Announcement

**landsknechte** · 12-02-2008, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Terry K. View Post

I am wondering why it would need to be monitored? The thread is stating facts and opinions without being nasty. It is not really political as it just talks of what most likely will happen.

If the same standards that are normally applied in Die Kniepe were applied here, this thread would have been shut down long ago - regardless of nastiness, truth, or the combination thereof.

Can you honestly look at this thread and say it's not political?!? Did you miss all the posts about commie pinko left-leaning gun-grabbing marxists tripping over themselves to put forth their evil agenda?

**Terry K.** · 12-03-2008, 12:18 AM

Hi,
I just read and listen to what they advocate and say. I call a spade a spade.
Terry

**Pvt. Joker** · 12-03-2008, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by landsknechte View Post

If the same standards that are normally applied in Die Kniepe were applied here, this thread would have been shut down long ago - regardless of nastiness, truth, or the combination thereof.

Can you honestly look at this thread and say it's not political?!? Did you miss all the posts about commie pinko left-leaning gun-grabbing marxists tripping over themselves to put forth their evil agenda?

Hmmm... OK; fair enough. But what would YOU PREFER that we all call it when the commie pinko left-leaning gun-grabbing marxists trip all over themselves in the process of putting forth their evil agenda, then?

(I think "Hope and Change" has already been taken, but it IS much more succient, granted... )

**landsknechte** · 12-03-2008, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Pvt. Joker View Post

Hmmm... OK; fair enough. But what would YOU PREFER that we all call it when the commie pinko left-leaning gun-grabbing marxists trip all over themselves in the process of putting forth their evil agenda, then?

(I think "Hope and Change" has already been taken, but it IS much more succient, granted... )

Just be honest and say that it's political. The "it's not political cuz it's the truth" argument doesn't really hold a whole lot of water, especially when the language is so obviously slanted.

I'm not really trying to argue one way or the other in the argument by bringing that up though. I'm surprised that a moderator hasn't jumped in on this one, given what appears to be the normal threshold for doing so around here.

Personally, I would rather see the discussion stick to the actual issues, rather than devolving into an all-purpose bashing of the left. That seems to me to be a far more productive way to win as broad of an audience to this side of the argument. A lot of what I've seen posted in this thread is enough to make a lot of mainstream political moderates cringe, and plays right into the hands of the extreme left. It's not in the best interest of gun owners to portray themselves as "gun nuts" that would gladly enter into a firefight with law enforcement should the right situation arise. In the eyes of most normal Americans, that's only going to make you look like the type of person that shouldn't be trusted with potentially dangerous objects, and makes it easier for the government to sell legislation to the general public restricting your right to have them. If you're expecting the black helicopters to show up, then quietly bury your arms cache in the back yard and prepare yourself without the negative PR.

Sure, there are Marxists on the political left. You'll never win them over. Don't bother. Most Obama supporters aren't Marxists though. Plenty of them voted for him because they were sick of the last eight years, not because they were driven to do so by a desire to scoop up scary looking firearms. The fanatical anti-gun crowd is a subset of the left. Just a portion of it. Most people that voted for him weren't even thinking of gun related issues. Those are the people that the ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment need to reach out to. Present your argument in a logical and well reasoned fashion, and you'll get a lot more done. If you come off like a paranoid tinfoil hat wearing militia member, or a parrot regurgitating the scripts of hardline conservative talk show hosts, most normal people are going to stop listening to you - then you've truly lost and this whole discussion amounts to little more than a circle jerk.

**ChrisCook** · 12-03-2008, 04:22 AM

Effects of reinstatement of AWB

[quote=landsknechte;2965554 Most people that voted for him weren't even thinking of gun related issues. Those are the people that the ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment need to reach out to. Present your argument in a logical and well reasoned fashion, and you'll get a lot more done. If you come off like a paranoid tinfoil hat wearing militia member, or a parrot regurgitating the scripts of hardline conservative talk show hosts, most normal people are going to stop listening to you - then you've truly lost and this whole discussion amounts to little more than a circle jerk.[/quote]

I imagine at some point this thread might be "moderated" and shut down, so far though it's been an interesting debate.....I would like to make two points at this stage in the discussion...and hopefully it will continue in a civil manner.....

