Display posts from previous
Sort by

Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

1 by ErikO
Ok, I'm new here, but I do have a couple of questions about the stated stance on the AWB.

Firstly, for quite a while I've had an issue with the term 'assault weapon'. Assault rifles are select-fire Class III weapons that have not been redily available to the public due to the 1932 Machine Gun law. "Assault Weapon" was a term coined by the framers of the AWB to evoke a responce. And if they are so evil-bad and death dealing, why do we have an AR-15 lower with the LGC emblem on it? I have NO problem with AR-15's, M-14s, Saiga long arms, etc.

Also, at the scenes of mass shootings, the shooter tends to have several magazines with them. Limiting the size of magazines does not seem to deter their shooting. While I don't see the 2nd amendment protecting our right to bear large amounts of ammo, I don't see any real reason to ban them. In fact, I do plan on geting a 20rnd drum for my planned purchase of a Bersa Thunder 380. Do I plan on being an 'active shooter' [sic] in the current connotation? Nope, just have an easily fatigued right arm, so reloading magazines is not really high on my list of favorite things to do.

I am not a gun nut, and I did vote for Obama. I'm just curious about the positions that have been stated.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

2 by Inquisitor
It's a subject of debate :) mark wrote the position statement, not everyone agrees with it, and I expect we will have a discussion of some merit at the annual meeting.

I personally think that magazine capacity is a political softball. I dont think it hurts me to have a limit like that, not sure it has any bearing on crime, but it may be a handy political device to assuage fears.

Security theatre. No (possible) net effect against it's purported goals, but possible boon in the politicking.

The only bearing on crime I can think of is the Al Capone angle, bust them on possession if you can't get them for the crime you think they did. But that has it's own problems, obviously :)

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

7 by eelj
I think the AWB was one of the rallying points that enabled the neocons to take over the congress and we still suffer for it today. I don't care for semi autos but its more of a Chevy versus Ford thing for me. Extra capacity mags tend to malfunction and make the guns less concealable. So I wish all social goblins used them.
"Hillary Clinton is the finest, bravest, kindest, the most wonderful person I've ever known in my whole life" Raymond Shaw

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

12 by gendoikari87
KVoimakas wrote:I just disregard the official stance on the AWB.

Support for AWB? Not me.
The AWB is just more fear mongering. You can do the same with a good pistol in most crime cases. We aren't talking about the mountains of afghanistan here we're talking about crowded city streets.

and before anyone chimes in "oh but with assault blah blah blah" Virginia tech.


Making laws to make the tools of crime illegal when they are used for so much more than that, seems to me like blaming the hammer when it hit your thumb.

you want to reduce crime? how about hitting the main causes of it instead of the tools. like poverty.
If I hear "crony" capitalism one more time I'm going to be ill. Capitalism is capitalism, dog eats dog and one dog ends up on top, and he defends that place with all the power he's accumulated.

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

16 by Sonofagun
gendoikari87 wrote:
KVoimakas wrote:I just disregard the official stance on the AWB.

Support for AWB? Not me.
Making laws to make the tools of crime illegal when they are used for so much more than that, seems to me like blaming the hammer when it hit your thumb.

you want to reduce crime? how about hitting the main causes of it instead of the tools. like poverty.
+1
Image
 Keep Bow Tight ~Sitting Bull
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/90682-i ... ooks-ahead

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

17 by rolandson
I like that the LGC has a position on magazine capacity and I like that the position is in opposition to that of the NRA.

In practical terms, the position taken by the LGC is a demonstration to the anti-gun element of the left that not all pro-gun advocates are arming themselves for the apocalypse. In realistic terms, the position of the LGC will not have any practical effect upon the legislative activities of any group, pro or anti gun.

What is gained by such a position is the image of moderation, which is all that seems to matter.

I would be opposed to changing the clubs position.
“People want leadership, and in the absence of genuine leadership they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone.”Aaron Sorkin/Michael J Fox The American President
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

18 by Caliman73
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but from my reading of our position, the LGC has no problem with any rifle and to my knowledge states clearly that firearms should not be banned for appearance at all. That to me says we do not support any AW ban.

