Info from Feinstein on proposed ban(update on pg 2)

[VMI77]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal. If you do register them, a couple years down the road when they're banned you have to turn them in or you'll be a criminal. You won't be able to claim you sold or lost them, because the registration will include a requirement to report a stolen or lost weapon. If you falsely claim a gun is lost or stolen you'll be a criminal. So, no matter what you do, unless you register your guns and turn those guns in when confiscation comes, you'll be a criminal. There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

[Heartland Patriot]

And though I put nothing past the leftists, I still say its an issue of enforcement. And I still hang the question out to folks like gigag04 (only because I know he is an LEO, whether he answers or not is irrelevant): would you, if they pass this monstrosity or some version thereof, and you were to see someone at a shooting range with an AR, force the AR owner to show you their "papers"? If law enforcement doesn't like the question being asked, then they should ask themselves WHY they don't like the question. BTW, law enforcement has my complete and utter support in the pursuit of murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, and other assorted villains who are an actual danger to the public. But I still can't see how the exact length of someone's rifle barrel or, in a hypothetical gun registration/ban situation, the type of weapon they are using, makes a whit of difference, IN AND OF ITSELF, if it isn't being used to commit some crime such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. And I don't want to hear about how disregarding one law shows a pattern. MILLIONS of people break the speed limit from time to time every day...MILLIONS of people do NOT go around violently assaulting others or attempting to take property by force. Its the content of the law that makes the difference, IMHO. I put an "assault weapons" registration scheme in the same category with a law requiring the citizenry to genuflect when a national leader goes by...basically, as tyrannical and un-American on PRINCIPAL. I am not advocating breaking any laws, simply expressing a viewpoint as part of this greater debate.

[oldtexan]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

VMI77, there have been numerous registration schemes that have not led to confiscation. Here are just a few off the top of my head. Canada had firearms registration during WW2 but abandoned it after the war. Canada's long gun registry, initiated in the '90s IIRC, just died or is about to become moribund. Registration of full auto weapons and other items here under the NFA beginning in the 1930s hasn't led to the Feds confiscating those weapons.

[texanjoker]

That is pretty scary. A huge ban, but then also registration.

[psijac]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

VMI77, there have been numerous registration schemes that have not led to confiscation. Here are just a few off the top of my head. Canada had firearms registration during WW2 but abandoned it after the war. Canada's long gun registry, initiated in the '90s IIRC, just died or is about to become moribund. Registration of full auto weapons and other items here under the NFA beginning in the 1930s hasn't led to the Feds confiscating those weapons.

The question is now, how do you tell the difference? That is the core argument to concealed carry. Will the guy that pulls a gun on you and asks for your wallet want your money or your life? Is a rape victim better off if she doesn't fight back, or does he have terrible things in mind for her corpse?

[anygunanywhere]

And though I put nothing past the leftists, I still say its an issue of enforcement. And I still hang the question out to folks like gigag04 (only because I know he is an LEO, whether he answers or not is irrelevant): would you, if they pass this monstrosity or some version thereof, and you were to see someone at a shooting range with an AR, force the AR owner to show you their "papers"? If law enforcement doesn't like the question being asked, then they should ask themselves WHY they don't like the question. BTW, law enforcement has my complete and utter support in the pursuit of murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, and other assorted villains who are an actual danger to the public. But I still can't see how the exact length of someone's rifle barrel or, in a hypothetical gun registration/ban situation, the type of weapon they are using, makes a whit of difference, IN AND OF ITSELF, if it isn't being used to commit some crime such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. And I don't want to hear about how disregarding one law shows a pattern. MILLIONS of people break the speed limit from time to time every day...MILLIONS of people do NOT go around violently assaulting others or attempting to take property by force. Its the content of the law that makes the difference, IMHO. I put an "assault weapons" registration scheme in the same category with a law requiring the citizenry to genuflect when a national leader goes by...basically, as tyrannical and un-American on PRINCIPAL. I am not advocating breaking any laws, simply expressing a viewpoint as part of this greater debate.

Current federal agencies including TSA, IRS, and all other .gov orcs will enforce the ban. The fed.gov is HUGE.

I think that the military for the most part will refuse.

The UNIONIZED fed orcs and eventually UN and other foreign troops will enforce the ban on US soil.

