Politicians banning things they don't understand
 

This video is a little bit older but it shows a major problem. People without the appropriate background try to make laws

What is a barrel shroud? - YouTube

I've found in talking to anti gun people that pretty universally they have no knowledge of firearms. Guns=bad. NRA=bad. That's all they know. Unfortunately, I've had very little luck educating them. The ones I've talked with don't want to know. It's pretty common for people to be afraid of the unknown. They are ruled by their emotions because they have no experience with guns, and statistics seemingly mean nothing to them.

Indeed, it would help a lot if the discussions woulded be conducted without emotions but with pure facts.

It is kinda like talking to people how complain about the aircraft noise in airport vincinities but complain again if they can't get their super fresh south american kiwis every day

I had a pretty lengthy discussion with several people shortly after the Newtown shooting. Most of them were vehemently anti gun. Not a single one had ever even held a gun. I approached the conversation trying to discuss real solutions that might have a chance of working. When they brought up banning guns, in every instance, I told them from my experience why what they were proposing was not a real solution to the problem, and I backed it all up with statistics. I got nowhere at all! Finally, one of them said I was just spouting NRA garbage and said that where guns are, murder and mayhem follow, so they need to be banned. In other words "guns=bad," just where they started out. It is really a frustrating experience trying to have a logical discussion based on facts when you are the only one in the room that cares what the facts are!

Try these methods-

Terrific Article on the Mind of an Anti-gunner

Thanks, Lee. I'll check that out. Maybe I'll be more successful next time!

Where does it say a POLITICIAN has to know anything to pass a law?

They don't even read legislation before they vote on it, LOOK AT OBAMACARE. The Devils in the details and they DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

I'm sorry (Caj and Erich) but TOO MANY LAWYERS are in the Congress, MASTERS OF B.S. And CONFUSING ISSUES.

Believe me, the purpose of the legislation being proposed is not to protect innocent children from harm it is to gain power. If you have a gun and I do not, you have more power. Politicians think differently from "normal" folks.

Anti gun people (non politicians) do not care about lucid arguments. If you start to actually "win" an argument, they say, "Oh you're just spouting NRA propaganda."

I really feel we have very little chance to "win" the argument, but we can win the battle. If you're out of the NRA, please consider joining. When the NRA tells a politico that they will run an opponent and donate money to an opponent then it makes an argument that a politician can understand.

I had lunch right after New Years with guy who worked for me in the GM’s finance arm back when I was a manger there before I retired. He and I shot at the range all of the time back then. He is now working for some higher ups on the beltway in a major think tank. When the conversation got around to gun control he was reluctant to talk about it. But he finally spilled the beans to me on a second or was it third whiskey because he said it was now common knowledge about what was going on in D.C. Here is what he told me:

“…The issue is not about guns but about control. It started in 2008 when the credit markets almost collapsed and the U.S. system came close to going belly up. This scared the big guys in government because they knew there where 280 million guns (now 300 million) in the country and they had not prepared well for civil control if the SHTF. What scared them the most is that the fire power of the average Joe was now equal to that of all of the authorities but the authorities were far outnumbered by the average Joe. To them this meant government might not survive a full collapse in the future because in the next chaos the average Joe would rule…”

He continued “…When Obama got into office and found out how bad things were he went nuts. The two things Obama did were to build Home Land Security (HLS) into a mass protection unit by sliding pork into bills he would sign. This is how they ended up with 1.6 billion hallow points and a long list of other goodies. Then Obama used terrorists as the reason for the 15 to 20 executive orders he sent out that make the U.S. into a prison camp for all of us in the next financial meltdown. The issue of gun control had to be left to the second term or he would not be reelected…”

Next he said “…Now we are at the third objective of Obama. That is to demobilize the firearms from the top in fire power on down. That is why he is trying to limit magazines or anything that has firepower. Part of this is a national registry so they can figure out how to allocate HLS resources against the districts with the most firepower…”

Then he finished “…You see this is all part of the big plan to keep running up the debt and the spending. Those guys want to save their butts if they spend too much and the credit markets destabilize again. So Obama can still spend a trillion to do his grand plan and if something goes wrong they are covered. In addition gun control fit into Obama’s view of big government control. It’s as simple as that…”
 
To understand gun control you need to understand the real rules about how our government functions by (which is not the constitution or its amendments). It ‘s not that hard to understand. Our government’s first rule is “Do whatever it takes to keep government running (maintain power). Citizens come second (government rules people)…” The second rule is “Governments direction is that of the current ruling party unless rule number one is violated…” The third rule is “Do whatever it takes to continue to get the Citizens votes so rule number one and two stays in force…”

So what my friend told me is government is scared that if another crisis in finance threatens government stability there is too much fire power in civilian’s hands and it must be stopped (so rule number one above is not violated). They don’t care about Sandy Hook it just happens to come along at the right time. If government really cared about children they would not have allowed 50 million abortions in the last 50 years.

Rabbitone, I think your friend has this issue "pegged". I believe this is what is running in the minds in Washington. Bidden keeps harping eveyone is talking about high capacity magazines. The above is the only thing that makes sense about that issue. The Constitution really is under attack.

RabbitOne, Your last sentence is exactly what I have thought for a long time. They really DON'T care.

Nanny Bloomberg is now going after painkillers. Check Drudge.

The irony of all of this is that when they pass new laws restricting gun ownership many now law-biding citizens will not obey them; therefore, becoming lawbreakers, setting up a catch-22. If we don't obey the law, we become criminals. If we do, then we give up our freedom. Between a rock and a hard place. Of course, "unjust" laws in the past were cause for civil disobedience and revolution.

The thing most anti-gun people (politicians included) fail to grasp is that murderers don't obey laws. Simple concept, but their IQ needs to exceed their age before they could even begin to understand it.