The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 6, 2013, 12:24 PM   #1
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,028
What are they really after?

Are restrictions of the ownership of semiauto rifles and larger capacity magazines the main goal?
Or are they actually after something else?
Tom Gresham, on his Guntalk podcast, has been discussing this.
Maybe what they are really going for is the so called universal background check, expanded to a firearms owner database.
And that could easily lead to a form of gun registration, making confiscation easier.
Could this be the administration's true ambitions?
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 12:33 PM   #2
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Ask Britain and Australia.
__________________
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 February 6, 2013, 12:36 PM   #3
MagnumWill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 695
I personally believe that the AWB ban portion of the bill is a sacrificial lamb, in order to make the rest of the bill seem very unobtrusive. They would certainly love it if it passed, but they're willing to offer it as a bargaining chip. The optimal outcome is if *none* of it passes. Even the universal background checks is worthless if all guns aren't registered, and they know that. So the next round, they'll say "in light of NEW unpredictable disasters, we now need to register all firearms so that the system will be more effective". Exactly what they're saying now- they will never change their tune, and we know that.
__________________
Generally speaking holes in anti-gun theories are called "facts."
-Madcap_Magician
MagnumWill is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 01:03 PM   #4
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Quote:
What are they really after?
Complete control.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:08 PM   #5
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,773
Registration, taxation, liability, and eventually confiscation, of all firearms ; automatic, semi-automatic, revolvers, black powder, antiques, all of them. Just ask the British what happened to the SMLE over the fireplace if you want to know what the plan is.
kilimanjaro is online now  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:11 PM   #6
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,526
There's not even a question. We have "their" own words. "They" want a complete and total ban on firearms, which will culminate in confiscation.

The bigger question is, who are "they" and who are simply the well-meaning, clueless minions.
__________________
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 online now  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:25 PM   #7
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10,985
We know their intentions.
Dianne Feinstein said "If I had the votes, it would be Hand them in tomorrow."
Jim Watson is online now  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:25 PM   #8
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
I've been mulling over the concept that the clueless minions are 'counting coup' against us - their ideological opposition.

They know their solutions won't fix anything. They know they can't get everything they want. Yet still they have to "score" against us otherwise they feel inadequate.

"Couting coup" might explain it.

* Couting coup was the native american practice of getting close enough to touch your enemy or dangerous prey with a stick rather than killing or injuring him. A dangerous game.
Ronbert is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:26 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
We have "their" own words. "They" want a complete and total ban on firearms, which will culminate in confiscation.
One of the primary architects once said in 1994 that she'd have taken every one of them if she'd only had the votes.

Why am I supposed to believe this person when she throws around words like "reasonable" and "compromise" now?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:33 PM   #10
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
It depends on the individual or "crowd"

Some want to get rid of anything that is not a "hunting" firearm. I think most anti gunners fall in this category. I believe this is because they have no sense of history or current world events.

Some want to get rid of all handguns and semi automatic rifles because they believe they are a danger to society and have no place in our "modern" society.

Some want to take EVERYTHING. I personally believe this is the minority but it really does not matter as they are all looking in the wrong direction.

The problem is that they just don't value the right. If they don't value the right they have a hard time understanding how anyone needs it if they don't need or want it. Its this way with many Anti crowds be it gay rights, abortion rights, labor rights, free speech or freedom of the press. If they don't value it no amount of facts or information will sway their opinion.

This will be a fight until the end of humanity I believe and we will have losses and victories. As someone who values freedom in every form possible I believe we are in the right and on the right side of history. Anyone who does not accept freedom even if they don't agree with it needs to take a look at their value system.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:40 PM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
Some want to get rid of anything that is not a "hunting" firearm.
They only want that because they believe that the Evil Black Rifles are the source of the problem.

If we made a machine tomorrow that would vaporize every semi-auto rifle in America, "those people" would only be happy until the next nutjob shot up a room with a bolt-action, because it was all he could get, and then "they" would ban those.


Make no mistake, it's the Slippery Slope... or "Creeping Incrementalism", if you prefer... and it won't stop until we're at the bottom.

There's two types of Antis. The intentional and the clueless along for the ride.
__________________
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 online now  
Old February 6, 2013, 02:44 PM   #12
Moby
Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Posts: 90
BINGO!!!
You hit the nail on the head.



