Saturday, March 2, 2013

I don't remember

I wasn't engaged in the issue last time.  Help me out old timers.  Or young timers that paid better attention...

Last time there was a push for gun bans in the early 90s, the gun banners took a bath at the polls. 

Was there a similar amount of panic buying back then, or is it a MUCH bigger run now?

Were the protests as big back then compared to now?

What I'm asking is, "what's different now?"  We have more multimedia video thingies airing, but so does the other side.  

It was all Dems in charge back then, so something got passed.  Then that passed bill became a millstone around their neck.  Less chance of getting something passed now, so there will be less reason to punish pols.  Ima thinking if something passes now the GOP will be hit as bad as any Dem. And the GOP is just stupid enough to try to pull that off...

I'm trying to predict what may happen in November of 2014.

I am foreseeing a very real possibility that I could have a Maryland Shall Issue CCW permit in my wallet and a 1911 on my hip  (because the Court settled that the right says keep AND bear), but would get arrested for the felonious crime of letting my walnut stocked M1A (made in Maryland!) see the light of day...

9 comments:

Lazy Bike Commuter said...

I'm in the same boat, I didn't really know what went on last time and didn't own a gun until 2001.

From what i've heard, in 1994 the antigunners controlled the narrative almost completely, but in theory with internet media at our disposal that's being mitigated this go-round.

Also, I keep hearing that no one has ever seen panic buying like this, though I don't know that there's any proof either way.

Paladin said...

Just my two cents...

I don't remember much about those details either, and I'm pretty sure it's because I wasn't directly affected by it back then, sad to say. As crappy as that is, I'm not alone in that sort of reaction and I'm thinking that's why you're seeing such a wide spread and larger reaction this time around. Lots more people, like me, are directly affected this time around because more people own the types of weapons targeted by the bans.

Back then, I didn't own an "assault weapon" and didn't know anyone who did - even though I owned several guns and knew lots of shooters. Today, I do. Several. Most of the shooters that I know own at least one weapon that would be banned by Feinstein.

I've come to realize since then, of course, that ANY attack on the 2nd amendment (or any other Right), is an attack on me even if I'm not directly affected *this time*.

gunfreezone said...

There was some panic buying for rifles but then again there was not that much product available. Back then the most popular rifle in the US was the 30-30 Lever action and there were like only five or six AR manufacturers and AKs came only in Norinco flavor for the most part.
Magazines? That was a full blown panic buy. People now are complaining about PMag going for $90 but I saw somebody actually buying a Taurus 15 round mag for the PT-92 for that price... in 1995.
Although expensive the market was so full with mags it made the prohibition laughable. When the AWB expired, prices on AWB AKs and ARs dropped to the toilet because of the lack of features that were now available again and a new batch of manufacturers came to exists because people now WANTED the darn EBRs. Magazines went back to the regular common sense prices and availability with the exception of those marked For Law Enforcement Use Only as curio objects.
http://www.louisianasportsman.com/classifieds/pics/p1346611867103461.jpg

Old NFO said...

Panic on what few ARs were available and mags, and some ammo runs, primarily .223/5.56. Gunfree is correct, and SKS/AKs went from 59.99 to hundreds of $$.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Ditto GFZ and Old NFO. But some more details. So-called "Assault Rifles" were pricy to begin with, especially after the Importation Ban of the late '80s. But those that were being made just did some "Cosmetic Refinements" like Thumb Hole Stocks, Bayonet Lug removals, etc. And the price still stayed high. But most people didn't care, because they could use Mini-14s, Garands, etc.

Also, the Ban got passed because the Dems had the White House, the Senate and the House, and the Supreme Court was still packed with Liberals, so one couldn't fight it in the Courts, because it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Now the Magazine Ban was a Bitch, but again, there were so many "Pre-Ban" mags out there, Supply wasn't the Issue, just the Cost.

Now let's look at 2013. On the Negative Side, Finestein learned her lesson, and she's going after the "Mechanism" of the Firearms, not the Cosmetics. Also, there's no "Sun Set" provision. But as long as you have them before the Ban goes into effect (if ever), we should be Fine UNTIL they do Confiscation of the Banned Items, which HAS to be "Next" on their Agenda.

On the Positive Side, Obama BLEW it, because he didn't push for Gun Control when he had the Votes in '09-11, because "ObamaCare" was more important to pass, as Alan Gottlieb told us in Pittsburgh a few years ago. Also, SCOTUS shifted to the Right, and we got Heller and McDonald. Plus we have the Internet and YouTube, etc. to spread the word.

And despite the Election, 2/3rds of the Republic are NOT Liberal Sheeple who think that 911 and a Hot Latte will keep them "Safe" while the Goblins knock down their Door.

And something else to think about. The U.S. sent a couple of Million Military through the Middle East over the last 10 years, and most of them were NOT Gunnies. But they became VERY Familiar with the AR System, and when they came back home, a lot of them got one for themselves. Kinda like the WW1 Vets getting 1903 Springfields in the '20s. Also, a LOT of People went for their CHPs and bought Glocks, M+Ps, Rugers, etc for Concealed Carry and Home Defense.

So, that's the way I see things today. Oh, individual VolksRepubliks like Maryland will do what they can on the State Level, because, let's face it, they've rigged the System so that ONLY the Sheeple get to have a say in State Politics, and the Sheeple DEMAND that their "Fearless Leaders" rule them with a Strong Grip to keep those "Evil Right Wingers who want to take away their Obama Money and Free Cheese and Lax Jail terms", etc.

But on the National Level, I'm not sure that an AWB will pass the Congress.

Of course, then Obama will pull his usual Hissy Fit and Order his Federales to do his Bidding, in spite of the fact that he has no Constitutional Authority to do so, and the Republitard Leadership will "Poo-Poo"
it, and try to use the new Policy to get Votes in the next election.

Even though they put up RINOs in "the Spirit of Bipartisanship," and the MSM will use every Propaganda Trick in the Book to Demonize them, and they'll rig the Votes whenever they can, but that's down the Road....

CinSC said...

What's different now is that "Evil Black Rifles" have become mainstream, and so a ban is going to be very unpopular. I almost hope they pass a ban on ARs, piss off millions of moderate or left-leaning gun owners and suffer the consequences in 2014.

Also, such a ban would further inflame the tensions between the states and the federal government, focusing lots of attention on federal abuses of power.

This is a fight that needs to be fought - the fight for freedom from oppressive government, that is - and the territory surrounding the second amendment is as good a place as any to fight it.

The Contrarian said...

Mags are about the same now as back then, but ammo wasn't as big of a crunch back then, and the firearm supply wasn't nearly as impacted. Also, we definitely didn't have the same kind of visibility with protesting, etc. Sure, the NRA was against it, but you just didn't see the same local impact. Also, that ban didn't seem to have the same push for state and local bans alongside it, so that's likely a contributing factor.

That Guy said...

It wasn't this bad, but it was bad. I was a poor college student at the time, so I noticed the SKS/AK/Mini 14 price jumps, but not the 3x spike we are seeing now.

I do not remember ammo drying up. 7.62x39 surplus ammo was still dirt cheap and really available

Don said...

It was kind of bad but nothing like today. Back then AR/AK owners were a minority in the gun community. They didn't have the support of the general gun owing community we see today. In fact, how many of you out there know that Bill Ruger, of Ruger Firearms, was the original author of the hi-cap mag ban? Yes, you read that correct. Bill Ruger sent a letter to congress telling them the rifles were not the problem, hi-cap magaszines were and so they should ban hi-cap magazines. Coming from a gun manufacturer trying to protect his piece of shit Mini 14 from being banned, he sold us out and Congress used that letter to their advantage. I exchanged numerous letters with his then Ruger head council Stephen Sanetti (yes, the same guy who today heads up the National Shooting Sports Foundation), him telling me Bill's mag ban proposal was a reasonable compromise. Me telling him he's an idiot to we can compromise because they will always want more. It fell on deaf ears at Ruger. Why? Because Ruger viewd their Mini 14 as an every mans rifle, vying to replace the aging .30-30 lever action rifle, hence the name coined for it, the "Mini 14 Ranch Rifle." Back then Ruger only sold the Mini 14 with a 5 round mag to civilians. Ten round mags could be bought from Ruger but Ruger hi-cap mags were only sold to LEO's. It took the after-market to fill the void to provide 30 round mags to civilians... something Ruger hated.

I remember Shooting Times Magazine, in an editorial, stating they would never do an article on "Assault Rifles" because they served no sporting purpose. Do your own research, their editorial is out there. When I picked up that copy of Shooting Times at the grocery store news stand and read the editorial while waiting in the checkout line (that was way back before bar code scanners and the check out clerk actually had to enter the price of each item manually on the cash register LOL!). I threw that copy of Shooting Times on the floor and wrote them a not too polite letter in response when they sent me a request to subscribe to their rag. I know Shooting Times has changed their stance over the year but I have never bought a copy of their magazine since I read that editorial so many years ago. And I never will. Congress used that editorial too to ram the 1994 AWB through.

Unlike today, back then there was no support from the shooting community as a whole as we are seeing today. Back then had they pushed hard they could have gone whole hog to confiscate so-called "Assault Weapons" but they were very unsure of themselves and the strength of their position. Had they done so it probably would have passed. Thankfully they were too timid back then. They are not timid now. This time around we have the strength of a united shooting sports community who see them (the gun banners) for what they are.

I was there back then, early forty years of age, and I am here today to make the same stand and fight we made back then. We cannot compromise with the gun grabbers. They don't compromise so why should we? When they get one compromise from us then that emboldens them to go for the next rung up the ladder towards total confiscation.

I was an Army guy back then, quite fit. I am much older now but will never give up the fight to retain our God given rights. If I die doing so, so be it. I offered my life to my country and its Constitution and its freedom if they needed it. I was spared, for the time being, but my life still belongs to my country's Constitution and freedom the Constitution states for its citizens. The oath I took to defend it still stands i.e., there was no "Sunset Clause" in that oath.

Don