View Full Version : Weapon manufacturers during ban.
Just curious as to what the heck happens to these weapon manufacturers if there is a ban on weapons?
Depends what any ban looks like. During the last one, they made post-ban guns without the fun stuff "cosmetically".
Depends what any ban looks like. During the last one, they made post-ban guns without the fun stuff "cosmetically".
What do you mean by the fun stuff "cosmetically"???
There won't be "post ban" guns afi there is another AWB. They have seen ALL the loopholes comeisng out of CA and NY.
The BIG manufacturers will have police and military contracts (and for Obamas new "civilian Defense Force") and so will be there
The mom and pop sized AR-manufacturers who don't have gov't contracts will have to make some other kind of legal gun -- or go out of business.
That's the PLAN isn't it?
What do you mean by the fun stuff "cosmetically"???
Stuff that while functional for specific reasons, is basically "cosmetic" in terms of making the gun go bang -- ie, from the banners standpoint these make the AW but we know better
Things like "flash hider", "bayonet lug", etc. A pre ban and post ban AR speaking in terms of the last ban were identical in lethality and all other criteria of being a bad-ass weapon for criminals but one was an AW and one was not based on these "features" which for most people are cosmetic and make it look more bad-ass.
I know these things have a function for people who need them and know what they do etc. Let's not get in big discussions on that.
There won't be "post ban" guns afi there is another AWB. They have seen ALL the loopholes comeisng out of CA and NY.
The BIG manufacturers will have police and military contracts (and for Obamas new "civilian Defense Force") and so will be there
The mom and pop sized AR-manufacturers who don't have gov't contracts will have to make some other kind of legal gun -- or go out of business.
That's the PLAN isn't it?
There are ALWAYS loopholes to laws. No one is perfect.
Obama claims he wants to make the "federal AWB" permanent. If that is truly the case then the law won't be much more different than the past one but without a sunset provision. (Of course they will "improve" upon it -- let's not argue). My point is that no legislation has yet been submitted (yes I know there are dream AWB submitted by a few people in this and the last 4 Congresses).
Until the real deal is submitted it is kind of dumb to speculate on what will or won't be there.
Army Chief
11-12-08, 03:54
I don't want to get into the whole "what constitutes infringement" controversy, but I'm more than a little amazed that all of the AWB proposals we've seen to date are effectively outright blanket prohibitions, with absolutely no provision for private ownership (in the future) under any circumstances.
Granted, no one wants to see a national firearms licensing scheme because of the potential for future abuses, but would it not make more sense from a liberal philosophical standpoint to simply limit ownership of such weapons to those who have completed some kind of credentialling requirement, or who have otherwise met the terms of something akin to our current CCW laws?
Clearly, those who are willing to subject themselves to background investigations, mandated training requirements and the added costs and inconveniences of licensing are NOT the people that we need to be worried about in addressing our urban crime zone problems. Why restrict their rights/privileges of ownership when they are clearly not related to the problem?
Again, I'm trying to look at this from the Democratic perspective (and I am admittedly not a Democrat), but I find it instructive that their response to "assault weapons" is to go after the weapons themselves, rather than the people that use them illegally or in the commission of crimes. They don't appear to be interested in whether or not the right people are in possession of these kinds of weapons; merely in making sure that the hardware itself is not available -- oh, unless you're already unconcerned with legality, of course. It just seems to me that the absurdity of this position ought to be getting more press than it does.
Personally, I think that I would rather give a few inches than to lose the entire mile, though I would readily concede that living abroad for so long may have shaped my willingness to flex a bit, even though our Constitution makes it clear that we have no such obligation. The problem with all-or-nothing propositions is that you very often end up with nothing -- just as we did between 1994 and 2004.
Chief
We have to stop all of the conjecture and just be diligent and keep each other informed. Lets support those groups that have our interests in mind like the NRA and GOA and stop the "what iffing".
...
Clearly, those who are willing to subject themselves to background investigations, mandated training requirements and the added costs and inconveniences of licensing are NOT the people that we need to be worried about in addressing our urban crime zone problems. Why restrict their rights/privileges of ownership when they are clearly not related to the problem?
