Do you expect a new AWB?

[flashman70]

I think that assuming the gun banners won't succeed is foolish. I don't think anyone should overreact, but complacency is ill-advised. The liberals call the shots in the Dem party and they are demanding a ban. One should engage politically, especially through support for national and state gun rights organizations. But I think it is prudent to buy what you want before Jan. 2009.

 

[Oleg Volk]

So hold the tooth-gnashing and set out to convince at least one person you know that an AWB would be a bad idea on practical AND ethical grounds. Erode the support for AWB even before the enemy has a chace to try. Turst me, that's less work than personally killing the opposition politicians or taking out stacks of JBTs or any other proposed heroics.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I'm sorry if I appeared to be flaming you on the issue of the environment, but no matter how passionate you are on the polar ice caps melting...this is a gun forum.

What do people expect? Should the mods or the members here hold a big poll/vote so that we can all just say forget gun-issues, we need to worry about the border/immigration or global warming? This is a gun forum, not a place to suggest we worry about other issues.

That was my point, maybe I didn't send it across very well. I've whined about it in other threads, how we're not being focused here at all.

There's no focus. Morale is low. There is panic. We've been knocked off balance. Because of what? A lost election? GET IT BACK.

Yes, it is likely a Democrat president might win in 2008, however --- the BEST defense to AWB's has always, always, ALWAYS been control of the House. We can come out in 2008 and win back that house.

Of course "win back the house" doesn't mean much to people, when they are Democrats and to them, they already "have it" ...


So now we've come to the meat of the matter. The quintessential question. When will the gun movement go back to supporting and viewing the GOP as the party of gun rights? When will this little social-experiment in supporting the libertarian party be seen as a miserable failure? When will this social experiment of "punishing" the Republicans for not repealing the 34,68,89 bans be viewed as foolish and unrealistic?


I'll tell you when, when the majority of gun owners feel the painful sting of a ban. I hate to say it, but the masses sometimes only learn the hard way.


That's what has to change. Even with a Democrat victory, even with all this panicking and AWB doomsday talk...people still don't see any viable option. Just defeatism. Just a concession that all is lost - screw the cause, and go out and buy all the mags and EBR's you can!!!! Yay!


What good is your AR and magazines going to do if we give up? You think you guys are going to save the country by stocking up on pre-ban lowers and magazines? Pure BS. It's just a selfish desire to personally own something that won't be legal down the road. Again, which is why it is pointless to go panic buying.


Wouldn't it be better to stop being a defeatist and start changing the SUBJECT of discussion within our own movement? Wouldn't it be better to defeat a ban so you don't have to go panic shopping in an effort to secure 30rd magazines so that you can be 90 years old and say you have one of these taboo items?


Don't confuse this with outside people. I don't accuse anyone of misrepresenting the cause to moderates. However, within our ranks, within the pro-gun community, the atmosphere is pretty dismal.


Remember something, those anti-gun scumbags won most of their seats by 1%...many with less than 1,000 votes. They won in what is traditionally a bad year for incumbents. They won in a year when 100 other extremely damaging issues were on the public's mind . They won in a time where our president is extremely hated.


Despite this MASSIVE disadvantage of literally epic proportions, they only managed to win individual seats by a few percentage points. Few people got blown out.


They are weak. We can take it back. The #1 defense against bans is ownership of the House. The Senate is too moderate/liberal due to the fact they are elected by whole states which include urban areas, presidents are scum.....the House is where its at. And not only that, but House seats are the easiest to win...


We need the House back with someone like Tom Delay to come out on TV, and say "we're not going to bring the AWB to the floor for a vote"...bold, in your face. The House GOP leadership openly said forget it, it's not going to happen, there will be no floor vote. AWB renewal - dead. That's what they did in 2004. They said it openly - no floor vote. A clear NO.


Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough for some people.



Like OLEG says, it is time to start beating back gun control ideas right now. We have 2 years to go till we have another political shot. For now, it is defeat gun control ideas. A good start to that is being more constructive, and less hysterical around here.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I don't mean becoming a keyboard commando. I do mean developing a facility for persuasive writing, speech and actions. Lead friends by example. Make black rifles and all other guns seem fun, useful and devoid of magical bad connotations. Appeal to respect for self-determination, choice, property rights, whatever would be the key to the particular listener.

