Quantcast

So why were the anti's pretty much dormant the last two decades?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by John Q. Pirate, Jun 25, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John Q. Pirate

    John Q. Pirate Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    This question has intrigued me for a little while now, and I thought I'd solicit opinions from our esteemed membership for some insight.

    Following the enactment of the federal AWB in 1994, I seem to recall that the efforts of the anti's to push for more legislation, both at the federal and state levels, largely dissipated; or at least that was my impression of it, considering that any media drumbeat for such efforts also largely tapered off during that time. I ascribe this to a general loss of appetite among the antis following their spectacular losses in the midterms immediately afterwards - Bill Clinton was well known for having said as much.

    Anyway, after the AWB sunset and the nearly ten years since, we heard practically nothing From them before Sandy Hook - mass shootings like Columbine and VA Tech didn't even reignite the debate in any large measure. Now, gun control is back in the news as a regular topic, and seems to show no further indications of any disinterest in the media as was previously the case, despite the failure of the UBC bill to pass last year and the recall elections in Colorado presenting what was by all accounts a stern rebuke of the gun control movement. The Brady Campaign was on the verge of financial insolvency before the fresh influx of Bloomberg cash got them off life support.

    So, my question is, what makes this issue different this go around? And do you think at some point it will again fade into obscurity? Why or why not?
     
  2. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    Your impression is wrong. They were active. We were more active
     
  3. rule303

    rule303 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,648
    Location:
    MN
    They have been as active, if not more so, than ever. Their tactics have changed with more and more of the general public seeing that their doom and gloom prophesies regarding "assault weapons" and concealed carry bloodshed not coming true. More effort is being put into gun control at the state and local (even down to individual retailers) level, rather than federal.
    The widespread use of the internet has made it easier for us to combat. Sites such as THR are frequented by gun owners, and activism and pending legislation by the antis spreads like wildfire. While there are a lot of antis, most of them are not actively involved in the process, and I doubt the average anti spends hours a day on gun control forums. Most of the big gun control groups are bankrolled by a relatively few ultra-rich elitists, and their message broadcast to the world by the liberal dominated media. Gun rights support is mostly a grass roots movement, with millions of people contributing to the common cause, both financially and with their time.
     
  4. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,569
    Location:
    Kentucky
    They had planned for Brady II including that controversial "Arsenal License" scheme. But that all evaporated when a lot of Dems lost their jobs.


    Di-Fi said she had been working on her assault weapons ban for a year before Sandy Hook. Right after that event she unveiled it.

    I suspect that Bloomberg is behind a lot of it.


    I know they are hell bent on Universal Background Checks because they think that will be an easier soft sell to the largely uninformed public. But more importantly UBC is a step or two away from gun registration in this country.


    Even if gun control is not in the daily media, that doesn't mean it is gone. It means that someone is working on legislation behind the scenes for more gun control and they will unveil it after some event. Just like DiFi did after Sandy Hook.

    Also Bloomberg is funding the Moms bus tour behind the scenes. It is under the radar, stealth like with no publicity most of the time. They have these bus tours are going from State Capitol to State Capitol trying to influence state legislators.

    They were so quiet and did not get national coverage when they went to Phoenix and only one person from our side showed up to protest. I only found out about by chance by glancing at one of the posts at opencarry.org .

    In addition to Bloomberg, we have Gabby also doing her "National UBC Tour". I'm not sure who is funding it. But someone is. Is Bloomberg funding her? Does anyone know?

    They are working behind the scenes, under the radar until it is time for some press release. Usually around election time or when a critical piece of gun legislation is being debated on or about to be signed into law...or after an event.

    .
     
  5. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    ▲▲▲▲
    quoted for truth.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2014
  6. readyeddy

    readyeddy Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,521
    1994 midterms
     
  7. glennv

    glennv Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    232
    Bingo!
     
  8. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    12,686
    Location:
    Georgia
    They have tried, but cannot get any public support. Looking back on it the AWB with a 10 year sunset provision was a blessing for us. They got to try a major gun control law and it had the opposite effect they expected. Many of the younger guys can't remember, but the AWB as written didn't ban much of anything. Some features on weapons had to be modified, but the basic weapons were still available. Same with most magazines.