Those are the ones they fear the most. They abide by the law and see the bigger picture regarding the Constitution. As in defending it from "threats foreign and domestic".
Again, I'm trying to look at this from the Democratic perspective (and I am admittedly not a Democrat), but I find it instructive that their response to "assault weapons" is to go after the weapons themselves, rather than the people that use them illegally or in the commission of crimes. They don't appear to be interested in whether or not the right people are in possession of these kinds of weapons; merely in making sure that the hardware itself is not available -- oh, unless you're already unconcerned with legality, of course. It just seems to me that the absurdity of this position ought to be getting more press than it does.
You make the common mistake of looking at "it" logically. The issue is more emotion driven (ie school shootings). It's easier to get in a tizzy about emotions than it is to get all worked up about logic.
I've been telling people for at least a decade that if we continue down this road there will be two jobs left in America. Working for the government or working for the prison system. You're either going to be a criminal or a government employee.
Personally, I think that I would rather give a few inches than to lose the entire mile, though I would readily concede that living abroad for so long may have shaped my willingness to flex a bit, even though our Constitution makes it clear that we have no such obligation. The problem with all-or-nothing propositions is that you very often end up with nothing -- just as we did between 1994 and 2004.
Chief
...and another inch, and another, and another...till you run out of inches to give.
my65swede@yahoo.com
11-12-08, 10:18
I couldn't agree more! Well said.
For a clue as to what might be envisioned on so-called "assault weapons", read the text of H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, introduced 02/13/07 by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of NY's 4th District. Although this bill was never reported out of committee in the 110th Congress, it makes for interesting reading.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:
There are ALWAYS loopholes to laws. No one is perfect.
Obama claims he wants to make the "federal AWB" permanent. If that is truly the case then the law won't be much more different than the past one but without a sunset provision. (Of course they will "improve" upon it -- let's not argue). My point is that no legislation has yet been submitted (yes I know there are dream AWB submitted by a few people in this and the last 4 Congresses).
Until the real deal is submitted it is kind of dumb to speculate on what will or won't be there.
Just out of curiosity, if Obama made another AWB with no sunset. Couldn't the next president come along and change it? I mean hell, if they're going to wipe their feet on the constitution, what's to stop anyone else in the future from making a change to his change?
Just out of curiosity, if Obama made another AWB with no sunset. Couldn't the next president come along and change it? I mean hell, if they're going to wipe their feet on the constitution, what's to stop anyone else in the future from making a change to his change?
A ban like the 94 AWB if passed without a sunset provision has a 0% chance of ever being overturned by any means. Congress is going to have to be on board as well. The SCOTUS is certainly not going to become more conservative in the coming years and even now I don't think they would overturn an AWB. They could probably even get away with transfer bans of AWs and high cap mags and get away with it.
flyboy1788
11-12-08, 21:30
Just out of curiosity, if Obama made another AWB with no sunset. Couldn't the next president come along and change it? I mean hell, if they're going to wipe their feet on the constitution, what's to stop anyone else in the future from making a change to his change?
i was wondering this as well. With the democrat majority, who is to stop them from pooing on the constitution?? No one can stop them. While on the other hand if we eventually get a republican majority in the congress, whos to say that we just poo on all the changes the democrats made and "interpret" the constitution our way
A ban like the 94 AWB if passed without a sunset provision has a 0% chance of ever being overturned by any means. Congress is going to have to be on board as well. The SCOTUS is certainly not going to become more conservative in the coming years and even now I don't think they would overturn an AWB. They could probably even get away with transfer bans of AWs and high cap mags and get away with it.
Why would one party be able to change it and another can't?
I'm not trying to start any kind of argument. I'm just looking for a little clarification. So, I hope that is the way it comes across to everyone.
If the majority was Republican, couldn't there be some possibilty that it could be changed? I mean, wasn't the constitution originally written to not be changed, but yet everyone wants to change it?
I just don't see or believe that one guy will be that powerful.......... I don't know, maybe i just don't get it.:(
Why would one party be able to change it and another can't?
