Skip to comments.How the Gun-Control Movement Got Smart
Posted on 02/09/2013 6:53:14 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
Why are advocates so optimistic now when reform has failed so many times before? Because they have a totally new strategy
Here is how advocates of gun control used to talk about their cause: They openly disputed that the Second Amendment conferred the right to own a gun. Their major policy goals were to make handguns illegal and enroll all U.S. gun owners in a federal database. The group now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once known as Handgun Control Inc.; a 2001 book by the executive director of the Violence Policy Center was entitled Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.
Contrast that with what you see today: Gun-control groups don't even use the term "gun control," with its big-government implications, favoring "preventing gun violence" instead. Democratic politicians preface every appeal for reform with a paean to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and bend over backwards to assure "law-abiding gun owners" they mean them no ill will. Even the president, a Chicago liberal who once derided rural voters' tendency to "cling to guns or religion," seeks to assure gun enthusiasts he's one of them by citing a heretofore-unknown enthusiasm for skeet shooting, adding, "I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."
A frequent question in the current battle over gun control is why anyone should expect reform to succeed now when it's failed repeatedly for the last 20 years. Maybe this is why: Between then and now, advocates of gun control got smarter. They've radically changed their message into one that's more appealing to Middle America and moderate voters. ......
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
And be vigilant.
I assume all those who want to restrict or register firearms are motivated by a desire to disarm citizens. I doubt that I am wrong on more than 1% to 2% of those who oppose our basic human rights in this area.
I assume that those who want the people disarmed do so because they want to increase government’s power to coerce the people. Again, I doubt that I am wrong in many cases.
We are facing pure evil.
There can be no compromise with those who are trying to take our freedom. We cannot safely compromise and hope they will be content forever with just taking high-capacity assault magazines or just taking assault rifles, or just taking semi-automatic assault rifles, or just taking assault handguns and then all handguns. Any of these defeats would pose a major threat to freedom, but the socialists will continue seeking a compromise that splits the difference between our position and theirs, between good and evil, until we can no longer oppose them at all. They eventually want the last flintlocks from museums, the knives from our kitchens, and the baseball bats from our garages. The place to stop them is right her, and right now, while we are strong enough to (hopefully) intimidate them into backing down and avoiding a civil war.
The crapola coming out of California is enough to petrify anyone.
The Leftists now believe they can be in your face about their true agenda. The mask, and the gloves, are off.
Here is a good site documenting the positive side of gun ownership...http://equalforce.net/EqualForce2/UNDERREPORTED_NEWS_OF_SELF_DEFENSE_THROUGHOUT_AMERICA.html
Law abiding? As in respecting the Constitution?
Law abiding is something that is done by example, not by spraying out masses of ridiculous Executive Orders.
Even the president, a Chicago liberal who once derided rural voters' tendency to "cling to guns or religion," seeks to assure gun enthusiasts he's one of them
No he is not. He is a foreign communist. He is NOT like me or anyone I know.
But don't let cold facts get in the way of the trendy meme of whom is perpetrating "gun violence." It isn't the guns, it isn't the "bitter clingers" or the "rural hicks," it is the urban democrats.
Yeah, those damn facts. What a bitch to deal with, eh?
By ‘smart’ do they mean a load of meaningless nonbinding boilerplate offered up by Student Council President Barry Oblamer and Jokin’ Joe Biden?
By ‘smart’ do they mean a Congress paralyzed by fear - and rightfully so - over any move that would single them out for attention?
By ‘smart’ do they mean a movement that still fails to achieve a majority in popular polling?
By ‘smart’ do they mean proposals involving cosmetic aspects of weapons and trifles involving magazine size?
By ‘smart’ do they mean exclusively targeting the law-abiding and sane while criminals and nutters escape scrutiny and enforcement?
This sounds about as ‘smart’ as a SmartCar in a high-speed collision.
Was Hasan another of Obama's sons?
"Let's not come to any conclusions."
If the photo at that site is supposed to be of someone who’s protecting himself, they may want to replace it. With an unholstered gun stuck in the back of his waistband and what appears to be his finger on the trigger, I hope he doesn’t shoot himself in the butt.
That amazing...demographics all the way...
But another thing that has happened between then and now is Heller.
And be vigilant.
No, they didn’t change. That had a sweep plum drop in their lap when all those little children were murdered, and it happened safely after an election. The band hadn’t even finished warming up and the ghouls were gleefully dancing on the not-yet-buried bodies.
Hang head in shame......
I am very concerned about California and New York. What can be done, aside from CWII?
I hope you got past the picture.
Thanks, saving the picture for future ref.
Of course. The site is great and I’ve bookmarked it. That doesn’t make the photo any better.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.
Our ultimate goal total control of handguns in the United States is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
Back then HCI said they “Only wanted to control handguns. Long guns would not be affected.”
A few years later they added certain long guns to their list of guns to be banned.
***The crapola coming out of California is enough to petrify anyone.***
They are still trying to find a way around the voters rejection of Proposition 15 back in 1982.
That was the proposition to register old and ban new handguns in the state.
Tell them not me. I don’t write their stuff, I just pass it on to people who I hope can and will use it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.