The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17, 2013, 08:45 PM   #26
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
In other words, it was too much trouble for him to write a letter or even to fire up the computer and pop off an e-mail. He expects the NRA to do it all for him. And when the NRA does its best and that isn't good enough, you can bet he won't blame himself for not having written those letters. He'll blame the NRA for not having done "enough."
That echoes my experience in 1994. I was pretty jaded and cynical for a long time after that.

I got better for awhile, and given all the gains we've made lately, I started to get optimistic. The problem is, I'm hearing all the same drivel I heard from gun owners 20 years ago. In the last couple of supposedly pivotal elections, voter turnout has been pathetic. Joe Bob wants to yell at me about "the ban," but he doesn't know which one. He hasn't made even the most perfunctory attempt to contact his representatives. Heck, he can't even name them.

Sorry gang, but when the vast majority of gun owners can't be troubled to so much as get off the couch, we deserve what we get.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 09:45 PM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Sorry gang, but when the vast majority of gun owners can't be troubled to so much as get off the couch, we deserve what we get.
Correction: They deserve what THEY get.

Sadly, whatever they get, we get too.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 06:15 AM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by rc
I think we are reaching a tipping point in favor of gun ownership. Guns are being sold at an alarming rate. I saw a gent the other day at the gun store who had a double barrel antique at home and was looking to buy a pump or semi auto while he still could. These fringe gun buyers are normal every day people who are part of the current frenzy to buy guns and ammo of all kinds. The -- want people to believe only criminal types are buying up all the guns and ammo. They want to put out a cover story to impune the reputation of those who believe in freedom.
This is true, but the problem is such first (or second) time buyers aren't up to speed on the issue, and don't have any recognition of the anti-gunners' long-term plans. These new buyers are drinking the Kool-Aid. They think all they have to do is get in the door and buy their one rifle/pistol/shotgun before the next AWB gets passed and they'll magically be grandfathered forever.

What we need to do ... somehow ... is get through to these people that their new home defense Megablaster X27 is NOT grandfathered forever. It's only safe until the antis choose to ban it. Heck, in New York many people even on the gun forums don't understand that an 8-round 1911 magazine is only grandfathered for one year. I don't know how to get people to wake up and (as the late Ann Landers used to say) smell the coffee.

Note - the post that this responds to, was deleted as it had some problems. So let it go. It is a shame that folks cannot abide by some simple rules. Sigh. - GEM.

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; February 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 08:30 AM   #29
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
What we need to do ... somehow ... is get through to these people that their new home defense Megablaster X27 is NOT grandfathered forever. It's only safe until the antis choose to ban it
This!!
NY state residents will soon be required to dispose of their evil semi-auto rifles.
thallub is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:20 AM   #30
KBP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 264
Its time to choose a side

"We must all hang together or we will hang seperately" Benjamin Franklin! The attack on our Constitional rights is in full swing. Someone said if guns are banned he would be on the side of the law. The law of our land is that we have the right to bear arms. PERIOD! Any law taking away our rights is invalid. Passing a law capping the maximum number of rounds allowed in a magazine is as stupid as passing a law capping the maximum number of people one is allowed to kill! Criminals don't follow laws. How about a law stopping criminals from being out of jail! Maybe someone in our government will enforce the 20,000+ gun laws we already have and keep dangerous criminals where they belong! More laws are not needed. MORE enforcement and keeping criminals off the streets will do more good than passing an endless list of more laws that punish law abiding citizens!
KBP is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 12:05 PM   #31
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,623
The original article describes a phenomenon I have observed with frustrating frequency; most gun owners believe that their arms are protected while the arms of different sorts are on necessary or not protected by the Second Amendment.

I have found this most egregiously amongst the clay and trap expensive shotgun owners. To be charitable, they analogize the use to which they put their own arms, a highly social sport, to all legitimate use of all arms everywhere. To be less charitable, the discomfort they feel at people unlike them possessing firearms is exactly the kind of discomfort that drives gun bans politically.

They are not the only group to display this pattern. I have known competitive rifle shooters who can't quite wrap their minds around private possession of semiautomatic firearms. Perhaps they are so enthralled by the beauty and challenge involved in landing a single round precisely that other uses seem to distant in terms of utility.

