What’s Behind Anti-Gunners’ Assault Weapons Retreat?

New York City Mayor Bloomberg examines a confiscated gun with Police Commissioner Kelly and District Attorney Vance during a news conference on major firearms trafficking cases, in New York

Reader Matt writes:

I think the antis are turning tail on assault weapons because, A) they see the futility in it, and B) because we are going to see a renewed push against handguns.  The antis turning around and agreeing with our points buys them ground with the public and puts us in a precarious situation. They can say, “See, we agree with you and acknowledge the fact that ‘assault weapons’ aren’t the real danger. We were wrong and admit it! And we’re even in agreement with you that handguns are used in more murders!  So…why aren’t you on board with doing something about that?” . . .

And we, the pro-gun side, will unfortunately be left with a look of pure incredulity on our faces while most people forget they have been lied to by the anti side for decades and demand an answer to that very simple question. All because we don’t have a good and stupid-simple answer to give them.

Freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility are excellent answers, but they provoke too much thought and are too abstract for the average person to digest fully. You can’t just throw those ideas around without getting into a whole dissertation and expect something meaningful to stick. We need something simpler to get the idea across to the masses, lest we be caught with our trousers down and are vilified (yet again) as unwilling to compromise.

Maybe the reversal on evil black rifles means PA 13-3 will be repealed…but I won’t hold my breath.

comments

  1. avatar Another Robert says:

    Two stupid-simple words: self-defense. Longer version: We’ll talk about handguns when your side gets off its high horse about carrying long guns.

    1. avatar Korvis says:

      I’m f___ing done “talking” and “having a conversation” with antis. I realize that may not be the most practical solution for swaying the opinions of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. GunMuggle, but there’s really nothing left to talk about unless we’re talking about rolling back all the BS gun laws that have been implemented since the first half of the last century.

      This:
      http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

      We need to work on winning hearts and minds with something other than giving away more cake.

      1. avatar notalima says:

        You are not wrong. The anti’s idea of ‘compromise’ is: “Give me half of your cake”.

        What do I get?

        “You get to keep half of your cake”.

        If you give them half of your cake, then they will come back for half of the half, and so on.

        There is no compromise or discussion that works with them. Anything offered in ‘compromise’ from anti’s should be viewed as a trap. (queue Admiral Ackbar)

        1. avatar Medic says:

          B-but if you give me half your cake, your kids won’t be so FAT!

          /sarcasm

  2. avatar Jomo says:

    Problem being that they can’t ban handguns either. The Supremes already shot that one down.

    It won’t be a ‘type’ of gun at all. They will work to deny as many people’s right to purchase or own as they can. It won’t matter how evil a gun is or isn’t when nobody can legally buy one.

    1. avatar CB says:

      In theory a SC ruling should shut them up about it, in practice…

      Though I do feel we’re in for pushes on ammo taxes and mag caps before they lay into the handguns.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        ….ammo taxes ……

        So the gun grabbers give up trying to regulate 300 million guns because it’s too hard and instead try to argue they should try to regulate (wild ass guess) 300 BILLION rounds of ammo? I welcome that battle.

        1. avatar Julio says:

          I don’t welcome this at all. This is exactly what one of the current bills in CA is advocating. AFAIK, it is still pending Governor Brown’s signature. One can only hope that extra regulation of ammunition is too cost-prohibitive to enact. However, we’re also talking about a state where the (fiscal) bottom line is rarely a non-starter for entitlements, social programs, and other regulations.

      2. avatar notalima says:

        Until the balance of the SC is changed. Then watch how progressive ideology creates ‘new’ 5-4 decisions, biased towards the liberals.

    2. avatar Heretical Politik says:

      This is correct. There is a big SCOTUS ruling standing in the way of handgun bans. Their focus will be on expanding background checks and making it as onerous as possible to acquire a firearm. This pivot away from AWBs has been underway for some time now.

    3. avatar 4thestars says:

      Exactly. The effort will switch now to banning entire classes of people, one group at a time.

      “Oh, we aren’t banning YOU from owning or handling firearms, we’re banning THOSE people over there.”

      It’s already starting with vets. Eventually it will get down to everyone. Because the other front is what the Mommies are working on- making firearm ownership seem less normal. (Which is why I am all about getting city gals like myself and suburban moms to the ranges for training and positive social experiences.)

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Bingo. They’re going to expand the PTSD / mental health angle.

        Want a CCW? You must be paranoid.

        Don’t like Obama? You must be a Republican. Ewww. Since you’re racist, you can’t have guns.

        Puppy got hit by a UPS truck?
        You’ve got PTSD.

        Drunk Facebook post?
        You’ve got anger management issues.

