Mr. Cox is Polite and Calls it "Myths"...

[Stephen A. Camp]

I think a more accurate word, but less PC, is "lies"...

"Gun Myths on the Senate Floor
By Chris W. Cox
NRA-ILA | Monday, February 02, 2009

Legislation to require a federal license to possess any detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, or any handgun, has been introduced in Congress. Bills to re-impose the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine ban, or to impose a much broader ban, have been introduced in Congress since 2003, and will likely be introduced in the current Congress soon.

Already, the deliberate deceptions we heard from anti-gunners previously are resurfacing. Anti-gun Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, said last Thursday on the floor of the Senate that "assault weapons" are "capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute" and that they are "once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods."

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

Many fully-automatic firearms can fire 10 rounds in a second, which theoretically would work out to 600 rounds per minute, but they cannot be reloaded fast enough to achieve anything near that rate in reality. But we are not talking about fully-automatic firearms—we're talking about semi-automatics, and the difference between them need not be explained here.

"Pervading our streets?" Anti-gun lawmakers swore up and down that once the "assault weapon" ban expired, the murder rate would go through the roof. Well, the ban expired in 2004 and since then, the murder rate has gone down to a 43-year low.

The anti-gunners think they can revive this bogus issue, and maybe they can; they will no doubt try. But Congress required a study of the 1994 ban, and the study concluded, "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a small fraction of gun murders." Violent crime was going down before the ban, and it has continued to go down after the ban. If the issue is looked at objectively, it should be over, done with, water under the bridge. The ban should never have been imposed in the first place, let alone be imposed again or ever expanded.

And certainly guns should not be banned on the basis of nonsense like Sen. Levin's speech, and other deliberate deception perpetuated by gun ban groups.

Deliberate deception such as:

A folding stock makes a rifle concealable, as if it were a pocket knife. But anyone who knows anything about gun laws knows that federal law requires a rifle to be 26 inches long, regardless of its stock, and a 26-inch-long rifle is not concealable.

A pistol grip is designed to allow a rifle to be fired "from the hip." But the 90 million pistols owned by the American people all have pistol grips, and they aren't designed to be fired "from the hip." Besides that, the fact that a rifle has a shoulder stock and sights mounted on the barrel proves that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense. If they really believe that, let them propose to prohibit the military and police from having pistol magazines that hold 12, 15, and 17 rounds.

These guns are "high-powered." Next time an anti-gunner calls a gun "high-powered," ask him to name one gun that is low-powered. They even call .22 rimfires "high-powered," when they want to brand a .22 as a so-called "assault weapon."

NRA members who own AR-15s and other so-called "assault weapons," you are not alone. There are nearly two million AR-15s in our country, the same number of M1s, the same number of M1 Carbines, and many more Mini-14s, semi-automatic shotguns, pump-action shotguns, and all the other guns the anti-gunner want to call "assault weapon." Countless millions of American own handguns that use magazines of over 10 rounds.

Our challenge is to coalesce these Americans into a political force that will make anti-gun lawmakers' heads swim. When they repeat gun ban groups' deliberate deceptions, we must tell the truth; not some of the time, but all of the time! But we cannot wait for them to act, and then only respond in defense. We must be out front. When we carry our message, we must do so confident in the knowledge that we are doing so in a manner that respects our fellow citizens, and their right to disagree--a way of doing business that is alien to our opponents--and that our arguments are based in logic and fact, not deceit."

...and the link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 58BB04F1F9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Best.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks Stephen.

I hope every reads this article by Chris Cox. As TexasCHLforum members know, I've been preaching this since the summer of 2008; here, during speaking engagements, and in NRA committee and board meetings. The eight years George W. Bush was in the White House have lulled many people into complacency. This is entirely natural, it happens to all of us at some point and with some issues. While it is natural, it's also dangerous. Many of our ranks are comprised of people who were either too young to care about political matters, were not gun owners during that period, or have forgotten the threats gun owners faced from 1992 to 1996. (The number of us who vividly remember the Carter years are even fewer.) After suffering stinging political defeats in the House and Senate as a result Clinton "assault weapons" ban in 1994, the attempt to further erode Second Amendments rights lessened for the remainder of Clinton's second term, though they did not go away completely. As is often the case, when the legislature is hostile to gun control proponents, they focus on the states and in the federal regulatory arena.

