NRA. Winning? Question of the Day

NRA is a terrorist organization (courtesy theblaze.com)

Gun control advocates aren’t triskaidekaphobes. They slavishly adhere to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals rule number 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The target in question: the National Rifle Association . . .

In the post-Parkland anti-gun hysteria, the NRA is the bad guy. Why? Because there has to be a bad guy — other than the real bad guy — to convince Americans to surrender their guns.

And hey! The NRA blocked — and continues to block — an “assault weapons” ban. Like the one in place when the Columbine high school shooters shot and killed 12 students and one teacher with an Intratec TEC-DC9, a Hi-Point 995 Carbine and two shotguns.

Anyway . . .

I’ve given the NRA sh*t about their support for an ATF ruling banning bump fire stocks and staying stum in the immediate aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre (including not taking the Broward County Sheriff to task for failing to prevent the killing or intervene effectively when it started).

But bump fire stock ban and Fix NICS misegos aside, it looks like the NRA’s behind-the-scenes Congressional machinations and their I’m-ADD-as-Hell-and-I’m-not-taking-it-anymore boy Trump have nixed new federal gun control laws. NRA…winning?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Well, that’s the best part of this conversation. Every time the commies come out of the closet and yell some more about confiscating guns, it makes it that much easier to put together the passenger manifests of those free helicopter tours.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The Gun Control Movement is a social movement , emphasizing coercive gun-control. The NRA represents a counter-movement, the dynamics of which are substantially different than what gun-controllers must do to stay relevant. We are once again seeing the NRA take advantage of it’s historic strategic advantage by using the 2nd amendment as a battlement. The NRA sits back, allowing the gun-controllers to beat against the 2nd amandment’s walls . . . and then quietly works with it’s congressional allies to fade the heat. Meanwhile, as usually happens when the gun-controllers are active, the NRA membership rolls (along with sundry pro-gun websites) expand exponentially. So, yes, it looks like the NRA is winning. And I’m glad of it. That’s why they get my money.

      1. avatar Sparty says:

        Amen. They’ve navigated the waters successfully for almost 150 years. If all the folks that jump up and down and scream the NRA sucks because they didn’t do X or Y after a mass shooting, they should start their own similar group. Grow it to similar scale. Good luck with that.

      2. avatar Res says:

        The question is too to early to ask. The anti gun movement is actively spending money astroturfing to convert Americans to their cause through effective lies and spending huge amounts of money. They exploit tragedy and have the collusion of major, influential media outlet in promoting lies about the causes and nature of mass murders to split Americans on this issue. They are simultaneously aiming at gun banning and the November election. This article in the federalist shows planning, and execution of a propaganda campaign against Americans by dnc and millionaire bloomberg. Even planned parenthood is involved.
        (http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/)
        This is not fake news. Cnn is fake news and we know because w know the facts on guns.

    2. avatar binder says:

      The NRA is not stupid. Once someone managed to do multiple 12 second 100 round mag dumps into a crowd they know the second amendment is not going to survive the backlash. Look how pissed off people get about flag burning. Upset enough people and the no one cares about rights. And you can’t really fall back on those arguments about the deference between a semi and full automatic fire. Show a video of a well tuned Slide-Fire next to a full auto and the layman is going to say, no difference.

      There is no argument that the recoil of the gun is performing at least part of trigger action, so honestly it should have never gotten past the ATF. Kind of like the ‘arm brace’ But the arm brace doesn’t really facilitate those mag dumps.

      1. avatar Erik says:

        Your argument was good up until your understanding of a bumpfire and a brace. A brace is no where near what a stock is like. After using a SBR you realize the limitations of a brace. Same with a bumpfire. Can you replicate the rate of fire using a bumpstock one handed? No. So it’s not a full auto with a single pull of the trigger. If you can’t Halo duel wield full auto, then, it’s a skill learned to play a sport. Besides. We don’t even know if Paddock used the bumpfires.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Really, two handed. So if I put a grip safety on the fore-grip of a sub-gun I would be good to go? And like I said, 12 second 100 round mag dumps into a crowd, yes, by all means lets group it in with all semi autos so we get everything banned. But the nice thing is now when the anti gunner now say 500 RPM they are no longer lying. And for the brace, are you kidding. Who, other than someone disabled, uses as anything other than a stock? Even if I had only one arm, I can come up with better ways to shoot a rifle. And now even the Sig’s rifles, oops braced pistols, now come with a extended length of pull.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        The argument is that I have a constitutional right to own the machine gun of my choice without stupid paperwork or permission from anyone. Until the alt-left has that beaten into their brains, we have little to discuss with them. Some nutjob who went crazy due to lack of a straight jacket is not my problem nor my responsibility.

        1. avatar binder says:

          The argument is that I have a constitutional right to burn a flag, but given a chance a lot of people would like to put me in jail for it. Or better yet I bought the building next to a African American church and put up a mural of a burning cross. At some point people just don’t care. Pitting the argument that it is my right, against I can shoot 1000 people in under 10 minutes, chose one or the other, I hate to tell you, but you are probably going to lose the right. I 100% agree that you should be able to in theory own anything you want short of its actual existence threatening anyone (no improperly maintained 500 lb bombs inside city limits), but like I said, at some point people just don’t care. And I will let you on a little secrete, your rights do not come from some document that is over 200 years old. 😉

    3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      I’m really not one for advocating strategy and responses that fit within the framework of accepted civil behavior anymore, but I would enjoy seeing the NRA respond with billboards of their own. In large part because I’m betting the billboard company that was ok with this one would balk at allowing others paid for by the NRA. At which point it would be fun to see the NRA litigate them into submission.

      But until we get a state by state contact list of people in the NRA-ILA so we can melt their phone lines little will change. The commie left will keep control of the loudhailers and POTG will seem unresponsive.

  2. avatar Concerned says:

    >NRA. Winning?

    Not at the moment. By ceding the field on bump-stocks, NRA signaled weakness, and now the other side is taking advantage of that opportunity.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Last time I checked, nothing has been ceded quite yet. Pretty sure that any such ban would hit the 5th circuit rather quickly. That is not a circuit known for their left leaning sensibilities.

