"THE Ban"

[11Bravo]

Not putting too much effort into constructing this post so it will not be the most reasoned or smooth.

I would like to point out some things that lead me to believe that we may well be in for an upcoming ban of some sort; and sooner than later.

1. Ask 100 people on the street to name 5 mass shootings.
I promise that very few will be able to and most if not all of them will have taken place during or after the last ban.
What does this mean?
Lib position will be that it demonstrates that the '94 ban was not strict enough, which was a mistake, and letting it expire was an even bigger mistake. Nothing else relating to crime rates will matter.

2. They have been given a mandate to do something. I really think they will.

3. As liberal as the media was in '93-'94, they are more so now and they have just demonstrated that they can say what they want and larger and larger numbers will go along without questioning.

4. I personally don't think that the '94 AWB had as much to do with the Dem losing in '94 as most here seem to think. And so what if it did? '10 is farther away than most voters seem to remember. The sooner they pass a ban the fewer people will remember it next time they vote.

5. As someone mentioned in another post, it will probably not be a ban on specific makes or models, it will be a ban on features which will of course be completely "reasonable".

6. If Dick Morris (another recent thread) and others are correct and we are in for a trip to the shitter in the next two years with respect to the economy, freedoms, and capitalism, "we" are going to be more and more vocal with our opposition to the changes and the media and administration are going to drag up the "right-wing militia/survivalist" thing again and make "us" out to be even bigger bad guys than we were under Slick.
It will be a matter of national security to make sure we don't have arms that could be used for the exact purpose that the 2nd Amendment was written.

7. Pass a ban and enact it.
Any court challenges will take long enough to get to the Supreme Court that at least one if not two conservative justices will have died or retired and have been replace by Ginsburg and Breyer clones and the 2nd Amendment will be re-interpreted to be a "collective" right.

The possibilities have me as nervous as a meat-eater at a vegan convention. :eek:

Greg

[beckman]

[...]
3. As liberal as the media was in '93-'94, they are more so now and they have just demonstrated that they can say what they want and larger and larger numbers will go along without questioning.
Wow, that's an understatement! What's more, the bias seems to just get worse and worse. I thought that the campaign was bad, but the coronation was nothing less than worship. The proof of the effectiveness of the MSM's bias can be seen in Obama's stellar approval ratings -- even before he was actually sworn in.



4. I personally don't think that the '94 AWB had as much to do with the Dem losing in '94 as most here seem to think. And so what if it did? '10 is farther away than most voters seem to remember. The sooner they pass a ban the fewer people will remember it next time they vote.

While I think that gun-control did play a part in the '94 mid-term elections, it's not clear how much was due to the AWB, the Brady Bill, or fear of worse to come. One thing that IS clear is that Clinton won his re-election in '96 with a healthy margin. If Clinton's push for gun-control hurt him, it wasn't by enough to matter.

It should also be noted that mid-term elections have a different dynamic than do presidential-year elections. Mid-terms generally have lower turnout so that issue like gun-control has the potential for greater impact. Also, voters who consider gun-control as a major issue are overwhelmingly pro-gun. While this means that the electoral penalty for supporting gun-control is higher than the benefit, it is also true those who vote pro-gun are less likely to make a difference in a presidential election, as was shown by Clinton's two wins and Obama's win.


7. Pass a ban and enact it.
Any court challenges will take long enough to get to the Supreme Court that at least one if not two conservative justices will have died or retired and have been replace by Ginsburg and Breyer clones and the 2nd Amendment will be re-interpreted to be a "collective" right.

This is definitely a danger. While I don't believe that a new court will completely overturn Heller, I think that they will simply find that any new law is "reasonable" -- assuming that a case ever reaches SCOTUS. It took many years for SCOTUS to hear a case like Heller because circuit courts have always ruled against the Second Ammendment and the defendent. It wasn't until the DC Circuit mad a pro-2A ruling that SCOTUS was forced to hear the case.

It's very likely that we'll see that circuit courts will uphold Obama's new gun laws and even the currently composed SCOTUS will refuse to review the case, if the language of the ruling is properly written. In my opinion, the Heller ruling was way too vague and leaves room for many, many possible infringements.

We've yet to see how many of the current gun bans are overturned due to Heller. So far, not one state's AWB has been overturned. I haven't seen one hicap mag dealer change the list of banned states.

[HwyKnight]

This is why I think we should move to put them under NFA. It would be an inconvenience, but those of us who want them could still get what we want. This would then disarm their argument for a ban. NFA's record, even prior to 1986, was much better than the ban ever was.

[Jay Cunningham]

We have a stuck thread for all discussion of a new theoretical AWB:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=21370