Say no to the magazine ban!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Look, I’m not going to say I disagree with everything you say because I don’t. I’d love to see gun owners get united and do something for once. However, I believe many of them, as they should to some extent, think they shouldn’t have to fight in any capacity for their rights and here is why.

The BOR is a group of inalienable rights that was recognized by the founders of this country. That which is not granted by gov cannot be taken away by government. Those rights were granted by a higher power that every human gets simply by being here on this rock. The problem is, you have too many damn lawyers that think and argue otherwise that would like to be and act like your masters. Frankly, I’m not sure how any of these laws pass muster. The BOR is pretty simple and clear and frankly I don’t think I have to abide by any law that says to the contrary. It’s that simple. If it’s not constitutional then it’s not a legit law. That’s how we got here. Too many people bowing down to the rulers, way before now.

If they want to amend the constitution then they can do that, there is a process for it, yet they never do it. Why? Because they know they won’t ever be able to fill the requirements, not like it matters since as I said the BOR is not rights granted by the gov. If the gun community started pushing that as a whole then we wouldn’t have these issues. Yet most of them do not have the fortitude to stand up to this nonsense anymore. If you let your rulers rule then they will.

I haven’t seen anything but an erosion of rights and I’m not that old. I’m not even 40 yet. So, even in that short time span there hasn’t been any great wins for the gun community that I have seen. In fact, this same crap on gun control has been going on for hundreds of years, tactics always the same. Frankly, I’m tired of the games.
 
Gun control does not get argued when no one is being shot; the heat begins and intensifies when/after people are getting shot. There is no case if no one is getting shot.
 
Gun control does not get argued when no one is being shot; the heat begins and intensifies when/after people are getting shot. There is no case if no one is getting shot.

Many, Many are shot each week in Chicago ... no gun control riots in the media or among the other side ...

There is no gun control case. The laws on the books have it covered (and overly so IMHO).

The issue is with enforcement.
 
Gun control does not get argued when no one is being shot; the heat begins and intensifies when/after people are getting shot. There is no case if no one is getting shot.
Racially invidious gun control gets "argued" when people are STABBED.

There's ALWAYS a "case" for racially invidious gun controls, since they're NOT about people getting shot. They're about people not being able to shoot BACK.

You've got presidential candidates advocating policies that would starve to death millions of people and reduce to medieval levels of poverty, squalor and disease millions more. You can't impose that on people who can resist with force.
 
Last edited:
As far as magazines go, the difference between the 1994-2004 AWB and this current proposed magazine ban is that transfers were allowed under the '94 ban, but would not be allowed under this one. That's clearly a significant difference, but possession of magazines owned on the date of enactment was / would be still legal. Since there's no way to track pre-enactment magazines, they would still change hands informally. Considering the present surfeit of magazines, there is no way to enforce this thing. It's all just for show.
Yeah possession of mags in this proposal would be legal but what happens when these guys eventually find out that magazines aren't single use???
 
But the antis don't care about those murders because it doesn't fit the agenda, doesn't raise the emotions in the general public like a school shooting does, and it highlights the failure of government assisted living.
More importantly, in Chicago especially, they can't even criticize the ones doing the shooting, much less seriously prosecute them. The politicians are as deeply in bed with the street gangs as their predecessors were with Al Capone.
 
The problem, as I have always said, is the failure of the gun world, to have a convincing theme for the possession of such that will convince the neutral person or even convert some.

What is a convincing argument? It is my hobby, we are told so what find another hobby. For defense of liberty, you can't stand up to the government they have nukes. For home security, the police do that for you at your expense (property tax). For hunting, go to the grocery store it is most economical.

Please help me find a bullet proof argument for retaining full capacity semi-auto firearms.
 
What is a convincing argument? It is my hobby, we are told so what find another hobby. For defense of liberty, you can't stand up to the government they have nukes. For home security, the police do that for you at your expense (property tax). For hunting, go to the grocery store it is most economical.

Please help me find a bullet proof argument for retaining full capacity semi-auto firearms.

I think the problem is you are trying to use logic and reason to convince someone who is illogical and unreasonable.
 
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.
I respectfully disagree. That law sold more semi-auto rifles and 30 round mags than any legislation before or since.

If you want to make something more desirable and valuable, threaten to take it away. Consider the AR type rifles in private possession. A ban would immediately make them much more valuable, therefore less likely to be surrendered and off the radar for purposes of tracking. The antis should be careful what they wish for.
 