Second, the magazine capacity, while controversial to some, is not an absolute either. Our official position seems to be that magazines with a capacity larger than 20 rounds should be sold like a handgun, meaning through an FFL, with a background check. Again, nothing about any ban on the item, just some added precaution.

We can agree to disagree, but like KV put out in his link about terminology, we need to have accurate information.

Also, while there is no more Federal ban, there are states that still have one.

Finally, to rolandson...the desire to possess higher capacity magazines is not indicative of any intention to arm oneself for Armageddon. It is not a right left issue. For many it is about not having to switch out as often when target shooting. Some people think it is cool. Others see it as a price issue, especially when the price of a modified 10 round magazine can be 2-3 times more than a surplus 20 or 30 round magazine.

The sides of the issue are pretty well defined and a particular position is not going to convince anyone that we are reasonable. What convinces people that a position or choice is reasonable is information and exposure. My wife held the opinion that guns were unnecessary and dangerous. Through a lengthy process of discussion and experience with a gun owner who was not obsessed or hardcore about guns, namely me, she has learned that they are useful and although designed to be dangerous, it really depends on the individual not on the item.
Anyone who uses the terms 'irregardless', 'all of the sudden', or 'a whole nother' shall be sentenced to a work camp - Stewie Griffith

The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. - Upton Sinclair

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

20 by FrontSight
I give Mark high marks for out of the box thinking, but I'm opposed to that view for a good number of reasons.

But primarily because gun ownership for self defense is a right, not a privelage. If we trust cops with it, then the public should be allowed to have it as well.

But more importantly, I don't think his idea would really work. You just can't legislate an elimination of crazy.

Gun violence is a direct side effect of the liberty of gun ownership. It sucks, it's completely disgusting; but I fully believe we're a better nation with the guns than without. Where else in the world can an average Joe own an AK and CARRY a handgun? That's entrusting your citizenry with a great deal of power and that's an awesome statement of liberty.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

21 by rolandson
Caliman73 wrote: Finally, to rolandson...the desire to possess higher capacity magazines is not indicative of any intention to arm oneself for Armageddon...
Caliman, from the perspective of the anti-gun left, that is exactly what it represents. From Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, to Springsteen's 'American Skin (41 shots)', magazine capacity is an issue of major significance. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not.

Ever been asked why somebody would need so many bullets? I don't have a ready answer to that question myself, except to say that a responsible shooter is going to continue to be responsible whether the gun holds one or many, and that the irresponsible shooter is dangerous within the same parameters.

Personally I hold that the position of the LGC represents a moral high ground to that issue without consequence or cost and thus it is acceptable to me.
“People want leadership, and in the absence of genuine leadership they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone.”Aaron Sorkin/Michael J Fox The American President
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

22 by mreish
I think impeding the sale of hi-cap mags is an absolute wast of time, money, and effort. Trying to say otherwise, in my point of view, is simply fear mongering just like the AWB.

Look at it this way: If the government said that because of the long winded ramblings of nut case terrorists like Ted Kaczynski all political commentary could be no longer than 100 words, educated people would go ape shit, and rightly so.

It would not stop people from writing anti-government books/articles/blogs but it sure as hell would infringe on the Bill of Rights.

I think the sad thing is the vast majority of the people in this country wouldn't care because they would never write anything bad. That's just something their crazy neighbor or crazy uncle would do.

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

23 by mreish
FrontSight wrote:Gun violence is a direct side effect of the liberty of gun ownership. It sucks, it's completely disgusting; but I fully believe we're a better nation with the guns than without. Where else in the world can an average Joe own an AK and CARRY a handgun? That's entrusting your citizenry with a great deal of power and that's an awesome statement of liberty.
Agreed. I often say that freedom isn't easy. Sometimes it's very difficult.

