Relax, An Assault Weapons Ban Is Still Unlikely

 

Would it be possible for a new AWB to see the light of day? Well, anything’s possible, but likely? Not really. In the senate there’s a small chance that they might move enough R senators to get it through (although there are Ds in the senate who come from pro-gun states and who are only in office because guns weren’t a major issue when they were running.) But in the House, you’d have to have a majority of reps who believed so strongly in the necessity of a gun ban that they would be willing to sacrifice their careers to get it implemented.  How likely is that? . . .

Again, I’m not talking about the screamers in the media, the stuffy aristocrats who are accustomed to lecturing us low-brow cretins who think we need to own guns (and doing so from within their gated communities or downtown offices protected by armed guards.)

I’m talking about the people who would actually have to write the laws and who would have to face the anger of the voters in 2014 when they are all up for re-election.

There is another dynamic at work here: People who are pro-gun tend to be much, much more committed to the gun issue than people who are anti-gun.

For people who are anti-gun, outside of a small core of Brady types, being anti-gun is simply one political viewpoint in a whole suite of political issues that motivate them (abortion rights, economic “fairness”, environmental issues, foreign policy, energy policy, etc.) By the time the elections roll around in 2014 most of the ardent anti-gunners will have moved on to another pet issue.

Pro-gunners, by contrast, are much more likely to be one-issue voters. They’re also more likely to organize, to support opposing candidates, to join organizations like the NRA, JPFO, GOA, etc., when they think their rights are threatened. And they have long, loooong memories (Clinton even said that it was likely his anti-gun stance that cost Al Gore the election in 2000.)

So while we will undoubtedly put up with several weeks of bloody-shirt-waving from the anti gunners, by the time the new Congress gets down to business, you can bet that gun control will not be a top item. The President may try to tweak the current laws around the edges via EO, and some local governments (or states) may tighten gun control laws, but I don’t really see any likelihood of any major federal gun controls. There simply is no benefit to congresspeople to vote for one and there are huge, huge liabilities.

172 Responses to Relax, An Assault Weapons Ban Is Still Unlikely

  1. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I hope that the camera was on a timer and no camera man behind it. That gun (looks like a Tech 9) could go off.

    Edit to Add:

    ” But in the House, you’d have to have a majority of reps who believed so strongly in the necessity of a gun ban that they would be willing to sacrifice their careers to get it implemented”

    Well put. I am still trying to get a better grasp on politics. I know enough to decide who I want to vote for just not sure how some gears work in the law making business. Anyways I really hope the above quoted statement is true. Even I can realize that not all Republicans a pro-2A.

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      …but at the same time, not all dems are anti-2a. ;)

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        True, very true. I can maintain some hope on that as well. But betting money on a Republican dominated house being the end all to an AWB is something I would not do.

      • avatarBill says:

        True. before this wash of high profile shootings and new media focus on everything gun, I was excited. Excited because gun ownership and having enthusiasm was no longer just for OFWG and hunting rifles. I’m in my late twenties and a proud army vet and I have a plethora of friends from many races, religions, and political parties that just enjoy shooting and being part of the responsible firearms community. The majority of them are committed to concealed carry. Even the ones who don’t own, are not opposed to firearms. It was about to be the new dawn of guns are not bad. All I as expecting in the future was that the gun owners for the most part were going to be left alone about their pro-gun choices with an occasional scolding by ant-gunners.

        • avatarphil says:

          The anti-gun crowd will never go away. Leftist leaders recognize bans as a required step in their efforts to dismantle the constitution (though they have been doing a splendid job of dismantling already). Then there are many useful idiots that are convinced that outlawing private ownership will make society safer. The only way I have seen useful idiots change their minds is after they survive a violent crime.

        • avatarpat says:

          phil, very true. 2A is the ‘linchpin amendment that protects the other (protections) from ‘Big Gov’.

    • avatarBiofire says:

      A politician risking their career for a cause? What is this, the 60s?

  2. avatarAaronvan says:

    Can’t make me! (relax)

  3. If its ok with everyone here…. am still going to go on a gun and ammo buying panic.

    Well… I am really panicking so I will also be sending some some more money over to the NRA, GOA and SAF.

    Gun Ownership Rights is too important for me not to panic every time I see Franken-Steins ugly face.

  4. avatarMike S says:

    Agreed. I may be wrong (hope not!), but I just don’t see them having the juice to push it through.

  5. avatarIdahoPete says:

    I do see a possibility of Obama issuing an EO that would require the BATFE to prohibit (via a new regulation) any licensed FFL gun dealer from selling an “assault weapon”. The lawsuits would take several years to wind through the system, and I doubt that many dealers would risk their licenses and livelihoods by defying the BATFE.

    Obama has a history of ruling through Executive Orders – he has issued nearly 1,000 of them, and has clearly stated that he finds Congress to be an inconvenient check on how he would LIKE to rule.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      “… has clearly stated that he finds Congress to be an inconvenient check on how he would LIKE to rule.”

      Would you mind referencing this please? I believe it, I just havnt heard it until now. Its mostly because of the “clearly stated” part that I ask. I mean, did that jack @&& seriously say something that defies the checks and balances we are supposed to have?

      • avatarBill says:

        +1 on that. As much as I need another reason to loathe him, I’d actually prefer that statement not to be true.

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        It was a “joking” comment during a speech to La Raza/NCLR.

        • avatarAharon says:

          National Council of La Raza is a racist organization that claims all the lands on maps inherited from the old Spanish Empire and prior to the American-Mexican War as belonging to Mexicans even though Native American tribes never pledged loyalty to Mexico or the Aztecs, whatever.

      • avatarCyrano says:

        Anyone follow the “Dream Act” drama. Congress defeats the bill, Obama says that is not what he wanted and issues the EO to accomplish what he wanted. There is your reference.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-21/obama-pledges-to-keep-immigration-system-overhaul-a-priority.html

        • avatarphil says:

          One difference, not sure how important it is. His dream act weaselry was simply deciding not to enforce existing laws. If he bans a weapon type, that would essentially be enforcing a law that doesn’t exist. Some difference there, though he technically doesn’t have the authority to do either. I’m sure their lawyers could dig up some ambiguous phrase in some regulation and say they now are “interpreting it differently”

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      IP, if you do your research first, he (Obama) is on pace to have around 150 EO’s in his first term, the same amount as Bush (43) in his first term….not 1000! Not defending, just the facts!

  6. avatarHoustorm says:

    I keep trying to tell myself this too; I’m worried about a magazine restriction. Luckily, I see antis swinging for the fences and missing entirely.

  7. avatarMartin Albright says:

    I also wonder when the anti-gunners will realize that every time they demand a gun ban, it sells guns. And the more guns you put in people’s hands, the more difficult it will be to enforce any future laws (it’s a lot easier to make a law prohibiting something people don’t own than it is to confiscate something that they do own.)

    There’s nothing that more easily motivates people to do something than to declare that it might be illegal next year.

    It also boosts the political coffers of the various gun rights organizations, chief among them the media-hated NRA.

    Yet another reason why this will most likely result in a political stalemate. Lots of sound and fury, but in the end, no substantive changes in the law.

  8. avatarHerb says:

    He could be right, certainly hope so.

    But doesn’t the media WANT us to think that the Newtown horror has awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve?

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      Of course the media wants to make us think that there has been a “sea change” in attitudes towards guns.

