With friends like this, who needs enemies? Gun folks on gun bans and SD, AWB

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We all know of 'gun folks' who denounced EBRs in the past. We had the Fudd debates, ad nauseaum.

In the debates about teachers with guns, one might ask if they had been used successfully to prevent or stop a rampage. One classic case is discussed in the article cited. However, look at how the participant feels about it now. You would be unpleasantly surprised.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/school-shootings-teachers.html

Some choice bits:


“Teachers have to teach and that’s what they should be doing,” said Joel Myrick, the former assistant principal at a high school in Mississippi. “It doesn’t matter what a pistolero you are, or think you are, you don’t need to be in school in charge of protecting children.”

Little bit of nasty tone there, you think?


That was a topic Mr. Myrick, who vividly recalls the damage that a relatively slow lever-action rifle caused on a high school campus, wanted to discuss, too. “If Luke Woodham had an AR-15, he probably would have killed 20 people instead of two,” he said. “There’s not a soul on the planet who needs an AR-15 except military.”

If you read the pieces, it is the good old hunting guns only viewpoint. Why have a lever actions anyway? If you can't hunt with a single shot gun like one of the Rugers (nice rifles), you aren't a rifleman - are you?

Now, he mentions having retired police in the schools, etc. But insulting teachers who would step up - like I said with friends like this ...

I also don't see the need for hunting - in today's world - go buy a pot roast at the market. The Texas Tower rampage was conducted with hunting oriented firearms capable of multiple shots. Society doesn't need them as they could fire multiple rounds. Why just take out AR-15s? (satirical alert, folks).

Note - I have said elsewhere that when a politician or gun advocate tries to justify ARs as sporting or hunting, that's a trap that fools walk into.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Some more friends:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/02/20/gun-owner-makes-illegal-sbr/

[Kyle Reese]

This just buttresses my assertion that the other side isn’t interested in “having a conversation about guns”, nor are they interested in any sort of “compromise”. They have a laundry list of demands, and anything short of total acquiescence on our part is unacceptable to them.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mitch]

This just buttresses my assertion that the other side isn’t interested in “having a conversation about guns”, nor are they interested in any sort of “compromise”. They have a laundry list of demands, and anything short of total acquiescence on our part is unacceptable to them.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I refuse to “like” this, but it’s been proven to be 100% accurate to me in the last week. And frankly I’m really starting to lose my patience with people like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2018/02/a-veteran-on-the-need-to-control-civilian-arms/553709/

A veteran makes you an expert and more credible. Well, he says:


I can already hear the cries of hypocrisy directed at me, and maybe they are right. But I say I don't need the assault rifles I have, and I say that if we all need to turn them in, then we need to turn them in. That is a decision we need to discuss and make. We already banned sales once before however, and we can do that right now if we have the will. Whatever we do from here, though, we are going to be in your faces and telling you that it is time to stop the insanity.

Actually, that is not true. However, it is said everywhere. What was banned was some imports and guns with cosmetic features that looked evil. As research demonstrated, the AWB did nothing to reduce any crime indices. The reasons were existing stocks were sufficient for demand along with weapons of the same efficacy but lacking the cosmetic features.

This is a double edged sword because gun folks said: SEE, SEE - gun bans are silly! Antigun folks, with knowledge, said the ban was not extensive enough and didn't include confiscations.

Point being the average antigun person, reporter or writer doesn't understand the history of the AWB.

Also, repeatedly, no insight into the role of the 2nd Amend. - not hunting or sport or to support your tools.

[Joe in PNG]

Here's an interesting mental exercise.
List 10 countries who, since 1900:
-were not invaded by a foreign power
-were not threatened by imminent foreign invasion
-did not have a civil war
-did not have a dictatorial government

[Kyle Reese]

Here's an interesting mental exercise.
List 10 countries who, since 1900:
-were not invaded by a foreign power
-were not threatened by imminent foreign invasion
-did not have a civil war
-did not have a dictatorial governmentThat line of reasoning and logic will fall on deaf ears, unfortunately.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

That line of reasoning and logic will fall on deaf ears, unfortunately.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Nobody likes to think that governments are historically unstable things.

