Had an informative talk with my congressman

I was at a business/social function. Very crowded and noisy. (I would imagine pols have to go to these things to stay alive.) He is a very well-known Republican from my state. We had not met before, he and I, but I started right in on the subject most important to all of us.

Here is a summary of what he said. (You will forgive me for not following the convention that most people today feel that you need to follow to make the conversation more interesting, where you relate the entire exchange in pointless detail, with “I said” and “he said” rendered as “I’m like” and “he’s like.”)

Anyway, summary version:

So-called assault weapons bans or restrictions – not gonna happen.

High-cap magazine bans – also not gonna happen.

“Gun-show loophole” – may have to be an accommodation, where either (a) any FFL can run a NICS check for a small fee, or (b) the ATF has a booth and does the NICS check. In any case, in-family transfers would be exempt. Also, you'd still be able to do business in the parking lot.

He acknowledged that, yes, we should not give on anything.

And now, to put it in terms that can be understood by the Boomers, Generation Xers and Generation Yers:

I was like, dude, no way. He was all like, dude, way. I was like, they’re just gonna move the goalposts that much forward each time. And he was all like, we’ll see how it all shakes out. Dude.

youngda9 said:

The funny part is that you guys are so old that you think you're talking modern when you're really talking like it's 1989.

People don't say "shakes out", "dude", "stoked", "totally righteous", or "bogus" anymore. Bill and Ted said those sort of things.

Click to expand...

Something tells me I may, just may, have heard a young person say "dude" at some point in recent history. But perhaps I was mistaken.

Veering back on topic --

If I had to choose one of these stupid things, it would be the AWB of 1994, which didn't actually ban anything but manufacture and importation after a certain date. This had essentially no effect on the availability or even the price of so-called assault weapons. It was just political theater.

But if they get to meddling with background checks, there is no good that can come out of it, only loss of civil rights.

Still, I have the gut feeling we won't have to have any of them. Time passes. Horses get traded. Sun sets.

AlexanderA said:

If there is a new AWB, it won't be a carbon copy of the 1994 ban. The antigunners have learned their "lesson," and there won't be any prospective grandfathering. The other "lesson" that they learned was that attacking magazine capacity was more significant than attacking cosmetic features of the guns. That's why I'm most worried about a magazine ban, then about a general AWB, and only lastly about a UBC. Of course the details matter a lot.

Click to expand...

Yes, the devil's always in the details.

But the main thrust of what I was saying was that we can lose more with background checks than with some goofy "assault" definitions. (Although the antis probably learned a thing or two from the 1994 ban.) But that really is just a guess, and not one based on any actual experience with the way laws get made in the halls of power.