      They told us as much in 1999 after Columbine…
      and in 2002 after the DC Sniper shootings…
      and in 2007 after the Virginia Tech massacre…
      and in 2009 after the Fort Hood massacre…
      and in 2011 after the Gabby Giffords shooting…
      and earlier this year after the Aurora shooting.

      The thing is, the anti-gunners could not be any more shrill than they already are, which means that their ‘demands’ get lost in the background noise.

      Pretty soon we stop listening to it because the same news media that loves to wave the bloody shirt, also loves to push the NEXT! BIG! THING! with the volume turned up to 11.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        “… also loves to push the NEXT! BIG! THING!”

        Perhaps if Jersey Shore was renewed and the masses had something other than the MSM to pay attention to, we could get a breather. Thats it, Im writing MTV.

        • avatarsurlycmd says:

          Don’t bother. MTV has created the same show set in W. Virginia. The masses will be plenty entertained.

      • avatarphil says:

        One difference between CT and the others. This happens to be the first big shooting after BHO was elected to a second term. He will move on guns however he can.

        At the very least, he will use this as part of a political attack on the Republicans. If the progressives propose a ban that then dies in the House, expect a blizzard of obscene attack adds on all Republican congress critters coming up to 2014. Like animations of them reloading for the CT gunman, all the while biting the heads off kittens.

  9. avatarChas says:

    Told ya. Feinstein said herself not long ago that they simply didn’t have the votes to pass a ban. Nothing’s changed since then. But I’ll have fun watching her try and making a fool of herself…. again.

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      We have to remember that as much as politicians might say “I want to do something” in reality, it’s much more convenient for them to be seen as trying to do something.

      Actually doing something means having to live with the inevitable consequences. OTOH, trying to do something gives them points for “caring” and “trying” (which is a +) and avoids having to deal with the consequences of what happens when well-meaning legislation gets corrupted, perverted, or misapplied (which is a – .)

      The “noble lost cause” is the best of both worlds in politics. DiFi and her ilk get to say “I tried to do something but those knuckle-dragging republican villains kept me from doing it! Darn them!” and she still gets the adoration of her supporters.

  10. avatarTim says:

    Here’s a thought, I’m reluctant to buy anything else at this point because I’m afraid that the next AWB would not offer any grandfathering, and would make the transfer and sale of any AW illegal, rendering everything existing value-less.

    I heard something on the news this morning that struck a cord with me, that this shooting stands alone from the other gun violence that this country has grown accustomed to. That this massacre feels more like 9/11/01 than did Columbine, or VA Tech.

    If anyone was on the fence regarding gun control, I have a feeling that this disaster is going to change a lot of minds. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see it happening.

  11. avatarJohn Bergmann says:

    But what about California? They Dems just won super-majority in both state houses here. Do we think it is likely Cali will get a no-grandfathered law?
    The gun lobby here is pretty strong though.
    If that’s the case i’m screwed…unless I never want to shoot my gun ever.
    And I just got it!
    I hate California.

    • avatarRobert M says:

      California already has a AWB ban in place is said to have a grandfather clause in it but it was really just a way to confiscate them without having to pay for them. Although they could certainly tighten the law up making it even harder to get a decent gun in California. PS they already have the 10 round limit on magazines in California.

      Thanks
      Robert

  12. avatarAharon says:

    I find it kinda humorous that gun-grabber zealot DiFi has held more scary black guns in her hands than your average gun owner. The JPFO once featured a really funny photoshop image of DiFi in a Nazi uniform. It fit her well.

  13. avatarRalph says:

    MA already has an AWB, and I can tell you that’s it’s nothing more than a nuisance. And there does not appear to be any kind of movement toward tightening the law, or even a desire to do so even though the Democrats totally dominate this state and all the Republicans are RINOs.

    However, an AWB is a part of the National Dem platform and “gun control” a central tenet of Dem orthodoxy. I’m sure that the snakes in the party can craft a law that will pass the House, possibly as a rider to the “grand compromise” on taxes and spending. As far as the Senate is concerned, the Dems already have enough votes for an AWB, and the antifilibuster rule that they’re about to pass will seal the deal.

    We would have been in better shape if the Dems had proposed a confiscation bill. Such a bill couldn’t even pass the Senate, much less the House. But they were smart enough to know that. My reading FWIW is that the odds of an AWB are 50-50.

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      Ralph, what incentive to the Republicans have to cave in on gun control? Zero. Unless the media is right about how this will “change America’s attitudes towards guns” (have they ever been right?) the republicans gain nothing by supporting an AWB and they lose, big time.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Martin, the Reps in the House will sell us out in a heartbeat if the quid pro quo is holding the line on taxes. And after the dismal performance by the NRA in the last election, they are not the feared organization they once were. The NRA went “all in” and lost. They are fresh out of chips.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Boy, wouldn’t that be great? We destroyed ACORN over a few fake videos, so maybe we can destroy the NRA over this.

        • avatarMartin Albright says:

          Ralph, the NRA lost because the Dems refused to make guns an issue. You can’t win a battle when the enemy won’t come out to fight. With no dems making noises about outlawing guns, the NRA voters had no reason to get out of bed (especially with Romney at the top of the R ticket.)

          That’s the bind the Dems are in. If they talk about guns, they lose because non-political gun owners (which is to say, most gun owners) will vote against them out of fear. If they fail to talk about guns, they get hammered by their own side.

    • avatarmp says:

      was the gun used “illegal” under the current MA AWB?

  14. avatarsindaan68 says:

    Id like to see pro 2a members get ahead of the curve on this. Why not allow, those who would, the ability to carry inside the schools? Why not allow, those administrators who would, training and licensing of “assault” weapons stored securely inside the school?

    Why not a program like I read earlier where parents, CCP/CWP holders, volunteer time at the school?

    Pro 2A members of the house and senate have an opportunity to actually protect children for once instead of printing more of those stupid fucking “Gun Free Zone” signs. Stop penning the sheep for slaughter. Put some wolves on our side on the inside.

  15. avatarbontai Joe says:

    OMG! OMG! Is she trying to demonstrate the shoulder thingy that goes up in that photo??? Sorry, couldn’t help myself, just seeing that woman with an AR type rifle in her hands brings out the worst in me.

  16. avatarTotenglocke says:

    I’ll just keep praying that DiFi and the other antique anti-gun zealots miraculously die of heart attacks / strokes / old age over the Christmas break.

  17. avatarRossi says:

    I just want to thank RF and company for allowing this to be published. As usual, I think TTAG has a more calm and moderate approach to politics than many of the other Pro-2A sites on the internet.

  18. avatarLLARMS says:

    Executive Order != Voting in New Law

    Sad, ain’t it?

    - D

  19. avatarST says:

    The reason I view another AWB as likely boils down to marketing.While the Republicans own the House today,everyone’s up for re-election in 2014. I don’t think any of them want to be on the wrong side of an attack ad that claims they opposed a law to protect kids from military style death sticks.Futhermore there’s the Fiscal Cliff to consider as we’ll.If Obama agrees to relent on certain tax hikes in exhange for conservative support for an AWB ,it’s checkmate for us. We won’t see it this way, but most gun owners if offered a choice between giving up their AR15 or paying higher taxes permanently will opt to sacrifice their gun.Our economy is still in a recession and there are people in conservative House districs for whom a Fiscal Cliff tax hike would be a grave disaster.

