Gun Control: What Next?

 

Later today, the National Rifle Association (NRA) will push back against the gun control industry’s calls for an assault weapons and “high capacity” ammunition magazine ban, as well as background checks for all private firearms sales. No doubt the NRA will call for the elimination of so-called “gun-free zones”: schools, churches, places of employment and anywhere else where a concealed carry permit holder is prohibited from exercising their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The NRA will also announce some sort of training program for teachers. They will go on the offensive. Then what? The left-leaning mainstream media is nothing if not predictable. The howls of righteous indignation will be deafening. Or not. Because things ain’t what they used to be . . .

Lest we forget, the ten-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was passed and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. Also of note: Google was born on Sept. 7, 1998.

In the run-up to the last (one hopes) AWB, the mainstream media WAS the media. The white, college-educated, left-leaning execs controlling the three (count ‘em three) TV networks owned America’s eyeballs, with liberal local papers playing the role of the Greek Chorus to the New York Times’ Zeus.

To fight the AWB, the NRA issued press releases, called/visited the politicians they’d help elect and sent out newsletters. It was not what you’d call a fair fight. The media gatekeepers did what gatekeepers do: they ignored, misrepresented or subverted the NRA’s assertion that the bill was unconstitutional.

The House of Representatives passed the bill containing the AWB (the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) by a margin of 235 – 195. Not a squeaker, but not a slam dunk either.

Again, this was before the Internet. The Internet changes everything.

Media magnates can no longer control the message—although God knows they’re still trying. Every day, every second, tens of thousands of gun rights advocates are hammering their keyboards, countering the thousands of pro-gun control articles seeping out of every pore of the legacy media.

Now, today, the NRA has instant, direct access to millions of Americans. People who miss today’s press conference will be able to click onto the NRA’s sites and check out the gun rights group’s unfiltered response to the President’s calls for a new AWB. They can come here—or to any number of other gun blogs—to get the truth about guns. As they do, now, in their millions.

The NRA now has highly effective fellow skirmishers: the Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation and hundreds of grass roots groups. Not to feed the media beast (much) American gun owners are an army. They have the tools at their disposal to organize, lobby and defeat politicians who seek to diminish, restrict and yes eliminate our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

What next? A wave. A wave of gun rights activism like none before. It’s already happening; this obvious threat to their firearms freedom has roused the previously sleeping silent majority of American gun owners. At the moment, they’re voting with their wallets; emptying gun stores. Soon, they will be emailing and protesting, both online and in the “real world.”

If the gun control industry thinks that the Sandy Hook slaughter is all the excuse they need to restrict American gun rights, they are sadly mistaken. The tragedy has motivated an enormous base of American gun owners to do what it takes to protect themselves, their children and their rights.

Gun control advocates like to paint the NRA and their supporters as a bunch of bullies. They would have the public believe that gun rights advocates base their efforts on the principle that might makes right. It doesn’t. But right makes might. As the gun control lobby will soon see.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

80 Responses to Gun Control: What Next?

  1. avatarJosh says:

    Careful RF, you’re almost making me hopeful.

  2. avatarIdahoMan says:

    We’ll see…

  3. avatarJB says:

    Hear, hear. Yesterday I voted with my wallet and today I start sending the e-mails to RI politicians AND other politicians in New England. I understand a states’ rights but from a practical stand point when states are as small as they are in the NE the conflicting laws and lack of reciprocity really restrict where you can go armed. Who’s with me?

    • avatarPaco says:

      I spent a couple hours yesterday contacting every one of my state and federal government officials. And I’m encouraging everyone I know to do the same!

  4. avatarGabriel says:

    I can at least speak for myself. I was an NRA member many years ago but let it lapse during the “Good Times” of the last decade. But this past week has changed me, I have already renewed my NRA membership and plan to join GOA, SAF, and even JPFO as funds are available in the next couple of weeks (with no ammo on store shelves this should not be a problem for me). Unless LaPierre comes out today dressed as Elmer Fudd and starts talking about the need to preserve our duck hunting traditions, I am motivated to do anything I can to aid our most powerful lobbying organization, most importantly in the form of donations to NRA-ILA.

  5. avatarEvan says:

    If they betray gun owners the NRA will kill the goose who lays the golden egg. Guess what everybody… They know that. Would they betray us? Anything’s possible, but I doubt it.

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      “Would they betray us?”

      If they are aware as you say, they may tell us what we want to hear, but then when it comes to the fight I’m guessing they’ll be, at best, lack-luster.

      I’m sorry, but at this point just the usual “enforce existing laws”, playing defensive and barely getting out of another anti-gun offensive is unacceptable.

