The Coming Of Firearm Confiscation In The United States

[Marek Tucan]

What "gun support" faction should do is embrace fully the ID option... But demand that it applies to everything else incl. voting. Then it is a win-win, either you force "gun control" types into seriously harming illegal immigration and voting frauds, or you get the ID requirement dropped

[Archie Pellagio]

Are you guys stateside seeing the same sort of gun/ammo buying frenzy and shortages that took place in early 2009?

Anyone here stocking up yet for fear of the new laws?

[Sikkiyn]

They can preach and have wishful happy thoughts all they want. The fact is there are too many in circulation, and too many willing to burn down the first SOB that tries to take them. So they can "legislate" whatever hubris their putrid little neurotic minds can think up, it won't change sh!t... On the bright side, if you live south of the border you can get them for almost free, curtsey of the same people, and getting them from there to here is so damned easy, one could almost take a nap and have it delivered to them for a small fee.

And what will be next, ban knives? how about a tree (spears, bows, atlatls, etc). No, this makes no rational sense, and smells more of the usual smoke and mirrors, covering other fetid cess-pool adventures from this crowd.

 

So what is honestly going on that we are not seeing?

[Mr King]

.

And what will be next, ban knives?

 

[Simon Tan]

The market has been on beserk since early 2011. Most manufacturers are backordered to the max. Many are simply refusing to take orders and/or having to do allocations to ensure everyone gets something. It is worse than 2008 since the actual capacities have grown signficantly since then.

Most said, never again but what can you do when the tiger takes over?

Ammunition is less of an issue these days thanks to the draw down of government demand and major new pipelines (PMC etc.). Also, most people still have not gotten through their previous stock up. Most of those involved in stockpiling simply do not shoot very much.

 

I am always surprised by the quality or lack thereof of hardware that people bring to classes. Invariably, they shit the bed by Day 2 (Day 1 being usually lots of theory) and staff spends the end of the day showing them where and how their 'military style' rifle failed and either trying to fix their defective stuff or just offering them a replacement from the pro shop. As often as not, the failure comes installing aftermarket stuff that trades away reliability (springs, 2-stage match triggers, trick buffers etc.) as it does from subpar 'sporting' components (unstaked carriers, dodgy feed ramps, shitty mags).

 

The new bugbear is shitty charging handles which are almost impossible to ID until you bind them. They are simply weaker than the original specs and fine if you employ the 'rabbit ears' RH charging technique but one vigorous LH stroke can often distort and bind the damned things. And then you have an inoperable weapon.

[rmgill]

How long can you store ammo? Do you need specially constructed storage rooms to make your ammo store longer?

 

Milsurp ammo often times comes in spam cans or sealed packs as I'm sure you know. Leave it in that form and it keeps for a lifetime. The only ammo I've come across that's dodgy (click bangs) are a large supply of Pakistani .303 so far.

 

Any ammo I have that's boxed and not sealed goes into a 30 or 50 cal ammo can and I throw a pack of dessicant in there with it. Sorted and labeled it's easy to find.

 

And in my state there's no magazine requirements for small arms ammo. Some Firefighters did a study on this and their discovery was that even very large quantities of small arms ammo is nominally harmeless in a fire.

[DKTanker]

What "gun support" faction should do is embrace fully the ID option... But demand that it applies to everything else incl. voting. Then it is a win-win, either you force "gun control" types into seriously harming illegal immigration and voting frauds, or you get the ID requirement dropped

Here's the thing, the constitution releases to the states the mission of determining voter eligibility, many states do have a photo ID requirement and generally SCOTUS has upheld that requirement (This is an entirely different subject). OTOH, the constitution states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Federal laws mandating photo ID and fingerprints could reasonably be construed as infringing on that right, especially as that right was included, in part, as a measure to prevent government, particularly the Federal Government, from overstepping its bounds and becoming oppressive.

[DKTanker]

They can preach and have wishful happy thoughts all they want. The fact is there are too many in circulation, and too many willing to burn down the first SOB that tries to take them.So what is honestly going on that we are not seeing?

What we're seeing is another step toward what you implied is impossible, the disarmament of the people.

[Sikkiyn]

I think I've pointed out good reasons why that dog won't hunt.

[Sikkiyn]

.

And what will be next, ban knives?

 

 

LMAO, where's this foolishness located...

[Simon Tan]

London. Sez Metropolitan Police, aka the Met.

[X-Files]

It's just those evil assault rifles....It's just those evil assault rifles....It's just those evil assault rifles....It's just those evil assault rifles....

 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

 

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  
  • 120 specifically-named firearms;
    
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
    

  [*]Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
    

  [*]Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

  [*]Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
    

  [*]Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
    

[X-Files]

Feinstein cherry picks her opening 'facts'

 

 

Her statement reads:

 

"Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”

 

Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997)."

 

What it really says on page 2:

"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously. Further, any short-run preventive effect observable at this time may ebb in the near future as the stock of grandfathered assault weapons and legal substitute guns leaks to secondary markets, then increase as the stock of large-capacity magazines gradually dwindles."

 

Take note of the first sentence in particular.

 

Here is a few other things I found that she conveniently leaves out.

"Any effort to estimate how the ban affected the gun murder rate must confront a fundamental problem,

that the maximum achievable preventive effect of the ban is almost certainly too small to detect statistically."

 

And:

"However, the total gun murder rate is an insensitive indicator of ban effects, because only a fraction of

gun murders involve large-capacity magazines, and only about 25 percent of those murders involve the banned

assault weapons."

Edited December 28, 2012 by X-Files

[WRW]

Was in a gun shop today - east Turkey

 

Semi automatic slug firing M4 look alike - about 700 USD - 20 USD paper work fee with police the collect after 3 days

 

we do not have much gun crime here

[chino]

 

Milsurp ammo often times comes in spam cans or sealed packs as I'm sure you know.

 

Actually, IIRC the only ammo ever issued to us came in plain cardboard boxes, 50rds per box or something. No cans, no sealing plastis packing etc.

[DKTanker]

[Actually, IIRC the only ammo ever issued to us came in plain cardboard boxes, 50rds per box or something. No cans, no sealing plastis packing etc.

Are you sure the boxes hadn't been stored in a sealed container and then you were issued your cardboard box of ammunition? That is how small arms ammunition is, or at least was, stored by the US Military.

[Jeff]

The fact is there are too many in circulation, and too many willing to burn down the first SOB that tries to take them.

 

Which would be a Rahm Emanuel wet dream. Sacrifice a few LEO pawns in order to prove gun owners are violent crazies. Huge numbers of gun owners would be falling over themselves to turn their guns in to prove they're not like "those whackos" and the rest of us would become shunned and hunted extremists.

 

As we've seen, it only takes one properly exploited opportun.....er, tragedy to turn the political reality on it's head. A month ago, gun control legislation wasn't on the radar and we were constantly admonished to show any Obama plans to the contrary. Now look at where we are.

[thekirk]

I think I've pointed out good reasons why that dog won't hunt.

 

The fact it won't hunt isn't going to stop the idjits from taking it out to the field, and giving it that ol' college try...

[X-Files]

Not having grown up in a free country, this topic of gun control is for me an eye opener to what is the meaning of liberty in America for many of you here. I can imagine being able to openly and legally own firearms is indeed a very liberating experience.

 

 

Understand that many feel the firearms are just an inanimate token of greater truths - we have many Freedoms that were hard fought by others to hold, and that when self-appointed overseers start chipping away at one of those Rights we question where they will stop, how far they will go and what they ultimately want for themselves.

 

What's next, Madam Feinstein? What's next?

 

Edited December 28, 2012 by X-Files

[BansheeOne]

The thing is, for neigh on two decades I have been hearing US gun owners screaming "OMG OMG OMG gubmint is eroding our rights bit by bit by bit and sometime soon jack-booted thugs will kick down our doors and confiscate our guns!!!!!111eleveneleven!!!".

 

Over the same time, I have seen the Assault Weapons Ban sunset, the number of shall-issue states rise from 16 to 37, the Supreme Court confirm the Second Amendment as an individual right, and the estimated number of privately owned firearms in the US climb from about 200 to 300 million. All the while lunatics were happily gunning down students, colleagues, moviegoers and religious congregations at semi-regular intervals, and other walks of American life were regulated to ridiculously paranoid levels - no XXL sugary drinks, can't smoke or drink in public, can't fly if your name is Jihad or you once looked at your neighbor crossly, and have to register as a sex offender for urinating in public or having a girlfriend two years your junior.

 

Not saying the overall trend towards greater legal security for gun owners cannot be reversed, but excuse me if I don't see wolves falling from the sky.

[thekirk]

The thing is, for neigh on two decades I have been hearing US gun owners screaming "OMG OMG OMG gubmint is eroding our rights bit by bit by bit and sometime soon jack-booted thugs will kick down our doors and confiscate our guns!!!!!111eleveneleven!!!".

 

Over the same time, I have seen the Assault Weapons Ban sunset, the number of shall-issue states rise from 16 to 37, the Supreme Court confirm the Second Amendment as an individual right, and the estimated number of privately owned firearms in the US climb from about 200 to 300 million. All the while lunatics were happily gunning down students, colleagues, moviegoers and religious congregations at semi-regular intervals, and other walks of American life were regulated to ridiculously paranoid levels - no XXL sugary drinks, can't smoke or drink in public, can't fly if your name is Jihad or you once looked at your neighbor crossly, and have to register as a sex offender for urinating in public or having a girlfriend two years your junior.

 

Not saying the overall trend towards greater legal security for gun owners cannot be reversed, but excuse me if I don't see wolves falling from the sky.

 

The thing a lot of observers fail to note, even US-native ones, is that the biggest genesis behind all that happening was the AWB, in the first place. The more they made an issue of it, the more they alienated the people they had to convince, and the more reaction it garnered.

 

You want to enable firearms control in the US? The way to do it is softly-softly, and behind the scenes. Outright idiocy like the Feinstein bill won't do it. If she gets that past Congress, I give it five-ten years, and it will end the way the Canadian long-arms registry did: Hoist by its own internal contradictions. And, in the end? Even more of a dead issue.

 

These regulatory-minded zealots just don't get it. The reason the SUV craze took off? The EPA killed the family-size station wagon via CAFE. The reason so many bought AR-style rifles? The AWB said "No, you can't have those...".

 

There's one way to make changes with the US electorate, and that's a long, careful campaign of education and change, similar to the anti-smoking campaign. Which, when you think about it, was the way the tobacco companies made smoking acceptable in the first place. Legislative fiat just does not work, despite all the fantasies of the do-gooders. Look at Prohibition, and the drug war: Did either work?

[Rocky Davis]

There's one way to make changes with the US electorate, and that's a long, careful campaign of education and change, similar to the anti-smoking campaign. Which, when you think about it, was the way the tobacco companies made smoking acceptable in the first place. Legislative fiat just does not work, despite all the fantasies of the do-gooders. Look at Prohibition, and the drug war: Did either work?

 

I'm not sure you are on target here with the smoking analogy. Smoking tobacco was always acceptable from the first time Europeans set foot on the soil here and smoked with Indians. That's why it has taken so long to change the majority of minds about tobacco use. The young ones have been brought up being programmed by teachers about tobacco being bad. The older ones that didn't give a shit about it one way or another (like me - and I'm an ex-smoker since 1998) are all dying off and taking their attitudes to the graves with them. Some of the younger ones are also influenced by family and friends that get tobacco-related illnesses or have tobacco-related illness deaths. Combine all of that with legislative efforts (done by "do-gooders") to make smokers social outcasts and legislative efforts to tax tobacco so much that a regular person can't afford to do it anymore and you eventually come up with the situation we've got now - a majority consensus that smoking is bad and they don't want to be around it.

 

But, I do agree that long, sustained campaigns of programming the American Public (starting early with the children) does work to some degree. I do believe it works on just about any type of subject matter. Look how many of the American Public believe the opposite of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." They've been programmed to believe it that way for a long time (big government owes you). Look how many of the American Public believe that homosexuals are "born that way and can never change, so we need to treat them with tender, loving care" when there is absolutely no scientific evidence proving that statement. They've been programmed to believe it that way for a long time. I often wonder if modern attitudes towards weapons ("Oooh!! They hurt people! It's their only purpose!") are the result of social programming.

 

It was once said that a lie told often enough eventually becomes to be accepted as the truth. I believe that statement to be true and correct.

 

(Edited for spelling error.)

Edited December 28, 2012 by Rocky Davis

[thekirk]

There's one way to make changes with the US electorate, and that's a long, careful campaign of education and change, similar to the anti-smoking campaign. Which, when you think about it, was the way the tobacco companies made smoking acceptable in the first place. Legislative fiat just does not work, despite all the fantasies of the do-gooders. Look at Prohibition, and the drug war: Did either work?

 

I'm not sure you are on target here with the smoking analogy. Smoking tobacco was always acceptable from the first time Europeans set foot on the soil here and smoked with Indians. That's why it has taken so long to change the majority of minds about tobacco use. The young ones have been brought up being programmed by teachers about tobacco being bad. The older ones that didn't give a shit about it one way or another (like me - and I'm an ex-smoker since 1998) are all dying off and taking their attitudes to the graves with them. Some of the younger ones are also influenced by family and friends that get tobacco-related illnesses or have tobacco-related illness deaths. Combine all of that with legislative efforts (done by "do-gooders") to make smokers social outcasts and legislative efforts to tax tobacco so much that a regular person can't afford to so it anymore and you eventually come up with the situation we've got now - a majority consensus that smoking is bad and they don't want to be around it.

