Norway - coming to the USA

[riffraff]

The only good thing as far as the election goes - even so many of the anti gunners will disagree with many other parts of the liberal agenda, ie economic policies, international affairs, immigration - to us guns are extremely important, to a subset of the liberals getting rid of guns is extremely important, but many people are in between and not necessarily in agreement with the rest of the liberal agenda. The economy is doing well, that's going to help keep liberals out of it stays this way.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by thallub

Florida is not anti-gun state. Florida recently passed some serious gun control. It can happen in other pro-gun states.

True. It is entirely possible that the demise of the 2nd Amendment could largely be done on the state level. It may just take one person foaming at the mouth to push through some anti-gun nonsense in each state. That's a lot of work and unpredictability though with 40 or so states which aren't anti-gun.

[Tom Servo]

but many people are in between and not necessarily in agreement with the rest of the liberal agenda

We try to avoid raw liberal/conservative discussions in this forum, as it can lead us astray. That said, I'd like to point out the recent special election in Pennsylvania. Results are still up in the air, but it looks like Democrat Connor Lamb has taken a seat that has been reliably Republican for quite some time.

He didn't run on the party line. He's quite moderate in the current climate, and (according to his statements--we'll see) he's very pro-gun. Believe it or not, there used to be quite a few pro-gun Democrats. My home state of Georgia was run by them until somewhat recently, as was Wisconsin.

I don't know if his success means the party may be getting a clue and backing off their rabid gun-control crusade or if Lamb is just a fluke. However, we have a generation of new liberals who (despite the ones we see on TV) aren't keen at all on gun control. Could they change things? We'll see.

It is entirely possible that the demise of the 2nd Amendment could largely be done on the state level.

Oh, that's the exact idea. Following Newtown, Bloomberg outlined a "state by state" agenda. It started with magazine bans and "universal background checks" in Colorado. On the state level, it's far easier for a small but vocal minority to enact quick change, and to do it in a way that the public doesn't notice until the last minute.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One threat, that I have mentioned before, is a cultural shift such that gun ownership is seen a unpleasant personal trait. Like smoking, still legal, but when you see a smoker, you think it is pitiful.

I read that the Kroger chain is removing most gun magazines (readable type) from their stores. That is a way of shaming the gun owner.

As I also said, repeatedly, I don't see a good cultural defense of the RKBA from the national organizations (esp. the NRA). Their messaging is all to the choir and frankly, a lot of it is flat out stupid if you know something about changing opinion.

[Tom Servo]

That is a way of shaming the gun owner.

In 1994, CDC head Mark Rosenberg told the Washington Post, “we need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.” This was the same time in which the VPC started sending flyers to Human Resources directors at large corporations warning them that people who talked about guns in the office or read gun magazines might just be the next workplace shooter.

In 2013, the big idea was that we needed more background checks because of a school shooting that wouldn't have been deterred by background checks. When the bill failed to pass, the headlines and commentators made liberal use of the words guilt and shame.

Much of the narrative I see is that, as gun owners, we ALL bear some responsibility for things like Newtown and Parkview, and if we're not lining up to support bans and restrictions, we're either evil or stupid.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's working somewhat in colleges. See:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/To...homas-U/242823

The president of St. Thomas University gave its chief financial officer an ultimatum on Tuesday: Cut ties with a gun manufacturer or resign.

I wouldn't be surprised if social media presence that is gun positive will entire into hiring and promotion decisions in industry, government, education, etc.

To Tom's point, is this latest horror enough to actually move public opinion. It may not be the case that the country would accept total gun bans but banning the semi auto,military appearance guns and the higher capacity magazines can certainly be sold to those not familiar with the issues.

When studies in the past asked about gun control and got a majority of positive responses, deeper analyses demonstrated that most of the country felt supportive of gun ownership by law abiding citizens, and supported controls to keep the guns out of bad actors hands. That's why universal background checks are supported by many. Good people will pass.

Also, the need for EBRs is not seen by many outside the gun choir AND by quite a few inside it. They are not needed for average self-defense (Is 5 enough?). The defense against tyranny is not high in the minds of average folks. Unfortunately, the gun choir defense by major organizations of the defense against tyranny is focused on ranting about socialism. That does not sell outside of niche audience. It might raise money from the niche but loses the war.

Saying that you need the RKBA to prevent your kindergarten teacher from turning your kid into a socialist - isn't going to stand up against a moral panic of continuing rampages. I'll control my own guns, thank you. Is that a rousing message to compete against images of horror?

