House Judiciary Committee Sends Magazine Ban to the Floor for Vote

[MTT TL]

Sorry. The average gun owner has a family and a career, and he doesn't fancy having the ATF bulldoze his house or hold his family at gunpoint. He certainly doesn't want to go to prison and watch the media brand him a domestic terrorist.

A revolution would take leadership, organization, and will. Considering that the vast majority of gun owners can't even take five minutes to email their congressman about a bill, I find it hard to believe they're going to take up arms against the government.

Sure, the average gun owner.

What about the 1% at the fringe? If 150,000,000 people in the US own guns then 1% of them outnumber every law enforcement agency at every level in the country combined. If we raise the number of fringe owners to 4% they now outnumber the entire US military and all law enforcement agencies combined.

The US freaks out every time there is carnage from a mass shooting. If a President Beto plays in to the fears of fringe gun owners and tries a confiscation scheme the chaos and resulting damage could be insane. Instead of targeting schools and Walmarts they will start targeting Federal Buildings and legislatures. It could actually destabilize the government.

[rickyrick]

I just don’t see that as a likely scenario. A “fringe” gun owner would probably be someone that either is a prohibited person, or very close to being a prohibited person. This wouldn’t really affect fringe people, they would just keep on doing what they are doing.

There have been other moments in history when gun owners should have opposed gun control...1934, 1968, 1994... the gun owners complied then, and they will simply comply now.

No strong opposition to the unconstitutional bumpstock ban that was enacted through executive action and some creative linguistics.

There will be some resistance when all we have left are single shot rifles, break over shotguns and revolvers... it will be far too late by then

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

The US freaks out every time there is carnage from a mass shooting. If a President Beto plays in to the fears of fringe gun owners and tries a confiscation scheme the chaos and resulting damage could be insane. Instead of targeting schools and Walmarts they will start targeting Federal Buildings and legislatures. It could actually destabilize the government.

Sounds much less costly and more effective to make political donations and vote.

[L2R]

Our best hope would be a Rosa Parks, civil disobedient moment that catches the majority off guard.

My guess is that we will need a lot more bad laws and more extreme hate speech to create the perfect storm necessary to jolt the public.

And it won't be an old, white guy like me sitting on the bench. It will have to be someone who is and looks harmless while being harassed.

I wouldn't count on this happening but it would be the best way to turn the tide.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think there is some faulty thinking on how resistance to gun laws might look. For all those who are saying gun owners will quietly comply, I’d just point out the states of New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and California are all still waiting for that to happen - as is New Zealand. Heck, they found an old Maxim machinegun from WWI that might have been linked to Sgt. York - it wasn’t in the registry though. Gun owners have been practicing “Irish democracy” for some time now and will continue to do so.

Of course, some of those guys are going to be caught; but then what? The system can’t afford to remove violent, repeat felons for firearms violations right now - and these are guys inflicting actual economic costs on society. What community can then afford to start turning productive tax-paying citizens into tax drains? And when they ruin some guy’s life to “make an example of him” then what? What’s that guy’s incentive to comply then? If they are going to make an outlaw of you, at least you have the freedom of an outlaw. How effective have draconian drug laws been?

Which brings me to my final point, many of the people who deeply value their 2A rights ARE the system. They are pilots, prosecutors, judges, federal and state law enforcement, military officers, etc. If they feel betrayed by their government, they aren’t going to pick up an AR15 and shoot it out with a SWAT team like some gun show reject with “Born to Lose” tattooed on his face. They’ll turn in their ARs quietly and then pick up a pen and wreak real havoc, or have a quiet drink with the local scandal sheet. The 60s were full of radical “guerilla” groups who thought they could shoot their way to a new society. But the people who changed society were the ones who got involved in the bureaucracy - Bill Ayers put down the bombs and became a teacher to Barack Obama.

[rickyrick]

What good is a banned item if you need to keep it squirreled away and hidden.
That’s the real effect of banning a firearm accessory; some will turn them in, many will get hidden for the unlikely event the apocalypse happens during our lifetime (therefore unusable) and I doubt criminals will change anything (except criminals will benefit from the flood of black market magazines).

Some states have bans but don’t carry the full force of the federal government, or as many of the laws, they need clarification so law enforcement can advance. Also, I’d agree that disinterested LEO and LEO that are refusing to enforce the laws are helpful in those areas.

I think federal laws will be followed zealously, especially in the present time because gun owners, the Republican Party and the NRA are thought of as hate groups and domestic terrorists.

[MTT TL]

Which brings me to my final point, many of the people who deeply value their 2A rights ARE the system. They are pilots, prosecutors, judges, federal and state law enforcement, military officers,

After 30 years doing some of the above I can tell you I don't know any trigger pullers who are in favor of not following the constitution in this regard. There was this one Marine Reservist about 12 years ago who was an exception and of course the military officers that get bitten by the political bug who spout all kinds of nonsense but the farther away from the flagpole you get the more stalwart defenders you find.

There have been other moments in history when gun owners should have opposed gun control...1934, 1968, 1994... the gun owners complied then, and they will simply comply now.

