-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Hypothetical Assault Weapon Ban Question...
- Thread starter FWJK
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes. In '93 I bought a Bushmaster carbine and a Colt 20" sporter. (Colt had already seen the coming anti ban and the sporter was sans bayo lug). After the ban was in place the guns tripled in value as they were serial numbered as pre ban. After the '94 ban was in place any "pre ban" gun could be sold/transferred to anyone who could legally own a gun.
The anti's love to point to bans in Canada, Australia, England etc. as successful implementations of life saving "gun control". The combined populations of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Canada, and Australia is less than half of the population of the U.S.. This fact (to me) means a firearms ban is far easier to actually inforce than in those countries on an individual basis than in this country. I'm a revolver guy from a way back. The only reason I keep Glocks and AR's is my observation of the deterioration of ability to enforce the law in this country over the last 50 years because of liberal attitudes. In other words I fear Ferguson coming to my neighborhood, and law enforcement hamstrung by current liberal attitudes, not doing much about it.
Last edited:
NightFisher
Plinker
Yeesh I am amazed one incident and WHAM its full on gun control full blast. This is kinda amazing to watch unfold really.
And it will continue. Because they view that they are right, and we are ignorant savages.
And why aren't we more reasonable? This is all they want to do.... till the NEXT time.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Correct, pre-09/13/94.
I remember having to buy magazines on letterhead. The mags came stamped "LE only".
I still have a few AWB Colt 6920s with LE only stampings.
The Bubba Effect
Grandmaster
The cake is a lie/Come and take them
Why are we even discussing this? I mean really! We are all armed men and women, and most of us are adults. Why do we fear those loud mouth wimps? Are they immune to the cure that we all possess? I'm sorry, when that time comes, and it will, I'm not burying my guns, I'm not loosing them, I'm not registering them, I'm using them for the intent they were designed for.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Coping mechanism.
The perp is dead. They want to punish us, so people talk to reassure themselves.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
They need to take some Prozac and go away.
Yea I'd have thought Sandy Hook would be the catalyst, if there was going to be one, for more gun control. For whatever reason it feels more likely now than it did back then.
If your house is on fire, throwing gas on it is not smart.
Just do something is crap.
I don't think so. I was more worried then than I am now. Except for this desire to ban people on the terrorist watch list. That one may have a chance.
I am a life member of the NRA and have been since the implementation of the '94 ban. Prior to that I re-upped membership on a yearly basis. Fighting the good fight trying to prevent that ban put the NRA in a very bad situation financially. I would urge you to join or donate to the NRA. I got this link in an email from the NRA-ILA this morning. It takes two minutes to fill out.
If a moron like Bill Clinton pushed the '94 ban thru, I think we're looking at big problems in our future. The race for POTUS is just one of the elections this year. There's nothing but blah, blah, blah, and promises of a chicken in every pot issues heretofore discussed by either party. The gun ban issues could become the only thing the idiot public bases their votes on.
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=261
If a moron like Bill Clinton pushed the '94 ban thru, I think we're looking at big problems in our future. The race for POTUS is just one of the elections this year. There's nothing but blah, blah, blah, and promises of a chicken in every pot issues heretofore discussed by either party. The gun ban issues could become the only thing the idiot public bases their votes on.
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=261
Last edited:
Warning: Incoming Wall Of Text 
The fact that we are armed and they are wimps is immaterial. What are you gonna do, shoot them for talking about a ban? Shoot them for passing one? No insult intended, but you sound, saying that, like a schoolyard bully... They're wimps, we're strong, so we'll just beat them up on the way home from school.
There is no one coming to the door to say, "give up your guns". Realistically, there are too many homes and too many guns to do that. OTOH, if a ban is passed, just like before, they say you can't make any more, and those you have now must be registered, but can still be bought and sold, through dealers only. If a cop has to come to your home for any reason... let's say, a break-in... and finds you have (or had) a banned, unregistered weapon, then they act.
^^This. They want someone to pay. They want revenge for Columbine, Sandy Hook, Va Tech, and Orlando, and they can't punish the rectal orifice who committed the crime, nor can they politically pursue the idea that led to the deaths in this latest: That is to say, they can't put a neck in a noose and show us the swinging, lifeless body of "Radical Islam". There is no winning that war, because there's no one to surrender and no one to destroy, much like the "war on drugs".
They CAN, theoretically, win the "war on guns". There is a finite number of guns, and yes, if they stop them from being made, theoretically, it is possible to "beat swords into plowshares" and remove every gun from the planet. It's not realistic, but it is theoretically "possible". What that ignores, aside from the inability to stop the manufacture outside of the US, and subsequent smuggling, is that it won't do what they claim to want, which is to end violence. They claim, and indeed, many of the Suzy Soccermom crowd probably genuinely desire, a world without anger, hate, and bloodshed; a world of peace and love. It's a laudable goal, and indeed, if it was actually possible this side of Heaven, I'd pursue that goal myself. The truth is, though, that there is no utopia, and this world we live in is a violent, angry place, with violent, angry people, and I'm not going to be helpless before them. It is not "my turn in the barrel", and I aim to keep it that way.
I'm going to borrow a line from the esteemed Mr. Freeman, upthread:
"Something must be done. THIS is 'something'. Therefore, we must do THIS." is the logic they're employing, with the subtext of "never let a crisis go to waste." Fill in whatever crisis in which the line in double-quotes (") is used. Fill in some extreme action for THIS.
Actaeon had a good analogy, and I'm going to expand on it.
Crisis: The house is on fire.
"Something has to be done. Sitting around doing nothing doesn't work."
Fair premise? Lives are at risk. In my case, that includes mine, my wife's, our dogs, and, if they are here, my daughter and grandson.
Given that, I have to look at the problem: is it a small fire I can grab an extinguisher and put out, such as on the wall behind the stove, or is it a large fire on the roof, say, on July 4th, due to kids with fireworks?
In either case, my choices are to
and probably several others I'm not thinking about right now. Obviously, not all of those make sense, and not all of them are helpful, but all of them are "doing something". Most are silly and serve no purpose, but they are "doing something". Let's look at "put out the fire myself"...
Do I use
Your wife is an intelligent woman, I'm sure. Right now, a ban appeals to her emotions, because it's "doing something". That it is akin to screaming at the fire to go away doesn't occur to her, because she just wants the problem to go away. Again, I can't fault that. I want the problem to go away, too. The difference is that just as you can't end fire, you can't end violent actions by people. Indeed, you don't really want to end either one. Without fire, there are many things we could not do, like cook food, or on a more basic level, have many of the things Actaeon's steel mill produces, using fire to form the steel. You don't want to end violent acts by people, because sometimes, violent acts are in our favor, such as killing the rabid dog that is threatening or attacking your child.
To the other side of your question, though, yes, I would say "ban Muslims" is off the table. Look at artists like Yussuf Islam, the guy many of us remember as Cat Stevens. Look at the recently departed Muhammed Ali, a fighter, but a gentle soul, a peace-loving man. That's only two, true, but I can't believe they are alone. Many, even most believers in that religion are probably similar. I often hear the question, "Why don't the calm, gentle ones speak up?" and that question is valid. True, the Koran does have teachings like "convert, enslave, or kill", and given that, which Christianity does not have, why did no one speak up against the evils committed by the church during the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition? I have my theories, one of which is that the churches were too big, too powerful, and there was too much peer pressure for anyone to risk sticking their head up and looking like a nail to be pounded back down. So it is, I think, with Islam, specifically Radical Islam, those who claim religion as the justification for their violent, Godless acts. How about instead of focusing on what thing or person to ban, we start banning ignorance of each other? How about we start banning the theory of "let George do it", in reference to stopping the initiation of violence against each other? How about we start teaching people how to interact with each other rather than trying to control each other? Wouldn't those be "doing something", too, albeit taking much longer?
Blessings,
Bill
The fact that we are armed and they are wimps is immaterial. What are you gonna do, shoot them for talking about a ban? Shoot them for passing one? No insult intended, but you sound, saying that, like a schoolyard bully... They're wimps, we're strong, so we'll just beat them up on the way home from school.
There is no one coming to the door to say, "give up your guns". Realistically, there are too many homes and too many guns to do that. OTOH, if a ban is passed, just like before, they say you can't make any more, and those you have now must be registered, but can still be bought and sold, through dealers only. If a cop has to come to your home for any reason... let's say, a break-in... and finds you have (or had) a banned, unregistered weapon, then they act.
^^This. They want someone to pay. They want revenge for Columbine, Sandy Hook, Va Tech, and Orlando, and they can't punish the rectal orifice who committed the crime, nor can they politically pursue the idea that led to the deaths in this latest: That is to say, they can't put a neck in a noose and show us the swinging, lifeless body of "Radical Islam". There is no winning that war, because there's no one to surrender and no one to destroy, much like the "war on drugs".
They CAN, theoretically, win the "war on guns". There is a finite number of guns, and yes, if they stop them from being made, theoretically, it is possible to "beat swords into plowshares" and remove every gun from the planet. It's not realistic, but it is theoretically "possible". What that ignores, aside from the inability to stop the manufacture outside of the US, and subsequent smuggling, is that it won't do what they claim to want, which is to end violence. They claim, and indeed, many of the Suzy Soccermom crowd probably genuinely desire, a world without anger, hate, and bloodshed; a world of peace and love. It's a laudable goal, and indeed, if it was actually possible this side of Heaven, I'd pursue that goal myself. The truth is, though, that there is no utopia, and this world we live in is a violent, angry place, with violent, angry people, and I'm not going to be helpless before them. It is not "my turn in the barrel", and I aim to keep it that way.
I'm going to borrow a line from the esteemed Mr. Freeman, upthread:
"Something must be done. THIS is 'something'. Therefore, we must do THIS." is the logic they're employing, with the subtext of "never let a crisis go to waste." Fill in whatever crisis in which the line in double-quotes (") is used. Fill in some extreme action for THIS.
Actaeon had a good analogy, and I'm going to expand on it.
Crisis: The house is on fire.
"Something has to be done. Sitting around doing nothing doesn't work."
Fair premise? Lives are at risk. In my case, that includes mine, my wife's, our dogs, and, if they are here, my daughter and grandson.
Given that, I have to look at the problem: is it a small fire I can grab an extinguisher and put out, such as on the wall behind the stove, or is it a large fire on the roof, say, on July 4th, due to kids with fireworks?
In either case, my choices are to
- call 911
- evacuate everyone
- put out the fire myself
- scream at the fire to go away
- run around the house, breaking every window
- get on INGO and ask advice
- curl up in the corner at the far end of the house and everyone suck their thumbs
- sit there and pretend it isn't happening
and probably several others I'm not thinking about right now. Obviously, not all of those make sense, and not all of them are helpful, but all of them are "doing something". Most are silly and serve no purpose, but they are "doing something". Let's look at "put out the fire myself"...
Do I use
- water
- baking soda
- a fire extinguisher
- cooking sherry
- Wesson oil
- a lid from the spaghetti pot (to cut off the oxygen supply to it, as with a grease fire)?
Your wife is an intelligent woman, I'm sure. Right now, a ban appeals to her emotions, because it's "doing something". That it is akin to screaming at the fire to go away doesn't occur to her, because she just wants the problem to go away. Again, I can't fault that. I want the problem to go away, too. The difference is that just as you can't end fire, you can't end violent actions by people. Indeed, you don't really want to end either one. Without fire, there are many things we could not do, like cook food, or on a more basic level, have many of the things Actaeon's steel mill produces, using fire to form the steel. You don't want to end violent acts by people, because sometimes, violent acts are in our favor, such as killing the rabid dog that is threatening or attacking your child.
To the other side of your question, though, yes, I would say "ban Muslims" is off the table. Look at artists like Yussuf Islam, the guy many of us remember as Cat Stevens. Look at the recently departed Muhammed Ali, a fighter, but a gentle soul, a peace-loving man. That's only two, true, but I can't believe they are alone. Many, even most believers in that religion are probably similar. I often hear the question, "Why don't the calm, gentle ones speak up?" and that question is valid. True, the Koran does have teachings like "convert, enslave, or kill", and given that, which Christianity does not have, why did no one speak up against the evils committed by the church during the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition? I have my theories, one of which is that the churches were too big, too powerful, and there was too much peer pressure for anyone to risk sticking their head up and looking like a nail to be pounded back down. So it is, I think, with Islam, specifically Radical Islam, those who claim religion as the justification for their violent, Godless acts. How about instead of focusing on what thing or person to ban, we start banning ignorance of each other? How about we start banning the theory of "let George do it", in reference to stopping the initiation of violence against each other? How about we start teaching people how to interact with each other rather than trying to control each other? Wouldn't those be "doing something", too, albeit taking much longer?
Blessings,
Bill
It would definitely be hard to confiscate considering it would have to be military or police to do so and most would say F that. My best friend is a cop and told me it would be too big of a risk on their lives to go door to door asking for someone's weapons. I feel like quite a few would shoot upon arrival of someone trying to take their weapons.
The cake is the past that we have submitted to. The future should be the next statement.
I suppose it depends on how. If the officer at the door says, "do you have any weapons you'd like to turn in?" or "open the door now! We're here for your guns!" would have different responses. As a no question kicking down the door and going searching would. These varying levels of confiscation have been used in other countries to varying degrees of success. But they have been used. How many homes get flash banged and ransacked in your neighborhood before the neighbors decide its enough? I think LEOs may have an opinion on how far that could go.
But then again, this is why Hitler used a political arm to assist in the effort against an already effectively disarmed populace. They needed to raid more houses than the police to could reach on a single night to make it work. With the number of gun owners in this country that would be a tall task.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- AndreusMaximus
- 9teen56f100
- radar8756
- JimH
- mulsas
- XDdreams
- Mr.Softball
- joncon
- wcd
- HoughMade
- CMB69
- DoggyDaddy
- rbhargan
- matt4shadow
- Jump62
- Andyccw
- gunsnrose
- wtburnette
- Hoosierdood
- d.kaufman
- 85Cosmo
- Zombie
- trip007
- archer_advice
- littletommy
- Gunmetalgray
- NHT3
- HoosierLife
- boosteds13cc
- mike45
- ChrisK
- Dog1
- shotgun131313
- bowhunter_1978
- ks4197
- cobber
- indyblue
- res04
- Defensive Shooting Concepts
- red_zr24x4
- MattSchnepp
- fullmetaljesus
- ECS686
- maxipum
- Jmtbug21
- crookcountygo
- Eagle21
- X3r0h0uR
- slims2002
- singlesix