I will get flack for not blindly pledging allegiance to leadership. Pledging allegiance to leadership is demanded by both parties. Ignore the sins and incompetence of the leaders! Has that worked out well?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

It's working somewhat in colleges.

I wouldn't attribute that event to a mere gun control strategy.

Academic intolerance of opinions that don't fit a specific orthodoxy has been growing for several decades before this. I remember in the 1980s that vandalism directed at the Dartmouth Review was tolerated by the school administration because they didn't consider its view legitimate. There were calls for me to be brought before my school's judicial board for opposing divestment from South Africa. More recently Lindsay Shepherd was called to account for presenting more than one view on a radical social issue with the administration raising the spectre of prosecution before the provincial human rights commission.

The goal of the sort of nonsense at St. Thomas is a sort of bizarre maoist contrition in which the target professes that he is ideologically redeemable. It's a horror show, and it's a credit to the CFO that she resigned.

The most disturbing thing about the linked story is that the journalist expressed exactly no concern that a college imposed an ad hoc ideological test in hiring.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

I wouldn't be surprised if social media presence that is gun positive will entire into hiring and promotion decisions in industry, government, education, etc.

I think social media has already entered into the hiring process. About 10 years ago, I had a person interviewing me ask for access to my Facebook account. I suspect that if you don't give them access to your social media account, you'll be considered someone with something really juicy to hide or an introvert.

[T. O'Heir]

"...and in a Canadian rampage..." In 1989. No restriction or otherwise done concerning Mini's here either.
"...unregistered Prohibited firearms..." Lots of non-Prohibs that are not registered too. The original law required a $25 per gun fee to register 'em. With a specific date. After that date passed, our idiot government took the fee off and returned the money, but did not extend the registration period for Prohibited kit. Lots of otherwise law abiding voters who may have not had the funds for $25 each, just did not bother. No change to anything Prohibited when the long gun registry was dumped either.
No other country on this planet has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms other than the U.S. Feinstein and Schumer would have to get a Constitutional amendment passed. Or just instruct the unelected civil servants at the ATF to make a regulation.

[TDL]

n 2013, Feinstein was asked about the concept of grandfathering, and she claimed the sheer number of grandfathered weapons was the reason for the ineffectiveness of the 1994 AWB. Her solution? She proposed requiring any grandfathered guns to be registered under the NFA.

Indeed. The mid range goal is to end consideration of semi-auto firearms long guns as "in common use." If they are grandfathered and NFA'd that is also a win for the gun ban lobby.

[Metal god]

Indeed. The mid range goal is to end consideration of semi-auto firearms long guns as "in common use." If they are grandfathered and NFA'd that is also a win for the gun ban lobby.

Although I agree that may be there goal . I don't know the legal term but there is legal reasoning/precedent ???? That you can't restrict something then later argue because that thing is so little used there's no reason to have it at all .

[TDL]

That you can't restrict something then later argue because that thing is so little used there's no reason to have it at all .

I would argue they could. You don't think say a ownership level in California and other jurisdictions progressively lower due to bans doesn't mean that at some point this accrues to them being less common in a national sense?And with registration as a specific class, in most states the only one required to be registered, the people who don't register would not count toward common use and the only "legitimate" registered ones do, nor would some 80% builds, which results in even a smaller number.

Is there a rejection by the courts of a concept of what is common if it is regulations making it less common? Would not most civilian AR-15 be select-fire if it was not NFA regulation? Has anyone successfully argued that select fire would be common f not for regulations and therefore should be considered common? so how are regulations causing lack of commonness going to be excluded in consideration of commonness? The same could eventually be said for >10 round mags if enough states limit them and or federal govt does..

Secondly here is the poltical-cultural issue. Firearms ownership is inherently private. Yet the press, and even submitted material to courts are using GSS and GSS type face-to-face (the most certain way to get undercounts on any privacy question) numbers for ownership, what is owned, demographics of ownership, and numbers of weapons owned. Like the claim that 2% of Americans own half of US guns. and labeling GSS as the "gold standard" of surveys. This goes to a public perception as to what is common. This n turns affects policy and how many state and federal legislators will believe that AR-15 is not in common use whether it is true or not. would you tell a face to face interviewer who bangs on your door that you have an AR-15 in your residence?

thirdly by raising hassle, cost, and or stigma, and implying low ownership, prospective buyers may think owning a semi auto rifle is an outlier, abnormal, and many people do tend to want to be in the norm.

[riffraff]

Tom - yes Lamb seems to be a different sort, certainly does not appear liberal on the gun front and I believe he ran some advertisement with himself shooting - I bet that helped a bit persuading gun owners he's alright.

Hopefully he is honest in his position and does not fold under pressure. I fully expected with the federal government in place today we would be buying our suppressors cheap online as gun parts in Trumps first term. Even Norway is doing that . Unfortunately that's been at least partly derailed by events as of lately and moderation within the party, and if anything we see more gun control occurring, not less. On that note, you'd think if the ATF can regulate bump stocks they can also deregulate suppressors.

[Tom Servo]

Hopefully he is honest in his position and does not fold under pressure.

That's going to be the big question. When Kirsten Gillibrand was elected in New York, Dianne Feinstein went all aspodey about Gillibrand's NRA "A" rating. Gillibrand stuck to her principles...for a few weeks.

Then she was part of the "I'm a gun owner, but..." crowd. Then she was personally sponsoring gun-control legislation. Obviously, there's a massive amount of pressure inside the party to toe the line on this issue.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Gillibrand stuck to her principles...for a few weeks.*** Obviously, there's a massive amount of pressure inside the party to toe the line on this issue.

Indeed.

I was acquainted with a democrat who made a name on the left fringe of the democrat party. Despite, this he was publicly opposed to legalised abortion. He didn't make a lot of noise about it, but didn't hide it either.

When he made it to congress and traded his midwestern milieu for friends in Hollywood and DC, he renounced his lifelong position. What sort of pressure drives a person to that?

I would think that Gillibrand, once in office, would understand that she has the voters to her left already, and that her pro-2d Am. bona fides would be a rare and attractive element to deploy against any repub challenger. If she loses a gun control advocate, where will they go? The Green Party candidate? So this pressure was so great, she caved to people who can't even vote for her.

I recognise the phenomenon, but don't grok the arithmetic behind it.

[LeverGunFan]

The interesting thing about the Pennsylvania election is that it will be on the ballot again this November, so the voters will be able to see how Lamb votes in the next eight months or so. The lesson I see from these elections is that the perceived quality of the candidate matters more than the party affiliation - bad candidates from either party will not fare well in an election.

[L2R]

I believe we are at the tipping point; we may have already past that point and just haven't realized it yet.

Waiting on the Supreme court or a justice to retire is akin to expecting a visit from the Clearing House with a 4 foot long check at the door.

I was job hunting for a few weeks in 2018. I felt violated with all the probing and inquisitions into my past, present, public and personal information that is expected to be produced and scrubbed. Criminal background, credit check, drug check-
God forbid I would share an opinion, or political cartoon divulging my opinion on gun rights. Did I mention that I just started working for a company that is located in Mass?

All that to say, "I don't have a voice and we don't have a voice"
We have become the group who smokes cigarettes and others believe we are blowing smoke in their faces and children are dying to preserve our right to play with guns on week ends


NRA, SAF, and all the other acronyms and people who support the 2nd A. best pool their money and find a voice to carry the message. If we cannot communicate rational thoughts, reasons, rights or events that promote our beliefs to the public, then we have already lost.

[Metal god]

I live in CA and I just bought a NRA hat to wear every day to promote discussion . I have several shirts that display in one way or another a pro 2nd amendment stance . I have been approached several times when in public about said shirts . Maybe 50/50 for and against which surprises me a bit based on where I live . I figure the letters NRA will get more notice then a shirt you actually have to read or a least pay close attention to know what it says . NRA on my forehead is going to be a little harder to miss and I hope to help other understand what the NRA does . At least from my prospective .

Donate and call your reps , I'm still waiting on Dianne Feinsteines reply to my reply .

[LogicMan]

I am not so concerned about the federal level, my main issue is the STATE level gun control. IMO, that is where the real battle is. Lack of federal gun control in terms of assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limitations, universal background checks, etc...is meaningless if all or most of the states have them individually. And one of the tactics being utilized is to put these things to ballot votes. In states with large urban populations, use of the ballot vote is a way to subject issues that should be put through a legislature to a straight up popular vote that will be dominated by urban anti-gun people.

We already have Oregon likely going to ban "Assault Weapons" this year in a ballot vote if they get enough signatures for it because then they can rely on the urban Portland vote to carry the day and enslave the whole state, and we have Florida with a group wanting to have a ballot in 2020 on whether to amend the state constitution to ban "assault weapons."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There was proposed Federal legislation to negate state bans. Of course, other priorities came to the fore for the 'pro-gun' party. Same with the HPA, SHARE, etc. Despite some negative views of reciprocity, note how quickly the budget deal ditched it. NY (IIRC) did get its crucial to American tunnel.

