The anti's never give up

Sounds exactly like what California is doing, to include a tax and a small limit. 50 rounds for recreational use is nothing. 50 rounds in a bangers hands is a shot up neighborhood. No round limit will protect a community and will be reasonable for legal purposes.

Great video from Washington Gun Law!

We are willing people, keep your chin up and powder dry!

They think if they make enough illegal gun laws the Supreme Court will just give up.
It's like swatting bugs on a hot Aug. night "you can't get them all"

Jim Watson said:

I have two words that should (but will not) invalidate a confiscatory tax.
"Poll tax."

Click to expand...

Yep. But it'll just be included in one of the pork filled monstrosities that no one reads and gets passed at 11:30 pm on a night before the session ends.

AlexanderA said:

Except that Hollywood, which is populated by rabid antigunners, continues to produce movies in which guns play a prominent part. The young generation is not going to be weaned off guns as long as movies and video games feature them.

Click to expand...

Some of these kids rarely see daylight aside from school, their faces are locked in front of a screen.

In the fantasy world they live in, airsoft or other replicas will no doubt suffice.

The anti's running Illinois, New York and other states which are hostile towards the 2A use tax payer dollars to fund their legal battles and the politicians playing these games bear no personal responsibility. People and groups challenging the laws they pass need to fund the legal battles making it expensive and time consuming. The anti's have no incentive to stop throwing road blocks in front of our 2A rights. Until there's a way to hold them personally responsible they'll continue this.

It’s not that they never give up, they have a goal that is no guns.

What they do, is get “the low hanging fruit” first, the easy ones. Register machineguns, SBS,SBR AOW. Then go after semiautos (AWB), bolt actions they will call “sniper rifles” when they come after them.

Each being a stepping stone, not the end goal.

Thinking they will be happy with ANY advancement towards their cause with any firearm still in existence, is simply unacceptable.

The thought, “Well, that would satisfy them.”, should never come into your head because that’s simply not the way they think. When they get a step forward the first thought in their head is what they can take next.

Thinking they will be satisfied and find something else to do would be like letting the coyote eat one of your chickens in front of you thinking he won’t be back because he’ll be full now.

Walkalong said:

Anyone who has been paying attention knows the anties end game, total gun confiscation, period.

Click to expand...

While this is something I read about here constantly, it is not what I have personally experienced. What I have seen, for most of my almost 7 decades of life, is folks, trying and failing, to find some way to control violence using firearms. Making access to firearms more difficult, and the restriction of certain firearms and accessories. Obviously, it has not worked to 100%. No one here or anywhere else can honestly claim it has not worked at all, because there is no real way of judging that, but it is obvious that it is not the ultimate solution.Confiscation from law abiding citizens may decrease some forms of violence using guns, but it will not stop the criminal use of firearms at all. One only has to look at the use of recreational drugs to see how well that works.

Walkalong said:

They lie to get support from unknowing/ignorant about guns voters to help push the agenda/chip away at the stone.

Click to expand...

....and I see the same here. Folks use statements like the "total confiscation" to instill fear in folks that are not really in the know. IMHO, these tactics hurt more than they help because once those same folks see that "total confiscation" is not in the future, they are more willing to accept the smaller sacrifices to their gun rights. What we will see long before confiscation, is access so restrictive and restrictions so intense, that confiscation from ordinary law abiding citizens would be moot. While at the same time criminal access to firearms is not impeded at all. Nor is the mental health issues associated with the majority of gun violence, addressed.

AlexanderA said:

That may be the goal, among some antigunners, but on the whole the smart ones know that it just isn't achievable, in the United States. (Heck, it wasn't even achievable in Australia.) There are just too many guns, and too much resistance to the idea of giving them up. And ammunition is even harder to regulate than the guns themselves.

Click to expand...

While I agree with the first two sentences, I do not agree with the last. The regulation of ammo and reloading components would be the easiest way to keep the average law abiding citizen from practicing their 2nd Amendment rights. We have seen it already with the recent supply shortages in the last decade or so. The lack of ammo and reloading components has restricted severely the use of firearms, altho the sales of firearms is at an all time high......and this is a shortage we created ourselves.

I6turbo said:

I see several of what I believe to be thinly-veiled antis on this message board. Some of them seem to have the view, I'm getting old, I have my guns and ammo, none of my offspring are very interested in guns or 2A rights, so what do I care if they make laws that are destined to destroy the right of self defense from the government in the longer run?" This view is very unhelpful to the cause, IMO.

Click to expand...

.....and I would assume you will point your finger at me just because I don't agree that total confiscation is the ultimate goal of most that would like to see more gun control. That IMHO, is more "unhelpful" to our cause than anything I have said. Alienating fellow gun owners and calling them names just because they do not exactly mirror our opinions, does nothing to strengthen support, only to weaken it. Again,while there are many that want more gun control, there are very few who's ultimate goal is "total confiscation". Similar to some gun advocates that want zero restrictions on the RKBA. Like no minimum age to purchase firearms and ammo, and nonrestrictive access to weapons like bazookas and projectiles with explosive charges.

