Paul Howe on the Second Ammendment

[MoJo]

He makes some really good points.

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/ ... paul-howe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

I feel similarly.. but I'm not content to bet the farm on my intuition.
I also figured "no way" would BHO win a second term... My confidence is pretty low on my intuition

[Heartland Patriot]

I do agree with him on a lot of what he has to say and I really don't think they believe they can get the whole shebang through because they KNOW what Mr. Howe says is true. I stick by my assessment that Feinstein and her ilk are shooting for the moon to be able to put something into orbit, so to speak. What exactly they are REALLY trying to get, I'm not sure. They will post the monstrosity for certain, then when they get the inevitable hard-core pushback (as evidenced by the HUGE attitude against this mess), they will then put forth their "compromise" for X...which is what they REALLY hope to accomplish, by making it seem like they are being "reasonable"...and can't we all just be "reasonable" too?. There lies the danger to our rights at this point. So, what is it they REALLY want? A magazine ban? A registration scheme? Stop private sales of firearms by forcing all sales through FFLs (and they could tax that, too)? A national waiting period like California? Anyone want to take (serious) guesses at a limited agenda? Yes, I know they WANT it all but what do they THINK they can slick by the Republican House now that the POTUS has the made them look silly and gotten their constituents' hackles up?

[Ziran]

The problem with all of this is that liberals aren't stupid enough to try an outright ban right away. The ban will come many (10-20 years) later. It will be administered via a thousand cuts.

The current strategy is to offer an "outrageous" bill (the current AWB bill proposed) to divert everyone's attention and sneak in a much smaller bill under the radar (the ban for magazines over 10rds). The idea is to present this as a "sensible" bill as "nobody needs large magazines" etc. Then a year or two down the road when another tragedy strikes repeat the process. Each time only a small percentage of gun owners are directly affected. It is a classical approach of divide and eat the elephant one small piece at a time.

This strategy worked very well in Britain and has a good chance of working in USA as well.

[recaffeination]

It's like compromising with a robber over your money or your life.

[OldCannon]

Oh, this thread got made before mine, but I didn't see it. Can mods please close this one? viewtopic.php?f=94&t=61062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

I do agree with him on a lot of what he has to say and I really don't think they believe they can get the whole shebang through because they KNOW what Mr. Howe says is true. I stick by my assessment that Feinstein and her ilk are shooting for the moon to be able to put something into orbit, so to speak. What exactly they are REALLY trying to get, I'm not sure. They will post the monstrosity for certain, then when they get the inevitable hard-core pushback (as evidenced by the HUGE attitude against this mess), they will then put forth their "compromise" for X...which is what they REALLY hope to accomplish, by making it seem like they are being "reasonable"...and can't we all just be "reasonable" too?. There lies the danger to our rights at this point. So, what is it they REALLY want? A magazine ban? A registration scheme? Stop private sales of firearms by forcing all sales through FFLs (and they could tax that, too)? A national waiting period like California? Anyone want to take (serious) guesses at a limited agenda? Yes, I know they WANT it all but what do they THINK they can slick by the Republican House now that the POTUS has the made them look silly and gotten their constituents' hackles up?

They want whatever they can get, up to a ban on the private ownership of all guns. There is no limited agenda. I believe they think they can get everything DiFi is proposing --or at least DiFi thinks so. If she thought the time was ripe for a full ban she'd introduce that legislation. I think her Bill tells you what she thinks she can get. I don't think they're concerned at all about being reasonable. They don't care what WE think and we're the only ones who are going to think they're being unreasonable....everyone else is either a supporter or too ignorant to know what is unreasonable. I don't think the unreasonable aspects are a gambit for the things they think they can really get, but what they really want and think they've got a shot at getting, and that they just consider the more limited aspects to be the low hanging fruit. They may have already cut a deal with The One for an executive order if the Republicans defeat their proposals. My guess is that they'll take their shot in Congress and if it misses, they'll appeal to The One for an executive order --for the "children."

Edited to add:

I think the most telling point in the article is that they don't have the logistical ability to pull off a forced confiscation. But then, none of the other countries that have banned guns have had forced confiscations either. They don't need one, as you won't be able to use any banned guns, and if you don't turn them in you'll risk being caught ,and if you're caught you'll be sent to prison --unless of course you're an actual criminal, in which case you'll get a slap on the wrist, a reduced charge for something else, or a probated sentence, and get released right back onto the street.

[VMI77]

The problem with all of this is that liberals aren't stupid enough to try an outright ban right away. The ban will come many (10-20 years) later. It will be administered via a thousand cuts.

The current strategy is to offer an "outrageous" bill (the current AWB bill proposed) to divert everyone's attention and sneak in a much smaller bill under the radar (the ban for magazines over 10rds). The idea is to present this as a "sensible" bill as "nobody needs large magazines" etc. Then a year or two down the road when another tragedy strikes repeat the process. Each time only a small percentage of gun owners are directly affected. It is a classical approach of divide and eat the elephant one small piece at a time.

This strategy worked very well in Britain and has a good chance of working in USA as well.

Maybe, but it worked in Britain because only a very small percentage of the population owned guns and because the Brits were already Socialists well conditioned against the concept of self-defense. I don't think they believe the DiFi Bill is outrageous at all. I also don't think they're going to wait 10-20 years for a complete ban because by then circumstances will have made them too late for the party. Economic collapse is due within the next 20 years, perhaps the next 10, or even less. Once that happens they're not going to get anyone's guns for several generations. If they can't pass the DiFi Bill now, they'll either ask The One for an executive order, or at the very least, they'll introduce something more onerous at the very first opportunity. If the DiFi Bill passes they'll go for confiscation of whatever they register before The One's term is over.

[Heartland Patriot]

I do agree with him on a lot of what he has to say and I really don't think they believe they can get the whole shebang through because they KNOW what Mr. Howe says is true. I stick by my assessment that Feinstein and her ilk are shooting for the moon to be able to put something into orbit, so to speak. What exactly they are REALLY trying to get, I'm not sure. They will post the monstrosity for certain, then when they get the inevitable hard-core pushback (as evidenced by the HUGE attitude against this mess), they will then put forth their "compromise" for X...which is what they REALLY hope to accomplish, by making it seem like they are being "reasonable"...and can't we all just be "reasonable" too?. There lies the danger to our rights at this point. So, what is it they REALLY want? A magazine ban? A registration scheme? Stop private sales of firearms by forcing all sales through FFLs (and they could tax that, too)? A national waiting period like California? Anyone want to take (serious) guesses at a limited agenda? Yes, I know they WANT it all but what do they THINK they can slick by the Republican House now that the POTUS has the made them look silly and gotten their constituents' hackles up?

They want whatever they can get, up to a ban on the private ownership of all guns. There is no limited agenda. I believe they think they can get everything DiFi is proposing --or at least DiFi thinks so. If she thought the time was ripe for a full ban she'd introduce that legislation. I think her Bill tells you what she thinks she can get. I don't think they're concerned at all about being reasonable. They don't care what WE think and we're the only ones who are going to think they're being unreasonable....everyone else is either a supporter or too ignorant to know what is unreasonable. I don't think the unreasonable aspects are a gambit for the things they think they can really get, but what they really want and think they've got a shot at getting, and that they just consider the more limited aspects to be the low hanging fruit. They may have already cut a deal with The One for an executive order if the Republicans defeat their proposals. My guess is that they'll take their shot in Congress and if it misses, they'll appeal to The One for an executive order --for the "children."

Edited to add:

I think the most telling point in the article is that they don't have the logistical ability to pull off a forced confiscation. But then, none of the other countries that have banned guns have had forced confiscations either. They don't need one, as you won't be able to use any banned guns, and if you don't turn them in you'll risk being caught ,and if you're caught you'll be sent to prison --unless of course you're an actual criminal, in which case you'll get a slap on the wrist, a reduced charge for something else, or a probated sentence, and get released right back onto the street.

I am a firm believer in this passage from "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, even if I don't subscribe to all of her philosophy or theories. They WANT a nation of "law-breakers"...

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

The more I think about the lack of physical logistics to accomplish the enforcement of almost anything the Feds deem "illegal", the more I think of this passage. There is a phrase I always heard that dovetails with this: "In Italy, its only illegal if you get caught doing it". Meaning that yes there is a law against it, but no one outside of the government cares.

