Today Compared to 1994?

Status
Not open for further replies.
leadaddict

leadaddict

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
534
Location
Iowa
I was 11 years old in 1994. I owned a bb gun and at that time wasn't aware of the AWB or the fight that preceded it. I understand the old AWB law well enough, but in the realm of politics and public opinion how similar is what we are seeing now to 1994? What are some reasons you think this will end better or worse for us in 2013 than in it did 1994?
 
If I recall correctly the 1994 ban passed by one vote.
And many who voted for it were themselves voted out of office soon after--big time.
Don't think today's politicians are not unaware of that fact.
At this point I think the gun grabbers would settle for a 10 round limit and having as background check for all private gun sales.
This would give the appearance of "doing something" while not overly angering legal gun owners.
Will it do anything to prevent mass shooters?
No, but no gun control measures will do that.
Other, more liberal states, of course, are free to impose even tougher gun laws--a la California.
New York State has a whole slew of gun measures on the block--7 round magazines, banning "ugly" guns, etc
Will be interesting to see what the gun grabbers will actually get through.
 
Something to consider that has changed radically since 1994 is the effect of the 1991(?) ban on the importation of AWB-type guns (and many others, like Baikal O/U shotguns from Russia). I threw away my vote in 1992 because I was pissed at the 1st President Bush over his support of the importation ban, which drove up prices like crazy. It was common to be able to purchases Russian AKs (semi-auto) NEW in 1990 for less than $300. Since that time, not only has the original AWB expired, but importation of all foreign made guns (cheaper former Soviet Bloc and Turkish guns included) and US-component work-arounds have really brought prices down and made availability better. If all the Springfield Armorty XDs were actually made in Illinois.....think about how much more that would cost.

If I were a gun-grabbing POTUS, I'd hammer imports through executive orders and the Dept. of Commerce 1st, then go after an AWB. He could throw in something about protecting US jobs at the same time and the media would lap it up.
 
We are both better positioned and weaker than we were at the time.

Better because we have argued the AWB, seen the lack of benefit it brought to crime rates, watched the violent crime rate drop during it and continue to drop after when Antis were tossing rhetoric about "blood running in the streets" around, watched CCW grow from state to state and even watched "may issue" states convert to "shall issue", watched as big manufacturers introduce ARs into their line as well as introducing ARs into their hunting line, watched small AR producers spring up and watched small ones become bigger as acceptance of ARs has increased and their recreational and hunting uses grow wrt to other firearms. We watched the firearms industry shift from a bunch of "good ol' boys" catering almost exclusively to men to marketing directly to women and supporting youth shooting programs.

Worse, a madman shot his mother in the face and took her firearms to an elementary school and murdered 20 little children. The instant news media filled the air with all sorts of claims before the facts could have been known, gut wrenching images of terrified parents worried sick about their children waiting to find out if their life had been destroyed were put out on every television in the country while it was happening and heart rending images of other parents finding out their babies had be shot over and over again by that same madman played on those same televisions over and over again while Antis used the blood of those children to repeat their hate for firearms and firearms owners on those TVs. The emotionalism being displayed by "news" media is much higher, but sober new media presentation went out the window years ago anyway.

In some ways it is the same, but the immediacy and strong bias is different.
 
There is no evidence--or or logic--to support gun control as a way of reducing crime.
In fact just the opposite is true.
But the antis have raw emotion and a brainwashed, ignorant mass of people on their side.
The only saving grace is that a lot of politicians who thought they would gain political power by voting for the ban in 1994 were voted out of office soon after.
There is also the internet now, keeps people better informed and connected.
Plus, after 9/11, gun control has became political suicide--which is why many are now so good at hiding their true colors.
However this tragedy has now re empowered the true gun grabbers, and has smoked them out of the woodpile.
Which is good since it is very hard to counter liars who are very good at covering their true intentions.
The fight is now out in the open--we have facts. evidence and logic on our side.
They don't.
But logic and evidence do not always overcome ignorance.
We will see who wins this one...
 
I got a new in box Russian SkS in Dec 1995. I still have it in fact my first centerfire rifle.
I think theres more gun owners today than before. I highly doubt they can push around the gun community today . But its important we voice our opposition.
 
I was deeply involved in the 1994 fight. Calling, getting petitions signed, meeting personally with my congressman who lied to me to my face.