      NRA better go on the offensive for once and TRY (for real, not just pretend) to get gun-control repealed on a federal-level… Attack the GCA68, get rid of the “sporting purposes” language, crack down on the need to fill out anything in order to buy a firearm (maybe even soften the soil for getting rid of FFL), turn people off to “prohibited persons” list, etc.. AND ABOVE ALL: *NO* “COMPROMISES”, AT ALL.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        Dude, seriously? You think the NRA will get any traction on eliminating background checks and firearm documentation?

        The NRA needs to present the truth and the facts, expose the lies of the politicicians, and show how documented cases of self defense saves lives. Promote lawful concealed carry and the right to self defense. Whether they win or not depends in gun owners like us, and how the American public is able to sift and winnow political lies versus the value of freedom.

        • avatarIdahoMan says:

          The NRA needs to tell the truth and defend the 2nd Amendment. Not play the game and treat gun-control like it is a crime or safety issue.

          If people who care about their Right to Keep and Bear Arms fall into the trap of supporting “Keeping guns out of the wrong hands”, then they have already lost the war.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          Any though from the enlightened about universal backgroud checks (including private sales), BUT removing any info on the Form 4473 that identifies the type or number of firearms? My only problem with background checks is the record keeping, so I figure if we have to compromise on private sales, perhaps we could make sure they can’t become a registration scheme.

  6. avatarTim says:

    Can someone explain to me why background checks for private sales is a bad idea? When I have a gun to sell I have a preference to consign it with a local dealer of mine b/c I know he’ll do a background check. I don’t want to sell a gun to someone who legally isn’t allowed to own it, and I accept that I have responsibility to confirm the eligibility of someone to which I’m selling a gun. I wouldn’t sell a car to 15 yr old that can’t show me a license.

    Here’s another thought, why can’t the public have access to the background check system for private sales? Why can’t this be a service offered for a nominal fee? Have booths at gun shows for background checks, or have an 800 that you can call if you’re selling a gun privately, outside a gun show. Once you get clearance from the background check you’re provided with a confirmation number that’s proof that you performed your duty to check someone out. Is this something that the NRA hasn’t pushed for because they know it will take transfer fee money out of the pockets of dealers?

    Wouldn’t this be an acceptable “common sense” solution that closes the “gunshow loophole” while still allowing gun owners to conduct private sales? I just think that on some of these issues gun owners will need to compromise, and this might be a solution that satisfies (almost) everyone.

    • avatarHinshelworld says:

      I bought my first car when I was 15… There are no age requirements for automobile ownership.

      • avatarTim says:

        Buying a car is a bad anology on my part. My point is that you have a responsibility as a seller to confirm that the buyer is legally allowed to buy. If you don’t, you have a legal liability and have committed a crime. This is an example of “common sense” legislation that I think we can agree to.

    • avatarJosh says:

      1. Because a system like that has the potential to be abused. Wanna find out if any of your neighbors have a criminal background? Claim you want to sell them a firearm and gain access to law enforcement databases.

      2. Once the “Gun Show Loophole” of private sales is closed, it sets the stage for unseemly politicians to set up and enforce a national gun registry. Provide the serial number to get the background check. But that would be illegal, right? American and world history show that politicians become corrupt more frequently than you could imagine. National registry sets the stage for a complete gun ban and confiscation. You don’t think people like DiFi would do just about anything to achieve that?

      Regarding the car analogy, here’s a link to a blog about a 14 year old girl and her Fiero. If you care to skim through it, can you honestly tell me that it is irresponsible for her to own that car?

      http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/085309.html

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Josh, criminal records are already public.

        • avatarjim smith says:

          I hate to give ground to any of the anti-gun folks because they use it to set a new baseline and move the goalposts for the next round of restrictions (Example 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994). But there are some advantages to providing free, public, autonomous access to the NCIS database. Other government databases provide this option, (physicians, lawyers, engineers, real estate folks, and etc at the state level and licensed pilots at the federal level). If I could be autonomous when I submit a query and the name of the person I query is not retained, I might be in favor of it. As I understand it, the NCIS database doesn’t have the names of permitted persons, only prohibited ones. So if I sell a gun to someone and produce a piece of paper that says the NCIS check came back as negative then this should be sufficient to protect me from future liability. In the state I live in, anyone can run a state background check on anyone else for a few dollars and all that is required is an email address and a credit card. Since it is possible to get a phony ID, I’m not sure how well this would keep guns from the bad guys, but it might slow them down. An advantage would be for gun clubs where it’s cost prohibitive to run checks on all their members or to find out how many of our politicians are prohibited persons.

    • avatarRob says:

      I’ve said pretty much the same thing that you’ve said to others and the majority of time I’ve received the same response back, “I don’t want to the government to see what I’m doing with my guns”. That’s not really a good reason to me.