I've expressed my opinion enough on the presentation style weakness and strategies of the major national organization.

I agree that the states are the next battle ground in the near term. Even progun states can flip easily. The long term threats are a flip in White House and Congressional contro. The longest and most telling threats will be cultural change and the lack of a coherent message outside of choir funding raising.

[manta49]

One threat, that I have mentioned before, is a cultural shift such that gun ownership is seen a unpleasant personal trait. Like smoking, still legal, but when you see a smoker, you think it is pitiful.

You have hit the nail on the head, eventually they will demonise gun owners like smokers etc. Owning and shooting guns will be slowly be undermined in the population. Before you know it will be seen as a antisocial activity making it easier to tighten controls, much like it is in the UK.

[44 AMP]

And all the while, we will have people shooting people 24/7 delivered into our homes (and paid for, by us) as "entertainment".

Can't do anything about that, either, its a First Amendment issue.

Ever wonder why some people demand we respect part of the Constitution but not all of it???

[LogicMan]

I don't know if there is a cultural shift that gun ownership will be changed to being seen as a negative personal trait. Remember, the culture used to be a lot more amenable to gun ownership in the past than today. One of the problems with trying to enact such a shift is that unlike with something like smoking that is very unhealthy, gun ownership is not. Furthermore, self-defense s a very reasonable reason for possessing a gun.

[manta49]

One of the problems with trying to enact such a shift is that unlike with something like smoking that is very unhealthy, gun ownership is not. Furthermore, self-defense s a very reasonable reason for possessing a gun.

True but that's not the way it will be presented, it will be presented as guns kill who and why will not matter.

[ARqueen15]

My dear colleagues, I must say you are all entirely guilty of far too much common sense and logic.

Arguing that the FBI provided 2 warnings and 39 phone calls to BCSO all resulted in no action coupled with 4 armed deputies hiding outside and again, being inert, as a masscare took place, shouldn't result in an attack on law-abiding gun owners is far too reasonable.

Almost all will scoff at your mention of defense against tyranny even as those who dismiss your point are quick to call the current administration the equivalent of Hitler or that america is 17 years into a stalmemated war with what amounts to a local insurgency largely fighting with small arms and improvised weapons overseas.

I rather liken in to a mob that has been whipped into a frenzy through years and years of propaganda, social conditioning, and neverending indoctrination, now smelling blood and the powers at be offering them a sacrificial lamb.

I do believe this serves the cynical purposes of those behind these protests as a further way to eliminate dissent to their agenda.

Lest I forget and while I realize this may ruin the macabre suspense, as someone who owns firearms and has citizenship in more than one country, that having firearms is at best seen as disturbing and oftentimes perceived as undisguised evil. Without disclosing too much about the specific countries, you can be evicted solely for having firearms from a property you rent and most won't even consider your tenancy. In addition at work you will be stigmatized and percived as being dangerous.

It is rather akin to being part of a closely guarded cult whereby members go to great lengths to hide their membership.

How far is the United States from that when entities like the NRA are increasingly referred to as terrorist organizations by some politicians and many rather political individuals?

I think we all know that the AR, AK, and other semi-auto rifles are the tip of the iceberg. With the giant corporations pushing this anti-gun agenda they can put a stranglehold on the gun business even without any laws as youtube and citibank, among others are doing. Feinstein herself has said she would have banned every gun if she could and I believe obtaining a prize like the AR/AK/semi-autos would only whet her appetite. An appetitie that would only be satiated by banning pistols and all 10+ round magazines.

Considering what the likes of the despicable VT shooter did years ago, we all know it is bound to happen and will be seized upon to further justify this.

It rather resembles basic principles of physics whereby the momentum against us is only increasing. The constituency that honors the 1A & 2A are, I believe, an impediment towards the goals of those who primarily make the decisions and what better way to remove that obstacles than by marginalizing and discrediting that group?

And lastly let me say despite being a firearms owner in another country with very strict laws, that it is never enough for the political establishment. Despite the absence of any mass shootings in decades, new laws are constantly being proposed and in some cases implemented.

It doesn't matter that other issues and things cause 20, 30, 50x the number of deaths from firearms, as we all know the hypocrisy of what are acceptable rights, intolerable rights, acceptable deaths, and unacceptable deaths is rich.