    The Glocks in 40 and 10mm had only been on the market for a couple of years and magazines for those were hard to find and expensive. AR magazines were everywhere and farily reasonably priced. There were more than enough pre-ban magazines for most guns that had been in production for more than a few years. Had the ban been long term things would have dried up, but it was mostly a minor problem.

    If anything the ban sold more guns, including AR's than anything. People started noticing that guns were everywhere, and crime rates were at historical lows. The anti-gunners fooled a lot of people in the early 90's and lost a lot of credibility. While they would like to enact more anti-gun laws, I don't see much happening any time soon. The facts are on our side and even the MSM is starting to see and report such.
     
  9. Delford

    Delford Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Somewhat SW of Red Cross NC
    The UN has job openings for "disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration specialists" in New York.
    Anti's will certainly apply. Plans are being made. Our efforts will keep such things from happening.
     
  10. Tirod

    Tirod Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,839
    Location:
    SW MO
    It's like this - then, less than half the states were CCW. Now, 50 are in some way, and national reciprocity is being pushed. Not registration. The direct result of the anti's constantly yelling "Wolf!" is that nobody pays much attention to them.

    The headlines screaming that the street will be running in blood never happened. Huge credibility hit. So, when they get on camera and then start making really ignorant, even stupid statement's like "shoulder thingy that goes up" or discussing "ghost guns" it's ridiculed by us, on the spot, verbally, to those around us. Quiet professional behavior that doesn't incite the masses means we are selling the point of view.

    Of course, it's pretty good when we see commercials ridiculing the oversensitive - like the KFC ad with a cubicle matron screaming "Knife!" because someone is politely eating their lunch in. Or,news items like the lady at the restaurant complaining Police officers were flashing their guns (left in the holster) and they were disturbing her meal.

    The further they push, the more ridiculous they look to the average citizen. It makes our job easier.
     
  11. BaltimoreBoy

    BaltimoreBoy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    250
    In a word, very appropriate for firearms discussion:

    "Blowback"
     
  12. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,242
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Your question needs to change to "Why have the anti's been INEFFECTIVE?" They've certainly been active.

    I can see several reasons why, most of them rooted in the public's general acceptance of arms:

    1) Americans only accept their message to a very limited degree, that "common sense" level where "duh, you don't let bad/crazy guys have guns if you can prevent it". This is why the only traction they get is using "common sense" as a stalking horse to hide their deeper agenda. Americans might argue about what ~sorts~ of arms should be available to civilians, but mostly reject the premise that they should be disarmed entirely.

    2) The proliferation and success of CCW. No, the streets did not run red with blood as CCW holders blasted each other over parking spots and other trivialities. With a 30 year track record across the nation, it just didn't happen. Strongly related is the very fact of the permit process itself: it goes a very long way to quell objections, in that people can easily get past it when you tell them that the permit holders are checked and usually have to show some level of demonstrated competence.

    3) The work of the "Gun Scholars". If you read the briefs for Heller and peruse certain bookshelves, you will see 25 years of scholarly research into the meaning, nature, and history of the Second Amendment, which almost entirely repudiates the basis under which the 2nd went effectively missing from 1934 - 2008

    4) The Heller Case, specifically the actions of Dick Heller, Alan Gura, and everyone who had their back. The Heller ruling was attainable because Dick Heller, in a fit of pique, actually attempted to register his work handgun on a lunch hour. That sole fact allowed him to achieve "standing", which was used for 70 years to prevent a viable case from being brought. Alan Gura & co were smart enough to build and shepherd the case, and we won by a single slim vote.

    5) Various disasters and civil breakdowns in which people were left to fend for themselves, and arms made a difference. The press really tried to suppress this, but people are generally not dummies: when the going gets tough, Americans go gun shopping.
     
  13. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    I was going to say that! The gun grabbing lobby has certainly been around. The Democrats just didn't want any part of it after losing both houses of Congress to a large extent because of their gun grabbing ways. Now Dems think they have smooth sailing for their new gun grabs because of the school shootings (which is a whole other story not fit for this board). I don't like to bring up politics but it is the answer to the OP's question.
     
