America votes yes on guns

[jetfire]

Sorry for the cheeseball title, but October was another month of record gun sales (https://gatdaily.com/october-is-another-month-of-record-gun-sales/).


The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, has released the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) results for the month of October, and we’ve had another month of incredible numbers from firearms retailers. October had 1.76 million NICS checks for a firearm sale/transfer, giving us another month of record gun sales.

What's interesting for me in all of this is 1) we are selling a shitload of guns, and 2) how does this affect gun control's long term prospects? NSSF estimates that 5-8 million new gun owners have entered the market, and while I'm sure some of them would turn their guns in, I'm sure an even larger number have taken a look at the current state of the country and decided "fuck this, I am keeping my shit."

[peterb]

Sorry for the cheeseball title, but October was another month of record gun sales (https://gatdaily.com/october-is-another-month-of-record-gun-sales/).



What's interesting for me in all of this is 1) we are selling a shitload of guns, and 2) how does this affect gun control's long term prospects? NSSF estimates that 5-8 million new gun owners have entered the market, and while I'm sure some of them would turn their guns in, I'm sure an even larger number have taken a look at the current state of the country and decided "fuck this, I am keeping my shit."

If a sizeable percentage of those sales are new owners, it's positive.

[Totem Polar]

Sorry for the cheeseball title, but October was another month of record gun sales (https://gatdaily.com/october-is-another-month-of-record-gun-sales/).



What's interesting for me in all of this is 1) we are selling a shitload of guns, and 2) how does this affect gun control's long term prospects? NSSF estimates that 5-8 million new gun owners have entered the market, and while I'm sure some of them would turn their guns in, I'm sure an even larger number have taken a look at the current state of the country and decided "fuck this, I am keeping my shit."

I feel what you’re putting down, vespa dog. Clearly, more guns = more vested interest in keeping them. My only caveat is that many (though certainly not all) of the 5-8 mil newbies are, by default, reactive and not proactive. Probably not the types to dump tea in a harbor, rather: they’re the type to wait and see who wins: the tea dumpers or the east india tea big money rule makers.

As God is my witness, I have absolutely no idea how to estimate the numbers that would fall on each side of the “I’m keeping my shit/roll over and show your belly” line. I doubt anyone else does either. Hell, maybe the newbs are *more* inclined to put up a vocal stink than many old guard Fudds—I just don’t know.

[peterb]

As God is my witness, I have absolutely no idea how to estimate the numbers that would fall on each side of the “I’m keeping my shit/roll over and show your belly” line. I doubt anyone else does either. Hell, maybe the newbs are *more* inclined to put up a vocal stink than many old guard Fudds—I just don’t know.

It's a huge step that when they hear "gun owner", they'll think "people like me" instead of "those people".

[Bergeron]

I don't think that anyone, including the new people, are buying all of these guns just to turn around and turn them in.

[Suvorov]

Cool story,

It may help people here swallow this bitter pill and those here who voted for Biden/Harris, may serve to help them rationalize their decision, but as a person who has been stuck behind enemy lines for the past 20 years I will tell you that it doesn’t matter a hill of beans. Increased gun numbers in California hasn’t stopped the Democrats who run this state from passing every anti gun law they can imagine. And Harris was a huge part of it all.

The only solace I will find will be in the wailing and gnashing of teeth from our Ephialtes members when they find out their Xerxese is not as kind as they thought him to be.

[Totem Polar]

It's a huge step that when they hear "gun owner", they'll think "people like me" instead of "those people".

Not to be debbie downer, but I’m just not sure that all of the purported new gun owners have taken that mental step. My sense is that a non-trivial number have a “if those fuckers can have guns to wave around, I better get one too...” mindset.

Now, absolutely, some will get bit by the bug, because, shooting = a ton of fun, but that only goes for the folks that engage in the concept enough to actually go out and shoot more than a magazine full.

All that said, in 2018, a Swiss firearms researching organization estimated that the USA owned 393 million guns. (!) Given the buying track record of late, that figure would now have to be way over 400 million firearms, so just the sheer numbers make negative regulation a real uphill battle.

[Hambo]

Not to be debbie downer, but I’m just not sure that all of the purported new gun owners have taken that mental step.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people who previously owned guns haven't taken that step. "Gun owners" have not been a cohesive group. Throw in the possibility of becoming a felon, and a lot of tough talkers will get weak in the knees.

[Caballoflaco]

If a lot of the new gun owners are more on the liberal side of things a lot of them will still happily turn over their new blasters as they’ll see it as their duty to make that personal sacrifice for the betterment of society. But, just like paying extra taxes they won’t do it until a law is passed and they feel like doing so won’t put them at a disadvantage compared to society as a whole.

Nature vs nurture yada yada, it’s interesting to me how as the same species our brains can be wired so differently.

[Jim Watson]

No way to guess relative proportions, but I think that a lot of the nervous urbanite gun buyers will back anti gunners who want to restrict people like me and members here. We have LOTS of guns, we SHOOT them frequently, and we are GOOD with them. That is scary to somebody who might have fired a box of scarce ammo in a CCW class or the similar basic class the range here holds in a no training required jurisdiction.

[LittleLebowski]

I don't have any faith whatsoever in the new gun buyer's ability to correlate voting, rights, and guns.

[Nephrology]

I don't have any faith whatsoever in the new gun buyer's ability to correlate voting, rights, and guns.

I anticipate a lot of these guns will end up at pawn shops in the next 6-12 months, but that will depend a lot on where our country goes I guess.

[Suvorov]

I don't have any faith whatsoever in the new gun buyer's ability to correlate voting, rights, and guns.

That has been my experience in over 10 years working as an RSO at one of the few gun ranges in the SF Bay Area. Lots of “kids with cool toys” and people who want something for home defense but when it comes to understanding how their votes (or lack thereof) contributes to anti-gun laws, there is little understanding or willingness to understand. Attitudes of “who cares - I got mine” and the belief that they won’t be affected are very strong with many I attempt to converse with.

[SecondsCount]

I don't have any faith whatsoever in the new gun buyer's ability to correlate voting, rights, and guns.

You're quite right. I'm certain there are a million gun owning union workers that voted for Biden, as well as hunters who aren't worried about their shotgun or bolt action being taken away.

[Nephrology]

Attitudes of “who cares - I got mine” and the belief that they won’t be affected are very strong with many I attempt to converse with.

you'd think living in California of all places would make folks a little more receptive to feedback on this topic...

[blues]

As the great Nancy Pelosi (sarcasm intended) said..."People will do what they do."

And to paraphrase The Donald, There are some very fine people (and miscreants) on both sides.

Our side has no monopoly on genius nor ethics...however unfortunate that may be.

[45dotACP]

To assume all these new gun owners are single issue gun only voters is as uninformed as assuming this doesn't shift the calculus of the gun debate in a major way.

How it shifts the debate is probably something that remains to be seen.

I think it means we'll see the assault weapons bans slowly morph into attempts to put assault weapons on the NFA on a federal level and let the states do whatever.

In the preceding 30 years, people wanted to make handguns illegal...some municipalities even did. Chicago for instance. But more and more legal battles went our way (McDonald, Heller, etc) and so banning all handguns is taking a back seat for the anti gunners and they're focused more on something they see as being easier to win so they can build momentum.

Despite the facts that mass shootings are rare, the people they kill are the people that all the suburbanite fence sitters care about. Little suburb kids, concert go-ers, college students.

Most victims of murder are killed by handguns in personal, nasty little bursts of violence. Domestic violence, violence related to criminal enterprise. Most of them in the same geographic area.

Let's face it...nobody gives a fuck about gang violence on the Chicago south side. Avoid the south side and you probably won't see the muzzle of a gun in your whole life. But a school shooting? Well it's less likely than many of the other forms of murder, but suddenly you've got people feeling vulnerable and the anti gun groups exploit that.

Easy win for anti gunners right? After that, they can rebuild the focus on "comprehensive gun reform" or basically "making everything but bolt guns and double barrel shotguns illegal"

They didn't count on this level of resistance and they don't understand, even still, how much gun rights figure into American politics.

Gun owners are a massive voting force. More is always better IMO. Now our responsibility is to train them and teach them the value of these rights and the burden of its responsibility.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[okie john]

How it shifts the debate is probably something that remains to be seen.

...MASSIVE SNIP...

Now our responsibility is to train them and teach them the value of these rights and the burden of its responsibility.

This X 1000.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring millions of new people into the fold.

When I worked on a commercial range, I found that it was better to start by teaching them to shoot and making it fun, then getting to the political angle once everything was back in the case. If you lead with politics, then you never get to show them how much fun it can be.


Okie John

[trailrunner]

This time last year, VA finally got the majority in the both chambers of our general assembly, and with a D governor, it was obvious that they were going to push lots of gun laws. I had three friends in my organization that had an interest in guns. After the election last year, I *begged* them to join VCDL (our state-level gun-rights organization), but none of them did. One guy recently moved to VA from NJ, and he was enjoying his freedom in VA by buying lots of toys and getting a CCW permit, but he wouldn't do anything to protect his rights. I would've thought that coming from NJ, he would have first-hand experience of what we don't want VA to become, but he couldn't get off his ass and do a little advocacy. My other friend called me last June in a bit of a panic. He was worried about the riots and suddenly wanted to buy an AR and wanted my advice. He also won't do any advocacy. All three of these guys lean pretty right, but still won't do anything, despite my pleading.




All that said, in 2018, a Swiss firearms researching organization estimated that the USA owned 393 million guns. (!) Given the buying track record of late, that figure would now have to be way over 400 million firearms, so just the sheer numbers make negative regulation a real uphill battle.

I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think this might be an important factor. Just the sheer number of ARs and other semi-autos will count for something. I can't envision a nation-wide buyback or even a ban on future sales at the national level. The elephant is too big, so it will be eaten state-by-state.

The statistic I'd really like to see is the number of ARs owned in 1994 when the first AWB was passed, and what that number is now, both in terms of number of actual guns, and people who own these guns. Same thing for CCW permits across the nation. That has probably gone up by a huge factor. The 1994 AWB also restricted pistol mags to 10 rounds, and if all those people who got a CCW permit and a Glock 19 since 1994 realize that an AWB could affect their everyday gun, there will be more pushback.

[Crow Hunter]

This time last year, VA finally got the majority in the both chambers of our general assembly, and with a D governor, it was obvious that they were going to push lots of gun laws. I had three friends in my organization that had an interest in guns. After the election last year, I *begged* them to join VCDL (our state-level gun-rights organization), but none of them did. One guy recently moved to VA from NJ, and he was enjoying his freedom in VA by buying lots of toys and getting a CCW permit, but he wouldn't do anything to protect his rights. I would've thought that coming from NJ, he would have first-hand experience of what we don't want VA to become, but he couldn't get off his ass and do a little advocacy. My other friend called me last June in a bit of a panic. He was worried about the riots and suddenly wanted to buy an AR and wanted my advice. He also won't do any advocacy. All three of these guys lean pretty right, but still won't do anything, despite my pleading.




I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think this might be an important factor. Just the sheer number of ARs and other semi-autos will count for something. I can't envision a nation-wide buyback or even a ban on future sales at the national level. The elephant is too big, so it will be eaten state-by-state.

The statistic I'd really like to see is the number of ARs owned in 1994 when the first AWB was passed, and what that number is now, both in terms of number of actual guns, and people who own these guns. Same thing for CCW permits across the nation. That has probably gone up by a huge factor. The 1994 AWB also restricted pistol mags to 10 rounds, and if all those people who got a CCW permit and a Glock 19 since 1994 realize that an AWB could affect their everyday gun, there will be more pushback.

We need to make sure that everyone understands this. Honestly, most don't. I have a friend at work, who used to support a renewed AWB because he didn't see the need for someone to have an assault weapon for hunting or high capacity magazines. This was right after the Las Vegas shooting.

In his mind, an "assault weapon" was a machine gun and a high capacity magazine was a 100rd drum.

He didn't understand that if it was semi-auto and had a detachable magazine, like his favorite 10/22, it was an assault weapon. He didn't think the magazines for his Glock 17 were affected because it wasn't a "machine gun" and he didn't realize that his Beretta duck gun was also on the list.

Once I showed him the actual verbiage in the legislation, he has changed his mind but I bet is still susceptible to accepting legislation that doesn't sound like it affects him and he is an active gun owner. He isn't someone that bought 1 gun and put it in a drawer somewhere. He hunts and shoots a bunch.

[KellyinAvon]

There were new gun owners early in the year when people figured out they had to secure their toilet paper, hand-sanitizer, and booze. Later when the riots started people realized that calling 911 wouldn't bring the cavalry as fast as it used to, more new gun owners.

A lot of new gun owners, no new Fudds.

[BWT]

I am pushing for the 2nd Amendment to be a civil rights issue and not a partisan issue.

I’m praying that’s the way forward and how it ensures.

Talked with a somewhat liberal person today about the root of gun control in Jim Crow Law’s.

[Paul D]

I'm afraid a lot of these new gun owners are like people who buy their first gym membership on New Year's Day....

[LHS]

You're quite right. I'm certain there are a million gun owning union workers that voted for Biden, as well as hunters who aren't worried about their shotgun or bolt action being taken away.

As a kid growing up on the Ohio river, I can distinctly remember seeing many pickups with "From my cold dead hands" bumper stickers right next to "Re-elect Howard Metzenbaum" stickers. For those of you who didn't grow up in that time and place, Metzenbaum used to regularly try to submit legislations to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment. But he was also just as virulently pro-union, and the upper Ohio valley was (and still is) a union-dominated area.

[fixer]

I don't have any faith whatsoever in the new gun buyer's ability to correlate voting, rights, and guns.

This right here. Apparently a huge number of new gun owners think jackshit of the 2A.

[paherne]

Sorry for the cheeseball title, but October was another month of record gun sales (https://gatdaily.com/october-is-another-month-of-record-gun-sales/).



What's interesting for me in all of this is 1) we are selling a shitload of guns, and 2) how does this affect gun control's long term prospects? NSSF estimates that 5-8 million new gun owners have entered the market, and while I'm sure some of them would turn their guns in, I'm sure an even larger number have taken a look at the current state of the country and decided "fuck this, I am keeping my shit."

All of the Dem/Lib gunowners will pull the "F it, I got mine" and vote for more gun control. Gun shops should have made them register (R) and make a confession video acknowledging their past sins prior to letting them buy guns.

[Bigghoss]

I've met plenty of gun owners that support gun control. I work with a guy that owns a pistol and a rifle and thinks "that's all anyone needs". I've even met Trump supporters that are in favor of gun control. More legal gun owners is always a good thing but it doesn't neccisarily mean more pro2A voters. Hell, I had a follower on Instagram that was posting pics holding his AKs and a bunch of other guns with the hashtag #Biden2020 (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=Biden2020) and a bunch of other pro-biden stuff.

[okie john]

I'm afraid a lot of these new gun owners are like people who buy their first gym membership on New Year's Day....

Yes. And it's our job to turn them into power lifters. We won't get them all, but we can get a lot of them.


Okie John

[BillSWPA]

Yes. And it's our job to turn them into power lifters. We won't get them all, but we can get a lot of them.


Okie John

Quoted because I can only click like once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rcbusmc24]

Everybody can be sold, it just might take a different pitch to get them......

[peterb]

When I worked on a commercial range, I found that it was better to start by teaching them to shoot and making it fun, then getting to the political angle once everything was back in the case. If you lead with politics, then you never get to show them how much fun it can be.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Shooting stuff — especially reactive targets — is much more appealing than listening to a political lecture.

[BWT]

This X 1000.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring millions of new people into the fold.

When I worked on a commercial range, I found that it was better to start by teaching them to shoot and making it fun, then getting to the political angle once everything was back in the case. If you lead with politics, then you never get to show them how much fun it can be.


Okie John

100% This. Let them enjoy it. We didn’t all start where we are.

I’m excited by the sheer number of folks in gun stores these days that have no idea what they’re looking at, but they’re buying stuff!

The gun shortage right now isn’t from traditional gun folks. It’s from new gun owners and their desire to get guns.

Easy to see plot-holes in the narrative after you have a gun to defend yourself.

[shootist26]

100% This. Let them enjoy it. We didn’t all start where we are.

I’m excited by the sheer number of folks in gun stores these days that have no idea what they’re looking at, but they’re buying stuff!

The gun shortage right now isn’t from traditional gun folks. It’s from new gun owners and their desire to get guns.

Easy to see plot-holes in the narrative after you have a gun to defend yourself.90% of these new gun owners will put it in a sock drawer and forget about it. Then when the next round of gun bans comes around they'll spout on and on about how "as a gun owner, I support these restrictions!"

[BWT]

90% of these new gun owners will put it in a sock drawer and forget about it. Then when the next round of gun bans comes around they'll spout on and on about how "as a gun owner, I support these restrictions!"

My mom grew up in CA and marched at Vietnam Anti-War protests.

Last night she was talking to me about how concerned she was about the Democrats stealing the election.

People can change.

[Sero Sed Serio]

90% of these new gun owners will put it in a sock drawer and forget about it. Then when the next round of gun bans comes around they'll spout on and on about how "as a gun owner, I support these restrictions!"

Some yes. But I think a lot more will realize that it’s not easier to buy a gun than a book, and realize that an AWB targets “normal people” like them with a Glock 19. Or maybe I just hope they will. At a bare minimum, it will be a lot harder to pull the wool over their eyes with blatant misinformation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A competent progun organization would start a program to identity purple or red state (surviving Democrats) legislators and point out this movement and how tempering the party's antipathy to gun rights is would be productive. The margins for Joe were small. He could have used more votes from the hold your nose but its for gun rights crowd. Put this trend on the cover of the NRA magazines as a signal for openness beyond only one political orientation. The positive GOP congressional and state legislative results should indicate that pushing the more left totems of gun control may not be a good idea.

