Americans Don't Have the Right to Bear Just Any Arms

[SecularMotion]

[center][/center]

Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that constitutional amendment—that Americans have the right to whatever accessory they can put on, in or over a gun for the sole purpose of making it more deadly—is a dangerous falsehood.

Therein lies the chasm between those seeking constitutionally impossible forms of gun control and their political opponents, who view every proposal regulating weaponry as the first step toward dictatorship. Caught in the middle are the majority of Americans who think people should be allowed to keep guns but seesaw over tougher laws regarding those weapons.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Any thoughts on the article or do you just uncritically accept whatever any GC advocate says?

[ileus]

2. I like that dual magazine CZ75.....sign me up.

Wonder how that works? Two barrels and side by side slide?


Don't know what the flowering onion thing is either...

[blueridge3210]

3. It's clearly

a di-lithium crystal.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. That gave me a WTF moment, too.

Way to sell your credibility on the issue, Newsweek!

[Eleanors38]

13. It did have that beginners Photo-Shop look.

[petronius]

16. It appears to be a pre-expanded expanding bullet, clearly more dangerous than

the ones that don't expand until impact, but not nearly so deadly as that wadcutter to the left...


(Based on some googling it seems they borrowed artwork pertaining to the G2 RIP.)

[Shamash]

18. Uses a spare magazine as a foregrip, note that the magazine is upside down. n/t

[Travis_0004]

4. From the article

Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.

Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

Outlaw the public display of weapons.

Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.

Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.

Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”

Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

I know secular motion agrees with the first 3, but since he posted the article, I would like to thank him for his new support on the last 4 issues as well, since he must agree with the article.

[SecularMotion]

5. The proposals require compromise from both sides of the issue.

[blueridge3210]

6. So, where are you willing to compromise?

What are you willing to give up in exchange for new laws?

The status-quo is trending towards the RKBA side at the moment; what are you willing to sacrifice to get more restrictions?

[Duckhunter935]

7. He can not say

They have never stated what they would compromise on other than maybe you can have 100 year old bolt action rifles maintained in a locked armory.

I would be curious on what he is for in compromise but he can't even take the time to comment on one of his many hundreds of drive by Google cut and paste articles.

Bet his response will be some kind of thing were he thinks he is a host here and the word meta.

[DonP]

8. "Compromise" is a buzz word for gun grabbers and a lie

They always refuse to say what they'd "give up" to "compromise".

In over a decade on DU this has come up every now and then, as well as in several state legislatures.

The whole "compromise" thing is a big lie they tell themselves to make them feel "reasonable" and to demonize gun owners.

"See how unreasonable they are, gun culture has no interest in common sense gun control, they won't even compromise, that's why we have to ban _________".

When gun control supporters start talking about compromise, they really mean give this up now and that up later.

When offered several versions of trade offs in DU discussions (e.g. national concealed carry reciprocity for universal background checks?) they are horrified that the gun owners actually expect something in return and sputter about how states need the ability to have their own standards for carry. Suddenly the idea of "compromise" goes away.

It's a lie, they have no interest in compromise as it's honestly defined.

[blueridge3210]

9. So far, the lack of response from the pro-control side

tends to support your position. I could support UBC's with an ironclad "No National Registry" clause. I could support entering MH records as long as the check simply resulted in a "Do Not Approve" response that would not violate HIPPA regulations; this would have to be open to appeal so that someone who sought MH treatment in college for "depression" due to bad grades or academic suspension was not permanently barred from owning a firearm. YMMV

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I have no qualms about the second and third proposals.

I would stand firm that if we ban open carry then concealed carry must be permitted in its stead.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. That works for me.

I do prefer relatively localized regulation of open carry, though. Example: here in Oregon, state law permits open carry. However, counties and cities are able to prohibit the practice (an explicit exemption to the state-level preemption of local firearms laws). Sparsely populated rural areas, where open carry isn't uncommon and where it raises few eyebrows, can continue as before.

[Eleanors38]

14. Not engaging in discussion and debate gives rise to fears of extremism...

This is the chief concern of pro-2A people: That the gun-control outlook is in reality a prohibitionist outlook-in-waiting, an outlook which must per force NOT reveal its hand, only a "reasonable, common-sense" measure here & there to mask real intents.

[MicaelS]

23. Compromise means you get to ban some now...

And more later on. You're not taking them all at once. That is all compromise really means when people like you are speaking.

[benEzra]

27. He wants to ban 100-rounders, he says. Problem is,

the gun control lobby keeps going after popular 11 to 30 round magazines, going back to the 1860s and 1870s, of which there are now a third of a billion or more in U.S. homes.

You guys would have gotten a lot more traction with magazine capacity limits if you set the limit more reasonably, like 30 for rifles and 20 for pistols, instead of aiming for 40% less capacity than a New Yorker could buy in 1862. Calling anything over 10 rounds "high capacity", when the first mainstream civilian repeating rifles of the 1860s held 16+1, most full sized 9mm pistols hold 17+1, and most small-caliber rifles hold 30, is as ludicrous as calling any abortion after 10 weeks "late term". It's simply not. Heck, Lewis and Clark carried a 20-round repeater on their famous expedition in 1804 to 1806, with a power similar to a modern .45 ACP.

Of course, the lobbyists poisoned the well for that issue by going for a 10- or 15-round limit in the first place. After seeing the desired end goal (10? even lower?), even a 30-round limit will likely be seen as only a stepping stone to the ridiculous capacity limits the prohibition lobby wants, and be opposed on that basis.

[melm00se]

36. i believe this

is the repeating rifle carried by Lewis and Clark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

[benEzra]

39. Yep. 20-round magazine, and power similar to a modern .45 ACP.

Very similar to a large-caliber modern precharged hunting airgun, which have capabilities similar to blackpowder firearms except for more rapid fire (in the repeating versions). It surprises me that the metallurgy of the late 1700's was good enough to create a high-pressure cylinder that good.

[Eleanors38]

15. What in hell is that thing in the bottom left? nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Just a bit of artistic license created by...

