Nobody is going to take away your guns.

[mack59]

Spats McGee nailed it perfectly - I quote:

" I have a few thoughts about the line "nobody's going to take away your guns.

1) It's patronizing, and I think it's supposed to be. As the OP noted, "The tone of the statement is always that of the reasonable but exasperated parent (them) explaining something incredibly simple and obvious to the slightly backward and petulant child (us)." I think the listener is supposed to come away with the feeling that gun owners need to be dealt with as slightly backward and petulant children, and that the speaker of the line is the better-knowing parent.

2) As long as something short of "jack-booted thugs kicking in doors" is going on, it allows the speaker to say, "See? I told you they're not taking away your guns." Example: 3,000% tax on ammo, primer, and bullets? That's not "taking away guns." That's just a tax. Full firearms registration? That's not "taking away guns." It will allow the speaker of the line to be technically right in the face of an innumerable other acts that were, in and of themselves, wrong to begin with.

3) It's not just a lie, it's a big lie. It's a whopper. The anti-gun groups will work by small increments, but make no mistake as to what they want. They want the bulk of private ownership of firearms outlawed. (I say "the bulk" because even the most ardent anti-gunners would allow a few elite civilians to keep their guns, IMO.)"

Thanks for that perfect summation by the way.
__________________

[Levant]

Ruby Ridge and Waco did not garner the government good publicity by any means.

You would be surprised how many people on this or other pro-gun sites find reasons to argue for the actions taken by the government in both of those situations. The power of the press is great. Over time, they will erase the truth from our memories and we'll all remember just how terrible Randy Weaver and David Koresh truly were - or at least that's what we'll think we remember.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's not debate whether Koresh was worthy of anything. HINT!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/c...-laws-18433972

Haven't seen the law but the article implies that bans will also effect current guns that are legal now in CA.

That's coming for your guns.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have deleted a thread complaining about moderation of a thread suggesting illegal actions and a reasonable reply to it (redundant).

I will remind folks that complaining about moderation is best done by PM.

Suggesting illegalities and conspiracies are not our thing.

[Battler]

Hopefully not too far off topic; but here's an article about a special gun confiscation unit in California.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_bn1...llegal-gun.cnn

They go after illegal guns, or guns that are "illegally owned". But that's what the fight over gun control is about, whether to make more guns illegal guns.

They use records to go to homes and search for them, whether the person is home or not. There's no big shootouts or sieges or violent resistance involved, for many guns are something they bought over a decade ago and just have in their home somewhere.

[Aguila Blanca]

I just received an e-mail from a friend in CT, informing me (and a gazillion other recipents) that CT seems to be doing its best to emulate NY. Rather than send proposed gun control bills through the standard process of assigning to a committee, holding hearings, taking comments, and then debating the issue -- the CT legislature apparently wants to declare gun control as "emergency" legislation, which will allow them to fast-track it with no committee reviews and NO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

In other words, nearly the same as NY's dark-of-night adoption.

Newtown Hearings Giving Way To Expedited Legislative Schedule http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,7260991.story
Some state legislative leaders want to pass a composite bill, the major issue firearms, by Feb. 28. To meet the deadline, lawmakers will bypass the normal system of legislative committee deliberations and public hearings by using the emergency certification, or "e-cert" process. Normally, legislation of this magnitude would have to go through numerous standing committees including appropriations, judiciary, public safety and insurance – each of which might have held its own hearing. But the emergency-certification process bypasses that. State Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams said there's been ample public input. WE disagree!

While we can't dispute the legality of the "e-cert" process, in this case it deprives citizen testimony and other input on the actual bill. At the discussing "Information Hearing" we discussed PROPOSED concept bills with NO statutory language. No lobbyist, legislator, or knowledgeable citizen would ever testify on a bill without viewing/evaluating statutory language. Without a public hearing to promote/oppose/discuss issues of concern and HOW they will be implemented and WHAT will affect the legal gun owner as to bans, restrictions, economics, compliance, and others, we believe this is a clear denial of rights to provide input from those who will be affected. To state the "information" hearings are sufficient for passage is a travesty.

Also at the public hearing, no questions were asked of those testifying and there have been no gun owners, FFL holders, target shooters, or those who have defended themselves included in the “Experts” meetings. NSSF, representing manufacturers was appropriately included, but no expert end users. And, No proposals contemplated by gun owning organizations were requested. Why not?

At the firearms "information hearing" where sportsmen attendance was estimated at close to 2,000 we were forced to process through metal detectors and body screening. Only through dedication and the desire to make their voices heard on these CONCEPTS, many waited 2 - 21/2 hours in blinding snow and cold winds to gain entry and many left. At NONE of the other 3 hearings were metal detectors used. Discriminatory? In my 33 years as a lobbyist, no firearms/dangerous weapons have ever been seized at gun hearings.

[Spats McGee]

In this and several threads, I've seen references to the emergency clauses and "other purposes" language. Emergency clauses are standard fare in legislation. They are simply put in so that a law takes effectively as soon after passage as possible. There's nothing unusual or sneaky there. The language "and for other purposes" is also standard. From the legislator's perspective, if you do not include "for other purposes," that leaves a law subject to challenge on almost anything that is not specifically spelled out.

For example, from a bill currently in the Arkansas General Assembly:

AN ACT CONCERNING THE RETIREMENT OPTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES OF STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

SECTION 5. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that statutes concerning the Arkansas public retirement plans are in need of revision to maintain the public retirement laws in conformance with sound public pension policy; that the state operates on a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year; and that this act is necessary to ensure provisions of this act are effective at the beginning of the fiscal year for ease of administration and operation. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on July 1, 2013.