Please help me find a bullet proof argument for retaining full capacity semi-auto firearms.
For me, the strongest argument for the widespread ownership of guns -- especially modern guns -- is the deterrent effect it has on extreme government corruption and abuse. (Call it tyranny if you want.) This becomes more persuasive, the more people study history. This is not insurrectionism -- not a shot has to be fired for this to have its full effect.

Unfortunately, not too many people take the study of history seriously.

Equally persuasive is the utilitarian argument that attempts to banish guns will cause civil unrest. Considering the scope of gun ownership, it's simply too late to do anything meaningful about it, without serious adverse consequences.
 
Equally persuasive is the utilitarian argument that attempts to banish guns will cause civil unrest. Considering the scope of gun ownership, it's simply too late to do anything meaningful about it, without serious adverse consequences.
I think you are underestimating gun owners as a whole and what might happen should .gov try to come get them. Yes, there will be serious consequences for fighting back.
 
What is a convincing argument? It is my hobby, we are told so what find another hobby. For defense of liberty, you can't stand up to the government they have nukes. For home security, the police do that for you at your expense (property tax). For hunting, go to the grocery store it is most economical.

Please help me find a bullet proof argument for retaining full capacity semi-auto firearms.
  1. How come the government hasn't nuked al Qaeda or ISIS? Apparently you CAN stand up to the government.
  2. The police have NO legal duty and virtually no physical ability to protect you as an individual. Protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.
 
Gun control does not get argued when no one is being shot; the heat begins and intensifies when/after people are getting shot. There is no case if no one is getting shot.

The problem is that the people being shot are only a means for advancing the gun control argument. There is no effort to reduce the number of people who get shot, much less the number of people who are victims of violent crime. Gun control is simply a means for restricting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.
 
I think you are underestimating gun owners as a whole and what might happen should .gov try to come get them. Yes, there will be serious consequences for fighting back.
I'm not talking about shootouts. I'm talking about widespread passive noncompliance with confiscation orders, to the extent that there's a "spillover" to general contempt for the law. The prototype is what happened under alcohol Prohibition, only this time it would be much worse. You would have criminal cartels displacing government in parts of the country. (And then, the citizens would need their guns even more, to defend themselves against the criminal cartels.) Eventually this would fail even worse than Prohibition did.

The antis need to understand that America is not Britain, Australia, or New Zealand. It's too big, and too diverse.
 
Could be as bad, or worse, as prohibition was, but more people drink than shoot.

It would be nice if it was. Mass non compliance! It sounds good, not sure it would happen, but I like it.
 
Could be as bad, or worse, as prohibition was, but more people drink than shoot.

It would be nice if it was. Mass non compliance! It sounds good, not sure it would happen, but I like it.
There was mass noncompliance with Chicago's handgun ban.

Needless to say, the cops weren't kicking in doors in affluent White neighborhoods. It was in the Black community. Surprisingly (to stupid people), that's left a legacy of distrust and hatred for the police. Just as surprisingly (to stupid people) it's left a legacy of corruption, culminating in the SOS scandal. Gun control, racism, and corruption go together like poor sanitation, disease vectors and epidemic disease.
 
  • How come the government hasn't nuked al Qaeda or ISIS? Apparently you CAN stand up to the government.
  • The police have NO legal duty and virtually no physical ability to protect you as an individual. Protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.

Nuking the terrorists will never fly with the world's mindset. It has nothing to do with how most other governments would look at USA nuking USA citizens. That would be praised in many circles outside the USA.

I am well acquainted with the Supreme Court and the many lower courts ruling the police have no duty to protect anyone but themselves. Add in the ex-felon does not have to register her/his firearms due to the 5th amendment guaranty to NOT incriminate oneself.
 
Nuking the terrorists will never fly with the world's mindset. It has nothing to do with how most other governments would look at USA nuking USA citizens. That would be praised in many circles outside the USA.
Of course ninnies like Swalwell never consider the possibility that they might order a pilot to nuke a place where he's got a friend or relative that only he knows about. I wonder what Eric would do when a B2 unexpectedly showed up over DC...
 
Of course ninnies like Swalwell never consider the possibility that they might order a pilot to nuke a place where he's got a friend or relative that only he knows about. I wonder what Eric would do when a B2 unexpectedly showed up over DC...


Need a change of clothes I'd imagine.
 
Of course ninnies like Swalwell never consider the possibility that they might order a pilot to nuke a place where he's got a friend or relative that only he knows about. I wonder what Eric would do when a B2 unexpectedly showed up over DC...

They already did that. It was a movie called "Fail Safe" with Henry Fonda, Larry Hagman, Walter Matthau, and Dan O'Herlihy. O'Herlihy had to bomb NYC while his wife and kids were there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top