1994? Gun owners did oppose gun control. There was an endgame there and it played out. Rights are stronger now than they have ever been.

But lest we forget we also had Timothy McVeigh blow up a Federal Building. Partly because he was a racist maniac and at least partially because he was unhappy about the AWB. Now try to imagine several dozen nutjobs running doing the same thing.

[JN01]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

I think federal laws will be followed zealously, especially in the present time because gun owners, the Republican Party and the NRA are thought of as hate groups and domestic terrorists.

Current Federal gun laws are rarely prosecuted, why would new laws be any different?

[rickyrick]

So our only saving grace is sporadic enforcement? Wouldn’t it be better to prevent new laws instead of letting them happen and hope someone doesn’t enforce it?

1994? Gun owners did oppose gun control. There was an endgame there and it played out. Rights are stronger now than they have ever been.

Apparently not enough gun owners opposed it. Also, the opposition to gun ownership has never been higher.

In my opinion, gun rights are not strong enough yet. The second amendment doesn’t have the punch that the other civil rights have. While some people are enjoying more gun freedom than ever before, more are loosing their gun rights faster than ever. Gun owners simply do not have the political clout or the will apparently to stop future bans; gun owners definitely do not have the clout to get any gun laws reversed. We pour billions into gun lobbyist without much return.

When other rights are violated somewhere in the country, activists act... they’ go across the country to support those that have had their rights violated.
Gun owners merely get online and complain, they’re complacent and don’t care if people in another state looses rights. At the current pace, in the current political climate, we will all loose gun rights in time.

[MTT TL]

Apparently not enough gun owners opposed it.

The 1994 AWB is no more, it has been gone for 15 years. I'd say it was just the right amount.

Instituting the AWB, showing it did nothing and then letting it lapse actually proved a useful point to many people at the time that bans don't work. The rebound after the ban resulted in sales of guns never before seen in this country. The AWB motivated people into working together in different states which led to a huge revamp of CCL's that reverberate throughout the country today.

In many ways the 94 AWB was a gift.

We pour billions into gun lobbyist without much return.

Billions of what?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RR

So our only saving grace is sporadic enforcement? Wouldn’t it be better to prevent new laws instead of letting them happen and hope someone doesn’t enforce it?

Surely.

Originally Posted by RR

In my opinion, gun rights are not strong enough yet. The second amendment doesn’t have the punch that the other civil rights have.

True.

Originally Posted by RR

When other rights are violated somewhere in the country, activists act... they’ go across the country to support those that have had their rights violated.
Gun owners merely get online and complain, they’re complacent and don’t care if people in another state looses rights.

One group who don't believe that are the congressional dems who lost control of the Senate and House just a couple of months after passing the 94 AWB.

Voting actually sort of works, whereas getting on a bus to go cross country and chant dopey rhymes for cameras isn't yet a part of our formal political process.

[Tom Servo]

Now try to imagine several dozen nutjobs running doing the same thing.

That's what scares me. Any "revolution" scenario involves the very real possibility of harming people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a dark calculus when we have to decide if that's acceptable, and if so, how much of it would be.

It's not going to play out like Red Dawn. Innocent people will be hurt. Then there's the destabilization of the country that would inevitably follow. I suppose we could rephrase the question: how much suffering am I willing to inflict on my fellow citizens over a gun law?

This is what bothers me about the folks who scream "time for a revolution" every time something doesn't go their way. They're displaying a shockingly cavalier attitude about human life.

It's also worth noting that those guys admit to engaging in little or no legitimate political involvement. People who've told me the don't even vote are quick to call for armed revolt. I really do hope it's all just hot air.

[MTT TL]

It's not going to play out like Red Dawn. Innocent people will be hurt.

Actually lots of innocent people were hurt in Red Dawn (at least fictionally). The movie opens with the execution of a school teacher. Most of the main cast dies by the end of the movie.

This is what bothers me about the folks who scream "time for a revolution" every time something doesn't go their way. They're displaying a shockingly cavalier attitude about human life.

No kidding. The people I see screaming that have never fired a shot in anger and have no clue how these things work. Civil Wars are the worst possible wars to get in to. They tend to go on for generations or until one side is so annihilated they are either all dead or starving and naked.

It's also worth noting that those guys admit to engaging in little or no legitimate political involvement. People who've told me the don't even vote are quick to call for armed revolt. I really do hope it's all just hot air.

Internet commandos aside there are going to be a few crazies.

[rwilson452]

Total up the American dead in just two revolutions fought in our land. The American Revolution and the Civil War. Terrible cost.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-.../1186/all-info

Yup, just look at all the Rs on that list.

To imply there aren't many members of the GOP who support UBC, RFL and AWB is being naive.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Only those unlucky enough to caught in the first night of raids will be in that position. And maybe the second night. After that, it's gonna get bloody. Perhaps Mr O'Roarke is trying to start a civil war? Because that's how you get a civil war.

