It certainly was not the sort of thing I expected Martini Enfield to write. I am surprised, and that’s all I’ll say.
Thanks - sounds like you and Airman Doors would be in the “reasonable” camp (imho). I get the impression (and I could be totally off base) that there is a significant number, especially within the NRA, that would think more along the lines of “I should not need to register my gun ever, and there should be no such thing as a “safe” category - all guns should be freely avaialble”.
Is this number of people vanishingly small?
eta: I seem to recall people saying that registration was the first step to the government having a list of guns to confiscate. Slippery slope and all that.
I’d say they were a small minority of responsible gun owners/collectors who would feel the need to ‘hide’ guns. But you need to know, up front, that I live in Texas! The slippery slope is apparent already is it not though? There are those democrats that want to remove ALL guns from circulation. (I’d assume them to be in the minority as well)
For what it’s worth, the gun toting folks that go public are trying to make a point, whereas the democrats trying to take guns away are seen as denying people a right. You’d probably have less of the public gun toting, if you had less of the gun taking talks.
Granted, it is probably the most populated democrat run place in Texas (Austin).
Ah, Austin! I’ve heard you have a statue of Lenin next to the town hall. True or False?
John Lennon. Close enough, for Texas.
Did you ask every one of them? Because honestly, part of CCW is that it is concealed, and you have no way of knowing unless they tell you or “print.” I’d say it’s incredibly irresponsible for someone to frequently advertise the fact that they’re carrying.
A rifle is nothing more than a handgun that hasn’t met “Mr Hacksaw” yet. But were I to be interested in walking into one of those places I would seriously consider making the introductions.
I might be a firearms historian and enthusiast but that doesn’t mean I’m in favour of pretty much anybody being able to buy firearms without at least some sort of licensing system in place.
Look, I have heard from many, many, many US shooting acquaintances of mine the opinion which I expressed earlier upthread, especially in relation to places like California. Even on these boards someone who was apparently an NRA life member and trained armourer kept insisting machine-guns were “banned” because of all the bullshit involved in legally acquiring one, and in the thread I started on whether or not any countries actually ban guns, there are posters in there arguing that any situation unlike the US one constitutes a de facto ban on guns when this clearly isn’t true.
I was deliberately employing some hyperbole to make a point earlier, which I do keep forgetting people here have trouble recognising. But I believe my point is valid: Take the frequently touted (by Americans) assertation that “Guns are banned in the UK”. This clearly isn’t true, but it’s what many people would like to believe.
In spirit, I agree with the OP. Fortunately, we have such an organisation here in Australia (The SSAA), but we have a vastly different arms culture here than you guys in the States.
The AWB was bullshit and everyone knows that. I’m not for a moment saying that stupid, pointless laws banning cosmetic features are in any way valid. But decrying anything that makes it harder or more inconvenient to buy a gun does not automatically equate to a gun ban, IMHO.
Double post
So apparently Dan and I have approximately the same views on gun control (required training and licensing, titles tracked like cars). So why did the tone of his rhetoric prior to post 133 have to be so infuriatingly insulting to gun owners? It is a mystery.
What you said was this:
“Most US gun enthusiasts?” Really? Your posts have struck me as being those of a person who for whichever side was right, or wrong, would not have made that biased and unsupportable generalization. I don’t know a single, solitary gun owner IRL who thinks that, in fact I’ve never met one, and I’ve been around for some time.
And as far as your SDMB thread and the disappointment you’ve had in there…remember, this is the SDMB. It’s not even close to real life. This is bizarro-world here.
I think you didn’t post what you really wanted to say. I stand by my original post that the original statement you made is surprising. Hopefully you can see why I feel that way.
I’d write it off to me being a jerk sometimes.
And yet the AWB passed. Pushed by people that want to pass any gun law, and voted for by people that know nothing about guns.
I think gun registration is going down the same road. Register the ‘dangerous’ guns first. And then require a yearly ownership permit. And maybe re certification. And since these guns over here are not that different than the registered ‘dangerous’ guns, they will want to register them as well.
Those that know nothing about guns, but may not have anything really against them will blindly go along with the misinformation from those that actually just simply want to ban them.
The NRA push poll is dispicable. And if I was a member, I would cancel membership It is however, very similar to the misinformation tactics used by those that would ban guns.
Why is the AWB so hated? I agree it is stupid, but why are people so upset about the restrictions? Do the really want to have a bayonet attachment, or flash suppressor, or whatever the hell is in the bill? Does it restrict anything that a serious hunter or target shooter would want?