I'm not trying to start any kind of argument. I'm just looking for a little clarification. So, I hope that is the way it comes across to everyone.
If the majority was Republican, couldn't there be some possibilty that it could be changed? I mean, wasn't the constitution originally written to not be changed, but yet everyone wants to change it?
I just don't see or believe that one guy will be that powerful.......... I don't know, maybe i just don't get it.:(
The Republicans destroyed the Dems in 94, possibly on the backs of guns owners, to take back control of the house and senate. I don't recall them voting to overturn the AWB and sending it to Clinton. That was almost a perfect storm victory and yet they did nothing. Clinton would have still vetoed it and Congress would have been able to override the veto in any event. In order to overturn an AWB you need the house, senate and POTUS, or you need the SCOTUS. Not happening. Most people are likely in favor of banning those "weapons of war" and in any event there surely isn't enough people to demand that it be overturned, and hold the politician's feet to the fire that they send. You also have to remember that Republicans turn into little bitches when they get to DC and we continue to support them unlike Dems who become bold even in the minority.
It also has nothing to do with one man being "that powerful" when he has everyone he needs on his side.
Another funny thing is the great anti gun Clinton is actually a side note of ineffectiveness in the gun banning arena. AWB expired. I think he banned selling US surplus ammo to civilians. Now under the watch of: Reagan = ban new machine guns, Bush 41 = import ban of AWs, Bush 43 = ban on imported barrels and some parts. I'm probably leaving out some stuff.
Personally, I think that I would rather give a few inches than to lose the entire mile ...
I understand your point. However "appeasment" didn't work for Europe in WW2 and won't work with gun control, either.
We could license all our "assault weapons" and in 4 or 5 years there would be another bill with some more restrictions. Then another a few years after that. And so on and so forth.
Some people just don't want you to have any guns whatsoever, and they will never be satisfied until they are all gone.
They don't appear to be interested in whether or not the right people are in possession of these kinds of weapons;
I would suggest you do not understand who they consider to be the "right people". Quit thinking in American terms or in terms of personal defense from criminals. Instead, think in terms of the Peoples Republic of China, the USSR, or even the Third Reich. You then might get a better grasp of who the "right people" are from their perspective.
Army Chief
11-13-08, 11:53
I've traditionally been a "cold dead hands" type of guy, so to some degree, the purpose of my post was as much an intellectual exploration as a philosophical observation. I would certainly agree that "give an inch, lose a mile" is a relevant concern here, though my feeling was/is that the lack of any accommodation or middle ground is still puzzling.
Here's why ...
rmecpn rightly points out that the real shortcoming in this logic is that I've not been willing to consider that the despots of the past have anything in common with the powers of the present. This is pure naivety on my part, of course, but I'm very reluctant to look to our own government and make too many comparisons to the failed regimes of the past.
Is this because I don't see the validity of such things? No, it isn't. Perhaps I just am hesitant to step onto the path of feeling like my life's vocation has been in service of a government that is increasingly proving itself unworthy of my sacrifices. I'm by no means there yet, but like the rest of you, I do see the handwriting on the wall. Will our new administration take us closer to the precipice, or will this prove to be much ado about nothing? I hope for the latter, but ... well, let's pray that there are enough patriots left with the courage to stand if the former becomes our new reality.
Chief
Perhaps I just am hesitant to step onto the path of feeling like my life's vocation has been in service of a government that is increasingly proving itself unworthy of my sacrifices.
Believe me brother, you would not be alone in that thought. It bothers the hell out of all of us who care deeply about this nation and who also wore the uniform. It leaves an empty, sick feeling down deep in the pit of my stomach and my heart feels like it's been ripped from my chest. I feel betrayed ...
I don't want to get into the whole "what constitutes infringement" controversy, but I'm more than a little amazed that all of the AWB proposals we've seen to date are effectively outright blanket prohibitions, with absolutely no provision for private ownership (in the future) under any circumstances.
Granted, no one wants to see a national firearms licensing scheme because of the potential for future abuses, but would it not make more sense from a liberal philosophical standpoint to simply limit ownership of such weapons to those who have completed some kind of credentialling requirement, or who have otherwise met the terms of something akin to our current CCW laws?