It is a lot easier on you that using that gun to fight.

The key to to expand social acceptability of firearm ownership. It can be done. If sodomy can go from being a felony to being legally recognized as a human right in about fifty years, we can take a practice which fewer people despise to begin with and make it reputable again. We don't have to convince everyone, just the middle class. They (by definition) are the most numerous social group, and somewhat politically active.

 

[QuestionEverything]

You may not remember, but there was a lot of cultural momentum behind the original AWB. Gun ownership was conflated with people like Randy Weaver and David Koresh, and radical militias were seen as a major threat to the US. Sarah Brady had politicians eating out of her hand, and the news networks were running footage of full-auto AK fire and saying "these weapons can be purchased over the counter!" Today there's none of that. Sarah Brady can't get politicians to give her the time of day, and evil black rifles aren't a concern among the general public. Clinton acknowledged that the AWB caused the 1994 Republican revolution, and people I know with Beltway connections say that gun control is off the table for the forseeable future. The amount of anti-gun sentiment in the mainstream now is tiny compared to the amount that existed in 1994.

 

[mljdeckard]

Without reading the entire thread,

Remember a couple of things. The '94 ban was the single biggest factor in causing the dems to lose control in the fall of '94. They know this. There is absolutely no evidence that the ban did anything to prevent crime. They know this too. The last thing the dems want right now is to look like spiteful, vindictive socialists. They want to look like reasonable, moderate peacemakers. Revisiting old issues that are controversial will not help them get the White House in '08.

Since the '94 ban, crime has continued to drop, concerns about national security have become more real, 40 of 50 states now allow CCW, legislation protecting gun manufacturers from third party lawsuits has passed. Before they can ban anything, first they have to reverse the current momentum and public sentiment.

In '08, if they do win the presidency, everyone will be waiting for them to steer the whole ship to a hard left. Again, they want to appear reasonable, not extreme. They managed to get back both houses this time without saying a single word about guns. They don't want the the hat trick in '08. They want it in '08 and '12. If they make any moves in the direction against RKBA, it will be as a lame duck.

Not all Democrats are anti-gun. Just because they have a majority doesn't mean it's a gimme all this stuff will pass. It just means it will be up for debate because they control the agenda. Are they quitting? Of course not. Are they compromising? Never. Should we become complacent? Don't be silly. But I fail to see how the last election really changes anything in the immediate future.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Don't Tread on Me,

Your letter hits the nail on the head.

Wouldn't it be better to stop being a defeatist and start changing the SUBJECT of discussion within our own movement? Wouldn't it be better to defeat a ban so you don't have to go panic shopping in an effort to secure 30rd magazines so that you can be 90 years old and say you have one of these taboo items?

I especially like this part. Stocking up on something that will soon be illegal makes me feel like a criminal. It's saying, "let's see how we can circumnavigate the law." The thing is, WE'RE NOT THE BADGUYS. Yet for some reason, a lot of owners feel that we have to play the part.

If guns scare the lefties, too bad.

 

[Geno]

Not Before the Next Election

The dim-wit-o-crats are just that, dim-wits, but not stupid. They know if they bring on a renewed AWB, they will likely not be elected. I look for them to try this if and when they control the whole potato.

Just my thought.

 

[GEM]

I don't want to read the whole thread - so I will just spout off my opinion - sorry for any redundancy.

1. I don't think there will be a ban. The Dems, in part, know that gun laws are bad for them. They got GOP votes as Bush is seen as a failure. They don't want to force those who voted against Bush to be forced back into the GOP fold.

2. The talk of revolution makes us look like idiots or fanatics. We now have horrible examples of civil wars and militias across the world. Anyone advocating that as an internet commando is either full of it or if any action was taking will so outrage the country as to maybe get a ban in place. The Homeland Security laws will hit you with a vengenance. That's the Unintended Consequences. There was no warriors out there after the first AWB, so the revolution rhetoric is probably hot air this time.

3. If a ban did happen, somehow, it will not do you any good to stock up now to make a buck or be a tough guy. The DOJ did a big study why the AWB had no effect on crime. They concluded the ban was stupidly cosmetic, didn't affect existing guns and there was substitution of weapons with slight changes. Thus, if a new ban was in place, it will come for all - even oldies. You can bury them in PVC or lead the 'revolution' - yeah, right.

4. The best strategy is well thought out political action. Doesn't sound so good or fun on the Internet but that's the real game. Go to point 1.

 

[trapperjohn]

22 years ago a team of college students made a car which used a 15 horsepower motor to power the front wheels, and re-routed the exaust pressure to an air compressor tank which powered the rear wheels. It weighed over a ton, yet got 70 miles per gallon and could get to 60 in 10 seconds. That was just a poorly made prototype.

I do not know where you heard about it but it is a physical impossibility.

the power required to accelerate a vehicle weighing a ton even neglectign wind and rolling resistance to 60mph in 10 seconds would require over 40 Hp. no way to have it done with only 15 Hp

there are many many myths out there about uber efficient autos, most can not be beleived and crumble under any engineering scrutiny.

 

[ctdonath]

Methinks there's a lot of people who are looking for an excuse, however tenuous, to use the one on the left. Not that there really is a reason, or opportunity, or goal, they just have chosen the "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" mindset (only because that appeals to them), and like the idea of hoisting the black flag and slitting throats.

Thing is, they don't know who to go after.
They don't know why (really, beyond a vague sense of offense).
And they sure aren't going to be the first ones.
Nonetheless, they are preparing to get swept up into a frenzy of trigger-pulling.

Reasoned discourse, working within the system, and legal options are just beyond their intellect and/or will.

On our side, we need to remind many of how GOOD we've got it (aside from the post-'86 machinegun ban and some relatively mild paperwork).
To the other side, we must make clear that not only will we not tolerate further infringements, we want to roll back the infringements that do exist (NFA-legal machineguns have never been a problem, and the paperwork is unhelpful).

 

[ctdonath]

As for the car tangent:
A 15hp motor could be used for greater acceleration if a buffer (said air compressor tank) were used.
Unfortunately, that's a power burst, not sustained.

Interesting things can be made, but few are practical enough for widescale manufacture & use.

That was just a poorly made prototype.

That there was not a quality prototype says much.

If the idea is that simple and useful, SOMEONE would have pulled it off as a practical product by now. Even hamstrung patents can be worked with/around.

 

[ctdonath]

New AWB? They'll try. They can't help it, it's their nature.

They know it's an actively losing issue. They know they don't understand the issue well enough to actually pull it off. They know it cost them before and will cost them again. They know their opposition won't take it this time.

They'll still try. It's who they are.

A recent bill called for, among other things prohibiting anyone under 21 from possessing "assault weapons". Thing is, the term "assault weapon" legally vanished with the expiration of the AWB. Perhaps this time around they figure they'll just squeeze in the undefined term, and then later "discover" that they must define it - a piecemeal approach, as they know a straight-up ban won't fly. They've learned incrementalism works, and use it well. First, create a prohibition of an undefined term for a small group. Next, define the term. THEN gradually expand the class of prohibited people, starting with the already-prohibited (felons, etc.), then gray areas (ages 18-21), then tighten (make 'em NFA), then partial ban (no new ones), then practical ban (prices of old skyrocket) - just make sure each step is "reasonable", making us look nuts when we vigorously oppose each "merely small and proper" step.

There WILL be an attempt at a new AWB. It just won't look like one. And this time, it WILL focus on semi-autos taking detachable magazines of unlimited size, not cosmetics.

And don't forget the option of writing laws vague enough that the BATFE can do something creative with.


If you haven't gotten an NFA item, do so - if only to mentally jump the hurdle of "NFA=ban".
If you have an NFA item, use it to show others it's no big deal - a few sheets of paper and a check.
Defuse the "NFA=ban" mindset ASAP.

 

[rbernie]

Methinks there's a lot of people who are looking for an excuse, however tenuous, to use the one on the left.

I think that some people are simply blowing off steam, and you just need to filter it as such.

