PDA

View Full Version : Aren't we going the Wrong Direction?


Alphahookups
05-11-2006, 7:36 AM
Now I got into this lower craze for the same reasons you guys did;

1) I wanted a black rifle...any black rifle
2) I wanted a normal "AW" black rifle

but with all this crap going on, shouldn't we ask ourselves, "Are we going in the right direction". I hear people left and right trying to call congressman and every other politician to get them to list and even BillW's(you are a great guy and had only the best intentions) website say's how bad our black rifles are...Never in a thousand years would you hear me say," please ban ____ weapon". If it happens, it happens, but we are starting to sound like liberal soccer moms here.

Shouldn't we be trying to point out that since November 30000+ ARs and AK's have been on the streets and the streets HAVEN'T run red with blood. Shouldn't we point out how much of a sham this whole AW ban is/was and that this just shows that it isnt doing anything.

Essentially what we are doing is asking the DOJ to ban AR's, now potentially sks's too, and our children are going to be the ones that suffer.

Please guys, think twice before standing side by side with the Brady bunch trying to ban these in your own best interest. Your grandchildren will thank you.

/ opinion

Scope
05-11-2006, 9:08 AM
I agree. We should not give any support to the claims of the anti-gunners even for short term gain. If we start adopting the anti-gunners rederick in hopes of owning our own black rifles we undermine those who are working to change things and damage our legitimacy. We absolutely should not try to portray these weapons as being more dangerous than other firearms, especially when they are not.

I also think we would make more progress by showing the DOJ a little more respect, instead of trying to flood them with emails about listing. IMO not listing is the better option in the long run. We should encourage them to recognize the states tools based standard for the definition of fixed mags.

bwiese
05-11-2006, 9:13 AM
Guys,
This one-time (maybe two-time) thing will not set us back. Nor will the opposition let up on us if we are "nice" to them.

We know there is semiauto legislation in the bowels of the legislature - even before all this off-list stuff happened.

In fact, if there are any side effects from this off-list stuff, it may be _diversionary_ from other worse more generic stuff (i.e., 'fix the hole' instead of attacking new stuff...)

DrjonesUSA
05-11-2006, 9:23 AM
We know there is semiauto legislation in the bowels of the legislature - even before all this off-list stuff happened.


Could you please post a link?

Thank you.

Alphahookups
05-11-2006, 9:31 AM
Guys,
This one-time (maybe two-time) thing will not set us back. Nor will the opposition let up on us if we are "nice" to them.

We know there is semiauto legislation in the bowels of the legislature - even before all this off-list stuff happened.

In fact, if there are any side effects from this off-list stuff, it may be _diversionary_ from other worse more generic stuff (i.e., 'fix the hole' instead of attacking new stuff...)


I just think it might be wise to refrain from portraying these weapons as devils just to get short term gain...

bwiese
05-11-2006, 9:32 AM
Could you please post a link?
Thank you.

How would there be a link?? It's being shopped around for support, it hasn't been formalized or in committee. Being drafted in someone's office, and they may be asking DOJ for tech answers.

It's more than scuttlebutt though since this was reported to me by 3 noted gun lawyers.

DrjonesUSA
05-11-2006, 9:40 AM
How would there be a link?? It's being shopped around for support, it hasn't been formalized or in committee. Being drafted in someone's office, and they may be asking DOJ for tech answers.

It's more than scuttlebutt though since this was reported to me by 3 noted gun lawyers.


Oh. Ok.

The way you stated it made it sound as if there was something drafted.

Do you have any specifics about this in-the-works bill?

Is it truly an attempt to ban semi-auto rifles, handguns, what?

How sweeping would it be?

Would it outlaw posession, or just the future transfer/sale/etc?

Who is responsible for it?


Any info you have is appreciated, and if you don't want to post your info publicly, I request you PM or email me.

Thanks! :)

bwiese
05-11-2006, 10:57 AM
Oh. Ok.
The way you stated it made it sound as if there was something drafted.
Do you have any specifics about this in-the-works bill?
Is it truly an attempt to ban semi-auto rifles, handguns, what?
How sweeping would it be?

We simply DON'T know.

Remember, the LCAV model assault weapon law(s) even include pump-action stuff like 870s.

tenpercentfirearms
05-11-2006, 11:01 AM
I just think it might be wise to refrain from portraying these weapons as devils just to get short term gain...Too late, they are alreaedy evil weapons and that is why they are banned. I agree, this is a tough decision. Make them look evil against what we really believe so we can at least make them truly evil in the face of our enemies or not make them sound evil and continue not to have them? This is not an easy one.

The only solace I think we can take is that they are already seen as evil and the public already thinks you shouldn't have one since they already passed the ban.

Scope
05-11-2006, 11:07 AM
Guys,
This one-time (maybe two-time) thing will not set us back. Nor will the opposition let up on us if we are "nice" to them.

I did not say we need to be "nice" to them, but the gun community can help its image by showing some respect to those in authority. Saying the DOJ sucks and is stupid is not going to help either. We can stand our ground without being jerks.

We know there is semiauto legislation in the bowels of the legislature - even before all this off-list stuff happened.

In fact, if there are any side effects from this off-list stuff, it may be _diversionary_ from other worse more generic stuff (i.e., 'fix the hole' instead of attacking new stuff...)

We all know that some representatives would push through a total gun ban if they could. No matter how small this fight is in our little Kali culture war, though, we should not ever take the stance that allowing unlisted lowers to enter the state is a danger to the community or that black rifles are somehow more dangerous than other guns. That undermines our credibility and hurts those groups that are trying to make this a free state.

DrjonesUSA
05-11-2006, 11:22 AM
I did not say we need to be "nice" to them, but the gun community can help its image by showing some respect to those in authority. Saying the DOJ sucks and is stupid is not going to help either. We can stand our ground without being jerks.



The DOJ works for you and me.

They sure as hell don't act like it, and they'd laugh in our faces if we told them that, but that does not change the FACt that THEY are OUR SERVANTS and WE ARE THEIR MASTERS.