Clearly, those who are willing to subject themselves to background investigations, mandated training requirements and the added costs and inconveniences of licensing are NOT the people that we need to be worried about in addressing our urban crime zone problems. Why restrict their rights/privileges of ownership when they are clearly not related to the problem?
Again, I'm trying to look at this from the Democratic perspective (and I am admittedly not a Democrat), but I find it instructive that their response to "assault weapons" is to go after the weapons themselves, rather than the people that use them illegally or in the commission of crimes. They don't appear to be interested in whether or not the right people are in possession of these kinds of weapons; merely in making sure that the hardware itself is not available -- oh, unless you're already unconcerned with legality, of course. It just seems to me that the absurdity of this position ought to be getting more press than it does.
Personally, I think that I would rather give a few inches than to lose the entire mile, though I would readily concede that living abroad for so long may have shaped my willingness to flex a bit, even though our Constitution makes it clear that we have no such obligation. The problem with all-or-nothing propositions is that you very often end up with nothing -- just as we did between 1994 and 2004.
Chief
They're not "liberals", they're "progressives". Those who do now know the difference, do so at their own peril. If you do not know, then you're simply not going to be able to comprehend what they do and why. (the irony here, is the studies showing that conservatives tend to model and predict the behavior of other ideoligies better than vice versa) The Democrat party is not a monolith, and their dirty little secret is that those who pull a lot of the strings - and those who supply a lot of the money, do a lot of the advocacy work, and in general form the politically active core of the party - are not ANYTHING like most Democrats you know (especially after the "Dean revolution" a few years ago) These are not Bob and Joe, the union shop stewards down the road, they're screedy bastards like the nuts at Daily Kos. I suggest you head over there for a quick and appalling education. Anyone for whom that name does not ring a bell needs to take a couple of hours and go there and dig around.
What makes you think that this has anything to do with firearm safety, or that they wish you to have arms of any kind at all?
The issue here is the use of force , not firearms. Look at all of the Dem language about "hunting" and "sportsmen" and guaranteeing that they will not "take your shotgun", while at the same time saying that we need an "assault weapon ban". (Obama's actual site and platform says exactly that)
If they get a blanket firearm ban, it'll be knives, swords, and crossbows next. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but mainly there are, honestly, a lot of stupid people out there. The ones on the "other" side (we have plenty of our own) tend to blame crime and violence on the tools, not the user; politicians pander to this, and stir up more of the same to pander some more. It's a repeating cycle; a "cycle of ignorance", if you will. For the politicians, it has less to do with any nefarious wish to disarm us in general than it does with being one more topic to pander to fools with, much like all their talk about "fairness" and taxes and "spreading the wealth". They HAVE wealth, and will continue to have it - it's some other poor sap who will foot the bill to buy their votes.
And be aware - there exist books and manuals about how to go about enacting gun control legislation. There are literally handbooks - and incrementalism is the name of the game. You'll keep giving a few inches until they have the whole mile, because they're patient, they're acting in bad faith, and they know the odds of having legislation overturned later are very small.
Army Chief
11-13-08, 15:03
I should have anticipated the inch/mile angst; indeed, I've been a longtime NRA member reading these very same warnings for decades. I guess I just remember all-too-well what happened to us on 1986, and what happened again in 1994, and what is likely to happen again before too long on a more permanent basis. We gave no inches, of course, but still lost our rights to own entire classes of firearms overnight. On principle, it was still the right thing to do (I don't really question that), but at the end of the day, we still lost those rights.
Is it any wiser to try to make a deal with the Devil? No, of course not ... and I guess the more relevant point here has already been capably made: we aren't "the right people" according to the leftist definition, whether we choose to play nicely or not. Just to be clear, I don't favor concessions; I'm just slightly puzzled that the politically savvy continue to view this as an all-or-nothing proposition. I would have thought that a CCW-like approach would have been a lot more appealing to professional politicians who safeguard their own viability with these kinds of compromises every day.
Chief
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.