About what I expected...

[Art Doc]

Went to a local show today. It was very busy and local news cameras were out. As I left near 2pm there was still a line of folks waiting to get in.

There were ARs for sale from $1,200 - $2,000 and I don't know what the prices were a month ago. The magazines seemed high at $35-$40 for MilSurp AR mags. Ammo was more scarce than usual and prices were high. Saw some 223 on several tables and mostly it was about a buck a round. Shudder. Seemed like it was mostly sitting on the tables at that price.

I bagged some 380 ammo. Got 7 boxes (50) with 3 being PPU HPs, and 2 Federal, 1 Winchester and I PPU FMJs. All together averaged $20 a box and that was not outrageous.

I have a real sinking feeling at what's coming in the near future. I think Feinstein, Schumer et al are going to finally get most if not all that they have been longing for. I believe an AWB is coming that will be far worse than the 1994 ban, magazine limits are coming, an end to private transfers and maybe an end to mail order ammo sales.

But not everyone agrees. On shopper I spoke with was absolutely convinced there will be a magazine limit and that's all. I don't know what makes him so optimistic. The rabid anti-2A people will not settle for that.

There are dark days ahead for gun owners.

[sophie]

We haven't had a gun show here since before the shooting in Newtown, Conn. but I can just imagine what it is going to be like when we do have one.
I looked at 2 Wally Worlds and their ammo was pretty sparse especially 380, 9mm, 38spec, 357mag and 45acp. Also all the larger bullet paks in 22 cal. were gone. Our Gander Mountain looked like some one came in and bought just about all the ammo and lots of the guns.

_________
James

[GF]

I think your right about them getting what they want. I just hung up the phone from a friend that asked me if I wanted to buy his Sig 226, said he wants to sell "before they become illegal".

What the hell is he thinking?

You'd be surprised the number of lukewarm gunowners I've heard from that are just willing to give in.
One fella' I work with said to me yesterday, "well if they ban 'em they can have 'em. I gotta' work and take care of my family. I'm not going to jail over some guns."

I believe most would just give in and continue to vote their life away.

GF

[Marshwheeling]

Originally Posted by SaxonPig

I have a real sinking feeling at what's coming in the near future. I think Feinstein, Schumer et al are going to finally get most if not all that they have been longing for. I believe an AWB is coming that will be far worse than the 1994 ban, magazine limits are coming, an end to private transfers and maybe an end to mail order ammo sales.

You might see a bill that looks like that, but how is it going to pass Congress? You know, I know, and they know that an AWB will not do a thing to prevent mass shootings. Someone will offer such a bill, it will receive a lot of talk, and it will not pass.

[Cooter Brown]

I hope you're not right, SP.

I think the low hanging fruit for them might be private transfers and mail order ammo sales.

Banning mail order ammo sales would hit me hard--I shoot a fair amount of 16 ga., and it's just not available locally, especially locally.

[james56]

This is on Drudge and NRA-ILA

Feinstein's New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22




NRA-ILA | Feinstein's New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22

[Xfuzz]

Guns shows have gone nuclear no doubt and for good reason.
Folks are fearful and in a current buying panic.
Wait til it hits your local supermarket.

Regarding confiscation.
Who is gonna come get em ?
The UN ?? Hell, the USA IS the UN most the other mopes are there
for the $$$.
If the powers ordered the UN is come take OUR property would'nt
that be an illegal order of our constitution and considered an armed foregin invasion?

The Feds ?? door to door 250-300 million firearms legally owned.
Do the math...even if they do not face resistance.

Your state Gov. would have to follow the government order.
Would they follow it or ignore it. I know what Texas would do.

Local coppers ??...forget it.

In short, just who is gonna come fetch OUR guns.?
Turn them in??
You gonna drop your Registerd Mag or Colt SAA in a barrel on some
designated parking lot.?

I see alot of posts on writting your congressperson/senator and such.
If some stupid order is given it will be time to stop emailing and writting.
It will be time to show up in their front yards.

No doubt there will be some bans on certain firearms and the sell and transfer of such.
Total confiscation not likely..or even doable without total nationwide meltdown.

[gregintenn]

You gonna drop your Registerd Mag or Colt SAA in a barrel on some
designated parking lot.?

You gonna go to prison over them?

[Xfuzz]

Nope...I will defend my constitutional rights.

[long colt frazier]

Molon labe

Originally Posted by gregintenn

You gonna go to prison over them?

[RaceBannon]

"You gonna go to prison over them?"

Honestly, I think I would. I know talk is cheap and I may chicken out at the last minute, but turning my firearms into the authorities would crush me. I've never been in trouble with the law. I've always had respect for the police and the military, but allowing the U.S. to become a country where only cops and soldiers have guns is unimaginable to me.

It's not just the loss of prized possessions or a naive belief in the founding principles. As a life long history buff, well versed in the atrocities of the 20th century, I find it impossible not to question the motives of those who call for civilian disarmament. The folks demanding gun control and the folks who sent Japanese-Americans to concentration camps through executive order, have something in common. I made that connection when I was a kid and I'll never forget it.

[Art Doc]

I remember when the Lautenberg Bill was being debated. It prohibits guns to anyone under court order or convicted of domestic abuse. For the first time a misdemeanor costs you your gun rights. So, your wife gets pissed and calls the cops saying you pushed her and bingo, no more guns for you. All of our supposed friends in Congress voted for it, it was unanimous because nobody wanted to be labeled as voting against protecting women from spousal abuse.

Same here. Sandy Hook is a game changer. The opposition has dead children and nobody can bear the brunt of not voting to protect children. We know it's simplistic and ineffective but this debate is now emotional rather than logical. They will win.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Defeatism... I see way too much of it lately.

The Senator's bill supplies plenty of fuel to generate emotion that can help our side of the debate. National gun registration, FBI fingerprinting and photos of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, gun confiscations and generally criminalizing the law-abiding can be used to generate lots of emotions. An aggressive ad campaign with the right images and message can create a good mix of outrage, fear and patriotism to take this fight to gun control advocates.

[Muddyboot]

Originally Posted by SaxonPig

I remember when the Lautenberg Bill was being debated. It prohibits guns to anyone under court order or convicted of domestic abuse. For the first time a misdemeanor costs you your gun rights. So, your wife gets pissed and calls the cops saying you pushed her and bingo, no more guns for you. All of our supposed friends in Congress voted for it, it was unanimous because nobody wanted to be labeled as voting against protecting women from spousal abuse.

Same here. Sandy Hook is a game changer. The opposition has dead children and nobody can bear the brunt of not voting to protect children. We know it's simplistic and ineffective but this debate is now emotional rather than logical. They will win.

That's no reason not to fight the good fight....

[Big Fred]

If anyone has the time to post negative comments about us losing any gun rights, use your time wisely and e-mail your reps. That will do more good than posting doom and gloom here.

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by Marshwheeling

You might see a bill that looks like that, but how is it going to pass Congress? You know, I know, and they know that an AWB will not do a thing to prevent mass shootings. Someone will offer such a bill, it will receive a lot of talk, and it will not pass.

This is what I've heard knowledgeable folks saying when interviewed on the news. No gun ban bill can possibly pass the House of Representatives, according to the wags, even if the Senate were to pass it.

I hope they're right...

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by SaxonPig

I remember when the Lautenberg Bill was being debated. It prohibits guns to anyone under court order or convicted of domestic abuse. For the first time a misdemeanor costs you your gun rights. So, your wife gets pissed and calls the cops saying you pushed her and bingo, no more guns for you. All of our supposed friends in Congress voted for it, it was unanimous because nobody wanted to be labeled as voting against protecting women from spousal abuse.

Same here. Sandy Hook is a game changer. The opposition has dead children and nobody can bear the brunt of not voting to protect children. We know it's simplistic and ineffective but this debate is now emotional rather than logical. They will win.

At the time the Lautenberg Amendment was being debated, I was working part-time for my Congressman, who was a moderate pro-gun Republican. I well remember what happened...

The Senate had passed the Lautenberg Amendment, and then incorporated it into an omnibus budget bill that went to the House. The Congress and President Clinton were tussling over the budget, there had been a government shutdown, etc., and House members were put in the position of either voting for that budget bill, which included the Lautenberg Amendment, or standing accused of letting the government shut down because they wanted wife-beaters to have guns.

It was a no-win situation, and ultimately, of course, the Lautenberg Amendment became law. But the House of Representatives never voted on it as a stand-alone measure; it passed only as part of that budget bill.

You make a good point about Feinstein's new gun-ban proposal. I think the key to getting legislation passed, from the other side's perspective, is timing: The sooner they can get a bill introduced and get hearings scheduled, the sooner they can capitalize on what is still a recent news event and fresh tragedy. However...

Something of this magnitude will not be rolled into another bill. It will have hearings and be debated as a separate proposal in each chamber of Congress. And I think (hope) the votes aren't there to pass it.

We shall see...

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Defeatism... I see way too much of it lately.

The Senator's bill supplies plenty of fuel to generate emotion that can help our side of the debate. National gun registration, FBI fingerprinting and photos of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, gun confiscations and generally criminalizing the law-abiding can be used to generate lots of emotions. An aggressive ad campaign with the right images and message can create a good mix of outrage, fear and patriotism to take this fight to gun control advocates.

Feinstein is asking for the sun, moon, and stars, knowing she will have to settle for less. But even the "minor" provisions of her bill are extreme, and we need to make that point over and over again.

Nothing is a done deal yet...unless we adopt a can't win attitude.