  14. Rock185

    Rock185 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    744
    Location:
    Rim Country, Arizona
    I don't believe they have been dormant at all. They have just not been as successful as they had wished. They never quit trying and never will. They are now in fact redoubling their efforts with Bloomberg's money, and the "NOT ONE MORE" and "Moms Demand Action" campaigns. Does anybody remember that one of the proposals floated was to require registration of every gun part, I mean EVERY part, down to screws, springs, pins, grips, etc, etc,etc as a separate firearm. They were serious folks. I never take the Anti's efforts lightly as so many gun owners seem to between each new major push for gun control. If that had been enacted into law, I guess I'd have been considered to have quite an "Arsenal." Pins, springs, screws I got. After New Town, the anti-gun factions thought they had a slam dunk to pass draconian new gun laws. I'm amazed myself, that other than New York, Colorado and Connecticutt, I don't think a lot of new restrictions were enacted. Did anybody else read the text of the proposed Background Check legislation? I did. It was 47 pages long. There was a lot more stuff in there than just background checks. If they had just made the legislation about background checks, they might have passed it. But as is usual, there were other onerous things contained within that little bill....
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014
  15. Leanwolf

    Leanwolf Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,115
    Location:
    Idaho
    Speaking of whom is funding the anti-Second Amendment groups, lets not forget one of the richest men in the world, George Soros. He's so rich he makes Bloomberg look like a welfare recipient. He funnels unimaginable sums of money into trying to destroy the Constitution of the U.S.

    Also Harvey Weinstein, a billionaire producer in Hollywood, who has stated he intends to destroy the NRA using his wealth and his ability to produce movies that exhibit his extreme left wing anti-guns beliefs. Mega-billion dollar tax exempt foundations, those you see sponsoring most of the PBS teeeveee shows, donate heavily to the far left groups who seek to disarm us worker peasants.

    No, folks, it ain't hardly Bloomberg alone. He has many like minded, extremely wealthy comrades and they all spend lavishly to destroy us.

    L.W.
     
  16. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    That's no surprise. He's taken over several countries already by destroying their economies and their national identity. He learned his lessons early selling out his fellow Jews to the Nazis. What a guy!
     
  17. ol' scratch

    ol' scratch Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,382
    Location:
    South of Hell....Michigan.
    The 1994 midterms are the big reason. It was a historic loss for Democrats. I also think that the Obama administration held off getting behind anything because of Heller and McDonald. I have seen anti's under playing those two decisions since they were handed down. Before that time, people were using the militia phrasing as a way of arguing that the second was a collective not an individual right. It was the legal basis anti gunners had for most gun control. Recently, the states that had knee jerk reactions and slammed legislation through have come under fire and we really need to support those people in those states for fighting that legislation. Most notably, Colorado had two state politicians recalled and were well onto recalling a third before she resigned. Colorado is a swing state, so it spoke volumes on the national stage. Some things to watch out for....

    -Misinformation. They are trumping up claims that are half truths and downright lies.

    -Changing their story. Now they are gun safety organizations and these gun prohibitionist groups are backing away from supposed AWB legislation and limiting the number of rounds firearms can carry. They know that is a hot button issue. They seem to hope that most of the public will forget and sadly most have.

    -Distancing themselves from other individuals. Moms is the first group I can think of right off hand. They are trying to put distance between themselves and Bloomberg.

    -Changing the dynamic of the fight to try and make it a "fight the power" issue. The NRA is now the big bad corporate boogyman funded by big business. They are shifting the fight to focus on the NRA when in fact they are attacking personal liberties. I know many liberals who could have cared less about gun control, but have been brought into the fight because now they are fighting evil corporations.

    Midterms are going to be critical. I have a feeling they are going to tip more of their hand after elections.
     
  18. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,726
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Because they shot themselves in the foot so badly with the "assault weapon" fraud and magazine capacity limits. Those things provoked an immense backlash and pretty much destroyed their movement. Were it not for Wall Street money and the support of the corporate media, the gun control lobby would be defunct by now.

    Their failure was not, however, due to lack of trying. Pretty much every year since 1994, they have proposed legislation to ban various kinds of lawfully owned civilian guns or ammo, or make it difficult for ordinary citizens to own/carry weapons or use them for self-defense.

    The irony here is that the gun-control lobby is funded primarily by Wall Street money and is backed primarily by big media corporations, whereas the pro-gun side is funded primarily by small donations from individual gun owners and has relatively little corporate backing.
     
  19. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Not unlike Prohibition, and not unlike Prohibition, there was a subsequent recoil from society. When that amendment was repealed, everyone starting drinking (who wasn't already) and I don't think there's been a single serious effort to return. That's why I doubt we'll ever see an AWB seriously brought up again (DiFi keeps harping on it, but that's because it's her baby). The UBC thing is different enough from AWB's that they are willing to give it a go (like if only liquor had been banned/unbanned, the tea-totalers had instead trained their efforts on beer). Mental health efforts are a much broader tactic only partially focused on gun issues (mostly focused on authoritarian utility in general, but guns are given the most press being the proverbial boogeyman)

    Given the long trail of advances by the anti's starting with 60's assassinations, the 94 AWB needed to happen, to show plainly to everyone just how these folks would govern when they held all the cards; arbitrarily, capriciously, and ineffectively. If our side keeps the momentum for 40+ years, I fully expect that we'd likewise pull something so bone-headed (I dunno, maybe legalizing mutated Anthrax for duck hunting? ;))

    TCB
     
  20. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    Of course big money corporations and individuals fund disarmament organizations. When you are systematically screwing over whole national economies, it behooves you to keep them unarmed. They may still drag you out of your mansion and hang you, but why make it easier for them?
     
  21. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Only when they run them; the Brady folk were flat-broke not four years ago (probably rapidly returning, too), but it's the Bloomberg clan that's got the re$ource$ nowadays. Bloomberg has tons of money (read: influence) and that means he both knows lots of other people with money, and carries enough weight himself to make success of his efforts look like a real possibility to potential donors. All the Bradys ever had was a circle of political insiders, many of whom lost their mantle after the 94 midterm fiasco, more of whom learned a valuable lesson from the same fiasco, and others who have simply retired or passed on. At the end of the day, money talks, and that's why Bloomberg has the microphone, and that's why we'll have to work against him for a good while yet. He is such a central and driving influence behind his organization, that I fully expect it to crumble within an election cycle or two once he passes (God willing)

    TCB
     
  22. ljnowell

    ljnowell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,201
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of IL
    I think that more than anything we are lucky that the left can't work together. Think about this, following Obama's election they controlled the House, Senate, and White House. They could have passed any anti-gun legislation they wanted. Instead they fought amongst themselves over his best to screw up healthcare in our country. If they had the ability to unite we would all be buying handguns with ten round mags and ugly ARs with stupid cosmetic parts to be compliant. Or maybe no semi auto rifles, depends on how far they would have ran.
     
  23. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,294
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    Dormant he says.

    In 2013 over 82,400,000 (that's 82 million) American citizens had their gun rights curtailed by anti-gun laws passed on the State level.

    If that is your idea of dormant I'd sure hate to see what active means.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014
  24. ElToro

    ElToro Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Bay Area, PRK
    You must not be paying attention here in California. In the last 20 years my open carry rights of Long guns and handguns has been curtailed. My ability to buy 11+ round magazines has been eliminated. If i put a 11+ round magazine in a newly purchased AR that makes me a felon. But we have won some big lawsuits overturning some of the craziness and were working on more lawsuits.
     
  25. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,751
    Location:
    TN
    So many Dems were voted out of office and it was attributed to the gun control issue in 1994 mid term election as I recall. That stopped a lot of legislation from being proposed and introduced at the Federal level.

    Things have been active since Sandy Hook at the State level. New Federal legislation was introduced but it went no where especially with the lack of cooperation between the House and Senate regardless of what the President wants. And he would like to see private ownership of firearms rigorously regulated by the Federal government regardless of the 2A. He would say that firearms are still available and that reasonable controls were placed on their purchase, ownership and use.

    There is a steady effort to enact stricter gun control legislation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice