Would an AWB be good?

[Tommygunn]

Words are EVERYTHING when it comes to legality. I know it's wishful thinking, but just imagine if the term "Assault Weapon" were "Efficient Firearms" or something like that. Our fight would be easier. When it comes time to draw a line in the sand for guns, it all comes down to primitive perception.

I've heard this before. I respectfully disagree. To a point, when we use words, we should use technically accurate words -- that's fine.
Our opponents are devious and ruthless, and imaginative, and I don't think that words matter a great deal. They don't like the idea we have firearms, ands wish to remove them. Nullify one tactic .... fine. They'll simply switch to another.
In a sense, were trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube here.

 

[evan price]

Would temporarily doubling the income taxes be good? What if it were "Only temporary"??

 

[jakemccoy]

I've heard this before. I respectfully disagree. To a point, when we use words, we should use technically accurate words -- that's fine.
Our opponents are devious and ruthless, and imaginative, and I don't think that words matter a great deal. They don't like the idea we have firearms, ands wish to remove them. Nullify one tactic .... fine. They'll simply switch to another.
In a sense, were trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube here.

You're allowed to disagree, of course, but you're incorrect.

You just proved the main problem with "Assault Weapon". You, a gun owner, have been conditioned to think that "Assault Weapon" is technically accurate. It's not. That's my beef.

There's a video floating around the Internet that steps through how there's no meaningful technical difference between so-called "Assault Weapons" and certain other guns that are not considered to be AW. I'll try to find the video.

Saying that words don't matter is more than a little naive. Every SCOTUS case is, in part, a battle over semantics. So, words may not matter to you, but they do to the SCOTUS and a whole bunch of other important institutions.

 

[Tommygunn]

It's not accurate, and I know that; but that's not my point. I don't think coming up with nice sounding words for them is going to help, is all.

 

[jakemccoy]

Come on. Changing the terminology would help at least a little. When my gun ignorant friends hear "assault weapon" they instantly think "Columbine" and "Virginia Tech".

I had one guy go off on a tirade about how "we don't need those black assault weapons that Cho and those dudes from Columbine had". Don't try to make sense out of his response, it was completely unorganized and emotional.

 

[Tommygunn]

It might help a little with friends and associates who are not gun savvy, but IMHO it will have no effect whatsoever on the antigun politicians who will try to disarm us through one method, or another.
The kind of guy you're talking about -- the guy ranting against Cho -- who didn't us any "assault weapons" and who was entirely emotional -- he won't be persuaded at all. In fact, He's exactly why I think your idea is not effective.
Look, I'm not against trying. If you want to do it, fine.
The only way I see us winning is to defeat the antigun politicians at the polls. We seem to be SOL this cycle, given what the polls are saying atleast.
You won't be hurting anything atleast ... I just hope it's not all you're doing.

 

[Kind of Blued]

It depends on who you ask.

If you are a law-abiding American who thinks the Constitution is more valuable than a piece of toilet paper, NO.

If you're a career criminal who depends upon defenseless victims to make ends meet, YES.

If you're a government official who needs your subjects defenseless so that you can pursue your political agenda, YES.

 

[jerkface11]

Keep bashin' that one particular party...That'll pay big dividends over the next eight!
Better educate and recruit rather than bash and alienate....and fast

So opposing a party that supports gun bans is too divisive? Maybe we should all hold hands and sing coom buy yah?

 

[RonE]

An assult weapons ban would not do us any good at all, it could only get worse. It would drive up the price of used AR and AK type guns and perhaps reduce the price of ammo for them.

This is a case of having to write (with pen and paper) and mail (with envelope and stamp) your representative and congressman and your state legislatures too. Signing an on line petition just don't get the job done, neither does email.

 

[Kind of Blued]

It would drive up the price of used AR and AK type guns and perhaps reduce the price of ammo for them.

How would it reduce the price of ammo?

Also, it could be much worse than raising the price of ARs & AKs. It could effectively make them "Not for sale at any price" unless one wants to break the law.

 

[slide]

Whatever the explanation, we should work on changing the terminology if possible. Words are EVERYTHING when it comes to legality. I know it's wishful thinking, but just imagine if the term "Assault Weapon" were "Efficient Firearm" or something like that. Our fight would be easier. When it comes time to draw a line in the sand for guns, it all comes down to primitive perception, no matter how cleverly we frame the arguments.

When you get your job at the NYT, you can start making these labeling changes. Until then, the MSM will use the most inflammatory language it can to push forward its left wing agenda. Haven't you noted that nobody is 'shot' any more? Or killed or wounded? They are all 'gunned down' implying the gun got annoyed at made an unprovoked attack on an innocent.

I salute this Board for promoting a clean and sane image of firearms enthusiasts but doubt that the MSM would care or separate us here from the dirtiest criminal element - because it suits its agenda to group us all in a lump. Yet, Jake, I'll play along. Why not suggest an alternate name for the weapons which will be banned by the next AWB or were banned by the last.

 

[MD_Willington]

No it would not be good.

SCOTUS, well the other guys could always "stack the deck" and it would still be bad or go to worse...

 

[caseypj]

Sure, if you enjoy incrementalism. First, it will be "Assault Rifles", then it would be "Sniper Rifles", then it would be "Semi-automatic Machinegun rifles", then "Combat Shotguns", and finally it would be "Dangerous Handguns".