 

But, I do agree that long, sustained campaigns of programming the American Public (starting early with the children) does work to some degree. I do believe it works on just about any type of subject matter. Look how many of the American Public believe the opposite of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." They've been programmed to believe it that way for a long time (big government owes you). Look how many of the American Public believe that homosexuals are "born that way and can never change, so we need to treat them with tender, loving care" when there is absolutely no scientific evidence proving that statement. They've been programmed to believe it that way for a long time. I often wonder if modern attitudes towards weapons ("Oooh!! They hurt people! It's their only purpose!") are the result of social programming.

 

It was once said that a lie told often enough eventually becomes to be accepted as the truth. I believe that statement to be true and correct.

 

Rocky, I was thinking of how smoking used to be something done in private, among friends, during the Victorian era. Once upon a time, smoking was not to be done around ladies and children, and there were special rooms and times for it--And, then came the marketers, who eventually made smoking so pervasive that even women were lighting up. If you examine the historical record, it becomes very apparent that the popularity of smoking came about largely because of what the marketers did, not an organic, natural growth. Which is precisely what did in the vice, as well: Pervasive marketing and a general demonization of it.

 

Want to fundamentally change how things are done in America? Study the growth of the tobacco industry, how it made cigarettes so publicly pervasive, and what happened to reduce things to the current level. Of course, the argument could be made that it's all a part of the natural swing of things, but I suspect that a lot could be learned, no matter what.

[X-Files]

The thing is, for neigh on two decades I have been hearing US gun owners screaming "OMG OMG OMG gubmint is eroding our rights bit by bit by bit and sometime soon jack-booted thugs will kick down our doors and confiscate our guns!!!!!111eleveneleven!!!".

 

Bit of hyperbole there, but I understand that if you're half a world away and your primary source of information is the MSM and intertubez.

 

All the while lunatics were happily gunning down students, colleagues, moviegoers and religious congregations at semi-regular intervals, and other walks of American life were regulated to ridiculously paranoid levels - no XXL sugary drinks, can't smoke or drink in public, can't fly if your name is Jihad or you once looked at your neighbor crossly, and have to register as a sex offender for urinating in public or having a girlfriend two years your junior.

 

Like I've been saying many times before and most recently in post #70, the NannyState knows no bounds.

 

Horse's mouth and whatnot.

 

http://youtu.be/1yeA_kHHLow

Edited December 28, 2012 by X-Files

[Mikel2]

There's one way to make changes with the US electorate, and that's a long, careful campaign of education and change, similar to the anti-smoking campaign. Which, when you think about it, was the way the tobacco companies made smoking acceptable in the first place. Legislative fiat just does not work, despite all the fantasies of the do-gooders. Look at Prohibition, and the drug war: Did either work?

 

I'm not sure you are on target here with the smoking analogy. Smoking tobacco was always acceptable from the first time Europeans set foot on the soil here and smoked with Indians. That's why it has taken so long to change the majority of minds about tobacco use. The young ones have been brought up being programmed by teachers about tobacco being bad. The older ones that didn't give a shit about it one way or another (like me - and I'm an ex-smoker since 1998) are all dying off and taking their attitudes to the graves with them. Some of the younger ones are also influenced by family and friends that get tobacco-related illnesses or have tobacco-related illness deaths. Combine all of that with legislative efforts (done by "do-gooders") to make smokers social outcasts and legislative efforts to tax tobacco so much that a regular person can't afford to so it anymore and you eventually come up with the situation we've got now - a majority consensus that smoking is bad and they don't want to be around it.

 

But, I do agree that long, sustained campaigns of programming the American Public (starting early with the children) does work to some degree. I do believe it works on just about any type of subject matter. Look how many of the American Public believe the opposite of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." They've been programmed to believe it that way for a long time (big government owes you). Look how many of the American Public believe that homosexuals are "born that way and can never change, so we need to treat them with tender, loving care" when there is absolutely no scientific evidence proving that statement. They've been programmed to believe it that way for a long time. I often wonder if modern attitudes towards weapons ("Oooh!! They hurt people! It's their only purpose!") are the result of social programming.

 

It was once said that a lie told often enough eventually becomes to be accepted as the truth. I believe that statement to be true and correct.

 

Rocky, I was thinking of how smoking used to be something done in private, among friends, during the Victorian era. Once upon a time, smoking was not to be done around ladies and children, and there were special rooms and times for it--And, then came the marketers, who eventually made smoking so pervasive that even women were lighting up. If you examine the historical record, it becomes very apparent that the popularity of smoking came about largely because of what the marketers did, not an organic, natural growth. Which is precisely what did in the vice, as well: Pervasive marketing and a general demonization of it.

 

 

Edward Bernays (the great progressive propagandist) was a key figure in getting women to smoke...