Or maybe he's both stupid and evil, and thinks only white gun owners and the police will be affected (and if they kill each other that's a good thing because he hates both)

And who are going to be conducting these raids? And how are they going to know where to go for those 17 Million 'assault type' weapons. Where is the manpower and $ going to come from? It's fine to show support for various parts of gun ownership but some reality please.

[MTT TL]

To imply there aren't many members of the GOP who support UBC, RFL and AWB is being naïve.

Many? If there were "many" it would already be a done deal. Are there a few? Maybe, but they are being awful sneaky about it.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Many? If there were "many" it would already be a done deal. Are there a few? Maybe, but they are being awful sneaky about it.

Members of the GOP who are facing an election in 2020 are in a tough spot. Support these things and rile their base..No support and rile the YUGE moderate middle who are on the fence about candidates but are 'seemingly' supportive of those acronyms, UBC, RFL, AWB...

[lefteye]

RFL?

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by lefteye

RFL?

Red Flag Law..

[lefteye]

Thank you.

[44 AMP]

by the best (rough) numbers I've seen, once the American Revolution got underway, about 1/3 of the people supported the revolution, 1/3 were Crown Loyalists, and 1/3 just wanted to be left the hell alone to live their lives in relative peace.

And, of course, the body count in a civil war is horrifying, because both sides are the same nationality.

No, it absolutely won't play out like Red Dawn, where there was a foreign aggressor, if it came down to armed resistance to the govt in this country, there's a factor that's almost always overlooked.

And that is, that we and they are co-mingled. Some of their people are mixed in with us, and some of us are mixed in with their people. And both sides will be throwing as much sand in the other side's gears as possible.

your neighbor down the block, or a member of your family might rat you out. Or your granddaughter in the dispatch office might warn you a raid is going to happen...etc.

Never forget that if they can do something to one Constitutionally enumerated right, they can do it to the others as well. If we ever get to the point of house to house raids (over anything), how well do you expect that same government to respect our rights to free speech and assembly?

And, if/when they don't, what's your option? Take them to a government court?? (after you get out of jail, assuming, you do???)

No, we aren't the same people we were in 1776. In some ways we are greater, but in many ways, we are so much lesser than we were.

I never did understand how banning ownership of a spring loaded box above a certain size prevented murder....

We have a system, its flawed, but then, so are we. But it can work, providing the people in it are looking at reality, and not what a poll says.

That seems like an uphill battle these days...

[JN01]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

So our only saving grace is sporadic enforcement? Wouldn’t it be better to prevent new laws instead of letting them happen and hope someone doesn’t enforce it?

I wasn't implying that we shouldn't resist new proposals, nor that we shouldn't be very concerned. I'm saying that politicians, and those on the left in particular, often have lofty ideas but rarely follow through with them.

Any new laws passed will be mostly unenforced and ineffective which will give an excuse for the next wave of restrictions.

The extremism of some of the Presidential candidates proposals certainly remind one of the importance of and reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but I can't see any of them going all out Stalin on us. Not yet anyway.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

To imply there aren't many members of the GOP who support UBC, RFL and AWB is being naive.

First, I’m not implying anything. I’m stating an unequivocal fact. The list of who sponsored HR 1186 to ban normal magazines is right there for everyone to read.

Second, if you know of Republicans who support unconstitutional gun control, then by all means lets name and shame them. I have no objection to that and have done it myself on many occasions. However, the number of national Republicans who support AWBs is next to zero. There is that one King guy from NY and who else? You don’t have to conflate three different categories of proposed gun control to get “many” with the other party.

Not to mention there is a difference between supporting a red flag law that offers due process protections or a universal background check that protects gun owner privacy. Tom Cotton was a GOA A+ Senator - he supported universal background checks, just not based on the current system of firearms laws. His bill never even got heard on the floor during 2013.

Members of the GOP who are facing an election in 2020 are in a tough spot. Support these things and rile their base..No support and rile the YUGE moderate middle who are on the fence about candidates but are 'seemingly' supportive of those acronyms, UBC, RFL, AWB

And yet look at all the GOP cosponsors on that list - heck, even GOP candidates who support bans are missing. If what you are describing were actually happening, wouldn’t House candidates in suburban and urban districts be all over that? I mean, they don’t even have to risk it becoming law since they can let the Senate or White House kill it. So, they can have their cake and eat it too if the reality you describe is correct. Why do you think they aren’t doing that?

[USNRet93]

Second, if you know of Republicans who support unconstitutional gun control, then by all means lets name and shame them.

President Donald Trump caused consternation among some of his staunchest conservative supporters during a rambling White House meeting with lawmakers in which he expressed support for potentially unconstitutional gun control measures staunchly opposed by the NRA.

Donald J Trump for starters. As somebody said, the only 'poll' that matters are the ones in November.

So many howl when Cory Booker(who?) or Beto O'Rourke says something about increased gun control, even got a trump twitter-response....as if it's really, really a BIG problem but when a member of the GOP says something about increasing gun control..'nothing to see here'...

wouldn’t House candidates in suburban and urban districts be all over that

They are and are mostly democrats..why the representative nature of the House is so much different than the Senate-> 2 members, representing the entire state.