In my opinion, one of the largest hurdles we face in growing the NRA and the TSRA is the belief by many gun owners that logic and truth will prevail and all we need to do is show "them" the true facts. But who are "them?" To be very blunt my friends, that belief is dangerously naive. We frequently discuss the fact that the political battle for the Second Amendment and gun owners' rights is a battle for the uncommitted citizen/voter. Stories of converting anti-gunners to gun owners and shooters are music to our ears, but they are also very few in number. I'm talking about true anti-gunners committed to taking away our Second Amendment rights, not people who were either afraid of guns, or who were philosophically anti-gun, but never lifted a finger to hurt us. We will never convert an active member of Sarah Brady's version of Pravda, the Brady Campaign to [Ban all Guns], but the Brady ilk are the enemy we must face to reach and educate the uncommitted citizen/voter. Make no mistake, Brady and her ilk are very knowledgeable about guns and they know when they are lying. Their lies are calculated to create fear in the minds of the uncommitted citizen/voter and showing the Brady ilk the error of their ways will not deter them in the least.

We must see that the truth gets to the people it will act upon it; the uncommitted citizen/voter. When I say "uncommitted," I'm talking about not being committed to either an anti-gun or pro-gun position. They come in all shapes, sizes, gender and political party affiliation. We do this by joining and supporting the NRA and TSRA. And this is precisely the mission of the new Texas CHL Forum, Inc. that was created late last year. No longer can we sit back and say to ourselves, "as soon as they learn the truth, everything will be fine." While the premise is correct, i.e. when the uncommitted citizen/voter learns and believes the truth, we will be stronger, we cannot sit back and assume someone else will do the job. Doing so makes a much sense as sitting in your home during a flood while watching others build a damn with sandbags and hoping they get to your house ahead of the water. This flood threatens all of us and we all need to be filling and stacking sandbags.

Get involved folks -- Please get involved! Join the NRA and TSRA if you aren't members. Put the Project One Million: Texas link in your signature lines here and on other forums you visit. (Click Here to get the code for adding it to your signature line.) And consider joining Texas CHL Forum, Inc. to help with the education & advocacy effort in Texas.

Chas.

[casingpoint]

The ignorant and uninformed are breeding at an exponential rate in America. They constitute a majority of voters now, as evidenced by the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. Everybody thought The Bell Curve was about race. But it became more applicable to politics in the long run.

[Mike1951]

I must confess that this was too preposterous for me to take seriously. Call me naive and/or complacent.

I expect a new assault weapons ban.

I expect legislation requiring all transfers to go through a dealer.

Eventually, I expect transfer of many firearms to be prohibited.

But I can't believe that legislation could pass requiring a federal license to own a 10/22.

I hope this isn't another "Chicken Little" scenario.

[jimlongley]

I must confess that this was too preposterous for me to take seriously. Call me naive and/or complacent.

I expect a new assault weapons ban.

I expect legislation requiring all transfers to go through a dealer.

Eventually, I expect transfer of many firearms to be prohibited.

But I can't believe that legislation could pass requiring a federal license to own a 10/22.

I hope this isn't another "Chicken Little" scenario.

The problem isn't so much that the legislation would name the 10/22, it's that there will be a phrase somewhere in it that will grant power to the Attorney General or someone like him to determine which guns get added to the list. Then all it will take is a Waxman/Schumer expose about the evil 10/22, capable of a rate of 600 rounds per minute with ammunition that can penetrate a safe or a steel door to a house, and it will go right on that list.

Think it can't happen?

Well, we already know that 10/22 is capable of discharging its magazine that fast, which would give a rate of 600 rounds per minute.

Penetrate a safe? Well the "safe" that was shown in the infamous .50 caliber videos was actually a locking file cabinet, and the light gauge steel on the sides would not stop a .22LR very well, and that applies equally well to the steel door to a house, 14 to 16 gauge steel just flat won't stop a .22LR. A pellet gun can penetrate 14 gauge steel, so look for that to be next on the list.

Not a chicken little scenario at all. The big problem is that too many gun owners, way too many gun owners, are willing to see it as chicken little, or paranoia, or "But I can't believe they would outlaw my (insert your favorite non-EBR here)" The problem is that the people driving the issue want to do just that, they want to "Turn them all in, Mr and Mrs America" and they will take any small increment they can. So the scenario is that they will outlaw my .50 caliber "sniper rifle" but you don't care because you don't have or even see the need for one, and then they outlaw "assault weapons" which morphs and morphs and morphs until the term includes just about every semi-automatic long arm made, and then they go after handguns capable of taking the "high capacity" magazines that they outlawed in the reimplementation of the AWB, which will include 1911s, P08 Lugers, and even Ruger .22s.

Paranoia? Chicken little? I sincerely hope so, but I prefer to hedge my bets, there ARE the Bradys and McCarthys out there, and they have their chicago politician in office appointing all of the Clintonistas he can find, regardless of their criminal tendencies, as long as they answer question 63 right.

I've said it before, we're in for a hard ride folks, cinch up, tighten your spurs, and grab that pommel, this mule is going to buck hard.

[Mike1951]

I used the 10/22 only as an example to show how ridiculous the proposed legislation is. And I have never been one to think that proposed legislation wouldn't affect my personal interests, since i have examples of most types, short of .50 BMG.

I think we will see anti-gun bills introduced and I will fight them as agressively as most. But I mentioned the types of restrictions i believe we can expect.

The institution of a national licensing system, at this point in time, is so remote as to be laughable.

We have enough real threats out there deserving of our efforts and money that we shouldn't waste our time and resources on something that doesn't have a chance of passing.

I've said this before, so I expect the flak. I see too many posts hyping old bills or those that will never see the light of day. Some believe it is necessary to fan the flames even if the bill is going nowhere. I do not mean to reflect on Mr. Camp's posting of Chris Cox' release and there is much to worry about.

My focus is strictly on the likelihood of a national licensing system to own certain legal firearms.

[jimlongley]

My focus is strictly on the likelihood of a national licensing system to own certain legal firearms.

With an anti-gun president, surrounding himself with anti-gun clintonistas, I don't see any reason to deduce that a proposal for a national licensing system to own ANY firearm is not in the works, or that it would not pass.

Holder already told the Senate that he sees plenty of loopholes in Heller to allow for what HE determines to be "reasonable restrictions" and there are already people campaigning for a national concealed carry license, it is but a very short step, a one word change amending such a bill, to having a national FOID, and then it is just another short step to registration of all firearms, and another to confiscatory bans on certain evil guns or any of several other, quite plausible, scenaria.

It happened in commiefornia, at least to some extent already, and I am sure few here remember the bill that was introduced in NY back in the 70s, that would have required registration by serial number of all firearms in the state, and if a firearm did not have a serial number, it would have had to have been taken to the state police and either a serial number would be added or it would be "surrendered" to be destroyed. That bill came up for voice vote and was passed in the Assembly, but failed to clear committee in the Senate, but you can be sure that if it had passed, Malcom Wilson would have signed it.

One problem is that so many people opine that "that couldn't happen" but like that big car wreck or the tree crashing through the roof, it just takes one small moment for it to happen, a quick juxtaposition of just the right circumstances, and there it is, a done deal, and people are left saying "I never thought it could happen . . ."

"Sic pacem, para bellum" applies on so many levels, as does "Quis custodiet custodes."