Often, the deer hunter who shoots one or two dozen rounds per year with some friends does not consider himself a "gun guy" and does not see himself as exercising a right in any way connected with three gun competitions.

Although I read these sentiment less frequently now, I can remember 25 years ago reading articles by "experts" that maintained that a permit to carry should only be issued to the highly trained and subsequently state certified user.

Part of the preparation work for defending a civil right involves explaining to the people affected the nature of the right involved. Only if they understand that they all engage in a specific exercise of a broad and general right can they then come to understand that infringement of a specific exercise they may oppose is also an infringement of the right they share.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 12:42 PM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,613
Using the term 'modern sporting rifle' is a step on the road to losing them.

Said this many times. The guns exist for their lethal potential for SD and protect against tyranny.

They are too dangerous for simple sports.

They are constitutional protected because they are that dangerous.

They are not bowling balls (sports) or hammers (tools).

NO antigun person is deceived by 'modern sporting rifle'.
__________________
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 February 18, 2013, 12:48 PM   #33
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
That was 1994. Nowadays I'm hearing, "well, I got my AR-15, so let the ban come."
I have been trying to get the ones saying that to rethink it. I have been pointing out the newly proposed law in Missouri would require them to turn in, destroy, or remove their banned gun from the state within 90 days. They then point out to me that we are not in that state and it has little chance of passing and being held as constitutional. I agree. But then I point out that they should be outraged that such a thing is even contemplated let alone submitted for consideration as a new law. Some then get it and some shrug and move on.

Quote:
For the most part, gun owners I'm talking to are apathetic and disinvolved. Saddest are the ones who remember the AWB, seem resigned that it will happen, and don't take the trouble to engage in even the most rudimentary civic involvement on the matter.
I can not agree more. I currently have more contact with younger people in our college shooting club. They listen politely to me, the old timer, agree that it is wrong to infringe on the 2nd but will not do anything about it. Some of them vote but so far I have not found one that will send a letter or email to the legislators. They do not seem to think anything can or will happen that will impact them much. I tried to get them and some older people involved in the Guns Across America rally a few weeks ago. One of them said they were afraid they might get in trouble or even shot if they went. The rest had, what I consider, trivial activities that were more important. I had many other pressing matters that needed my attention also but me and my younger daughter went anyway.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 01:01 PM   #34
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
NO antigun person is deceived by 'modern sporting rifle'.
I agree. But I do think many rather neutral people are being deceived with terms like "assault weapon", "weapons of war". and "military use weapons". I have had a number of conversations with people that ask why I would need to have access to weapons of war. I explain that the terms are being deliberately misused and that I do not have access to modern weapons of war. I also explain that when I was in the military I did have access to and used weapons of war and that as far as I am concerned the guns currently under scrutiny do not qualify.

EDIT: I know that there is some overlap in the hunting / sniper rifle category. But I do not think there is in the semi / select fire category currently being scrutinized.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 01:08 PM   #35
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,613
For what it is worth, my take is that when the neutral person gets two presentations for the AR:

1. Sporting gun
2. Weapons of War

- they will go with #2. They certainly if buying into sport, will go for the mag ban.
__________________
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 February 18, 2013, 01:24 PM   #36
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
We're all remembering that the first country to ban "military style weapons" in the modern era was Nazi Germany right?

"The Gesetz über die Entwaffnung der Bevölkerung (Law on the
Disarmament of the People), passed on August 7, 1920, provided for a
Reichskommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population.
He was empowered to
define which weapons were “military weapons” and thus subject to seizure.
The
bolt action Mauser rifles Models 1888/98, which had 5-shot magazines, were put in the
same class as hand grenades.
Persons with knowledge of unlawful arms caches
were required to inform the Disarmament Commission."
Sounds almost identical to a number our opponents proposals doesn't it?

I've found quoting from these laws, without sourcing the quote initially, then asking an anti if they agree with these measures to be very effective when I inform the entire room that the source of the quote and the context afterward.
The purpose of the law was to disarm political opponents and make it possible to violently suppress opposition.

More on these laws.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513066
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 01:25 PM   #37
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
For what it is worth, my take is that when the neutral person gets two presentations for the AR:

1. Sporting gun
2. Weapons of War

- they will go with #2. They certainly if buying into sport, will go for the mag ban.
Again I do not disagree in general terms. I have had success sorting this out on a one to one basis with people that are on the fence or only provisionally in the anti camp. The ones firmly in the anti camp, that I have talked with, have no tolerance for reason, logic, or differing points of view. Many of the people that know me are probably tiered of my relentless talking on the whole gun control subject, but I am not giving up anytime soon.

I have a harder time with the magazine capacity issue. I do not currently have any of the long guns under scrutiny and not many hand guns with high capacity magazines. But I am doing my best to advocate for all gun owners not just the guns I own. When asked about the need for the magazines I am at a bit of a loss. I can not think of many reasons I need one that do not sound like I want to be prepared for an armed insurrection, I try not to scare the receptive people in the middle or give ammunition(pun intended) to the anti crowd. But I also can not think of any reason I should not have them.

If someone could help me clarify my arguments on the magazine issue I would be grateful.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 01:33 PM   #38
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
We're all remembering that the first country to ban "military style weapons" in the modern era was Nazi Germany right?
People should be careful with this one. Many jump from what you referenced to saying Hitler confiscated guns to control the people. Being the modern poster boy of all that is evil it is a natural jump but not completely correct. He in fact passed some laws that increased civilian access to firearms.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 01:38 PM   #39
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Chaz, you and I posted at the same time, try my methods listed above.
It will make your whole day to see the look on some anti's face when you've provedto an entire roomful of people that they are perfectly okay with following in the footsteps(goosesteps?) of Nazi Germany.
I'm particularly fond of the shade of eggplant purple one man's face turned when I used the phrase "well then you and Hitler are solidly in the same corner on this issue aren't you", then was able to prove what I said. It is a particularly effective argument against people who talk about "you're being paranoid"." I'm sure lot's of the Nazi's opponents were told exactly that, look how that attitude turned out.", causes a lot of frowns and reconsidering faces on people who will listen.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 01:55 PM   #40
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
I think we posted at the same time again.
Yes, Hitler increased access to guns for the people who supported him.
If you read through the entire article I referenced above (click through the the thread link) as I recall it addresses this.
The majority of people who are for this sort of gun laws won't be affected by them.In other words, for the people who don't own guns, only shoot skeet, hunters etc. who don't own, or plan to own, this type of weapon all that's happening is their opponents are being disarmed.
Anti gun politicians have a long history of not feeling like these restrictions apply to them, so this is only disarming the opposition, that for the most part, stands in the way of their plans.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado

Last edited by scrubcedar; February 18, 2013 at 05:06 PM.
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 05:23 PM   #41
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz88
Quote:
That was 1994. Nowadays I'm hearing, "well, I got my AR-15, so let the ban come."
I have been trying to get the ones saying that to rethink it. I have been pointing out the newly proposed law in Missouri would require them to turn in, destroy, or remove their banned gun from the state within 90 days. They then point out to me that we are not in that state and it has little chance of passing and being held as constitutional. I agree. But then I point out that they should be outraged that such a thing is even contemplated let alone submitted for consideration as a new law. Some then get it and some shrug and move on.
And too many just don't ... want ... to ... listen.

I have a very basic, budget model AR-15 that was purchased during the span of the Federal AWB, so mine has no bayonet lug, a solid stock (which is fine for me, because it's what I carried in Vietnam), and no flash hider. In fact, it has a bare muzzle. It came with a 10-round magazine, which I still have, but I have since purchased some 30-rounders.

My rifle would be illegal under the new NY law. My rifle would be illegal under Feinstein's proposed AWB, which (as I understand it) will now allow only ONE "evil" feature rather than two. My rifle would be illegal under several of the bills being proposed in CT and MA and NJ.

But it was completely legal and fully compliant when I bought it! I have owned it for about fifteen years and it hasn't snuck out of the gun safe and gone off by itself to kill anybody yet, so why should it suddenly become contraband?

