[BrokenPaw]

As the September sunset of the 1994 (so-called) Assault Weapons Ban approaches, and crunch time approaches for those who would let it die and those would would make it immortal, some of the more paranoid neurons have crept out of the back of my mind and spoken to me.

There is no political capital for the Democrats in extending the current ban, methinks, because, for most voters, it's been largely a non-issue in the past few years. It hasn't stopped crime, it probably hasn't encouraged a whole lot of crime either, and we all know why: the guns that it banned (a) are not used in crimes all that often anyway, and (b) were immediately replaced by functionally-identical guns which differed only in cosmetic features. So renewing the ban may be a political non-starter, because "assault weapons" are not what Soccer Moms are thinking about.

Even here, in the Washington DC area, where the "Beltway Snipers" killed several people with a Bushmaster XM-15, the soccer moms have forgotten, and gone back into a latte-induced complacency.

So here's the part where you need the tinfoil hat:

Perhaps the antis are intentionally letting the AWB die. Perhaps they're even encouraging its death, behind the scenes, while making the appropriate overt bellyaching noises to keep us from guessing. Because right now, renewing it would cost their allies in Congress too much political capital, and because it's not a big enough issue, because it's not in the public eye.

There have always been rumours of things like Antis going to gun shows and secretly chambering a round in a gun on a dealer table, hoping to cause a "Tragic Gun Show Death" to use for political gain. Why haven't they been pulling stuff like that, with "assault weapons", to make sure that the ban is renewed? Because that would be counter-productive: even the soccer moms would figure out that, if the ban didn't prevent these crimes, the ban is useless. It would go away from sheer apathy.

So the Antis wail and gnash their teeth, for the sake of appearances, while allowing (or encouraging) the ban to die. Then, soon after it's gone, they launch a campaign of random killings around the country. All carefully using only weapons that the ban had prohibited, which are once again "flooding the streets" because of the sunset. Suddenly the soccer moms all feel like maybe that ban was a Good Thing after all, and get on the phone with their representatives and senators, and a totally new, sunset-free ban of pretty much every gun out there is introduced in the very next session of Congress. And, when it passes, gosh and golly, suddenly all of the killings stop...

Implausible? Perhaps. But it's what I would do, if I were one of them, and had no moral compuctions about killing a few innocents "for the good of the children"...

Any thoughts?

-BP

[Lone_Gunman]

Somebody forgot their Prozac.

[BTR]

Some may want the current one to die, so it can be replaced with a worse one, but I think believing they are going to stage killings is pretty silly.

[geekWithA.45]

Yeah, they don't need to stage killings, they just have to wait.

Some A-hole will play into their hands sooner or later.

Humans have always killed humans, using whatever expedient means are available. I'm sure there were cavemen hunkering around the fire talking about stick and rock control.

[MuzzleBlast]

(Donning tinfoil hat)
When the "sniper" shootings were happening, it seemed a little suspicious to me they were happening just when a big gun grabber was running for re-election for governor of Maryland. It seemed entirely plausible to me that the shooters were hired by the DNC for exactly the purposes you describe. I don't think there are any rational people who would doubt that either party would not stoop to coldblooded murder to further their agenda. I'm certain both parties have done it many, many times.

[BrokenPaw]

Somebody forgot their Prozac. Play nice, please. I didn't say I was sure this was happening. I mentioned it as a possible scenario, as a topic for discussion.Some may want the current one to die, so it can be replaced with a worse one, but I think believing they are going to stage killings is pretty silly.Silly? I don't think so. Why? Because the antis are not stupid[0]. Some of them are very intelligent people. They know full well that guns are a remarkably good way for people to defend themselves. If they didn't know that, then Senator Feinstein would not have a carry permit, and Rosie O'Donnell would not have an armed escort, and so forth.

Given that they know the usefulness of guns for self defense, it stands to reason that they wish to disarm the public for another reason. We can debate the reason (and there are many threads here which do), but we now have two established facts and one demonstrable conclusion:

1) The Antis know that guns save lives
2) Regardless of this, they're trying to take them away for some reason.

Ergo,

3) The reason for (2) is more important to them than the lives protected in (1). No matter what their agenda is, they're demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice lives to push it through.

Is actively killing people to further a political agenda the same thing as denying people the best means of self defense, and causing deaths thereby?

Is murdering someone the same thing as denying lifesaving medicine to a sick person, and causing them to die thereby? Some would say yes, some would say no. But either way, you're making a choice that causes someone else to no longer have the means to live.

Killing someone by choosing to let them die and killing someone by actively seeking their death are not all that far apart on the moral continuum. If you can stoop low enough to do one, how much further do you really have to stoop, to do the other?

-BP

[0] The ones behind the political anti-gun organizations. Sarah Brady and her ilk. Many knee-jerk antis are either stupid, or ignorant, or have been actively misinformed. But the leaders are not stupid.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The thesis for your argument is right and wrong. Extreme groups have already sabotaged targets that resulted in death or injury (Earth First!). Would an extreme anti group do this? Possible. Would a political party? Unlikely. Would an anti group closely tied to the party do it? Only if there is no plausible link. It is far more likely that some lunatic will do their work for them.

[gun-fucious]

i have debated real dyed in the wool, lotus eating, members of the "Brady Campaign"

They are social utopians that feel they know whats best for everyone

but they are not murderers

[cuchulainn]

Any thoughts?fnord

[grampster]

Buy Matt Bracken's book. "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" Terrific novel about a very similar scenario, broken paw. Matt goes by Travis Mcgee on this forum. Contact him and buy his book. I guarantee you will wrap your entire body in tinfoil after reading Matt's terrific novel.

grampster

[MicroBalrog]

1) The Antis know that guns save lives

Nah. They're fanatics and they believe their rubbish.

However, they are as all fanatics. "It's true anyway, so let's bend the facts a little to make it stick".