      Personally, I’ve closed the loop for myself. I would only sell to a friend or acquaintance that is known to me and I know is legitimately allowed to purchase a gun, or I’ll sell to a dealer that will legally resell it. I don’t trust that just any random guy at the gun show that walks up to me is allowed to have a gun or has good intentions to buy one and with that doubt I can’t say I want to take the responsibility selling to someone like that.

      • avatarTim says:

        You’re already going through background checks when you buy from a dealer, so why not private sales too?

        Background check is not the same thing as registration either by the way.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          Unfortunatly it is the same. When you fill out the form your gunstore has to keep in in their records for I think 20 years. Fed. Govt. can review their records and make copies at any time, or takes the records when gunstore closes. Not to mention the records kept by FBI/ATF despite restrictions in the firearm owners protection act. Off the top of my head so please anyone correct me if I left out/confused any details.
          …If the process changed to just a background check, only record being buyer, yes/no, and date, I’d be very happy.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      That works for me – I don’t love it but it seems like one of the least bad proposals on the table, and it actually could help protect the seller from future liability.

      It would also be good if they could extend the hours when one can call in, since most private transactions will not occur during business hours.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        That’s pretty close to common sense to me. If the gun show loophole is that scary, let them “close” it. Most gun are already registered.

        • avatarjim smith says:

          The gun show loophole was created by the Clinton administration’s efforts to ban guns. Currently, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns ONLY at gun shows (Google for question 18a of ATF form 5310 FFL application). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs and overhead of a storefront has to sell discretely as a “private citizen” and can’t run a background check. Rather than creating a loophole by throwing these “kitchen table” sellers out of the system like Clinton did and hoping they go away, they should bring them back in and allow them to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules and oversight like they were before the Clinton administration let political anti-gun ideology get in the way.

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      “Can someone explain to me why background checks
      for private sales is a bad idea?”

      Do you have any clue what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is and is for? If you did, you’d know why background checks are an outrageous things.

      “I don’t want to sell a gun to someone who legally isn’t
      allowed to own it, and I accept that I have responsibility
      to confirm the eligibility of someone to which I’m selling
      a gun.”

      “Legally allowed”? “..responsibility to confirm the eligibility..”??

      What? The buyer being on US soil and you being able to use your own discernment to size the person up isn’t enough??

      It should be. Having the government declare people “non-persons” that can’t have their rights, and demanding people prove their innocents prior to exercising their rights is unconstitutional and flies in the face of the 2A’s purpose. The only “prohibited persons” should be those who are in jail. And if a person can’t be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn’t be in society without a custodian.

      “..performed your duty to check someone out..”

      It’s now “my duty” to ask the government if I can engage in exercising my constitutional rights with my neighbor?

      “I just think that on some of these issues gun owners
      will need to compromise, and this might be a solution
      that satisfies (almost) everyone.”

      How about this: NO. Does an attempting rapist and potential rape-victim try to find middle ground? NRA has been “compromising”(selling-out) for us for the last 30+ years or so on something that wasn’t ever supposed to be up for debate.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Idaho: So you are saying that every person who is not competent to carry a gun needs to get some kind of tattoo so you can tell whether he is a valid customer? It seems like it would be a lot easier to take some responsibility for your own guns.

        Society is full of people who should not own guns. Convicted felons, manic-depressives, and about half those people with reality-tv shows named after them.

        Just because someone has served his time, or is not crazy enough to incarcerate at the moment, does not mean that you should be able to sell your old Bushmaster to them.

        We do not have a life sentence for armed robbery, or even for armed assault. But we do sometimes take away people’s right to buy more guns. And a law-abiding gun owner should respect that.

        More to the point, if you are determined to sell your used firearm collection in “private sales”, then you are admitting that you don’t care if the purchaser is going to use them in a crime. In my mind, that makes you part of the problem.

        • avatarChuck says:

          Review your statement! Your final paragraph is conceding the point of the gun grabbers that if a firearm is used in a crime, everyone involved with the criminal getting the firearm is complicit in the crime.

          We cannot be responsible for the actions of others. In selling our guns to an individual we have to make a judgement call.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Life is full of judgement calls. Part of gun ownership is personal responsibility. Most gun owners are responsible enough to want background checks on the people they sell to.

          If they aren’t, and they would rather sell to any gangster who walks in the door with cash, then they are part of the problem. I am sorry, I won’t back down on the idea that gun trafficking is wrong.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          No, just confirming the BATF doesnt care, toherwise they would allow civilians access to the NICS for anonymous BACKGROUND CHECKS.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        @Idaho

        If done right, the check should just be you (seller) calling in to see if person X is prohibited from owning firearms. You can make the call from a payphone if you want. The call center would give you a confirmation number so that you could track that on y day you confirmed that x person is not prohibited from owning a firearm. You would not tell them how many fireams you transferred to person x (if any) or anything else about the putative firearms.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          Anon in CT is saying what I’m thinking. The problem, Tim, with our current background check structure is that it creates a permanent record for the government (and any future itteration of it) of what we bought when. If we eleminate the firearm registration scheme from the Form 4473 I have no problem letting the world know that I have completed a transaction, I just don’t want all the details of that transaction stored for eternity. (And I’m so pissed they took the Form 4473 scene out of the new Red Dawn!)

      • avatarTim says:

        Idaho:

        “Do you have any clue what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is and is for? If you did, you’d know why background checks are an outrageous things.”

        But this right only applies to those who haven’t done something to lose that right. As a private seller how do you know whose these people are? Would you rather private sales are banned completely?

        “What? The buyer being on US soil and you being able to use your own discernment to size the person up isn’t enough?? ”

        Not if they are convicted felon or have been adjudicated mentally defective. Those people probably aren’t going to be honest if you just ask them. I don’t want to sell to a guy that seemed ok, and then later mowed down a classroom full of kids with my old gun that I just sold to him.

        “It should be. Having the government declare people “non-persons” that can’t have their rights, and demanding people prove their innocents prior to exercising their rights is unconstitutional and flies in the face of the 2A’s purpose. The only “prohibited persons” should be those who are in jail. And if a person can’t be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn’t be in society without a custodian. ”

        You can’t be serious. The rights you are describing are only guaranteed to law-abiding citizens. The rest can pound sand, I don’t want to sell a gun to them.

        “It’s now “my duty” to ask the government if I can engage in exercising my constitutional rights with my neighbor?”

        Yes. Just like it’s your duty to confirm that property that you are buying is not stolen, it should be your duty to confirm that the person you are selling to is able to legally own.

        “How about this: NO. Does an attempting rapist and potential rape-victim try to find middle ground? NRA has been “compromising”(selling-out) for us for the last 30+ years or so on something that wasn’t ever supposed to be up for debate.”

        You’re the reason why I said (almost) everyone.

  7. I hope the NRA stands its ground and does not give up an inch.

    I might also be a good move them to pick a minority person to do the talking for them. We need to expand our ranks.

    • avatarJon says:

      My NRA membership is up for renewal. If they stand their ground and push back at the press conference today, I’ll be renewing my membership this afternoon, and tacking on a little more.

    • avatarjim smith says:

      The NRA should take a page out of Obama’s community organizing and Chicago thug playbook by announcing it will sponsor a gun owners rally in Washington DC when Biden releases his AWB recommendations. I don’t know how many people would show up but given the stakes, I’m guessing a lot and it might be enough to give the House republicans and red state democrats sufficient cover and incentive to kill any radical proposals. Thanks to government regulations, the gun community has a lot of existing infrastructure, (gun stores, gun clubs, state NRA reps, gun ranges, training classes, ex military and police, etc) and they could be called upon to coordinate the logistics at a local level. This administration doesn’t like gun owners and I’m guessing they would like organized gun owners even less and the threat of a rally might be enough to neuter the whole AWB proposal by forever delaying its release.

  8. avatarJosh Wood says:

    Wow. I’m impressed. Where did you get this info prior to the statement? Thanks for the hope Robert. I hope this goes as you say. I may rethink my initial thought of not joining the NRA. I emailed them saying that I would not be joining if they didn’t take a really serious stand. I may go five year, but their initial silence made me decide against the rather pricey life membership. Also, nice to hear you on Bill Frady’s show the other night. I’m sorry I called you a pansy for your ” why I’m selling my Glock 26″ YouTube video. I didn’t know anything about you at the time. Just stumbled across the video and didn’t get the pinky pinching thing as a serious matter. I now have a profound respect for you and all that you do. Thank you and again, my sincerest apology. Keep fighting the good fight brother.

  9. avatarthomas de los garcia says:

    I am interested to see what the NRA has to say. However, I am also a bit scared. I really hope they do not sell us out. I think this is a fundamental failure of the mental health system and the ability of people to protect themselves.

    The most effective and fastest solution would be to secure vulnerable areas. I am not talking about locking doors, but putting police, armed security, or training armed teachers.

    NRA—I hope you are listening.

  10. avatarAlexBosco says:

    I was going to write a similar comment to you Tim. I am an FFL dealer and avid gun owner. But I, like you agree that it would be a good idea for everyone to do a background check. In terms of funding you could add a .01% tax to every gun sold. I beleive that the NRA and many gun owners dont want this because they say that it gives the government a database to who has what. If you believe that the government can eventually become a tyranical one (which I think can happen), would you want to give them this type of info? I have been overseas for many years, in Italy. The gun laws there are no more stringent than over here and they dont have rules or regulation regarding “assault weapons” or SBR’s and pistols…which when you get down to it is really just hogwash. In order to be able to purchase a gun, you need to have your own physician or family physician sign off that you are mentally compitent to handle a weapon. He only signs off if you have had military experiance (with documentation), or a document that you have successfully completed the state run course on firearm safety. I think this might be a good idea for here in the US, but it would be nice to hear someone else chime in.

    • avatarJon says:

      Honestly, I don’t have huge qualms about closing the (erroneously named) gunshow loophole. The problem I do have is that none of the prohibitionists who are demanding it at this time can explain how closing the loophole would have done anything to prevent the Newtown massacre. The “Do something…anything!” mindset never results in good policy.

      • avatarCoyote Gray says:

        I agree with you Jon, but I think we all know, that more gun laws in general aren’t the problem here. So regardless, anything we do is just to appease the pitchfork and torch carrying masses. But I think it’s time we pull this conversation and this agenda away from the vocal, militant few that won’t consider ANY concessions, and consider anyone with a contrary point of view, “communist” or “boot lickers”.

        I think the NRA can very well propose a number of fair and cogent changes, that offer some veil of security to a frightened public, but that actually helps legal gun owners drive our agenda that doesn’t include losing access to 30 round magazines or the versatile AR platform.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        I agree that “just do something” is not usually an effective public policy. But for something to be effective, it does not necessarily have to address the Newtown issue.

        In 2010, there were about 85 gun deaths each day. It has become so common that it rarely gets reported in the national news at all. Many of these are just as random and heartbreaking as the news from Sandy Hook.

        No law is going to prevent all of these shootings, nor should it. (Statistically, some of them may have been justified.) But let’s at least look at the numbers for a minute and see what we can do.

        Let’s say there are only 50 preventable gun deaths in the United States each day. And let’s say that we could trim that number to 40 just with better enforcement of existing laws, as well as increased background checks, and tighter limits on high-capacity magazines.

        Why would we not do so?

        • avatarCoyote Gray says:

          Dave,

          I think the problem is, that their isn’t a solution, root cause analysis, or measurement method proposed. Just a bunch of reactionary measures. In fact. all the major institutions of higher education, already recognize new gun laws are not the problem and more stringent laws are certainly not the solution. There are plenty of ways we can reduce the number of gun deaths in this country, with out touching the gun laws at all.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Coyote Gray, I keep hearing that there are ways to reduce gun deaths using current laws, but I don’t see anyone supporting them.

          The BATF, for example, is allowed to void the license of any gun dealer they suspect of trafficking, based purely on the number of guns reported lost or stolen in any given year.

          Considering that statistically, more than 1% of gun dealers are involved in trafficking, it seems odd that you can count on one hand the number of dealers who have been prosecuted.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Well, in the case of “high-capacity” magazines, we wouldn’t do so because it puts an unfair burden on the millions of people who use them legally day after day, year after year, while doing virtually nothing to affect crime. Even if they’re grandfathered, it drives up the price and makes them exponentially harder to obtain for 99.99% percent of gun owners who would not use them in an illicit manner.

          At Virginia Tech, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He did this with a pistol of 10-round capacity, and another of 15-round capacity. He had ample time to reload, and a copious supply of magazines. A magazine capacity limitation would have not affected the outcome in that situation. Nor would it have changed the outcome in Clackamas, or Aurora, or any of several other recent and not-so-recent attacks. Why do people insist on trying to make changes that will have no effect, and will be simply a colossal pain in the ass to administer and deal with going forward?

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Matt,

          For every example you can name, I can name another. Jared Lee Loughner used a Glock 19 with a 30-round magazine to fire 31 times in 15 seconds. He was only taken down when he stopped to reload.

          During the last year of the ban in 2004, just 10% of the guns recovered at crime scenes had high-capacity magazines. Now, the percentage is 22% and climbing.

          Nidal Hasan carried several high-capacity magazines, and over 400 rounds of ammunition. With standard magazines, he would not have been able to carry as much, and he would have had to reload much more often.

          When you say that guns can be used just as effectively with a 10-round magazine, you are basically making my point for me. Home defense is just as easy with a bunch of small magazines. The only time huge magazines come in handy is for killing a bunch of people very quickly.

          I am surprised the NRA hasn’t offered up high-capacity magazines the same way they offered up silencers. They could build some trust with the general public, and anyone who really needs to chop down trees with a glock can go get a license.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “During the last year of the ban in 2004, just 10% of the guns recovered at crime scenes had high-capacity magazines. Now, the percentage is 22% and climbing.”

          And I’m sure that has nothing to do with the types of guns people carry. I’m sure they’re running out to get “extra capacity” magazines. Is there any real data on that? That’s a serious question. For example, if in 2004, 90% of the crime guns recovered were revolvers, and 10% were pistols with 15-17 round magazines, and now those percentages have changed to 78/22, that’s not an increase in “high-capacity magazines” so much as it is a change in the weapon they choose to use. Criminals are not “using more high-capacity magazines,” they’re using more pistols. I realize that magazine capacity might be a factor in choosing the pistol, but let’s call a spade a spade.

          What the hell is a “high-capacity magazine,” anyway? My XD(M) was designed to hold 16 rounds in the magazine. Even though 16 > 10, that’s not “high capacity,” that’s “standard capacity.” And that’s only because it’s a .40. If it was a 9mm, the standard capacity would be 19 rounds. Since 19 is almost 2x 10, does that mean it’s almost twice as evil?

          The only reason that >10 rounds is considered “high-capacity” is the 1994 AWB, and the only reason they chose 10 is that they needed a number, and someone picked one out of the air. I’m sure there were those drafting the bill that would have liked 5 or 6. However, since the world runs on a decimal-based system, 10 is a nice, aesthetically and mentally pleasing number, but it means nothing. They didn’t pick 10 because some scientist determined that 10 rounds was somehow safer than 12, or 15, or 20. They picked 10 because it’s a nice round number. And that’s a stupid way to make an argument. Actually, it’s a great way to make an argument, because it’s a pleasing number. But it’s a stupid reason to make an argument.

          Y’know, I could almost understand if they defined high-capacity as “a greater number of cartridges than the weapon was designed to hold in it’s standard configuration.” That would at least be a sensible definition. You won’t get any argument from most people that 30-round magazines in a Glock are kinda stupid. Nobody carries them that way. But that doesn’t mean they should be illegal. And nobody would argue that 30-round magazines in an AR-15 are stupid, because that’s the standard configuration.

          Saying 10 rounds is fine while 11 rounds is eeeevil is just a silly argument, and outlawing them simply places an undue burden and cost on millions and millions of law-abiding gun owners while providing virtually no discernible benefit with regard to crime.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          I never said 30-round magazines were “evil”, I just said that America would be a safer country if they were a lot harder to get.

          All the arguments for high capacity magazines seem to boil down to: “I need it to defend my house,” or “it would be really inconvenient for me if they were banned.” I don’t find either argument convincing.

          Several people here have siad that they are just as deadly with a 10-round magazine, and gun laws are not written to be convenient, anyway.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          The “eeeevil” magazine thing was paraphrasing that point of view, wasn’t intended as a quote. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

          You don’t find the defense/inconvenience arguments convincing, and I similarly don’t find the “America would be a safer country if they were a lot harder to get” argument convincing, so I guess… here we are.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          About time you caught on a little bit, but lets make sure we are speaking the same language, enforcement is PROSECUTION. Not this pass and wave with a wink the BATF does today for not prosecuting more than 1% they catch.

          So still looking for your govt data showing how the previous scam AWB reduced violence, oh wait, authorities have a better chance of finding Ameila Earhart alive on some Island than you proving that!

          By the way, what is more lethal?

          A 12 gauge shotgun w open choke & 200 rounds of 2 3/4″ #2 or a semi-auto rifle/pistol with 200 rounds?

          You do realize that #2 shot is .27 caliber 50 pellets per round (2 shot is .15 caliber 130 pellets per round) std velocity is 1,300 ft per second (.22 LR is about that, and it kills and penetrates very easily at 100 ft, doesnt it, yeah it does).

          Understanding of course the ballistics and the target area normally associated with mass shootings is what, 100 ft maximum, yeah, not much more.

          Only a couple mass shootings at a distance.

          So under the normal conditions and distances, which is more lethal and easy to commit more murders and injuries?

          Make sure you understand what shot dispersion (pattern spread) means.

          Good example would be Cho & VA Tech 174 shots in 12 minutes, 15 shots per minute. Anyone here think a whacko cant load and fire 16 12 ga rounds in a minute, lol!

          So 174 projectiles from a hand gun or 8,700 projectiles from a 12 ga, which is more lethal and easier to kill with?

          Hey dont they use shotgun slugs to open locked doors and take hinges off, yeah they do. Those rounds already exist all over (especially deer hunting) dont they, yeah they do.

          Which one is the anti gun idiots looking to ban?

          Wow, whats this, didnt most of Aurora casualties occur from a shotgun using 00 buck, poor choice, not enough pellets

          LOl, idiots!

          So how long before our glorious media teaches the 15 minute of fame heroes they so desperately love to teach how, when and where to commit all these gun free victim disarmamanet zone killings that they are using the wrong type of weapon, any guesses?

  11. avatarJake W says:

    wow.

  12. avatarBryan says:

    The NRA should have hit back the day after the shooting like the Gun Control people did. It makes the NRA seem bad in everyone eyes for waiting. The NRA should have come out screaming like the other side. Now the Gun Control people sound right for being first out of the starting gate.

    • avatarRob says:

      In past shootings they’ve come out immediately and been branded insensitive and callous for coming out too soon. Now they are being branded as insensitive and cowardly for waiting a week. The NRA will never win in that regard, people hate them without reason but to hate.

      I’m actually not that disturbed by the week wait. It gives them time to be sensitive to the victims families, to hear what they are up against and to make an informed counter attack.

  13. avatarCoyote Gray says:

    A huge mistake most media outlets fail to realize, and unfortunately, most shooters and 2A supporters…is that not all gun owners are Conservatives or Republicans. And not every 2A supporter or shooter, has the same exact opinion on many critical gun issues. We need to take advantage of that. This past election, President Obama was able to effectively leverage their ability to pull together multiple small pockets of under focused parties, and pull out a victory.

    We as 2A shooters need to do the same. For the last 2 weeks, I have seen the media and politicians demonize every single 2A shooter in this country; and have seen our so called gun representatives poorly defend the value and merits of the AR platform. We need to coalesce the disenfranchised shooters, put a face on them that doesn’t include horns, and get our message out. A message that is supported by most all of the top Universities across this country; guns aren’t key to this problem.

    The NRA has a good opportunity to turn the tide in our favor, and in a compassionate, yet tactical manner, get this country focused.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      This. I’m fscking sick of being demonized by my own side, along with every other liberal-leaning gun owner.

      The politicians may mostly be aligned along a liberal/conservative divide, because that’s how our two-party system works. That doesn’t mean we need to follow the same lines of division — in fact, that would be stupid because that leaves every liberal and non-affiliated gun owner out of the conversation.

  14. avatarMatt says:

    If the NRA does this exact thing today, my membership will be renewed today. Ive already joined the GOA, based solely upon how Mr. Pratt handled Piers Morgan. Come together, ladies and gentlemen, and let us overcome this troubling time.

  15. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    I was in Philly at the annual meeting in 1998 and saw Mr. Heston lift that flintlock. Booming voice. A clearly different message at the time. He galvanized the crowd. Everyone was on their feet screaming at the top of their lungs. We need a powerful voice today. God help us in this fight.

  16. avatarNelson says:

    What’s Next??

    Gun Confiscation.

    That’s the the SECOND time in less than a decade that term has ever come up in high profile incidents. First, under the village simian neoCON RINO, GWB, during Katrina, now a libtard gungrabbing treasonous commie from NY: Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

    “I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

    In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

    They are, albeit moronic and futile it may be, actively laying down causus belli for Civil War 2.0, at this current manufactured vox-populi trajectory.

    Have y’all figured out what your line in the sand, is?

    PDD51?
    ‘Patriot’ Act?
    John Warner Defense Authorization Act?
    Military Commissions Act?
    NDAA 2012, subsec 1021/1022?
    NDAA 2013?
    GWB/oBUSHma’s Secret American Citizen Kill List?
    Secret, arbitrary, never-know-who-put-you-on-or-how-to-get off/challenge No Fly List, which WILL be linked to a ‘No Gun Buy’ List, soon?
    Secret & Indefinite Detention w/out charge, judge, jury?
    Full Suspension of Habeas Corpus?
    De facto full repeal of Posse Commitatus Act of 1878?

    TSA putting hands down your girl’s panties?

    Gun confiscation?

    If you don’t know about any of those bills, get busy on your StartPage.com search.

    If you DO know some or all of those, and they don’t bother you, at all, then you certainly ain’t gonna do shit when they DO come for your guns, and you have no idea what the natural rights foundation for codifying pre-existent natural right of self-defense against tyranny 1st, self-defense 2nd, hunting… never mentioned, into the 2nd Amendment. You might as well join the Trotskyite neoCONS/RINOS/Liberal commies/CheaperThanDirt/Recoil Mag.

    It’s taken one generation of gullible statist Right to be lulled into voluntarily giving up your rights with one fake conservative POTUS, now we’re well on our way with one more generation of gullible statist Left being lulled into voluntarily giving up rights with one fake liberal (well, the politically accepted definition, not the historically accurate definition, but you get the gist) POTUS.

    This is precisely the reason why you NEVER give up your rights, liberties, and freedoms, no matter WHOM ‘your guy’ is, and do it all in the name of non-existent “safety” or the liberal assholes’ favorite moronic emotive canard: “for the children!”

    Time’s running out…

  17. avatargunfighter 2012 says:

    Before this is over we will looong for the days of the good ol’ AWB. This is gonna get bad, like knife fight in a phone booth bad. Something will pass and it will not be what either side wants. But in the end we will be on the losing side and they will hold out to the next election and hammer us again. Only time will tell how badly we will lose. But we will lose.