[Kyle Reese]

Nobody likes to think that governments are historically unstable things.Normalcy bias is a real thing.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[blues]

Also, repeatedly, no insight into the role of the 2nd Amend. - not hunting or sport or to support your tools.

Amen. It's friggin' baffling.

And the news media, (cough, CNN...Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon et al), like to keep pretending that it is, though they clearly know it isn't.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The only hunger referred to in the above is the hunger to be free of tyranny. What's so friggin' hard to understand?


They, (CNN talking heads and fellow travelers), would prefer to reserve armed insurrection for their various pet issues and "protection" from the police. They didn't seem to have any problem with "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" and "what do we want? dead cops! when do we want it? now!"

So, let's disarm and de-fang the police and anyone with a viewpoint opposing theirs, and arm their own so-called "freedom fighters". Imagine that. :rolleyes:

[Qaz98]

So, if ARs are banned - and then next kid uses a fixed stock Beretta 1301 - are they going to go after semiauto shotguns - which some would argue is way more lethal at these distances. My guess is yes...so first the AR...then the semiauto shotgun...No one has any reason to have a semiauto shotgun, an O/U will do just fine...

The "you don't need an AR" argument doesn't sway me. You don't need a Kawasaki Ninja to go 200MPH - but there you have it. You don't need ANY car to go over 80MPH except for law enforcement, so, everyone gets a Prius. And that doesn't even get to the point that NONE of the definitions of an "assault" weapon relate to functionality, but pure cosmetics. And thus, it brings us back to the point that an AR ban does not actually reduce school shootings/mass shootings, ONLY that it will stop these events with THIS weapon.

[RoyGBiv]

Here's an interesting mental exercise.
List 10 countries who, since 1900:
-were not invaded by a foreign power
-were not threatened by imminent foreign invasion
-did not have a civil war
-did not have a dictatorial government

... behind every blade of grass.... (https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/)

[Stephanie B]

Here's an interesting mental exercise.
List 10 countries who, since 1900:
-were not invaded by a foreign power
-were not threatened by imminent foreign invasion
-did not have a civil war
-did not have a dictatorial government

Problem is, points 1 and 2 have more to do with having seacoasts than anything else. And that's overlooking the Battle of Columbus, NM in 1916.

(Back it out to 1800 and things look different.)

[Joe in PNG]

Problem is, points 1 and 2 have more to do with having seacoasts than anything else. And that's overlooking the Battle of Columbus, NM in 1916.

(Back it out to 1800 and things look different.)

If we open it up to include naval battles, the potential list decreases considerably.
And yes, Pancho Villa was considered.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If we are discussing WW II and the USA, there was no immediate plans for the Japanese or the Germans to contemplate 'invasions' of the Continental USA. The gun beyond every corn stalk mantra is mythological if you look the scholarly record of Japanese plans. Their plan was to intimidate the USA by sinking a substantial part of the Navy such that we would negotiate a settlement with them to allow conquest of SE Asia. The Philippines was not really of interest except to protect their flanks on the way to the Dutch East Indies. Germany might have contemplated war with the USA in the the distant future but there was some boasting BS before WW II. In Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, 1934-1941 by Shirer, he mentions a pre-war conversation with a Nazi who boasted they would attack from Africa to Brazil and then up the continents to us. Now that would have been an exciting logistic enterprise. No real indications of any long term planning. Even the Nazi naval plans for 1948 ish (when their Navy wanted to fight) could match the US build up.

Anyway, I don't think having ARs for defense against organized foreign military will be a useful argument. Defense against border crossing bad people or terrorists - perhaps. I once got into an argument and banned somewhere for telling a guy who said there were 50,000 Chinese on the TX border or in the port of Los Angeles planning to march to TX and take our guns, that he was full of it. Nasty interchange. The question of the logistic train for 50,000 Chinese troops down I-10 to TX stumped him. Not enough take out in Van Horn, I suppose.