...applying some creative speculation to an ample portion of BS.

[benEzra]

25. I would call that "artistic ignorance." (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. I think of in shorthand...

...it's more like a griffin holding a magic wand and as welcome as a fart in church.

[Eleanors38]

37. I thought it was a meaningless grip, at first.

[oneshooter]

19. Could be a Beretta 92 full auto with a oversized front grip?

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/dGPENJD7MiUtKS3XaKNMUg--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MjkzO3E9OTU7dz00MDA-/

[AtheistCrusader]

49. I thought it was a Beretta too. What the fuck is that doohicky on the front, a can opener?

[oneshooter]

50. It is a fold down forward grip.

Used for better control during full auto fire.

[Shamash]

20. If you mean the bullet on the bottom right, it is this:

http://www.ammunitionsupplycompany.com/G2-RIP-9MM-Ammo-p/g2rip-9mm.htm

More than $2 per bullet for 9mm. I guess if you loaded a 100 round drum and turned it in for Fred's generous $300 buyback, you'd only lose a hundred bucks on the deal (given the cost of 100 round drums).

[MicaelS]

22. Bottom Left or Bottom Right?

Bottom Left is a CZ-75 with an extended magazine and an extended barrel laying on top of another magazine.

Bottom right is an "exotic" bullet. I would never put one in a gun I own, though.

[Eleanors38]

38. Peculiar.

[pablo_marmol]

21. And uninformed Controllers are the *last* people we'll trust to decide which guns are OK. NT

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. I don't trust that...

...MIRV bullet at the bottom right.

[pablo_marmol]

35. Those are the bullets capable of knocking airliners out of the sky, dontcha know!

Edited to add: I heard about it on MSNBC -- so it MUST be true!!

[benEzra]

24. And that line is drawn at .51 caliber,automatic fire, and explosives.

Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed handguns, rifles, and shotguns under .51 caliber (with exemptions for some over-.50 weapons, like 12-gauge and 20-gauge shotguns and African big-game rifles) is where the consensus is in this country for gun ownership.

The prohibition lobby has made attacking that consensus its #1 priority since the early 1990s, but the only thing that has done is to discredit the gun control lobby, and hasten the mainstreaming of nontraditional looking civilian guns in the mid-1990s.

Now the guns and magazines the prohibitionists most want to ban define the mainstream, yet are among the least misused weapons in the nation. It's not that the gun control lobby can't grasp that fact, either; they fully understand it, they just don't care.

[HassleCat]

28. What the founders envisioned

When they wrote the Second Amendment, they figured they needed the farmers and townspeople to be able to form a militia in a few hours to shoot at the King's troops. If we apply that concept today, we would have a militia, supplied with assault rifles, side arms, ammunition, portable radios, uniforms, etc. They would be assigned rank (sergeant, captain, etc.) and attend militia training every summer. They would be monitored, and kicked out if they committed serious crimes, showed psycho tendencies, etc.

They would NOT be a bunch of weirdo gun nuts who owned 50 weapons each, held gatherings to share conspiracy theories, waved the rebel flag, passed out Nazi literature at gun shows. In fact, such people would be expelled from the militia and would have to turn in their guns. We would be just as careful about protecting ourselves from internal mischief as we are about repelling some foreign invader. Anybody who showed up at Cliven Bundy's ranch, for example, to threaten federal officers, would be thrown out of the militia.

Of course, this went down the toilet long ago. The "militia" we have now is just as likely to shoot us, more likely in fact, to shoot us as it is to shoot some terrorist or Muslim invaders from Isis. Their idea of freedom is, "I get to own any kind of gun I want," and that's about it. They could care less about our other freedoms, and they think civil rights boil down to the right to keep and bear arms.

[beevul]

29. No. Just no. You could not be more wrong.

28. What the founders envisioned When they wrote the Second Amendment, they figured they needed the farmers and townspeople to be able to form a militia in a few hours to shoot at the King's troops."

No. The framers definitely envisioned the things you say they did, however, it was when they wrote the constitution, that they were envisioning it, NOT the bill of rights:

“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

When the framers wrote amendment 2, this is what they had in mind:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Do you understand what that says, and what it means?

The rest of your post is just a pile of pejorative poop, about people who you are never likely to meet or spend time with to any degree which would qualify you to characterize them in any manor that might be accurately described as 'representative of reality'.

[HassleCat]

32. Yes, I understand

The part you cite from Article I, expressing the power of the government to raise a militia ties directly to the 2nd Amendment. This is why the 2nd starts out with the "well regulated militia" wording. And no, I do not associate with the people I described. It's difficult to avoid them at gun shows, but it can be done. The idea of a citizen militia, even the citizens AS the militia, does not accommodate people who believe they bear arms to do whatever they want, come to the aid of people breaking the law, engage in vigilante activities, etc. There's a line to be drawn, and I can't tell you exactly where it should be drawn, but we have failed to do it.

[beevul]

41. I was referring to the preamble. Do you understand what it says?

And, do you understand what it means?

[HassleCat]

42. Oh, OK

I guess you're referring, specifically, to the part where they express a desire to provide for the common defense. When they wrote that, they were thinking mostly of defending themselves from the King, but we look at it in broader terms now. Yes, it does allow for something such as a community based militia organizing themselves to face up to some problem the police couldn't address. However, there is a line between something such as that, and a bunch of guys arming themselves and then making up an excuse to commit crimes, take over public property, terrorize the neighbors, and so on. This has little to do with gun control, as we usually think of it, but does concern our interpretation of the 2nd as absolute, so we are reluctant to take guns away from known sociopaths.

[beevul]

43. No. The preamble to the bill of rights.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

The above is what I'm referring to.


Do you understand what it says, and means?

[HassleCat]

44. Of course.

The Bill of Rights was added to get the various states to ratify. There was general nervousness that too strong a central government would stifle individual freedoms, as well as the ability of each state to conduct it business without federal meddling. The preamble says, We're not going to do that, and here's our promise not to."