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

24 by ABNinfantryman
rolandson wrote:Ever been asked why somebody would need so many bullets? I don't have a ready answer to that question myself, except to say that a responsible shooter is going to continue to be responsible whether the gun holds one or many, and that the irresponsible shooter is dangerous within the same parameters.
Yes, I've been asked that, and there is a ready answer anyone can use. If you're arguing for self defense, you say it's for the same reason cops carry extra mags, because shit happens. The mag in your weapon can break, or you could run out of ammo while someone's still shooting at you. Why should you keep potable water somewhere in your house? In case a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake, what have you cuts off or pollutes the water going to your house you have something to drink to survive. You probably won't need that water, but you store it anyway, just in case. Why do you keep a spare tire in your car, it's just added weight and makes your gas mileage lower. Because you might run over a nail or something else that pops one of your tires. If you're arguing sport, Three Gun Shooting matches use military-esque rifles, pistols, and shotguns, where you're not only rated based on accuracy, but also speed. High cap mags save time due to the frequency of reloads being less. And if the person says "Well what about some irresponsible shooter..." that's what we have laws for, to punish individuals who infringe on the rights of others. If that irresponsible shooter hurts someone he's guilty of negligence and/or manslaughter which have pretty stiff sentences attached to them AND he would lose his right to ever own or use a firearm again, so what more do you want?

The answer's not to appease them, because there's no appeasing them, the anti-gun crowd doesn't care if you're for or against high cap mags, they don't like guns period. Put it like this, the Brady Campaign was started to pass a law that would require a background check on anyone buying a firearm from a dealer, they got it, so why are they still around? Because now they campaign for taking other shit away from gun owners with the ultimate goal of banning all firearms from civilian use. So, why appease them? Also, why appease them when more and more Americans are swinging back to a pro-gun stance, even if they don't own one?

Oh and yeah you should be able to figure out my stance.
Everything You Wanted to Know About ARs
The Armed Socialist

Re: Question about the LGC's stance on the AWB

25 by Caliman73
ABNinfantryman wrote:
rolandson wrote:Ever been asked why somebody would need so many bullets? I don't have a ready answer to that question myself, except to say that a responsible shooter is going to continue to be responsible whether the gun holds one or many, and that the irresponsible shooter is dangerous within the same parameters.
Yes, I've been asked that, and there is a ready answer anyone can use. If you're arguing for self defense, you say it's for the same reason cops carry extra mags, because shit happens. The mag in your weapon can break, or you could run out of ammo while someone's still shooting at you. Why should you keep potable water somewhere in your house? In case a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake, what have you cuts off or pollutes the water going to your house you have something to drink to survive. You probably won't need that water, but you store it anyway, just in case. Why do you keep a spare tire in your car, it's just added weight and makes your gas mileage lower. Because you might run over a nail or something else that pops one of your tires. If you're arguing sport, Three Gun Shooting matches use military-esque rifles, pistols, and shotguns, where you're not only rated based on accuracy, but also speed. High cap mags save time due to the frequency of reloads being less. And if the person says "Well what about some irresponsible shooter..." that's what we have laws for, to punish individuals who infringe on the rights of others. If that irresponsible shooter hurts someone he's guilty of negligence and/or manslaughter which have pretty stiff sentences attached to them AND he would lose his right to ever own or use a firearm again, so what more do you want?

The answer's not to appease them, because there's no appeasing them, the anti-gun crowd doesn't care if you're for or against high cap mags, they don't like guns period. Put it like this, the Brady Campaign was started to pass a law that would require a background check on anyone buying a firearm from a dealer, they got it, so why are they still around? Because now they campaign for taking other shit away from gun owners with the ultimate goal of banning all firearms from civilian use. So, why appease them? Also, why appease them when more and more Americans are swinging back to a pro-gun stance, even if they don't own one?

Oh and yeah you should be able to figure out my stance.
Well said. I really do not care what anti-gun people think. They will always find a reason to dislike them. People like the Brady campaign have made it clear through their internal memos that their goal is the complete removal of firearms from the hands of private citizens, regardless of how they talk about "reasonable regulations".
Anyone who uses the terms 'irregardless', 'all of the sudden', or 'a whole nother' shall be sentenced to a work camp - Stewie Griffith

The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. - Upton Sinclair
Post Reply

Return to “Rainbows and Unicorns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest