What's the Anti's next move to ban Assault Weapons & Mags when SCOTUS rules they are protected?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
A bit of history: Anti gun rights campaigns first focused on handguns. By the late 80's that campaign had run out of steam, so an anti-gunner named Josh Sugarmann came up with a new approach to pep up his anti gun organization. From his paper, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America:
It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an “old” debate. Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. .....Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. [underlining added]
The upshot: It's easy to market bans on "Assault weapons" because they are scary looking, especially to people who don't know anything about guns. Based on the reaction from much of the general public, the strategy has worked quite well.
According to the FBI's 2019 crime statistics, there were 364 murders committed in the US that year using rifles. That's ALL rifles of all kinds. They don't keep statistics for "assault rifles", but given the hundreds of millions of other kinds of rifles out there, it's unlikely that it's more than half. Let's call it 200 to be generous. This is tiny compared with the 1,476 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments". Just to put it into perspective, there were 600 murders committed using fists. So the odds of being killed by someone punching you are three times as high as being killed with an "assault rifle".
Yet attacking "assault rifles" is a cornerstone of Democratic gun policy. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15!". Why are they making such a big deal about them if they are so rarely used in murders?
First and foremost is to generate an atmosphere of fear from which you can only be saved if you vote Democratic.
The second reason is that the Supreme Court has declared that weapons "commonly used for lawful purposes" are protected by the Second Amendment. AR-15s are commonly used for lawful purposes. They are also used in a very small percentage of crimes. So why are the Democrats so determined to ban them? Because they desperately want to establish some way around the common use protection. Once they've done that, more and more guns will be classified as "assault weapons". First all semiautos. Then bolt action "sniper rifles". Etc, etc. This is entirely consistent with a long established strategy of incrementalism as manifested in Democratic anti-gun states like California, New York and Illinois.
So given the near certainty that assault weapon bans are going to be found unconstitutional, why are so many Democratic states rushing to pass them? So that when the bans are overturned, they can claim "We tried to save you, but that nasty old Supreme Court doesn't care about your children" and use it to try and pack the court.
Why even ask such a question when you're basing it on an event that hasn't taken place, an event that will have nuance and important details we can't know, and the minds of various people who want to regulate firearms away?
The Antis will regulate possession to licensed individuals. They'll require that license to purchase any firearm and they'll tie each firearm to the licensed individual through a regulatory database. To sell a firearm the transfer will have to go through the database and will only be made to a licensed individual. While intrusive, there's nothing unconstitutional about that approach since the Court has already said that the states can regulate the process of firearms possession as long as they don't outright prohibit it.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
Probably the same thing that happened when Supreme Court kept ruling for First Amendment protection of various modern forms of free speech/communication such as emails/texts outlined in this long list - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment
So in the end, what happened?
The "anti 1A" crowd lost as permanent enforcement came the way of federal/state laws.
And the "anti 2A" crowd will do the same but since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", same permanent enforcement will happen as federal/state laws to protect "modern types" of arms including future energy weapons that are not in existence yet for self defense.
It's just matter of time.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
I doubt if anybody is coming to take away our weapons....at least not in our lifetime. What you will see long before that, is the tightening of access to new guns and restrictions on capacity. What we need to realize is that not everyone that supports more gun control is a zealot anti-gun person. Most folks in this country support things like UBCs and that includes a good percentage of long time gun owners. Same goes for Red Flag laws. Politicians and gun owners continuously claim "it's not a gun thing, it's a mental health thing", yet refuse to act on mental health. If we want to continue that rant, the public will demand we prove it.
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
A talking point which they only took from us, their potential voters. Politicans will jump on any argument with the common used phrases by their voterbases, with or without actually doing them.
LiveLife
Member
Yes, similar to homelessness.
Easy to identify but hard to address ... like shootings.
hoardingthemanual
Member
They’re going to feed the young liberal anti-gun fire. If the old timers can’t ban them, they will indoctrinate their youth to finish their fight. After this round of legal fights will come a generation indoctrinated against guns. Millennials aren’t going to get anything done. A majority of Gen Z will be fiercely anti gun and once they have the reins the constitution is in trouble.
LiveLife
Member
Are you for Bill of Rights or against?
So once permanent enforcement of the First Amendment went into effect at federal/state levels, what did younger generations do?
Since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", permanent enforcement of the Second Amendment will follow in the First Amendment's footsteps. Of course, just like the response to Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment, same will happen for rulings on Second Amendment. (https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment)
And we get to see "Second Amendment is not a second class right" play out likely during our lifetime.
Long live the Republic.
hoardingthemanual
Member
what a shout
LiveLife
Member
California checks 6 of your 8 boxes.
lilguy
Member
We in Illinois are in a firestorm over our new AWB. Courts overturning one and other. A number of FFLs involved in injunction and TROs selling guns then not when the next court rules differently. Thousands of new gun owners celebrating their purchases during a court ordered “ Freedom week” only to now learn those guns will be contraband if the law stands. The state has infinite deep pockets, if one law is thrown out by a court they’ll just write a new one and the endless losing fight goes on until we are beaten. It’s inevitable.
This forum, tech forum, strategies forum, etc. ALL very, very active.
Oh speaking of active
, the ACTIVISM Forum is where actual...activity happens. Listen; no Activism (call local state and Fed Reps, council meetings, phone calls, emails) (donating SOME $, ANY $ to SAF, FPC, etc) equals ALL these infringements.
Typing, commenting, etc. is great HOWEVER f you're not squarely in an activism mode, are you really helping?
Are we really helping?
Oh speaking of active
, the ACTIVISM Forum is where actual...activity happens. Listen; no Activism (call local state and Fed Reps, council meetings, phone calls, emails) (donating SOME $, ANY $ to SAF, FPC, etc) equals ALL these infringements. Typing, commenting, etc. is great HOWEVER f you're not squarely in an activism mode, are you really helping?
Are we really helping?
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
Very little but the people in charge do have secretaries who read this type of stuff, I'm pretty sure.
Will be interesting to see what Gen Z does in their 40s but Boomers introduced the attack on American values and the constitution. Both parties boomers have actively worked to try and usurp it. I don't think the 4 active labeled generations (boomers, gen x, millenials, gen z) are generations of Americans to be particularly proud of. Boomers have been in power a long time and raised gen x and millenials for the most part and created this extreme polarizing corrupt political system. Gen x has virtually no impact due to its small size and millenials and gen z have been raised outside of historical and traditional American values and culture. But I have hope in renewal and change. Things happen and can define countries and generations. Maybe some time in the future Americans in general will understand and respect the constitution and the freedom every citizen should have under it.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,209
Those pols already know they are protected they are blatantly ignoring the Constitution. Because a majority of their citizens have been brainwashed they are getting away with it.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