Wouldn't it be better to stop being a defeatist and start changing the SUBJECT of discussion within our own movement? Wouldn't it be better to defeat a ban so you don't have to go panic shopping in an effort to secure 30rd magazines so that you can be 90 years old and say you have one of these taboo items?

I don't disagree. But is it not pragmatic to re-prioritize certain expenditures such that today you buy that EBR that you want instead of waiting for some day in the future when they may not still be available?

There's a difference between 'stockpiling for the ban' and simply re-prioritizing impending purchases 'just in case'. It's almost like some of y'all have this need for some moral high ground - "my efforts to support the RKBA are better than yours". C'mon. We're all in this collectively, and posts that poke at other members instead of encouraging them or trying to understand their motivations are not useful.

All of the points that have been made relative to the effectiveness of political and social lobbying are terrific and (IMO) spot on. But social and political lobbying isn't effective if, in the end, you can't put metal in the hands of the people to whom you're trying to communicate.

Just this past evening, I had the opportunity to quietly demonstrate (to a gun-agnostic eco-lovin' supervisor/zookeeper responsible for a significant chunk of the Dallas Zoo) how well that evil AK rifle action made a dandy hunting rifle in the form of a Dragunov-stocked Saiga. Did I convert her to a dyed-in-the-wool RKBA type? Heck, no. But I embedded a concept in her, and provided her with something that was tangible and real. When the subject comes up in the future, she's now in a position to better understand the issues than she was before. But I couldn't have done that if I hadn't reprioritized that Saiga purchase from 'some time down the road I've gotta get me one of them' to 'I really should fund that purchase now and put the custom bolt gun on the back burner'.

My point is that if nothing else, encouraging the purchase of EBRs today is a viable means by which we ensure that they become obiquitous. And that can't be a bad thing. So let's stop with the KeyBoardKommando / IBTL insults. If somebody wants to buy a EBR 'before the ban', don't discourage it - encourage it. And then suggest to them that the best way to deal with that new purchase is to take their coworkers and friends out shooting with that new EBR, and to demonstrate the self-defense and hunting roles for that EBR, and so forth. You can't do effective social engineering if you're too busy sneering at everyone that wants to get IBTL.

IBTL is a human instinct - use it.

 

[Autolycus]

I do expect a new and improved AWB. I wish I had the funds to get my evil AWB now.

 

[GreenFurniture]

How to afford an EBR?

Take all the money you "donate" to the NRA and spend it on an evil black rifle.

Might as well. The NRA is in the gun ban business. As soon as all unconstitutional gun bans are gone, and we're free as the Founding Fathers wanted they'll have nothing left to do.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Might as well. The NRA is in the gun ban business. As soon as all unconstitutional gun bans are gone, and we're free as the Founding Fathers wanted they'll have nothing left to do.

Heck yeah, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is in the liquor business, because without drunk driving deaths, they'd have nothing left to do.


-MV

 

[bogie]

We're gonna lose the presidency in 2008.

We're gonna lose more seats in 2008.

All y'all who "voted against Bush" or who "voted against republicans" are gonna see what happens.

I'm figuring semi-autos first, maybe scoped rifles shortly following. I think they're gonna try to go fast.

 

[Prince Yamato]

All y'all who "voted against Bush" or who "voted against republicans" are gonna see what happens.

You know, if more people thought that way, 3/4 of the THR members wouldn't be crapping themselves silly since Nov. 2006, worrying about a new ban. You may not have the joy of owning new AWs in 2010, but you can at least have the satisfacton of telling some of these people, "I told you so."

When will this little social-experiment in supporting the libertarian party be seen as a miserable failure?

When the next AWB actually passes under a near complete liberal majority congress with a liberal in the White House. That's when these people will say, "looking back, we didn't know". They, like current Democrats, will place the blame it on Bush. "Well, if Bush had been more pro-2A...blah blah." Then they'll start posting, "What are you going to do when the Bolt-Action Ban happens?" topics, in the General Gun Discussions forum.

For the record, I consider myself a libertarian, but the party doesn't have a chance in hell at winning in '08, (Oh, but Prince Yamato, with attitudes like yours, they'll never win---whatever, welcome to reality) so I'm throwing my vote behind the next and best viable options- the Republicans. Not perfect, but leagues ahead of the Democrats for gun rights.