    • avatarLance says:

      Disagree BIG time Obama never makes deasl like that. BIGGEST thing is that most GOP Reps in the House come from pro gun districts so any AWB support would be suicide.

  20. avatarMartin Albright says:

    If this shooting had happened in 1992, we might indeed have seen an across-the-board ban with no sunset clause.

    But this is not the same world. The pro-gun organizations that established themselved during Clinton’s relentless assault on the 2nd amendment are not going to go away, and while the organizations themselves might not be huge, they have the ability to influence a lot of votes, and the House knows this.

    Haven’t you wondered why it is that for the first time in recent memory starting in about 2008, gun control was not a major platform of most democratic candidates? It was because they were tired of losing elections based on that one issue.

    I was living in Wyoming in 2002. One of the candidates to replace our term-limited governor sent out a mailer that explained the three legs of his campaign: 1. Maintaining public access to public lands 2. Allowing responsible development of our abundant natural resources and 3. strongly supporting the RKBA.

    That candidate was Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, who actually won and became Wyoming’s first Democrat governor in decades.

    Of course, there are certainly anti-gunners in Wyoming. If I had my rolodex I could probably name all 5 of them. ;)

    But in all seriousness, the democrats learned after their losses in 94, 96, 98, 2000 and 2002 that if they would just stop talking about gun control they could start winning again. And it’s worked for them. So how likely are they to abandon the stance that’s won them the position they are in now?

    They’d have to be a stupid as the Republicans in order to do that.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Great point.

      But do you think that this recent string of spree killings will at all impact the masses? I know they arnt the first in our history but so close to one another?

      Maybe for the antis to persevere in office it is in their best interest to not go against the 2A but at the moment they have an advantage. That advantage being human emotions. Regardless of the vague statements made by Obama lastnight being at an inapropriate time and place, you cant convince me it didnt sell people to back him. I hope I am wrong.

      • avatarMartin Albright says:

        But do you think that this recent string of spree killings will at all impact the masses? I know they arnt the first in our history but so close to one another?

        Actually, I don’t think it will. Here’s why: Remember the first modern suicide bombings during the Intifada in the late 1990′s? Every bombing was exhaustively reported and gruesome pictures circulated the internet.

        But as time went by and the bombings became more numerous, people got less shocked by them. Still horrified, no doubt, but shock comes from something new or novel. As the novelty wears off, the shock value diminishes too. By the time the intifada petered out, a suicide bombing was a page 3 story, at best.

        And as horrible as it sounds to say, I see the same thing happening here. The first time such a shooting happens, it has shock value, but the more times it happens after that, there is less shock value each time.

        This is the story of the week now, you can bet there will be lots of coverage of funerals juxtaposed with Christmas decorations and furrowed brow reporters scolding the nation for its gun obsession. But with the shooter dead (unlike the Aurora shootings here in CO, there will be no trial to keep this story alive) it will recede into memory when the next big story comes out.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          To be honest Martin, I had to look that up. I was ten in ’95 and sometimes cant remember something I did only hours ago lol. I fear alzheimers will come early for me but I digress.

          Once again a good point you have made. I really hope you are right in everything you have said thus far. But this is on American soil. Im not trying to argue with you, in fact I seriously hope I am just overestimating thd masses.

    • avatarJoe Sixpack says:

      Martin,

      I once again find myself in agreement with your analysis. This story will fade from the headlines. The up/downside to the 24hr news cycle is that stories burn out pretty quickly as the death porn media moves onto the next story.

      I don’t see anything more than some minor legislation at best being passed just so they can say they did something. At this point it should be apparent to anyone but the most hard core statist gun grabber that there are no laws that can prevent insanity.

    • avatarphil says:

      To play devil’s advocate, you are assuming BHO will act in the best interest of his party now that he has been re-elected. Not sure that is true, since 1) he seems to be convinced that he is infallible, and 2) the voters (fools that they are) haven’t given him sufficient cause to doubt that he is Jesus.

  21. avatarmdc says:

    First off.Politicans after office are taken care of.Forget that “afraid of losing seat/career.They will be just fine after their tenure.Off to the private sector/lobbying buisness.

  22. avatarAharon says:

    Despite her image and the frequent media attention that she gets, DiFi has statistically one of the lowest track records in the Senate for getting legislation passed that she introduced.

  23. We have to be careful with the Republicans too. They are just as likely to make some compromise that takes away half our right. They my view our situation as one where… We don’t have any choice but to vote for them.

    The best strategy for us is to keep turning non-gun owners into gun owners. Especially minorities.

  24. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I don’t think it will help much to ban assault rifles, but it still seems like something we should try to do. The military spent a lot of money and time designing the best possible way to kill people, and they determined that gunfights are usually won by whichever team fires the most. The M-16 is designed around that philosophy, and so, obviously, is the AR-15.

    Anything designed specifically to carry 30 rounds (per magazine) is not really a hunting rifle. (If you go hunting with six full 30-round magazines, I am guessing that you are a pretty poor hunter.)

    That isn’t what bothers me anyway. What bothers me is that the Justice Department compiled a list of things that we could do that would help, and the NRA managed to shoot down all those as well.

    Here is the list from the Justice Department:
    1. Improve the background check system.
    2. Eliminate the gun show loophole.
    3. Increase penalties for straw buyers.
    4. Increase penalties for corrupt gun dealers.
    5. Improve information sharing between states on which individuals should be banned from buying guns.

    The NRA spent millions of dollars defeating these proposals, even though all of them were supported by the public. As a result, here we are again.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      FAIL!

      1. What is there to improve? Either you are a crimminal and it shows or not

      2. There is no gun show loophole. FFLs at gun shows are required to run a background check PERIOD! Private sales of firearms to known felons are illegal PERIOD!

      3. So if I bought my girlfreind (an already responsible and knowledgable gun owner with a valid permit) a gun, I should be penalized? Again, buying or selling a gun for/to a known fellon is illegal.

      4. Corrupt gun dealers? Aside from the fools at Red Jacket Firearms, give me some examples.

      5. The background check is at a national level. Also purchasing a firearm in another state requires it to be transfered to an FFL in the buyers home state and still requires a background check.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        These are all ideas that came from the Justice Department, after the Gabby Giffords shooting. I didn’t make these up.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          Sorry if thats what my comment implied. I am not saying you said that, I just love the BS behind thoes points.

      • avatarRob says:

        Maybe some additional points, for discussion.

        1. There could be some room for improvement. In my state of Florida for example there have been issues with our Dept. of Agriculture being the licensing agency, yet because they aren’t a law enforcement agency they don’t have access to a lot Federal databases including mental health databases.

        http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/florida-not-checking-national-mental-health-records-for-gun-carry-permits#ixzz208xwkB00

        2. Agreed, there is no gun show loophole. If anything it could be called the private sale loophole.

        3. There’s a gray area there, I would hate to see you imprisoned for buying a gun for your girlfriend since you are both competent permit holders, however someone buying multiple guns and putting them out for people who shouldn’t have them need to cracked down on.

        4. Not sure if the people you mentioned are the same as in this article, but anyone who sells this many guns to the same two people and doesn’t think something’s up is delusional.

        http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/ohio_maker_of_hi-point_firearm.html

        5. Like I mentioned in issue #1, there are some states that don’t participate or can’t participate. Some have laws against submitting medical records and some like Florida are not supposed to be allowed to access due to the department not being a law enforcement agency.