[RevolverRob]

Here's an interesting mental exercise.
List 10 countries who, since 1900:
-were not invaded by a foreign power
-were not threatened by imminent foreign invasion
-did not have a civil war
-did not have a dictatorial government

Did the country have to be established prior to 1900?

If yes:

Canada
United States
Switzerland
Andorra
Vatican City
Australia
Iceland
Sweden*
New Zealand
South Africa**

*If you don't count "Nazi-leaning neutrality" as a dictatorial government.

**But only if you take a strict definition of "dictatorial" government and say that Apartheid was not "dictatorial".

[Joe in PNG]

Did the country have to be established prior to 1900?

If yes:

Canada
United States
Switzerland
Andorra
Vatican City
Australia
Iceland
Sweden*
New Zealand
South Africa**

*If you don't count "Nazi-leaning neutrality" as a dictatorial government.

**But only if you take a strict definition of "dictatorial" government and say that Apartheid was not "dictatorial".

Well, we can knock a few countries off that list:
Australia was under threat from Japanese invasion via PNG.
South Africa fought the Second Boer War against England, which ended in 1902.
Iceland was "invaded" by England during WWII
Andorra was occupied by the French in 1933

[TQP]

Well, we can knock a few countries off that list:
Australia was under threat from Japanese invasion via PNG.
South Africa fought the Second Boer War against England, which ended in 1902.
Iceland was "invaded" by England during WWII
Andorra was occupied by the French in 1933

I think the insurgency in SA in the 80s counts as civil war.

[RevolverRob]

Well, we can knock a few countries off that list:
Australia was under threat from Japanese invasion via PNG.
South Africa fought the Second Boer War against England, which ended in 1902.
Iceland was "invaded" by England during WWII
Andorra was occupied by the French in 1933

You said "threat of imminent foreign invasion". Most scholars would not consider an invasion of Australia imminent at any point during WW2. Maybe, maybe, PNG, but that's debatable.

Andorra's "occupation" by France can't be a foreign invasion. Andorra is an independent principality that co-principles in Spain and France. So, while technically a country, this would be the equivalent of having English troops show up to help quell some riots in Canada and calling it "an invasion by the English".

[Joe in PNG]

You said "threat of imminent foreign invasion". Most scholars would not consider an invasion of Australia imminent at any point during WW2. Maybe, maybe, PNG, but that's debatable.
The Japanese twice tried to invade Port Moresby- once by sea, which we stopped at the Battle of the Coral Sea at great cost, and once by land over the Kokoda Track- which the Aussies stopped at great cost. The whole purpose of the exercise was to have a place to invade Australia from. Because there's no point in taking POM- the place is a serious dump.


Andorra's "occupation" by France can't be a foreign invasion. Andorra is an independent principality that co-principles in Spain and France. So, while technically a country, this would be the equivalent of having English troops show up to help quell some riots in Canada and calling it "an invasion by the English".
Then is it really "independent"?

[RevolverRob]

The Japanese twice tried to invade Port Moresby- once by sea, which we stopped at the Battle of the Coral Sea at great cost, and once by land over the Kokoda Track- which the Aussies stopped at great cost. The whole purpose of the exercise was to have a place to invade Australia from. Because there's no point in taking POM- the place is a serious dump.


Then is it really "independent"?

As independent as Vatican City -

We could (potentially) add Liechtenstein to the list, although its "independence" from Austria at the end of WW1 may make it ineligible under your criteria. But...Austria didn't technically exist as a country then either. Liechtenstein definitely pre-dates your 1900 date as a principality of the Holy Roman Empire (indeed, the only remaining one today)...but was part of the German Confederation and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[Joe in PNG]

The thing is, a lot of people seem to believe that their present peaceful circumstances will continue unchanged forever.
But, that kind of peace is a rare thing, even in this enlightened age.

[Duelist]

That is a surprising position for the man to take. And a bit odd. I have always thought that if Mr. Myrick had his pistol on his person instead of unloaded in his vehicle, he could have done something sooner and perhaps prevented some injuries.

I consider the idea that a person licensed, vetted, trained, and trusted to teach and guide young people - the idea that such a person SHOULD NOT be allowed the choice to protect those children constructively if murder comes knocking, but instead be expected to make do with hope, suicide charges, makeshift weapons, and becoming a body shield - this idea is insulting, nonsensical, and lacking in logic and sound judgement.

[Hambo]

I have said elsewhere that when a politician or gun advocate tries to justify ARs as sporting or hunting, that's a trap that fools walk into.

Whoever coined the term Modern Sporting Rifle walked right into that one.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree - the NRA and NSSF went for it. They tried the technique to excuse owning the gun rather than vigorously defending its Constitutional protection. I note that in the current debate the choir fights about its an assualt rifle vs. its an assault rifle have disappeared. Folks tried to mock antigun folks for using the wrong term. The assault boom-boom is really the German WWII DahDunkergreehwererboomemsticken - blah, blah. So my AR is 'nice' as it is semi auto. No common sense in understanding appearance. Oh, dear, you said it had a 30 round clip - you are an antigun idiot!!

The progun organizations really lacked the intellectual depth (harsh to say) to understand the debate. By calling it 'sporting' they gave away the game in part. If someone walked into a school and killed 17 people with a bowling ball, we'd license and control those.

If they knew their stuff - they would know that the Australians and UK shooters tried the sports defense for their guns. It failed. The Australians thought that all men should have a sport - by defining guns as their sport, other Australians would say - why of course, you need your lethal instruments of sport. Didn't work. Same in the UK.

The tool argument is another gun choir cliche failure.

IMHO - the NRA wasn't and isn't up to the strategic challenge of protecting the basis for gun ownerships beyond spouting cliches that get them money from the limited gun constituency. They tied themselves to babbling other social conservative crap and thinking the GOP leadership will protect them or even believed the cliches. Maybe a few do but that's it. Here's a point - do the antigun organizations make a big deal selling wine? Think about it. Yes, they are the major game in town but that doesn't mean they have thought this out.

They are losing the battle for the young by not being able to handle the face validity of the proposition that higher capacity guns and EBRs are too dangerous for the general public. Their wedding of the organization to social conservatism will turn off half the youth of the country instantly. Will many of these kids later be interested in firearms?

Bleak picture isn't it. As I mentioned, the sporting crowd doesn't buy MSRs as a valid descriptor or defense for ownership. They are fun to shoot, so what. You can hunt with them, so what. You can have shooting fun with less 'intense' weapons. A bolt action rifle is fine for most all hunting. You can defend your house with a SW Model 10. Why 5 is enough!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Marco strikes a blow for the RKBA?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/marco-rubio-age-limit-rifles-421647


Jeered and booed by the crowd, buffeted by tough questions, Rubio stood alone as the only Republican onstage, in purple Florida’s liberal bastion of Broward County. He broke with President Trump on whether to arm teachers. Rubio said it was a bad idea. He said he would favor raising the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle from 18 to 21. And he said he would consider restricting the size of magazines for firearms.

[Wyoming Shooter]

How are you all handling this on a micro level? I'm the senior warden (chairman of the board) of our local Episcopal church. Since the FL school shooting, our church clergy (two rectors, one deacon) have been prolific in their social media support of AWB and their condemnation of the NRA. Their accounts are in their own names, and they do not purport to represent the position of the church. These are good people who are reacting passionately, however misguided. I refuse to post about gun control, or any other political issues on social media. What to do? Thoughts? Suggestions? Best, ELN.

[Darth_Uno]

I pretty much avoid it on FB. Besides a few relatives nearly all my FB friends (all 141 of them) are strongly pro-gun anyway.

I have told the people at church who need to know that if we adopt a "no guns" policy (it was suggested) that I would blatantly ignore it.