[beevul]

46. More specifically...

The existence of the preamble and its content, make perfectly crystal clear, that claims claiming that amendment 2 'authorizes' anything, are completely wrong.


Amendment 2 contains only restrictions on governmental exercise of power.

When they wrote amendment 2, it was 'farmers and townspeople' and indeed all citizens of the nation, who they were protecting from 'misconstruction or abuse' of government power.

Not exclusively 'the militia'.

“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

The above authorizes government to call forth the militia...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 2, on the other hand, forbids it from disarming 'the people', not just 'the militia'.


Strictly speaking, "When they wrote the Second Amendment, they figured they needed the farmers and townspeople to be able to form a militia in a few hours to shoot at the King's troops" is incorrect.

If you changed it to read " "When they wrote Article I, Section 8, Clause 15..." it would be spot on.

[HassleCat]

47. But they stilll connected it

They still put that connection in there, relating the freedom to keep and bear arms to the ability to raise a militia. Even though they sought to assure people the federal government would not take away the arms of anyone not a militia member, they made it clear there was a reason this freedom was assured, not just as a freedom unto itself, but as a freedom with a purpose. If they didn't think so, they would have written it the same way they wrote up freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of assembly, etc. According to the way it's written into our Constitution, the freedom to keep and bear arms serves a national purpose, and does not stand on its own as one of those "self evident" freedoms. This is difficult for some people to accept, particularly those who believe they enjoy a 2nd Amendment protection that allows them to shoot at people for wandering onto their property, come to the aid of people like Cliven Bundy, carry loaded weapons into restaurants, and generally scare the hell out of their neighbors. Even the NRA admits this going too far.

[beevul]

48. In reference only.

"They still put that connection in there, relating the freedom to keep and bear arms to the ability to raise a militia."

What you are referring to, is the functional equivalent to 'dicta'.

According to the way it's written into our Constitution, the freedom to keep and bear arms serves a national purpose, and does not stand on its own as one of those "self evident" freedoms.

Nonsense. While it can be construed as serving a 'national purpose', the fact that amendment 2 protects rights which belong to 'the people', and not 'the militia' or 'those eligible to serve in the militia', makes quite clear that it DOES stand on its own.

If they didn't think so, they would have written it the same way they wrote up freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of assembly, etc.

Nonsense. Writing things that way was, I believe, trendy at the time, and as a fact was not unheard of in that day.

Exhibit A:

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.”

Free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution...

Same type of 'connection'. Equally meaningless when it comes to whos rights are protected.

This is difficult for some people to accept...

Because its an opinion, which does not mesh at all, with reality.

particularly those who believe they enjoy a 2nd Amendment protection that allows them to shoot at people for wandering onto their property,

In some places people CAN shoot trespassers IIRC. Who, besides you, believes that anyone thinks that the second amendment, which applies only to government, 'allows' that?

come to the aid of people like Cliven Bundy

What has amendment 2, which applies only to government, to do with that? Seems to me that 'aid' can be laid at the feet of 'freedom of association', whether the 'aid' was armed or otherwise.

carry loaded weapons into restaurants

Restaurant owners determine what policies are allowed on their premises. Your problem with that is?

generally scare the hell out of their neighbors

Some fears are rational. Some are not.

[HassleCat]

51. You make my point well. Thank you.

As you say, the 2nd does not give anyone the right to misbehave, but they certainly think it does. These are the people who give me a pain. They take a perfectly fine constitutional freedom and turn it into something that covers any behavior they see fit to inflict on others. You and I are parsing words back and forth, but you know some people are not interested in the meaning of anything, because that would place limits on their behavior. They simply refer to the 2nd Amendment as an answer to everything.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms being a self evident freedom, such as the others, no. Simply no. If you have to fall back on arguments about "trendy language" and the Rhode Island constitution of 1842, you're on shaky ground and you know it. The framers were not being vague, trendy or anything else when they wrote the 2nd. It's a great amendment, a great freedom, something few other nations dare to allow, and I would not even say it's subordinate to the other freedoms, or less important, but it is distinguishable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. People also abuse the 1st Amendment; case in point gawker.com

The Geithner affair is not their first go-round in 1A abuses. They released Terry Hogan's sex tape, they accused actor James Franco of violent gay rape and other misdeeds. They have abused their 1A rights with malicious intent of hurting others for profit.

But abuses do not abolish the use.

The problem with much of the gun control movement is its insistence that the crimes of one are the guilt of all. Yet the justified uses of any count for none.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms being a self evident freedom, such as the others, no. Simply no. If you have to fall back on arguments about "trendy language" and the Rhode Island constitution of 1842, you're on shaky ground and you know it.

The reasons in 1842 were the same reasons as the even older Bill of Rights of 1789. Age doesn't make the rights less valid. In fact, for rights to have any real value they must be timeless. Rights do not come into being because of technology and they do not cease to be after a fashion. If they did they would cease to be rights and merely be allowances under the law.

We do not form governments to explain our rights to us. Government ought to protect our rights and provide recourse to healing transgressions against them. But governments can and often do abuse rights which displays fully for us the fact our rights transcend government, exist outside of it.

If this is true -- and God help us all if it isn't -- the the right to self-defense against man and government is beyond arguing to the year 1842. If Rhode Island and others had the good sense to codify this truth then we applaud them but even if they did not no person is obligated to tolerate the abuses of tyranny.

The framers were not being vague, trendy or anything else when they wrote the 2nd. It's a great amendment, a great freedom, something few other nations dare to allow, and I would not even say it's subordinate to the other freedoms, or less important, but it is distinguishable.

Distinguishable only in the fact that it is the one amendment that makes self-evident the penalty to be imposed upon the government if it lapses into the abuses inflicted by previous despots.

[beevul]

53. Again, no.

As you say, the 2nd does not give anyone the right to misbehave, but they certainly think it does. These are the people who give me a pain. They take a perfectly fine constitutional freedom and turn it into something that covers any behavior they see fit to inflict on others.

The second doesn't give anyone the right to do anything. It protects a right. It is NOT the source of a right. I'm fairly sure I never stated anything to the contrary.

How exactly do you define 'misbehaving' and who exactly is engaged in it, thinking while they're doing it, that amendment 2 gives them the right to do so?

You and I are parsing words back and forth, but you know some people are not interested in the meaning of anything, because that would place limits on their behavior.

Which behaviors exactly, are you interested in placing limits on, and why?

As far as the right to keep and bear arms being a self evident freedom, such as the others, no. Simply no.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. My view is that all rights belong to the people, by default.

As such, they're all 'self evident'.

If you have to fall back on arguments about "trendy language" and the Rhode Island constitution of 1842, you're on shaky ground and you know it.

That's your opinion. Mine is that its far more solid ground, than any 'collective rights' argument, and the preamble to the bill of rights, penned by those same framers and in that same document, tends to back me up on that.

I do however, note that you are claiming the argument is shaky, without actually proving it.

I say 'same connection - equally meaningless'.

Show me how I'm wrong with something more than opinion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. How dare you suggest the government cannot be trusted!

Thankfully we have No Such Agency to sniff-out disloyal traitors in our midst!

[oneshooter]

31. "weirdo gun nuts who owned 50 weapons"

And insults will gain you no support. You just lost any from me.

[HassleCat]

33. I'm sorry

I had no business arbitrarily citing the number 50. I have a dozen, so I should probably stay mum about the number of firearms a person owns. I know collectors who own far more than 50, and they're fine people. The people who bother me are those who equate the number of guns they own with freedom or safety, or both.

[oneshooter]

34. Accepted, however it is that type of language that makes gun owners

reluctant to interact with those who would willingly give up rights for protection.

[benEzra]

40. I equate the right to *choose* gun ownership, or not, with freedom...

just as I equate choice to speak out on political issues with freedom, or choice in literature or the arts, or choice to decline entrance to my home unless the visitor has a warrant, or choice regarding the practice of religion or lack thereof. Individual choice in those domains was considered important enough post-Enlightenment for them to be listed in our Bill of Rights, as a precondition for the foundation of our current system of government.

If I as a responsible, mentally competent adult with a good record am forced to live by someone else's opinions regarding gun ownership, or religion, or literature, or reproductive choice, then my freedom is indeed diminished, and I do not see how one can logically argue otherwise. There are those who argue that all of those freedoms should be sharply abridged for various reasons (public morality, public safety, social cohesion, whatever), but one cannot pretend that such abridgements don't diminish freedom.

One is also on very firm statistical ground to say that for a responsible, mentally competent adult who is not involved or associated with criminal activity and who is not at high risk for suicide, ownership of a gun and competence with same does indeed provide a net safety benefit. That has nothing to do with the *number* of guns one owns, though, as one can only wield a single gun at a time. With a good handgun for accessibility and a good long gun for defense-in-place, it'd be hard to argue that additional guns offer much extra capability, other than specialization for certain niches.

Hunting guns tend to be more specialized, though, as are a few target disciplines (e.g., you can shoot your all-around carbine in 3-gun or USPSA and do well, but you won't win an F-class match with something not optimized to the hilt for long range work, and you won't win an Olympic free pistol match with an off-the-shelf .22).

[jimmy the one]

54. indicative

ezra: Now the guns and magazines the prohibitionists most want to ban define the mainstream, yet are among the least misused weapons in the nation. It's not that the gun control lobby can't grasp that fact, either; they fully understand it, they just don't care.

Tho this doesn't segregate, might be indicative:, a bit dated too

Assault weapons and offenders ... In the 1991 BJS Survey of Stat Inmates, about 8% of the inmates reported that they had owned a military-type weapon, such as an Uzi, AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than 1% said that they carried such a weapon when they committed the incident for which they were incarcerated.
A Virginia inmate survey conducted between November 1992 and May 1993 found similar results: About 10% of the adult inmates reported that they had ever possessed an assault rifle, but none had carried it at the scene of a crime.
Two studies indicate higher proportions of juvenile offenders reporting possession and use of assault rifles.
The Virginia inmate survey also covered 192 juvenile offenders. About 20% reported that they had possessed an assault rifle and 1% said that they had carried it at the scene of a crime. In 1991, Sheley and Wright surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4 States. In the Sheley and Wright study, 35% of the juvenile inmates reported that they had owned a military-style automatic or semiautomatic rifle just prior to confinement
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

[blueridge3210]

55. Which begs the question

Why expend political capital trying to prohibit the weapons least misused to commit crimes? Eventually people notice the "dog and pony show" aspect and start to question any attempt to further regulate firearms.

[jimmy the one]

56. cuts both ways

blue ridge: .....Which begs the question .. Why expend political capital trying to prohibit the weapons least misused to commit crimes?

Why did they ban assault weapons in 1994? why do several states have bans on them, encompassing perhaps near a third of the population of the US?
Proscription provides an upper limit to what combination of lethality & accurate rapid fire can be produced; otherwise what is there to prevent the most ludicrous flashy semi-automatic 'assault rifles' be produced under the guise of 'right to bear arms', appealing inordinately to the more deviant &/or criminal minded to supplement their arsenals.
Rather than ask why assault weapons should be prohibited since they are not much used in crime, you should ask what overall benefit do they provide to override the potential mass damage they can produce, whether now or if in the future, they become more common.
These type rifles were mostly designed for use in combat on battlefields where rapid fire & quick incapacitation & death were far more needed than when applied to civilian communities.

blue ridge: ...Eventually people notice the "dog and pony show" aspect and start to question any attempt to further regulate firearms.

That knife cuts both ways.