1) Most people that voted for "him" weren't even thinking of gun related issues. This is true, however I know a lot of folks that voted AGAINST "him" because of gun related issues (and other issues). Obama has made numerous statements that gives law abiding, honest gun owners reason to be nervous (taxes on ammo, banning of semiautos, registration, revoking concealed carry). Even if Obama doesn't act, you can bet that a Schumer, Pelosi, or Feinstein will....and there won't be a veto pen to stop it. Secondly, Supreme Court appointments (along with a slew of lower court appointments) will be made. Obama has stated that he wants judges who rule with compassion and understanding as a basis for their rulings (not to mention that a lot of these judges will most likely come from backgrounds/ideaologies that are anti-gun). I guess the tried and true Constitution isn't enough to rule with anymore????
2) What may be a hardline conservative talk show host to you, might be someone who is making perfect sense to me. Not wanting to take this off topic, but I have never seen anyone on the "right" try to silence Ted Turner, Al Franken, and others who represent the left. However, conservatives have a lot to be concerned with regarding the "fairness doctrine", a blatant form of censorship that is supported by many in the new administration. I personally enjoy the freedom to tune into, or turn off what I choose to listen to (or not listen to), not what the government tells me I can listen to....

Chris....

**landsknechte** · 12-03-2008, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by ChrisCook View Post

1) Most people that voted for "him" weren't even thinking of gun related issues. This is true, however I know a lot of folks that voted AGAINST "him" because of gun related issues (and other issues). Obama has made numerous statements that gives law abiding, honest gun owners reason to be nervous (taxes on ammo, banning of semiautos, registration, revoking concealed carry). Even if Obama doesn't act, you can bet that a Schumer, Pelosi, or Feinstein will....and there won't be a veto pen to stop it. Secondly, Supreme Court appointments (along with a slew of lower court appointments) will be made. Obama has stated that he wants judges who rule with compassion and understanding as a basis for their rulings (not to mention that a lot of these judges will most likely come from backgrounds/ideaologies that are anti-gun). I guess the tried and true Constitution isn't enough to rule with anymore????

That's all well and good, but really has very little to do with what I was trying to get across.

My point is that most people that voted for him didn't vote for him for his anti-gun stance. That is NOT to say that he isn't anti-gun, just that many of those voters are potential allies in this cause, and shouldn't be overlooked. It's obvious that more than 50% of the population that cared to vote favors the total package of his policies. If you are trying to argue for gun rights by arguing against everything that Obama stands for, you have a lot more weight to push against. However, if you separate out those voters that are more likely to support this issue (regardless of positions on any other subject) and win them over to your side (even if just for this issue), you're going to have a lot more people on your side. If you want to keep the 2nd Amendment, keep the discussion on the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of people that are, or could very easily move towards a more positive stance on this issue - however, if you alienate them on other issues, you just lost allies. This is too important of an issue to taint with general partisanship.

Originally posted by ChrisCook View Post

2) What may be a hardline conservative talk show host to you, might be someone who is making perfect sense to me. Not wanting to take this off topic, but I have never seen anyone on the "right" try to silence Ted Turner, Al Franken, and others who represent the left. However, conservatives have a lot to be concerned with regarding the "fairness doctrine", a blatant form of censorship that is supported by many in the new administration. I personally enjoy the freedom to tune into, or turn off what I choose to listen to (or not listen to), not what the government tells me I can listen to....

At times they make perfect sense to me too. That's not my point. The further you go towards either end of the spectrum, the more of the moderate center you're going to lose. Most of the population is somewhere in the middle. If you want their support, you can't go too far off in either direction.

**Adrian Stevenson** · 12-03-2008, 05:50 AM

Hi Guys, regarding "political" threads. I have been reading this thread, as, I am sure our Mods here, Matt and Robert. Every subject can be made "political" and it is down to common sence and good judgement of the Mods where this line sometimes has to be drawn.

Should this thread have been in "Die K" it would have been closed down straight away. Gun control subjects are not allowed there under the rules of that forum.

This issue may well impact upon some US forum members who are collectors, so as long it the debate remains civil, I will allow it to run here.

Cheers, Ade.

**Andy B.** · 12-03-2008, 07:26 AM

"I know for a fact that every instant gun check is computerized and run against a database to see what 'patterns' of firearms an individual is buying or selling (trade-ins, etc). The BATF is using local law enforcement, on a detailed to BATF salaried basis, to accomplish this goal."

Bob, you stated this in the beginning of the thread and I was just curious as to what it means. How is Local LEO assisting with this? Being local LEO I have not heard word one about assisting ATF with checks on individuals (nor anyone at my department).
Andy B.