BTW, if all these pro-gun Democrats you guys voted for are so pro-2A, why are most of you worried about a new AWB?

 

[Master Blaster]

If you are worried about a new Gun Ban, here is something effective you can do for only $35 per year.

JOIN THE NRA.

Pelosi, Schumer, Waxman, Rangel,Kennedy, Kerry, Biden Boxer, Fienstein,

All agree on one thing they hate the NRA because of its influence, and its ability to block anti gun legislation.

So please join.

The more NRA members there are the fewer antigun bills there will be.
If every gun owner was an NRA member we would not even be discussing the possibility of a ban.

 

[GEM]

Bush would have signed the new AWB - voting for him or a clone of him is not a good solution.

The solution is to raise the proRKBA level across the board such that we don't have to be forced to vote for a failed, authoritarian party just to play gun boy.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I do think there is a good chance there will be an AWB. Granted, how far will it go, and how successful can it be?

It depends on many things. While Prince Yamato is correct about the younger gun owners, he didn't point out that most of them don't actually vote.

We have to get them active. Get them involved.

And we have to form connections with people that aren't necessarily pro-gun, but are with us on other principles concerning preventing further government infrigements of our rights.

We can prevent another AWB, but it will not be easy. I hope the Dems mess up and don't remove us from Iraq, committing the "Nixon Error." Then, we'll get a pro back in.

 

[bogie]

Bush knew that the AWB had zero chance of making it to his desk. He also worked to make sure that it wouldn't make it to his desk.

Gem, go back to democratic underground.

Bush basically defused the issue among swing voters by saying that he'd sign it. Big deal. Of course, with many of the upslope side of the bell curve of voting gun owners, that's excuse enough to vote for Hillary... That's probably what every poster who brings up the "W would sign the AWB" bit is hoping...

Remember, folks - not everyone who posts here is a pro-2nd amendment person.

I'm guessing that the radical moonbat nutjob portion of the democratic party is going to try to run things for a while... Deaniacs, etc., etc. They're gonna be really drunk with power for a while, and it's gonna get ugly. They're going to be doing things fast, and fast legislation is NEVER pretty... Remember - these folks know what is good for you, and they'll make sure you have it, whether you want it or not... The moderates are going to be sitting back wondering what happened, and wondering if it is worth staying with the herd so that they can get reupped...

Figure on a lot of TV stuff figuring machineguns for the next couple of years - never mind that they're only rarely used in criminal activity. They're going to paint every semi-auto as a machinegun, and this time they're not going to ban 'em by brand or cosmetics - they're gonna flat-out say "semi-automatic" or "self-loading," or something with no leeway. And I'm guess that they're also going to go for no grandfathering - no pre-ban, no transfers, no nothing. Turn 'em in, boys...

Probably the same for "cop killer pistols."

And "terrorist sniper rifles."

Mordechai - The Iraq thing is lose/lose for the Democrats, at least in the long run - if the dems do a pullout from Iraq, and there are more attacks on CONUS, it's going to be viewed as not finishing the job. If they don't pull out, they'll get ripped for that.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Bush basically defused the issue among swing voters by saying that he'd sign it.

DIng ding ding! We have a winner! Bogie, I think you're the first person in the history of THR to actually get what Bush did in that situation. I'd have said the same thing as president if I were in his shoes. Makes both sides happy. I know that isn't how THRers do things. Yes, Bush should have stood up there and said, "..and then I'll strike Volkner-McClure, and then I'll repeal my father's import ban". Yes, and then we'd still be AW-less. Someone else complained about Bob Dole signing the AW ban. Again, politcal maneuvering. He added the sunset clause. He knew if the ban didn't pass, the Dems would probably reauthorize an new one that would probably be stronger, so he said, "fine, you bastards, but we'll only put up with it for 10 years". Was he a perfect pro-2A politician? Nope. Would I have liked him to stand up and repeal exising gun laws? Yep. Would it have worked given the political climate of the time? No.

 

[busdriver72]

Assualt weapon? What assault weapon? I don't got no assault weapon.
Noooooo, sir, not me.