[VMI77]

I do agree with him on a lot of what he has to say and I really don't think they believe they can get the whole shebang through because they KNOW what Mr. Howe says is true. I stick by my assessment that Feinstein and her ilk are shooting for the moon to be able to put something into orbit, so to speak. What exactly they are REALLY trying to get, I'm not sure. They will post the monstrosity for certain, then when they get the inevitable hard-core pushback (as evidenced by the HUGE attitude against this mess), they will then put forth their "compromise" for X...which is what they REALLY hope to accomplish, by making it seem like they are being "reasonable"...and can't we all just be "reasonable" too?. There lies the danger to our rights at this point. So, what is it they REALLY want? A magazine ban? A registration scheme? Stop private sales of firearms by forcing all sales through FFLs (and they could tax that, too)? A national waiting period like California? Anyone want to take (serious) guesses at a limited agenda? Yes, I know they WANT it all but what do they THINK they can slick by the Republican House now that the POTUS has the made them look silly and gotten their constituents' hackles up?

They want whatever they can get, up to a ban on the private ownership of all guns. There is no limited agenda. I believe they think they can get everything DiFi is proposing --or at least DiFi thinks so. If she thought the time was ripe for a full ban she'd introduce that legislation. I think her Bill tells you what she thinks she can get. I don't think they're concerned at all about being reasonable. They don't care what WE think and we're the only ones who are going to think they're being unreasonable....everyone else is either a supporter or too ignorant to know what is unreasonable. I don't think the unreasonable aspects are a gambit for the things they think they can really get, but what they really want and think they've got a shot at getting, and that they just consider the more limited aspects to be the low hanging fruit. They may have already cut a deal with The One for an executive order if the Republicans defeat their proposals. My guess is that they'll take their shot in Congress and if it misses, they'll appeal to The One for an executive order --for the "children."

Edited to add:

I think the most telling point in the article is that they don't have the logistical ability to pull off a forced confiscation. But then, none of the other countries that have banned guns have had forced confiscations either. They don't need one, as you won't be able to use any banned guns, and if you don't turn them in you'll risk being caught ,and if you're caught you'll be sent to prison --unless of course you're an actual criminal, in which case you'll get a slap on the wrist, a reduced charge for something else, or a probated sentence, and get released right back onto the street.

I am a firm believer in this passage from "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, even if I don't subscribe to all of her philosophy or theories. They WANT a nation of "law-breakers"...

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

The more I think about the lack of physical logistics to accomplish the enforcement of almost anything the Feds deem "illegal", the more I think of this passage. There is a phrase I always heard that dovetails with this: "In Italy, its only illegal if you get caught doing it". Meaning that yes there is a law against it, but no one outside of the government cares.

I was going to say the same thing about Mexico, but that's not always true. Years ago we had some wealthy neighbors from Mexico who got fined by the USCG for not having life jackets in their boat. There were two different families and we were friends with one of them. The other family patriarch was a Mexican Government official --and they were the family with the boat. My friend told me that this other family was quite incensed about the ticket, and complained that in Mexico there was no problem like that which couldn't be fixed with $2. My friend was a Mexican citizen but had Texas plates on his car, and was often stopped by the police in Mexico for "traffic violations." In one incident my friend only had Pesos to pay the required bribe and the officer chided by saying that God would punish him for being so cheap. So, it may not even be illegal if you get caught --just expensive.

[karder]

you won't be able to use any banned guns, and if you don't turn them in you'll risk being caught ,and if you're caught you'll be sent to prison --unless of course you're an actual criminal

True, after all, the purpose of an AWB is not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it is to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't like our elected officials passing arbitrary laws via "executive order".

[Rugrash]

I certainly will sleep better knowing that Paul is not going to turn in his stuff...lol! No LE agency in the state would dare trespass on his property and break down his door.

[TacShot]

I certainly will sleep better knowing that Paul is not going to turn in his stuff...lol! No LE agency in the state would dare trespass on his property and break down his door.

You are assuming he would shoot it out with a LE agency. I doubt it, because he would eventually loose. It is however IMHO an unlikely scenario. There will not be large scale confiscation by kicking down doors. The people would be ordered to turn in their guns. Those who did not may hide them in the attic, bury them, or whatever. They might be able to keep them forever, but they could never use them without the risk of imprisonment. They win with out kicking down doors unless we can stop the legislation.

[OldCannon]

[quote="TacShot"They might be able to keep them forever, but they could never use them without the risk of imprisonment. They win with out kicking down doors unless we can stop the legislation.[/quote]

This.