What I do agree with, is the statement that we need to keep on fighting for the rights of the ordinary citizen and their RKBA. We need to quit using scare tactics and come up with legitimate solutions to protect innocents. That means more monies for mental health and security in schools and large venues. We also need to promote things like "Stop the Bleed" in schools, so fewer kids die from bleeding out before the EMTs are allowed in the building. This means harsher sentences for folks that use guns in the commission of a crime. We need to promote a positive image of gun ownership and quit acting like "bubba". We need to teach gun safety in our schools, so youths are not afraid of guns, but know how safe they can be when used properly. They also need to be aware of what happens in real life when someone gets shot. But we need to do this together, and not divided.

jmorris said:

It’s not that they never give up, they have a goal that is no guns.

Click to expand...

The antis will never give up. So what? The guns are not going to disappear. We've been through this before, with alcohol Prohibition. Same thing today, with abortion. People are going to do what they're going to do. It gets tiresome.

There's one thing that's true, though. Careers (and fortunes) are made stoking this issue, pro and con. It's all about the grift.

buck460XVR said:

The regulation of ammo and reloading components would be the easiest way to keep the average law abiding citizen from practicing their 2nd Amendment rights. We have seen it already with the recent supply shortages in the last decade or so. The lack of ammo and reloading components has restricted severely the use of firearms, altho the sales of firearms is at an all time high......and this is a shortage we created ourselves.

Click to expand...

I believe the regulation of ammunition is a dead end and a distraction for the antigunners. Why? Two main reasons: (1) home reloading, and (2) hoarding. Underlying this is the fact that the vast majority of gun owners use very little ammunition on an annual basis. Those that use thousand of rounds annually (for competition, etc.) are a tiny minority. In the meantime, every buying panic increases the stockpiles of ammo. Most of this will never be used.

Ammo restrictions were tried before. They were dropped because they were unworkable.

buck460XVR said:

...We need to quit using scare tactics and come up with legitimate solutions to protect innocents. That means more monies for mental health and security in schools and large venues. We also need to promote things like "Stop the Bleed" in schools, so fewer kids die from bleeding out before the EMTs are allowed in the building. This means harsher sentences for folks that use guns in the commission of a crime. We need to promote a positive image of gun ownership and quit acting like "bubba". We need to teach gun safety in our schools, so youths are not afraid of guns, but know how safe they can be when used properly. They also need to be aware of what happens in real life when someone gets shot. But we need to do this together, and not divided.

Click to expand...

NONE of that is going to actually happen on any meaningful scale. Probably not even on a tiny scale. Perhaps with the possible exception of the part about "harsher sentences for folks that use guns in the commissions of a crime" so long as the perpetrator is not of a protected "victim" class. If they are, they'll likely be turned right back out on the street either in the immediate or not-too-distant future.

Criminal justice and crime prevention is largely a joke now in the jurisdictions that need it the most. If it weren't, they wouldn't be having all the crime.

AlexanderA said:

I believe the regulation of ammunition is a dead end and a distraction for the antigunners. Why? Two main reasons: (1) home reloading, and (2) hoarding. Underlying this is the fact that the vast majority of gun owners use very little ammunition on an annual basis. Those that use thousand of rounds annually (for competition, etc.) are a tiny minority. In the meantime, every buying panic increases the stockpiles of ammo. Most of this will never be used.

Ammo restrictions were tried before. They were dropped because they were unworkable.

Click to expand...

They don't have to restrict all ammo and components.
All that they have to do is arrange for all of the primers to be bought up... .

buck460XVR said:

What I have seen, for most of my almost 7 decades of life, is folks, trying and failing, to find some way to control violence using firearms.

Click to expand...

This is completely untrue. In Chicago, for example, it's common for violent criminals such as gang members to not be charged when caught carrying guns illegally. The no bail law that Illinois passed and that is being challenged in court favors criminals over law abiding citizens. In short, the people running Illinois and Chicago specifically are doing little to stem violence from people using guns. While not only being silent to the carnage that's happening in Chicago but making it more likely by their refusal to prosecute criminals they use mass shootings as a tool to promote their 2A agenda. In short, they have no interest in controlling violence using firearms.

buck460XVR said:

trying and failing, to find some way to control violence using firearms.

Click to expand...

This, though, in illusory.

Laws do not prevent violence. They can only proscribe the violence available to the State as punishment for such acts.

Violence is born in the hearts and minds of men. This is where the concept of mens rea enters into jurisprudence.

Lawmakers have only one tool for every social ill, real or imagined--laws. Laws cannot prevent, only react. Lawmakers gloss over this reality to make emotional appeals to support their causes (which may be aligned with, but are not necessarily linked to, such laws).

Gun laws, in particular, are flawed in that they presume obedience by the law abiding.

Criminals are not, by mere definition, law-abiding.

