Gundamentalists, The ‘Good’ Gun Ban and the Threatening Left – TTAG Daily Digest

Gundamentalists Tim Harmsen Military Arms Channel

courtesy reuters.com

Hardline U.S. ‘gundamentalists’ pressure NRA from within

“Gundamentalists” . . .

With opinion polls showing U.S. public support for more gun control growing in the wake of mass shootings in recent years, the NRA is facing internal pressure from this little-known force that is demanding that the leadership concede zero ground to gun-control advocates.

Its rise has rattled the NRA leadership and threatens the association’s ability to hold on to moderate supporters and to make compromises that might help fend off tougher gun control measures, according to some of the two dozen gun-rights activists, policy experts and gun-control advocates interviewed for this story.

“Generally, they have a disproportionately huge amount of power in the gun-rights movement,” said Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist.

The gun ban that worked

That depends on how you define “worked” . . .

On the morning of Feb. 14, 1929, a sound normally associated with battlefields echoed through Chicago’s north side. The rat-tat-tat of machine guns emanated from a garage on North Clark Street.

The carnage wrought by Al Capone’s gunmen that day would help spur what is, today, the most successful gun-control story in America — one that puts the lie to the National Rifle Association’s relentless campaign to convince the nation that there’s nothing we can do about the carnage around us.

The seven dead in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, associates of Capone rival Bugs Moran, were riddled with rounds from, among other weapons, two fully automatic Thompson submachine guns. Unlike semiautomatic weapons, which fire one round with each trigger pull, machine guns spray nonstop rounds as if from a firehose with a single pull.

courtesy westernjournal.com

Affidavit: Congress threats suspect had ammo, gun receipts

If gun rights supporters were half a violent as gun grabbers claim, there would be no gun grabbers. As for the unhinged left . . .

Court records show a man charged with threatening two Republican congressional leaders had 200 rounds of ammunition at his home in Buffalo, New York, along with books on homemade explosives and receipts for two guns.

An agent with the U.S. Capitol Police detailed items found during a search of Carlos Bayon’s home in an affidavit filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

Bayon is charged with leaving threatening phone messages for GOP Reps. Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington.

NRA Protest

‘March on the NRA’ Counter-Protesters Show Their 2A Support by Exercising Their Rights Then and There

Wait…so the March on the NRA didn’t manage to shut the organization down? . . .

During the “March on the NRA” on Saturday, many of the protesters held signs and sang songs to make their point.

But counter-protesters made a much more visual statement when they demonstrated their Second Amendment rights by carrying their firearms at the event.

When asked why he brought his Ruger AR-556 to the protest, Cody Connolly told IJR: “Just because I have the right to.”

Connolly said that while he was willing to engage in a discussion with the other side, he thought that many gun control advocates didn’t understand “the nuances of firearms.”

Texas Republicans squelch ‘red flag’ gun law prospects

Because there’s no way to implement one without violating due process protections . . .

In the aftermath of the May 18 attack at Santa Fe High School, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott suggested that Texas should look for ways to keep guns away from people who pose “an immediate danger to others,” which is the point of so-called red flag laws like those passed by six states since the February massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

But faced with criticism from gun enthusiasts in the country’s largest conservative state, Abbott — who gets top ratings from the National Rifle Association — later clarified that he was only suggesting such laws be part of a broader conversation about school security and that he thinks there’s growing opposition to the idea of gun restrictions.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Texas Senate, was even more forceful.

“I have never supported these policies, nor has the majority of the Texas Senate,” he said minutes after the last in a series of state Senate hearings on gun violence.

comments

  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    “Its rise has rattled the NRA leadership and threatens the association’s ability to hold on to moderate supporters and to make compromises”

    Wonderful.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      So “gundamentalists” believe the Constitution means what it says, and says what it means. They think people actually have a basic right to keep and bear arms.

      They infer that this compares with the Christian fundamentalist who believes the Bible is God’s written Word, and that it is actually true.

      I suppose both are to be contrasted with those who pretend to hold to the Constitution and/or Bible respectively, but actually reject and hate them, doing whatever they can to undermine them.

