Select-fire

[44 AMP]

So I have no idea what they would do, specifically. But if you take a look at the history of the gun control movement, one can find some good indicators.

They were fine for decades with just the NFA 34. They didn't care about what they today call assault weapons (military style semi autos). Certainly they would have gladly accepted any restriction on any one owning any gun, but the didn't push for any additional restrictions on machine guns, or their semi auto look alikes. For decades, they focused their main effort on handguns, when they focused on a specific type at all.

Their push against handguns was led by the catch phrase "Saturday Night Special", which, of course, they defined to suit themselves. The GCA 68's provisions for banning the import of handguns below a certain arbitrary size criteria (along with other guns for other reasons) was what they got from that campaign. And they got the GCA 68 due to a combination of two main factors, the Kennedy assassinations, (how it was sold to the public) and trade protectionism (how it was sold to many members of Congress).

They didn't give a rat's posterior about making any significant effort to restrict military style semi autos. First, because they had not been used in any spectacular crimes, and were very very seldom used in "ordinary" street crime. Second, they were a relatively small portion of the gun market (in those days), and third, the new that the time was not right so their efforts would be wasted. Public support just was not there in the 60s, or the 70s. They got support for handgun restrictions, "Saturday Night Specials" were crime guns.

Enter the 80s. Drug traffickers use of illegal full auto guns brought them back into focus in the anti gunner's eye, and back on to the radar of the general non shooting public. Hollywood's increased use of machineguns in every conceivable action movie (because they are dramatic), where before machineguns, especially SMGs and actual assault rifles, where they had been rather rare before, outside of war movies, put them back into the eye of the public (and always in the hands of a bad guy or a cop/soldier).

Then the mass shootings began. San Ysidro Mcdonalds (uzi) didn't get much traction, but it did stir the coals. Stockton schoolyard (AK -semi) started flames, as the media focused on the gun used, instead of the dead nut who pulled the trigger. Our newly developed 24hr news coverage kept it going. the mass murder of children is always news, as often and as grizzly as you can report it, or anything connected with it. The Reagan assassination attempt (handgun) brought the Bradys into it personally. Sarah became the mouthpiece for the movement, and a pretty effective one, using her victim status and political/PR savy to build the image of "assault weapons" in to an evil dangerous threat to life, safety and the American family. Willingly aided and abetted by a major portion of the news and entertainment industry, endlessly repeating (usually for free) whatever lies, disinformation, or obfuscation spoken by any anti gun personality, the political movement built up steam.

Copycat Stockton style shootings and others around the country (and media focus on them) added to the affectiveness of gun control arguments, in the uninformed court of public opinion.

Even though he himself was wounded in the attack, Pres Reagan did not call for, or support more gun control laws. But when the Clinton administration took over, that changed.

The antis have been hitting hard on "assault weapons" ever since. The only remotely beneficial side effect this (for us) has been the relaxation of their attack on handgun ownership. Due to that, and more so to the general public realization after Sept 11 that guns in private citizens hands were not the most dangerous thing facing the people of our nation, we have made a lot of progress in the legal protection of people having and using handguns for self defense in recent years. But make no mistake, they haven't given up, on anything. Once they win another restriction on those evil black rifles, etc. they will go back to trying to get rid of those dangerous handguns as their main effort.

The people making up the movement fall into a few general categories, as to their views on guns. Some fear guns, as objects. These people either un/under educated as to what guns really are, or a simply pathological in their worldview. Some have been "victims" of "gun violence", who have focused on the tool used, instead of the person who did the deed. Many are politically motivated, and do not fear guns at all. What they fear is guns in the hands of people they do not control! They don't want any guns in the hands of Joe Sixpack, generaly holding the elitist view that the great unwashed are unable to be trusted with their own safety, or more importantly, the safety of their precious elitist skins!

The Bradys had no problem as part of the White House entourage, being surrounded by Secret Servicemen and women carrying guns, even true machineguns and assault weapons, on a daily basis. The never said a word in public about the danger they were in from the people around them having these weapons. Not a peep!

The most anti gun politician is fine with an armed bodyguard, the police, and the military having all these weapons. But not with you or I having the same, or anything that remotely resembles them.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

No, what I've been saying all along is that laws such as the NFA are dangerous to our civil rights because they can be used as tools by the anti's to further regulate other types of guns.

I understand your point and as I stated before it is part of the slippery slope fallacy to wit:

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

It does not follow.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

They need more justification.

Which they find (as pointed out by 44 AMP above) by the crimes committed with those guns by drug gangs and insane mass shooters that worry the public. THAT is what drives them NOT the NFA or FOPA '86.

Also, the Hughes Amendment was just a poison pill for the FOPA which contained a whole bunch of stuff (like FFLs being able to do gunshows) which the antis did not want. I don't think the antis really cared about FA other than they want them along with everything else banned and it certainly had no bearing on the NFA.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

So, I do note the differences between SA and FA, but with respect to SA "assault weapons" specifically, and their FA counterparts, there is not much difference other than multiple rounds per trigger pull vs. one round only per trigger pull.

Which we have disagreed on before but that is a different argument.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

I understand your point and as I stated before it is part of the slippery slope fallacy to wit:


Quote:

It does not follow.

Remember, we did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years. And polling seems to show that the public still supports a ban on "assault weapons". Thank God the anti's couldn't get enough support in congress to renew it. Lord knows the anti's such as Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and others tried. Even old "go along to get along" GW Bush said he'd sign an "Assault Weapons" bill if it came to his desk, though he probably knew he was in no danger of having to do so. The congress critters were still wary of how many democrats lost their seats for supporting the AWB in 94 and voting for it. Thus, I don't believe the slippery slope is non existent. We have managed to balance it for now, and we've even made some gains with more CCW states and Heller, though Heller is a luke warm victory in my opinion. We'll see what else it leads to. I'm hoping it leads to a slippery slope in the other direction for a change. We are always on a teeter totter when it comes to political issues. The balance can shift.

Quote:

Which they find (as pointed out by 44 AMP above) by the crimes committed with those guns by drug gangs and insane mass shooters that worry the public. THAT is what drives them NOT the NFA or FOPA '86.

Yes, but they also use the NFA and FOPA 86 as pointed out by me, above, several times. They will use whatever they can to push their agenda. Crime, mass shootings, previous control, the collective rights theory, etc. That doesn't mean they are always successful. I've never claimed they have been 100% successful. However, they have had successes in the past, as in a 10 year AWB and the NFA and the Hughes amendment.

Also, the Hughes Amendment was just a poison pill for the FOPA which contained a whole bunch of stuff (like FFLs being able to do gunshows) which the antis did not want. I don't think the antis really cared about FA other than they want them along with everything else banned and it certainly had no bearing on the NFA.

They may not have cared about FA, but that doesn't stop them from now using the issue in their attempts to ban SA. They will use the "perceived" ban on machine guns if they think it can help them. We've already seen Pete Stark and his merry men, plus the Bradys, do so.

[Al Norris]

228 Posts and no one has managed to change anyone elses political stance.

I'm closing it, before we move to another page.

Thanks to everyone that added to this debate.