Say no to the magazine ban!

Status
Not open for further replies.
When pro-Second Amendment people "negotiated" in the past, what did they gain? We still received the wrath of the irrational anti-gunners---and always will, until we submit to near-total govt. Kontrol by our future Politburo.

It is all Give, and No Take. How is That negotiating?

SilentStalker: I just sent my data. Thanks very much for the link.
Now it's time to go clean the handgun and imported AK, which have gotten rather grungy--
 
When pro-Second Amendment people "negotiated" in the past, what did they gain? We still received the wrath of the irrational anti-gunners---and always will, until we submit to near-total govt. Kontrol by our future Politburo.

It is all Give, and No Take. How is That negotiating?
It's a function of the balance of forces. When the two sides are roughly equal in strength, then a meaningful 2-way negotiation can take place. However, when one side gains the upper hand (as the antigun side appears to be doing at the moment), then all the other side can do is mitigate the damage, and not gain anything for itself.

The history of gun control is that no negotiation has ever taken place when the two sides were equal. That's because of the defensive mindset of the pro-gun side. When it's strong, it prefers to stand pat and not engage with the antigunners to get something that it wants. (And before someone mentions it, I consider shall-issue carry regulations, and even "constitutional carry," to be a sideshow. You can't legally carry something that you are not allowed to own in the first place.)
 
It's a function of the balance of forces. When the two sides are roughly equal in strength, then a meaningful 2-way negotiation can take place. However, when one side gains the upper hand (as the antigun side appears to be doing at the moment), then all the other side can do is mitigate the damage, and not gain anything for itself.

The history of gun control is that no negotiation has ever taken place when the two sides were equal. That's because of the defensive mindset of the pro-gun side. When it's strong, it prefers to stand pat and not engage with the antigunners to get something that it wants. (And before someone mentions it, I consider shall-issue carry regulations, and even "constitutional carry," to be a sideshow. You can't legally carry something that you are not allowed to own in the first place.)
The only "bargain" to be had between advocates of racially invidious gun controls and gun owners is the sort of "bargain" that Juergen Stroop offered to Mordecai Anilewicz.

NO, I REFUSE.
 
The history of gun control is that no negotiation has ever taken place when the two sides were equal. That's because of the defensive mindset of the pro-gun side.
How about the "offensive" mindset of the anti-gun side? (Yes, pun intended. ;))

I consider shall-issue carry regulations, and even "constitutional carry," to be a sideshow. You can't legally carry something that you are not allowed to own in the first place.
Exactly!

I think many gun owners were (Once again) wiling to look at more "reasonable/common sense gun control measures" on the slippery slope but when the antis came out with "Gun confiscation/ban" loud and clear, it was the antis who effectively shut down the negotiation.

As OP posted, now's the time to let all the law makers know how you feel.
 
Last edited:
As long as people continue to be shot and/or killed with a firearm, the anti’s will have a strong case against firearms - we cannot change that. You will not forum this away, you will not vote it away, you will not talk it away, you will not court case it away and you will not 2A it away.,
The 2A was established for exactly this kind of time; again, the question will continue to be, ”What will you do when they come?” If we all do the same thing when they come, “they” cannot prevail, there are simply too many of us. Again, what will we do when they come?
 
The only "bargain" to be had between advocates of racially invidious gun controls and gun owners is the sort of "bargain" that Juergen Stroop offered to Mordecai Anilewicz.
Gun control may have started out as "racially invidious" (and, btw, as anti-immigrant), but today it cuts right across racial lines. But why is it that some of the strongest advocates of gun restrictions are the leaders of the black community?
NO, I REFUSE.
You keep saying that. But where will that get you, as an individual, other than to be put on a list for some midnight raid?

Blind refusal is not a strategy. In fact it concedes that the worst is about to happen.
 
Gun control may have started out as "racially invidious" (and, btw, as anti-immigrant), but today it cuts right across racial lines. But why is it that some of the strongest advocates of gun restrictions are the leaders of the black community?

You keep saying that. But where will that get you, as an individual, other than to be put on a list for some midnight raid?

Blind refusal is not a strategy. In fact it concedes that the worst is about to happen.

If all gun owners would mobilize and have a show of force then it says a lot. There ain’t going to be a ton of midnight raids. And if there are there will be examples made of both sides. You don’t need guns to be a major pain in the ass or to collect intel or to get retribution. At the end of the day the gun owners have the upper hand if they so chose to use the gift. Problem is most people are too lazy. No, gun owners can still simply say no. But everyone has to stick together. That includes the companies that make this stuff.

And let’s say that everyone did hand them all over. Is the government really stupid enough to believe that there won’t be anymore? I guess they are. They take them off the streets then all it’s going to to is cause an explosion in the black market. Any idea how many machine shops there are in this country? I’ve personally seen AKs hammered out of crude materials in other parts of the world. If they can do that do you not think they could make much better here with access to some of the best tooling in the world. Anyone that believes a ban is going to make such things go away is pretty naive.

I tell you what, I might consider the conversation if/when the police and military disarm, politicians of any kind get zero protection by armed men and they give me what I paid for everything, not just the firearm. That includes all Ammo, reloading equipment, all shooting equipment, optics, mags and so on. Then we can talk and I only offer that up because it will never happen. Get out of here with that defeatist crap. You aren’t helping the cause only making the minds of gun owners weaker. Maybe that’s your goal because you sound as anti as bloomberg at times.
 
Has EVERYONE here in this discussion signed the petition ? I bet not.

Go sign it, it's easy.

If you're worried about spam, install a spam filter, I myself use Boxbe:

https://www.boxbe.com/

If you're worried about the black helicopters:

iu
 
Not signing the petition, but I've contacted my congress critters.

Maybe if we pitch in and buy Wayne a new suit he'll look out for us too.
 
I wish we could get over the I REFUSE and I WILL HIDE MINE rants. There is a legit point that they will be hidden and turning millions of Americans into felons is not a pleasant thought. However, the Feds and States have done that before and still do with various items. For example, there were 40,000 marijuana possession charges in TX last year, IIRC. So banning things doesn't phase the Fed. Old Jeff Sessions was willing to incarcerate potentially millions over weed. Zealots are just nuts, independent of party.

The real problem, as I have said repeatedly, is that if Mr. I REFUSE ever uses the magazine in anything, that will be the place of government action. Recently, in NY, a guy used his father's unregistered handgun that he kept in a SD situation. Now, the action was clearly SD but he was faced with a gun possession charge. A judge finally dismissed it but he went through hell and expense to beat it.

It might be a PR strategy to point out that there will massive disobedience but the real battle is not to get to that point and stop such legislation, either in the legislatures or in the courts. The problem, as I have always said, is the failure of the gun world, in general, to have a convincing theme for the possession of such that will convince the neutral person or even convert some. Most of the arguments we see are just for money raising out of the choir.
 
I think the problem may be that in some places " I refuse --I'll hide mine" may be the only choice left for the gun owner, so outnumbered are they by antigunners and the politicians they elect .... it's "the last hope of the damned."

The gun world has been fighting hard, IMHO. The problem is, those opposing us are too.
Perhaps some one of us will have an epiphany and come up with a genius stroke that will TKO every antigun argument so thoroughly no one can resist it's logic no matter how entrenched they are in their agenda.
 
Get out of here with that defeatist crap. You aren’t helping the cause only making the minds of gun owners weaker. Maybe that’s your goal because you sound as anti as bloomberg at times.
My goal is to keep my guns! I don't see the current strategy of the pro-gun side (if, indeed, there even is one) as helping to do that. What I see, on the part of gun owners, is just blind reaction. As has been said in the sports context, "all that a 'prevent defense' does is prevent you from winning." What we need is a bold plan, put forth and promoted by gun owners ourselves, that (a) protects existing gun rights, and even expands them, while at the same time (b) addresses some of the weaknesses in the current system that allow mass shooters and other criminals to easily get guns. If we don't do this, and do it soon, we will lose it all.

I might add that anyone (such as myself) who proposes this is easily labeled a "Quisling" by those who insist on burying their heads in the sand. So be it. But at least I'm sounding the alarm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEM
Politicians have promised the masses that universal background checks, bans on "high capacity" magazines, red flag laws and "assault weapons" bans are the way to go. Within five years some additional states will pass laws banning "high capacity" magazines. We may have a federal law banning same.

wish we could get over the I REFUSE and I WILL HIDE MINE rants

Me too.

i have a prosecutor friend in another state who calls illegal possession of a "high capacity" magazine a great holding charge. It keeps the offender in the spotlight while the prosecutor and assistants search for more serious charges. If the more serious charges don't work out prosecutors still have the illegal possession of a "high capacity" magazine charge, a felony in itself. That charge will cost big bucks to defend. A conviction would cost you your firearms rights for life.
 
My goal is to keep my guns! I don't see the current strategy of the pro-gun side (if, indeed, there even is one) as helping to do that. What I see, on the part of gun owners, is just blind reaction. As has been said in the sports context, "all that a 'prevent defense' does is prevent you from winning." What we need is a bold plan, put forth and promoted by gun owners ourselves, that (a) protects existing gun rights, and even expands them, while at the same time (b) addresses some of the weaknesses in the current system that allow mass shooters and other criminals to easily get guns. If we don't do this, and do it soon, we will lose it all.

I might add that anyone (such as myself) who proposes this is easily labeled a "Quisling" by those who insist on burying their heads in the sand. So be it. But at least I'm sounding the alarm.

So sign the petition
 
Within five years some additional states will pass laws banning "high capacity" magazines.
In Virginia we are looking at this as soon as the new legislature takes office after the November election (this November!). There's about a 95% chance the antigunners will take over, and do Gov. Northam's bidding. I have a ton of over-10-round magazines. I'm already making plans to rent a storage unit in West Virginia, so I can move them out of state. To say that this pisses me off royally is an understatement. But it's an indication of where things are going, nationally.
 
So do i. Including about 50 1960s Colt branded M16 magazines in preservative wrap.
Yes. Even "small" 20-round magazines are "evil" and need to be banned, according to the antigunners. These people have gone nuts. The best I can hope for, here in Virginia, is that currently-owned ones will be grandfathered.

Living under such a Sword of Damocles, debates over things like background checks seem tame by comparison.
 
However, when one side gains the upper hand (as the antigun side appears to be doing at the moment), then all the other side can do is mitigate the damage, and not gain anything for itself.

I disagree the other side has the upper hand right now (we've been here before many times in the past), but I'll just let that go because I have a question:

How would this supposed mitigation play out? Doesn't matter the issue dujour, be it a magazine ban or background checks or whatever, just pick one and explain the process. I'm genuinely curious to hear in detail how this would work -- not the details of a hypothetical compromise so much as just a picture of us getting our proverbial seat at the table.
 
The best I can hope for, here in Virginia, is that currently-owned ones will be grandfathered.

hah.
Well, mine were grandfathered until the day they almost weren't and now it's all sort of in legal limbo. Safe for the time being. If the pace of VA politics go anything like CA, expect to be in the same boat in a couple decades. To me, that's sub-optimal and all the more reason to disbelieve you can negotiate a better deal with a slow-paced funeral approach. YMMV
 
I disagree the other side has the upper hand right now (we've been here before many times in the past), but I'll just let that go because I have a question:

How would this supposed mitigation play out? Doesn't matter the issue dujour, be it a magazine ban or background checks or whatever, just pick one and explain the process. I'm genuinely curious to hear in detail how this would work -- not the details of a hypothetical compromise so much as just a picture of us getting our proverbial seat at the table.

Clinton Assault Weapons Ban
upload_2019-8-24_15-33-0.png
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/clinton-signs-assault-weapons-ban-sept-13-1994-813552

Now that worked out well, didn't it ?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-8-24_15-32-53.png
    upload_2019-8-24_15-32-53.png
    99.2 KB · Views: 3
As long as people continue to be shot and/or killed with a firearm, the anti’s will have a strong case against firearms
Not another person could be shot in the history of mankind and it wouldn't make one iota of difference to the proponents of racially invidious gun controls.

After somebody was STABBED (with a screwdriver?) Mayor David Dinkins of NYC called for GUN CONTROL.

This is about CONTROL, not guns.
 
The best I can hope for, here in Virginia, is that currently-owned ones will be grandfathered.
I refuse to believe that it is a foregone conclusion. I believe that there is still hope. I believe that there is still more that Pro-2A advocates can do. Gun control is at the forefront of every political agenda right now. The antis have taken off the gloves. However we feel about certain individuals, an alternative where the 2A is overrun or straight - out abolished will only lead to further travesties against the rest of our freedom. Those who refuse to speak up, those who refuse to (figuratively) fight for what they believe in, those who sit at home and gripe instead of making their voices heard at the ballot box, those who simply do nothing, contribute to the loss. And, when we lose, those people who did nothing to prevent it, helped it happen. And when they get upset, the only thing that they can say, is the only thing that they did. NOTHING.
 
Gun control may have started out as "racially invidious" (and, btw, as anti-immigrant), but today it cuts right across racial lines. But why is it that some of the strongest advocates of gun restrictions are the leaders of the black community?
It was and continues to be to this very day. I've been called the most popular racial slur for Black people by White advocates of racially invidious gun controls FAR more often than by self-avowed neo-Nazis.

Why do some Black people advocate racially invidious gun controls? Why do some Jews defend rabid anti-Semites? Never discount the power of stupidity.
 
Now that worked out well, didn't it ?

There is one error in that article. Reagan wrote to every US house member. Because of Reagan's letter, two house members, a Democrat and a Republican, flip flopped and voted for the AWB: That put the AWB over the top, 216-214. The Democrat received death threats.

The AWB was in effect for ten years. That law accomplished nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top