A thread from a blog post over at Common Gunsense:
Anon- I am perfectly honest and sincere when I tell you I have no interest in banning your guns or taking away your rights.
Except for... Shall we list out all the objectionable guns that you dislike, or list all the rights that you also dislike?
You don't like FMJ ammunition, centerfire rifles with optics that fire flat-shooting cartridges out to beyond 100 yards (aka deer rifles), inexpensive guns, semiauto guns, small guns, quiet guns, guns that look scary, and so on.
You don't like people having a right to have guns in their cars, or carried on their persons, or when driving on the highway within 1000 feet of a school (even if they're an off duty police officer), or in a bush plane flying in to a remote hunting camp, or in a readily accessible location in the home (even if no children are present), allowing people to buy guns across state lines even if they pass a NICS background check and fill out a 4473, and so on.
You have refused, even when asked, to affirm any single type of gun that you think is acceptable in private hands, or any single firearm related right that you feel is permissable. On the flip side, you have never highlighted an infringement that you think goes too far or is not particularly effective. I can only conclude that as long as one person is allowed to own a single shot .22 target rifle (or maybe BB gun) then there is no "ban" in your mind. Am I wrong? Please, prove me so! If you want a real dialogue then it will help to not be so coy.
Wow- Chris- you are waxing philosophical tonight. You are wrong. I believe I have stated clearly that you all have the right to own your guns. I don't name them specifically because then we get in a round about exchange about certain guns vs. others. That is not my purpose here. I just know that guns are designed as dangerous weapons and one of them killed my sister and kills a heck of a lot of people on a daily basis. You can carry your guns on your person but I am reading about and writing about more and more folks who are carrying whose guns are used irresponsibly. That's not a good thing for you all. There are guns and laws that I don't particularly like but the law is the law and I am not going to work to change the ones already passed unless there is a serious problem with it or there is public demand or legislative interest in changing something. I have said before that I report these because they are happening and in some ways prove my point that guns are dangerous and get used to kill oneself or others or accidentally. I want to prevent those things from happening if at all possible. I think it is with the help of some of you all who say that you are in favor of preventing shootings as well. How we get there is yet to be determined but I'm willling to give it a try.
My response, which was RD'd:
Wow- Chris- you are waxing philosophical tonight.
I just got back from my camping trip, catching up on the Blogosphere!
You are wrong. I believe I have stated clearly that you all have the right to own your guns.
Then stop advocating policies that impose real costs on law abiding gun owners, and stop advocating policies that limit or ban access to broad classes of firearms in common use.
Seriously, at best, your position can be described as "coy." You say that you don't want to get into specifics on what can be allowed, but you have no problem identifying specifics on what should be prohibited. You have no problem identifying specific rights that should be curtailed or restricted, yet you can't bring yourself to admit that it might make sense to allow off duty police officers to carry a sidearm within 1000 feet of a school while driving on a major highway. You call us paranoid, yet you apparently don't trust professional law enforcement officers to drive near a school with a gun without going postal?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, reading between the lines and thinking back on past statements you've made on this sort of issue, and say that due to your position on the Brady Campaign's Board, you are unwilling to come out and say that any specific item is unobjectionable. If you do, the headline all over the blogosphere and perhaps even traditional media will be: "gun control leader endorses a legitimate right to own [sniper rifles, cop killer bullets, plastic guns, assault weapons, etc]!" I don't know what the internal politics of your group are but it may cost you some capital there too.
It is kind of funny. Your side has put a lot of effort into demonizing these items. So much effort in fact that you now can't turn around and say, "Well, gee, maybe a deer rifle isn't that bad; I'm ok with private citizens owning 30-06 scoped bolt action hunting rifle with few or no restrictions" because you'll make yourself look like a sniper-rifle-loving-hoplophile. You also make it hard for your group to credibly pursue restrictions on such items in the future. By demonizing these items on a very emotional level, you've left no maneuvering room for yourselves.
Anyways, have a good evening. I'm out for the night. Remember we've got that four hour time difference here so I don't have to stay up late burning the midnight oil to comment at these hours :).
Cheers,Chris from AK
Remember, Joan Peterson does not think a gun ban will exist so long as one person in this country is allowed to own a single shot .22 rifle (securely stored and disassembled, of course). She is unable or unwilling to back away from that position. Her side has put a lot of effort into demonizing just about every type of object out there on an emotional level. They have no flexibility to move.
The key for us on this one is to highlight to people who are not active in RKBA issues just how dangerous and far-reaching their proposals are. Point out that "sniper rifles" are "deer rifles." Point out that "cop killer ammo" is common FMJ, popular for target shootingdue to its low price and lower amount of fouling in barrels (less cleaning). Point out that "plastic guns" don't exist. Get offended if someone says "saturday night special;" that term has racist connotations and it also implies that the speaker disapproves of having low cost firearms that are financially accessible to people of modest incomes. Point out that there are no "plastic guns" that can't be detected by metal detectors; they just don't exist. Explain that "assault rifles" are already controlled under the NFA; so-called "assault weapons" are really just semiautos that are gussied up with scary looking plastic furniture.
They win when they get away with sound bytes and fear-mongering. Go to the facts and every time we'll win.
Whittier parking lot...
3 hours ago