Not all criminals are per se violent. But violence is already illegal.

"Gun laws" are not, not now, nor then about "gun violence" they are merely about control, and control of the obedient.

Creating new "gun laws" only creates more criminals out of the formerly law-abiding.

Making the innocent guilty has a further consequence, at a certain point the lawmakers are encouraging lawlessness. This is not new it's been recognized for centuries (and equally ignored by lawmakers over the same span). There is a tipping point where, if the laws are beyond knowing, they are beyond obeying, beyond enforcement, then, there's no way a reasonable person could obey them. So, why should they bother? And not just with "gun laws" but any laws at all?

The powerful always presume that they will be obeyed. This ignores the very real reality that obedience comes from the willingness of the people to obey. No matter how totalitarian the sword of government is wielded, governance reuires the willingness of the people.

CapnMac said:

Making the innocent guilty has a further consequence, at a certain point the lawmakers are encouraging lawlessness.

Click to expand...

Well, if you have a revolving door justice system you probably need all of your subjects in white padded rooms in straight jackets, so they can’t hurt each other because the bad are not separated from the good any longer.

scott511 said:

Hence the talk of "taxing" ammo. By implementing a regulation of a tax, ammunition itself is not regulated.

Click to expand...

Jim Watson said:

I have two words that should (but will not) invalidate a confiscatory tax.
"Poll tax."

Click to expand...

Taxation of ammunition and firearms is a ship that sailed a long time ago. See 26 USC 4181 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4181.

The only question remaining is to what purposes would these funds be put?

An interesting discussion of this here: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/excise-taxes-guns-and-ammo-sin-taxes-dont-prevent-sin

And here: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax...g-ways-reduce-gun-violence-there-are-problems

I went to the Seward House in Auburn NY yesterday. On the way home stopped by Bass Pro. ALL ammo under lock and key. All part of the ammo registry. There was a guy arguing about giving them his occupation which is a requirement. He left without a purchase. Said he would drive to PA to get ammo.

You know the anti -Gunners want the guns! all of them so they can control YOU!

Wake up Call! Anti - Gun is religious to them cuz they SUCK!!!

Most of the stuff that’s being focused on these days – the open/non-existent border, gender/transgender hysteria, the Ukraine uproar, the destruction of the country’s energy supply, the threat to the world’s food supply, the climate hysteria, the Covid response, gun control, etc., etc., etc. -- isn’t even for the namesake reasons that they claim. The real people behind the scenes who are driving this stuff could not care less about those issues. Those issues are INTENTIONAL distractions for the gullible, and the more damage they do, the more disruption, distraction, and controversy they cause, the better for those who are orchestrating it and profiting from it. Those issues and events are shiny objects to keep the little people occupied while those driving it redistribute global wealth, especially US and European wealth, and enable themselves to grab a massive chunk of it, gaining generational wealth and power.

So, yeah… while they’re doing this, far too many among us will worry about how much tax they might put on a bullet. Or whether or not Donald Trump’s tweets were too mean. Or whether or not the Feds are creating a list of gun owners. Or whether or not you “recycle” your trash (which often means shipping it to India to be burned to the open atmosphere). Distractions. While everyone else’s futures and fortunes are being robbed and transferred to a hand full of elites.

They do not need to take away guns to control the people. What has been proven out in Canada and much of Western Europe can happen here without much more than a whimper.

Mark_Mark said:

You know the anti -Gunners want the guns! all of them so they can control YOU!

Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than it appears. If there's a "people control" aspect to gun control, it's rooted in class resentments -- the upper and upper-middle classes (who are ostensibly antigun) against the lower middle. These groups have divergent economic interests. (For example, the upper classes want easy immigration because that's how they get low-wage employees, while the lower middle wants closed borders in order to block potential competitors.) Guns are just shorthand identifiers for these groups. But make no mistake -- the upper classes have their guns too. But they just don't talk about them as much.

AlexanderA said:

It's a little more complicated than it appears. If there's a "people control" aspect to gun control, it's rooted in class resentments -- the upper and upper-middle classes (who are ostensibly antigun) against the lower middle. These groups have divergent economic interests. (For example, the upper classes want easy immigration because that's how they get low-wage employees, while the lower middle wants closed borders in order to block potential competitors.) Guns are just shorthand identifiers for these groups. But make no mistake -- the upper classes have their guns too. But they just don't talk about them as much.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of upper class people here in Seattle. And they HATE guns! well they hate anything their leaders tell them to hate, but thats a different story. Upper Class don’t always mean the Smart Class either

Mark_Mark said:

I know a lot of upper class people here in Seattle. And they HATE guns! well they hate anything their leaders tell them to hate, but thats a different story. Upper Class don’t always mean the Smart Class either

Click to expand...

By and large, they don't hate guns.
They hate folks that they don't like, trust or control having guns.

theotherwaldo said:

By and large, they don't hate guns.
They hate folks that they don't like, trust or control having guns.

Click to expand...

100% agree with that!