      1. avatar Cory C. says:

        I think you’re overstating how pro-gun the 5th Circuit is.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        and when six other circuits rule against bump stocks, and SCOTUS refuses to weigh in, again, what then? Also, +1 on the 5th being a whole lot less pro-gun than you think –especially when it comes to anything remotely resembling masheen guns to a rank amateur

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          IF the admin actually issues a ban on “bump stocks”, the other circuits won’t issue a ruling. A pro bumpstock case is going to go to the 9th???

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          Well just like the Left, we will pick the court that ruled on our side and ignore the rest and the federal government.

          Good for the goose, good for the gander right?

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Dudes, jump to the end of the argument.

      Did the NRA stand up for bump stocks? Did they sit pat? Or did they (without other provocation) throw bump stocks under the bus?

      We all know the answe and it’s a puddle of wet-shit F’d upness on the part of the POS NRA. They effectively used the power and authority of their member’s, and non-member gun owner’s, coalition (amongst ourselves, and with them) AGAINST US. F em, their going to have to pull Totoro out of their ass to make up for that. Amends won’t be made simply with the passage of time.

      1. avatar Joe says:

        It’s long overdue time to ditch the NRA express to mediocrity and hop on the GOA excellence train.

        1. avatar Jared says:

          GOA doesn’t get any heat because they are ineffective.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          When was the last major GOA accomplishment? Where is my NFA repeal? National preemption? Nothing? When they get any of the above even to the floor, we can talk. Until then, their panhandling is not my concern.

        3. avatar Westward Ho! says:

          Is that the GOA train that is sitting in the museum going nowhere with the four guys in vintage railroad uniforms on top of it shouting “We are the real train enthusiasts! You diesel-electric engine users are sellouts!”

    3. avatar binder says:

      The NRA is not stupid. Once someone managed to do multiple 12 second 100 round mag dumps into a crowd they know the second amendment is not going to survive the backlash. Look how pissed off people get about flag burning. Upset enough people and then no one cares about rights. And you can’t really fall back on those arguments about the deference between a semi and full automatic fire. Show a video of a well tuned Slide-Fire next to a full auto and the layman is going to say, no difference.

      There is no argument that the recoil of the gun is performing at least part of trigger action, so honestly it should have never gotten past the ATF. Kind of like the ‘arm brace’ But the arm brace doesn’t really facilitate those mag dumps.

      1. avatar Such Illeism under any other name would still be this one. says:

        Rather than sling insults or vague insinuations like: “A BATFEaRBF apologist how quaint.” Esoteric Inanity would like to posit a few inquiries and potentially offer some insight.

        First allow this one to ask if Binder has some type of anathema towards bumpstocks? Esoteric Inanity has read many of his(assuming male, if not then apologies) posts with various types of explanations used as to why a bump stock equipped semiauto effectively constitutes a fully automatic firearm. Such explanations, in this one’s opinion, typically encompass construed logic to conclude such a thing.

        Esoteric Inanity will concede that said bumbstock equipped semiauto does in fact function like a fully automatic firearm and can be used to similar effect. Legally however, such a device still cannot under the NFA constitute a fully automatic firearm. That is, unless the defining parameters are essentially obviated and the law is then selectively interpreted with intention as the objective rather than what is written. This one will also concede that such things happen frequently and are not impossible. Hence why abortion and gay marriage are nonenumerated rights(Judgment withheld).

        Subjective interpretation of written law(arguably unconstitutional at that) regarding rights is not a slippery slope, it is a cliff. If bump stocks can so readily be banned under the NFA, then what of any semiauto that can potentially be equipped with one? After all, a bump stock alone can hardly be argued to be any type of firearm. A semiauto once equipped or any that could even potentially be, would be considered as much of a machine gun as the bump stock could be. Where does this end?

        To conclude, Esoteric Inanity would ask that if Binder were to kindly be courteous enough to comment, that he avoid the typical rhetoric and merely explain why he believes a bump stock ban to be beneficent. Appreciation expressed in advance.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Simple, multiple 12 second 100 round mag dumps into a crowd. And it is no longer theoretical. And somehow lumping that in with all semi autos is not the best idea in the world. It’s up there with pinning first amendment rights with the American Nazi Party unfurling a 100 foot long swastika on the national mall, during a Klan rally, except not as many dead (probably).

          And there is no argument that the recoil energy of the gun is used to reset the trigger, so it is not exactly like any other semi auto.

          The one thing that anti’s have correct, the Bill of Rights is only as effective as The People want them to be. If you think that piece of paper is going to protect you rights by itself, or at some point people are not going to defend your rights, then it really is time for a wake up call.

          On a different note, I think is is hilarious that that people think that the original AWB somehow banded AR-15s. Like a flash hider and bayonet lug really meant anything.

          And this is coming from someone who things marksmanship should be a required high-school class.

        2. avatar NateInPA says:

          You still have me confused with your “recoil energy” statement. Please clarify for the rest of us.

        3. avatar binder says:

          On a Slide fire stock there is an interface block that you put you finger on. When the rifle recoils the interface block prevents your finger from remaining on the trigger, thus resetting it. So now at least part of the operation of the trigger is not performed by the shooter, but the energy of the rounds being fired. After all the real (not legal) definition of a machine gun is auto-loading firearm where the hammer is released by the energy of the rounds being fired, not the shooter.

        4. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “Simple, multiple 12 second 100 round mag dumps into a crowd. And it is no longer theoretical.”

          The statement seems to implicate firepower/projectiles launched in a given time as the pretext for prohibition. If not then apologies.

          However, if so then multiply 15×25. A semiauto kalashnikov style shotgun with a 25 round drum mag loaded with 3″ 00 buck shells will produce more projectiles quicker and be potentially more devastating to a crowd in the same time frame. Even an 8 shot Remington 870 with the exact same load has the potential to wound or kill up to 120 individuals(Unlikely yes, but damage done would be horrendous). Is this justification to ban such firearms as shotguns, or maybe just the load?