      They suppose themselves to be enlightened political and theological liberal citizens and Christians, when they are in fact traitors and deceivers. Honest people that outrightly reject the Constitution and/or Bible are much to be preferred.. At least they are truthful.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        We often hear the following phrase:

        “I support the 2nd Amendment, BUT…”

        Whenever I hear that, I understand what they really mean is this:

        “I strongly REJECT the 2nd Amendment, and the fundamental values of our republic, but lack the integrity required to be honest about it. I am a dishonest and cowardly person”.

        I suppose that makes me a gundamentalist.

        1. avatar Timothy says:

          Whenever I hear the phrase “I support the 2nd Amendment but…”, I cut them off and say “What would you think if I said ‘I’m not racist but…’ and then after that I listed ways that minorities aren’t equal?” When I see they made the connection and before they can reply I say “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. You were about to say how you wanted to restrict my rights? Carry on.”

          That usually pisses them off good.

      2. avatar Casey says:

        Like those filthy “patriots” that… ewwww… LOVE their country. If you love your country, why dontcha marry it, amirite?

        Or those… bleeeech… “Constitutionalists” that hold the crazy radical unfounded unheard of belief that the cornerstone of our government, y’know, means anything.

        And what about those people who ACTUALLY believe.. get this.. they ACTUALLY believe that if someone is about to rape and murder their family, that they should, like, DO something about it? Its like, do those people not even know how many internet points you can get for letting your family get raped and murdered? Or getting raped and murdered YOURSELF? That’s like, instant national fame if you’re part of the right self-identified victim groups!

        Those people just don’t understand the real world, y’know? Not like us, who want to live in peace and harmony with everyone. Once we’re in control, there will be no more NRA-backed homophobic racist gunstreamist violence, just puppies and butterflies and executions in the streets of anyone who is suspected of wrongthink.

        And while I should hope that I don’t need a sarcasm tag for the regular readers, I know that I least need one for the trolls, because as far as I can tell the most warped view of reality that I can manage still pales in comparison to their actual mindset.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          This .

        2. avatar MKV says:

          Sadly this is a pretty accurate depiction of these people’s mindset. But thanks for the lulz

      3. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

        Modern English Bibles have to be read with a huge grain of salt. It’s foolish to take them literally because the scriptures have been translated through multiple languages and often deliberately misinterpreted to support various agendas.

        Just look at how our enemies try and misinterpret the Second Amendment to fit their gun control agenda. Now figure that people have been doing exactly the same thing to the scriptures since they were first translated from ancient Greek.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Dramatically important difference is, interpretations of “scripture” is completely unimportant to absolutely anyone, bogus interpretations of my rights are liable to cause major problems for me and others.

    2. avatar CC says:

      it is a SIGN that the NRA is an organic and legitimate actual wide membership organization that there are arguments as to positions and responses, and attendant strategies and tactics.

      Any and every large legitimate grassroots organization has such “controversies.”

      The gun ban lobby has no such problem because it is pure top down, about 95% funded by a half dozen people, and about 65% funded by one person. Increasing the gun ban lobby has become a funding arm of the DNC. So they are not messy since they are fully directed.

      I take disagreements on tactics within NRA membership as a sign that it is genuine membership group.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        They rigged the election for board members last convention, and drastically raised the number of signatures needed for new candidates to get on the ballot. And have set out to convince the president & congress that certain new gun control is okay ever since the election, while failing to oppose certain gun control at the state level.

        There is no internal pressure, apart from people (like me) that refuse to donate another dime until they return to the legitimate, organic representative of their members’ best interest they purport to be. If the turds in charge of the organization are feeling heat, good.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          And your proof that NRA rigged the elections at the Dallas convention? There is only one member ever elected at the convention, anyway, so WTH are you talking about?

          As for the rest of the Gomers here blaming NRA for every anti-gun law passed since 1934 (and I still think your REALLY missing the boat by not blaming them for Wyatt Earp forcing cattlehands to check their guns with him when they entered Dodge and Tombstone, since NRA was in existence in 1871), why don’t you actually do some historical research and quit re-posting the BS you’ve put forth before? Today, NRA HIT 6 million members. I suppose you cruds think they’re all sheeple and stupid…

    3. avatar 4808 N says:

      Fan-frickin-,tastic!