And that's the problem. The lady who suggested it is not an evil person. She's very nice, in fact. I'd hardly call her my enemy. And she didn't bring it up out of any malice, she had what she believed was everyone's best interests in mind. She's not even rabidly anti-gun, until now I don't think she ever said a word about it either way. That's just her opinion and there's no convincing her that simply saying, "You can't do this anymore," won't fix anything. Another guy, who hunts and I know for a fact owns several handguns (I've shot with him on private property) said he doesn't know why anyone needs "30 round clips". These are good people, they're not otherwise liberal (the guy voted for Trump). How do you convince them to, if not switch teams, at least leave you alone?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a staunch conservative for you:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/24/parkland-school-shooting-guns-congress-217080?lo=ap_f1

Note that he helped ban plastic guns like the Glock 7 - http://diehard.wikia.com/wiki/Glock_7


Author:


Mickey Edwards is former national chairman of the American Conservative Union and founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation. He is a retired Republican member of Congress from Oklahoma.

[Joe in PNG]

In my study of history, I've noticed the following principle: If your group, class, political party, whatever- if you won't keep arms, then you won't keep power.
If you separate your people with arms into a separate class, eventually that class will be running things.

Which is one of the reasons the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment- if you recognized the right of everyone to keep arms, you create a counterbalance to this tendency. It's another version of Separation of Powers, in which the State does not have a monopoly on the means of force. No ambitious general or demagogue can easily take over the country by winning over the armed forces.

[Hambo]

Add my congressman, Brian Mast, to the list.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/brian-mast-assault-weapons-ban.html

Thanks for nothing, asshole.

[blues]

Add my congressman, Brian Mast, to the list.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/brian-mast-assault-weapons-ban.html

Thanks for nothing, asshole.

I saw him on the news the other day...perhaps it'd be better if he were tied to the mast and flogged for his transgression. Another RINO.


(That's sarcasm to you all out there monitoring my posts from outer space. Don't make me get my Reynold's Wrap!)

[shane45]

Some fence sitters told me they are finding this helpful to bring them back to the correct side of this argument.

Why are we allowing the liberal left to determine the narrative and course of action in protecting our children? In today’s society we clearly accept armed protection in many facets of our society. We pay men to carry guns to protect pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters being transported from stores to banks as well as deposits. We accept armed guards in banks. We accept armed guards to protect famous people and politicians. We accept high police presence in major events. We accept armed security in jewelry stores. Yet public schools that are clearly suffering from being targeted remain largely unprotected. Why is that? I have had a number of police officers relay stories to me on how they were picking up or dropping off their kids to school in uniform and were in some cases asked, in others told, they were not welcome on school grounds while in uniform and carrying a weapon as it made some staff members uncomfortable. Add all the gun free school zone rhetoric and all the resistance to police and armed security in schools and it becomes clear that the liberal left bias is what is keeping our schools from being properly protected. Why are we tolerating the least qualified group to assess and mitigate the risk to our children?

Is it better if our kids are stabbed to death or blown up instead of being shot? Countries like Japan and China have suffered school killing sprees at the hands of evil men with knives that rival the number dead in American school shootings. Many are completely unaware that Columbine was planned as a bombing. Those two perpetrators had planned to bomb the cafeteria at lunch and then detonate a line of explosives out front specifically directed at the police, fire and ems first responders. So that would indicate to me that focusing all this energy on gun control is a complete waste of time and effort. See something say something? Clearly that isn’t working either! Case after case reveals everyone said something to include to the top Law Enforcement agency in the country! The evidence is already in front of everyone. People and systems will fail. Other people will never trigger the system to begin with! Look up John David LaDue for a case study of a threat that could have easily went undetected if it weren’t for a timely glance out of a window.