It’s a prime example of nonsensical gun laws. It has no merit. It’s based on fear mongering, deliberately confusing people about the nature of the use of those guns in crime (almost non-existant), about the capabilities of those guns (functional vs cosmetic), about what the bill actually banned. It is complete unjustifiable bullshit through and through, only made because the gun control lobby will take any chance they get to infringe, and this was an area where they could sufficiently confuse the ignorant public to go along with their plan. It is absolute bullshit through and through, and a great example of how gun control actually works.
As for the specifics - yes. I don’t give a shit about the guy who takes out his deer rifle once a year and who doesn’t care what you do with the rest of his gun as long as you “aren’t coming after sportsmen”. Fuck that asshole. I have several rifles that have both a historical value and that are practical guns to shoot. I love military rifles - they have an elegance to them in their basic functionalty. No frills, just what works. And they have a history and mystique about them.
And for certain military rifles I own, like my mauser 98k made in 1944, it’s apparently perfectly acceptable for me to admire the history behind the rifle and its beauty and simplicity and ruggedness. But if I want to do something similar with a military rifle made a few decades later - oh, no, I’m a scary toddler murdering assault weapon lover!!!
I own an AK-type rifle and in order to pass through the stupid requirements it had to be modified in a way that both reduced the quality of the rifle and added to the cost. In order not to fall under importation bans, it had to be domestically remanufactured by including a certain amounts of US-made parts. So they rip out perfectly good parts from the factory, like the trigger group, hammer, and some other pieces, and then replace them with poorly made American equivelants to make it legal. I had to do some custom work on my fire control group in order to raise the quality of the trigger. Then they saw off the bayonette lug - because you know rifles are so fucking much more dangerous with one - so not only could I not display it in full configuration, but as a side effect they chopped off the little bit that holds the cleaning rod in under the barrel. So either I have to improperly configure the rifle again (by removing the cleaning rod) or have it occasionally fall out. And I would want to have it configured in the typical military style with a muzzle brake, except that there’s a ban on threading the barrel (and hint, dipshits - a “flash hider” does not hide the flash from the person you’re shooting at, that’s impossible… it’s meant to reduce the flash the shooter sees, so they aren’t blinded as much at night) so the only way I could do it would be to weld it on, which is difficult and easy to fuck up. I couldn’t use foreign replacement parts, so if I wanted a different stock for the rifle or I needed to replace a bad part, and I used a foreign part to replace a US one, even if it was a practically identical part, I am now a felon.
It’s stupid. It’s inconvenient. It didn’t fundamentally change the way the rifle worked (you stick a magazine in there still pull the trigger and get 1 bullet, same as it would’ve been unmodified) so it didn’t actually affect the weapon’s potential to be used for evil (unless you were worried about a bayonette stabbing spree!), but it made me go through all sorts of inconveniences, reduced quality, higher cost, and less choice of replacement/modification parts FOR NO FUCKING REASON WHATSOEVER. And all for no benefit - the bill did not achieve any good.
Yes, the AWB is a fine example of gun control, where results and safety and reason are not the goals.
Our experiences differ… I’ve heard several US gun enthusiasts (not gun owners- big difference) express that opinion on various internet boards. Of course the internet isn’t the same as real life (as you rightly point out), so I will retract the earlier remark and amend it to “Many US gun enthusiasts/2nd Amendment fans, particularly on the Internet…”
This needs to be repeated as it’s completely true, IMHO. An SKS with a folding bayonet is not “more dangerous” than an SKS with no bayonet. And lots of people (myself included) hunt with “as-issued” WWII bolt-action rifles, for example, which confuses the people trying to differentiate between a “hunting rifle” and a “military rifle”.
“Imagine there’s no NRA…it’s easy if you try…”
“…no one bringing pistols, only bringing pie…”
Fair enough, fair enough. When I start that new political group that is open to registration/licensing/training that doesn’t actually impair law-abiding gun ownership, I’ll invite you to the board of directors.
To more generally follow up on what SenorBeef said, there are two main reasons the AWB is hated:
- The limitations in the AWB don’t really accomplish anything but make certain types of single-shot rifles harder and more expensive to get, while not really affecting the general lethality either of legal firearms (a Ruger Mini-14 is essentially the same as an import semi-auto AK-47) or street-available firearms (a modified full-auto AK-47 is still wildly illegal, after all, and the AWB-banned components don’t change the ease of modding).
- More generally, the tenor of the AWB is such that people who are not knowledgeable about firearms think it implies that full-auto military weapons were available right up until the AWB was passed, because without reading the text of the bill the plain meaning of “Assault Weapons” indicates something other than what it means in the text of the bill itself. This increases the overall level of fear of guns, which I think might have been the real goal.