        Are you a liberal progressive hipster who pays $250 bucks for designer jeans?
        Here’s your .22 short single shot smart pistol with its own smart safe to store it. See? We respect your rights.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Yes, their target at the end of this path is to give faceless, unelected bureaucrats the power to deny 2nd amendment rights.

        2. avatar Roscoe says:

          You’re in a deep sleep, the first in a while because of worry about new state health and safety gun seizure laws and how the anti-gun statist atmosphere in CA has taken on a life of its own. You’ve been concerned for your big gun collection safely tucked away in your secure safe.

          Something has woken you. You sense a ‘presence’ in the room. Suddenly an intense painfully bright light hits you in the face blinding you, and a voice says:

          ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you. Where are your guns?’

          You show them your CCW license, a relative rarity in CA. They don’t care.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Current or retired Law Enforcement?

          Obvious potential for PTSD…

        4. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Current or retired Law Enforcement?

          Obvious potential for PTSD…

          Never happen – their unions will never allow it. And they will get so many parking and speeding tickets…

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          @Jus Bill –

          That was a sly jab towards Accur81…

    4. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      No, they can’t. But they can try to pile as much regulation, red tape and cost around owning a handgun as possible. Then tie it up for years, if not decades, in the court system. One Progressive strategy is that you don’t have to win in order to win.

    5. avatar Matt - Said Reader says:

      I don’t disagree with you, they are not supposed to be able to ban a class of firearms. But I do think we will see more hype about handguns or new focus on them. I also suspect already unfriendly states becoming more and more unfriendly by heaping restrictions on acquiring and carrying handguns (no surprises there no matter what). Its like any other anti push, its mostly baseless and emotional but that hasn’t stopped them before. I just don’t think this is out of the realm of possibility with both sides claiming most crime is committed with handguns (bad according to both sides) and most defensive uses of a firearm are made with handguns (all killing is bad per elements of the anti side).

      Also, you can’t ban a class of firearms but my experience in CT shows they are gonna do it anyways and drag it though the courts to sort it out leaving all those effected disenfranchised until the court rules one way or the other. I expect at least 5 years before I can buy a lower at normal prices again in CT…

  3. avatar TommyinKY says:

    The pro gun side screamed mental health for too long. Now they will use our own words against us and find a way to determine anyone wanting a gun as mentally defective.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Agreed.

    2. avatar James says:

      I knew that mental health talking point was the wrong way to go right from the beginning. For over a century, a favorite tactic of Leftists is to label political dissenters and malcontents as “mentally ill” and force them into “treatment” – be it hard labor or a firing squad. Abuse of psychiatry is one of the calling cards of the true leftist.

      The “mentally ill” are what filled Stalin’s gulags and Mao’s Laogai (forced labor camps). Literally tens of millions (maybe more) were starved, beaten, shot, or worked to death because they were “mentally ill”.

      You already see them beginning it here. They’re just perfecting their labeling system. Veterans are having their rights stripped away. (Veterans, interestingly enough, automatically go on “the terrorist watch list”, whatever the hell that is.) Not wanting to use Facebook is a “mental illness”. Not trusting the government is a “mental illness”. Being sad after losing a job is a “mental illness”…

      Britain is a step or two ahead of us in terms of applied law. A whole host of behaviors are defined as “antisocial”, and are fineable/jailable offenses.

      One need only look to Britain to see where the Left wants to take this country. Every time you see mention of “developed nations” or “civilized countries” when comparing to US crime rates, education costs, housing costs, gun ownership, welfare, or any other criteria – that’s what they’re really saying: Why can’t we be more like Britain? Why can’t we be more like France?

      That’s the part I don’t quite understand. Why try to turn the USA into a communist shithole? Why not just emigrate to a country that already is one?

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Now they will use our own words against us and find a way to determine anyone wanting a gun as mentally defective.”

      You are clearly showing signs of paranoia…

      No gun for YOU!

      (Soup Nazis, Gun Nazis, no real difference…)

  4. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    The idea that the gun-grabbers are turning tail is offensive. They aren’t retreating, they’re regrouping.

    They NEVER rest their laurels on individual victories, we need to stop doing it. Each media push, Brady lawsuit, speech by the president, law passed in the state legislatures is a skirmish and not a war unto itself.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      That’s why we & NRA should be on the long run offensive of getting gun training (whoops safety) as a regular part of every school. That training (whoops safety) would involve hands on lessons with airsoft guns progressing through the grades to live fire 22 (and larger for advanced studies). Also push vocation ed classes for gunsmithing.

      Does anybody know of any proven pilot programs that restored gun training (whoops safety) to a school system that had previously been without one?

      If not, this sure seems like the place for NRA to help enable a pilot program.

      1. avatar pod says:

        My S/O used to work (not volunteer, she was employed by them) for the Boy Scouts here in Florida, before we were an item. One of the things she told me about was that the Boy Scouts still had a marksmanship and shooting program, though a severe lack of personnel and volunteers to teach it. At a camp one day, the safety portion of the course was passed on to her, and since she had zero firearms experience at the time, she pretty much read off of some prepared notes and talking points, and was thankful that it was only airsoft they were dealing with. With her kid approaching Boy Scout age, he’s going to be enrolled, and I’ll gladly teach the basics to the kids. Much like the antis, we have to get the kids early, and show them that a gun is merely a tool, and isn’t an evil object in and of itself. If there’s opportunities to volunteer for this sort of thing, I hope we can all do it.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          THAT is the most sensible comment I’ve seen in a long time. Thank you.

      2. avatar Bfree says:

        National story on my news this morning. Can’t find link, but kids were going on day long field trips to the range. Hours in class completed with live fire bolt action at completion of course. My awesome wife say the story and called me in to see it!!

  5. Here is a quick one to use, “Stop lying to people. Guns aren’t the problem that needs change in the US. You are in this just for the money and power!”

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      LIKE!

  6. avatar Tim U says:

    They are changing tactics. They will keep registration aka universal background checks in their bag of tricks, and expect “domestic violence” accusations and mental health to join their attack plan.

  7. avatar JT says:

    They aren’t turning tail. They are just taking smaller steps. Now they want you to have a special permit to own an “assault weapon”. That would just make it way easier to go out and round them up when they start talking about confiscation.

  8. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Another thing for new guys here, let’s talk about that rifle they’re playing with. Replace the collapsing stock with a fixed one, and it is compliant with AWB of ’94. Already has no flash suppressor and no bayonet lug (yes, those were the criteria for “Assault Weapons”), so it could be sold with a 10-rd magazine, after which the buyer was free to purchase any of several hundred million 20- or 30-rd magazines. IOW, the AWB was completely meaningless, you could still buy the exact same gun as was banned, except for cosmetics. I didn’t even know that until I got to Camp Perry in 2001 and discovered a few hundred kids running around with ARs in preparation for High Power competitions. And two different shops were selling them right at the matches.

    1. avatar Eric S says:

      It’s also a .22LR rifle.

  9. avatar LongPurple says:

    The statement:

    “Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)”

    indicates the puzzle the anti-2 A. element must solve.

    Their “gun control target of choice”, so-called “assault weapons”, is meaningless in their attempt to rationalize a ban in the name of “crime prevention”. At the same time, the duality of handguns as both tools of crime and heavily favored as the means of self-defense by the American public, makes sidearms a far more difficult subject for them to attack.

    The most likely strategy they will now use will be a massive push for Universal Background Checks, with universal registration as a beneficial side effect (if that was not their true intent all along).

    1. avatar pod says:

      That’s the issue with any background check system proposed – within it lies the potential for it to be converted into a quick-and-dirty gun registry. The government may not know what guns you have, but from the system, they can make a fair guess as to how many you have. “Oh, he was checked three times last year. That means he has 3 or more guns…”

      Any claims that the data is thrown out are bull. Even if it is, there’s audit trails, backups, and so on. They’ve already proven they retain some data with NICS.

      Fun fact of the day. FFLs can sell firearms without using NICS, if NICS is down. However, they must be prepared for a whole slew of questions about any transactions during a NICS failure. So most don’t sell if NICS is offline. NICS doubles as a convenient “off switch” for FFL transactions nationwide. Put NICS offline, no FFL gun sales. A successor to NICS would amount to the same thing. Especially if it’s put together by the same people who did the Obamacare site.

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        Just thinking. Would it be possible to overwhelm and neutralize the UBC system if e.g. a large number of 2 A. supporters were to get daily NICS checks? If any “fee” is charged, I think it could be challenged on the same basis that the poll tax was eliminated as unconstitutional — “The power to tax is the power to destroy”.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      And along with the UBC, look for a “Mental Health Clearance.”

  10. avatar John L. says:

    Guns aren’t the problem.

    People are the problem.

    Fix the social conditions, the culture if you will, and the problems will go away. Don’t, and they won’t.

    Same thing with drunk driving, drug abuse, etc.

    Humans are clever animals. Take away one tool and they will find substitutes.

    1. avatar John M. says:

      We need to keep repeating this: The US doesn’t have a gun problem; the US has a criminal problem.

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Pat answers are for shallow thinkers.

    Understanding RKBA requires an understanding of morality, inherent rights, human nature, and history, among other things.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Unfortunately the electorate is full of shallow thinkers.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      And morals are most flexible to Progressives…

  12. avatar Paul B says:

    As long as they know better than us, we will have this battle. Hand guns are already heavily regulated to a degree we do not have with long guns.

    I would expect them to attach more on the mental health angle, although based on their rhetoric I am unsure how they could be classified as sane.

  13. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    The antis will always have a boner for the ‘assault rifle’ because they are statists and handguns are just about useless against troops.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Of course they can’t get very far with an “assault rifle” ban, without slamming their head into the MILLER decision. That description they love to use — “Military-style rifle” — has the effect of giving AR-15s and every “civilian version” (semi-auto only) of assault rifles the protection of the 2nd A. for weapons “useful in militia service” per MILLER. It is no great stretch to extend that protection to the select-fire versions actually issued to the military.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    Push back 100%. Pursuit mode, lets see if any of them took foreign money to ‘disarm’ us, then question whether accusations of sedition are in order, or whether full-disclosure should be garnered in order to ensure they haven’t consorted with enemies of the state or its citizenry for monetary gain. Ask if they can prove where their money went. If they’re not-for-profit did any go to foreign governments or foreigners on the U.S. Department of Treasury’s OFAC SDN list?

  15. avatar outwardhound says:

    The simple answer is that, whether it’s long guns or handguns, they are still focusing on an inanimate object rather on the real root causes of violence and crime which are cultural, social, and economic factors. Attempting gun control does not in the least affect any of the root causes.

  16. avatar Scrubula says:

    Even though AR15s make great home/self defense weapons, there’s no getting around the fact that handguns are used way more often for self/home defense. Obviously concealed carry, but also within the home. Simply tell them that and ask them why they would want to make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves within their homes.

  17. avatar larry says:

    Unfortunately they will have a way more valid point.

    Of course its pro-gun people that have been pointing this out (stupid move) when we should have been behind the single simple answer of “Its my second amendment right to have a gun to defend my self”.

    Stopp antagonizing the Ant-Gun crowd. Stop pointing out facts they can use against us. Stop telling them “Its a magazine stupid not a clip”. Stop walking around the mall or Starbucks with a AR strapped to your back to prove a point that does nothing be freak out soccer moms and make them RUN the voting booth to take away your rights.

    Kill them with kindness and polite comments about the bill of rights and your right to defend your self. Politely point out the FACT that only law abiding citizens will obey any current and future laws that restrict gun rights and that criminals will continue to use guns as they see fit.

  18. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Yeah this is partially true. I dont think they will go after handguns without some serious turnover in the ranks of the Supreme Court or a very high profile massacre where a handgun is used. Heller wont fall over night so it seems unlikely that they would go outright for handguns, at least not immediately.

    A large reason for this is they can spout as many statistics as they want to but people just don’t care enough. They people who are concerned about getting mugged at the gas station or shot in a parking lot probably own a handgun themselves and CCW. The reason assault weapons bans gain so much traction is that they look scary and the crimes committed with them are usually very public and horrific, they also hit closer to home for people who are likely to do something about it so there is the subconscious impression that “it could happen to me or my family!” going on there. The simple fact is handgun violence is a largely racial/socioeconomic problem whereas a dozen slaughtered white kids is a very distinctly suburban problem so it hits closer to home even if it pales in comparison when you look at the numbers.

    So its a dilemma which belies their ultimate motive, ban private firearms ownership one piece at a time. On one hand they have the low hanging fruit (although it has proven tougher to grasp than they expected) of “assault weapons” that even if they accomplish it doesn’t really do much so their victory is shallow (assuming they actually want to reduce crime), or they have the much harder to reach handguns that at least has a higher theoretical impact but would be even more impossible to accomplish again for the reasons I listed above.

    So the very likely response may be a token attempt to ban or restrict handguns underlined by a very aggressive push for universal background checks, domestic violence restraining orders, and registration of handguns (or all guns if they get greedy), think NFA but for all guns. I also wouldn’t be shocked to see similar rule to alcohol applied, ie you can forget teaching your kid to shoot at any public range and huge penalties if they catch you doing it in private. The ultimate goal being, starve the fire of oxygen, make it prohibitively difficult and expensive to buy guns and illegal to teach young people to shoot, then let the fire burn itself out.

    Also lets face it, as long Difi, Bloomberg, Barbara Boxer, and others are allive we will never see the end of attempts for an assault weapons ban. They only have to get lucky once, we have to succeed every time.

  19. avatar ThomasR says:

    Their cooling their rhetoric because elections are coming up. If they don’t lose more seats in the senate, they’ll start up the attack on our gun rights full bore; as always.

    Tyranny never sleeps, so neither can we.

  20. avatar TT says:

    Here’s a simple answer: We already do a great deal to prevent people who shouldn’t have handguns from getting them. Everywhere in the U.S., people under 21, felons, people adjudicated mentally incompetent, illegal aliens, people dishonorably discharged from the armed services, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders cannot buy or possess handguns or ammunition. Many states already impose waiting periods on handgun purchases. Many state and local governments have considerably more restrictive handgun laws than these, to the point of having laws that function as bans (by the way, those places tend to have the most violent crime too).

    Anti-gunners rarely talk about the laws we already have. I believe very few people who do not own guns understand how restrictive firearms acquisition already is. In other words, we already have “common sense” gun laws. Explaining in simple (very simple) terms the guns laws that we already have, that the places that already have the most restrictive gun laws usually have the most crime, and that the places with the least restrictive gun laws usually have the least crime is a great starting point for any argument that we need new laws.

  21. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Hey, I’m on board with reducing “handgun violence.”

    Here’s my proposal. I’ll call it “incarceration.”

    It’s common knowledge among criminologists that long prison sentences not only prevent recidivism, but they are also a powerful deterrent.

    Liberals have never heard of the idea. We need to educate them.

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Yeah I stand beside Farago on this one, if you are too dangerous to be trusted to own firearms you are too dangerous to be out in public. So either the background check needs to update its criteria or violent criminals need to stay behind bars.

    2. avatar David P says:

      That is what Indianapolis republican mayor is proposing. 20 years minimum for “possession of a handgun while offensively committing a crime”.

      1. avatar David P says:

        Sorry told you wrong. 10 years for possession while committing a crime 20 years if the trigger is pulled during the crime. These are added on to the back of the sentence of the crime committed.

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        The criminal solution for that may be that thugs would team up and use knives or machete’s, which are just as deadly. Criminals will always find a way, until stopped by slug.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      There is no evidence that punishment, of whatever type, deters crime. Capital punishment deters only the person executed. Ex-cons who swear they will never go back to prison still commit crimes. The fact of the matter is that most criminals are stupid enough to believe that they will never be caught, and therefore do not even consider the severity of the punishment that will be meted out should they be convicted. If punishment worked, after all these thousands of years of trying, you’d think we would have no crime today.
      And long prison sentences do reduce recidivism but only because convicts are too old to commit crimes when they are finally released.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        There is no evidence that punishment, of whatever type, deters crime.

        IIRC, John Lott, in More Guns, Less Crime, disagrees, and argues the point with actual, statistical evidence that harsher sentencing does, in fact, deter violent crime.

  22. avatar johnb says:

    Don’t get distracted or complacent….the progressives have a short game and a long game….every move is planned and deliberate. I see incremental work on their part in nearly every facet of life and their leadership is unwaivering in their end goal.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      CORRECT!!!

  23. avatar David P says:

    The AR went mainstream on them. It was most of the guns being sold. It is hard to tell a soccer mom that an AR is the enemy when her husband has one and the family just spent the day at the range with no problems.
    The next push will be mental health. It will start with people with a background and it will move more towards testing people before a purchase and honestly AFTER a purchase. How long could you keep up with weekly psych visits to prove that you are safe to keep your gun?

    1. avatar pod says:

      Agreed. People erroneously sometimes think “AR” means American Rifle, but it truly has become so over the past few years. Even before Newtown and the other scares sales of the black rifle were on the rise. I’m no longer surprised when someone has a black rifle.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        And they erroneously sometimes think “AR” means “Assault Rifle” when it actually means “ArmaLite”…

  24. avatar Cobalt-Blue says:

    The answer is simple. You don’t make people safer from criminals with handguns by taking away the handguns of law-abiding citizens. You ask them, “How do you plan to take away handguns from ONLY criminals without taking away the Gods given rights of the law abiding citizen? Furthermore, how do you propose to do it while guaranteeing that there will never be an attempt to confiscate guns from every day citizens. Until you can answer that question, then you have no argument. Moreover, don’t try to use the term “common sense” because you’ve already shown that your entire movement has no common sense.

  25. avatar Roscoe says:

    I’m not on board with acquiescing to anything the anti-gun crowd proposes, period. None of it, zero, zilch. Everything they propose is another step toward extinguishing gun rights and protections for all of us, bit by bit.

    Look at that picture with Bloomberg and his buddies with their smug, disingenuous, deceitful smiling faces.

    Ya’ like gettin’ bit by a snake? Go for it.

    I don’t want anything to do with ANY snake, or any poison spewing from their mouth or fangs.

    ’nuff said.

  26. avatar MiniMe says:

    In the immortal words of General Ackbar: It’s a trap!

    Do not believe ANYTHING that comes out Blommie-troll’s mouth or his ilk. For the past several years their “gun sense” bullshit has demonstrated pretty effectively that all they want is *control* over everything and everyone.

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    We should go on the offensive! Let’s repeal all the BS based on this logic. If they are willing to admit it’s crap, let’s call them on it. Immediately and forcefully. Put them on the back foot for real.

  28. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    The antis will try to isolate one small segment at a time, whittle away at our Second Amendment applications, exclude whatever firearm for whatever reason they can conjure at the time, such as “plastic handles on a long gun” and will try to undermine the Second and those who hold it dear.

    Keeping in mind, the Second Amendment did not give us the right to bear arms, it just recognized our God-given or natural right, which preceded the Second Amendment. In other words, this right was codified in the Second Amendment and this natural right, along with the other natural rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom not to testify against ourselves, etc. were “grandfathered” into our U.S. Constitution.

    The Second Amendment is precious. It assures us of keeping the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. along with all the other rights so stated and unstated.

  29. avatar v v ind says:

    Dear anti:
    Imagine every last drop of hate you have for my guns and 2A freedoms as a liquid…. take that liquid and put it in a container. Now double the amount of liquid in the container, that amount represents my love of my guns and 2A freedoms. That amount is what it will require for you to ever win this fight.

    1. avatar Dale Miller says:

      I love you man!

  30. avatar Toasty says:

    Alright, then repealing the AWB’s in the blue states and repealing the import laws at the federal level will be our starting point for a conversation. Until that is done, they can suck one. I want them to show us that they mean it. They do that, maybe there’s something we could work out… But repealing all those laws is the starting point.

  31. avatar CT Resident says:

    If they were good enough to admit they were wrong on rifles, they they should be good enough to admit that the thousands of bad and useless gun laws on the books should be repealed. And get them repealed, no strings attached, just an honest righting of wrongs.

  32. avatar Roscoe says:

    So after all the propaganda and rhetoric, the antis’ have changed their tune; it’s no longer eevil black rifles that are the problem, it’s ‘handguns’.

    So my question is, were they lying then, or are they lying now?

    Or is it ALL one big lie to disarm and control everybody; honest law abiding citizens especially who obey the law, and who have done nothing to deserve being demonized and targeted by the rabbid anti-gun extremists.

  33. avatar Peter says:

    So basically they are admitting that they lied about assault weapons, but we should trust them now?

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      It’s not so much “we” since we’re informed and not easily cowed by the antis’ propaganda.

      It’s the uninformed, impressionable general public at large that is so easily influenced by emotional anti-gun rhetoric and lies given an aire of legitimacy with its repetitive verbatim coverage in the mainstream legacy liberal media as if it’s all…’fact’.

  34. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    They haven’t retreated, but they have gotten knocked back. This is their attempt to get their feet under themselves again and attack from another direction. Now is when we need to pick up the offensive. When you’re fighting Progressivism, it’s not enough to merely defeat the opponent. They have to be completely and utterly destroyed.

  35. avatar Pascal says:

    The fight will be over Universal Background Checks. This is where Everytown is spending their money.

    If they can get the nose under the tent at the federal level this is how they will do gun control by deciding who can have a gun. They see this as more efficient that fighting the gun find and there are plenty of gun people who would go along with UBC. THis is the fight.

  36. avatar SIES says:

    References, Position, Perspective and of course …Opinion
    For those truly interested in ‘Understanding’ what all Morally-conscious, ‘Rights’-respecting, Peaceable, Law-abiding ( Fire-Arm owning ) American Citizens are actually up against — the following is a Must Read:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/our_defining_moral_crisis.html

    Aside: The Unaffordable Wealth-care Redistribution Tax will invariably be wielded as one of the most formidable weapons those in fedgovco ever empowered themselves with.
    In terms of further destruction of the Founder’s beloved Constitutional Republic, only slightly less devastating than the formation of the Central Bank U.S. ( FRB ) and Amendment XVI.
    As for it’s use against the RKBA, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
    Once advanced to a certain point, watch for the propaganda mantra to shift to ‘how unfair it is for people who don’t even own GUNS to be forced to pay the exorbitant, unnecessary and entirely preventable costs of treating GUNSHOT wounds’.
    Aside: Entirely erasing the southern U.S. border is set in stone as part of the old-world disorder, disunion-of-the-U.S and formalizing the new and improved, Union of the Americas — as is the eventual revitalization / implementation of the ’carbon tax / credit exchange’.
    Take heart though, thus far via the IIA, fedgovco still “GIVES citizens the right to bear arms.”
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution

    Conscience, Morality and ‘Rights’, my friends…Conscience, Morality and ‘Rights’.
    Do No Harm / Successfully Defend
    (editor needed, inquire within )

    1. avatar publius2 says:

      Outstanding article. A keeper. Money quote, that applies to understanding Progtards on 2A rights:

      “Frankly, much of the frustration that we observe in Washington and Brussels today is because it is becoming clear that the MarxProg model of the world isn’t working, never will work, and never could work. Being fully vested in their parochial MarxProg worldview, its proponents are incapable of applying alternate ways of understanding and dealing with the world. They no longer understand what is happening. ”

      This is Obama in toto. He is lost, and his handlers are lost, and panicking. Thats why they are going back to the shopworn “Guns are bad” story- its all they have. Failed at that before but not NEARLY as bad as Benghazi/Syria/ISIS gun-running, the economy/obamacare/inner-city_ferguson, and its all coming home to roost, now.

  37. avatar neiowa says:

    The big mainstream media’s full court press on “domestic violence” is the tactic to push handgun control. “Most murders in domestic violence” is by handgun. So must ban handguns. First by pushing to take guns away from any man under any allegation of raising hand or voice to any chick. To include thru defining down rape as “sexual assault” that including anything from a leering look to actual intercourse (of any type/circumstance)”

  38. avatar Ralph says:

    The wingnuts and gungrabbers have decided that they can’t push any further in the various legislatures, so they’ve decided to fight a culture war instead. Demonizing us, marginalizing us and ridiculing us is their chosen tactic. Target, Kroger, Starbucks etc. is the new battleground.

    Legislatively and in the courts, our organizations (NRA, SAF etc.) are more than a match for MAIG, MDA and the rest of that vile cohort. PR-wise, we are far, far behind. We need a pressure group that can fight in the new arena.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      PR-wise, we ARE behind. That’s because the antis have a largely conspiratorial liberal national press at their disposal to disperse their half-truths, lies, misinformation and propaganda for them. The national MSM, as a willing, participating pressure group for the antis, is hard to compete with, particularly since these big national liberal media conglomerates control most of the message delivery, and can pick and choose what to report.

      In addition, with the press’ coverage of MDA’s efforts to coerce businesses and organizations to support their anti-gun theme, the media acts as a coercion agent giving the targeted businesses impetus to acquiesce to MDA’s intimidation strategy and get out from under the negative spotlight they find themselves in.

  39. avatar Kyle says:

    I don’t see where they are backing off of assault weapons bans. Maybe at the federal level, but at the state level, watch out. The next big push at the state level will be to ban all semiautomatic rifles that take detachable box magazines. As for handguns, I think thee was a statistic after Newtown that said something like 80% of people did not believe handguns should be outlawed.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The reason that the Left went after AR-pattern rifles so hard is because Newtown involved an AR, and the gungrabbers figured that the low-intelligence types would be panicky and want ARs banned.

      If that crazy child killer had used a Glock, the gungrabbers would have focused on Glocks and we wouldn’t have heard much about ARs.

      Gungrabbers are fearmongers. Period.

  40. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    My answer is way too long, so I’m breaking it into three parts …

    Part 1:

    The simple answer is that the issue is the user, not the tool. Cars don’t drive themselves drunk. Forks don’t feed people and make them fat. And guns don’t shoot people on their own.

    The slightly longer answer is the statements above, plus:

    Users who do bad things with guns tend to fall into one of two groups – those who want to cause harm to others and those who are not educated enough with firearms.

    Those who want to do harm to others WILL IGNORE LAWS. They are already going to ignore a law if they are going to assault / rape / murder someone else. They’re not going to pay attention to other laws that are passed that restrict ownership and/or possession of a gun. They’ll get around the laws one way or another, and in the meantime, the laws will only inconvenience the law-abiding.

    Those who have no intent to harm but haven’t learned enough about firearms yet need more education and/or training. Giving them more training would help. Punishing them for their ignorance, even if no harm has been done to anyone, will not help.

    [A corollary: Those who will obey a “no guns” sign are not a threat. Those who are a threat will not obey a “no guns” sign.]

  41. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    Part 2:

    I’d like to emphasize one point you made:

    “Freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility are excellent answers, but they provoke too much thought and are too abstract for the average person to digest fully.”

    This is true, and I would add that the arguments that consist of “2nd amendment” and “shall not be infringed” and “US Constitution” and “the Supreme Court said” and other such things will be similarly dismissed and/or ignored by many people. There are better ways to reach folks out there.

    FWIW, I’m not entirely convinced they’ll go after handguns, because (as others have mentioned) they are strongly associated by many folks with self-defense. IMO, one thing has become very clear (if it wasn’t already): many anti-gun folks absolutely do not believe in self-defense with a firearm. Their push to ban carry in as many businesses as possible proves this. They believe that people are too incompetent and/or stupid to handle it properly, and that other ways (e.g. peeing on yourself or saying that you’re menstruating to avoid rape) are somehow better.

  42. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    Part 3:

    Yes it’s true that in the era of soundbites and limited attention spans, short statements/questions are good. Ideally they get people to think in a way they haven’t though before (sometimes with an emotional barb). Some possibilities:

    * Police response time is a few minutes at best, and perhaps an hour or more at worst. So if a woman is raped “only for a few minutes” while she’s waiting for the police, is that ok?

    * Your insistence on the large training requirements for a permit / ammo taxes / meaningless stupid legal hurdle / etc. mean that those who are less well-off will never be able to afford to protect themselves with a firearm. Why do you support laws that discriminate against poor people?

    * Police have no legal duty to protect anyone. So when a grandparent who can’t legally carry because of restrictive laws is killed by a thug that the grandparent can’t physically take in a fight, what should his children and grandchildren do?

    * Folks who are mentally ill people need help, not punishment. They are, in fact, NOT any more prone to violence than the general population. Why would you want to make them more vulnerable to being attacked?

    * You talk about concern for women and domestic violence issues, but then attack the one tool that can put a woman on equal physical footing with a man – a firearm. Why do you hate women?

    * You say you support the Second Amendment, which includes the right to bear arms. You’ve been harassing Staples, Chipotle, Starbucks, etc. to try to get them to ban people bearing arms. So where do you think ordinary folks should be able to bear arms?

    * While the chance I’ll be attacked on any given day is relatively low, it’s certainly not zero. I’ve never seen any place that has a magical immunity to violence. Have you?

    etc.

    There are ways to fight them. Real statistics and facts can only be used effectively once someone is open to the idea that the propaganda that they’ve been fed may be wrong. Emotional appeals sometimes work for them – they can also be used against them.

  43. avatar publius2 says:

    Deny, Divert, Distract, Attack- classic tactics of the borderline personality, AKA progtards

    the numbers are not looking good from the REAL Mom Voters;
    so its time for a distraction, and some faux Mom buzz, conveniently coordinated by ThinkProgress, TPM, and the rest of the Soros funded CAP clones…

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/the-security-moms-are-back/380354/

    1. avatar publius2 says:

      More on Benghazi and the StateRunMedia denial/diversion to “Guns!”

      http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/17/benghazi-hearings-about-to-force-the-press-to-pay-attention/

      Don’t forget that Benghazi was about gun-running from Libya, to Syria via Turkey. Now the jihadi’s that State was trying to “cultivate” have gone off the rez, and running loose beheading people, and stuff, its even more important the StateRunMedia look the otherway…

      and standby for more from AG Holder on Domestic Terrorists, too.

  44. avatar Anonymous says:

    The anti gunners are going to go for the mental illness route. They know they can get the Republicans on board with mental illness. If you grit your teeth at night or have problems sleeping you cannot have a gun. If you are a mother who is stressed out at the end of the day and needs a Valium to relax you can’t get a gun. Here in NC our republican state legislature and governor passed a law saying you have to forfeit your HIPPA rights to get a concealed carry permit. Law abiding citizens are being denied their carry permits because they have suffered from anxiety and other temporary troubles. If you have never suffered from anxiety or depression you are not human.

  45. avatar EZ says:

    I think the best argument in support of handguns is cost. Imagine a woman who left an abusive relationship, she has two kids and works two jobs (one of which is a night shift). Her ex-husband is violent and has threatened her. Due to financial circumstances Jessica is living in a “decent” neighborhood, but definitely not one that is as safe as she would prefer. Let’s call her Jessica. Jessica is interested in purchasing a firearm for home protection and then something to carry with her on her night shift that will fit in her purse/gym bag. Due to all the press on the effectiveness of AR15 rifles she thinks that one may provide her the greatest increase in survivability should trouble find her.

    Unfortunately, after doing her research, Jessica discovers that a well built, reliable, well broken in (1000 rounds+ in the hands of a new shooter) AR-15 plus the training to go with it would set her back about 2.5K, which in Jessica’s world equates to almost half a years rent. Throw in weapon familiarization time (ARs do have a bit steeper learning curve=time spent training=$). Also, she discovers that anything compact enough in the AR15 variant won’t be concealable on her person/gym bag, unless she coughed up another 200 bucks, called a lawyer, and then waited for 18 months to receive a tax stamp (which all sounded very confusing, and the gun shop recommended that she not use for daily carry). Needless to say, although the first choice, the AR was off the table.

    However, what Jessica could afford and would meet most of her needs was a reliable well broken in used handgun (or even knew) which the gun shop had several of for 300-500 dollars (including holster and a brick of ammunition to train with). The shop even had a small pistol range (not rated for rifle ammunition) where she could train a few times a month and offered a CCW course. Needless to say Jessica purchased the pistol and now keeps it on her person (in her purse) and close to her bed at night.

    Oddly enough, unless you grew up in the country most guys/gals I know ended up taking this same route. The reason is simple, cost and conceal-ability.

    EZ

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email