PDA

View Full Version : I'm not sure the anti-gunners will have such an easy time


Excelsior
12-22-2012, 1:54 PM
Based on the tenor of some of the non-gun blogging I have been following, I'm not at all sure that the anti-gunners are going to have much success.

Yahoo News is classically non-traditional. The blogging often attacks what I hold to be sacred or at least dear. It seems like those against gun control are carrying the day over there by a big margin. Something I would never have expected.

Perhaps more of America realizes that efforts at gun control do not work?

CessnaDriver
12-22-2012, 1:56 PM
No. They will not have it easy.

CessnaDriver
12-22-2012, 1:56 PM
No. They will not have it easy.

jdouglas
12-22-2012, 2:06 PM
No. They will not have it easy.

Such an important point it had to be said twice. :D

JMP
12-22-2012, 2:07 PM
It's never easy for them, and it's never easy for us. I expected federal legislation on gun control (Biden/Feinstein Bill) to be quite hard to pass, but I'd be very cautious in any form of optimism.

Laddy
12-22-2012, 3:02 PM
This battle will be won or lost via the 2014 mid term elections, and both sides know it.

CessnaDriver
12-22-2012, 3:04 PM
Such an important point it had to be said twice. :D

Courtesy of Calguns random auto double posting whether you like it or not feature.

Mikeb
12-22-2012, 3:08 PM
I worry about the low hanging fruit... Modern rifles

Dinosaur Jr
12-22-2012, 3:22 PM
At this point, the AR-15 is THE most popular long gun in America. The primary argument about so-called "assault rifles" used last time in the courts won't fly this time.

Maybe we can get all the antis to watch this video on how well the Australian ban is going?

p8RDWltHxRc

jdouglas
12-22-2012, 4:12 PM
At this point, the AR-15 is THE most popular long gun in America. The same arguments about so-called "assault rifles" used last time in the courts (at that time, a case was made that those guns were not in popular use) won't fly this time.

Maybe we can get all the antis to watch this video on how well the Australian ban is going?

p8RDWltHxRc
OH THE HORROR!!!! :eek:

Parts of that video clip were almost too intense for me to watch...those saws...sawing them in half...I'm scarred for life!

ummmmmm456
12-22-2012, 4:17 PM
how can a nation not have a definition for home invasion....:facepalm:

Dinosaur Jr
12-22-2012, 4:30 PM
OH THE HORROR!!!! :eek:

Parts of that video clip were almost too intense for me to watch...those saws...sawing them in half...I'm scarred for life!

I just thought it was a shame...all those perfectly good guns... :facepalm:

kf6tac
12-22-2012, 5:09 PM
On the federal level they'll have a tough time. In California, I fear it's just a matter of scribbling whatever idiotic idea comes to mind onto a napkin and passing it down the aisle as a bill.

jj805
12-22-2012, 5:16 PM
On the federal level they'll have a tough time. In California, I fear it's just a matter of scribbling whatever idiotic idea comes to mind onto a napkin and passing it down the aisle as a bill.

Preliminary injunction, then the court battle. Build up the war chest of CGF, SAF, etc...

Mangy Coyote
12-22-2012, 5:22 PM
Feinstein said to "Meet the Press" that she has been working on it for a year. these people will never stop and they will never give up.

killmime1234
12-22-2012, 6:47 PM
Unfortunately laws don't get made based on what the majority of the governed want; they get made based on what the governed's representatives believe they want.

That is to say that if Washington "thinks" most of us want a ban, they'll give us one, even of most of us don't.

bodger
12-22-2012, 6:52 PM
Preliminary injunction, then the court battle. Build up the war chest of CGF, SAF, etc...

Absolutely.

Intimid8tor
12-22-2012, 7:30 PM
Feinstein said to "Meet the Press" that she has been working on it for a year. these people will never stop and they will never give up.

Just like Obama never stops campaigning, the antis are always looking for an opportunity and working to make it happen. The passing of the law will come down to whether or not all the Republicans have the balls to stand up and say no. If it does pass, I do expect lots of lawsuits and we'll see what happens from there.

AND, even if it does pass, we can never stop trying to get it overturned.

Excelsior
12-22-2012, 7:58 PM
Just like Obama never stops campaigning, the antis are always looking for an opportunity and working to make it happen. The passing of the law will come down to whether or not all the Republicans have the balls to stand up and say no. If it does pass, I do expect lots of lawsuits and we'll see what happens from there.

AND, even if it does pass, we can never stop trying to get it overturned.

We should be doing the same thing!!

hornswaggled
12-22-2012, 7:58 PM
I worry about the low hanging fruit... Modern rifles

Even lower fruit, high cap mags. That's more like ground squirrel food.

ElvenSoul
12-22-2012, 8:06 PM
Have you been to a gun store lately? I think more guns have sold in the last 2 weeks than the last ten years.

rolo
12-22-2012, 8:17 PM
Even lower fruit, high cap mags. That's more like ground squirrel food.

This is the ultimate goal of all this hand-wringing. They want our magazines. They want us to think they're going to give us a helluva fight over an AWB and then offer us a mag ban in concession to not passing it. Mark my words.

Just like we have to play chess, they do too. They know they can't get an AWB passed, but they can give us the death of a thousand cuts.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 8:42 PM
At this point, the AR-15 is THE most popular long gun in America. The primary argument about so-called "assault rifles" used last time in the courts won't fly this time.

I think this is one point that hasn't been discussed enough. In light of the findings in Miller, the AR-15 especially would appear to be absolutely protected under the 2nd Amendment. And while that holding has been controversial, it was discussed in Heller extensively, and the majority upheld the clear meaning of the Miller finding. In addition, we also now have the "in common use for lawful purposes" language. And once again, as you point out here, the AR-15 seems to be especially protected by that language due to its widespread ownership and what Obama himself just stated was overwhelmingly lawful use.

So, assuming that stare decisis has a significant influence on the court, the inevitable Supreme Court challenge to any federal AWB seems fairly certain to be decided in our favor. There are always the unknowables that could lead to a different result, but it does certainly mean that it would be a very tough fight for those seeking a ban.

jj805
12-22-2012, 8:49 PM
I think this is one point that hasn't been discussed enough. In light of the findings in Miller, the AR-15 especially would appear to be absolutely protected under the 2nd Amendment. And while that holding has been controversial, it was discussed in Heller extensively, and the majority upheld the clear meaning of the Miller finding. In addition, we also now have the "in common use for lawful purposes" language. And once again, as you point out here, the AR-15 seems to be especially protected by that language due to its widespread ownership and what Obama himself just stated was overwhelmingly lawful use.