... In the 1991 BJS Survey of Stat Inmates, about 8% of the inmates reported that they had owned a military-type weapon, such as an Uzi, AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than 1% said that they carried such a weapon when they committed the incident for which they were incarcerated.
A Virginia inmate survey conducted between November 1992 and May 1993 found similar results: About 10% of the adult inmates reported that they had ever possessed an assault rifle, but none had carried it at the scene of a crime.
Two studies indicate higher proportions of juvenile offenders reporting possession and use of assault rifles.
The Virginia inmate survey also covered 192 juvenile offenders. About 20% reported that they had possessed an assault rifle and 1% said that they had carried it at the scene of a crime.
In 1991, Sheley and Wright surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4 States. In the Sheley and Wright study, 35% of the juvenile inmates reported that they had owned a military-style automatic or semiautomatic rifle just prior to confinement http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

[blueridge3210]

57. It depends on who you ask.

Pro-RKBA proponents saw the "AWB" as a "camel's nose in the tent"; start with "assault weapons" and move down the line with an ever increasing list of banned weapons. Unfortunately, the people that passed the legislation appear to have little understanding of the actual functionality of semi-automatic rifles. The law banned some weapons by name, so the manufacturers simply renamed them. Others were banned due to the number of cosmetic features (bayonet lugs, flash suppressors) that had no impact on "lethality"; those features were remove and the weapon was once again legal to produce. The end result was that civilian interest was piqued regarding a "black plastic" rifle that few chose to own; once interest increased and knowledge of the versatility and functionality increased, ownership soared while crime rates continued to drop. Again, these weapons are the ones least used in criminal acts.

Unless one decides to ban all semi-automatic rifles, any future "AWB" is going to run into the same wall. Again, part of living in a free society is that it is incumbent upon the government to justify prohibiting the ownership of an item; given the current statistics regarding which weapons are most likely to be used in crimes, the government can demonstrate no compelling interest in banning ownership of a weapon because is "looks scary". Lanza's weapon was legal under CT's "AWB" which was the federal law w/o the expiration date. Cho used legal 10 round magazines, Holmes did most of his carnage with a traditional pump-action shotgun, Roof used a standard semi-auto pistol.

Attempting to regulate "Assault Weapons" to combat crime is like trying to regulate horsepower, mag wheels and rag-tops in an attempt to combat DUI deaths.

Regarding "dog and pony shows"; look at CO where the rural sheriffs are disgusted that the Governor's Office did not seek their input. The result is a "Magazine Capacity" law that is unenforceable. NY passed their law so quickly that they made criminals out of the NYPD if they carried their issue weapons. CT and NY are seeing a massive resistance regarding the registration of their long-guns. The list goes on.

Again, the pro-control side seems bent on tilting at windmills and looking completely ineffective.

[benEzra]

59. The gun control lobby pushed the "assault weapon" issue as a way to build momentum

"Why did they ban assault weapons in 1994? why do several states have bans on them, encompassing perhaps near a third of the population of the US?"

The gun control lobby originally pushed the "assault weapon" fraud as a way to build momentum for tighter controls on handguns, even knowing full well that rifles weren't a problem.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

Unfortunately for them, by going after lawful gun owners instead of criminals, by going after the most popular "enthusiast" guns and demonizing their owners, they provoked an activism backlash from tens of millions of same that all but destroyed the gun control lobby. It still boggles my mind that Sugarmann/VPC and the Brady Campaign didn't see that coming, but once the media swallowed the bait-and-switch then it was probably hard to acknowledge the truth without losing face.

The "assault weapon" meme first gained traction in Washington under the supervision of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, as I recall, who saw it as a way to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians, but all he was able to push through was some arcane import restrictions later codified into 18 USC 922(r) that could be worked around by using U.S.-made parts. Bill Clinton later jumped on the "assault weapon" bandwagon, for exactly the same reason (as a way to triangulate conservative law-and-order types) not realizing the ban would be hugely unpopular with mainstream gun owners. Dems paid the price hard in '94, '96, and '00 for that mistake, as Clinton recounted in his autobiography, and the sitting Speaker of the House lost his seat for the first time since the Civil War.

To this day, it never ceases to amaze me how the gun control lobby became so unhinged over modern rifle styling, and how many otherwise reasonable politicians fell for the wacky rhetoric ("they blow deer to smithereens! don't even have to be aimed! spray fire from the hip! only useful for mass murder!&quot even when faced with the incontrovertible facts that rifles are the least misused of all weapons, and that "assault weapons" are just Title 1 civilian semiautos.

"Proscription provides an upper limit to what combination of lethality & accurate rapid fire can be produced"

Oh, baloney. The original sponsors of the AWB spent as much or more time demonizing oversized 9mm pistols (civilian Uzi, Intratec TEC-9) and civilian 7.62x39mm AK's than they did demonizing AR-15's. They argued that "assault weapons" are inherently inaccurate, "designed for spray firing from the hip", can't be used for target shooting, ad nauseaum. You're probably the first gun control advocate I've had discussions with who actually acknowledged that an AR is as accurate as a bolt-action, all else being equal. Most claim it's not accurate enough to be a target rifle, and are surprised to find it's the most popular target rifle in America.

Second, the AWB was all about posturing and "othering" of gun enthusiasts, not violence prevention or even banning guns. It didn't actually ban the AR-15 platform, or civilian AK's; it only banned 19 marketing names, not actual guns. It easily tripled AR-15 sales, leading to an explosion of new manufacturers in the late 1990s and early 2000s; the company that made mine (Rock River Arms) started making accurized civilian AR's in 1997. The only thing that changed after 2004 was that new Rock Rivers and such could finally have flash suppressors instead of muzzle brakes, and adjustable stocks could finally be sold without locking pins. The Feinstein law also exempted by name other .223 semiautos with the same capacity and rate of fire as the AR, and exempted AR's as long as they weren't named "Colt AR-15" and had a smooth muzzle or a pinned-on brake. It also allowed 30-round AR and AK magazines to be freely imported from all over the world, in the tens of millions. Later Federal proposals did indeed focus on bans, but the original AWB mostly affected pistol magazine prices, not rifles.

BTW, if you think accurate semiautos are ban-worthy, how do you feel about civilian AK-47 derivatives in 7.62x39mm, which shoot lowish-velocity .30-caliber rounds and are only as accurate as a lever-action? Or how about those civilian Uzis and TEC-9's?