The fight started in 1989 after the Stockton, California shooting at a McDonalds. The usual suspects started wringing their hands and screaming in the media then. President Bush signed an executive order banning the import of semi-automatic weapons that had certain cosmetic features. This was a legal executive order because provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 stated that only weapons that were for "sporting purposes" could be imported.

The mainstream news media ran story after story with video showing already regulated full automatic weapons being fired while they talked about the semi autos they wanted to ban. They were following the Violence Policy Center's plan to the letter, confusing the people with video of full auto and making the less informed public think they were going to ban machine guns.

Things died down somewhat after the Bush ban on imports and the media moved onto other issues. It didn't really start up again until Clinton was inaugurated in 1993. About November 1993, they started the campaign in earnest. The Democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency. The media started running the stories again, you literally couldn't watch a network news show without seeing a story on it.

The legislation was introduced in the senate and the debates started. CSPAN covered many of the hearings and I remember watching Joe Biden smirking and dismissing every rational witness out of hand. They had to do that, just like today because emotion is the only argument they have. No rational person would believe that banning guns would stop mass shootings from happening.

The fight went on through the summer. Many congressmen refused to tell their constituents how they intended to vote. As the final vote in the house approached we melted the capitol phone lines. The 10 year sunset was added to the bill and it did pass by one vote in late July or early August of 1994. Clinton didn't actually sign the bill until 14 September 1994.

That November the voters came out in force and threw most of the people who voted for it out of office. Texas Representative Jack Brooks who was speaker of the house and previously A rated by the NRA lost his seat. The republicans took over the house for the first time in 40 years and also seized control of the senate.

The house passed a repeal the following year but it was never taken up in the senate because the republican majority wasn't strong enough to overcome the Democrat filibuster and the law stood until it expired on 13 September 2004.

Differences between then and now:

In 93-94 the internet was just coming to life. People weren't connected like they are now. It's a tool that allows us to instantly counter all of the emotional rants the antis in congress and the news media make.

Conservative media - in 93-94 Rush Limbaugh was really the only conservative voice with a national audience. And he sold us out. On the day of the final vote in the house he spent all three hours of his show discussing SSI payments to parents of children with ADHD. Every network newscast during his show talked about the vote and how the capitol phone system was crashing from the volume of calls. And the topic of the day was SSI payments to parents of children with ADHD. This was a couple months after Limbaugh took a large speaking fee from the NRA to be the keynote speaker at the Members Banquet in Nashville, TN. I was there.

Today there are all kinds of conservative media outlets although I don't expect any favorable coverage from Fox News as Rupert Murdoch has come out in favor of a ban like they have in his native Australia.

The republicans control the house. There is a good chance that any legislation introduced will never make it out of committee. I have yet to see any republican of any stature jump on board the gun banning train.

The public is more educated on the gun issue. Gun ownership is up despite what some news reports say. The concealed carry movement has moved from Florida nationwide. Every state but Illinois has some form of concealed carry and the US Appeals Court 7th Circuit has struck down Illinois' ban on concealed carry and ruled that the second amendment allows a person to carry a firearm for self defense outside the home.

Many in the public are as disgusted with the antis smearing themselves with the blood of dead children and dancing on their graves to further a political agenda as we are. I even heard on air personalities on KMOX Radio (the biggest talk radio giant in the midwest, their signal reaches 43 states) commenting on the fact that it was disgusting to jump on the issue the way they did.

All is not lost. We only lost this fight by one vote in 94. We have so much going for us this time. Don't get discouraged, stay in the fight, we can win this. Don't think for a minute that the Democrat party has forgotten the price they paid at the ballot box in 94 for foisting this on the American people. All we have to do is stave this off until this time next year. At that point we enter the campaign season again. All of the house and many in the senate. I believe the Democrats are going to have to defend 16 senate seats in very pro second amendment states. How many of those senators are going to want to make that vote?
 
That's just it though, they don't have to push around the gun community.

All they have to do is trick/bribe/threaten 51% of the politicians to vote for their new law and its a done deal.

I think/hope that will be an uphill battle for them, but so was ObamaCare and we know how that went down.
 
Wow Jeff, thanks for the great post. I learned a lot from it. I want to be sure that if there are any lessons from the defeat of 1994 that I know what they are. My oldest son will be 10 this year, almost the same age I was in '94. I want to be able to tell him I did all I could. I am optimistic about 2013, and think we have a good chance at not losing any of our rights, but it's going to take learning from the past and a lot of work to make it happen!

Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it!
 