        Personally, these five points don’t do much to bother me as a law abiding, mentally healthy gun purchaser. However, the gun control crowd is already using the NRA fighting them as fuel and I think the NRA’s time and money would’ve been better spent.

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        So LDB I guess I need to go turn mysef in??!! I bought my girlfriends dad, not a felon or looney, a revolver for Christmas.
        Guess I won’t get to see him open it after al!! Damn so bummed out now!!

        • I think we are agreeing again. I don’t have an issue with the existing laws, I just think that more background checks would help, rather than hurt. I keep hearing on this board that background checks are the same thing as gun confiscation; I disagree.

    • avatarpcrh says:

      “As a result, here we are again.”

      Which of those suggestions would have prevented the most recent massacre?

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Pcrh,

        Obviously the one about corrupt gun dealers and the other about background checks. If Dicks Sporting Goods didnt force him to do a background check then he wouldnt have murdered his mother to steal her guns.

        *(extremely heavy) sarcasm off

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        I don’t know that it would have helped, but certainly, doing nothing hasn’t helped.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          What do you mean doing nothing!? He tried to buy a gun days before the attack and backed down when asked to submit to the background check and waiting period. The existing gun control laws succeeded if anything.

          He then comited two crimes to obtain the firearms used in the attacks. MURDER and THEFT! So before the killing spree at the school he was already a crimminal.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          I am ok with arming teachers. I just don’t see how less gun regulations would have helped.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          “What bothers me is that the Justice Department compiled a list of things that we could do that would help…”

          My comment was only trying to point out that none of the things proposed to “help” would actually help. Most of the suggestions include “increased penalties for….” But if we’re talking about someone willing to commit murder, why do we expect increased penalties for some lesser crime to deter them?

          I’ve had a similar conversation with a few different friends over the past days. Most are absolutely certain we need stricter laws, but none are able to articulate what changes should be made. And, respectfully, I hear you saying the same thing.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          If we started enforcing a fine of about $100K for sales to known felons, I bet the gun dealers would clean up their act in a hurry.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          It is already a crime to knowingly sell guns to a felon. You can go to prison for it. Tack on another $100k fine. You’ve deterred no one who wasn’t already deterred.

          This is a prime example of Doing Something even if it doesn’t help.

          It’s also an example of finding someone else to blame for the actions of (in this case) a madman.

        • See, we agree. One of the easiest solutions is to enforce the laws that already exist. In this case, the laws against corrupt gun dealers.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-campaigns-to-protect_b_710496.html

      • avatarRob says:

        None would have helped.

        The fact that they were things that really wouldn’t have hurt a law abiding person and yet the NRA fought them is what is now being used against them and gun owners to paint us all as villains, and that won’t help us.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          So we go along with laws that, you agree, will not help the problem. But we have to accept them anyway, because people who incorrectly think they will help won’t understand if we don’t go along with their misguided demands.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Low Budget Dave,

      Actually, the M16 platform (and the semi-automatic only AR15s) are not optimized to kill, they are optimized to wound. The U.S. military strategy for decades was that if you wound one enemy soldier, you actually take three off the battle field because two more enemy soldiers help their wounded comrade.

      On the other hand common hunting rifles / calibers such as the wildly popular .30-30 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield are much more devastating to human targets. I would rather take a round from the rifle that the lunatic used in Newtown Connecticut over any hunting rifle or shotgun (with buckshot or slugs) any day.

      In fact that brings up the law of unintended consequences. If a lunatic is going after a bunch of children, a single bullet coming out of a common .30-06 Springfield hunting rifle would have no trouble killing 3 to 5 small children. Thus it would only take about 5 shots (a common hunting rifle capacity) fired into a crowd of children to kill between 15 and 25. As awful as it sounds, spree killers would actually be more effective if they used alternatives to the type of rifle that the lunatic used in Connecticut.

    • avatarRobert M says:

      “1. Improve the background check system.”
      How do they want to improve the system? The system already crashes during peak sales times like large guns shows or during Black Friday. The question is do they want the change to make it take even longer and get more intrusive then no. If they want to stream line the system and scale it up to make it both faster and reduce error then I think most people would be all for it.

      “2. Eliminate the gun show loophole.”
      What loop hole? From my understanding FFL are still required to do BG checks and private sellers are just that private some states require private sellers to do BG checks and some don’t. In MD Long guns and shotgun’s don’t but handguns and AR/AK require you go though the MD state police or an FFL.

      “3. Increase penalties for straw buyers.”
      My understanding is the fines are pretty high already not to mention you will loss your right to buy as well.

      “4. Increase penalties for corrupt gun dealers.”
      99% of the problems gun dealers find themselves in are paper work mistakes and even than many FFL will loss there license and get hit with stiff fines. I guess someone wants them to go to jail over paper work mistakes.

      “5. Improve information sharing between states on which individuals should be banned from buying guns.”

      Isn’t that what the NCIC is for?

      • 1. Background checks. People on this board have complained that background checks take too long, and that records are not kept up to date. It is just a money problem, and (I think) the Justice Department recommended that we invest the money to fix it.

        2. Gun show loophole – At many gun shows, certain dealers will put up signs that say: “Private Collector”. What they are saying is “Attention terrorists and criminals. Get your guns here. No background check required.”

        3. Penalty for straw buyers. The NRA has introduced model legislation in several states that would do the opposite. Their proposal would cap fines at extremely low levels for violations found during an inspection of a gun dealer. For example, a dealer with 900 federal gun law violations could face a maximum fine of less than $8.50 per violation. If you want to discourage illegal activity, rather than encourage it, the fine has to be greater than the amount of money you made on the sale.

        4. Corrupt gun dealers. We are not talking about paperwork mistakes here. We are talking about gun dealers who “lose” 200 to 300 guns each year that turn up at crime scenes, usually in Chicago. If you lost a few hundred pounds of explosives, and it was used to kill a few hundred people, you would go to jail. Gun dealers, on the other hand, don’t.

        Most gun dealers follow the law, but a few don’t. Licensed gun dealers are by far the largest source of trafficked firearms in volume with more than 40,000 guns diverted from the legal to the illegal market in only two and one half years. The numbers are stunning: 57% of guns recovered in crimes are sold by less than 1% of the nation’s gun dealers.

        5. Information Sharing. This is not something I made up. This was published after Gabby Giffords was shot. The NRA spent millions of dollars to make sure that none of these proposals were ever presented to Congress for a vote.

        So yeah, I blame the NRA for taking the side of murderers and terrorists.

        • avatarRay says:

          The NRA defended innocent VA. Dealers who were being harassed by Michael Bloomberg.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Ray: Did the NRA defend the guilty ones, too? Because if so, it doesn’t count.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          Because only the innocent are worthy of defense?

        • I am sure guilty people deserve a fair trial and humane conditions in prison, but I have a hard time feeling compassion for corrupt gun dealers. We are talking about people who put a fast buck above the value of human life. I would actually prefer that they spend their own money defending themselves, as opposed to having the NRA come in and stick up for them.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          And you know which ones are innocent and which are guilty, before trial, exactly how?

        • I don’t have to know which ones are guilty, I don’t donate to the NRA.

          But if you donate to the NRA, then it is something you might want to consider. They are defending people accused of gun trafficking. The key question in my mind would be: “Were they guilty?” Because if they were guilty, then they have blood on their hands.

          According to a 1997 ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that “of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime’ of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity.”

          So yeah, anytime someone with an FFL “loses” two or three guns a month, I think they need to do jail time. The last thing I would ever donate to is an NRA fund to defend accused gun traffickers.

          23,775 guns were reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs between September 13, 1994, and June 1997 when the ATF report was done. That means the law requiring requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours may have uncovered thousands of thefts from gun dealers, or gun trafficking.

          You be the judge. Do you know any FFL dealer who would put up with the loss or theft of one or two guns every week? Because the ones I know are not exactly “easy targets” for theft.

    • avatarJon R. says:

      I wasn’t aware the 2nd amendment was intended to protect my right to hunt. Thanks for clearing that up, as I was always confused by the hole “militia,” and “shall never be infringed” bit.

      • I am with you on this one. All we should be protecting is the rights of a well-regulated militia. Generally speaking, that means that the National Guard gets to own guns, but you don’t.

        In the fine details, you can still buy a gun, but only under “well-regulated” circumstances.

        • avatarLance says:

          I disagree the National guard is not the State Militia its a reserve of the Army now. All state solder have to goto federal basic training be deployed for wars ect. Im surprised you want a bayonet lug ban. Look at the failed AWB and look at firearms a M-14 only lost its bayonet lug and so did the AKM. Its silly 2a was meant for people to defend themselves from a tryancial government like National Socialist who run the Media and WH now LOL. The whole Constitution is not PC like liberals want that why they exploit tragedies to destroy it.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Fail.

          The independent clause says “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “the People” means individual citizens in the Fourth Amendment, why doesn’t it mean that in the Second.

          Also, if the Founders meant that the Militia had the right to keep and bear arms, why didn’t they just right that? They weren’t illiterates. Finally, back in their era, “well regulated” meant “well equipped” or “well kept up” or “well drilled”. They wanted the private citizens who made up the militias to come to those militias with arms, and to be proficient with them. Remember, they didn’t really have gun stores in the same way we do today. They had gunsmiths and rifles and the like were handmade. They had some restrictions on who could own guns, but as usual, it was based on racism, and keeping unfavored groups down. But for full citizens, you could go to a gunsmith and procure a firearm without the government getting in your way.

        • In Federalist Paper #29, Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. He also used the word ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained. He did not mean well-equipped.

          The Second Amendment is one of the few rules in American law that states not only the rule, but the reason for the rule.

        • avatarRay says:

          It has nothing to do with the National Guard. The word militia was used in place of army because we had just come through a war of independence against central authority. Hence, the founders used the less ominous term militia. The right is to allow citizens to be armed against the reality of having an army, not to provide arms for it.

    • avatarwookiebush says:

      Two small mention about #3:
      1) Mayor Bloomberg should be in prison after sending “agents” to OTHER States to straw purchase firearms then extort money and concessions from the dealers.
      2) AG Holder and Prez Obama should also be in prison for the deaths of 300+ Mexican citizens and 2 US agents for the sanctioned straw purchase of thousands of guns in Operation Fast and Furious. This with the express purpose to tighten gun control laws. Remember Shilery and Obama spouting off that lie about 90% guns found in Mexican drug cartels were illegally purchased in the US? When it turned out to be only 17% of the guns were from the US the other were from other countries? Where do you thing those guns these two antis were lying about came from? Operation F&F

      But I digress…

      W.

    • avatarRay says:

      The NRA pioneered instant background checks and co-authored what would become the law for them, led the fight against fully plastic guns, and against sales of armor piercing bullets. None of which is ever acknowledged.

  25. avatarRob says:

    I take some comfort in knowing that the same people today that are screaming for gun control are the same people that were so “dedicated” to bringing down Joesph Kony.

    When it became obvious that it was more work than simply re-tweeting or updating Facebook statuses and profile pictures, it quickly died out as they found a newer issue to “support”.

  26. avatarstateisevil says:

    I don’t think the House will pass an AWB, but I’m still using this as an excuse to buy more blacks guns and accessories. I will never turn them in. Ever. I think it more likey that BHO tries to register them or limit mag capacity through an illegal EO.

  27. avatarRob G says:

    No, I will not relax and I will no longer play the strong, silent type.

    The squeaky wheel has always gotten the most grease and those who want to disarm America and make it a nation of victims have been the loudest for way too long and have become drunk from their success at our nation’s expense.

    Stop telling us to let our guard down and that the “unthinkable” can’t possibly happen in our country, because it can and it will if we continue to live in such pompous and ignorant denial.

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      What? Are you saying gun control people have been getting all their ideas passed into law, while the poor NRA is getting trampled on? Is this some sort of alternate universe?

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      The poor, poor NRA. No one ever listens to them.

      • avatarMattK1 says:

        Must be a slow day at home in your parents basement…

      • avatarRalph says:

        LBD, I don’t understand the boner that you have for the NRA. Without the NRA, there wouldn’t be a gun left in private hands in America. If the NRA was ineffective, the left wouldn’t hate it so much.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          When Virginia tried to crack down on corrupt gun dealers, the NRA fought to protect the corrupt dealers. As far as I am concerned, that outweighs any other good they may have done.

          Also, the NRA did not write the Second Amendment. We would still have gun rights without them. We just might not have as many spree killings.

      • Everybody was saying that the NRA was full of shit…. look now.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          I never said the NRA was full of it. I said they were defending the “gun rights” of terrorists and murderers.

      • avatarMattK1 says:

        Sounds good & I’ll send him an NRA hat!

  28. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Were not supposed to kiss our guns yet the grabbers can fondle their gun free zones? What you are seeing is the failure of the gun free zones with the bradys trying to turn this on us. I’m still waiting to hear from Wayne, Randy

  29. avatarLeo338 says:

    This witch is like 80 years old. I mean seriously, how much longer is she going to be around to harass us? I feel as if she may out live me and I am in my early 30′s.

  30. Can we blur out her face or something. The image is hurting my eyes.

  31. avatarLeo338 says:

    Why do they keep blaming this on guns? The AWB expired in 2004 and even before that you could still buy an AR-15, it just came with a smaller mag. We did not have this problem until recently despite these evil guns being around for years before that. Obama said it himself, we have had 4 of these killing recently, it comes out to one mass shooting for every year Obama has been president coincidence? I think not! Perhaps Obama and his extreme liberal policies are at the root of this, just like they are the problem of the current state of our economy. Have they looked into these kids history? Maybe he couldn’t find a job, or his unemployment benefits ran out, was he recently laid off due to the economy??

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      It was banks speculating on mortgage derivatives that crashed the economy. Obama was elected afterward.

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        and 4 years later it is still a mess. At some point liberals are going to have to take responsibility for their polices. You can’t blame the previous administration for ever. If we manage to somehow survive 4 more years of Obama is it still going to be Bush’s fault in 2016? Is that what the democrat party will run their campaign on?

        • On this board, people are still blaming the financial crisis on Carter. And you are upset at me because I am blaming the Bush recession on Bush?

          This is easy. We had two wars that cost a trillion dollars, and tax cuts that cost a trillion dollars. Now we have a two trillion dollar deficit. You don’t exactly need a Nobel Prize in Economics to figure that one out.

          Now the people who voted for the wars, and voted for the tax cuts are blaming Obama for the deficit.