Is arming teachers and faculty the answer? In my opinion it is not. To me it is a half measure. I believe that people should have the right to defend themselves. However, armed faculty are not going to have a duty to run towards the sound of gunfire! There may be a few that think that way but I don’t think that will be the vast majority. Why are we exploring half measures instead of embracing the fact that the only way to protect unarmed people is with armed people assigned to their protection! This is evident everywhere else in our society. I would think that every town in America has the ability to add to its police force and assign them to their schools. This might actually help with the drug problems that seem to be affecting just about every school in America as well. But Im not talking about adding 1 person for 3700 students. Clearly no risk and response analysis went on there! But this would cost money. Is that an issue? Are we going to spend money to protect money and valuables but we as a society are unwilling to spend money to protect children? I don’t think that’s the case. My conclusion is that we have fallen short of putting the correct response in place because we cant get past hurting the feelings of the liberal left that have infested the school systems. I don’t want to hear their cries about creating a police state in schools. I don’t want to hear one more stupid plan to have all the kids throw books or soup cans at an assailant! I don’t want to hear about teachers having a session in school with nerf guns to work out their own strategies. I hate to inform the faculty but the fact of the matter is that every kid with an X-Box has more tactical prowess than the vast majority of teachers at any school. I want to hear from experts that have a proven track record of providing actual security. Does it sit right with everyone that all of congress operates in a armed protected environment but its unthinkable by many of these politicians to provide any armed security for our children? In my opinion, this is why NOTHING has changed. The evidence is overwhelming that banning anything never solves anything or actually protects anyone. Banning only insures that the bad guys are better armed than the law abiding good guys. Lets not forget that a good guy with an AR15 stopped the church shooter in Texas. You CAN’T ban evil determination. I will be just as heartbroken for every child killed by a gun, a bomb, a knife, a sword, or a gallon of gas. I want them protected from as many threats as possible with someone capable of providing that protection. The time for allowing the liberal left to determine the protection for everyone’s children needs to end! We need to counter the bleating of the liberal left with a solid loud voice of logic, reason and something that will certainly be more effective.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So what for the strong support from the GOP - Rep. Peter King (R) of Long Island, NY joining with a Democratic rep. to put together a bill including all the current measure including the assault weapons ban as all of America wants this done. It is not rocket science. However, don't worry, they are not coming to take your guns.

[blues]

So what for the strong support from the GOP - Rep. Peter King (R) of Long Island, NY joining with a Democratic rep. to put together a bill including all the current measure including the assault weapons ban as all of America wants this done. It is not rocket science. However, don't worry, they are not coming to take your guns.

He hasn't owned a sterling reputation when it comes to the issue of gun control, our Mr. King. The NRA has rated him a D in the past. I don't know what his current rating is.

[LSP552]

So what for the strong support from the GOP - Rep. Peter King (R) of Long Island, NY joining with a Democratic rep. to put together a bill including all the current measure including the assault weapons ban as all of America wants this done. It is not rocket science. However, don't worry, they are not coming to take your guns.

An R behind the name doesn’t mean shit anymore, if it ever really did. I’m a single issue voter on the 2nd, period! Without the 2nd, there really isn’t a guarantee of the others.

[blues]

An R behind the name doesn’t mean shit anymore, if it ever really did. I’m a single issue voter on the 2nd, period! Without the 2nd, there really isn’t a guarantee of the others.

There was a time when I'd have disagreed with that stance. Things change.

[LSP552]

There was a time when I'd have disagreed with that stance. Things change.

Understand that. The lines have definitely blurred over the years, and more so lately.

[OlongJohnson]

There was a time when I'd have disagreed with that stance. Things change.

It's sad that this is the way it is. D's continually pushing gun control to where it's at this point means that the R's can basically do whatever they want on other issues without repercussion, and they know it. Gun control is in reality a good-cop-bad-cop, divide-and-conquer strategy that the pols use against all the rest of us.

[RoyGBiv]

He hasn't owned a sterling reputation when it comes to the issue of gun control, our Mr. King. The NRA has rated him a D in the past. I don't know what his current rating is.

R, for RINO?

[OlongJohnson]

Missing the point.