I fear shady back room deals, akin to the obamacare passage, to coerce the vote.
Click to expand...
I fear a 4 am "unanimous consent" vote. Or comparable while ignoring the voices of dissenters (sort of like we saw at the republican convention.)
 
This is what's different this time:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
 
We also have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who despite the fact I despise his politics, has been pretty darn good on guns.

We also have Republican control of the House.

Back in 1994, there were many Republican members who were soft on the gun issue, and were open to "reasonable gun control".

There are a lot fewer of them still in office today. And while it might be a matter of perception, I think there are a lot more elected Democrats in office today who support the 2nd Amendment, than there were in '94. If nothing else, they remember what that vote cost them.

I think we are in a much better position, now, than then.

Still call your Congressmen, whether you think they will support the 2nd Amendment or not. Let them know what supporting Feinstein will cost them.
 
Great post Mr. White; I too am cautiously up beat on the subject. Millions of more shooters are into AR's than was the case in '94. And here in Illinois....well, I guess we'll see ~ you know how things go around here.
 
We also have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who despite the fact I despise his politics, has been pretty darn good on guns.

I am afraid he will tow the part line... I think the Dems are much better at taking people who manage to stay somewhat neutral on controversial topics and get them to vote party line when the chips are down.

I too am afraid of a back room deal. I also believe we will vote them out if it happens, but that's more like mutually assured destruction, and I'm not sure the dem's leadership woudnt take that deal.
 
What was banned in 1994 was a rare group of firearms few owned. They were not yet mainstream. People also didn't generally own more than a couple magazines for such guns.



Today these are the most popular firearm models. Tens of millions are owned. Many times more magazines in standard capacities are owned than the guns themselves.
A few years after panic subsided there would be so many available for purchase that it wouldn't prevent anyone determined to have such things.

This means any law like then that allows for the trade of such items after implementation would have no real impact on reducing anyone with motivation that wants such a firearm for decades to come.
While any law that prohibits trade of such items already owned reduces the monetary value of those items to almost nothing by eliminating a market to sell them.


In 1994 the mainstream media through the TV and newspapers told people what to think. It told them what everyone else felt (even if untrue.) It was a lot easier to dictate to the people what they should be thinking and feeling and what they should believe everyone else thought.
This allowed it to control perception and motivation or lack of for a large segement of the population on various issues.
Today the internet has connected everyone. Media giants still have a lot of power in shaping perception, but the internet gives everyone else a voice, and also allows people to organize. It enables people to see there is tons of people feeling similar ways.
It allows the people to understand in real time what is being done. In the past it was letters through the mail and updates from people like the NRA in an occasional letter. Those not receiving such letters wouldn't have even known what was being done or proposed in government without actively placing phone calls or having contacts keeping them informed.



Concealed carry has expanded to most of the nation. In 1994 majorities most places would have thought allowing anyone who wishes and was not prohibited to carry a handgun concealed was a recipe for trouble.
Today it has been proven to not even be an issue, and actually to have a positive effect most of the time.

Today there is a lot more female firearm owners. It was predominantly men with some exceptions in the 90s. This created a strong gender divide on gun rights.
Women are actually more empowered by an equalizing firearm than men are. They have started to realize this.
They go from having at least half of the population more capable of force than themselves to being average.
Very few enjoy hunting or other shooting recreation (and as a result go to the range a lot less), and predominantly have a gun specifically for self-defense. This is also powerful in reducing how effective the ploys of protecting hunter's rights while banning guns the antis previously used on male hunters to divide and conquer is.
They don't care about hunting, they have a gun to shoot someone if needed.
As half of the population that has a big impact in shaping acceptance of firearms and thier roles.
Women as nurterers are also more emotionally impacted by 'for the children' arguments, which were instrumental in a lot of gun pushes of the 90s. As gun owners they will be harder to manipulate in that manner.




Overall we are a lot stronger than in the 90s.
However governments still don't want thier average citizens possessing effective modern arms. Use of tragedies is just a manipulation of the population towards that agenda. That is not going to change.
One failure I see in a lot of the population is a failure to stand up for what does not immediately impact them. Like gun rights of those in other nations. Standing up to the UN disarming third world citizens. Keeping ownership of both guns and modern guns normal in the world so it doesn't become a peculiar wierd US anomaly that is easier to put pressure on to change.
A lot more are clearly motivated by selfishness than ideology or real beliefs in what is a natural human right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top