to repost, and all I asked was that they "tag" me in it with something like "Thanks to Spats McGee" so that I could track my own post. This has allowed me to reach out and engage in several "conversations" about these matters. That was several days ago, and I have not been called a "whackjob" yet.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:21 PM   #169
sam colt
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2012
Location: nc
Posts: 93
I grieve for the victims especially the kids. No one can imagine the grief, the feelings of loss and the anger that the parents must feel. The damage that this one sick psychopathic moron has caused is unfathomable.
As for us we simply are screwed.
sam colt is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 08:02 PM   #170
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by WayneinFL
What role do you think gun owners will play in passing this upcoming ban on semiautomatic rifles? On firearms forums I mostly see people opposed to a ban. However on other media, like Facebook, I see a lot of gun owners supporting a ban. (Coincidentally, they don't own ARs.)
There are, indeed, a lot of "casual" (for lack of a better term) gun owners who don't own an AR-style or AK-style firearm and who never will, who would be happy to throw the "military-style assault weapons" owners under the bus as long as they get to keep their shotguns, bolt-action hunting (and target) rifles, and mil-surp collectables. If that's what they think is going to happen this time, they're wrong.

The gun banners erred seriously in 1994. They zeroed in too closely on being too specific about what they were banning, and about what defined (for them) an "assault weapon." Flash hiders, bayonet lugs, and telescoping stocks were standard features of military weapons, hence they became "evil." Surprise, surprise ... companies who manufacture guns are in the business of manufacturing guns, so they simply shifted gears slightly and manufactured AR-15 "type" rifles in post-ban configuration: No flash hider, no bayonet lug, fixed stock, 10-round magazine. Done.

The gun grabbers went berserk. "FOUL!" they cried. "It still looks eeeeevvillll! They're taking advantage of a loophole in the law!"

No, dummies, they were NOT taking advantage of a "loophole" -- they were manufacturing firearms in complete, total, 100 percent compliance with the language of the law YOU enacted. Calling that taking advantage of a loophole is like a cop stopping a guy driving 64 miles an hour on a 65 MPH highway and accusing him of "taking advantage of a loophole" to avoid a speeding ticket by not speeding.

The problem today is, the critters in Washington know they screwed up with the 1994 AWB, and they are determined that they will not leave such "loopholes" the next time. Whatever they propose this time around, you can be assured that it will be far more draconian, and far wider in scope. They still do their best to confuse the public, but they know the difference between single shot, semi-automatic, and automatic. They're after ALL semi-automatic firearms this time, so the guys who think their Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, or SKS, or M1A will be safe had better reconsider whose side they are on.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:36 PM   #171
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,781
Quote:
They're after ALL semi-automatic firearms this time
Yes they are. This is going to get much worse. Your Colt Woodsman and Browning Challenger won't be safe either.
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza
geetarman is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:57 PM   #172
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
^^^and may go as far as extended tubed shotguns.
shortwave is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:24 PM   #173
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,430
Quote:
As for us we simply are screwed.
We are if folks sit on the fence and believe they are. If gun owners get involved, then we can stop new restrictions from happening.

As it is, we haven't seen any of the proposed legislation yet, so it's far too early to form any sort of conclusion.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 03:34 AM   #174
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Quote:
We are if folks sit on the fence and believe they are. If gun owners get involved, then we can stop new restrictions from happening.
As much as I'd love to agree, think of the million or so practicing doctors that felt the same way with ObamaCare.

Were the people directly affected by the act heard? Was their opinion or expertise counted when they disagreed with the second-handers who run our government? No.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 03:52 AM   #175
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
As for us we simply are screwed.
Having an attitude of being defeated at the opening bell of a 12 round fight will surely get us just that... defeated.

There is no sense in believing that our gun rights have been given to us by the government. This 'war' that pro 2nd Amendment people have been fighting for many years has seen many battles and between the anti-gun groups and many of today's politicians, there are going to be many more battles.

We can choose to lay down and let our rights be stripped or we can get involved and fight to retain them

No...we are NOT simply screwed.
shortwave 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 02:43 AM.


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 0.15799 seconds with 7 queries