That's the part the deniers don't understand. They don't "get" that the anti's will not be satisfied with JUST banning the so-called assault weapons. They'll ban those first, then they'll be back for the conventional-looking semi-autos, then they'll go after the bolt actions and the lever actions, then it'll be the pump and semi-auto shotguns, and finally they'll take away the double barrel shotguns. I just don't know how to get "those people" to understand what the end game really is for the gun grabbers.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 05:49 PM   #42
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
My rifle would be illegal under the new NY law. My rifle would be illegal under Feinstein's proposed AWB, which (as I understand it) will now allow only ONE "evil" feature rather than two. My rifle would be illegal under several of the bills being proposed in CT and MA and NJ.
In a sort of twisted reverse logic it would make more sense to ban the carefully finished engraved select walnut stocked guns. *read in as sarcastic a tone as you can* They are obviously just hiding their evil intent under a false veneer. Keep all of the other ones so we can readily identify the evil in them and discriminate against them based on color and visible features alone.

EDIT: Now just hold on a second! Now I am talking about banning most of my guns. Maybe I should start caring about the effects on all gun owners. No, mine are pretty they will never ban them.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.

Last edited by Chaz88; February 18, 2013 at 05:56 PM.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 06:41 PM   #43
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,382
Quote:
It’s Time to Choose a Side
Sorry, but I got lost at the original premise. The elections just occurred and our president and congress folks are there for another 2-4 yards. Saying that it is now time to chose a side is a bit like trying to close the gate after the cattle got out. Either you cared about the cattle or you didn't. The question now is whether or not you are going to bother chasing them down. As noted by Tom Servo, a lot aren't going to get off the couch and go get them.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old February 18, 2013, 07:18 PM   #44
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
So how do we convince the folks who think they would never want the type of weapon that's being targeted this time, but still own a gun that their fat is on the fire too?
The only approach I've seen work is this. "Assuming an AWB ban works, how long is it until those same people start using (the type of gun they
own) to kill large numbers of people? How long after that will it be before they come after your guns?
This has been only minimally effective, but it's better than anything else I've tried.
Anything you guys have seen that works better?
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 08:31 PM   #45
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
The only approach I've seen work is this. "Assuming an AWB ban works, how long is it until those same people start using (the type of gun they own) to kill large numbers of people? How long after that will it be before they come after your guns?
This has been only minimally effective, but it's better than anything else I've tried.
I'm not surprised that hasn't been effective, since there are very few murders committed with rifles of any sort. FBI statistics show significantly more murders by blunt instrument than by rifle. And how many drive-by bayonetings have there been in your city in the past five years?

The sporting and hunting use folks -- in large measure -- seem to be nearly impossible to convince. Logic doesn't work. History doesn't work. "We must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately" doesn't seem to work. I don't like being negative, but after the incident in the gun shop a few weeks ago I have pretty much given up. I try to hold up my end by writing my elected critters regularly, but mine are all solidly anti-gun anyway so mostly I'm doing it so I can't be accused of not doing it. I'm 99.97% certain I'm not making any difference.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 09:47 PM   #46
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
I wish I could argue with you, tell you I was changing minds. I can't. Whatever else I am, or am not capable of I'm good with words. I still get nowhere.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:37 PM   #47
SVO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 667
What Matt Devito writes about sounds like the gun club I belong to. Shotgunners don't care about the rifle shooters, rifle shooters don't care about the shotgunners, and the pistol shooters are everyone's red headed step-children.
SVO is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 09:48 PM   #48
KBP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 264
Chose a side

R1145! You said "the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation." Please show me where in the Second Ammendment does it say, Subject to reasonable regulation? Do you trust Feinstein or Obama to pass reasonable regulation? No law taking away our right to own ANY GUN is valid or reasonable!
KBP is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 10:14 PM   #49
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
Please show me where in the Second Ammendment does it say, Subject to reasonable regulation?
That would be the part that was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:16 AM   #50
nazshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 150
Re: It's Time to Choose a Side

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
I'm not surprised that hasn't been effective, since there are very few murders committed with rifles of any sort. FBI statistics show significantly more murders by blunt instrument than by rifle. And how many drive-by bayonetings have there been in your city in the past five years?
The same basic reasoning works for magazine limits. Ask them what they hope to accomplish by restricting standard capacity magazines. Chances are the answer will be to reduce the number of people who die in mass shootings. Then point out that in 2012 there were fewer than 20 mass shootings (3 or more people) resulting in fewer than 100 deaths. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning than to be involved in one of these things.

Last edited by Spats McGee; February 20, 2013 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Correcting quotation codes
nazshooter 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 07:27 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 0.13554 seconds with 7 queries