Anygunanywhere

[oldtexan]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

VMI77, there have been numerous registration schemes that have not led to confiscation. Here are just a few off the top of my head. Canada had firearms registration during WW2 but abandoned it after the war. Canada's long gun registry, initiated in the '90s IIRC, just died or is about to become moribund. Registration of full auto weapons and other items here under the NFA beginning in the 1930s hasn't led to the Feds confiscating those weapons.

The question is now, how do you tell the difference? That is the core argument to concealed carry. Will the guy that pulls a gun on you and asks for your wallet want your money or your life? Is a rape victim better off if she doesn't fight back, or does he have terrible things in mind for her corpse?

That is a very good question. Good judgment, based on knowledge and experience, is required to tell the difference. You have to know your strengths and limitations; you have to understand how your opponent operates and his strengths and limitations; you have to know what actions on your part will carry what consequences.

With respect to the proposed gun control measures, the best course, IMO, is to calmly, realistically, and reasonably assess the threats to our gun rights, formulate a plan of action based on reality to keep the threats from becoming law, and have a plan of what to do if they do become reality. We should strive to view the threats realistically, not underestimating them or overestimating them. It always helps to visualize the battlefield from your enemy's point of view; that helps you understand your strengths and weaknesses better and his, as well. If we underestimate the opponent, we likely lose because we don't do enough. If we overestimate the opponent, we will risk convincing ourselves and our allies we have already lost, and then we certainly will lose.

We frequently accuse the gun control crowd of being driven by emotion, and I agree that they are to an extent. Unfortunately I'm seeing an awful lot of fear, bordering on hysteria, among our people on various gun forums. This doesn't help us solve the problem, IMO.

[Heartland Patriot]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

VMI77, there have been numerous registration schemes that have not led to confiscation. Here are just a few off the top of my head. Canada had firearms registration during WW2 but abandoned it after the war. Canada's long gun registry, initiated in the '90s IIRC, just died or is about to become moribund. Registration of full auto weapons and other items here under the NFA beginning in the 1930s hasn't led to the Feds confiscating those weapons.

The question is now, how do you tell the difference? That is the core argument to concealed carry. Will the guy that pulls a gun on you and asks for your wallet want your money or your life? Is a rape victim better off if she doesn't fight back, or does he have terrible things in mind for her corpse?

That is a very good question. Good judgment, based on knowledge and experience, is required to tell the difference. You have to know your strengths and limitations; you have to understand how your opponent operates and his strengths and limitations; you have to know what actions on your part will carry what consequences.

With respect to the proposed gun control measures, the best course, IMO, is to calmly, realistically, and reasonably assess the threats to our gun rights, formulate a plan of action based on reality to keep the threats from becoming law, and have a plan of what to do if they do become reality. We should strive to view the threats realistically, not underestimating them or overestimating them. It always helps to visualize the battlefield from your enemy's point of view; that helps you understand your strengths and weaknesses better and his, as well. If we underestimate the opponent, we likely lose because we don't do enough. If we overestimate the opponent, we will risk convincing ourselves and our allies we have already lost, and then we certainly will lose.

We frequently accuse the gun control crowd of being driven by emotion, and I agree that they are to an extent. Unfortunately I'm seeing an awful lot of fear, bordering on hysteria, among our people on various gun forums. This doesn't help us solve the problem, IMO.

I know what you are saying, but I'd imagine some of that is driven by the antis as well. Make no mistake that they have a determined bunch of folks out there following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals...I bring this up all the time because all you have to do is look at that list and see it is how they operate...in this case, it would be Rule #1: "Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do." The REAL pollsters who at least ATTEMPT to do some sort of fair polling continuously show that Americans, IN GENERAL, do NOT want any more gun control and DO WANT the existing laws ENFORCED better.