      • avatarRobert M says:

        Low Budget Dave looks to be “Clueless Dave” the mortgage rate bulb was started under Carter but took Clinton to push it over the edge creating extremely inflated levels that were bound to crash. That hurt the economy but it took Obama Care, inflation caused by the over spending, and the regular talk of tax increases that have suppress the economy to this point.

        Thanks
        Robert

        • Robert, You are wrong in so many ways, I don’t know where to start. I guess the first point is that Obamacare has not kicked in yet. I should also mention that inflation is low, and that the mortgage bubble happened under Bush, not Clinton. The biggest mistake that Clinton made was signing the law deregulating derivatives.

      • avatarRay says:

        It was the 1977 Fairness in Lending act that led to the collapse. And Obama has expanded the war.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Ray: Incorrect. Only 6% of the loans that went bad were covered by the CRA act, and 60% of those loans went to middle income (or higher) borrowers for homes in low-income areas.

          The banks have been repeating this lie for four years, and a lot of people believe it because they don’t know the real facts. The bankers caused the problem, and they are desperately trying to shift the blame.

  32. avatarMartin Albright says:

    Let me toss a few more logs onto the fire here:

    It takes time for a comprehensive and wide-reaching law to get written, and unless there is widespread support for it, it will get nitpicked to death by the opposition. The Patriot Act is a rare example of a far reaching law being rushed into place, and I think it’s the exception that proves the rule: There was widespread consensus that “something needed to be done” about terrorism in the weeks and months following 9/11 (and there was virtually NO politcal opposition to the patriot act, no matter what kind of revisionist history people try to create.)

    But that’s not true here, primarily because there is already an opposition force in place, in terms of the gun rights community. In order for something to be steamrolled through congress, the gun rights activists would have to be completely inactive.

    Consider that in 1994, with the most anti-gun president we’ve ever had in office, in the wake of the Waco incident (which was painted as goofy extremists with guns), and with the D’s having a solid lock on both houses of congress, it still took months of legal wrangling to get the original AWB in place.

    And what finally emerged was a law that didn’t actually “ban” anything (anybody who owned a “pre-ban” weapon or magazine got to keep it, with the full right to transfer it to another person), that had easily bypassed conditions (take off the bayo lug and stick a thumbhole stock on that AK and it’s perfectly legal to import, buy or sell) and that had a “sunset clause” that made it go away in 10 years (when was the last time you heard of any criminal law with an automatic “sunset clause?”)

    My point is that the 1994 AWB/magazine ban was the anti-gunner’s high water mark. In the best of all possible political circumstances, that was the best they could do. And in doing so, they created a huge oppositional force that exists to this day, and lost virtually all of their political influence for over a decade.

    I simply don’t believe they can replicate their 1994 “success” given the current political and social climate. And, as I said above, their so-called success in 94 wasn’t all that great to begin with.

    • avatarLance says:

      I agree thanks. Dont forget in the 94 Democratic House the AWB passed by only one vote. Dont see that with Republicans in control.

    • avatarWSBS says:

      Agree with you 100%, but all of the above is no reason for any of us (or anyone else who believes our natural freedoms and the United States Constitution, which is supposed to protect them) to get complacent. While I myself don’t own an AR-15, or have any desire to purchase one for that matter, an AWB will not be effective. It did nothing to curb crime the last time (and ten years will provide someone a pretty significanty sample size from which to draw such conclusion).

      However, if the hoplophobes somehow get another one passed, they won’t stop there. Feinstein, et al, have gotta know the statistics, they just don’t care. If some hypothetical AWB does somehow become law in this country, and is inevitably as ineffectual at curbing violent crime in this country as the last one, you can bet your bottom dollar that the hoplophobes will be screaming for a shotgun or handgun ban the first time some nutjob guns down a bunch of innocents with a shotgun or handgun in yet another kill crazy rampage in yet another nominally “Gun-Free Zone.”

  33. avatarCellude says:

    We don’t ban cars (or alcohol) because of drunk drivers (in 2010 – 10,228 deaths), we focus on treating alcoholism! The lack of mental illness talk in media and government is frustrating. Simple root cause analysis! And to further the drunk driving analogy, an “assault weapons ban” is like banning all cars with 4 piston brake calipers, cross drilled rotors, turbo charger, full coil-over suspension and over 400 horsepower because only racer car drivers need that speed. Solves nothing. Easy to make a law for that but does it really solve the cause of the problem? No, mental illness needs to be better handled! We need systems to catch early and treat.

  34. avatarLance says:

    I agree with this writer. I think Republicans and that even yesterday a Texas Republican was on NBC and said NO to a new AWB. Shows we have friends and we can stop this. Yes a Democrat in WV said he didnt know what to do. He didn’t say im going to ban AW but said he thinking on what to do. Most Dems may be wispy washy on this BUT the HOUSE is not in Democratic hands. call and reinforce our progun looks in congress fight fight fight.

  35. avatarWSBS says:

    Good lord, my eyes! Seriously, look at that photograph (if you dare)! That’s no Senator, that’s a man, baby!

  36. avatarMartin Albright says:

    WSBS: You are correct, of course. This is no time to get complacent. As always, our elected officials do their best when they know they are being watched. It never hurts to remind them that we, the people, put them into that office and we have the power to remove them come next election cycle, too.

    But this is also no time to take counsel of our fears or to presume that most or all of our fellow citizens will be swayed by this. Some will, no doubt, but most of the shrill voices calling for gun control are the usual suspects who have been doing it for years.

    The best advice I can give is to remain level-headed and to respond to hysterical rantings with calm, rational discussion. If the people on the anti-gun side don’t want rational discussion (and they don’t) then so be it – let them rant, rave and call Americans a bunch of dumb idiotic gun-humpers. Hey, insulting the very people whose minds you’re trying to change is a great way of bringing them around to your way of thinking, isn’t it? :rolleyes:

  37. avatarChristopher says:

    Don’t know where the best place to post this is, so…

    Just curious what TTAG’ers think about a more nuanced article from “the left”, like this one: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/held_hostage_by_nra_paranoia/

    This is hardly a rabid anti-gun person trying to take away 2nd amendment rights or people’s guns. The author is simply pushing for rational conversation on the question of gun violence. Most of the posts I’ve seen on TTAG suggest that a rational discussion is possible, but then again, some seem to have the same POV as LaPierre that there is no point in talking at all.

    Myself: not yet a gun owner, but my dad ensured I knew the basic rules of gun safety and taught me how to shoot his rifle. I plan to acquire a handgun as soon as I can afford it (currently a poor grad student), and do the necessary training and practice to be a responsible owner. None of the suggestions in the above linked article seem onerous to me as a law-abiding citizen – better record keeping, reporting of stolen/lost guns, etc.

    So, is there room here for rational discussion on gun policy?

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      If by “rational discussion” you mean “you gun guys STFU and let me harangue you with emotionally charged rhetoric” then no, there is no room for “rational discussion.”

      Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think “rational discussion” means the other side doesn’t get to talk.

      Usually the “rational discussion” types start off with some pie-in-the-sky fantasy of imagining a world where so-called “assault weapons” don’t exist. Starting off from a position of fantasy is hardly what I would call “rational.”

      If the anti-gunners hadn’t overreached in the past, maybe there would be room for compromise, but those of us who have been in the gun-rights fight for a while know that the every time the anti gunners win a concession, they start to work on the next concession, and then the next one, and so on. So there’s no incentive for us to ‘compromise’ with those whose only goal is to take away that for which we have struggled so hard.