[Joe in PNG]

A competent progun organization would start a program to identity purple or red state (surviving Democrats) legislators and point out this movement and how tempering the party's antipathy to gun rights is would be productive. The margins for Joe were small. He could have used more votes from the hold your nose but its for gun rights crowd. Put this trend on the cover of the NRA magazines as a signal for openness beyond only one political orientation. The positive GOP congressional and state legislative results should indicate that pushing the more left totems of gun control may not be a good idea.

And then Bloomberg comes in and primaries that person out of office.
This isn't a one way thing, nor is it happening in a vacuum.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So give up under the threat of the Almighty Bloomberg. That's your call.

In any case, caught the hint for this paper from Greg Ellifritz's weekly summary.

Here's a paper on the gun buying changes: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3593956

Take aways:

1. Significant increase in gun buying across party lines. Both Republican and Democratic leaning states.
2. Purpose is self-defense
3. Antigun folks find this troublesome and suggest some anti suicide and accident prevention measures.

So much for the gun is not a weapon folks. These folks are not buying tools or toys.

[Eyesquared]

So give up under the threat of the Almighty Bloomberg. That's your call.

In any case, caught the hint for this paper from Greg Ellifritz's weekly summary.

Here's a paper on the gun buying changes: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3593956

Take aways:

1. Significant increase in gun buying across party lines. Both Republican and Democratic leaning states.
2. Purpose is self-defense
3. Antigun folks find this troublesome and suggest some anti suicide and accident prevention measures.

So much for the gun is not a weapon folks. These folks are not buying tools or toys.

Obviously the major events pushing people to buy guns recently were COVID19 and rioting in the streets and probably not for hunting and plinking. In my view the media coverage of COVID19 has been politically motivated, and obviously so are the riots/protests themselves. With Democrats in power the incentives will change and I expect to see COVID downplayed and less support from the mainstream left for riots. So with the original impetus for buying guns gone, will these last minute gun buyers really remember why they bought guns in the first place, or will they just feel foolish for giving into their fear at the last minute only for nothing to happen?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That might happen but one might ask how many will keep them? Some of you folks don't want any progress to expanding gun ownership. Wah, wah - some will won't be like our club. Kick them out of the tree house. Mighty Mike will crush us. Give me a break.

[Eyesquared]

That might happen but one might ask how many will keep them? Some of you folks don't want any progress to expanding gun ownership. Wah, wah - some will won't be like our club. Kick them out of the tree house. Mighty Mike will crush us. Give me a break.

I think you are mistaking what I think for what I want. Give me a break indeed.

PS: I am pro gun ownership but it gives me pause to see people who are ideologically opposed to me taking up arms. Not all new gun owners are politically moderate self defense minded people.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, that's reasonable but I hope all the negativity is incorrect and we do see a positive trend. It should be accepted and I guess, I am responding to the doom and gloom over what should be a good thing from several posters.

[jh9]

but it gives me pause to see people who are ideologically opposed to me taking up arms.

I'm sure they probably think the same.

[Joe in PNG]

So give up under the threat of the Almighty Bloomberg. That's your call.



Just pointing out the reality of the situation. Any Democratic politician wanting to go against the official Democratic Party Platform on guns is going to have to face big opposition from the big money people backing the Democratic Party.

I don't thing that just a nice cover on the NRA Mag is going to help during a primary.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Look at our politics. No one can predict when someone will carry the day. If you don't try, you never will succeed.

[Eyesquared]

I'm sure they probably think the same.

I've had my guns for quite some time and have never committed any acts of political violence with or without them, so they can rest assured that my track record is pretty solid. There are people on the fringe of the left buying guns now, motivated by all this ACAB, BLM, antifa stuff who cannot say the same. The only reason I bring this up is because I think it behooves people to be cautious about what they post online about shooting, tactics, equipment etc.

[JAD]

That might happen but one might ask how many will keep them? Some of you folks don't want any progress to expanding gun ownership. Wah, wah - some will won't be like our club. Kick them out of the tree house. Mighty Mike will crush us. Give me a break.

It's not that, Glenn, it's that having these people 'in our tree house' won't actually make them vote the way we need them to to protect the second amendment. It doesn't matter if they're gun owners or not -- social justice, abortion, and gay rights will keep them voting for anti-gun candidates, so those candidates won't be motivated to become less anti-gun. Better to use our resources to support the side that actually can be persuaded to protect rights, and who gives a shit if it offends some liberal who panic-bought a kel tec.

They're not on our side, they never will be on our side -- they're only on their side.

[jh9]

I've had my guns for quite some time and have never committed any acts of political violence with or without them, so they can rest assured that my track record is pretty solid. There are people on the fringe of the left buying guns now, motivated by all this ACAB, BLM, antifa stuff who cannot say the same. The only reason I bring this up is because I think it behooves people to be cautious about what they post online about shooting, tactics, equipment etc.

I wasn't thinking about you, personally. More the open-carried AR and Trump flag crowd LARPing real hard out in the city. That sends a pretty clear message, and it's not unreasonable for the intended recipients to take similar precautions.

[HeavyDuty]

It's not that, Glenn, it's that having these people 'in our tree house' won't actually make them vote the way we need them to to protect the second amendment. It doesn't matter if they're gun owners or not -- social justice, abortion, and gay rights will keep them voting for anti-gun candidates, so those candidates won't be motivated to become less anti-gun. Better to use our resources to support the side that actually can be persuaded to protect rights, and who gives a shit if it offends some liberal who panic-bought a kel tec.

They're not on our side, they never will be on our side -- they're only on their side.

Keep on linking gun rights to other conservative platform issues, and see where it gets you.

[Whirlwind06]

I anticipate a lot of these guns will end up at pawn shops in the next 6-12 months, but that will depend a lot on where our country goes I guess.

Already seeing this at my local shop and range that I visit a couple of times a week.
In the Spring they were wiped out of pretty much every handgun except high-end 1911s and race guns (like most places I'm sure).
There is a "used" 19.5 in the case along with a number of other brands that look like they were bought in a hurry then sold back at a loss.

I bought a G45 in the same condition about 3 months ago. With the holidays coming I expect to see more "used" guns in the shop.

[JAD]

Keep on linking gun rights to other conservative platform issues, and see where it gets you.

I can see where it's got me. I've been messing with this stuff since '92, and I weathered the ban (which is gone), carried illegally because I couldn't get a permit (I later could), let my permit lapse because I didn't need one to carry anymore (in both of the states I frequent and a third of the nation). Gun rights have been radically advanced in the last 20 years, almost solely due to their linkage with a powerful organization that demonstrated over and over that it could powerfully affect the ability of a conservative lawmaker to be re-elected. That is despite the fact that there have been what seems like hundreds of crisis incidents of a type which directly and immediately caused gun rights to be heavily restricted in England, Australia, etc. within those two decades; and despite a Democratic party that has increasingly demonized guns and gun owners.

[Eyesquared]

I wasn't thinking about you, personally. More the open-carried AR and Trump flag crowd LARPing real hard out in the city. That sends a pretty clear message, and it's not unreasonable for the intended recipients to take similar precautions.
Leaving me out of it, there are groups out there who have been shooting at cops, shining non eyesafe lasers at them, or trying to run them over for like 6 months now. When those people buy guns I have my doubts they're just buying guns as a precautionary measure.

[jh9]

Leaving me out of it, there are groups out there who have been shooting at cops, shining non eyesafe lasers at them, or trying to run them over for like 6 months now. When those people buy guns I have my doubts they're just buying guns as a precautionary measure.

Oh, I don't doubt it.

They're just not all the people out there.

[Eyesquared]

Oh, I don't doubt it.

They're just not all the people out there.
Yeah, obviously. That's exactly what I said in the first place.

"Not all new gun owners are politically moderate self defense minded people."

[HeavyDuty]

I can see where it's got me. I've been messing with this stuff since '92, and I weathered the ban (which is gone), carried illegally because I couldn't get a permit (I later could), let my permit lapse because I didn't need one to carry anymore (in both of the states I frequent and a third of the nation). Gun rights have been radically advanced in the last 20 years, almost solely due to their linkage with a powerful organization that demonstrated over and over that it could powerfully affect the ability of a conservative lawmaker to be re-elected. That is despite the fact that there have been what seems like hundreds of crisis incidents of a type which directly and immediately caused gun rights to be heavily restricted in England, Australia, etc. within those two decades; and despite a Democratic party that has increasingly demonized guns and gun owners.

I’ve been messing with this stuff since 1978, and carried illegally starting around then until it was felonized in my state due to ineptitude on the part of the then leadership of the state NRA affiliate. We finally got carry just a few years ago, the last in the nation - and I was part of that fight for years both financially and with donated hours. The fight happened on both sides of the aisle, and some of our most stalwart supporters were from the other party.

Don’t link the good work done by special interest groups with other conservative platform positions that aren’t shared by all gun owners. 2A is a topic that needs to stand alone. I find myself holding my nose and voting for 2A friendly candidates that I find otherwise detestable. It shouldn’t be this way.

[Joe in PNG]

Most current 2A groups, especially the NRA, are anathematized and demonized, even without the Republican party tie in.

Maybe the Progressives should start their own gun right organization.

[JAD]

2A is a topic that needs to stand alone. I find myself holding my nose and voting for 2A friendly candidates that I find otherwise detestable. It shouldn’t be this way.

Saying that repeatedly doesn't make it so. 2A isn't a motivating issue for most people, and my point is that for liberals it will never be a sufficiently motivating issue. It's important to conservatives because it's linked with originalism and state's rights (like abortion, homosexuality, etc). It doesn't have anything to hang onto with the left, and it doesn't stick. You can get liberals really excited about the 2A, but when they go to the box they will vote for candidates who represent them on very different, disconnected issues. If you get conservatives excited about the 2A, they shore up and motivate their representatives to stand up for what they already say they believe in.

[Suvorov]

Conservatives did not politicize guns, the left did.

When banning guns, demonizing gun owners, and making owning what firearms they permit you to own as difficult as possible is no longer a tenant of the political left’s agenda*; then I will happily sit around the fire with them singing Kumbia. Until that time however, I will regard them as the enemy.

* And that will never happen because personal ownership of arms is antithetical to the all powerful State.

[Joe in PNG]

* And that will never happen because personal ownership of arms is antithetical to the all powerful State.

Ironically, so are a lot of the tenants and beliefs of the Progressives. Notice what happens to gay rights, or racial and religious minorities, or the environment, or poverty when the all powerful state takes charge.

Useful Idiots is a useful description.

[SecondsCount]

That might happen but one might ask how many will keep them? Some of you folks don't want any progress to expanding gun ownership. Wah, wah - some will won't be like our club. Kick them out of the tree house. Mighty Mike will crush us. Give me a break.

I'm more than happy to have more people in the clubhouse but right now, we don't agree on how the clubhouse should be run, and they want to take over my clubhouse, not share it. Not that long ago they wanted to take my guns away from me and when they realized they couldn't get the government to take them away, they went and got their own. Now we should be friends?

[DDTSGM]

Conservatives did not politicize guns, the left did.

I kind of thought it was Harlan Carter.

US gun debate: Four dates that explain how we got here

The Revolt at Cincinnati

21-22 May 1977

he NRA today is a powerful pro-gun lobbying group that fiercely resists gun control efforts and says it has five million members.

It wasn't always the case.

The organisation was co-founded by a former New York Times reporter, William C Church, in 1871 to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis".

It was set up by former Union soldiers who fought in the Civil War who had been shocked at the poor level of marksmanship of their fellow Union fighters compared with their Confederate rivals (its first president was Gen Ambrose Burnside, whose facial hair inspired the term "sideburns").

Much of its activity before the late 1970s involved hunting and organising shooting competitions.

But a shift began to happen in the 1960s and 70s due in part to rising crime rates and a growing conservative movement, at the time the NRA was keen to move away from lobbying.

"An increasing proportion of members were buying guns for self-protection," Adam Winkler writes in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. "The leadership of the NRA didn't understand the importance of this shift and decided that the organization should recommit itself to hunting and recreational shooting."

The result was that during the NRA's annual meeting in Ohio, more conservative elements of the group staged a surprise coup in what's become known as The Revolt in Cincinnati.

They were led by Harlon Carter, the head of the NRA's lobbying arm who had once been jailed for shooting dead a Mexican teenager. After a fraught meeting that lasted until 04:00, the NRA's leadership was voted out and the group's new direction as a fierce opponent to gun control was set.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42055871

[Suvorov]

I kind of thought it was Harlan Carter.


When the Democrat Party and the other elements of the political Left start defending gun rights instead of pushing gun control as a major part of their platform, then I will start beginning listening. Until then it is us on the right side of the spectrum that are carrying most of the weight in this fight. I'm happy to have left leaning gun owners on board and will happily call them friends, but until the Democrats change their platform, they are tokens at best.

I remember a time not long ago where there were pro gun democrats and the NRA endorsed Harry Reid. It wasn't the NRA that shut their doors to the DNC.

[HCM]

I kind of thought it was Harlan Carter.

US gun debate: Four dates that explain how we got here

The Revolt at Cincinnati

21-22 May 1977

he NRA today is a powerful pro-gun lobbying group that fiercely resists gun control efforts and says it has five million members.

It wasn't always the case.

The organisation was co-founded by a former New York Times reporter, William C Church, in 1871 to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis".

It was set up by former Union soldiers who fought in the Civil War who had been shocked at the poor level of marksmanship of their fellow Union fighters compared with their Confederate rivals (its first president was Gen Ambrose Burnside, whose facial hair inspired the term "sideburns").

Much of its activity before the late 1970s involved hunting and organising shooting competitions.

But a shift began to happen in the 1960s and 70s due in part to rising crime rates and a growing conservative movement, at the time the NRA was keen to move away from lobbying.

"An increasing proportion of members were buying guns for self-protection," Adam Winkler writes in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. "The leadership of the NRA didn't understand the importance of this shift and decided that the organization should recommit itself to hunting and recreational shooting."

The result was that during the NRA's annual meeting in Ohio, more conservative elements of the group staged a surprise coup in what's become known as The Revolt in Cincinnati.

They were led by Harlon Carter, the head of the NRA's lobbying arm who had once been jailed for shooting dead a Mexican teenager. After a fraught meeting that lasted until 04:00, the NRA's leadership was voted out and the group's new direction as a fierce opponent to gun control was set.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42055871

The Revolt at Cincinnati was a response to the left politicizing gun control. Your argument (or rather the incredibly biased foreign argument which you adopted) is like saying that a kid getting beat up by a bully who hits back is responsible for starting the fight.

[JRV]

Gun Control only falls on left/right biases because urban areas tend to be politically homogeneous and rife with crime—especially very large urban areas like New York City and Chicago.

The Sullivan Act was gun control long before the Revolt at Cincinnati... it predates WWI. The NFA is almost ninety years old. It predates the modern political parties and the Southern realignment by thirty years. The politicians supporting and opposing those laws very decisively broke down on urban and rural divides.

It’s logical in that respect. If you live in a small community, you don’t see crime everyday. You don’t have stratified social classes mixing constantly, or only divided by a block. You don’t have enough people in your small community to be a fiscally viable target for organized crime/gang activity. You aren’t going to read the Podunk Herald and see stories about murders or rapes or robberies every day. City folk are happy to cede their autonomy and their rights in favor of “security” because, as a result of close proximity to large amounts of humans, they’re constantly getting some first- or second-hand exposure to people at their worst.

If you live in Chicago, and every week a dozen or more people get shot, and you don’t have a personal background or education with guns, then you are likely going to view guns as a contributing factor to social violence.

The politicians for these areas know that. That guns have become a totem for Democrats in the modern age plays out because the biggest core blocs for Democratic voters—college kids, Black communities, people in academia, people in other minority groups like LGBTQ, unionized labor (and the kids they raised) from when factories were common in American cities—are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas. Those blocs inevitably influence the votes of the average Joe and Joan around them, because the problems tied to those blocs (student debt, gang violence, discrimination, unemployment, substance problems, labor struggles) dominate the local news. So, cities are always Blue on the election maps.

Being a gungrabber is an easy way to signal to those voters that you care without actually having to address or acknowledge greater social issues. And, it gets you all that sweet, sweet Bloomberg money for buying advertisements.

Long before the NRA adopted the mantle of “gun lobby,” it was a marksmanship and hunting group with no real dog in the “right of self defense” fight. The closest comparable lobby to the modern NRA—the group responsible for handguns being removed from the NFA—was the United States Revolver Association. While ostensibly focused on handgun competition, their membership led letter-writing campaigns to major newspapers and political representatives that were successful in preventing a de facto handgun ban.

[Totem Polar]

When the Democrat Party and the other elements of the political Left start defending gun rights instead of pushing gun control as a major part of their platform, then I will start beginning listening. Until then it is us on the right side of the spectrum that are carrying most of the weight in this fight. I'm happy to have left leaning gun owners on board and will happily call them friends, but until the Democrats change their platform, they are tokens at best.

I remember a time not long ago where there were pro gun democrats and the NRA endorsed Harry Reid. It wasn't the NRA that shut their doors to the DNC.

OT, but, Tom Foley was very prominent D who was endorsed by the NRA, right up until Clinton brought him—and other high-ranking DP members—kicking and screaming into the 1994 gun ban. Then Foley—the sitting house speaker—got voted out.

I’ve said it here before, and I’ll say it again: it’s not that I got all crotchety and conservative and moved away from the Democratic Party. It’s the party that went full retard, and moved away from me.

[willie]

Many of the new buyers bought because they were afraid. Some will deny that they own a gun. Some do not know how to operate what they bought. Among married couples, one spouse will decide that they don't want it in the house. The 2nd Amendment is not their concern.

[DDTSGM]

The Revolt at Cincinnati was a response to the left politicizing gun control. Your argument (or rather the incredibly biased foreign argument which you adopted) is like saying that a kid getting beat up by a bully who hits back is responsible for starting the fight.

I believe you have a pronoun error in that last sentence, but I get the gist of what you are saying.

Here's the deal, when that happened I was busy becoming a police officer and going to college evenings, my nose was to the grindstone and I wasn't paying much attention. I imagine you were probably just a gleam in your daddy's eye, or learning to walk. Point being nether of us were there. Aside from the fact that the snippet I linked was from the BBC, what basis do you have for saying the left was politicizing gun rights in 1977, nine years after the passage of the GCA of 1968? Because, I have to tell you, I don't see that as a knock down drag out partisan fight:

Out of the House:

62804

Out of the Senate:

62805

You might notice that, as a percentage, far more Democrats voted 'nay' in both House and Senate than did Republicans.

Apparently,, like the Congress critters they had elected, most Americans felt the GCA of 1968 was reasonable, remember, in 1967 Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act which outlawed public carry of firearms in response to the Black Panther armed patrols in Oakland.

It is also understandable that some folks were upset that they couldn't order firearms through the mail and particularly with the 'sporting usage' language.

Other than that, I certainly don't recall gun control as a hot button political issue prior to 1977 - when Harlon Carter became President of the NRA. To my recollection the anti-gun efforts began in earnest shortly after Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981.

Despite all the politicizing, this is where we were in 1986:

62807

And this is where we are today:

62808

I do agree that the NRA has been vital in the increased CCW across the Nation, even though some states have seriously abridged rights in other areas. We don't want to rest on out laurels, especially today.

[DDTSGM]

When the Democrat Party and the other elements of the political Left start defending gun rights instead of pushing gun control as a major part of their platform, then I will start beginning listening. Until then it is us on the right side of the spectrum that are carrying most of the weight in this fight. I'm happy to have left leaning gun owners on board and will happily call them friends, but until the Democrats change their platform, they are tokens at best.

I remember a time not long ago where there were pro gun democrats and the NRA endorsed Harry Reid. It wasn't the NRA that shut their doors to the DNC.

I liked your post, and take your point.

[HCM]

I believe you have a pronoun error in that last sentence, but I get the gist of what you are saying.

Here's the deal, when that happened I was busy becoming a police officer and going to college evenings, my nose was to the grindstone and I wasn't paying much attention. I imagine you were probably just a gleam in your daddy's eye, or learning to walk. Point being nether of us were there. Aside from the fact that the snippet I linked was from the BBC, what basis do you have for saying the left was politicizing gun rights in 1977, nine years after the passage of the GCA of 1968? Because, I have to tell you, I don't see that as a knock down drag out partisan fight:

Out of the House:

62804

Out of the Senate:

62805

You might notice that, as a percentage, far more Democrats voted 'nay' in both House and Senate than did Republicans.

Apparently,, like the Congress critters they had elected, most Americans felt the GCA of 1968 was reasonable, remember, in 1967 Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act which outlawed public carry of firearms in response to the Black Panther armed patrols in Oakland.

It is also understandable that some folks were upset that they couldn't order firearms through the mail and particularly with the 'sporting usage' language.

Other than that, I certainly don't recall gun control as a hot button political issue prior to 1977 - when Harlon Carter became President of the NRA. To my recollection the anti-gun efforts began in earnest shortly after Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981.

Despite all the politicizing, this is where we were in 1986:

62807

And this is where we are today:

62808

I do agree that the NRA has been vital in the increased CCW across the Nation, even though some states have seriously abridged rights in other areas. We don't want to rest on out laurels, especially today.

I was already reading American Rifleman in 1977 and living in a very anti gun area.

The blue dog / conservative Democrats and liberal Rockefeller Republicans of yesteryear don’t really exist anymore so comparing D votes vs R votes from the 70s to today’s environment is misleading. You need to look at liberal/left vs Conservative / right.

Regardless of the letter after their name the liberal /socialist/ progressive left has been targeting guns, gun ownership etc. as far back as the 1900s.

As for the Mulford act, everyone including Reagan has feet of Clay and we both know that law was straight racial fear mongering.

[HCM]

I believe you have a pronoun error in that last sentence, but I get the gist of what you are saying.

Here's the deal, when that happened I was busy becoming a police officer and going to college evenings, my nose was to the grindstone and I wasn't paying much attention. I imagine you were probably just a gleam in your daddy's eye, or learning to walk. Point being nether of us were there. Aside from the fact that the snippet I linked was from the BBC, what basis do you have for saying the left was politicizing gun rights in 1977, nine years after the passage of the GCA of 1968? Because, I have to tell you, I don't see that as a knock down drag out partisan fight:

Out of the House:

62804

Out of the Senate:

62805

You might notice that, as a percentage, far more Democrats voted 'nay' in both House and Senate than did Republicans.

Apparently,, like the Congress critters they had elected, most Americans felt the GCA of 1968 was reasonable, remember, in 1967 Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act which outlawed public carry of firearms in response to the Black Panther armed patrols in Oakland.

It is also understandable that some folks were upset that they couldn't order firearms through the mail and particularly with the 'sporting usage' language.

Other than that, I certainly don't recall gun control as a hot button political issue prior to 1977 - when Harlon Carter became President of the NRA. To my recollection the anti-gun efforts began in earnest shortly after Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981.

Despite all the politicizing, this is where we were in 1986:

62807

And this is where we are today:

62808

I do agree that the NRA has been vital in the increased CCW across the Nation, even though some states have seriously abridged rights in other areas. We don't want to rest on out laurels, especially today.

I was already reading American Rifleman in 1977 and living in a very anti gun area. As in it was a crime for my father to take me to the range and let me shoot his license handgun under supervision. I could only legally shoot a handgun when we visited my uncle in a neighboring state. So yeah I was already pretty aware of commie b******t even as a kid.

The blue dog / conservative Democrats and liberal Rockefeller Republicans of yesteryear don’t really exist anymore so comparing D votes vs R votes from the 70s to today’s environment is misleading. The number of Democrats or Republicans that may have voted for or against in 1977 has no relevance in today’s landscape where D= liberal to socialist and R equals moderate to extreme conservative.

Regardless of the letter after their name the liberal /socialist/ progressive left has been targeting guns, gun ownership etc. as far back as the 1900s.

As for the Mulford act, everyone including Reagan has feet of Clay and we both know that law was straight racial fear mongering.

Like the NFA in 1934, the GCA of 1968 and the 1994 AWB it was driven by a mix of people operating on feelings rather than logic who wanted to "Do Something !" to try and make them selves feel better and power hungry people who want a disarmed populace.

[HCM]

OT, but, Tom Foley was very prominent D who was endorsed by the NRA, right up until Clinton brought him—and other high-ranking DP members—kicking and screaming into the 1994 gun ban. Then Foley—the sitting house speaker—got voted out.

I’ve said it here before, and I’ll say it again: it’s not that I got all crotchety and conservative and moved away from the Democratic Party. It’s the party that went full retard, and moved away from me.

It's not your imagination. It seems like the end of the cold war triggered something in the Democratic party. Like without the external threat the freaks felt it was safe to fly their freak flags and it drove the non freaks out.

[HeavyDuty]

...The blue dog / conservative Democrats and liberal Rockefeller Republicans of yesteryear don’t really exist anymore...

Which is very unfortunate.

[peterb]

My father was what we’d now call a conservative Democrat. WWII vet, GI Bill changed his life, had seen the Marshall Plan work so he had good reason to think that the government could do great things. Was “liberal” for the time on social issues, but also ran a small business and knew that someone has to pay the bills.

[JAD]

It's not your imagination. It seems like the end of the cold war triggered something in the Democratic party. Like without the external threat the freaks felt it was safe to fly their freak flags and it drove the non freaks out.

I should read more and post less, but I suspect that the communist infiltration of huge swaths of different types of leadership (including the Catholic Church and academia) kind of came out of the closet when the Soviet Union lost. I think that by then they had established the beachhead they’d been working on — the cloaking of revolutionary Marxist values under the auspice of ‘progressive liberalism.’

[Bergeron]

I should read more and post less, but I suspect that the communist infiltration of huge swaths of different types of leadership (including the Catholic Church and academia) kind of came out of the closet when the Soviet Union lost. I think that by then they had established the beachhead they’d been working on — the cloaking of revolutionary Marxist values under the auspice of ‘progressive liberalism.’

What "progress" is there is in progressivism? The hostility towards liberal values, most particularly towards free speech, is coming from the progs. I suppose that it is in character considering how People's Democratic Republics consisted of three lies for the price of one.

[fixer]

As of the news 11/7/2020 I'm thinking America voted 'hell no' on guns.

[JAD]

Progressivism, liberalism, and socialism, which are words that once had meaning, have been repurposed by the communists as stalking horses for their own ideology.

[shootist26]

As of the news 11/7/2020 I'm thinking America voted 'hell no' on guns.

This.

Gun control is the #1 issue for progressives now.

For those of you who still cling to the obsolete story about the 1994 AWB backlash where the Republicans took back control of the house, consider this: Particularly since 2018 after the MSD school shooting Bloomberg et. al have pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars to further state and federal level gun control legislation. They have succeeded in many states. Arizona just elected a senator who's #1 issue is gun control via the Giffords policy group. There has never been such a groundswell of financial resources and popular support

[idahojess]

As of the news 11/7/2020 I'm thinking America voted 'hell no' on guns.

Bingo. You're right!



Cooper, Aug. 6, 2019: So, to gun owners out there who say, “Well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns” —

Biden: Bingo. You’re right, if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal, period.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/deceptive-trump-ad-attacks-biden-on-guns/ar-BB1a6AL6


I love that this MSN "fact check" piece says that Biden wasn't talking about all guns -- just the "assualty" ones.

Oh well, I'll donate some money to the Georgia GOP Senate races. Best way to have a voice at the table.

[fixer]

my move to 1911s and shotguns is becoming disturbingly and nauseatingly prescient.

[JAD]

This.

Gun control is the #1 issue for progressives now.

Cite? Source? I have no doubt they’re coming hard — I think people who are running out to buy 10 round guns are underestimating their capabilities— but it’s a third tier issue along with homosexuality and abortion. Open borders and the green new deal are second tier, and first and foremost are entitlements like single payer healthcare, student loan forgiveness, and the regulation and eventual federalization of industry.

[DDTSGM]

Like the NFA in 1934, the GCA of 1968 and the 1994 AWB it was driven by a mix of people operating on feelings rather than logic who wanted to "Do Something !" to try and make them selves feel better and power hungry people who want a disarmed populace.

driven by a mix of people operating on feelings rather than logic who wanted to "Do Something !" to try and make them selves feel better totally agree with this.

power hungry people who want a disarmed populace I agree with this over the last decade, prior to that it was the operating on feelings thing, IMO.

Regardless of whether Harlon Carter kcked this off, or not, the firearms discussion has become extremely polarizing.

In fact, it has come to the point that folks want to kick you out of the club if, like me, you don't think the NFA is unconstitutional on it's face.

[LittleLebowski]

I should read more and post less, but I suspect that the communist infiltration of huge swaths of different types of leadership (including the Catholic Church and academia) kind of came out of the closet when the Soviet Union lost. I think that by then they had established the beachhead they’d been working on — the cloaking of revolutionary Marxist values under the auspice of ‘progressive liberalism.’



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmg2VFX058