RKBA based on Recent shootings in Alabama

[Stickman]

With the shooting today of 10 people in Alabama, plus the Obama announcement of an intended weapon ban, I think we are going to be in for a rough ride with the second amendment.

I've heard a few people comment that the weapon ban concept under Obama will not happen. Their line of reasoning has been that there is too much political pressure with upcoming elections. I wish that this were true, but somehow I doubt it will end up being that easy. I don't see the liberal media letting this latest shooting go away easy. Nor do I see them mentioning that a lawful person carrying a weapon may have been able to stop it.


Thoughts? Is it simply a mandatory political rant for Obama to keep liberal people happy, or are we ignoring the train while standing on the tracks?

[TigerStripe]

I haven't heard Obama make any statements on an AWB for some time. Did he make one around the time of the shooting? If so, I missed it.


TS

[zero7one]

Ironically, I was at the store tonight buying a gun magazine when an older gentleman voiced his (pro gun) opinion to me. We actually had a pretty lengthy discussion about the topic and he relayed that a relative in Nebraska received a survey in the mail asking how he felt about a voluntary gun turn-in program. That was a first that I had heard of this. Unfortunately, I think that the gun ban will happen, and it will probably be for the worse. It will disarm the people who need the protection while those who illegally possess firearms will still possess them. We will not solve any problems by taking away firearms, but make weaker victims.

If you have not yet seen this video on YouTube, it is worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkCPfNNg1yw

BTW, the NRA has already received my dues for this year.

[Army Chief]

I would love to be proven wrong, but I disagree with the popular notion that "legislators learned their lesson in 1994," etc. Politicians are opportunists who will advance their agendas where and when they feel they can garner the support to do so. With a Democratic legislature and executive branch, it would be foolish to think that they will let the status quo stand, and lest anyone persist under the illusion that they are concerned about the political price, consider that the last AWB didn't exactly result in insurrection; in fact, most gun owners simply shrugged it off because it didn't affect "their" kinds of shooting iron.

If history has taught us anything, it is that we are virtually guaranteed fast-track legislation when widespread public furor can be whipped up -- usually by the media -- in response to high-profile tragedies. Consider it: our industrial base is collapsing around us, and we're slipping into economic chaos, and yet much of the recent legislative session was devoted to the discussion of primate possession. Monkeys.

The recent spate of shootings would seem to meet the opening criteria, and a thinking man would be expecting some kind of ban-enactment momentum by mid-summer, if not before. The liberal base is drunk with power at the moment, and let's be honest here: we've given them little reason to take notice of our objections. I respectfully take exception to the view that anyone will remember the lessons of 1994, as we are the ones on the defensive here.

It's borderline heresy to suggest it, but I've often wondered aloud if perhaps we hurt our cause by drawing a line in the sand on this issue. Would it not be reasonable to propose that a future ban include an exception clause for individuals who have passed a certain "reliability" standard (i.e. veterans, military, current/former LEOs, private citizens who have met certain training requirements)? It seems to me that this would at least give us a chance to preserve something of our rights, if indeed the winds of change blow overwhelmingly in favor of a permanent ban. In case you haven't noticed, the tops of the trees are moving already.

Some will call this defeatist, and it isn't really my purpose to compromise. We just have to keep in mind that most of our elected officials will follow the path of least resistance (as defined by their party affiliation) unless we give them a common sense alternative that gives them some comfortable middle ground that won't divide their constituency. A common sense exception clause might fly, but make no mistake: we're headed toward another ban. This was a clearly-stated platform position for our new president, and he has systematically been working his way down the list, our present calamities notwithstanding.

To be clear, I am certainly not hositing the white flag here; but I do think that a certain strategic pragmatism may be called for, as a left-leaning government is unlikely to find our cries of Molon Labe all that compelling. My Constitution says "shall not be infringed" just as plainly as yours, but I'm quietly wondering if perhaps a partial victory might not be preferable to a total defeat. To this point, we haven't even attempted to offer a rational alternative to the all-encompassing ban that our officials seem to favor.

Fool me once ...

AC

P.S. This is presented as food-for-thought, gentlemen, and you needn't remind me of the fact that our 2A rights trump any modern-day interpretations. I'm 100% with you on that -- but I'm also trying to apply the lessons of 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. It's no longer a black and white issue in Washington, and I'm simply wondering aloud if there is any wisdom in arguing for enough gray to preserve something of our rights in this area when they get around to enacting their "reasonable restrictions."

[Army Chief]

90 minutes after I wrote the above post, a gunman walked into a school 30 miles from here and shot 15 people to death near Stuttgart. Somehow, when our media begins their analysis of this event, I'm sure they will manage to overlook the fact that Germany's gun laws are among the most restrictive in the West. As Stick said, it's going to be a rough ride.

AC

[Stickman]

Gunman shot by police after massacre in Germany

One of the items that we talk about in Active Shooter courses is that these events often trigger similar responses. I'm not sure that the one in Germany was related to the shooting in Alabama, but we can expect to see a surge of shootings here. The goal of each shooter will be to out do the other, and the highest body count becomes the "winner" for these sick individuals.

[adrenaline151]

It would be nice to see one of these guys stopped in their tracks by a CCP holder. Every time one of these happen, it reminds me of why I carry, everyday, no matter how safe my town seems. It can happen anywhere, that's for sure. I have to admit, I have trouble with our laws that prohibit carry in certain places, like post offices. The BGs know that just as well as the law abiding citizens. You never see a hold up in a police station. They look for the easy prey. For the most part, I take my chances. I will risk getting caught carrying in a prohibited place(no one would even know unless there was a problem), before I will risk getting caught with my pants down, unarmed.
I'm going to FL in a week, and won't be able to carry, I haven't gotten my Utah permit yet(I have Maine, but FL doesn't reciprocate with Maine). It's going to drive me nuts, especially going to Bradenton area, where there's usually some kind of dipshit violence every day. If I would have known I was going before last week, I would have been prepared.

[Venom]

true. you can already see the recent events in the US and Germany becoming more fuel for the fire of antigun people. I cant comment on the US system, as I live on "the other continent" but I know there's a big discussion already going on in Germany regarding the school shooting today. Politicians will go nuts over the weapons law ( which is already restrictive as hell ) and try to find fast solutions that "looks good" to the public and makes them think "atleast something against all those bad weapons has been done".
Here people always see weapons as bad things and the reason for shit like this to happen...they tend to overlook the 10 years of socialinfluences etc. that have formed the people who do the "bad deeds". Those should be adressed, and not the tool that was used(atleast as a first step). Granted, ultimately the choice for taking his dad's guns was a really bad one for the victims, and had it "only been an axe or knife" there probably would have been less lethal victims...but generalizing and making every legal gunowner look bad in public seems to be the goal politicians and the media want to achive.
A good friend once put it this way; having a gun with you gives you an option- an option you wouldnt have had otherwise. And having options doesnt mean you will use every option , but it makes you more secure, calm and confident in a bad sitiuation.
Just because you have a hammer, you won't run around and see nails everywhere and hit people on their heads. But if you have a hammer, and one day that one nail does pop up, you can hit it down... and while youre at it, make sure it is a good ol' bad ass swing your giving that f***ing nail.

my 2 cents between work and dinner.

[adrenaline151]

"At the Reliable plant, McLendon got out of his car and fired at police with his assault rifle, wounding Geneva Police Chief Frankie Lindsey, authorities said. He then walked inside and killed himself. "(AP)

Saw that one coming a MILE away.

[TigerStripe]

I am in no way in favor of restrictions on guns that exclude "certain people", such as veterans, LE, etc. The more give there is, the more they will take. The solution is more guns, not less. If they're going to ban, they are going to ban. I can expect a rise in the number of "criminals" but I'm sure a lot of Molon Labe-ists will turn in their guns.

On an unrelated, yet related, note I can't help but think that the "powers that be" have noticed the enormous jump in gun, ammo and magazine sales and calculated that a bit into their agenda. It seems to me like they would have slipped a ban in during the stimulus, bailout and omnibus legislation. The timing couldn't have been better with people looking at the wallet in the magician's hand instead of the ban up his sleeve... Not that I will get complacent.


TS

[Army Chief]

Appreciate the input on that, TS, and you may be right about a ban being a ban. I just have it in my head that if this becomes an all-or-nothing proposition, we could well lose everything, whereas a lot of legislators might take a more centrist detour at the last minute, if one were available.

Trouble is, we would never want to plant an idea like this until we're absolutely certain that a permanent ban is on the way, and by then, it would already likely be too late. The philosophical merit in this idea strikes me as sound, but as a practical matter it would likely gain no traction whatsoever.

AC

[Army Chief]

A good friend once put it this way; having a gun with you gives you an option- an option you wouldnt have had otherwise. And having options doesnt mean you will use every option , but it makes you more secure, calm and confident in a bad sitiuation.

Great post all around, but this sentence really jumped out at me. Sometimes the greatest eloquence lies in simplicity, and this has got to be one of the most well-reasoned summations I've ever seen. The whole pont of having individual freedoms is that it gives responsible men the ability to make responsible decisions.

Media-hype aside, it makes little practical difference whether a lunatic shoots up a school, sets a movie theater on fire or drives a cement truck through a crowded plaza: it is the human heart -- not the tools chosen -- that is to blame for the resulting carnage.

AC

[SHIHAN]

The anti idiots cant figure out that if someone was armed these mass shooting sprees could be stoped. Mccarthy is all on the Anti wagon because of her hubby catching lead but she is too stupid to realize if people were packing he may still be alive.

[Venom]

exactly ac, the brain is the weapon...everything else is suplemental ( who said taht again? forgot the name...)

[Belloc]

Appreciate the input on that, TS, and you may be right about a ban being a ban. I just have it in my head that if this becomes an all-or-nothing proposition, we could well lose everything, whereas a lot of legislators might take a more centrist detour at the last minute, if one were available.

Trouble is, we would never want to plant an idea like this until we're absolutely certain that a permanent ban is on the way, and by then, it would already likely be too late. The philosophical merit in this idea strikes me as sound, but as a practical matter it would likely gain no traction whatsoever.

AC

It's not that your idea doesn't have merit, but having a degree in philosophy, I don't see a philosophical merit. The right to self defense is derivative of the right to life, but the right to keep and bear arms is not derivative of the right to self defense, but something else, something higher. It's the most common fallacy in the gun community. Thus ad nauseum is repeated some variation of "I have a right to my guns because I have a right to defend myself."