"Rather than ask why assault weapons should be prohibited since they are not much used in crime, you should ask what overall benefit do they provide to override the potential mass damage they can produce, whether now or if in the future, they become more common."

They are *already* more common (they are the most common centerfire rifles in U.S. homes, and have been top of the market for going on a couple of decades now). Their "potential mass damage" is no more than any other semiauto civilian rifle using detachable magazines (like the .223 Ruger Mini-14, which Dianne Feinstein herself praised as a legit sporting rifle in '94).

As to what benefit they provide? The same benefits as any other small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles feeding from detachable magazines: Light recoil, low penetration (especially .223), less costly to shoot, better reserve capacity, and so on. And your own figures show they're the least misused of weapons, as do the FBI weapons stats.

"These type rifles were mostly designed for use in combat on battlefields where rapid fire & quick incapacitation & death were far more needed than when applied to civilian communities."

No non-automatic .223 is issued by any military on this planet, as far as I am aware, except for some police-type forces. Civilian AR's are widespread as police patrol rifles, but the entire raison d'etre of the scaled-down 5.56mm NATO for military use was to allow more accurate cyclic fire than .308/7.62mm, at the cost of some effective range in semiauto compared to .308. Likewise, the original military AK-47 was designed so that one rifle could replace both the PPSh submachinegun (in automatic mode) and the Mosin-Nagant rifle (in semiautomatic mode). In both cases, the ability to fire in cyclic mode, which a civilian rifle cannot do, is fundamental.

Also, how about those designed-for-combat-on-battlefields rifles that were explicitly created to kill human beings half a mile away?



Look familiar? Because that's the basis of a Winchester Model 70, via the Model 58 (yep, a sporterized Mauser).

Thing is, *all* common civilian rifle types are civilian derivatives of military designs, and in turn many military designs adopted features from civilian guns (look at a Remington Model 1908 and a Kalashnikov sometime, or how many U.S. military rifles and carbines now wear civilian-derived Aimpoint optics). What determines whether a rifle is civilian-legal or military/police-restricted is how it works, not how it looks. If it's under .51 caliber, non-automatic, is made difficult to convert to full auto, and has at least a 16" barrel and 26" overall length, it's a Title 1 civilian rifle. Period.

[beevul]

60. Often, art imitates life, but other times...

"Proscription provides an upper limit to what combination of lethality & accurate rapid fire can be produced"

Often, art imitates life, but other times, occasionally, life imitates art:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. +1 ^^^

Fault finders find faults to justify their prejudices.
Fact finders find facts to form logical conclusions.

If I haven't learned something new, today is partly wasted.

[jimmy the one]

61. vintage 2ndA mythology re clinton 1994

ezra: Bill Clinton later jumped on the "assault weapon" bandwagon .. not realizing the ban would be hugely unpopular with mainstream gun owners. Dems paid the price hard in '94, '96, and '00 for that mistake, as Clinton recounted in his autobiography,..

This above is vintage 2nd amendment mythology. You say dems 'paid the price hard' in 1996? you do remember that clinton was reelected in 1996, how was that paying the price hard? NYT, 2009: Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the ’96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the ’93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers.

Clinton did not attribute 1994 losses solely on BB & AWB, but only included them along with several other more influential reasons, in part to exonerate himself from having to accept the blame. If Clinton did indeed attribute any 2000 losses to his gun control support (& pls source this contention of yours), it would've been to shift blame off his liaison with monica lewinsky, for creating al gore's 2000 debacle.

what clinton said, & readers note he is only including the brady bill & AWB along with other controversy, for the 1994 losses: Ironically, I had hurt the Democrats by both my victories and my defeats. The loss of healthcare and the passage of NAFTA demoralized many of our base voters and depressed our turnout. The victories on the economic plan with its tax increases on high-income Americans, the Brady bill, and the assault weapons ban inflamed the Republican base voters and increased their turnout. The turnout differential alone probably accounted for half of our losses, and contributed to a Republican gain of eleven governorships. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=130382

" Media outlets are reviving the myth that passage of the assault weapons ban was the crucial factor in Democratic defeats during the 1994 elections..
US News:.. political scientists who have analyzed the 1994 election say it is "mythology" that gun violence prevention laws were the primary reason the Democrats were defeated... The truth, political scientists say, is that it can be attributed to a combination of factors, and the "assault weapons" ban was just one of several controversial votes that led to the loss.. healthcare reform , North American Free Trade Agreement and raise taxes through a deficit reduction act, which was fraught with political land mines for Democrats. ... "The vote for gun control mattered, but the vote for the tax increase and healthcare were more important," Jacobson.. statistical analysis of what affected.. 1994 election". http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/20/the-media-myth-of-the-assault-weapons-ban-and-t/192337

".. an analysis of the impact of NRA endorsements during the 1994 election found that Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents received a 2-pt boost from the endorsement; no other NRA endorsees received a benefit..since only 9 NRA-endorsed challengers won by 4 pts or fewer, "even if we attribute those 9 victories to the NRA and assume that without {NRA} each race would have gone Democratic - an extremely generous assumption - the Republicans would still have gained 45 seats and won control of the House." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/22/1181113/-Mythbusting-the-media-on-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban#

This NYT author could've been talking to ezra: Those who blame the assault weapons ban for the Democrats’ defeat in 1994 also tend to finger gun control for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential race — especially his failure to carry his home state of Tennessee. But Mr. Gore’s bigger Tennessee problem was his failure to seriously compete there by providing adequate resources to answer N.R.A. distortions, for instance, and matching GWBush’s numerous visits. Largely obscured by the 2000 presidential drama was the loss in Florida’s Senate race of an NRA stalwart Bill McCollum to a consistent Democratic supporter of gun control, Bill Nelson. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=0

No, twas monica who cost al gore the election, far more than pro gun voters. You are swallowing nra propaganda HL&S if anyone thinks gun control efforts cost democrats significantly in those years, other than what would've largely occurred in any event. Ezra, you give pro gun too much credit, where next to nothing is due.