  18. avatarGS650G says:

    All the pent up frustration of the anti gun lobby is being unleashed all at once. Since the defeats in the 1990s at the ballot box the politicians haven’t even mentioned it. They are making up for lost time in a big way.

  19. avatarbontai Joe says:

    I renewed my NRA membership about 2 months ago, and got my new NRA hat about 3 weeks ago. As of today, I’m going to wear that hat everywhere I go. It’s black in color with a 2 inch tall bright gold “NRA” embroidered on the front, no mistaking it for anything else. Normally I don’t wear stuff with logos on it, but I’ve decided that is going to change, because I want people to see my hat, and other peoples hats. Imagine being in a huge crowded mall and seeing 4 dozen people wearing NRA hats. It would de-demonize the organization. Folks would say to themselves, “Hey, I see members of the NRA, and they aren’t doing any of the stuff the mass media says they do. I didn’t see one of those NRA people raping or pillaging or murdering. Infact, I saw one help a little old lady cross the street.” As much as I’ve been against wearing of any logos in the past, I’m totally changing my attitude about it as it concerns the NRA. People need to see that NRA members buy groceries in the same stores that they do, and shop at the mall, and walk in the park so we can destroy the media image of us being stupid, inbred, yellow toothed, runny nosed, watery eyed, defective mutants hunkering down in our bunkers with our weapons of mass destruction clutched in our hands, waiting for when “they” come. Besides, my bunker needs some airing out.

  20. avatarLance says:

    You have to be hopeful and im glad to see the NRA oppose (officially) the AWB. Time to action call your reps in both Houses and let your voice be heard.

  21. avatarIdahoMan says:

    A lot of anti-gunners on here posting, supporting the unconstitutional background checks, “prohibited persons” lists and government involvement in regulating guns access.

    Government is supposed to be forbidden from getting involved in the regulation of just these sorts of things!

    No doubt at all they are against other victories in re-winning our liberty lately to: Like “Constitutional Carry”*.

    *You’re not a “responsible” gun-owner if you support someone being able to buy/keep/carry a weapon with government’s over-watch (BGchecks, training requirements).

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      “..buy/keep/carry a weapon with government’..”

      Sorry, that is “without the”.

    • Idaho: When the 2nd Amendment was written, the whole point was that the King’s troops had guns, and ordinary Americans did not. The ‘Founding Fathers’ did not want ordinary Americans to be outgunned by English troops ever again.

      They intentionally wrote the Second Amendment to cover a variety of circumstances, in the knowledge that England might not be the only enemy we would ever face.

      I don’t think they ever intended that in the year 2012 we would be talking about putting guns in churches, day-care centers, elementary schools, and mental institutions, just to counter people’s right to own military-style weaponry.

      At any rate, the Constitution protects your right to bear arms, but not your right to bear arms of your choosing without background checks. You keep saying they are “unconstitutional” but you are clearly wrong. The Constitution set up a mechanism to determine what is Constitutional, and it isn’t you.

      In a civil society, we need to be able to come up with some partial solutions to gun violence other than “more guns.”

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        Oh lord, the civilians were disarmed and just let the evil redman do what he wanted prior to the revolution, LOl, not!

        Back in those days the guns were already in the schools, churches and such and man where are all the stories of all those horrible killings, yeah, hard to have a bloodbath when the intended victims are armed.

        Funny how that continued up to about the time we started having more and more mass attacks in the US.

        Funny how the more disarmed we are, the more attacks there are!

        Kepp spinning though dave, your are consistent and persistent, just not right, too bad!

        • Jarhead, Your arguments are getting steadily worse. Over the last 30 years there have been about 20 mass shootings (of more than four) every year in the United States. The reason this didn’t happen in the early 1800s is because the weapons didn’t exist yet. If you wanted to kill four people in a shooting spree before 1836, you had to carry four guns.

        • avatarpat says:

          The biggest slaying of children in a school was due to a Bombing.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Oh yeah, shotguns didnt exist and the intended victims were never armed.

          You really shouldnt drink so much before commenting as your spin is getting weaker and weaker and weaker.

          Merry x-mas anyway!

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        the Constitution protects your right to bear arms, but not your right to bear arms of your choosing without background checks

        You know what strikes me as uproariously funny about that quote? I can actually read the italicized part directly from the Constitution, nearly word for word, but the bold part is nowhere to be found. The first part is almost a verbatim quote, and the rest is just shit you made up.

        • Matt,

          That is what is known as “reading”. The reason I said the Constitution doesn’t protect it is because it isn’t mentioned. That is kind of how “not protected” works.

Leave a Reply

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