[Charles L. Cotton]

I've said this before, so I expect the flak. I see too many posts hyping old bills or those that will never see the light of day. Some believe it is necessary to fan the flames even if the bill is going nowhere. I do not mean to reflect on Mr. Camp's posting of Chris Cox' release and there is much to worry about.

My focus is strictly on the likelihood of a national licensing system to own certain legal firearms.

A risk element that is not very well known is that bills are often filed to measure opposition, knowing they have no chance of passage during that term. We do that and so do anti-gunners. The risk lies in the possibility that gun owners will view a bill as no real threat and therefore they don't get involved. We are in a serious defensive position for at least four years. How much of a battle we face for the remainder of those four years could well be determined by our response to early gun control bills either filed or floated in the media. I call these "scouting bills." If a scouting bill draws little attention, then it emboldens supporters to push for the same provisions in another bill, or to attach some or all of those provisions to another bill by way of committee or floor amendments. (Remember, the federal congress doesn't have Texas' germane rule, so an anti-gun provision can be amended to any bill.)

So it is important to respond to every attempt to promote gun control, whether in the form of a formal bill or the airing of a gun control concept in or by the media. It is very much a matter of testing the waters and a prudent defensive posture is to make that water so hot no one will put in even a toe.

Chas.

[barres]

My focus is strictly on the likelihood of a national licensing system to own certain legal firearms.

My concern is that we're up in arms over "certain legal firearms" and not firearms PERIOD. We need, as Charles said it, to keep the waters of all firearms rights so hot that no one will want to test them. Preferably, ever again!

[jpierce30]

The "Chicken Little" mentality is what has got us where we are. Most people believe that common sense will prevail. But, remember that we are talking about politicians, liberal politicians, so common sense will not be a part of the discussion. The administration and Congress are only looking to repay their leftist base. Don't let anything go by and think that is laughable or unreal. The liberals will steal our rights a little at a time, just like cooking the frog in cold water and turning up the heat, he never knew what hit him.

Be aware and informed!!!!!

[jimlongley]

I've said this before, so I expect the flak. I see too many posts hyping old bills or those that will never see the light of day. Some believe it is necessary to fan the flames even if the bill is going nowhere. I do not mean to reflect on Mr. Camp's posting of Chris Cox' release and there is much to worry about.

My focus is strictly on the likelihood of a national licensing system to own certain legal firearms.

A risk element that is not very well known is that bills are often filed to measure opposition, knowing they have no chance of passage during that term. We do that and so do anti-gunners. The risk lies in the possibility that gun owners will view a bill as no real threat and therefore they don't get involved. We are in a serious defensive position for at least four years. How much of a battle we face for the remainder of those four years could well be determined by our response to early gun control bills either filed or floated in the media. I call these "scouting bills." If a scouting bill draws little attention, then it emboldens supporters to push for the same provisions in another bill, or to attach some or all of those provisions to another bill by way of committee or floor amendments. (Remember, the federal congress doesn't have Texas' germane rule, so an anti-gun provision can be amended to any bill.)

So it is important to respond to every attempt to promote gun control, whether in the form of a formal bill or the airing of a gun control concept in or by the media. It is very much a matter of testing the waters and a prudent defensive posture is to make that water so hot no one will put in even a toe.

Chas.

And to expand on that. The best defense is a good offense, so we need to go offensive against any of these precursor bills, just as if they had a chance to pass.

One thing we used in NY, a lot of years ago, when a bill that was obviously a "scouting" bill was introduced, and one of the sponsors stated publicly that it wasn't expected to pass, it was just to test the waters, was just a simple statement that the NYSR&PA doubted that a legislator really representing his district and constituents would waste the taxpayers' time and money drafting and submitting frivolous legislation merely to measure reaction. There must be better ways, like public opinion polls to find out the popularity of a proposed piece of legislation. Submitting a bill like this does nothing measure the voters' preference, what it does is measure the legislators' preference, which may not be a true reflection of the voters' preference.

The legislator in question blustered and sputtered but was not able to come up with a coherent response.