[oldtexan]

One thing I forgot to mention is that I think it's important not to get ensnared in our side's propaganda, particularly from entities who stand to make money from our fear of more gun control. Of course it's easy to spot propaganda from the opposing side; we're predisposed to look for it. We're not as likely to see propaganda from our side as being what it is, which is an attempt to manipulate us and others. It's easy to believe that everyone on our side is honest, but the plain truth is that some folks on both sides use propaganda and distortion of truth to demonize the other side. The gun control advocates use fear of children dying to scare folks into supporting them. Some organizations on our side use fear of tyranny to whip us up. Some folks on our side tell us that anyone who proposes any gun control measure is actually concealing their true desire to confiscate all our guns so they can institute a totalitarian dictatorship and send us to concentration camps. I have no doubt some folks on the other side would like to get rid of all guns, but they are an unrealistic, politically isolated fringe. Just like there are different views on our side of the issue, there are different views on their side. It helps to look for manipulative, emotion-laden words in what both sides are saying; they use those to stir up easily manipulated emotions. Some folks on both sides are sincere and believe what they are advocating is good policy, and I'm sure there are lying, manipulative folks with their own selfish agendas on both sides, as well.

[cling]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

[VMI77]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

VMI77, there have been numerous registration schemes that have not led to confiscation. Here are just a few off the top of my head. Canada had firearms registration during WW2 but abandoned it after the war. Canada's long gun registry, initiated in the '90s IIRC, just died or is about to become moribund. Registration of full auto weapons and other items here under the NFA beginning in the 1930s hasn't led to the Feds confiscating those weapons.

The question is now, how do you tell the difference? That is the core argument to concealed carry. Will the guy that pulls a gun on you and asks for your wallet want your money or your life? Is a rape victim better off if she doesn't fight back, or does he have terrible things in mind for her corpse?

That is a very good question. Good judgment, based on knowledge and experience, is required to tell the difference. You have to know your strengths and limitations; you have to understand how your opponent operates and his strengths and limitations; you have to know what actions on your part will carry what consequences.

With respect to the proposed gun control measures, the best course, IMO, is to calmly, realistically, and reasonably assess the threats to our gun rights, formulate a plan of action based on reality to keep the threats from becoming law, and have a plan of what to do if they do become reality. We should strive to view the threats realistically, not underestimating them or overestimating them. It always helps to visualize the battlefield from your enemy's point of view; that helps you understand your strengths and weaknesses better and his, as well. If we underestimate the opponent, we likely lose because we don't do enough. If we overestimate the opponent, we will risk convincing ourselves and our allies we have already lost, and then we certainly will lose.

We frequently accuse the gun control crowd of being driven by emotion, and I agree that they are to an extent. Unfortunately I'm seeing an awful lot of fear, bordering on hysteria, among our people on various gun forums. This doesn't help us solve the problem, IMO.

A bit of an overstatement, but true on the whole. The examples you cite really aren't comparable to today's circumstances. For one thing, back in the 30s and 40s there was no lying 24/7 mass media. Machine guns have been pretty much irrelevant and confiscating them would likely be counterproductive since it would just fuel resistance to registration and other gun control proposals. Also, Canada is not an impediment or a threat to the leftist agenda....the US is. Once bans and confiscation occur here they will occur in places like Canada too. The 2nd Amendment strikes at the heart of collectivism and the left will do everything possible to eviscerate or eliminate it.

I don't fear the future at all. I know that the US is going to collapse economically...it's inevitable....I just don't know when. I knew that if The One was re-elected he'd come after our guns....it was both obvious and predictable. It's also obvious that the collectivists want our guns and are going to try to take them. And as soon as they have enough political power they will. Do they have it now? I'm inclined to think not, but we'll see. If they get the political power they need they will register guns and confiscate them. It's coming as sure as a morning sunrise, unless something major happens to prevent it.

[VMI77]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Until the next Sandy Hook. Then, you will either turn them in or you'll be a criminal. And you've already given up your rights just by conceding that YOU have to prove you bought them before a ban. The law in the US is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. THEY should have to prove you didn't, it's not up to YOU to prove you did. If you're already conceding the presumption of innocence you may as well go ahead and turn in your guns anyway, since you're already willing to give up the most fundamental right in our judicial system.

[anygunanywhere]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.

Anygunanywhere

[cling]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.

It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

[VMI77]

If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.

It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

An entirely different situation. How many mass killings by machine guns? How many people own them legally? The numbers are insignificant. There is virtually nothing to be gained politically from such a confiscation, and in fact, lots to be lost. If they confiscated those guns they would never get a large scale registration passed; it would fuel massive resistance since it would set a precedent. They don't care about machine guns because 99% of the population can't afford to own one. Just as rich and influential people can get handgun permits in Chicago and NYC, rich and influential people will probably get to keep their machine guns. It's us peasants they don't want owning guns.