[benEzra]

63. Nope, wrong answer. In Clinton's own words:

"Clinton did not attribute 1994 losses solely on BB & AWB, but only included them along with several other more influential reasons, in part to exonerate himself from having to accept the blame."

Ummm, in Mr. Clinton's own words:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Dude, I was there on the ground. I remember my lifelong-Dem dad saying "Don't worry, that bill won't pass; this is America." He was wrong; it passed, and Dems paid the price. Newt Gingrich could have killed it in conference committee, but he egged Dems on and then rode the backlash into the speaker's chair. At least 20 of the 54 House seats lost in 1994, including the Speaker's, were in large part due to that backlash, and it motivated ordinary, apathetic gun owners into political action like no other issue has before or since. That fraud is the gift to repubs that keeps on giving.

"This above is vintage 2nd amendment mythology. You say dems 'paid the price hard' in 1996? you do remember that clinton was reelected in 1996, how was that paying the price hard? NYT, 2009: Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the ’96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the ’93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers."

Again, I was there. You're forgetting that Bob Dole tried to out-cheer Clinton on the AWB, and also ran on a pro-gun-control platform. The NRA pointedly refused to endorse Dole that year, and instead their slogan was "Elect a Clinton-Proof Congress." Guess what, they did. Gun owners picked up seats (both pro-gun Dem, and Repub) in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004, as I recall.

In 2000, Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee, plus West Virginia, on the gun issue, and the gun issue was in serious play in Florida as well. Had he won TN and WV, the Florida brouhaha wouldn't have even mattered. He ran on the Third Way strategy of pandering to hunters (1 in 5 gun owners) and demonizing the rest, and it backfired.

The gun issue also hurt Kerry in swing states in 2004, again because his idiot advisors convinced him the gun vote was all about the small minority of gun owners who hunt. Again, I was there, and was a regular on the John Kerry Forum (later Common Ground Common Sense; I miss that site).

Do you know who didn't run on a strong gun-control message? Barack Obama in 2008. He explicitly told gun owners that even if he wanted to enact a new AWB, he wouldn't have the votes. The American Hunters and Shooters Association ran a major media campaign reassuring gun owners that no AWB would happen under Obama, and IIRC even Americans for Gun Safety backed off the ban talk and tried to refocus the debate on background checks. Given Bush's horrible record on civil liberties, and Obama's then-promises to rein in the surveillance state and restore the Fourth Amendment and his signaling that he'd leave gun owners alone, Obama wasn't a bad choice for gun owners in '08 at all. And his first four years were generally positive on gun rights; he changed the rules to allow guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains like they are on airlines, and signed a law allowing lawful carry in National Parks. I think doing a 180 on the issue in 2012 was ill-advised and counterproductive, but what do I know.

BTW, you want to know what the real reaction to the AWB was in 1994 among blue-collar Dems? Here you go (quoted at length since I'm not sure how long the old site will remain linkable):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=95394&mesg_id=95510

Alienated Rural Democrat

I have been “lurking” here for quite sometime, and I would like for some of ya’ll to meet an “alienated” rural Democrat.

First a little background about me…..

My family has STRONG Democratic roots, Both my parents where union organizers in some textile mills in southwest Virginia back in the 1970’s I was the “Democratic poster child” in parades back in the 70’s, we was also featured on the nightly news for a period of time, with my mother's work with bringing the union into town, (ultimately unsuccessful) My mother was also a delegate, from the state of Virginia, for Mondale, at the democratic convention

My wife’s family has just as strong roots. Her father has just retired from the coalmines. Her grandfather has served in local government on the democratic ticket for many years, and is also a union man.

My “alienation” began around 1993, when gun control started being a loudly contested issue. My WHOLE FAMILY owns guns, we ALL where raised around them.

Guns where NOT an issue, everyone had them. I was raised in a small house, my father’s long guns where stored in a rack over the headboard of my bed, his handguns where kept in his bed-side bureau and yes, he kept a .45 1911 pistol, loaded, in the open, on top of his dresser, no big deal, it was ALWAYS THERE, right beside his tie-tack box.

It was ready to defend everything my father held dear in his life at a moments notice.

To us kids, it was nothing special, they was ALWAYS their, very much like the butcher knives in the kitchen, they are both deadly, but they both are just “their”.

Nothing special about them

Now I know some of you are thinking my father was a “gun nut” he was NOT, I don’t ever remember him buying any guns, he did not shoot them often, maybe a box of shells a year, right before hunting season. All the guns he had, he had BEFORE he had me.

I had uncles and cousins that “traded in guns” allot. It is a hobby to them and they are law abiding folks, each and everyone. They enjoy the hobby of collecting and shooting as do I

I remember, me and my (then hardcore democratic uncle) was watching the news about the Brady bill, he got very silent about it, but was still supportive to the Democrats. Then the AW ban came, I remember seeing Feinstein on the news, holding up a semi auto AK up saying that ONLY CRIMINALS would have one. (Between all of us, we had 4 of those rifles) in the next election my uncles and cousins went republican, I did too

I PROUDLY voted for Bill Clinton over Bush SR, he took my vote and betrayed me and my family.

We saw the party that we supported faithfully for generations literally turn on us overnight it seemed. Gun Control was all over the news and if you disagreed, you where “outside the mainstream” or a “gun nut”

Some will say we are just bigots, religious zealots, and “simpletons” and we don’t matter.

But the truth is I could not careless about gay marriage, I am supportive of abortion rights, I detest what is happened in Iraq, I BELIEVE IN ALL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

And I am an outcast from the democrats, because I believe in the 2nd amendment

It is about MORE than guns, it is about personal responsibility, I was taught at a VERY EARLY age, that it is MY number 1 responsibility to protect myself and family from “folks that have bad intentions” Guns are the BEST means of that, the police are ONLY CALLED AFTER there is a crime committed, if you cannot defend yourself effectively, or rely on OTHERS to protect your family, you have FAILED as a parent/husband.

All these gun control laws effect is how effectively I can protect my wife and kids, or my wife protecting herself and kids when I am not here, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

Let me point out the damage that gun control has done to the democrats; my family has swung to the right. All my uncles and cousins proudly sport “Bush 2004” and “W” stickers on their cars. My father-in-law does not vote anymore, he cannot vote for the “gun banners” but he can’t bring himself to vote for the republicans neither. ONLY MY WIFE’S GRANDFATHER STILL OPENLY SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS. My wife has swung to the right, she is STILL gloating about the election.

My parents no longer vote/supports democrats neither.

See the “gun issue” is about much more than guns to my family. My family would be willing to support the democratic agenda (some may be too far gone now) but I think most would. The Democrats lost us with all the “Hillbilly”, “redneck”, and ”gun nut” talk

It's not the 90 million U.S. gun owners or their guns that are the problem. It's the criminals, and the 20,000 gun laws have never deterred them.

Lines like “Mr. and Miss America turn them ALL IN” don’t help you at all in these parts.

And stop talking about “hunters” the INSTANT folks here, hear that, they KNOW that you’re a “gun banner”

Kerry’s “canned” goose hunt was a joke; his 100% voting record against gun right was NOT a joke.

I have read “post after post” about how the NRA is a shill for the Republicans, they ARE NOT, they DO Support TRULY Pro-Gun democrats, like my congress critter, Rep Boucher (D) VA 9th district.(and YES I do vote for him proudly)

And the talk of NRA money, PLEAZZZZ, it is the 4 million members that vote religiously that give the NRA its power

I made this post (MY first) because I WANT to see the Democrats come back, I am truly scared that soon if the party don’t learn, they will find themselves completely out of power. The Republicans being in complete control scares the crap out of me. I am new to forums so pardon if I have broken any un-written rules, PLEASE give me a canadate I can support whole-heartedly.

Andrew

[jimmy the one]

64. clinton quotes re 1994

All of your Clinton quotes are countered by this one of his, repeated from my post above, where Clinton attributes several reasons for the 1996 defeats:

Clinton: Ironically, I had hurt the Democrats by both my victories and my defeats. The loss of healthcare and the passage of NAFTA demoralized many of our base voters and depressed our turnout. The victories on the economic plan with its tax increases on high-income Americans, the Brady bill, and the assault weapons ban inflamed the Republican base voters and increased their turnout. The turnout differential alone probably accounted for half of our losses, and contributed to a Republican gain of eleven governorships. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=130382

ezra quoted Clinton: The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage."

NRA opponents were defeated, little more; most all likely would've been defeated regardless, due lethargic dem turnout due other reasons.

ezra quoted Clinton: ...Jack {Brooks} was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders."

A 'lot' is unspecific & ambiguous; Sure, as in every election cycle, a 'lot' of nra backed candidates win. Clinton couches his remarks with vagueness - 'heavy casualties' (maybe a few attributed to BB or AWB gun control), nra would beat 'a lot' of democrats (which happens nearly every election cycle, or can be spun to appear so).

ezra: In 2000, Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee, plus West Virginia, on the gun issue.. He ran on the Third Way strategy of pandering to hunters .. and demonizing the rest, and it backfired.

You forget about monica lewdinsky? How did Gore 'demonize' gun owners? You do realize Gore won the popular vote by a half million over gwbush (albeit essentially half the vote), so evidently gun control ekes out a popular vote victory, yes?
Obama was the one demonized by the gun lobby in 2008 (& 2012); the nra spread its usual stink that 2ndA 'rights' could be kissed goodbye if he were elected. Didn't the gun lobby lose then when Obama was elected? and reelected?

ezra: .. you want to know what the real reaction to the AWB was in 1994 among blue-collar Dems?

I'm surprised you resorted to this man 'Andrew's' testimony, anecdotal evidence is hardly convincing. And it evidently was originally posted by mtn man, that paradigm of fairness on this issue (not), eh? to which I did not see a source link. Nothing comes up on a google of a couple sentences other than links to DU, so I suspect a disgruntled gun for hire, or maybe even a computer generated critic.

ezra quotes Clinton: ....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, - then flip flopped.

NRA backed candidates had a great night, no doubt, but to attribute their victories to the NRA itself is ridiculous specious reasoning, which ignores other factors involved:

US News:.. political scientists who have analyzed the 1994 election say it is "mythology" that gun violence prevention laws were the primary reason the Democrats were defeated... The truth, political scientists say, is that it can be attributed to a combination of factors, and the "assault weapons" ban was just one of several controversial votes that led to the loss.. healthcare reform , North American Free Trade Agreement and raise taxes through a deficit reduction act, which was fraught with political land mines for Democrats. ... "The vote for gun control mattered, but the vote for the tax increase and healthcare were more important," Jacobson.. statistical analysis of what affected.. 1994 election". http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/20/the-media-myth-of-the-assault-weapons-ban-and-t/192337

"even if we attribute those 9 victories to the NRA and assume that without {NRA} each race would have gone Democratic - an extremely generous assumption - the Republicans would still have gained 45 seats and won control of the House." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/22/1181113/-Mythbusting-the-media-on-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban#

[benEzra]

58. I'm familiar with those studies, and it again goes to show how rarely

modern-looking rifles are misused (or rifles and shotguns of any type, for that matter). I ran the numbers some years ago in a discussion with Iverglas, and rifles were used in 0.6% of violent crimes, 6.5% of gun crimes, and 3% of homicides, with some small fluctuation from year to year. Rifles are the least misused of all weapons in this country.

Even the gun control lobby used to acknowledge how rarely long guns are misused. Pete Shields himself (head of what is now the Brady Campaign from 1978 to 1989, and more extreme than Sarah Brady who replaced him) stated:

&quot O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."

At the time he said that, rifles and shotguns probably accounted for twice as many homicides per capita than they do now, FWIW.