**FJ George** · 12-03-2008, 09:11 AM

1. Buy reloading supplies now
2. Buy your high capacity clips now
3. Buy your weapons of choice now
Why?
Schumer, Pelosi, and Feinstein have the big stick finally and they are going to use it.
Just a note: Don't argue with person presently living in California. If you have never been there it is truly a different place. There are very few true Calif. natives living there anymore as many saw the writing on the wall and immigrated to other states. The ones left behind are just stubborn. The ones who haven't yet given up and realized the battle is lost.

The ban reinstatement is going to effect our hobby and all the other legislation coming our way.

**Cincylance** · 12-03-2008, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by FJ George View Post

1. Buy reloading supplies now
2. Buy your high capacity clips now
3. Buy your weapons of choice now
Why?
Schumer, Pelosi, and Feinstein have the big stick finally and they are going to use it.
Just a note: Don't argue with person presently living in California. If you have never been there it is truly a different place. There are very few true Calif. natives living there anymore as many saw the writing on the wall and immigrated to other states. The ones left behind are just stubborn. The ones who haven't yet given up and realized the battle is lost.

The ban reinstatement is going to effect our hobby and all the other legislation coming our way.

Amen to that. The storm is coming...

**Gene** · 12-03-2008, 02:49 PM

This thread isn't so much about Democrat vs Republican as it is liberal vs conservative. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The topic of guns and their ownership, and whether they need to be "controlled", regulated, restricted, and/or confiscated (a la New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) cannot help but be political because the ideologies behind whether we are pro-gun or anti-gun are rooted in whether we are conservative or liberal. I agree with landsknechte in that people should not be saying in an open forum, even if they are just venting (which I believe they are) that the cops will have a war on their hands when they try to confiscate someone's guns. It hurts the image of law abiding gun owners. But the truth still is that liberals by and large are gun haters and conservatives see nothing wrong with law abiding people owning whatever they want. There are many people on the WAF who legally own fully automatic weapons; most liberals are aghast at this and want to round up and destroy them as soon as possible, because no one "needs" them. Well, I don't need a Ferrari but I sure do want one. I think it is right to criticize the efforts of those who choose to further restrict the rights of gun owners and let's face it, you don't hear any gun control recommendations from the right unless it's a comment about using two hands. Obama is a liberal and has made very disturbing, disappointing comments concerning guns and their ownership. I hope he and the Congress forget about enacting more anti-gun legislation because in the end, no one wins except the bad guys. Liberals empathize with bad people who've resorted to violence to gain some kind of status among their social strata, and ill gotten guns allow them to perpetuate it until they eventually achieve room temperature courtesy of a fellow criminal, armed law abiding person, or law enforcement. The media (guess whose side they're on?) will laud the decedent as someone trying to change his life around by trying to find work to support his "family" (usually multiple children from multiple women) but fell on hard times, blah, blah, blah. Humanize and minimize his mayhem. The story will end up as a tirade against guns, blame will be placed upon guns, demands will be made on legislators to ban guns, the cops will be criticized that "they don't care" about the violence and no blame will be placed on the miscreant for his crimes. It is the gun and its availability. Funny, most people I know have a few guns and aren't out killing people or robbing banks. To a liberal anti-gunner, it's probably just a matter of time before a law abiding gun owner wigs out and shoots up a schoolyard or something because that's what guns are for, right?

**phild** · 12-03-2008, 05:30 PM

I've enjoyed most all of the posts in this thread, but I have to make a few points that I believe are key to the subject:

There is a core of politicians at every level who are very committed to essentially taking the firearms from Americans(Group 1). There is a much larger group of politicians who want some increased restrictions but will not support a ban/confiscation(Group 2). The third group want no increase in current restrictions and perhaps even less restrictions(Group 3). The trick is determining how much true clout each of those three groups have during any given administration.

IMO Group 1 is very much a minority. Group 2 may be a majority (or may not) but they have a real hard time agreeing on where to place the marker for the "right" level of gunowner rights...and in fact most everything else. Group 3 is also pretty strong and this fact has given us the greatest period in our history of Gun ownership (about the last 25 years) since 1968.

I collected before 1968 so I am old enough to have a bit of persepective on this issue (gun control) from a legal point of view, that many or most collectors do not have...at least first hand.

Few collectors during the late 60s or 70s or even early 80s thought that we would even have surplus arms imported again after the GCA68 killed it.....they were very very wrong!

Last remarks for now, when speaking of Group 1, it does no good to introduce reason, fact or logic into the argument.....they are way beyond all of that. Some in Group 2 will respond to that and some may not. My point is this: Only politicians from a fairly small number of districts and maybe 10 (or less) states assume that harsh gun control is a "safe" vote for them. The others, maybe about 80% total know full well that there is at least some and maybe a whole lot of political risk to their career in voting for substansial restrictions. Determining that line is what will be interesting. It is certainly an issue that can cause any Party in power to loose it and most of them know that.

**R_Hessian** · 12-03-2008, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by phild View Post

I've enjoyed most all of the posts in this thread, but I have to make a few points that I believe are key to the subject:

There is a core of politicians at every level who are very committed to essentially taking the firearms from Americans(Group 1). There is a much larger group of politicians who want some increased restrictions but will not support a ban/confiscation(Group 2). The third group want no increase in current restrictions and perhaps even less restrictions(Group 3). The trick is determining how much true clout each of those three groups have during any given administration.

IMO Group 1 is very much a minority. Group 2 may be a majority (or may not) but they have a real hard time agreeing on where to place the marker for the "right" level of gunowner rights...and in fact most everything else. Group 3 is also pretty strong and this fact has given us the greatest period in our history of Gun ownership (about the last 25 years) since 1968.

I collected before 1968 so I am old enough to have a bit of persepective on this issue (gun control) from a legal point of view, that many or most collectors do not have...at least first hand.

Few collectors during the late 60s or 70s or even early 80s thought that we would even have surplus arms imported again after the GCA68 killed it.....they were very very wrong!

Last remarks for now, when speaking of Group 1, it does no good to introduce reason, fact or logic into the argument.....they are way beyond all of that. Some in Group 2 will respond to that and some may not. My point is this: Only politicians from a fairly small number of districts and maybe 10 (or less) states assume that harsh gun control is a "safe" vote for them. The others, maybe about 80% total know full well that there is at least some and maybe a whole lot of political risk to their career in voting for substansial restrictions. Determining that line is what will be interesting. It is certainly an issue that can cause any Party in power to loose it and most of them know that.

Well said and I think realistic.

**ChrisCook** · 12-03-2008, 08:02 PM

Assault Weapons Ban

I keep returning to this thread, just like the Thanksgiving leftovers in the fridge....

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said "He who will sacrifice liberty for security, is entitled to neither." A lot of folks saw security in voting for Obama, it remains to be seen what will become of some of our gun liberties, especially when the House, Congress, and Presidency are controlled by one party that tends to have more folks that are anti-gun than pro-gun.

Someone did make a good point a couple threads back. The NRA did not just rubber stamp Republicans with "A" grades, and Democrats with "F" grades. Our newly elected Senator, Mark Begich (D), received a very positive rating from the NRA. By and large though, the F ratings tend to go Democrat.

That said, there has been a change in the Democrat party, it is not the party of FDR and Truman, rather it has been "infiltrated" by many who have ideological views that are far to the left. I also am disappointed, that as a Republican, the party of Reagan and fiscal conservatives seems to have been absent the past 8 years.

Getting back to the original purpose of this thread...it is remarkable how quickly prices have shot up on ammo, etc. I see a lot of gun stores are "sold out", and a lot of the internet dealers are on "backorder."

Chris...

**R_Hessian** · 12-03-2008, 08:55 PM

Thread

Adrian,

So far I think the responses to this thread have been "ok" considering how important this subject is to American members of WAF who spend most of their time on the Firearms forum. Some members have some very strong feelings on the issue and have done a pretty good job in the manner that they have responded. Then again I have been fairly easy going as a Mod.

I would also like the thread to continue as a place to exchange not only views but also updates as to possible changes to our gun rights that are unique to the USA.

Cheers,
Robert

Originally posted by Adrian Stevenson View Post

Hi Guys, regarding "political" threads. I have been reading this thread, as, I am sure our Mods here, Matt and Robert. Every subject can be made "political" and it is down to common sence and good judgement of the Mods where this line sometimes has to be drawn.

Should this thread have been in "Die K" it would have been closed down straight away. Gun control subjects are not allowed there under the rules of that forum.

This issue may well impact upon some US forum members who are collectors, so as long it the debate remains civil, I will allow it to run here.

Cheers, Ade.

Announcement

USA: Effects of reinstatement of the "assault weapons ban" on our collecting?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread