What if?

[sol740]

Not intended; I was just curious by your use of past tense for a law that was still on the books. Personally, I was outraged by the Patriot Act, but 10+ years later my outrage has cooled. It garnered a vote for John Kerry from me, but not much else, and a lot of the dire predictions from the left about a police state failed to materialize.

 

Likewise, someone who voluntarily made themselves a felon (as you seem to be advocating here) over the 1994 AWB might feel like they overreacted after watching the ban lead to... absolutely nothing. And it didn't require civil disobedience, it sorted itself out correctly via the democratic process.

 

Perspective... that's all I'm looking for.

 

The past tense was probably because, like you, my rage has subsided, although somewhat renewed with the NDAA.

 

Whose perspective? The 94 ban lead to artificial price inflation, and pointless magazine round limits, that solved no problems, and made gun owners potential criminals for exercising a constitutional right. You may not feel that those issues are important, I do, that's my perspective. Since I believe that laws passed in violation of my rights are unjust, not obeying them leaves me consciously, and morally sound, regardless if collectivists, or legal positivists label me a felon.

 

Do I actually see this coming? I doubt it, but the terms must be known. Why don't we come together and figure how to actually stop a crazed mass murderer, instead of punishing the innocent. Signs, and laws will not accomplish this.

[greg1647545532]

Whose perspective? The 94 ban lead to artificial price inflation, and pointless magazine round limits, that solved no problems, and made gun owners potential criminals for exercising a constitutional right.

 

That's my point. It was a bad law, and now it's not a law anymore. That's my perspective.

[sol740]

That's my point. It was a bad law, and now it's not a law anymore. That's my perspective.

 

Great, we agree . The left is now openly discussing a so-called assault weapons ban "with teeth", I believe the nomenclature goes. Non-expiring, forced registration of currently owned weapons, extra taxes (of course extra taxes), and while this may be the 'throw everything at the wall, see what sticks tactic' I am opposed to basically all of it.

[buelliganx1]

That's my point. It was a bad law, and now it's not a law anymore. That's my perspective.

 

And my point is even though the last AWB didnt work and went away now they want to do it again with the idea that maybe this time the results will be different? They are wasting time debating things that they don't know about in order to make laws that have no affect other than punishing those of us that aren't breaking any laws. All in the guise of making people FEEL like they've done something productive. Here's an idea for them how about they get off of their duffs and actually DO something productive for once.

[Geeesammy]

If the republicans put up a better candidate to run against him, the 2nd Obamination would have never happened.

 

Ever heard of a man named Ron Paul? He had what seems to some as a "radical strategy." Funny because it follows the constitution, Which shows just how far this country has gone away from it. Fox News didn't like him, so all republicans went against him since most take Fox News' word as a golden bible.

[greg1647545532]

Great, we agree . The left is now openly discussing a so-called assault weapons ban "with teeth", I believe the nomenclature goes. Non-expiring, forced registration of currently owned weapons, extra taxes (of course extra taxes), and while this may be the 'throw everything at the wall, see what sticks tactic' I am opposed to basically all of it.

 

So let's say that hypothetically what "sticks" is identical to the 1994 AWB. Having lived through that pointless exercise in wankery, and having seen it get repealed via peaceful legislative means (and NOT lead to a greater erosion of any constitutional rights), would you still risk felony charges to oppose it?

[sol740]

So let's say that hypothetically what "sticks" is identical to the 1994 AWB. Having lived through that pointless exercise in wankery, and having seen it get repealed via peaceful legislative means (and NOT lead to a greater erosion of any constitutional rights), would you still risk felony charges to oppose it?

 

 

It would be difficult to apply an identical version of the old AWB to personal disobedience, since that only affected the sale of new goods, and current owners were grandfathered in. I'm still completely opposed to being forced into only procuring pre-ban goods at government inflated prices.

[wagner]

It would be difficult to apply an identical version of the old AWB to personal disobedience, since that only affected the sale of new goods, and current owners were grandfathered in. I'm still completely opposed to being forced into only procuring pre-ban goods at government inflated prices.

 

Already going on now, ruger 10/22 mags are selling for $100 or more (they used to sell new for $25.99 or less)

[greg1647545532]

It would be difficult to apply an identical version of the old AWB to personal disobedience, since that only affected the sale of new goods, and current owners were grandfathered in. I'm still completely opposed to being forced into only procuring pre-ban goods at government inflated prices.

 

Fortunately, the OP gave us some good suggestions:

 

What if large capacity mags were outlawed and individual citizens assembled them from parts kits and continued to sell/trade them or put pistol grips on their SKS etc. in direct violation of the new law? Civil disobedience on a wide scale.

 

So, if large capacity magazines were outlawed again like they were under the 1994 ban, would you assembly them from parts kits and continue to sell/trade them? Would you put pistol grips on an SKS that wasn't grandfathered in? Your first post in this thread seemed to imply that you would.

[jjjxlr8]

So much for the myth of the law-abiding gun owner...

 

You do all realize that your "team" controls the House and nearly half the Senate, which means an assault weapons ban is dead in the water, right? It will absolutely never pass, because, *news flash*, you're not an oppressed minority. You all are adequately represented; government is working like it's supposed to! Makes me wonder what the point of threads like this are...

 

What is to stop the president from using an Executive Order for this? His administration is already talking about this. I don't see what would stop him if he can't get "sweeping gun control" through Congress.

[greg1647545532]

What is to stop the president from using an Executive Order for this? His administration is already talking about this. I don't see what would stop him if he can't get "sweeping gun control" through Congress.

 

The courts, congress (impeachment), the next president... it would be political suicide for Democrats. My guess is that a court would put a hold on enforcement within a matter of days, then eventually overturn the order. If that didn't happen, the worst is that we'd have a 4-year ban until Republicans got back in power, and then Republicans would control the government for many years to come.

 

You might as well ask why Bush didn't issue an executive order outlawing abortion.

[2011SVT]

Political suicide or not, it looks like we may know sooner rather than later....

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

 

Congress needs (needed) to stand up to the President over these executive orders. I am ok when these things provide proper clarification on enforcement of existing law but not, as has been and likely to be done here, have the executive branch creating new laws, cabinet depts. etc.

 

I have more letters to write (again). What an f'ing circus. Time to hammer our representatives.

[2011SVT]

So I am in the process of writing and I realize that with the newly created 3rd congressional district I am trapped behind the statist's lines.

 

Joyce Beatty :fuuuu: R U Serious? There must be some mistake.

[sol740]

Fortunately, the OP gave us some good suggestions:

 

 

 

So, if large capacity magazines were outlawed again like they were under the 1994 ban, would you assembly them from parts kits and continue to sell/trade them? Would you put pistol grips on an SKS that wasn't grandfathered in? Your first post in this thread seemed to imply that you would.

 

Again unfortunately we do not know what type of ban will be passed if any, so the what would I do or what wouldn't I, at this juncture seems like a pointless exercise.

 

 

The courts, congress (impeachment), the next president... it would be political suicide for Democrats. My guess is that a court would put a hold on enforcement within a matter of days, then eventually overturn the order. If that didn't happen, the worst is that we'd have a 4-year ban until Republicans got back in power, and then Republicans would control the government for many years to come.

 

You might as well ask why Bush didn't issue an executive order outlawing abortion.

 

So you're saying if collectivism screws us hard enough, just wait it out till we get a turn to unscrew us? Also, abortion isn't in the bill of rights, so that isn't really analogous.

[greg1647545532]

Again unfortunately we do not know what type of ban will be passed if any, so the what would I do or what wouldn't I, at this juncture seems like a pointless exercise.

 

If we can't talk about hypotheticals, then calling for civil disobedience in response to a bill which hasn't even been introduced is also a pointless exercise, and I call shenanigans on this whole thread. Shenanigans!

 

So you're saying if collectivism screws us hard enough, just wait it out till we get a turn to unscrew us?

 

No, I'm saying that if collectivism isn't screwing you very hard at all, then the proper avenue for your grievances is the ballot box. Especially if it has a very good chance of succeeding. Considering that any Republican presidential candidate would campaign on repealing this hypothetical executive order (which we shouldn't even talk about since it's a pointless exercise ) and that he or she would have broad support across the country, I have a hard time with any characterization of gun owners as some oppressed minority being crushed under the thumb of a tyrannical government.

 

For all this talk about how great the constitution is, I'm not seeing a lot of faith that it actually works.

 

Also, abortion isn't in the bill of rights, so that isn't really analogous.

 

... so it would have been even easier to outlaw with an executive order, right? Sounds like you're on my side

[jjjxlr8]

I ran across this post on another forum today...

 

Talked to one of my Senators Office today . They have already been notified that Biden / Obama want a total ban on all semi auto rifles and pistols with a 30 day mandatory turn in . No more zero zip . They feel they can get this presidential executive order through . My Senator is an A+ NRA and is very worried

 

Apparently they are using the threat of an EXTENSIVE Executive Order as a negotiating tool. They are contacting Senators basically saying that if they don't pass a new AWB/magazine ban/etc. in Congress, that the President will make it MUCH worse with the stroke of a pen.

 

If this happens it will certainly be enough to 'light the fuse' and get us moving towards real change.

[BigOxley]

Conversations like this are exactly what is causing a $26 magazine to now cost +$100.

[XChris1632X]

Conversations like this are exactly what is causing a $26 magazine to now cost +$100.

 

Easy for you to say, you're a democrat.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I ran across this post on another forum today...

 

Talked to one of my Senators Office today . They have already been notified that Biden / Obama want a total ban on all semi auto rifles and pistols with a 30 day mandatory turn in . No more zero zip . They feel they can get this presidential executive order through . My Senator is an A+ NRA and is very worried

 

Apparently they are using the threat of an EXTENSIVE Executive Order as a negotiating tool. They are contacting Senators basically saying that if they don't pass a new AWB/magazine ban/etc. in Congress, that the President will make it MUCH worse with the stroke of a pen.

 

If this happens it will certainly be enough to 'light the fuse' and get us moving towards real change.

 

If it's posted on the internet, it must be true. WHY WOULD SOMEONE LIE ON THE INTERNET THAT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.

 

The biggest thing I'm fed up with on BOTH sides of political spectrum on a variety of legislative issues is the "if it saves one life" bullshit statement.

 

1) You're not fucking saving a life. You're putting off death for a little while. Get it fucking straight.

 

2) Have you never been to an economics class? Nothing is free. To "save one life", a lot must be given up, and in many cases it can result in others losing lives. The example I love to use is that if Rick Santorum's wife hadn't had an abortion, she would be dead.

[nurkvinny]

Saving lives... how many innocent lives are going to be lost when legal owners are limited on what they can use to defend themselves?

 

I can't foresee the future. However, I can promise that I will not register a gun or turn one over to the government.

[BigOxley]

Easy for you to say, you're a democrat.

 

I have no political affiliation, sweet cakes.

[nurkvinny]

[wagner]

I ran across this post on another forum today...

 

Talked to one of my Senators Office today . They have already been notified that Biden / Obama want a total ban on all semi auto rifles and pistols with a 30 day mandatory turn in . No more zero zip . They feel they can get this presidential executive order through . My Senator is an A+ NRA and is very worried

 

Apparently they are using the threat of an EXTENSIVE Executive Order as a negotiating tool. They are contacting Senators basically saying that if they don't pass a new AWB/magazine ban/etc. in Congress, that the President will make it MUCH worse with the stroke of a pen.

 

If this happens it will certainly be enough to 'light the fuse' and get us moving towards real change.

 

Yeah, would love to see them try to pull this off. But, this POS adminstration has moved around checks and balances before by using executive orders.

[V8 Beast]

My off the wall opinion...

 

Rifle style weapons with high capacity mags are fun hobbies for the average owner. There are very few situations where they would grab an M16 over a handgun for home defense. On the other hand if a group were to say... rise against the government... these would be the type of weapons they would choose when defending their rights. At a time when people are very open about not liking the government, they are aware the people are armed. Every post on the internet about hating the government, and rising up against them cant be helping your chances of reaching the outcome you want. If I knew I could be the target of a civil war at some point I would want to disarm as many people as I could on the other side. You may think its fun to talk about hating Obama and loving your guns enough to go to jail/die for them.. but you may be causing your own problems.

[nurkvinny]

No, Brian. Sorry, but it is absolutely the Democrats - for the past 25 years - that have been trying over and over again to get this crap in place. They are the source of my problem. And the worst part is their efforts are based on horrible understanding of the gun stats.