      • avatarChristopher says:

        I sympathize with you that past experience has taught that rational discussion is impossible. However, gun violence *is* a problem. Some people (like the one who wrote the article) are looking for real solutions – not taking away guns, even considering arming teachers and so forth. I realize this is just one voice and that there are many more who just knee-jerk want to limit all gun ownership.

        However…

        What I see on the “other” side of the fight is that the only answer is “more gun ownership” and anyone who doesn’t agree should STFU etc. :) So just looking at things without the history of it all, it seems like maybe the polarization and lack of compromise is a problem on both sides. Are there rational voices on both sides who can contribute to some actually useful policy?

        • avatarpcrh says:

          I think one way to distinguish between the two sides is this: one side wants to be left alone. The other side wants to tell the first side what to do.

        • Actually, I do want to tell gun nuts what to do: “Stop shooting innocent people.”

        • avatarpcrh says:

          Actually, I do want to tell gun nuts what to do: “Stop shooting innocent people.”

          Do you have any solutions? Solutions that don’t involve telling law-abiding people they can’t own a gun? Because the only “gun control” that would have prevented this guy would be if there were virtually no guns around for him to steal. Are you willing to go that far? Give up one of your freedoms entirely in exchange for possible safety? (Because banning lawful ownership of guns would not make you safe…)

          My guess: You’d be OK with that. Because you keep advocating for something to be done, even though you admit you have no idea what should be done. Then you mention $100k fines for gun dealers, raising penalties, etc. None of these would have changed what happened in Newtown. You admitted as much.

          So you demand action because of a tragedy, but the actions you demand wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy. You acknowledge this. But still demand that something be done.

          This is why a “conversation” about “reasonable gun control” can’t really happen. One side simply wants to tell the other side what to do. There is no middle ground between me keeping what I have, and you taking it away. You taking half of what I have is not a “middle ground”.

        • I think there are plenty of easy solutions. I have discussed a few here, but lets repeat, without getting too pedantic.

          1. I agree that teachers should be allowed to carry, but only if they submit to annual training, and extended background checks.

          2. I think background checks should be extended to every gun purchase.

          3. I think gun dealers who “lose” more than one or two guns a month should “lose” a few months in jail each year.

          4. I think any gun owner who lives in the same household with a child, a convicted felon, or any other incompetent should be required to keep their guns locked.

          No, I don’t think this would prevent all gun murders. Yes, I do think we should do it anyway. No, I don’t agree that it would be unconstitutional. No, I don’t agree that only gun owners understand the Constitution.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          “I think there are plenty of easy solutions.”

          Yet of all the solutions you mention, only the first one (arming teachers) could possibly have changed what happened in Newtown.

          So your only actual solution is to arm more people. I can agree with that.

          None of your other proposals (background checks, jail for dealers “losing” guns, locking up your guns at home) would have stopped the killer in this case.

          In effect, you are taking this tragedy and using it to restrict the rights of people who did not have anything to do with the tragedy, and your restrictions would not have stopped the tragedy anyway.

          Can you see why people don’t think those kinds of pro-gun control arguments are sincere?

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Putting corrupt gun dealers in jail is not the same as restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. There are plenty of murders each year that are abetted by illegal handguns. It happens that this was not one of them, but that does not make it right.

          You claim that gun locks and gun safes would not have prevented this crime, or any other crime, ever, anywhere. But you don’t know that.

        • avatarpcrh says:

          “Putting corrupt gun dealers in jail is not the same as restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. ”

          As has already been stated, it is already illegal for gun dealers to sell to known felons, etc. Did I miss where someone advocated that “corrupt gun dealers” should be given a free pass?

          “You claim that gun locks and gun safes would not have prevented this crime, or any other crime, ever, anywhere. But you don’t know that.”

          What on earth are you talking about? Who said that? A combination gun safe might have stopped this guy, this time. A key safe probably would not have.

          Your responses are aimed more and more at a straw man. No one is advocating half the things you are railing against.

        • avatarMartin Albright says:

          ^^^ exactly.

          The difference between us and the gun grabbers is that we have something to lose. They don’t. So “compromise” on our side means we lose something we can’t get back.

          “Compromise” on their side means that if they don’t get what they want today, they will come back for it tomorrow.

          So, why should we “Compromise?”

          Put more simply, what are the anti-gunners willing to give up? Their schtick always seems to be “I want to take away all your guns but I’ll be happy to compromise on only taking away half of them.”

          Yeah, that’s not a great deal for me (especially considering that having got half my guns there’s nothing to prevent them from coming back and demanding the other half some years down the road – which is exactly what happened in places like England and Australia.)

        • All I want is for the government to start enforcing existing laws and arrest corrupt gun dealers. It wouldn’t solve all gun problems, but it would be better than nothing.

          Compromise? I’ll agree to letting people carry concealed in “gun free” zones if they agree to an annual license renewal to do so.

        • avatarphil says:

          “The difference between us and the gun grabbers is that we have something to lose. They don’t. So “compromise” on our side means we lose something we can’t get back.” from below,

          This really is at the heart of almost everything the Progressives want to do, far beyond the gun rights issue. The far left wants to “progress” beyond the constitution. Many of use wish to preserve the constitution. Any compromise is a win for them and a loss for us. The strategy of chipping away bit by bit is no secret, so they are bargaining in bad faith to start with.

          So, yes, on all fronts it is best to say that we will NOT be OK with just half a turd in the punch bowl.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        When one of the “common sense” solutions is adding semi-auto rifles to the NFA, then the conversation is a non-starter. What gets added next, pistols? Higher caliber guns?

        Pretty soon you’d be lucky if you can get a 10/22 without a tax stamp.

    • avatarRobert M says:

      We have seen how other country have lost there right to have and bear arms. Gun registration is one of them. They are illegal for the Fed to create one. This is something the NRA and many gun people will fight why? Because a few years after the have everyone register the guns it makes it much easier to take them away since you know who has what.

      Thanks
      Robert

      • avatarChristopher says:

        The article makes the point that fully auto weapons are registered and nobody has tried to take them away. I guess the question is where you draw the line – surely we shouldn’t allow just anyone to have RPGs, for instance?

  38. avatarDavid-p says:

    If Obama thought an assault weapons ban was a done deal, if he thought gun right groups were not an issue, he would be the first one yelling “assault weapon ban”. He has not he has danced around the issue. He is not dumb. I don’t like the guy but he is not dumb. He is going to wait until he sees some scientific polls showing that a majority of Americans want an “assault weapons ban” before he commits to it. The last thing he wants is what Clinton got is 1994 and a republican controlled house and senate after 2014 elections.

    Now do I think we should be afraid, YES. If the polls do show the vast majority of Americans want it then he will go for it. If the vast majority haven’t changed their position then he will probably move “assault weapons” to an NFA that way house and senate dems can say they didn’t want that, he can say they are highly regulated, there is a waiting period, there is a extra tax, most gun stores won’t be able to sell them- so they will be out of the public eye, they would be registered, and individual to individual sells would still have to go through background checks. It would be win-win for the dems if he did that. Clinton did it with the “street sweepers” so it can be done fairly easy.

  39. avatarMartin Albright says:

    David: I suppose that’s a possibility but even then Obama would receive an enormous amount of political flak that would consume a lot of political capital. I’m not sure he’s willing to do that.