Are restrictions of the ownership of semiauto rifles and larger capacity magazines the main goal?
Or are they actually after something else?
Tom Gresham, on his Guntalk podcast, has been discussing this.
Maybe what they are really going for is the so called universal background check, expanded to a firearms owner database.
And that could easily lead to a form of gun registration, making confiscation easier.
Could this be the administration's true ambitions?
__________________
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
US Coast Guard 76-86 Semper Paratus
Moby is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 03:05 PM   #13
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
There is nothing unreasonable in the classes of weapons we are currently allowed to own, (in most states).

You are correct. The people actually pushing this thing again know they will probably lose, but any win at all is a win in their book. Think it through, every state that has passed new gun-control legislation is a feather in their cap. Another state closer to to the final solution.

But on the other side there is a strong push back. Win a state lose a state, maybe more. This is becoming a very polarizing issue and it's exactly this kind of thing that can bring about dramatic shifts in the overall scheme of things.

As soon as the line becomes sharply divided it becomes easier to count the votes and know if it's time for a new Constitutional Amendment or time to shut it down and move on to the next item on the agenda.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 03:06 PM   #14
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,771
It's as simple as this: There are people out there that just can't STAND others having something they can't have or do not want for whatever reason. So, these people, who don't want to own any guns themselves, simply don't want others to have them.

There really is no other way to put this. These same people, if they couldn't have a black car, or simply don't want one, wouldn't want you to have one either. And, they would come up with all sorts of crazy half-cocked reasons why black cars are "evil". In fact, California had passed a law against black cars some years back.

The bottom line is that there are ignorant people, jealous people and stupid people in this world. Gun banners are all that rolled up into one. You really don't want to pander or appease these types of people. It's like pandering to or appeasing Momar Khadafi.
Skans is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 03:44 PM   #15
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,515
I know many non-gun people that think there already is a data base of gun owners by serial number. They think whenever a gun is found the police can check the serial number and find out who the owner is immediately.

Actually I've met a couple of people that have bought guns recently that thought the same thing. That is, when they bought the gun the serial number and their name went directly to a federal database.

If (and I only say 'if') we have to accept universal background checks do you think we could limit it to a check that is done and disappears and NOT let it became a universal gun owner database?
DaleA is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 05:44 PM   #16
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
The gun debate is just like any other debate. There's moderates on both sides, and there's extremists on both sides. Right now, the moderates are still in control. I've seen a lot of outlandish proposals thrown out (psych evals before buying, no semi-auto anything, no more "armor piercing pistol ammo" whatever that is, etc).

Fortunately, the extreme anti's for the most part don't have enough sway to push those extreme laws. What they are doing is rallying the moderate anti's for what's currently on the table. I doubt a new AWB gets passed, but I am a little less confident about being able to stave off the background checks and mag bans.

I fear we're fighting a losing battle in the long run. As more Americans move to the cities, they have less use for a gun. As anyone that lives in the city and doesn't own or have access to land in the country can tell you, going shooting or hunting is a PITA. As shooting becomes less available to more and more Americans, the idea of what's reasonable is probably going to shift more towards the anti side.

I read on these forums a lot of people looking down their noses at those who don't have much use for a gun. Us telling them they need one for protection is like telling someone they need more exercise. True, yes. Will it be done? History says no. These people who don't have much use for a gun since they don't plink or hunt then get caught up in the gun debate and tend to fall towards more restrictions.

The whole "if you don't like guns, you're a pinko commie trying to make us eat soy burgers and do yoga blah blah" argument is what drives them that way. If you want to encourage more people to lean our way, you have to provide them with a reason to, for reasons I outlined above.

Everyone is ignorant on some issues, there's plenty of issues I'd be willing to bet not everyone hear has full knowledge but still has an opinion about. Same with the moderate anti's.
hardworker is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 07:01 PM   #17
shafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2009
Posts: 1,119
They're goal goes far beyond firearms. The destruction of the 2nd Amendment is a necessary step in achieving complete control. They will compile databases, create taxes related to firearms, limit magazine capacity to 10 then 7 and then anything at all.

They may not be able to just go door to door confiscating but they will begin the slow squeaze. They will do it through congress if they can or by executive order if they can't.

Pretty soon all but the most hardcore freedom lovers will have given up on gun ownership. There will be too much red tape, too expensive, and too impractical. How many people will hang onto their AR's if they become illegal to pocess? Most will turn them once they realize that although no one knows they own it they will never be able to shoot it again.

I think this current wave of gun buying across the country is similar to the tea party in 2010. A wave of people with good intentions but ultimately not very effective. I think the clock is ticking for us gun owners.
shafter is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 07:34 PM   #18
UtahHunting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 424
Quote:
I think the clock is ticking for us gun owners.
Sadly Shafter I agree with this statement. The progressives want to disarm America and I am afraid it will eventually happen. It may not be in the next 4 years, but they are a patient bunch and will chip away at gun rights until they are a thing of the past. I think the majority of gun owners will hand them over when instructed to do so. Those who do not will now become felons despite being law abiding, productive citizens their entire lives. Once the 2A is gone they will start on your other rights, it is already happening with religion, then will come free speech, etc.
UtahHunting is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 07:52 PM   #19
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,472
Quote:
Or are they actually after something else?
Their plan is to end all "civilian" firearm ownership. They may not get there, but they will certainly try and their plan is very simple. All they need to do is get a toe in the door by banning certain "highly dangerous" guns, aka assault weapons. Once they can subjectively ban guns, not a single gun is safe.

Additionally, they want to sue gun makers out of existence and tried that route before. Now that they feel the climate has changed, they hope to be able to go down that road again.

Banning guns based on looks, causing makers to shutter their doors, creating a gun owner database..... Yeah, that means they want more than back ground checks and magazine limits.

They want the guns that you are not "responsible" enough to own. Believe it.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:05 PM   #20
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,010
You don't have to go any further than to listen to Dianne Frankenfeinstein to know what they want. They want all firearms out of the hands of the common folk.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:28 PM   #21
jproaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: SE Tennessee
Posts: 214
I believe the chaotic political, social and economic conditions tell us that many leaders are looking for the means to have a sense of control in the case of a meltdown- most likely it will be economicaaly driven in my opinion. There are other leaders however that seem bent on domination for ideological reasons. This is seen in the previous comments.

They want control because they think they know whats best for us. Yes. They genuinely believe this. They want you to give up your individualism. Guns are a a huge indication of a man or womans desire to be free to enjoy the varied sport of shooting, protect self and others and to partake in our 2nd amendment right. You know that though.

My response (has been for years) to do what I know is best:
Minister to the needy more;
Buy local if possible;
Support youth and community arts, academics and sports;
Les interest attending the entertainment venues- especially movies since so much is political and much immoral.

In essence, invest more in my community, show compassion...and conceal carry

I know my response goes beyond this threads topic; i just feel we have to respond where we live in order to show contrast to the innane leadership in DC.

Regards,
John
jproaster is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:58 PM   #22
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
There is a 56 year old book that was right. That's all I'm going to say.
__________________
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 February 6, 2013, 09:03 PM   #23
olmontanaboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2009
Location: Northeast for now
Posts: 247
Your freedom, plain and simple. They can call it a rose, but it has the distinct odor of what it really is, total unbridled power over us. This is exactly why the Second Amendment was drafted. The road to slavery is paved by compromise.
__________________
Olmontanaboy
No good deed goes unpunished.
A loaded gun, a faithful dog,,, consider yourself lucky.
olmontanaboy is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 11:31 PM   #24
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,616
What they want, if you're referring to proponents of gun control, is an end or reduction of criminal gun violence.

Unfortunately for gun owners, other means of reducing crime and gun violence are even more difficult to pass than gun control.

Politicians would rather take all our guns than really expand access to mental health care. And that's just the most obvious alternative to gun control.


How about ending the war on drugs and treating abuse as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem? It would reduce gun violence here and most likely in the countries that produce illegal drugs. That won't happen, too many powerful people make way to much money on that war to get it stopped.

Fighting for gun control is a net positive. It's a simple message that has a clear enemy, and doesn't effect most of their political base.

So there ya go, enjoy making fun of gun control advocates as they continue to strengthen their position.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 12:11 AM   #25
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
Your freedom, plain and simple. They can call it a rose, but it has the distinct odor of what it really is, total unbridled power over us. This is exactly why the Second Amendment was drafted. The road to slavery is paved by compromise.
There it is. Plain and simple. It isn't about safety, and it isn't about saving lives. And it isn't about "gun control." It's about control.

It's creeping tyranny, like all these statist traitors endorse. Come and take them.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:07 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 0.13444 seconds with 7 queries