          Crowds are notoriously easy targets for mass murderers and terrorists, a lunatic with two handguns and 50 round drum mags could inflict extreme casualties. Even worse, bombs set with cascaded timers are infamous for killing many times more than most mass shootings.

          Anders Breivik killed almost 20 more people than Stephen Paddock, 8 with an ANFO bomb and 69 with a Ruger Mini 14(Could’ve killed more but he decided to stop and wait for police so as to surrender).

          Just the immediate thoughts that come to this one’s mind at the moment.

          “And somehow lumping that in with all semi autos is not the best idea in the world.”

          The AR-15, or any semiauto, is plenty capable of such lethality with or without the bump stock, it just takes a little planning and creativity. For evidence, the aforementioned Breivik.

          Banning the novelty will only lend credence to a ban on the semiautos that it could be equipped to. Something too dangerous to equip with a bumb stock is far too dangerous to be in the hands of a civilian. God forbid that the media ever learns that an AR can be illegally converted to a legitimate machine gun with a drill and $50-120 worth of parts.

          “It’s up there with pinning first amendment rights with the American Nazi Party unfurling a 100 foot long swastika on the national mall, during a Klan rally, except not as many dead (probably).”

          Yet the Klan, Nazis and WBBC still march and spew their hatred. Not to mention have fought 1A cases all the way to the Supreme Court in order to do so.

          “And there is no argument that the recoil energy of the gun is used to reset the trigger, so it is not exactly like any other semi auto.”

          So much could be said, but most has been before and it becomes a circular argument.

          A question though: What does recoil energy resetting a trigger have to do with the legal definition of a machine gun?

          “The one thing that anti’s have correct, the Bill of Rights is only as effective as The People want them to be. If you think that piece of paper is going to protect you rights by itself, or at some point people are not going to defend your rights, then it really is time for a wake up call.”

          Is Esoteric Inanity correct in his extrapolation from the above comment that Binder is implying that one can preserve their rights by capitulating to bans and confiscations rather than fighting tooth and nail?

          Forgive this one as such a neoteric concept seems to be blatant blatherskite.

          “On a different note, I think is is hilarious that that people think that the original AWB somehow banded AR-15s. Like a flash hider and bayonet lug really meant anything.”

          Baby steps, right off that cliff.

          “And this is coming from someone who things marksmanship should be a required high-school class.”

          Well this one believes that Esoteric Inanity and Binder may have found common ground on this, potentially lol.

          This one appreciates the response, and while he doesn’t agree with much of Binder’s reasoning, he can respect his position.

          One final inquiry: Does Binder believe that the NFA and Hughes amendment are necessary, specifically the portions regarding machine guns?

        5. avatar NateInPA says:

          But the gun IS still just like any other semi-auto, what you do with your finger is inconsequential. The GUN still functions exactly the same…the accessory doesn’t change the function.

        6. avatar binder says:

          NateInPA, no other semi auto has an automatic trigger reset. So don’t say is functions just like any other semi auto. Or is it the only semi auto that a amateur shooter can outrun Jerry Miculek with?

          Esoteric:
          Yes I understand that most repeating firearms can rack up some pretty high body counts. And to be honest with you I think that they are capable enough to see some nasty new laws come out. But thanks to the SlideFires and Binary triggers things like the the the MCR upper (basically a M249 upper for a AR lower) are now popular. And no matter what what constitutional argument you want to give, I can guarantee you it will not survive if someone manages to put one of those on a crowd for 10 minutes. If the Vegas shooter just kept firing on the crowd and did not bother with the gas tanks, I don’t think we would be having any discussion right now. And that’s what was so scary about Vegas. He was not using a light auto-loading rifle, but with the surefire magazines, he managed to push the AR-15 into the light machine gun role and turn it on a crowd (from 400 yards in a elevated position no less). And there is no real defense against that (ask all the veterans of the western front about that)

          And to get to your point, I really don’t ever see a world were you are going to have machine guns legal at the same time you have M240s. So do I think the laws are necessary? Not really, but I do think that they are inevitable.

        7. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          @Binder:

          Esoteric Inanity is beginning to understand where he is coming from. This one is an adamant idealist when it comes to these issues, while Binder would appear to be more of a pragmatist. Nothing wrong with this as those that are pragmatic often see things in a more lucid way. These people give heart, or perhaps compassion would be a better word, to a group or movement. While the idealist will have a perspective more akin to being binary. Perhaps this is the soul or resolve of said group. Heart and soul, or compassion and resolve are both necessary qualities for survival, coexistence and prosperity.

          Many thanks friend for the enlightening dialogue. While there is disagreement, there is also respect.

          Sál fullr tor hjärta líkr stál min bror.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Well, if they don’t much care about my rights, why should I care about theirs? At the end of the day, vermin like them keep breathing because we allow it.

    4. avatar Bob999 says:

      Oh, this statement is going to excite the debate. 🙂

      I argue that if you interpret the 2md amendment as we are meant, a firearm capable of full auto is protected by the 2nd amendment, and the bump stock is not. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give We The People the tools to oppose a corrupt government, to retake the country if necessary. Frankly, a bump stock reduces the effectiveness of a firearm for that purpose. The bump stock, at best, is a toy for range warriors. Sure, that angry Las Vegas leftist managed to kill some people from a hotel window using a bump stock, but I would argue that he would have killed more people by using well aimed shots instead of spray-and-pray. Heck, he would have caused more damage with a bolt action precision rifle and a caliber designed for that distance, but I digress.

      Anyhow, if the left is distracted by a range warrior toy, if they spend an exhorbant amount of money campaigning to ban a piece of stupid plastic, the NRA is winning. See, just like any real war, winning is more about logistics than tactics. The left is burning through cash to ban a piece of plastic, and that means they will have less cash to throw at things that really matter.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        But, liberty loses in the long run because the people are allowing the primary false premise to remain; that “shall not be infringed” is meaningless. Stand on the truth of the unalienable individual right to keep an bear arms, resolutely and absolutely, and ALL gun control (and most of the other government tyranny we see today) goes away in ONE generation.

        Shall not be infringed; anything less is gun control.

    5. avatar Sprocket says:

      Ceding the field? I think you mean cleaning up the mess after some accessory manufactures and trailer monkeys found an inviting pile of shit to roll in. On the plus side, it gives them a meaningless piece of garbage to trade away.

  3. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    If the NRA is terrorist…then NAACP and BLM are surely racist…right?
    Most of the people against the NRA have never researched what they stand for…freedom, rights, safety, training, preparedness.
    Ignorance is bliss to many libs/dems.
    They also believe 600,000+ abortions a year is acceptable carnage. Even though a fetus would be considered life if we found the same “mass of cells” on another planet. Go figure.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Leighton Cavendish,

      Pro tip: you exponentially increase your difficulty when you cede language to the other side.

      First example: you used the sanitized, impersonal, and misleading term “abortion”. Instead, call it EXACTLY what it really is: intentionally ending the life of a baby and removing him/her the womb.

      Second example: you used the sanitized, impersonal, and misleading term “fetus”. Instead, call it EXACTLY what it really is: a baby in the womb.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Abortion is a form of homicide. There are cases where it’s a justifiable homicide, but those are few and far between. The problem is that the feminazis want to take the 0.1% of abortions that are medically necessary and stretch them to cover the 99.9% which are not.

        1. avatar sound awake says:

          if the us army invaded another country and did to the women and babies there what planned parenthood does to women and babies here it would be called war crimes

          it would be called crimes against humanity

          there would be tribunals

          people would hang

          people would say “never again”

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          Thank you for the important clarification.

          For reference I fully support medically necessary procedures to save the life of the mother which I imagine are on the order of 0.1% of pregnancies as you stated. In those instances medical professionals can deliver the baby and exhaust all reasonable measures to save the life of the baby as well as the mother.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Abortion is a form of homicide. There are cases where it’s a justifiable homicide, but those are few and far between.”

          Oh, I don’t know.

          I think I could be onboard with medical homicide (abortion) if there is a good chance the kid will be raised to be Progressive in political leanings (voting)…

          *snicker* 🙂

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Actually the rate of “medically necessary abortions” is somewhere between 2% and 3%. Mostly it’s certain types of ectopic pregnancies that fall into this category but there are some other issues that can cause such a procedure to be required. That said, yes, there is a massive push to normalize the procedure and make it a “routine” birth control method which is, quite frankly, disgusting on a level I can’t really even start to fully process.

          [Note: “Medically necessary” means both the mother and the baby/fetus will die if gestation continues so this isn’t really a moral quandary unless the person in question is a really wacko religious type.]

          Also, war crimes and crimes against humanity are generally tried at the Hague which doesn’t do the death penalty so generally speaking people won’t hang for anything, they’ll spend their lives in prison.

          The Hague couldn’t even impose death for Slobo The Nut and his set of indictments was as follows: “genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects”

      2. avatar binder says:

        Maybe abortion would not be such a issue if we actually put more energy into having people use birth control.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Or maybe if we actually forced people to live with the consequences of bad decision making without state support? I say bring back the legal concept of bastardry and remove anyone who had a kid out of wedlock from the welfare rolls, permanently.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Serge, I think we need to make people live with the consequences of bad decision making without state support for far more than abortion.
          There are a multitude of organizations out there that serve the community that are short of personnel. How about 20 hours of work a week at one of these before you can get welfare, or (maybe better targeted) unemployment?
          Although, I think even that is too late. We need to get discipline back in our schools. Thugs who assault or even threaten other students or teachers should be put in juvie where they belong. And to make it a much better object lesson: if anyone doesn’t have a HS diploma because they were kicked out of school, then any governmental support is halved until they get it, somehow (GED?)
          And if this causes an uptick in crime, the answer is an uptick in prison space.
          Coddling thugs and criminals is not in the best interest of society.

        3. avatar binder says:

          Kids are only as responsible as parents teach them to be. And to be truthful, America is pretty screwed up when it comes to sex education.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          Binder, are you saying the parents have no responsibility to raise their children?
          I don’t think we’ve turned responsibility to raise our children over to the school system quite yet.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Most of the people against the NRA have never researched what they stand for…freedom, rights, safety, training, preparedness.”

      3 out of 5, perhaps… maybe. I’m not a leftist by any stretch and I am against the NRA. If it stuck with safety, training, and preparedness; I’d be all aboard. Instead, the NRA touts itself as the defender of rights when all it defends is privilege. Having a fire extinguisher that doesn’t put out fires is not just bad, it is a disaster waiting to happen. If one knows that the fire extinguisher won’t put out a fire, one has opportunity to replace it. It would be prudent to do so. Leaving the NRA in place as a faux defender of rights is dangerous. It gives a false sense of security and divides resources that could go to an organization that actually fights for the inalienable individual right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        *They stand for 3 out of 5 of those things, perhaps… maybe.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        One word. Incoherent.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          One more… Huh?

      3. avatar Bob999 says:

        Yet, the NRA is out there holding back the leftist hoards while the self righteous sit behind the lines lobbing criticism and demanding that the NRA disbands because it isn’t holy enough to fight evil. Does that about sum it up? If so, let me be clear that is how we will all lose.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “because it isn’t holy enough to fight evil. Does that about sum it up?”

          Nope, that does not sum it up. The NRA fights for privileges and not rights. The left claims that the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms is a privilege. They both share the same premise and only differ by degrees. While the NRA appears to be your friend and the left is your enemy, both stab you, and generations after you, in the back. The NRA isn’t holding back anything. They are lining the path to the boxcars soothing the masses as they are loaded in. From home to tyrannical grave, the NRA is there to hold your hand. THAT is how we lose; incrementalism. The NRA is the RKBA equivalent of judenrat.

          Let the water full boil so the frogs can make the most informed choice.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Don’t use the word “fight” here. It’s insulting. The NRA tells you that they are “fighting” for your rights only kicks the can down the road preventing YOU from actually fighting for your rights until it’s a full-on Fing armageddon.

          You’re getting played. If the POS (D) gun-grabbing communist left and rino glommers make the “fight” ‘later’ it will be required to be more ‘spectacular’, and you’ll look like more of a psycho to get-it-done.

          Fight now, the other side has already defeated you with words alone, and the NRA has aided and abetted.

      4. avatar Big Bill says:

        John, you fail to say why you are against the NRA.
        If you’re trying to say they don’t work to protect our rights protected by the 2A, you’ve lost me (and, I suspect, a lot of others, too).
        Are they perfect? Of course not. I can’t think of any other group who has helped the POTG as much, though.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Admit it, you paid an ahole group (the NRA) to “keep a seat at the table” and to “keep the discussion of rights going”.

          F dat, this isn’t a “matter for discussion”. If you planted an anti-2A (liberal POS) MF every few weeks, months, etc., you wouldn’t have fing argument-one, to make, and the next guy would have to come at you with arms, making intentions permanently clear.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          No, Big Bill, you have failed to read what I post in plain English over and over. Here is the TL;DR version.

          I am against the NRA because they support and fight for government privileges in place of the exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. That is deadly to individual liberty and a free society.

          If you do not understand what I wrote above, I’m afraid that I cannot help you.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          Accusations are cheap.
          Where’s your evidence?
          What you have done is simply say you’re against the NRA, and then provided some really fantastic rhetoric designed to inflame passion (emotion).
          Tell us why you are against the NRA in terms that explain what you mean.
          Evidence, not accusations.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Big Bill, I have posted on TTAG the 13 points I had problems with regarding the NRA’s statement and suggestions post-Sandy Hook. However, I don’t have to explain anything because the truth is plain and simple.

          What is a inalienable individual right and what is a privilege?
          What does “shall not be infringed” plainly mean?
          Does the NRA support the unalienable individual right of the individual to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by government or does the NRA support government privileges?

          The answer to those three questions prove my point. The are self-evident. Do you understand what self-evident means? No further discussion is required.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Big Bill, that is all I will comment on the matter with someone willfully ignorant as you are being. You are a waste of my time. I don’t care if you support the RKBA or not. I have no, zero, zilch, nada interest in changing “hearts and minds.” If you want to be stroked, look elsewhere.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    Asking about winning or losing at this juncture is like asking that guy who jumped off the World Trade Center “how’s it going so far?” as he passed each floor.

    There’s no “winning” or “losing” until the fight is over. This fight will not be over until government no longer wants to save us by destroying us. Which is never.

    To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, the government we live under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      I’m pretty sure he’d say the fall beats the alternative…just like our Trump sycophants, here. Kind of a weird comparison, though, since he obviously wasn’t rooting for the terrorists’ “noble cause” before impact

    2. avatar AZD says:

      Eh, I think it’s more like a battalion commander assessing the ebb and flow of a battle. It’s always good to check to see if your strategy needs tweaking. I don’t think it is a good idea to wait until the battle is over to see if you have won or not…

      Football coaches do it, too, I understand.

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    Though I do love the fact that some commies from New York think that their ideas would go over well in the gunshine state.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well, obviously they’re right, given the number of state level republicans that *are* suddenly (but not inexplicably #NewYorkValues) down for all sorts of gun control. It’s not yet a majority, but those guys need to take care of their problem right quick before New Puerto Rico drowns the pro-gun majority forever, assuming they aren’t already

      1. avatar Leadslinger says:

        Paul Harvey once mentioned a bumper sticker on his radio show. “Would the last American leaving Miami, please bring the flag?”

        1. avatar Uh-huh says:

          “…..And now you know the rest of the story, Good day.”

    2. avatar KenW says:

      Just wait. At the rate they and other northerners are migrating south and wealthy Brazilians and other south Americans are moving to the Dade/Broward/Palm beach megatropolis the political climate here will change within my lifetime.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Is the NRA winning?

    I have no idea.

    I suspect there is a LOT of politics happening behind closed doors to which we are not privy.

    I will say this: I will be incredibly angry if we get yet more restrictions of any flavor without getting something in return. If our politicians raise the purchase age for rifles to 21, then they better REMOVE firearm suppressors from the NFA list. If our politicians want to “regulate” bump-stocks, then they better open — permanently — the full auto registry and allow full auto firearms manufactured after 1986.

    If the NRA can at least do that, I will entertain the idea that the NRA is winning.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      If they succeed in banning bump stocks that only mimic full auto fire, what makes you think they will, at the same time, and quite illogically and hypocritically, allow more real machine guns into circulation? Ain’t gonna happen that way, so stop holding your breath.

  7. avatar Rick Bunn says:

    The NRA does not act as a confrontational organization, but tries to use reason and logic. This is why I’m a life member. I use to buy one year memberships for people who too my NRA classes. There are 350 plus million firearms and between 60 million and 180 million firearms owners. The NRA needs all of our support. Numbers are votes.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Rick Bunn,

      “The NRA needs all of our support.”

      Likewise, the NRA needs to support ALL OF US.

      The NRA has a longstanding track record of vehemently and effectively defending the right of men over the age of 30 to collect shotguns and bolt-action rifles.

      The NRA’s track record for defending everyone’s right to keep and bear handguns, semi-auto military style rifles, full-auto firearms, suppressors, 15+ round magazines, and bump-stocks, is woefully lacking.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        You are woefully confused.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        The NRA has been at the forefront of the legal fight against the annual increased restrictions on the rights of California gun owners. Unfortunately, it is up against a liberal and vociferously anti-gun State Legislature and Ninth Circuit court of Appeals.

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The NRA needs to focus on protection of the second amendment and not creating cushy life time positions for enriching the internal management .

    History
    1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
    The amendment reads:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    After That
    1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
    and Gen. George Wingate.

    After that, they start going the other way

    1934: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

    1939 http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

    1968: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

    1986: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

    1993 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

    1994 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

    What will the next Infringement the NRA will be willing to go along with be?

    If the NRA doesn’t take to heart their mission they will become irrelevant,because internally they are in need of a house cleaning starting at the top with Wayne,Marion and Chris.
    Instead of Negotiating Rights Away,Standing and Capitulating,Protect the Members second amendment rights should be their core mission.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1

      (The ATF links aren’t working for me, BTW.)

  9. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I dunno. This is a close run thing with a new strategy by the gun grabbers to use the kiddies as bleating sheep. See if Trump’s endorsement of DiFi’s bill is just a poison pill or not.
    We are in the valley of decision.

  10. avatar Gabe says:

    That sign is evidence that the NRA/we are winning.

  11. avatar FrankK says:

    If our politicians want to “regulate” bump-stocks, then they better open — permanently — the full auto registry and allow full auto firearms manufactured after 1986.

    Agreed. If we’re going to get our rights restricted again due in large part to the idea that “no one needs a weapon of war” then I sure would like to have a real live, no kiddin’ weapon of war.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Wait, that makes no sense. If they are going to restrict your rights to own “weapons of war,” why would they turn around and let you have more full-fledged weapons of war?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “…why would they turn around and let you have more full-fledged weapons of war?”

        H’mm.

        Because NFA ‘toys’ are *only* sold with stringent ‘Universal Background Checks’ and an entry into a federal registry, perhaps?

        The Leftists are the ones bleating about checks and registries, they have no reason to deny re-opening the FA registry.

        Unless, of course, they were *lying* about only wanting those things.

        *cough*…

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        I think what he means is that if the left wants to restrict “weapons of war,” that implies we already have such weapons to restrict, but we don’t. Before they can be restricted, we should have them. So he wants one. Makes sense to me.
        What it boils down to is a demonstration of willful ignorance on the part of the left. Again.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Winning?!?i dunno but I’m sending in my 3rd free membership courtesy a Brazilian gun company. Makes you scratch your head. I occasionally flip by Saturday Night Lowlife and was presented by Charles Barkley with an evil anti NRA skit. And tonight my actress wife and sons who want to make movies will watch the Academy BS. I expect a whole lot of whiny banter…keep your powder dry.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      That nonsense is created for idiotic women. If have sons that are inclined to waste time on that crap take them out and do something to make a man out of them. Perhaps to a RANGE?

  13. avatar sound awake says:

    the definition of winning is who controls congress after the midterms

    so we wont know until fall

    if the republicans hold congress we win

    we win it all like bannon predicted

    trump gets reelected in 2020

    and pence in 2024 and 2028

    if the democrats take congress this fall its all over

    finished done its all gone we lose it all

    trump gets impeached

    the republicans all run to the middle on everything

    katybar the door

    get ready for lexington and concord ll or gettysburg ll or whatever you want to call it but one thing is for sure itll be ugly

    “Hard times are coming. Harder than most Americans can even imagine. Harder even than The Great Depression. Root, hog, or die, and the weakest go to the wall. Those who survive the culling will create a society with a low tolerance for bullshit and high expectations of the people it accepts as full fledged members.”

    https://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/the-winning-stock-market-strategy-right-now/

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “if the democrats take congress this fall its all over

      finished done its all gone we lose it all

      trump gets impeached”

      Impeachment means *nothing* without the votes of two-thirds of the Senate to *convict* Trump.

      ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton was impeached. He served out the rest of his term just fine.

      If Mueller comes up with nothing more that process crimes I predict the senators on our side of the isle will give the House’s impeachment the middle finger, just out of principal for the way DC is treating a lawfully-elected POTUS.

      Because what DC is doing is nothing more that an illegal coup attempt.

      Even if they come up with a rhetorical bloody dagger with Trumps fingerprints on it, there’s no way they will get a two-thirds majority to convict Trump…

    2. avatar Harold says:

      Oh, OK, yeah, all the GOP needs is 14 more years. That’s why they’re not expanding gun rights and instead talking about giving away the ones we have, we just haven’t given them enough power.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Shh… The Emperor has no clothes and the delusional will demonize you for pointing it out. 😉

        The republicans, after all, are playing 33D hyperspace inter-dimensional quantum super duper out the pooper chess.

        1. avatar Harold says:

          Yep; we just got to lose rights for the first 10 years, lulling the opposition into a false sense of security. Like hustling at pool or poker. Then halfway thru Pence’s first term we go on the offensive. By the end if his second term we’ll be back in the black. It’s like money, you’ve got to spend liberty to make liberty.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          When the individual loses the exercise of inalienable individual rights in his lifetime, he loses forever.

          Government can be wrong thousands of times and it’s no problem but the individual cannot afford to be wrong even once.

    3. avatar Big Bill says:

      Before Trump can be impeached, he has to have done something that’s impeachable.
      Simply acting the fool isn’t an impeachable crime, not is beating Hillary. And so far, those are the best arguments for impeachment the left has.
      Even if Trump were to do something really unconstitutional as making an EO that violated the separation of powers, that wouldn’t do it as Obama did it so many times it’s become precedent.
      Impeachment is easy to threaten, hard to do.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Before Trump can be impeached, a lotta blue areas of the country gotta decide how to protect themselves from eradication.

  14. avatar Cory C. says:

    This billboard will have the same efficacy as one that read “Planned Parenthood is a Terrorist Organization.” You’ll get a “hell yeah, they are!” from people who are already on your team and a big fat yawn from everyone else.

  15. avatar MyName says:

    In a sense, I think the whining about the NRA from the antis helps. Anyone who is not a complete nut knows that the NRA has nothing to do with any shootings and that, while the NRA does spend money and effort on lobbying, they are no where near as powerful as the antis make them out to be. The clear conclusion from these observations is that those people shouting at the NRA are idiots and need not be listened to. The more the nuts scream at the NRA, the more impotent they show themselves to be.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      NRA does spend money and effort on lobbying, they are no where near as powerful as the antis make them out to be.

      BUT the 6+million members ARE. No group has the # of members that individually lobby their congress critters.

