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

[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/...-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/st...17080?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.