It isn't about what gun owners want in a direct sense, it's about gun politics. The whole thing is over when the pro gun reps and senators get enough hate mail from constituents about this. The fudds aren't going to do much, either. Look at the reaction to national reciprocity. Even that is only partially supported on a national level. Most pro gun pols don't want to piss anyone off, they'd rather do nothing than make a decision that would piss off a ton of constituents.
No, I totally understand. Im just curious how gun owners feel about what they might want or trade. I've talked in a lot of threads about what I think the Republican party should/could do to win, even though I don't vote Republican (I vote Libertarian, before anyone starts crying)...so I understand that wants and ideologies cannot be separated from political realities, but sometimes I find it interesting to talk just about one or the other.
The fact that a lot of people here are/were MA residents makes it even more interesting, because I view MA as somewhat of a worse case scenario. The, "assault weapon" nonsense is better here than in CA, but the weird shit with pistols, the discretionary licensing, etc. does provide a good example of what can go wrong.
Yeah but you're only worried about complying because of 2 states (NY, NJ) maybe 4 if you have no license in MA or CT. States you can just ignore and drive through with FOPA. That's like what... 2% of the land mass of the US? (not even). Not worth losing a shitload of ground over. Not to mention there is no guarantee that they won't keep trying to **** gun owners, particularly people from out of state.
CT and RI have some wacky laws about, "assault weapons" too, though I believe? Concealed carry in NY would also be a fairly big deal for anyone who goes there often enough.
I agree that its a small portion of the land mass, but on the other hand you have a fuuuuuuccckkkiiiiingggg shitload of fudds out there in freedom land that don't really know how good they have it. Polls on the subject are never going to be reliable, but we can confidently say there is a contingent of gun owners out there who either would accept, or even actively want, more gun control.
Packaging something palatable where we would get some wins out of the deal might be a way to avoid a greater evil. Or, maybe it wouldn't...that's what the thread is about.
Don't fool yourself- they'll never shut up until they get a complete gun ban. They'll always be bitching about something. Look at the UK as an example, now they're cutting the points off of knives and shit like that over there. Everything is banned but they're still bitching. Besides, why would you want to concede something that only a tiny minority wants? Antis are a pack of yipping, ankle biting Chihuahuas right now, at best.
-Mike
I think advocates of a total gun ban....ones that would be willing to go to the political mat for it...are pretty few and far between. I think we're different than Britain. Restricting "assault weapons" in an actually meaningful way is a serious political danger, though.
Originally, I was going to try to insert some provision where these points would, "settle' the gun control debate for some length of time, but you can never guarantee that. That and the problems that could arise from licensing are the two best arguments against this, in my view.