Norway - coming to the USA

[Crankgrinder]

what happens in the elections, by and large depends on public perception the way I see it. Too many people are looking for the government to guarantee their safety and actually believe that they can. The public at large needs to be reminded sometimes that it just isn't possible and then asked very seriously if it were do we really want that? In Florida and elsewhere people died in large part due to govt. Failure in different levels and these are the people they trust their safety to? Government structure broke down just after Katrina here in the South and criminal gangs ruled new Orleans just after the levies broke. Civil authority was completely dissolved for weeks now just imagine if North Korea makes good on any of their threats. Point is the 2nd is there so that we can be the first foremost stewards of our own security in the event that a large centralized government cannot and it doesn't take as much as people think to make that happen.

 

[In The Ten Ring]

I recall a Norwegian telling me (bragging actually) about a lack of restrictions there. OOPS.

Get off your butts guys, make those phone calls and write those letters, start blogs, join pro-freedom groups, and organize your own protests.

Posts here largely sing to the choir although a fair number of forum members support gun restrictions themselves.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Posts here largely sing to the choir although a fair number of forum members support gun restrictions themselves.

Gun owners have always been bad about thinking you can escape the crocodile by feeding it feet first.

I think part of the problem is there is a whole generation of gun owners who have no living memory of Handgun Control Inc. and the previous Assault Weapons Ban happened when they were in elementary school. If you didn't live through that massive late 80s-early 90s media drumbeat as a politically active gun owner, and then see the change as you realized that was completely astroturfed when the Internet came about, I can see where this updated propaganda push LOOKS scary.

However, you are completely right that we live in a republic and the people who make the rules are the ones who show up, voice their opinion, and get behind people who support them. RKBA has overcome worse odds than this many times - and although Heller is an enormously weak ruling, it is still a tectonic shift in the previous legal thinking. We are winning, and we can keep winning.

 

[Tom Servo]

Even if you managed to push through a law banning all semi-automatic rifles, for example with no grandfathering provisions, that may be broad/heavy handed enough to create large scale non-compliance of the law.

In 2013, Feinstein was asked about the concept of grandfathering, and she claimed the sheer number of grandfathered weapons was the reason for the ineffectiveness of the 1994 AWB. Her solution? She proposed requiring any grandfathered guns to be registered under the NFA.

Let's parse that idea. Absolutely NO additional funding or staffing for the NFA branches was mentioned in her bill. That means the current system, which is already backlogged 7-9 months, would see a massive influx of applications. What would wait times be? Two years? Five? I can guarantee it would be impossible to get guns registered in whatever timeframe the law required.

The end result? It's impossible to comply, so I either turn them over to law enforcement (which raises some serious 5th Amendment concerns), or I hope they don't catch me.

You're right that noncompliance would be massive. We've seen that in New York and Connecticut. But here's the thing: they don't have to prosecuted everyone. They just have to bust a few people here and there to make an example. Maybe a "if you see something, say something" campaign like the UK uses.

They won't be able to round them up, but the chilling effect on gun ownership (which is the objective of ALL of this) will be noticeable.

 

[riffraff]

Haha the last assault weapons ban - Oh I remember that, it was a year or two in when we turned 18.

At the time they had imported so many surplus AK variants ammo & mags, you could walk out of the store with your indestructible knife-equipped scary rifle, 1000 rounds of ammo, and 10 X 38 round mags all for about $350.

Everything was so cheap an attainable back them, even though we were broke kids, it was perfectly affordable to sit there and shoot down a tree.

I remember I bought a "higher quality" SKS of some sort, wasn't surplus and ran me like $250 . Kicking myself for why I got rid of that.

I laugh every time I hear them talking about the success of that ban. The motto at one local store was "everyone should own a few of these". I was not doing anything with guns toward the end of it - did they ever run out of the piles of surplus stuff? Whatever the case it was never so cheap or easy to get a scary rifle as it was in the beginning of that ban - back then was before Brady too.

 

[riffraff]

The only good thing as far as the election goes - even so many of the anti gunners will disagree with many other parts of the liberal agenda, ie economic policies, international affairs, immigration - to us guns are extremely important, to a subset of the liberals getting rid of guns is extremely important, but many people are in between and not necessarily in agreement with the rest of the liberal agenda. The economy is doing well, that's going to help keep liberals out of it stays this way.

 

[ATN082268]

Florida is not anti-gun state. Florida recently passed some serious gun control. It can happen in other pro-gun states.

True. It is entirely possible that the demise of the 2nd Amendment could largely be done on the state level. It may just take one person foaming at the mouth to push through some anti-gun nonsense in each state. That's a lot of work and unpredictability though with 40 or so states which aren't anti-gun.

 

[Tom Servo]

but many people are in between and not necessarily in agreement with the rest of the liberal agenda

We try to avoid raw liberal/conservative discussions in this forum, as it can lead us astray. That said, I'd like to point out the recent special election in Pennsylvania. Results are still up in the air, but it looks like Democrat Connor Lamb has taken a seat that has been reliably Republican for quite some time.

He didn't run on the party line. He's quite moderate in the current climate, and (according to his statements--we'll see) he's very pro-gun. Believe it or not, there used to be quite a few pro-gun Democrats. My home state of Georgia was run by them until somewhat recently, as was Wisconsin.

I don't know if his success means the party may be getting a clue and backing off their rabid gun-control crusade or if Lamb is just a fluke. However, we have a generation of new liberals who (despite the ones we see on TV) aren't keen at all on gun control. Could they change things? We'll see.

It is entirely possible that the demise of the 2nd Amendment could largely be done on the state level.

Oh, that's the exact idea. Following Newtown, Bloomberg outlined a "state by state" agenda. It started with magazine bans and "universal background checks" in Colorado. On the state level, it's far easier for a small but vocal minority to enact quick change, and to do it in a way that the public doesn't notice until the last minute.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One threat, that I have mentioned before, is a cultural shift such that gun ownership is seen a unpleasant personal trait. Like smoking, still legal, but when you see a smoker, you think it is pitiful.

I read that the Kroger chain is removing most gun magazines (readable type) from their stores. That is a way of shaming the gun owner.

As I also said, repeatedly, I don't see a good cultural defense of the RKBA from the national organizations (esp. the NRA). Their messaging is all to the choir and frankly, a lot of it is flat out stupid if you know something about changing opinion.

 

[Tom Servo]

That is a way of shaming the gun owner.

In 1994, CDC head Mark Rosenberg told the Washington Post, “we need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.” This was the same time in which the VPC started sending flyers to Human Resources directors at large corporations warning them that people who talked about guns in the office or read gun magazines might just be the next workplace shooter.

In 2013, the big idea was that we needed more background checks because of a school shooting that wouldn't have been deterred by background checks. When the bill failed to pass, the headlines and commentators made liberal use of the words guilt and shame.

Much of the narrative I see is that, as gun owners, we ALL bear some responsibility for things like Newtown and Parkview, and if we're not lining up to support bans and restrictions, we're either evil or stupid.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's working somewhat in colleges. See:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Top-Official-at-St-Thomas-U/242823

The president of St. Thomas University gave its chief financial officer an ultimatum on Tuesday: Cut ties with a gun manufacturer or resign.

I wouldn't be surprised if social media presence that is gun positive will entire into hiring and promotion decisions in industry, government, education, etc.

To Tom's point, is this latest horror enough to actually move public opinion. It may not be the case that the country would accept total gun bans but banning the semi auto,military appearance guns and the higher capacity magazines can certainly be sold to those not familiar with the issues.

When studies in the past asked about gun control and got a majority of positive responses, deeper analyses demonstrated that most of the country felt supportive of gun ownership by law abiding citizens, and supported controls to keep the guns out of bad actors hands. That's why universal background checks are supported by many. Good people will pass.

Also, the need for EBRs is not seen by many outside the gun choir AND by quite a few inside it. They are not needed for average self-defense (Is 5 enough?). The defense against tyranny is not high in the minds of average folks. Unfortunately, the gun choir defense by major organizations of the defense against tyranny is focused on ranting about socialism. That does not sell outside of niche audience. It might raise money from the niche but loses the war.

Saying that you need the RKBA to prevent your kindergarten teacher from turning your kid into a socialist - isn't going to stand up against a moral panic of continuing rampages. I'll control my own guns, thank you. Is that a rousing message to compete against images of horror?

I will get flack for not blindly pledging allegiance to leadership. Pledging allegiance to leadership is demanded by both parties. Ignore the sins and incompetence of the leaders! Has that worked out well?

 

[zukiphile]

It's working somewhat in colleges.

I wouldn't attribute that event to a mere gun control strategy.

Academic intolerance of opinions that don't fit a specific orthodoxy has been growing for several decades before this. I remember in the 1980s that vandalism directed at the Dartmouth Review was tolerated by the school administration because they didn't consider its view legitimate. There were calls for me to be brought before my school's judicial board for opposing divestment from South Africa. More recently Lindsay Shepherd was called to account for presenting more than one view on a radical social issue with the administration raising the spectre of prosecution before the provincial human rights commission.

The goal of the sort of nonsense at St. Thomas is a sort of bizarre maoist contrition in which the target professes that he is ideologically redeemable. It's a horror show, and it's a credit to the CFO that she resigned.

The most disturbing thing about the linked story is that the journalist expressed exactly no concern that a college imposed an ad hoc ideological test in hiring.

 

[ATN082268]

I wouldn't be surprised if social media presence that is gun positive will entire into hiring and promotion decisions in industry, government, education, etc.

I think social media has already entered into the hiring process. About 10 years ago, I had a person interviewing me ask for access to my Facebook account. I suspect that if you don't give them access to your social media account, you'll be considered someone with something really juicy to hide or an introvert.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...and in a Canadian rampage..." In 1989. No restriction or otherwise done concerning Mini's here either.
"...unregistered Prohibited firearms..." Lots of non-Prohibs that are not registered too. The original law required a $25 per gun fee to register 'em. With a specific date. After that date passed, our idiot government took the fee off and returned the money, but did not extend the registration period for Prohibited kit. Lots of otherwise law abiding voters who may have not had the funds for $25 each, just did not bother. No change to anything Prohibited when the long gun registry was dumped either.
No other country on this planet has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms other than the U.S. Feinstein and Schumer would have to get a Constitutional amendment passed. Or just instruct the unelected civil servants at the ATF to make a regulation.

 

[TDL]

n 2013, Feinstein was asked about the concept of grandfathering, and she claimed the sheer number of grandfathered weapons was the reason for the ineffectiveness of the 1994 AWB. Her solution? She proposed requiring any grandfathered guns to be registered under the NFA.

Indeed. The mid range goal is to end consideration of semi-auto firearms long guns as "in common use." If they are grandfathered and NFA'd that is also a win for the gun ban lobby.

 

[Metal god]

Indeed. The mid range goal is to end consideration of semi-auto firearms long guns as "in common use." If they are grandfathered and NFA'd that is also a win for the gun ban lobby.

Although I agree that may be there goal . I don't know the legal term but there is legal reasoning/precedent ???? That you can't restrict something then later argue because that thing is so little used there's no reason to have it at all .

 

[TDL]

That you can't restrict something then later argue because that thing is so little used there's no reason to have it at all .

I would argue they could. You don't think say a ownership level in California and other jurisdictions progressively lower due to bans doesn't mean that at some point this accrues to them being less common in a national sense?And with registration as a specific class, in most states the only one required to be registered, the people who don't register would not count toward common use and the only "legitimate" registered ones do, nor would some 80% builds, which results in even a smaller number.

Is there a rejection by the courts of a concept of what is common if it is regulations making it less common? Would not most civilian AR-15 be select-fire if it was not NFA regulation? Has anyone successfully argued that select fire would be common f not for regulations and therefore should be considered common? so how are regulations causing lack of commonness going to be excluded in consideration of commonness? The same could eventually be said for >10 round mags if enough states limit them and or federal govt does..

Secondly here is the poltical-cultural issue. Firearms ownership is inherently private. Yet the press, and even submitted material to courts are using GSS and GSS type face-to-face (the most certain way to get undercounts on any privacy question) numbers for ownership, what is owned, demographics of ownership, and numbers of weapons owned. Like the claim that 2% of Americans own half of US guns. and labeling GSS as the "gold standard" of surveys. This goes to a public perception as to what is common. This n turns affects policy and how many state and federal legislators will believe that AR-15 is not in common use whether it is true or not. would you tell a face to face interviewer who bangs on your door that you have an AR-15 in your residence?

thirdly by raising hassle, cost, and or stigma, and implying low ownership, prospective buyers may think owning a semi auto rifle is an outlier, abnormal, and many people do tend to want to be in the norm.

 

[riffraff]

Tom - yes Lamb seems to be a different sort, certainly does not appear liberal on the gun front and I believe he ran some advertisement with himself shooting - I bet that helped a bit persuading gun owners he's alright.

Hopefully he is honest in his position and does not fold under pressure. I fully expected with the federal government in place today we would be buying our suppressors cheap online as gun parts in Trumps first term. Even Norway is doing that . Unfortunately that's been at least partly derailed by events as of lately and moderation within the party, and if anything we see more gun control occurring, not less. On that note, you'd think if the ATF can regulate bump stocks they can also deregulate suppressors.

 

[Tom Servo]

Hopefully he is honest in his position and does not fold under pressure.

That's going to be the big question. When Kirsten Gillibrand was elected in New York, Dianne Feinstein went all aspodey about Gillibrand's NRA "A" rating. Gillibrand stuck to her principles...for a few weeks.

Then she was part of the "I'm a gun owner, but..." crowd. Then she was personally sponsoring gun-control legislation. Obviously, there's a massive amount of pressure inside the party to toe the line on this issue.

 

[zukiphile]

Gillibrand stuck to her principles...for a few weeks.*** Obviously, there's a massive amount of pressure inside the party to toe the line on this issue.

Indeed.

I was acquainted with a democrat who made a name on the left fringe of the democrat party. Despite, this he was publicly opposed to legalised abortion. He didn't make a lot of noise about it, but didn't hide it either.

When he made it to congress and traded his midwestern milieu for friends in Hollywood and DC, he renounced his lifelong position. What sort of pressure drives a person to that?

I would think that Gillibrand, once in office, would understand that she has the voters to her left already, and that her pro-2d Am. bona fides would be a rare and attractive element to deploy against any repub challenger. If she loses a gun control advocate, where will they go? The Green Party candidate? So this pressure was so great, she caved to people who can't even vote for her.

I recognise the phenomenon, but don't grok the arithmetic behind it.