So, assuming that stare decisis has a significant influence on the court, the inevitable Supreme Court challenge to any federal AWB seems fairly certain to be decided in our favor. There are always the unknowables that could lead to a different result, but it does certainly mean that it would be a very tough fight for those seeking a ban.

As long as the Heller 5 are still around when it finally makes its way up to SCOTUS. This is the exact scenario that we didn't want during the election. That being said, I think it will lose at the fed, and with a preliminary injunction, stall it out for a long time in CA.

SPUTTER
12-22-2012, 8:54 PM
It's not easy but if innocent people keep getting massacred...it helps them.

Excelsior
12-22-2012, 9:10 PM
This is the ultimate goal of all this hand-wringing. They want our magazines. They want us to think they're going to give us a helluva fight over an AWB and then offer us a mag ban in concession to not passing it. Mark my words.

Just like we have to play chess, they do too. They know they can't get an AWB passed, but they can give us the death of a thousand cuts.

:confused:

Normal/high capacity mags and what they term "assault weapons" are one in the same! You can argue about the impact of a 10 vs. 30 (or 150) round mag. The rest of the crap on the 1994 AWB defining an "AW" was laughable even to the most ardent anti-gunner:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher

rolo
12-22-2012, 9:37 PM
:confused:

Normal/high capacity mags and what they term "assault weapons" are one in the same! You can argue about the impact of a 10 vs. 30 (or 150) round mag.

It's my turn to be confused. I don't follow, please explain.


The rest of the crap on the 1994 AWB defining an "AW" was laughable even to the most ardent anti-gunner:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher

I don't think they're laughing about features at all. Pelosi herself said that there will be a list of guns banned by name and another list banned by features. What else could she possibly be talking about? That's no laughing matter to me.

Excelsior
12-22-2012, 10:54 PM
It's my turn to be confused. I don't follow, please explain.

I don't think they're laughing about features at all. Pelosi herself said that there will be a list of guns banned by name and another list banned by features. What else could she possibly be talking about? That's no laughing matter to me.

OK, let's say they actually try to craft a list of firearms "banned by name." They tried that in 1989 here in CA too. A big joke of a flop. So then they tried to ban by feature. We got around that as well for the most part.

The big difference today is those "features" look more and more like jokes to more and more people. They are going to be a more and more difficult sell.

If they go too far -- something that could actually be enforced and not contravened -- say they tried to make semi-autos illegal, it would never pass. The pressure from far too many would be unbearable. So they'll try to straddle a line as they have before and we'll see where that goes...

curtisfong
12-22-2012, 11:05 PM
It's not easy but if innocent people keep getting massacred...it helps them.

The 2A has to weather EVERY storm, not just this one.

huntercf
12-22-2012, 11:22 PM
how can a nation not have a definition for home invasion....:facepalm:

They do, it is called involuntary redistribution of wealth to the underpriviledged.

rabagley
12-22-2012, 11:25 PM
Feinstein said to "Meet the Press" that she has been working on it for a year. these people will never stop and they will never give up.

A year? Try eight years. Feinstein has been working on getting the AWB reinstated since 2004 when it expired.

RMP91
12-22-2012, 11:32 PM
OK, let's say they actually try to craft a list of firearms "banned by name." They tried that in 1989 here in CA too. A big joke of a flop. So then they tried to ban by feature. We got around that as well for the most part.

The big difference today is those "features" look more and more like jokes to more and more people. They are going to be a more and more difficult sell.

If they go too far -- something that could actually be enforced and not contravened -- say they tried to make semi-autos illegal, it would never pass. The pressure from far too many would be unbearable. So they'll try to straddle a line as they have before and we'll see where that goes...

But what if we (Disclaimer: Flame Suit is on and this is purely hypothetical so don't kill me! :pinch: ) took the initiative and crafted a so called "Assault Weapons Ban" of our own?

Beat the Antis at their own game! Water the 'Ban down so severely that it would be a purely symbolic law... For example:

- No more than 4 "features" (Most if not all semi autos and shotguns never have that many "features" coming from the factory).

- 30 round magazine capacity max for rifles and 20 round magazine capacity max for sidearms (pistols) (These are by far the most common sizes for most double-stack handguns and semi auto rifles, all those "drum" mags are nothing more than novelty anyways... They jam quite a lot, as evidenced in Aurora...).


I know this would NEVER fly with most pro-gun folk, but I thought it'd be a way to cheat the system a bit :43:

IVC
12-22-2012, 11:33 PM
I think this is one point that hasn't been discussed enough. In light of the findings in Miller, the AR-15 especially would appear to be absolutely protected under the 2nd Amendment. And while that holding has been controversial, it was discussed in Heller extensively, and the majority upheld the clear meaning of the Miller finding. In addition, we also now have the "in common use for lawful purposes" language. And once again, as you point out here, the AR-15 seems to be especially protected by that language due to its widespread ownership and what Obama himself just stated was overwhelmingly lawful use.

So, assuming that stare decisis has a significant influence on the court, the inevitable Supreme Court challenge to any federal AWB seems fairly certain to be decided in our favor. There are always the unknowables that could lead to a different result, but it does certainly mean that it would be a very tough fight for those seeking a ban.

This. It's been pointed out many times that the landscape has changed and one cannot just run roughshod over the established law.

Also, Miller was controversial to the extent it was used to justify "collective interpretation" in the second half of last century. Now that it's settled in Heller, Miller is yet another liability for the antis since it clearly implies that military style weapons are protected.

To defend new AWB the antis would have to show that (1) AWB of 1994 was effective (it wasn't); (2) Per Miller: AR 15 is somehow not suitable for military use (exactly the opposite of their main argument); (3) Per Heller: AR 15 is not in common use (the complete inventory just got cleaned up).

The risks are extremely high, but all the facts are on our side and we just have to be very organized and systematic in our approach.

curtisfong
12-23-2012, 12:23 AM
Anti-gunners have an impossible task ahead of them in Congress. The only reason they are talking tough about a new AWB is so when it fails miserably, they can say the Republicans want children to die.

Excelsior
12-23-2012, 1:17 AM
But what if we (Disclaimer: Flame Suit is on and this is purely hypothetical so don't kill me! :pinch: ) took the initiative and crafted a so called "Assault Weapons Ban" of our own?

Beat the Antis at their own game! Water the 'Ban down so severely that it would be a purely symbolic law... For example:

- No more than 4 "features" (Most if not all semi autos and shotguns never have that many "features" coming from the factory).

- 30 round magazine capacity max for rifles and 20 round magazine capacity max for sidearms (pistols) (These are by far the most common sizes for most double-stack handguns and semi auto rifles, all those "drum" mags are nothing more than novelty anyways... They jam quite a lot, as evidenced in Aurora...).

I know this would NEVER fly with most pro-gun folk, but I thought it'd be a way to cheat the system a bit :43:

It wouldn't placate them and it would set a terrible precedent. I think any ban could focus on three things -- the rest being noise:

Mag capacity. They seem to have an almost sexual lust for this issue. Their number seems to be ten or less. Will this have an impact on violent crime? Of course not, but it's what they lust for and they feel they can score on this one.

No more guns with removable magazines/guns that hold more than XY rounds. I suspect they would like this but it won't happen. That would effectively outlaw all semi-auto pistols which won't happen. The backlash could be harsh.

No more semi-auto firearms. They might love this (and it would actually be enforceable) but it's obviously not going to happen. I suspect they realize that too. Again, even trying, the backlash could be horrible.

Excelsior
12-23-2012, 1:20 AM
Anti-gunners have an impossible task ahead of them in Congress. The only reason they are talking tough about a new AWB is so when it fails miserably, they can say the Republicans want children to die.

I wish I understood that process better from a practical standpoint. Who votes which way, what does it take to implement, etc.

SMR510
12-23-2012, 1:30 AM
Remember that we are not trying to write these bills for them.

If you feel the need to say something say something like:

NOT ONE INCH!

We do not have to give up and take this, the most important document in this nation says that we have this right and we dont have to compromise. I suggest that we dont compromise at all, we are not going to write a "watered down version" and try to get it passed...That sir, is about the dumbest thing we could do.

IVC
12-23-2012, 2:25 AM
No more guns with removable magazines/guns that hold more than XY rounds. I suspect they would like this but it won't happen.

One more argument against this is that many "non-scary hunting rifles" use removable magazines, typically holding up to 4 or 5 rounds. A typical example is Sako 85 rifles.

winnre
12-23-2012, 2:48 AM
I say require gun owners to have safes. We need to control access to our firearms if they are not under our direct control. This will cut way down on stolen guns while not affecting the guns themselves.

Extra411
12-23-2012, 3:09 AM
I say require gun owners to have safes. We need to control access to our firearms if they are not under our direct control. This will cut way down on stolen guns while not affecting the guns themselves.

The issue with gun safes is that they delays access to firearms if you need them immediately. Heller has already ruled that the government cannot require you to lock up your guns or render them inoperable at home, which would defeat their purpose of self defense.

rolo
12-23-2012, 9:07 AM
OK, let's say they actually try to craft a list of firearms "banned by name." They tried that in 1989 here in CA too. A big joke of a flop. So then they tried to ban by feature. We got around that as well for the most part.

The big difference today is those "features" look more and more like jokes to more and more people. They are going to be a more and more difficult sell.

If they go too far -- something that could actually be enforced and not contravened -- say they tried to make semi-autos illegal, it would never pass. The pressure from far too many would be unbearable. So they'll try to straddle a line as they have before and we'll see where that goes...

From this side of the line, it's a no-brainer. We're clearly of one mind on the futility and stupidity of those who draft these laws. Aside from a total ban, which is the ultimate goal, I think (at least Pelosi knows)they're aware that they don't stand a chance of passing a new AWB. This is a way of gaining concessions, thus my characterization of it as a death by a thousand cuts. They want to make firearms less palatable by reducing their effectiveness and cachet.

They know there is a generation of future gunnies who WANT MORE THAN ANYTHING the gun they used to get to the top of the ranks in FPS's. Once these kids turn 18, if there isn't a ban in place, the tide will have turned and anti-gun legislation is a thing of the past. They are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening and if they can't have that, they will make it as difficult as possible for you, me and future generations from having what they want.

It's all sour grapes. If we can't have a utopian society, we won't let you have your pursuit of happiness.

This is what they were talking about when they said freedom isn't free.

TS77
12-23-2012, 9:37 AM
I think this go-around will be harder than the '94 try, as long as the republicans hold the party-line.

I'm getting phone calls from some of my "liberal" (gun-owning friends) about where to buy AR15 receivers (I kinda chuckled and said any store.....two weeks ago). And when I mean liberal, i mean DNC attending, congressman/woman office working, education-for-prisoners liberal.

Don't trip guys, i got RNC-attending, campaign-manager-for local Republican congressman friends too ;)

rabagley
12-23-2012, 9:46 AM
I think trades might be acceptable. Nationwide CCW in exchange for nationwide NICS checks for all firearms transfers. As for the "no license required for CCW" argument, I don't buy it. As long as there is an argument for a compelling state interest behind the license, it may pass Constitutional/SCOTUS muster.

Having the opportunity to occasionally verify the absence of disqualifying mental health or criminal issues? There's a public interest.

aklon
12-23-2012, 9:52 AM
On the federal level they'll have a tough time. In California, I fear it's just a matter of scribbling whatever idiotic idea comes to mind onto a napkin and passing it down the aisle as a bill.

Maybe not. Since Heller affirmed the 2A as an individual right, then McDonald applied it to the states as well, it raised the bar for these kinds of laws. We all have standing to file suit or file for an injunction against any AW law the Boyz and Gurls in Sacramento pass because they would first have to show how there is no other way to obtain the ends they are seeking without violating a fundamental civil right.

Am I wrong?

Mendo223
12-23-2012, 12:29 PM
at the end of the day, we are the gun nuts with the guns, and they are whacko anti gunnies who chose to live their life without protection. when SHTF we will watch them crumble and beg us for protection...i cannot wait for that day.

Peter W Bush
12-23-2012, 12:38 PM
Remember that we are not trying to write these bills for them.

If you feel the need to say something say something like:

NOT ONE INCH!

We do not have to give up and take this, the most important document in this nation says that we have this right and we dont have to compromise. I suggest that we dont compromise at all, we are not going to write a "watered down version" and try to get it passed...That sir, is about the dumbest thing we could do.

My thoughts exactly. Give them nothing. Not one inch. They will never stop until we are disarmed.
Gun rights are civil rights.

MOA1
12-23-2012, 12:48 PM
If we don't get the gun registration programs repealed in CA, we will end up the same as any country that had their guns taken away. IMO the main thing that stops them from doing that now is they don't have a complete list. In 2014 the list starts to get compiled. Any gun transactions PPT will need to be put on that list.

I really do hope that some sanity will prevail and stop the insanity which is the gun control laws that don't work. Not to mention the privacy issue that I believe is a right.

advocatusdiaboli
12-23-2012, 1:37 PM
Maybe not. Since Heller affirmed the 2A as an individual right, then McDonald applied it to the states as well, it raised the bar for these kinds of laws. We all have standing to file suit or file for an injunction against any AW law the Boyz and Gurls in Sacramento pass because they would first have to show how there is no other way to obtain the ends they are seeking without violating a fundamental civil right.

Am I wrong?

I still have a bullet button on my ARs, I'm limited to 10-round mags, and I have to mostly buy pistols off The Roster. Tell me gain how Hellers and McDonald have helped us in CA? I see no progress and now new laws loom as we have an even bigger fight. i'll not give up, but don't watch the liberals in CA pee down my back and tell me it's raining.

speleogist
12-23-2012, 1:51 PM
I still have a bullet button on my ARs, I'm limited to 10-round mags, and I have to mostly buy pistols off The Roster. Tell me gain how Hellers and McDonald have helped us in CA? I see no progress and now new laws loom as we have an even bigger fight. i'll not give up, but don't watch the liberals in CA pee down my back and tell me it's raining.

They left it open in one of those rulings for states to create their own regulations. So California is gonna just keep doin whatever it wants.

aileron
12-23-2012, 1:51 PM
No more semi-auto firearms. They might love this (and it would actually be enforceable) but it's obviously not going to happen. I suspect they realize that too. Again, even trying, the backlash could be horrible.

Banning Semi-Autos would defeat the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It would be the equivalent of telling people they have freedom of speech protected by the 1st amendment as long as they speak freely with 2 or less people and only in their homes.

The common use problem really comes down to common military use. You can't defend a nation using a citizen militia armed only with brooms sticks, nor can you do it with bolt action rifles in the modern world.

They would run squarely into logical fallacies about what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is all about. If its not about hunting then what is it about? Is it about shooting practice? Is it about protecting the citizens against threats from foreign invasion? Domestic threats? Thugs and crazys? Is it about the last protections against its government if the unthinkable were to happen? What ever the unthinkable might be.

Banning Semi-Autos would be running dangerously close to having to answer the question of need.

From the 'Common use' position from within the citizenry? Citizens have been using 10+ rounds and semi-autos for close to a hundred years now. Common use within the military is the same.

I think it would be hard to enforce from a historical and practical 2nd amendment view point. I think it would push the anti's into a bigger hole in the end because it would force even more acknowledgement of what the 2nd amendment is for.

Ultimately the US has to admit to the fact that crazy people the world over have killed innocent children in mass using, bombs, gas, knives, axes, cars, trucks, and yes firearms. The real solution comes down to allowing people to help save lives by using the best means at their disposal. Firearms. No one wants to be stuck in that position, but it does work. It does save lives.

Its no different than admitting that citizens can administer First Aid in an emergency. Also a battle that so many refused to accept in the beginning.

Sadly they want to ban guns and don't wish to acknowledge this simple truth. For us in the gun community it is truly heart breaking to continue to watch in vain as the innocent continue to get slaughtered because of phobias and prejudice; because where prejudice exists reason shall not follow. :(

Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians, by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons lives from violence of any and every kind by all means within their power.

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

OleCuss
12-23-2012, 2:00 PM
One thing the fascists have done is to sell an awful lot of the rifles they hate - and the ammo to go with them.

They added at least 10's of thousands (more likely 100's of thousands) of people who are now worried that the Democrats won't just ban the guns they want own - but will confiscate the ones they already own.

The number of people who now fear they won't be able to buy an AR-15 is now likely at least in the millions!

Not sure this is going to work out all that well for the anti-liberty types. (Not entirely sure it won't, either - 'tis still a fluid political issue.)

rolo
12-24-2012, 10:30 AM
This is the ultimate goal of all this hand-wringing. They want our magazines. They want us to think they're going to give us a helluva fight over an AWB and then offer us a mag ban in concession to not passing it. Mark my words.

Just like we have to play chess, they do too. They know they can't get an AWB passed, but they can give us the death of a thousand cuts.

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-look-restrict-gun-magazine-capacity-082617451.html

Poor form to quote oneself, I know. I just can't resist being right.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-25-2012, 9:33 AM
Its no different than admitting that citizens can administer First Aid in an emergency. Also a battle that so many refused to accept in the beginning.


Links?


The Raisuli

Cylarz
12-26-2012, 5:07 AM
I say require gun owners to have safes. We need to control access to our firearms if they are not under our direct control. This will cut way down on stolen guns while not affecting the guns themselves.

California already has mandated storage (and transportation) laws. Every gun I've bought from an FFL has to be sold with a trigger lock, or at least with an sworn affidavit that I have a safe at home which means CA-DOJ requirements. Besides, what do you say about guns that were stored responsibly, but somehow stolen or misused anyway?

As with many of their other laws they've passed over the years (such as the one requiring people to wash their hands before leaving the bathroom at work), it's all but unenforceble in practice. What are they going to do, inspect everyone's garage? You might even call it a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but apparently nobody has cared enough to "go there."