    The other issue is that the “street sweeper” shotguns were relatively new on the market when the ATF issued their ruling and very few had been sold, so the law only affected a very few people. OTOH, a new and sweeping NFA classification that would retroactively pull certain weapons into the NFA would create a giant conundrum for the government: Do they demand that current owners (and there are MILLIONS of them) register these weapons as NFA (which most simply would not do) or do they “grandfather” them in? Either way there are a lot of problems created, headaches that, again, Obama doesn’t want to have to deal with.

    In fact, as I said when referring to the “Noble Lost Cause”, for a politician, it can be better to try to push for a change in the law and fail, than to actually succeed in changing the law.

  40. avatarJim says:

    I agree with the article. It will be a tough month for gun owners but emotions will simmer down and it will be back to pre-CT-shhoting levels. And whatever momentum the grabbers had will flounder in the end.

  41. avatarRobert Theriot says:

    What I would really appreciate is that we be more accurate in our descriptions than are the anti’s. Most of us neither own nor desire to own an “assault weapon.” For all intents and purposes, actual assault weapons, while not banned, require sufficient action and expense to preclude their ownership by most civilians. As long as the general public believes that a semi-auto AR of whatever caliber is the same as an M16/M4, we will have much more of a problem than is justified. Cry “semantics” if you will. I believe that education would be a large step in the right direction.

  42. avatarBlair says:

    I would be much more worried about the UN Arms Control Treaty than any domestic legislation. That one has already been signed by the President and only needs a 2/3 majority in the Senate to become law. And unlike domestic legislation, it can’t be overridden by the Supreme Court.

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      The U.N. Treaty has to do with the export of arms, not domestic ownership.

      • avatarpcrh says:

        At least one prior draft included the requirement of keeping a national gun registry for imported guns. This has to do with domestic ownership, under the aegis of only regulating export.

        Think I’ll stop feeding the troll now.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          PCRH, now you are worried that the U.N. is going to go back to one of the early 2007 drafts and adopt that? Every country was allowed to submit a draft, and there were more than 100 drafts submitted for discussion. Those have about the same chance of being passed as I have of becoming Pope.

  43. avatarkds says:

    With Dicks Sporting Goods and Cheaper Than Dirt removing firearms from their stores and website I have a feeling the Obama Leftist are getting their wish.

    • Dick’s Sporting Goods is not owned by the government. In a free enterprise economy, they can choose to sell guns or not. In their case, they make a lot more money selling free weights and fishing rods.

      • avatarkds says:

        They can go the way of Sports Authority and close stores due to lost revenues due to this. They lost my business and will be losing more when the lead ban in fishing equiptment (lures, jig heads, trolling weighs, ect.) is passed by the EPA, another part of OBAMAS regime.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          I am not sure I would go out of my way to buy traditional lead sinkers, considering they are poisonous to humans and wildlife. It is a free country, of course, I just don’t understand the thought process.

          I guess it would go something like this: “The steel 2000 they sell at Bass Pro seems to work pretty well, but I don’t want a sinker unless it makes loons and swans sick.”

          Anyway, breathe easy. In the U.S., Lead sinkers are only banned in three national refuges and Yellowstone national park. All the other bans have come from state governments, not the feds.

        • avatarpat says:

          Dicks are…..Dicks!

  44. avatarChoppedlow says:

    This is not about guns, it is all about seeing if they can change THE strongest written right and Amendment in The Constitution. They don’t care about children, your rights or anything of the sort. I think you guys are forgetting the social media juggernaut we just saw in the last election. These guys have NBS, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN in their pockets. Just look at the reporting! They will first (and you see it on todays shows) get the populating behind it via the news media, and they have this population dialed in to get them out to vote any way they want. They will then go ahead and ban them, telling the D’s who will jump ship on the gun issue that they will use this same mechanism to help them get re-elected in the coming election. And it will work. How else can you explain %108 Democrat turn out in some precincts in 2012 Presidential election? Do not for a second let your guard down. This isn’t about guns, it’s about a jerk weed President who is the biggest war monger we have ever elected, using this voting drive they have created to do whatever he wants. When he knows the 2nd Amendment is gone, what next? You tell me when a Dem (or Rep for that matter) was ever satisfied with one step? They get an inch and then they go for a mile.

    To fight this, the NRA needs to think out of the box and keep their mouths closed until it’s time. Why didn’t the NRA Pres go about his press conference by saying “We are now backing Pres Clintons program where a cop is put at every school in the US”? No, he came out and said to arm teachers, and the media is having a heyday with it. Have you ever seen the NRA come out with real stats, showing how many illegal guns are actually out there? Or a campaign, a fear campaign that shows just how dangerous these thugs are? Why not? The media is using the same tactic to say WE are the dangerous ones! We need to put out adds showing the reality of gun violence in the US and the inept law enforcement that can only do so much. We don’t need adds showing the victims, we need adds that are simply 30 second of criminals themselves talking about their crimes without one ounce of remorse. We need to show what happens when you take a 9mm handgun with 10 rounds to a gunfight with a criminal with an AK and a hi cap mag. We need to show the cartels in Tx and AZ that have used fully autos to kill, we need to show home invasions in the suburbs, we need, in their own words, what a rapist will do with your wife or daughter…. Imagine the gravity of an add with a rapist, sitting in his cell, no intro and 30 seconds of him saying he will do it again when he is released. Where is any of this?!?! The NRA needs to get a new PR firm NOW. Hell, I’ll do it! Stop being nice and being passive and use the same bully A-hole tactics the left uses for EVERYTHING they push! If they don’t, it will be the first nail in the 2nd Amendment’s coffin. The US is seeing a smoke screen, making life out to be grand so that people think Obama is doing a great job, but that is not the reality. It worked for Obama two months ago!

    And do not have faith in any politician on any side. Remember, all of them, even the ones you like and feel good about, are there because they kissed more ass than the next guy. These Dem’s you guys are hoping stay the course now have a political and a ‘Get Out To Vote’ machine that we have never seen, and that promise to loan it to them in a re-election will get them to do whatever they want. Even if it means they light the Constitution on fire. We made the mistake in the last election of thinking people have common sense and know what is going on. They don’t, and they are dazzled by free stuff and fluffy pillow talk from Obama. A crap storm is coming, folks. And that same crap storm that gave free phones and free anything to get Obama reelected is coming for our guns, so act like it and get in front of this!

    • Chopped,

      There are a number of silly ideas you are advancing, and I really don’t have time for all of them, but to pick one as an example, you seem to think that Democrats will only use their “get out the vote” machine to support gun control and other liberal ideas. This is just obviously wrong. If you don’t believe me, ask Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Max Baucus of Montana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

      And honestly, that is just the short list. If you want the long list, consider people like Joe Lieberman. He traveled the country campaigning for McCain, telling everyone who would listen that Obama was “unfit to be President.”

      Not only did Democrats not punish him, they let him retain powerful Committee Chairmanships, and seniority within the Democratic Party.

      Compare this to Republicans, who won’t even support their own legislation if Obama agrees with it.

  45. In fact, it truly iis among the oldest residing tree spexies with some specimens claimed to bee mokre than two,500 years
    old. The term diabetes (or diabetes) usually refers to diabetes mellitus but
    there are many other dsease conditions, rarer, also knhown as “diabetes”.

    It is also advised to uuse guarana supplementfs wikth the advice of doctors.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.