      If you have not called/emailed your senators and representative in response to the current ongoing school shooting BS then you are in the minority and WRONG.

      http://www.senate.gov
      http://www.house.gov
      http://www.whitehouse.gov

      1. avatar Cadeyrn says:

        Honestly, it’s not even the 6 million NRA members, it is the other 74 million or so gun owners who actually tend to vote to protect their rights. Sure, they’re freeloading. Sure they’re putting everyone at risk because they don’t want to spend $10.00 a year for membership in an organization that could actually make a major difference in the political landscape. Giffords’ group got 450,000 people to sign their most recent petition and collected $1.2 million from them, about $27 each. Apparently the NRA can’t get $10 for an annual membership.

        What the POTG need is to get their friends, family, neighbors together to really PUSH. Cough up the price of a couple of boxes of ammo to help the NRA or any other pro-gun group of your choice. Give pro-gun lobbying groups some muscle both from sheer membership and cash to fund operations and see what happens.

        Imagine if the NRA had 80 million members. There wouldn’t be any question about passing the Hearing Protection Act. It would already have been done. Nobody would cross such a large group because they want those 80 million votes. It is far more about the votes than it is the money.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Yes, clearly, the power is in the numbers not the dollars and this is why the shrill tantrums of the antis don’t usually lead to much if any change. They say, often, that “most people agree that we should have reasonable gun control”. What they fail to say, and many probably fail to comprehend is that “most people” don’t agree with them as to what reasonable means. To some, “reasonable” means: Repeal the Second Amendment and throw anyone who has so much as one spent cartridge case in prison. To other’s, reasonable means felons should be prohibited from owning firearms. Still other’s think reasonable means we probably shouldn’t let an individual own an unregistered howitzer, and so on. If, three people each held one of these positions, and you asked them, “Do you support reasonable gun control”, then, when they all say “Yes” you can claim that 100% of the people you asked support reasonable gun control. Problem is, when you propose any one thing, suddenly at most one third of your sample actually supports you. This is one reason I often paint those antis I talk to into a corner and ask, “Exactly what do you propose that you think I will find reasonable.” Virtually anything a hardcore anti replies with than includes confiscation or registration or anything along those lines I can just say, “No, I won’t comply” and then we are at an impasse. If, on the other hand they state something like, “Well, domestic abusers/felons/mentally ill shouldn’t have guns.” I respond, “Congratulations, you already got your way – they are prohibited.” Either way, I point out that no new legislation is required because either they won’t get what they ask for or what they ask for already exists or is just not a feasible idea.

          As I see it, among the reasons the antis don’t ever get a lot of traction with their calls for gun control is that they are so often so woefully uniformed about what they are proposing that they forward proposals that are nonsense, infeasible, or outright impossible all while not really understanding why their ideas are met with such disdain.

          During this recent push, how many have said things like “Ban all semi-automatic guns.” Completely ignoring the fact that many of those saying it don’t know what semi-automatic means, the simple truth is that this cannot happen – It just wouldn’t work. A lot of the antis just cannot fathom that many of their proposals amount to turning 1/3 to 1/2 of the adult population into criminals overnight. People, on that scale, simply won’t comply. I don’t think most of the antis have any concept of the scale of what they propose. The population of gun owners in the U.S. is, on a world scale, somewhere between the populations of Egypt and Russia. How, precisely do they propose to dictate to a mass of people that, were they one nation, would be in the top 15 in population – it simply cannot be done.

          I pointed this issue of scale out recently to an acquaintance who is in favor of increasing gun control. She said something to the effect that the government could force compliance. I reminded her that she had recently scoffed at the notion that many gun owners believe that the purpose of their arms is to defend against tyranny and her proposed solution was, tyranny.

          I think that among many antis, their inability to fathom that roughly half the adults around them are gun owners who very well may not comply with their proposals is what leads to them calling out a bogey man like the NRA. “It must be the evil NRA that is thwarting my plans”, they think because they cannot accept the fact that, in truth, it is half the population.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Sure they’re putting everyone at risk because they don’t want to spend $10.00 a year for membership in an organization that could actually make a major difference in the political landscape.”

          Nonsense. I’m not giving one thin penny for an organization that actually pushes government privilege in place of actual rights. The NRA is deadly to liberty. Screw the NRA.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Imagine if the NRA had 80 million members.”

          That would mean the death of the exercise of the inalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Do you really think that the NRA will support “shall not be infringed”? Do you support “shall not be infringed,” risks and all? If you don’t then you support gun control. It is only a matter of degree. It really is that simple.

        4. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Troll

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Huntmaster, who is a troll? Please clarify.

        6. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          I think he meant 80 million adamantly pro-gun members, not just a random 80 million people from the general population. If it had 80 million adamantly pro-gun people, then there would be no gun control, period.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Kyle in Upstate NY, it is very possible to get 80 million adamantly pro-gun people and still have gun control if they aren’t pro-RKBA. Pro-gun doesn’t necessarily mean that they understand and support “shall not be infringed.” With the rubbish many have been fed all of their lives regarding the inalienable individual right to keep and bear arms, I doubt those many even recognize the difference between a right and a privilege. They’ve been served privileges and have been told that they were rights. One can’t support it and defend it if one doesn’t even know what it is.

        8. avatar Joe R. says:

          The NRA can’t “win” the fight, without “losing” the fight for its own relevance. As soon as we no longer have to worry about our RTKABA, the NRA loses 95% of its purpose.

          The biggest problem of the NRA is it keeps telling you it will win the fight against the gun grabber evil POS liberal (D). ONLY YOU CAN DO THAT, AND IT’S GOING TO TAKE ARMS. The enemy has already decided.

          But you keep paying your dues.

  16. avatar Macofjack says:

    Sounds just like what a target shooter does! Amazing!

  17. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Running the clock, freezing the ball.

    In 2013, Cuomo rammed the SAFE Act through the legislature overnight. If there had been a week or two of debate, it probably wouldn’t have passed.

    This has gone on too long. It’s too late.

  18. avatar st381183 says:

    How can the NRA win if it’s not even fighting?

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      When a moron is digging his own grave let him.

  19. avatar Harold says:

    Trump could take a dump on a plate, spray it with lighter fluid, light it and you tools would call it bananas foster.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      How much Barry Hussein Obama bananas foster did you eat to ‘know’ that?

  20. avatar doesky2 says:

    Even if the NRA “wins” this battle over the next 6 months the Leftist educational indoctrination system will crank out another 5 million new drones that are inclined to dislike America, want speech codes, and think AR15s are “weapons of war” that only “professionals” should have access to.

    The Left is looking at the long game.

    If your kids are ending up Leftist, you’re contributing to the loss.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yes. The long game is a loser for the exercise of inalienable individual rights. Rarely can the exercise be fully recovered incrementally. For us to do so now would require immediate, stone resolve of shall not be infringed. Anything less is just running out the clock over generations. In the end, tyranny wins.

  21. avatar stateisevil says:

    Not in Florida, the state the media falsely calls the “gunshine state”. We have very strict gun laws here. Later this week, the Fl GOP will make bump stock possession of felony, strip 18-20 years olds from buying long guns, and impose a 3 day waiting period on gun sales if you don’t have a CWFL

  22. avatar Beef Supreme says:

    There is too much media coverage that doesn’t give the NRA a chance to remind the public that the shooter is responsible, and that the Broward County Sheriff’s office failed. It does not help that they spent $30 million on that double talking clown in the White House, and that they had to go back to the president just like a battered wife going back to an abusive husband.

  23. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Is the NRA winning the battle for government privileges? Probably. Is the NRA winning the fight for rights (which they aren’t even fighting for)? Nope.

    When the NRA supports government privileges, it abandons inalienable individual rights. This is a losing position *if* the NRA is about actual rights… Which it isn’t.

  24. avatar MDH says:

    Winning or not winning, at least on a federal level – no one’s rights have been further curtailed, yet.

    As far as bump stocks are concerned, they are no more a firearm, or machine gun than a common potato is. NRA is a firearms organization, not the “potato growers association”.

    If there is an association that preserves your rights to own novelty items which are not firearms, and which will most likely be taken off the market anyway due to product liability issues, by all means appeal to THEM. Please!

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Cosmetic or novelty items have been restricted before. A bump fire stock is no less important to the RKBA than a flash hider, compensator, sight, collapsible stock, bayonet lug, bayonet, etc. Give a mm and government will take several km eventually.

      Shall not be infringed.

  25. avatar TroutsBane says:

    This is a battle of words for the heart of our citizenry. Presently the fight has entered a stage of trench warfare, where both sides are trading the same old barbs and worn out retoric. The pro-gun side ( including the NRA) will not be winning until we are able to convince more people than we lose to the gun-control side. I fear if we don’t improve our skills at oratory and persuasion, we will fall to the weight of the human capacity to accept lies in exchange for emotional safety. Q.E.D: Get busy learning, or get busy losing.

  26. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Until the next Mass Shooting. And you can bet if it isn’t some homebrewed psychopathic copy cat that the NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA has been breeding for it’s “3-Weeks of fame and personal recognition…” Then it will be a another behind the scenes push by the “DEEP STATE” to false flag another high profile attack…Another disconnected rich guy, say from Vegas, or some other obscure location that suddenly goes for tilt ” Lee Harvey Oswald” on large groups of US citizens for absolutely no reason…And it will of course be with commonly available civilian arms…No, I don’t think the “New 🌎 World Order / Globalism/ One-World 🌎 Global Governance” actually rests….And are probably on to the next “red flag incident” to force Americans into surrendering THEIR U.S. Constitutional-Bill of Rights….All of them…

  27. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    We will know for sure come the November elections.

  28. avatar Aussie pub brawler says:

    armed, violent home invasions EXPLODE in AUssie…..
    gun control @ work…..
    Yanks!
    this is yr future is you surrender your guns!

    1. avatar Tom Shaw says:

      NRA staying quiet is exactly the problem their exacerbating the problem by giving liberals more voice on gun control. Clearly more public opinion is for controls, now we have K12 children rallying for controls. Are the leaders of the NRA afraid to go on campaign in liberal media because of personal backlash or a plan orchestrated between NRA and politicians.

  29. avatar Rick says:

    Of course they’re winning. You have to remember the game they’re playing, raising money. They paid more in executive salaries in 2016 than the presidential election. So yeah, WINNING

  30. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    It’s “The Art of The Deal”. President Trump is pro 2A. He will support his sons 2A rights as well as ours. The Clinton she-devil will only make sure her daughter has secret service gun protection, if she were president.

    The “Deal” is we get to keep our civil rights. The democrats lose out again. The civil rights battle is a rough one. We are safe at a federal level. But the individual states are a different matter.
    I suggest you organize local marches.

  31. avatar TheSophist says:

    if the NRA behaved more like an actual terrorist organization, the Left would respect it more and it would in fact be winning more.

    I know I would love to see the media and the Left (but I repeat myself) treat actual Islamic terrorists the way they treat us peaceful law-abiding gun owners.

  32. avatar Red Forman says:

    New leadership.

  33. avatar binder says:

    NateInPA, no other semi auto has an automatic trigger reset. So don’t say is functions just like any other semi auto. Or is it the only semi auto that a amateur shooter can outrun Jerry Miculek with?

    Esoteric:
    Yes I understand that most repeating firearms can rack up some pretty high body counts. And to be honest with you I think that they are capable enough to see some nasty new laws come out. But thanks to the SlideFires and Binary triggers things like the the the MCR upper (basically a M249 upper for a AR lower) are now popular. And no matter what what constitutional argument you want to give, I can guarantee you it will not survive if someone manages to put one of those on a crowd for 10 minutes. If the Vegas shooter just kept firing on the crowd and did not bother with the gas tanks, I don’t think we would be having any discussion right now. And that’s what was so scary about Vegas. He was not using a light auto-loading rifle, but with the surefire magazines, he managed to push the AR-15 into the light machine gun role and turn it on a crowd (from 400 yards in a elevated position no less). And there is no real defense against that (ask all the veterans of the western front about that)

    And to get to your point, I really don’t ever see a world were you are going to have machine guns legal at the same time you have M240s. So do I think the laws are necessary? Not really, but I do think that they are inevitable.

  34. avatar Matty 9 says:

    I don’t think we will k ow for sure till november

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email