Cylarz
12-26-2012, 5:12 AM
:confused:

Normal/high capacity mags and what they term "assault weapons" are one in the same! You can argue about the impact of a 10 vs. 30 (or 150) round mag. The rest of the crap on the 1994 AWB defining an "AW" was laughable even to the most ardent anti-gunner:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher

Agree. I've been going back and forth with gun-grabbers for days at various forums (including Facebook), and none of them have even attempted to argue that this list of "features" affects ballistic performance.

They do, however, seem to think they have us "over a barrel" on the hi-cap magazine thing. They demand to know why anyone 'needs' a 30-rounder. My response is always the same: Look at it from the other direction....why is it incumbent on gun owners to explain themselves or justify their need for an accessory? Why don't you guys explain to ME where the government gets off trying to micromanage a right...one that's protected by the 2nd Amendment AND affirmed twice as an individual right? I think it's THEY who have some explaining to do, not us.

Cylarz
12-26-2012, 5:18 AM
at the end of the day, we are the gun nuts with the guns, and they are whacko anti gunnies who chose to live their life without protection. when SHTF we will watch them crumble and beg us for protection...i cannot wait for that day.

You're actually looking forward to the destruction of civilized society? Huh. Maybe you've seen too many episodes of "Doomsday Preppers." (I hate that show...)

Personally, I like having some semblance of order and a predictable legal environment in which to fight for my rights through non-violent means.

I'm not looking forward to the scenario you describe at all...even if you simply meant you are looking forward to being vindicated. I don't relish the idea of shooting at my fellow citizens (or anyone else's citizens for that matter) in order to protect myself and my family.

I'd rather these people just came to their senses now and joined our side.

Cnynrat
12-26-2012, 5:35 AM
A couple thoughts:

1. Do we think we can still hold Justice Kennedy in light of the recent events?

2. I predict Feinstein will come at the AWB from the other side. Her bill will ban all semi- auto rifles except a list by make & model of semi-auto rifles that are deemed "safe." There will be provisions for getting a new rifle on the list similar to the CA handgun roster.

SilverTauron
12-26-2012, 6:08 AM
One thing the fascists have done is to sell an awful lot of the rifles they hate - and the ammo to go with them.

They added at least 10's of thousands (more likely 100's of thousands) of people who are now worried that the Democrats won't just ban the guns they want own - but will confiscate the ones they already own.

The number of people who now fear they won't be able to buy an AR-15 is now likely at least in the millions!

Not sure this is going to work out all that well for the anti-liberty types. (Not entirely sure it won't, either - 'tis still a fluid political issue.)

Sales numbers are not equal to political advocacy.

The core of the problem we face is that the argument has been re-categorized.Liberty as we knew it is dead-today the debate is not about whether the government has the right to regulate guns ,as it was when the NFA was being debated in the 30's. Rather the topic today is "should people be ALLOWED to own certain rifles?" .

The problem with that stance is that taken to its conclusion ,logically people shouldnt be allowed to own any gun. Considering the MTV generations vapid self centeredness, I fear that's an outcome ill live to see in America.

Hogstir
12-26-2012, 7:04 AM
The issue with gun safes is that they delays access to firearms if you need them immediately. Heller has already ruled that the government cannot require you to lock up your guns or render them inoperable at home, which would defeat their purpose of self defense.

A lot of us have quick access lock boxes or only have the weapon out when we are home. Perhaps a tax credit to encourage people to purchase a gun safe would be a better way to go.

Dr.Lou
12-26-2012, 10:05 AM
The Dems need to have a talk with the little Dutch boy...

Scott Connors
12-26-2012, 11:59 AM
A couple thoughts:

1. Do we think we can still hold Justice Kennedy in light of the recent events?

2. I predict Feinstein will come at the AWB from the other side. Her bill will ban all semi- auto rifles except a list by make & model of semi-auto rifles that are deemed "safe." There will be provisions for getting a new rifle on the list similar to the CA handgun roster.

Let's not give them any ideas, okay? :nono:

Calplinker
12-26-2012, 12:31 PM
I still predict we won't see any federal legislation that restricts our being able to buy AR's, AK's, etc. I just don't see there being enough votes in the House to do it, period. There probably isn't even enough in the Senate.

What I DO predict is that after it becomes clear that there isn't going to be federal legislation to restrict or ban "evil black guns", then Obama will very quickly issue one or more EO's that will hurt us. I see this happening in early Q2. He'll do this early so there is at least 18 months before the midterms.

There's a lot he can do that would very likely pass scrutiny by the courts, even if they were inclined to take up a case challenging new regulations or EO's. ATF could also re-write or (re-interpret) regulations to make our world tougher. Obvious ones would be to ban the import of AK parts kits, restrict or ban the import of semi-auto guns they don't like such as AK's, SKS's, etc, and of course ban the import of cheap, military surplus magazines that exceed 10 rounds. Since no military uses 10 round mags in their REAL assault weapons, this would essentially ban the import of mags. They can also ban the import of cheap and "dangerous" :rolleyes: ammo, so say goodbye to Tula, Wolf, Brown Bear, Priv, etc.

Less clear to me is if he'd try to ban the domestic manufacture of 10+ round mags, through an EO.

This is the one where I think there might be enough political will to pass a federal law. I find it conceivable that we may loose this one and there could actually be federal legislation that limits magazine capacity on rifles and maybe even hand guns to 10 rounds. Less clear is if they'd also try to force us to turn in existing ones for compensation. Lot of money involved, but the Feds never hesitate to borrow yet more money to waste on legislation and programs. I doubt they would go this far. My instincts tell me they wouldn't get the votes for a buy back.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'd win this fight even if it went to SCOTUS. I wish it weren't true, but that's the one thing I think we may actually lose on through legislation.

Hopefully, I'm completely wrong, but I don't see us winning an argument before SCOTUS that we have a right to 20-30 round mags. Since nearly all incidents of people lawfully defending themselves with guns involve only a few shots being fired, I find it difficult to find a compelling argument that would clearly show how 20-30 rounds is necessary.

Geez, I SURE hope I'm wrong on this, but my instincts tell me otherwise.

We should fight any new law or regulation tooth and nail, but this is the one I think has a fair to good chance of becoming reality.

winnre
12-26-2012, 12:55 PM
I still say safes are the way to go. What if you need a gun NOW? Well then wear one at home. Or keep it where you can get it and it is away from the kids (already law) and before you go out to work or the shops lock it up.

If anyone here ever has a gun stolen then finds it was used in a crime I know you'd feel pretty bad about that.

dfletcher
12-26-2012, 1:03 PM
Why would a politician willingly want to work harder to get re-elected? The answer is they don't.

The goal of any elected politician is to be re-elected. I don't think that's ever going to change - look at the near dead (and often dying in office) who run & run & run. So, as long as there is no organized, moneyed organization willing to work hard to unseat a politician who votes against gun control I see us as having an advantage. Because there is an organized, moneyed organization that will work hard to unseat a politician who votes for gun control.

rolo
12-26-2012, 1:04 PM
Or keep it where you can get it and it is away from the kids (already law) and before you go out to work or the shops lock it up.


Show me. Quote the code. If you're going to base your argument on law, you had better be prepared to prove yourself.

winnre
12-26-2012, 1:10 PM
Show me. Quote the code. If you're going to base your argument on law, you had better be prepared to prove yourself.

Sure, no problem.

California
SB 9 (Stats. 2001, ch. 126) (Soto)
Effective January 1, 2002, raises the age of persons who are considered “children” for purposes of criminal storage of a firearm from a person under 16 years of age to a person under 18 years of age. Provides that a person who is guilty of criminal storage of a firearm shall be guilty of an additional misdemeanor and subject to a $5,000 fine if the child took the firearm to a school or specified school-sponsored activity (PC §§ 12035, 12036).

Effective January 1, 2002, makes changes to two of the warnings required to be posted by firearms dealers pursuant to Penal Code sections 12071(b)(7)(A) and 12071(b)(7)(B). The revised warnings, which must be in block letters of not less than one (1) inch, are as follows:

IF YOU KEEP A LOADED FIREARM WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OBTAINS IT AND USES IT, RESULTING IN INJURY OR DEATH, OR CARRIES IT TO A PUBLIC PLACE, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.

IF YOU KEEP A PISTOL, REVOLVER, OR OTHER FIREARM CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED UPON THE PERSON, WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE GAINS ACCESS TO THE FIREARM, AND CARRIES IT OFF-PREMISES, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER, OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.

Commencing January 1, 2002, revises PC section 12071(b)(7)(C) to require firearms dealers to post the following new sign in block letters of not less than one (1) inch:

IF YOU KEEP ANY FIREARM WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE GAINS ACCESS TO THE FIREARM, AND CARRIES IT OFF-PREMISES TO A SCHOOL OR SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, INCLUDING A FINE OF UP TO FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000), UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER, OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE

rolo
12-26-2012, 1:18 PM
Where does it say it must be locked up or kept away from youth? You're reading meaning where there isn't any.

IOW; If, and, or, may and unless are an awful lot of conditions on your unqualified statement of legality.

IVC
12-26-2012, 1:19 PM
Hopefully, I'm completely wrong, but I don't see us winning an argument before SCOTUS that we have a right to 20-30 round mags.

You have it backwards. We don't have to show need/right. It's the other side that has to show a "compelling government interest" in enacting legislation. The burden of proof is on them. This is what Heller gave us by establishing that 2A is an individual right like any other right in the BOR.

The defendants would have to show that banning 20-30 round magazines is going to decrease murder rate. The initial AWB has already proven that this is not the case. It's an uphill battle for the antis in light of Heller.

Cnynrat
12-26-2012, 1:29 PM
Let's not give them any ideas, okay? :nono:

Feinstein has already told us this if we listen carefully. She has said she has a list of 900 guns that would be exempted from being banned.

Cnynrat
12-26-2012, 1:32 PM
You have it backwards. We don't have to show need/right. It's the other side that has to show a "compelling government interest" in enacting legislation. The burden of proof is on them. This is what Heller gave us by establishing that 2A is an individual right like any other right in the BOR.

The defendants would have to show that banning 20-30 round magazines is going to decrease murder rate. The initial AWB has already proven that this is not the case. It's an uphill battle for the antis in light of Heller.

I'm not convinced Kennedy wouldn't find a compelling government interest in banning "high capacity" magazines, and perhaps even a so-called assault weapons ban in light of recent events.

IVC
12-26-2012, 1:44 PM
I'm not convinced Kennedy wouldn't find a compelling government interest in banning "high capacity" magazines, and perhaps even a so-called assault weapons ban in light of recent events.

They all know a ban wouldn't accomplish anything. The most difficult philosophical decision was the one made in Heller, where they determined the meaning and applicability of 2A. Now that Heller establishes framework and there is no room for "collective interpretation" or "militia/national guard," it's a matter of simple cause and effect: does limiting the size of magazines cause the crime rate to go down?

Remember, Feinstein would want us to believe that it's all about the ability to push an AWB politically. When was the last time she addressed Heller and McDonald decisions? When did she say how those two decisions affect future gun control legislation? She is just pretending that nothing has changed and wants everyone to believe that emotions and polls matter. If it worked that way, Mississippi would have outlawed abortion by now.

SuperSet
12-26-2012, 1:48 PM
Good discussion and illuminating thoughts from some of the more legal-minded folks. It gives me hope that we can formulate an effective strategy in the courts, should a new AWB come to pass.
As mentioned earlier, I think the standard capacity magazine would be the most vulnerable to new legislation. And frankly, I heard this even mentioned during my local gunshop visit from some in the older generation.
I would like something done to address the mental health aspects, felons' access to guns and gun safety in the home.

Cnynrat
12-26-2012, 2:19 PM
They all know a ban wouldn't accomplish anything. The most difficult philosophical decision was the one made in Heller, where they determined the meaning and applicability of 2A. Now that Heller establishes framework and there is no room for "collective interpretation" or "militia/national guard," it's a matter of simple cause and effect: does limiting the size of magazines cause the crime rate to go down?

Remember, Feinstein would want us to believe that it's all about the ability to push an AWB politically. When was the last time she addressed Heller and McDonald decisions? When did she say how those two decisions affect future gun control legislation? She is just pretending that nothing has changed and wants everyone to believe that emotions and polls matter. If it worked that way, Mississippi would have outlawed abortion by now.

I agree Feinstein isn't thinking about the constitutionality- she never has, and won't be happy until only the political class such as herself can own guns.

I think you can't entirely rule out the possibility of Kennedy concluding a magazine capacity limitation wouldn't reduce the severity of mass murder type events, and that would be enough to meet the compelling interest standard. I'd be interested in any public comments or writings of his that might provide a clue which way he might rule on an issue like this.

IVC
12-26-2012, 3:20 PM
A dose of skepticism is in order and we really don't know how Kennedy would/will rule, but we cannot discredit the raw data and facts that will have to go into the decision and which can be challenged at face value.

This is different from Obamacare, where "commerce clause" got substituted for "tax" to make it work. In Obamacare case, they were determining the *framework*, so it was much more uncertain. I cannot imagine a workaround that would somehow make the evidence that the ban on higher capacity magazines does not reduce crime into some government interest of reducing crime. If anything, I would expect SCOTUS not to pick up the case.

Neo Sharkey
12-26-2012, 7:21 PM
You know, the more this gets discussed, I think we are barking up the wrong tree.

They are not going to play fair, and their goal is to disarm us.

Maybe we should just start using Mike Vanderbaugh's short respsonse to gun control when talking to the antis, maybe it would wake them up a bit as to what a ban would really entail.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-as-free-fire-zone-critical.html

Pred
12-26-2012, 7:38 PM
OH THE HORROR!!!! :eek:

Parts of that video clip were almost too intense for me to watch...those saws...sawing them in half...I'm scarred for life!

:( !!!! i cant watch the video because youtube took it down. fail

P.S this video wasnt a joke right???

Cylarz
12-26-2012, 7:45 PM
Good article...thanks for sharing it.

I had the experience over the weekend with some twit demanding to know why we need 30 round mags. To everyone who responded via the "keep government tyranny at bay" angle....he would say that revolution was unlikely and futile, so why do we need em?

I simply said it was the principle of the thing, and that I didn't understand why gun owners owed anyone an explanation.

FoxTrot87
12-26-2012, 7:54 PM
One thing the fascists have done is to sell an awful lot of the rifles they hate - and the ammo to go with them.

They added at least 10's of thousands (more likely 100's of thousands) of people who are now worried that the Democrats won't just ban the guns they want own - but will confiscate the ones they already own.

The number of people who now fear they won't be able to buy an AR-15 is now likely at least in the millions!

Not sure this is going to work out all that well for the anti-liberty types. (Not entirely sure it won't, either - 'tis still a fluid political issue.)

Works out well when they're the principle investors.

ewarmour
12-26-2012, 8:14 PM
Anti-gunners have an impossible task ahead of them in Congress. The only reason they are talking tough about a new AWB is so when it fails miserably, they can say the Republicans want children to die.

Yep.

robcoe
12-26-2012, 8:30 PM
I say require gun owners to have safes. We need to control access to our firearms if they are not under our direct control. This will cut way down on stolen guns while not affecting the guns themselves.

What constitutes a safe? what are the minimum specs that would be acceptable to you? if you are talking what most of us think of as a safe you do realize that you would be doing the same thing most people are pissed about with Obamacare, namely forcing people to buy an expensive product in order to exercise a right(I am ignoring handgun safes since you said "cut down on stolen guns", and handgun safes are not much harder to steal than the guns in them on their own).

Let's take an example.

A guy wants to get into shooting, he decides on a 10/22. Under your plan he would be required to pay an approximitly 200% tax on that gun to buy a safe to put it in(I am assumeing a low end rifle safe will be available for about $400)

Does this seem workable to you now?

To me, this seems like a perfect way to kill off shooting once and for all. Spending hundreds on a safe isn't a big investment when you have $6000+ in guns, but that's not most people.

Amd if that wasn't enough, requireing everything be stored in a safe has already been ruled unconstitutional, so it's a non starter.

jpigeon
12-26-2012, 8:33 PM
Thats good news... Dont go lighting a ceegar to fast. We still got a huge CA battle coming

dfletcher
12-26-2012, 9:33 PM
Sure, no problem.

California
SB 9 (Stats. 2001, ch. 126) (Soto)
Effective January 1, 2002, raises the age of persons who are considered “children” for purposes of criminal storage of a firearm from a person under 16 years of age to a person under 18 years of age. Provides that a person who is guilty of criminal storage of a firearm shall be guilty of an additional misdemeanor and subject to a $5,000 fine if the child took the firearm to a school or specified school-sponsored activity (PC §§ 12035, 12036).

Effective January 1, 2002, makes changes to two of the warnings required to be posted by firearms dealers pursuant to Penal Code sections 12071(b)(7)(A) and 12071(b)(7)(B). The revised warnings, which must be in block letters of not less than one (1) inch, are as follows:

IF YOU KEEP A LOADED FIREARM WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OBTAINS IT AND USES IT, RESULTING IN INJURY OR DEATH, OR CARRIES IT TO A PUBLIC PLACE, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.

IF YOU KEEP A PISTOL, REVOLVER, OR OTHER FIREARM CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED UPON THE PERSON, WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE GAINS ACCESS TO THE FIREARM, AND CARRIES IT OFF-PREMISES, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER, OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.



My read on the law is that there is no requirement to lock away the gun. If a 17 year old comes to your home, pulls the gun out of a night table drawer, looks at it and says "neat gun" before putting it back - no violation.

If a cop happened to come to your home, spot a handgun sitting about unlocked his response may be "don't let a 17 year old get ahold of that and do a dastardly deed - you'll be in trouble ..."

A law requiring a gun to be locked up would simply state the gun must be locked up and assign a penalty for non-compliance.

Am I wrong, reading too much into it - not enough?

jccam
12-26-2012, 9:36 PM
It will be a tough fight, but take heart. A few things --at the national level--should give us some hope and courage:

1. We are stronger now than back in 1994. Gun ownership--especially what used to be called "assault weapons"--is way up in the past 20 years, and much more mainstream. The more people that own them, the fewer people who will be hoodwinked into thinking they are somehow intrinsically evil.

2. We are no longer shackled by the old mainstream media as the source and arbiter of information. We used to rely on anti-gun ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, & Newsweek for news. No longer. Those outfits are dinosaurs--no one cares about them any more. The last AWB predated the widespread use of the Internet.

3. The last AWB can be proved to be a failure, and (politically) everyone knows the political price that its supporters paid for it.

4. We have Heller & McDonald behind us. Those cases also shifted the framework of the conversation to the area of RIGHTS.

5. We have a more robust RKBA community, more inclined to think in terms of gun RIGHTS, not just hunting and sport. We are no longer merely defensive ("Please sir, don't take away ALL my rights! Please leave me a few...I'll compromise.") We are now able and willing to go on the offensive--in other words, to phrase things in terms of More Guns =Less Crime. This just wasn't part of the vocabulary back in 1994. Since those days, we have seen the outstanding success of Concealed Carry across the nation. That must be the bitterest pill for anti-gunners to swallow. The fact that blood did NOT flow in the streets and CCW did not turn our nation into the "Wild West." And every one of those CCW permit holders now KNOWS that guns do not automatically cause crime.

Yes, it would have been better to go another 5 years without such a threat and be still more solid in our gains before facing this struggle... but you cannot choose your time, it chooses you. If we're going to have this fight (this "conversation," as they call it), then it could be worse than to have it now. The very fact that people are calling for a "dialogue" means that they (begrudgingly) recognize that our side has a strong convictions. People are listening, let's make our case...and win this thing. If we can win this---this time--it may well mean that we have solidified our gains over the past 20 years.

CapS
12-26-2012, 10:06 PM
I still say safes are the way to go. What if you need a gun NOW? Well then wear one at home. Or keep it where you can get it and it is away from the kids (already law) and before you go out to work or the shops lock it up.


If you want a safe, feel free. I'm not real keen on being told what
items I must purchase. What happens to the folks without safes?
Jail them? No, thank you.

:oji:

Cap

CapS
12-26-2012, 10:13 PM
Her bill will ban all semi- auto rifles except a list by make & model of semi-auto rifles that are deemed "safe." There will be provisions for getting a new rifle on the list similar to the CA handgun roster.

Another idea freely given to our enemies!
Folks, please stop helping them; they really don't need it.

:oji:

Cap

Cnynrat
12-27-2012, 5:53 AM
Another idea freely given to our enemies!
Folks, please stop helping them; they really don't need it.

:oji:

Cap

I disagree. If you think I thought this up out of the blue you are not paying attention to what Feinstein is telling us. She is the one that has said she has a list of 900 guns that "will be exempt from the ban."

Mulay El Raisuli
12-27-2012, 7:12 AM
It will be a tough fight, but take heart. A few things --at the national level--should give us some hope and courage:

1. We are stronger now than back in 1994. Gun ownership--especially what used to be called "assault weapons"--is way up in the past 20 years, and much more mainstream. The more people that own them, the fewer people who will be hoodwinked into thinking they are somehow intrinsically evil.

2. We are no longer shackled by the old mainstream media as the source and arbiter of information. We used to rely on anti-gun ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, & Newsweek for news. No longer. Those outfits are dinosaurs--no one cares about them any more. The last AWB predated the widespread use of the Internet.

3. The last AWB can be proved to be a failure, and (politically) everyone knows the political price that its supporters paid for it.

4. We have Heller & McDonald behind us. Those cases also shifted the framework of the conversation to the area of RIGHTS.

5. We have a more robust RKBA community, more inclined to think in terms of gun RIGHTS, not just hunting and sport. We are no longer merely defensive ("Please sir, don't take away ALL my rights! Please leave me a few...I'll compromise.") We are now able and willing to go on the offensive--in other words, to phrase things in terms of More Guns =Less Crime. This just wasn't part of the vocabulary back in 1994. Since those days, we have seen the outstanding success of Concealed Carry across the nation. That must be the bitterest pill for anti-gunners to swallow. The fact that blood did NOT flow in the streets and CCW did not turn our nation into the "Wild West." And every one of those CCW permit holders now KNOWS that guns do not automatically cause crime.

Yes, it would have been better to go another 5 years without such a threat and be still more solid in our gains before facing this struggle... but you cannot choose your time, it chooses you. If we're going to have this fight (this "conversation," as they call it), then it could be worse than to have it now. The very fact that people are calling for a "dialogue" means that they (begrudgingly) recognize that our side has a strong convictions. People are listening, let's make our case...and win this thing. If we can win this---this time--it may well mean that we have solidified our gains over the past 20 years.


YES! I'm told that the Chinese symbol for "problem" is the same as the one for "opportunity." We need to stop looking current events as a problem.


I disagree. If you think I thought this up out of the blue you are not paying attention to what Feinstein is telling us. She is the one that has said she has a list of 900 guns that "will be exempt from the ban."


Absolutely true.


The Raisuli

SanPedroShooter
12-27-2012, 7:42 AM
I think this whole thing is DOA at the federal level.

We are in deep **** in California however.

Good article. The left has overplayed it hand in my mind.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/12/26/liberals-panic-as-they-lose-the-gun-narrative-n1473885

Let’s start with the most obvious omen that this tsunami has peaked. President Obama thrilled his base by grandstanding at the memorial, and then promptly washed his hands of it by handing it over to a “blue ribbon commission.” Making Joe Biden its chairman was like staking a vampire through the heart, then hosing him down with holy water before burying his body beneath the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

Why does Obama want this gun thing buried? While intensely popular with metrosexual pundits, coastal liberals, and cultural bigots slobbering at the opportunity to stick it to those banjo –strummin’, God-believers out in the hinterlands, gun control remains poison to Red State Democrats.

Joe Manchin of West Virginia couldn’t resist some sanctimonious posturing, but clearly he heard enough from his constituents to sprint-back his heresy with a WaPo op-ed explaining how awesome the NRA is and how groovy gun owners are. He will never take sides against the family again.

We didn’t see the Red State Democrats up for re-election in two years out dumping on their constituents to please the media. Call it “the Fredo Effect,” and 2014 is the rowboat. We won’t hear from the likes of Senators Landrieu, Pryor and Begich until they vote “No.”

Sure, Senator Feinstein will submit her gun ban wish list to Harry Reid, who will look at it sagely, nod politely, and let it die. He’s more Tom Hagen than Fredo. He is going to retain the NRA “A” rating his website proudly showcases regardless of what Chuck Schumer thinks. What gets you hosannas in Manhattan gets you unemployed in Searchlight.

The 'Fredo Effect' 2014 is the rowboat....