Is This Rifle Going To Provide Harris The Excuse She Wants?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

There's already a thread running in OT with over 80 responses so far to what the Secret Service says is a 2nd Assassination attempt on Trump. If that's what you want to talk about, by all means, contribute there.

The purpose of this thread, however, is to discuss whether the rifle used is going to provide Kamala Harris the excuse she wants to be able to push for the 'assault weapons' (read that 'semi-automatic rifle') ban she wants? Why do I ask? Here's the rifle...

2ed900b0-73ab-11ef-9fdc-1354ff519ec0.jpg

I'm not as knowledgeable as I probably should be regarding all the "AK variants" and, for now, the media is simply referring to it as an "AK-style" rifle. It's not a very good image, but some believe it looks like a Saiga. I think there are a number of them which it resembles; i.e., no pistol grip is apparent. So, if anyone has better insight, let us know.

Be that as it may, will this provide the 'excuse' she needs to push for a 'semi-automatic rifle' ban by deeming virtually all semi-autos as "assault weapons?" We've already had an AR-style rifle used in the first assassination attempt...

What do you think?

[smle-man]

Yes

[BrokerB]

please ban then all... lets get this over with

[Dan_Eastvale]

The "type" of rifle in these shootings is irrelevant at this stage. AK, AR, etc., are meaningless by now.

The target of these gun grabbers is ALL guns, unless possessed under extreme restrictions imposed by the federal government. A la Europe.

[Preston-CLB]

I am surprised she didn't call for a ban within hours of the second attempt on Trump.

Wait for it: It's coming.
-p

[Reno-Kid]

Reports indicate it was a SKS rifle with modifications. Not an assault rifle or even banned in California.

[Silence Dogood]

Trapped, my friend,

Excuse she needs?! She is already pushing it, has been for a long time! That's what made her ridiculous response during the debate so asinine.

A better question it seems to me, and perhaps what you are really getting at--though you are typically eloquent and adept at saying precisely what you mean--is whether or not this will be sufficient to garner the public support they need to pass one. I think the answer to that question is "no" although based on their twitter posts since Sunday afternoon, I think the anti-gun orgs. are really hoping the opposite.

I think the harder they push the AW ban in the wake of this incident, the better it will be for us in the long run. That is because the whole thing has the opportunity to cast light on a fact we know despite the anti-gunners' ability to keep it hidden in the shadows from the eyes of many people who were ignorant of the issue. They want to ban all the guns.. We know they push the goal posts but most people don't believe that. This incident and the anti-gunners' incessant demand that it justifies a nationwide "ban"--their word--only draws attention to the arbitrary nature of AW bans (really, all hardware bans in general) and the ridiculousness of feature bans.

When they overplay this hand, we can calmly use it as footing to educate the gun-ignorant on other historical facts they certainly are unaware of, benefitting us in the court of public opinion. Two examples immediately come to mind. First, most people think MGs are illegal but the nuanced difference between the Hughes Amendment and the NFA is significant, as is the fact that in 1934 congress understood a ban was unconstitutional hence the taxation and registration. Second, many are quick to condemn PMFs with no idea that less than 60 years ago, door-to-door mail-order firearms were legal and not required to have a serial number by law, though obviously many if not most did for manufacturing purposes.

As I have said before, no one likes being lied to. The cold, emotionless facts do not support disarmament of free citizens so the anti-gunners have to lie, twist the facts, and emphasize emotion. Any lie they can get caught in helps us by turning rational people against them. And this lie is easy to see.

I just thank God for whomever wrote/said "AK variant" in the initial report(s).

[Silence Dogood]

While we seem to be discussing the court of public opinion in this thread, Mark Smith discusses the implication of the firearms serial number being at least partially obliterated on both public opinion and legal option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sF8Q9xQsx0

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Trapped, my friend,

Excuse she needs?! She is already pushing it, has been for a long time! That's what made her ridiculous response during the debate so asinine.

A better question it seems to me, and perhaps what you are really getting at--though you are typically eloquent and adept at saying precisely what you mean--is whether or not this will be sufficient to garner the public support they need to pass one. I think the answer to that question is "no" although based on their twitter posts since Sunday afternoon, I think the anti-gun orgs. are really hoping the opposite.

I think the harder they push the AW ban in the wake of this incident, the better it will be for us in the long run. That is because the whole thing has the opportunity to cast light on a fact we know despite the anti-gunners' ability to keep it hidden in the shadows from the eyes of many people who were ignorant of the issue. They want to ban all the guns.. We know they push the goal posts but most people don't believe that. This incident and the anti-gunners' incessant demand that it justifies a nationwide "ban"--their word--only draws attention to the arbitrary nature of AW bans (really, all hardware bans in general) and the ridiculousness of feature bans.

When they overplay this hand, we can calmly use it as footing to educate the gun-ignorant on other historical facts they certainly are unaware of, benefitting us in the court of public opinion. Two examples immediately come to mind. First, most people think MGs are illegal but the nuanced difference between the Hughes Amendment and the NFA is significant, as is the fact that in 1934 congress understood a ban was unconstitutional hence the taxation and registration. Second, many are quick to condemn PMFs with no idea that less than 60 years ago, door-to-door mail-order firearms were legal and not required to have a serial number by law, though obviously many if not most did for manufacturing purposes.

As I have said before, no one likes being lied to. The cold, emotionless facts do not support disarmament of free citizens so the anti-gunners have to lie, twist the facts, and emphasize emotion. Any lie they can get caught in helps us by turning rational people against them. And this lie is easy to see.

I just thank God for whomever wrote/said "AK variant" in the initial report(s).

Which is the reason she needs/wants an excuse.

It's one thing to keep such a move in your platform as part of your on-going, long-time agenda. It's another thing to actually push it and still another to push it through. Remember, she is still in the position of being the deciding vote in the Senate. Could this be 'persuasive' to the RINOs and/or weak Republicans in the House?

To us, the facts not only don't support it, they cry out for an armed citizenry. To the Left, it's simply a sterling example of why guns must be taken away, something they've acknowledged they have to do incrementally. Such is why we seem to be playing a protracted game of Whack-a-Mole. It's not so much a matter of being 'lied to' as it is one of tickling preconceived prejudices, perceptions, and preferences to achieve an end. That last is something both sides do. The issue they have with gun control is many have become enlightened and now say, in effect, "I don't play that game anymore." The issue is in keeping them that way rather than allowing them to be seduced again.

[acaligunner]

The funny thing is the anti’s use the term “ assault rifle “ but in the bill that they will pass ~ it will include almost all weapons. So don’t you feel safe that they are not looking to ban your single / lever / pump / rifle, sg, and or pistol.

Anyways if this world elects harris ~ that will just show how fk’d up as a nation we are 😖

[sigstroker]

Meh, Brandon has been crying for a gun ban most of his life.

We need to pay close attention to who we put into congress.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...We need to pay close attention to who we put into congress.

Exactly. 👍

[isntzen]

Somebody wants this.
Somebody else wants that.
Public opinion blah blah blah.

The laws proposed above are blatantly unconstitutional. And after all these years, scotus appears to have the will and composition to address second amendment infringements. For now.

Passing a constitutional amendment canceling the 2nd would be nearly impossible. Diluting scotus itself, very unlikely. But if either did come to pass, it would mean that our Republic is in dire distress. And possibly time to order up a large plate of number 4 at the diner.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...The laws proposed above are blatantly unconstitutional. And after all these years, scotus appears to have the will and composition to address second amendment infringements. For now....

The real problem is time. For instance, take Portantino's storage law. The Google AI response to whether it is Constitutional is that The California Supreme Court has ruled that the measures which have been passed and, presumably, the measures being passed do not violate California's Constitution; thus, they are Constitutional. I'm not sure if that's true as the response doesn't provide much of anything by way of detail or citation, but it does provide an 'answer,' of sorts, as to how they think it'll survive a legal challenge. The issue on that score would be McDonald where the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states.

The "lawfare" the Left is using forces us to go through the System to challenge everything they pass and given that the Left pretty much still controls the courts through the 9th Circuit when it comes to California and the reluctance of the current SCOTUS to 'reach down' preemptively and take cases before they've worked their way through the System, that means time; from months to years. Then we have to wait and see if SCOTUS will actually take up the case. Presumably all this time wasting allows the Left to cause as much chaos and damage as possible pending a decision and it buys them time to ensconce a Leftist President with a Senate controlled by Democrats to, once again, turn SCOTUS to the Left.

In short, blatantly unconstitutional to us or not, even with SCOTUS being 'sympathetic,' I wouldn't simply count on the courts to automatically overrule and negate anything in a 'timely' fashion. Not to mention what the Left has waiting in the wings even if their Legislative attempts are overturned in the short to mid terms. That's why the Presidential Election isn't and shouldn't be the sole focus of our efforts. We need to get the Senate back so that SCOTUS has their backs covered insofar as their perceived willingness to rule in our favor and to hold on to a 'Conservative' majority as long as possible. Remember, Alito and Thomas aren't getting any younger, with a couple of other, newer members being somewhat 'disappointing' in terms of their perceived 'consistency' with being on 'our side.'

[Usmc0844spare]

There's already a thread running in OT with over 80 responses so far to what the Secret Service says is a 2nd Assassination attempt on Trump. If that's what you want to talk about, by all means, contribute there.

The purpose of this thread, however, is to discuss whether the rifle used is going to provide Kamala Harris the excuse she wants to be able to push for the 'assault weapons' (read that 'semi-automatic rifle') ban she wants? Why do I ask? Here's the rifle...

2ed900b0-73ab-11ef-9fdc-1354ff519ec0.jpg

I'm not as knowledgeable as I probably should be regarding all the "AK variants" and, for now, the media is simply referring to it as an "AK-style" rifle. It's not a very good image, but some believe it looks like a Saiga. I think there are a number of them which it resembles; i.e., no pistol grip is apparent. So, if anyone has better insight, let us know.

Be that as it may, will this provide the 'excuse' she needs to push for a 'semi-automatic rifle' ban by deeming virtually all semi-autos as "assault weapons?" We've already had an AR-style rifle used in the first assassination attempt...

What do you think?

If I were you I'd be worried about BOTH candidates.

Trump was the subject of these attempts with "assault rifles". I can totally see him taking steps, in the unlikely event he wins, to eliminate this threat to his personal safety. He IS the guy who approved the bump stock reclass to NFA (or whatever the mechanism was, I can't recall exactly).

Not saying Harris won't try something, but don't wear your trump rose colored glasses TOO much.