 

[leadcounsel]

NO, NO, NO.

Heller was a close call that went our way.

If Heller was a deplorable gang-banger or otherwise undesireable, the lower court or the SCOTUS may have refused to side with him.

We had a great fact pattern in Heller. Future cases may not be so compelling.

We also have a favorable SCOTUS compostition. It may not be so favorable next time.

 

[M203Sniper]

The best we can hope for is that the bad economy keeps the Democrats jumping for a few years and stays in the toilet long enough to balance the powers that be.


Defending the Bill of Rights starts with killing the corruption in our government.

 

[Huddog]

No. Especially if Obama wins and then gets to appoint a justice or three.

 

[22-rimfire]

Not a good idea at all. Time is in their favor. Not ours.

 

[slide]

No. Especially if Obama wins and then gets to appoint a justice or three.

...and a solid Democrat Senate which will rubber stamp his far left choices. Well, no sense in worrying now. The results are baked in. I don't know if Obama will win, but IMO, the die is cast. We just don't know the outcome but it's too late to affect it.

 

[ccsniper]

does anybody on here believe in revelation, the last book of the bible? just wondering. i think that no matter what we do, or how many voters disagree with what the congress do, they will do it anyway. gun control has never been about the guns. just like our congress vote to give themselves a pay raise, they will vote on stuff we dont like or need or want just to give themselves power.

 

[jr45]

I had one guy go off on a tirade about how "we don't need those black assault weapons that Cho and those dudes from Columbine had". Don't try to make sense out of his response, it was completely unorganized and emotional.

Totally agree. If/when we get another tragedy like Virginia Tech, I am sure the anti-gun agenda will move up fast as a priority for congress.

 

[tinygnat219]

It's good for business as people like you and me, anticipating a ban, will go and buy up all kinds of guns.

 

[jakemccoy]

It might help a little with friends and associates who are not gun savvy, but IMHO it will have no effect whatsoever on the antigun politicians who will try to disarm us through one method, or another.
The kind of guy you're talking about -- the guy ranting against Cho -- who didn't us any "assault weapons" and who was entirely emotional -- he won't be persuaded at all. In fact, He's exactly why I think your idea is not effective.
Look, I'm not against trying. If you want to do it, fine.
The only way I see us winning is to defeat the antigun politicians at the polls. We seem to be SOL this cycle, given what the polls are saying atleast.
You won't be hurting anything atleast ... I just hope it's not all you're doing.

My emotional friend and the anti-gun politician you mentioned are not much different. It's just that the politician looks more sophisticated and keeps emotions in check, while writing bills and voting in accordance with the politician's emotional reaction to guns. It appears that you may think of the anti-gun politician as someone who's meticulously stepping through arguments and procedures to push an anti-gun agenda. That may be the appearance on the surface. Underneath, it's more likely that the politician is a gun-ignorant person who approaches gun issues primarily from an emotional perspective.

 

[jakemccoy]

When you get your job at the NYT, you can start making these labeling changes. Until then, the MSM will use the most inflammatory language it can to push forward its left wing agenda. Haven't you noted that nobody is 'shot' any more? Or killed or wounded? They are all 'gunned down' implying the gun got annoyed at made an unprovoked attack on an innocent.

I salute this Board for promoting a clean and sane image of firearms enthusiasts but doubt that the MSM would care or separate us here from the dirtiest criminal element - because it suits its agenda to group us all in a lump. Yet, Jake, I'll play along. Why not suggest an alternate name for the weapons which will be banned by the next AWB or were banned by the last.

Wow, dude, what was the purpose of that speech? It's like you're mad at me for trying to make a positive change. Did you even read my post that you criticized? I suggested a name already.

By the way, if we massively refuse to accept the label AW, then the name can change. As a practical matter, such refusal can start on the floors of the U.S. Congress. How pathetic can we be as a group? We have allowed gun ignorant people to create names for the tools that we, the experts, use. It should be the other way around.

 

[M203Sniper]

As a side note;

i was listening to the http://gunrights.us/ Podcast and the host mentioned something about firearms labels. Calling an AR a sporting rifle....If I can find a text link I'll post it.


Found it here; http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm

Interesting reading.

Part One -- The Concept

Certain words hurt you when you talk about your rights and liberties. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far.

Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in the critical debate on where power should reside in America, you need effective word choices. Try out some of the ideas in this chart the next time you deal with this subject.

Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You'll hear their litany, replete with flaws. Don't rebut, seize the moment, listen hard and learn -- then just raise an eyebrow and think, "How 'bout that. Feller doesn't even own a gun. It takes all kinds." Then talk about something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.

 

[RX-178]

There IS one AWB that would be good in the long run, but over the course of many years, it'd cripple the gun industry before it crippled anti-gun legislation.

It's that one that these 4 congressmen (Republicans, at that) keep putting together year after year after year ever since 2004, and it keeps getting sent to a committee where it dies without a second thought (and I don't predict it will be any more successful even with an Obama presidency).

It basically bans BY NAME every single firearm you could think of, unless it's made under an order by the federal government or military. They pass that, and it's guaranteed to be struck down as unconstitutional, and will cripple any other bill of its like forevermore.

But nobody's ever going to sign that ridiculous proposal into law, not even Obama.