  2. avatar New Continental Army says:

    I’m a proud Ammo Sexual Gundamentalist Deplorable. How’s that for identity politics?

    1. avatar HP says:

      Oh, me too. Which is why I “bullet voted” for Adam Kraut for the board of directors this past time, and will do so next time. Proud NRA Endowment member and gundamentalist here, I’m happy to ruffle some feathers if it helps spur the organization in the right direction. The NRA is only as good as we make it, despite the petulant tantrums of some of the “people of the gun” who post here.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Too that I add the words of the pResident Ovomit,bitter clinger.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      You could probably get your very own restroom at Target.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “You could probably get your very own restroom at Target.”

        Not a bad idea!

        One of those little tables like the ‘family’ bathrooms have for diaper changes, with a clearing barrel and a bucket of sand, some complimentary BarStol or Ezzox wipes in individual foil packets…

        I can dream, can’t I? 😉

    4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I’m a proud christian male who engages in ammo sexual sex all the time!!! And sometimes my wife participates. (smile)

  3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “to make compromises that might help fend off tougher gun control measures” – Have such “compomises” EVER fended off attempts to pass even more repressive laws?

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Depends what you consider “fending off.” If you equate that to “chumming the waters,” then yeah, sure.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      No. Every single time it has indicated weakness and invited more political pressure. Politics isn’t like war; it doesn’t cost the anti’s anything to ‘hold’ gun control territory. It’s the opposite; the more registration and licensing schemes and permission slips and restrictions, the more their ideology is internalized by society & made legitimate, and permanent. Every inch ceded increases their advantage.

  4. avatar anarchyst says:

    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the “national instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1991, and other infringements on the Second Amendment. The next infringement will be a ban on “bump stocks” and other “rate increasing mechanisms”, that the NRA seems to want, offering feeble or no opposition, in the spirit of “compromise”.
    Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar HP says:

      It’s tired and meaningless at this point to bring up what the NRA was doing in 1934 and 1968. You’re not wrong about what they did, but you have to consider it was a drastically different organization at that time, and they didn’t even have a lobbying arm. “Purists” love to bring this up to discredit the NRA rather than to join the organization to effect change. It’s a pity, so much motivation goes to waste.

      So it’s left to the guys like Adam Kraut, amongst others, to be members and try to reshape the organization from within. As opposed to the lazy complainers on gun blogs who don’t join, likely do no activist work, and really do nothing other than whine and smash “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Man, if that’s not going to reshape firearms laws, I don’t know what is. The NRA is far from perfect, but it won’t ever improve if it’s members don’t make it. And if you’re not a member, you don’t have a voice, at least not one louder than your caps lock allows on TTAG.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        Yep. It’s like complaining that the Republicans haven’t changed since the 30s (hint, they have a lot) or the Dems since the 60s (less George Wallace now, thank the good lord, but lots of other kookiness came in since). You can say they’re the same parties…but for better and worse they aren’t. The NRA isn’t perfect, but I’m a member because I’d rather have a say in something that has clout and try to pull a Goldwater on them than let the good they do slide away.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        The problem with that argument is the Mulford act endorsement, Hughes Amendment (which Wayne LaPierre has both claimed he opposed and always supported. Based on actions it’s the second), the undetectable firearms act, LEOPA, NICS and all their more recent crap STILL comes after their “transformation”.

        1. avatar HP says:

          Which is precisely why the “transformation” needs to continue, which can only be accomplished by members. Are you a member? You certainly criticize the organization every chance you get here. Adam Kraut the and the rest of the “gundamentalists” are members who seek change. They are actually doing something, instead of complaining on the internet. Which does NOTHING.

        2. avatar CC says:

          Your post is not factual. And are you a member? do you vote your NRA ballot? If not you are a PARASITE and your opinion doesn’t matter.

          NRA did not face the same issues back 50 years ago so stop with the “in 1968” — it is childish.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          HP, The tired tropes are yours (and) the Negotiating Rights Away organization.

          Petulant children (and people with Stockholm Syndrome) are willfully delusional about what their abuser actually does. NFA? GCA? They didn’t just ignore them, they were publicly supporting them. Bumpfire stock regulation? Guess what side they take…

          Please learn the facts about what they are doing to sell us out by supporting regulation right this minute. Although frankly, all indications are you’re just another Fudd who isn’t on our side at all.

        4. avatar HP says:

          @16V

          You might consider re-reading the things I’ve written. I’m fully cognizant that the NRA has made mistakes, and that the people running the organization during the GCA/NFA days screwed up royally. I’m not sure why you’re attacking me about that. I’m not even suggesting the current NRA brass are without fault; they certainly are. I am saying the organization can’t change unless people get involved and push the organization to change. Whining and complaining on TTAG is literally the least a gun owner can do, and as we can see from some of the commenters here, doing the absolute least is par for the course.

          You called me a Fudd for actually trying to rally support for changing the NRA and promoting gun rights. This is what I was referring to when I brought up petulant gun owners. You resorted to name calling because something I said triggered you. For shame.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          @HP, This is the best you have? Made mistakes? In the past? …

          You’re either willfully, or woefully, ignorant of what they have done, are doing right now, and (most importantly) have institutionalized into their culture to do forever more.

          This is a large organism, with lots of money, and people who wish to keep taking home said cash. If you think it’s gonna change because maybe, just maybe, you get someone else in there to ‘set the tone’, you’ll find the cogs in that wheel just as welcoming as Trump has.

          “The NRA didn’t tell Trump to “ban bump stocks”. They suggested that the ATF give bumps stocks another look as an item that could potentially have NFA type regulation. The NRA didn’t tell Trump to “ban 3D printed guns”. The NRA said they don’t support the manufacturing of “undetectable guns”, which is not what 3D printed guns are. You should read the NRA’s statement, instead of reading a vague Tweet by the President and making your own false conclusions from that Tweet.”

          Thanks for confirming your (at most generous) Fudd status. Neither of those “positions” are in any way concurrent with supporting gun owners or their Constitutional rights. Suggesting a perfectly legal mainstream product (bumpstocks) be added to NFA? Not supporting “undetectable” guns?

          Is the NRA paying by the word for this sort of normalizing propaganda, or are you just blindly sycophantic?

        6. avatar HP says:

          @16V

          “Fudd” “blindly sycophantic”. You’re bordering on ad-hominem. That’s not very nice, sir.

          It’s very amusing that you’re accusing me of being willfully ignorant. I suppose that if I don’t come to this blog, smash my keyboard, and gnash my teeth about the NRA that I’m willfully/woefully ignorant? I’d consider anything other than opposing the GCA and NFA to be a mistake. The NRA made those mistakes. The NRA continues to make mistakes. Am I wrong about that? I certainly didn’t defend those decisions, other than to point out that they were made years ago. The people who made those decisions are either dead or no longer running the NRA. I guess my language isn’t harsh enough to mellow your rage? Ponder the way you’re acting. It’s not normal. Maybe take some deep breaths. I hadn’t realized that desiring change in the NRA and supporting those who want to work for that change was such a malicious offense. Don’t think the change can be effected? Stop being a Negative Nancy.

          You’re also quoting a post I wrote to a Nanashi, and I’ll address that. I didn’t actually say anywhere that I agreed with the NRA’s positions on either bump stocks or undetectable guns. I was correcting that Nanashi fellow because he was lying. You can condemn me for correcting him if you’d like. It doesn’t change anything though. He was lying, I called him out. I suppose the resentment you feel towards the NRA is better sated through slander? For Nanashi, it is. Are you sure you or him aren’t on Shannon Watts’ payroll? Because that’s what the people in Everytown and Moms Demand do – they lie, they slander, they mislead. You can disagree with an organizations stances, but when you lie, you’re no better than a liberal gun grabber. Arguably, you’re worse, because you own guns and should know better.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Benefactor Member here, also bought my son a Life membership. The best I’ve got was NRA tossing 38 million dollars into aiding Trump’s campaign despite the fact he had no chance at all, just because it was time to stand up. I returned to them my family’s share of that. Did any of you do that? Did your preferred gunrights org do that? Sometimes the “I’m right and you’re wrong” screeching here reminds me of lunatic Democrats/liberals. NRA isn’t perfect, neither is anybody else, but all the hysteria is beyond silly, I suspect some is simple trolling.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Negotiating Rights Away since 1934 has a long record of capitulating on the Second Amendment.

      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 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?

      Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing… No Compromise,compromise has taken the second amendment where we sadly find it today.

      1. avatar CC says:

        Your post 1968 examples are not substantive.

        1. avatar Donkey Lips says:

          In more recent capitulations, they’re all for allowing the ATF to “re-interpret” existing law to redefine a bump-stock as a machine gun. They actually called on them to. I know most don’t care for a bumpstock, hell I’ll never own one. But, slippery slope and all that.

          With friends like the NRA, we don’t need enemas (sic intentional).

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Banners are running in circles, and nothing is happening. If something does happen, SCOTUS will have a say. The sky is not falling, mellow out.

  5. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      anarchyst , well said. Shall not be infringed means just that. It means every single gun owner, every type of gun. There is no room for this gun vs that gun. No room for certain people of the gun to argue that right. I enjoy shooting any & all guns. If people can’t agree on that , they should not speak on it. We aren’t speaking about apples & oranges !! We are speaking about the 2nd amendment of our constitution. Our right’s to keep and bear arms , of our choosing. Squabbling amongst one another does not help our just cause.

  6. avatar CZJay says:

    You can take from that one of two conclusions: Either mass shooters always decide against obtaining machine guns for their task because, well, even they aren’t that crazy; or, they don’t because they can’t. Because the machine-gun ban works. It works because it’s a national policy instead of state-by-state restrictions, which are picket fences in an ocean. It works because it addresses not just possession and sale, but manufacture. It works because — unlike the loophole-ridden “assault weapons” ban of the 1990s — the restrictions are comprehensive and the penalties severe.

    The NRA continues to support strong restrictions on fully automatic weapons, which in itself should call into question their rationale for opposing most other gun control. If “guns don’t kill, people kill,” why does it matter if the gun is fully automatic? If semiautomatic weapons capable of killing 20 small children at Sandy Hook Elementary School are OK for civilians to possess, why isn’t the machine gun, which has never inflicted such domestic damage?

    They don’t use full autos because the gun still does the same thing. It’s a waste of time to modify the semi auto gun into a full auto. Full auto will make you less effective at hitting your target and you waste your ammo in seconds.

    If the Parkland shooter had a full auto he probably would have killed less people. When in full auto a slow press of the trigger would have emptied his ten round magazine way faster than he would have wanted. Resulting in having to reload many more times than using a semi auto.

    You can say the major difference between a full auto and a semi auto is your finger getting tired. However, you can learn to bump fire in less than a minute, which is way faster than learning to modify your semi auto and manufacturing the piece/s to go full auto. Crazy bank robbers are more likely to spend the time converting their guns, but those kinds of people are not so common.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      Yep. I suspect if they were legalized full autos would mainly be used by hobbyists (mag dumps that fast get expensive quickly). Maybe more people would have AR or AK clones with giggle switches, but they’d probably be at the high end of the price spectrum. You’d have some crazies want one…but automatics are both expensive and inefficient. From my understanding, there wasn’t a major use in crime in the 30s (the mob Valentine’s Day massacre being a notable exception). We don’t (And I suspect wouldn’t) have tons of cheap third world trash AKs sneaking in like Europe does as the American consumer probably wouldn’t want low quality Pakistani ripoffs, and I doubt congress would allow that except in my wildest dreams of a libertarian takeover. Most companies wouldn’t want the liability of having cheap machine guns explode in people’s faces, and many would (as is their prerogative) not want to sell them to civvies, so we’d likely end up with a small, expensive supply of guns the hobbiests would enjoy, and the rest of us rent or borrow from a rich buddy once in a blue moon. The murder dreams of the nutty left notwithstanding, repealing the NFA probably wouldn’t change much. But we would be more free.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        I kinda doubt that select fire wouldn’t be the default if the NFA were struck down. One of the most common pre-86 guns is CHEAP mac clones. It’s even less of an issue with an AR platform because all the parts that could potentially fail catastrophically (Only possible exception is the buffer tube spring, but that will fail to cycle long before anything catastrophic happens) are in the upper (all of which are currently sold freely) and the lower is the part that makes it full auto. There’s a reason AR build guides tell you the only parts where quality past the minimum really changes anything are the barrel, BCG and trigger.

        1. avatar Ingenero says:

          I still think many companies wouldn’t want to offer it, and the ones that did would probably mark it up. Simplicity is one thing, a chance to make a buck another. And few would want their name sprayed across the news like Bushmaster if some evil nutjob chose to use a cheap one to mimic the other idiot shooters. Could be wrong though, hard to predict a very unlikely future (albeit one I’d love to help bring about).

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          A company might get away with a slight markup on lowers (for a few years) with an excuse of “we have to adjust our tooling” or the like, but outright refusal would be driven out of the marketplace by those who don’t shit on their customers and offer the superior product. Capitalism, ho!

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Most people familiar with both semi and select fire ARs know quite well there is very little, if any, reason for full auto to cost 25 cents more than semi. Either gouging or refusing to offer will get you a ticket out of the business in weeks. And if that’s what it takes, new businesses will spring up instantly to give me full auto at fair prices and make the owners filthy rich. That’s how “free market” works.

  7. avatar BLAMMO says:

    I have plenty of problems with the NRA but I hold my nose and re-up every year. I’d still rather be one of the 5 million than one of the other 120-150 million gun owners who are okay with somebody else paying the freight.

    1. avatar CC says:

      Exactly. And we have a LOT of whining parasites here NOT paying their share.

      There isn’t a single large grass roots advocacy organization on any subject in the US that does not have LOTS of disagreement on tactics. It is a sign the organization is democratic. Some here are whining about 1934 and 1968 when the membership, leadership of NRA was totally different, and when the issued confronted were utterly different in every way.

      for fks sake about 80% of the US public supported TOTAL handgun bans in the 1970’s.

      There simply are a LOT of people here who appear to be intentionally ignorant of the actual history of gun control

      1. avatar Donkey Lips says:

        There are other 2nd Amendment advocacy groups out there that, dollar for dollar, accomplish more (in the courtroom) *without* compromise. SAF comes to mind. GOA isn’t too bad either.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          There is no rule saying you can’t belong to more than one pro-rights organization.

          I’m member of GOA, ISRA and NRA.
          Couple months ago I informed the NRA guy who called me to get some extra money that I will not give them one red cent until I see them take hardline stance against any and all infringements on our RTKBA. No more compromises!
          I also voted for Adam Kraut.
          I guess I’m a gundamentalist.

  8. avatar Ad Astra says:

    The rueter’s story is just more leftist fantasies. Claiming polls showing more support for new anti 2A laws but of course the don’t cite any of these polls. Followed up by the obligatory inference that the NRA is in its final death spiral, for real this time honest totally not the same bs line they’ve been pushing since they all practically orgasimed when the clinton assault weapon ban passed.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    The NRA certainly has giant flaws but damn after Newtown we had a knife at our throats. I was (perhaps) angrier than most as I bought my 1st gun in 2011. And I joined the NRA. And became a stauch 2A supporter. And I come here-for NOW. They need to do better but I fail to see what orgs like GOA actually DO. WTF do they have against Steve Scalise? And all the leftscum railing against Trump?!? Enforce the terroristic threat thing. Oh and 62 shot in Chiraq…

    1. avatar HP says:

      GOA is useful for the “action alerts” that are sent out, which are pre-written letters you can send to your representatives. I do like that they do that. Otherwise, they are good at criticizing the NRA. They have no real clout. Remember that time the President met with Erich and Larry Pratt? Neither do I.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        The president doesn’t write the laws… The only time you want to meet with him is to collude.

        The NRA only has power because people believe they do. The true power rests with the people’s vote. The NRA controls the people like a dog handler. The NRA is a business, not a civil rights group. When people stop being derelict in their duty the NRA will start fighting to win instead of slowly losing.

        You are who you surround yourself with.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Given the only things we’ve heard the NRA told Trump were “ban bump stocks” and “ban 3D printed guns”, I’d rather have no meetings with the President than the NRA meeting with them.

        Seriously, Wayne LaPierre Laval didn’t even make the most basic negotiation of “repeal the Bush import ban alongside it and we can spin this as a win”, he just flat out sold out.

        1. avatar Ad Astra says:

          if the NRA is soooo bad you’d think we would have gotten a deluge of new antigun laws during barry’s time in the oval office especially when the dems controlled the house of reps for part of it.

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          @ad

          It’s interesting that, as far as actual laws go, thanks to the NRA endorsing fix NICS we’ve already gotten more and worse in 2 years of Trump than we did in 8 years of Obama. So yeah, the is NOT our friend.

        3. avatar HP says:

          Those are interesting points you make Nanashi, especially because they are both complete fabrications. The NRA didn’t tell Trump to “ban bump stocks”. They suggested that the ATF give bumps stocks another look as an item that could potentially have NFA type regulation. The NRA didn’t tell Trump to “ban 3D printed guns”. The NRA said they don’t support the manufacturing of “undetectable guns”, which is not what 3D printed guns are. You should read the NRA’s statement, instead of reading a vague Tweet by the President and making your own false conclusions from that Tweet.

          If you have to come on here and lie to bolster your argument, you’re no better than a David Hogg/Shannon Watts type anti.

        4. avatar cc says:

          It’s interesting that, as far as actual laws go, thanks to the NRA endorsing fix NICS we’ve already gotten more and worse in 2 years of Trump than we did in 8 years of Obama. So yeah, the is NOT our friend.

          that statement betrays a TOTAL lack of knowledge of the fixnics context.

          I am not surprised as an anit-NRA drone, you don’t follow gun control legislation and demonstrate deep ignorance on the subject.

          NRA’s position on fixNICS was to use it as a poison pill to roadblock other legislation — which it did effectively — just as reciprocity served to block draconian gun control.

          NRA has never proposed fixnics per se, but as a way to divert.

          Please stop proving with your anti nra rants that you have no ideas as to the combinations of legislation and amendments to legalization whihc is where the rubber hits the road.

          If you bothered to work with any organized effort you might have a clue.

          As far as other people mentioning GOA, the GOA has not had a single victory on an effort no already an NRA effort. If you know anyone on the Hill who has worked this issue, members of congress get 100 letters and calls from NRA members for every one from GOA

        5. avatar cc says:

          the NRA told Trump were “ban bump stocks”

          your posts are complete lies.

          pretty sure you work for Evertyown, you posts are all about how no one should support or belong to the NRA, backed by total lies about NRA positions

  10. avatar Gralnok says:

    Gundamentalists. Well, I will concede, it does have a cool ring to it.

    “Unlike semiautomatic weapons, which fire one round with each trigger pull, machine guns spray nonstop rounds as if from a firehose with a single pull.” Okay, that made me laugh. I was picturing some old time cartoon villain or Cuphead boss with a gun that’s vomiting bullets, pausing only to stand the gun upright and empty rounds into the end before firing again.

    So the loony leftist had about 100 rounds per gun? I guess all terrorists have to start somewhere.

    When asked why he brought his Ruger AR-556 to the protest, Cody Connolly told IJR: “Just because I have the right to.” <–Best Response.

    As for the red flag laws getting squelched? Good use of the word, but the laws shouldn't have even gotten that far. Especially in Texas.

  11. avatar arc says:

    Shall not be infringed. Unalienable aka incapable of being infringed upon. “Just because I have the right to.” is a good answer.

    Guna throw this out there but if you tool up and learn how to smelt your own metal, machine your own gun parts and ream your own barrels, and learn the chemistry of making your own powder, there is no one who can infringe upon your rights.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      That’s like asking people to make their own pencils… https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/. It’s stupid, and we shouldn’t have to. People should be able to make and trade just about whatever they want (Yes, human lives being the biggest exception, though I’m sure we’d do something about WMDs too). The government shouldn’t try to send our right to keep and bear arms back to the bloody 18th century. Regardless of what the sign-bearing yahoos think. I’d love to send their right to free speech back to the 18th century if that’s how they think…the lack of computing, tv, radio, and, ah, illicit online materials would probably drive many crazy in a couple weeks.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “The government shouldn’t try to send our right to keep and bear arms back to the bloody 18th century.”

        I’d love to see that right back to where it was in the 18th century.
        Back then, individuals could own state of the art military arms, to include cannons, which were the height of military arms, comparable to the M114 or F-35 today.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Nothing wrong with obsolete weapons. I betcha a whole BUNCH of people could wakeboard behind a battleship!

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    The Valentines day massacre was the Port Arthur massacre of it’s day and we ended up with a lifetime law as a result.

    The left has tried to repeat this every time there is an “incident” plastered over the news. all they have to do is be successful once and it’s over.

  13. avatar Felixd says:

    Beware of agitation propaganda from left leaning sources. Can we trust Reuters?

    1. No. I uses to work there.

  14. avatar Gman says:

    The NRA is a Fudd. They are the typical I support the Constitution, but… crowd. Gundamentalism as it is being suggested simply applies to the 2nd. Yet it is the Constitution, broadly, that one either does or does not support. No law, which restricts the full and free exercise of any right is Constitutional. Therefore, anyone who does not fully support the elimination of such laws and prevention of new ones is a Fudd or not worthy of being a US citizen.

    1. avatar HP says:

      Adam Kraut is an NRA member, is he a Fudd?

      I’m curious, aside from being angry on the internet, do you do anything to further gun rights?

  15. avatar Bob in IN says:

    A whole 200 rounds or what i call a single short brief range trip.

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “But counter-protesters made a much more visual statement when they demonstrated their Second Amendment rights by carrying their firearms at the event.”

    So peaceful, responsible people can carry arms peacefully and responsibly even when being politically active, engaging with people they disagree with. This is my shocked face. (<- That was sarcasm.)

  17. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    “Gundamentalists” — so, the members of a membership organization think they might have more to say about what that organization does than their hired help?

  18. Reposting because when I tried to correct a typo, I received the message “Your comment has been marked as spam” (WTF, why?)

    About the article titled, “Affidavit: Congress threats suspect had ammo, gun receipts”…

    The article says, “investigators searching Bayon’s home found 150 rounds of rifle ammunition and 50 rounds of shotgun shells, NOLA.com/The Times-Picayune reported. They found no guns, but discovered a 2004 receipt for an SKS assault rifle and a 1987 receipt for a .38-caliber revolver.”

    These two sentences have so many mistakes, falsehoods, and one outright lie that must be pointed out.
    First, In what universe is an SKS an “assault rifle”? Not only is it not fully automatic (which is part of the definition of an assault rifle), the SKS is not even a so-called “assault weapon”, since it has no “evil features”, no evil pistol grip or threaded barrel, so it’s legal even in states with an “assault weapons ban” like my own state. It even has a wooden stock, for Pete’s sake! So, the claim that they found a receipt for an “SKS assault rifle” is an outright lie.

    Second, in what universe is 200 rounds of ammo a threat to anyone? That’s only ten boxes, barely enough for one day at the range. Many shooters (at least those with multiple guns, “superowners” as they call us) would say it’s time to buy more ammo if we get below 2,000 rounds.

    Third, they found no guns, but found two “receipts for guns” from decades in the past, including one from 31 years ago and one from 14 years ago. Um, is it now illegal in the Empire State to have RECEIPTS for guns, even receipts from 31 years ago? It seems to me that a receipt for a gun is a sign that the man is a law-abiding citizen, because only law-abiding citizens would have receipts for guns. Criminals who buy on the black market don’t get a receipt. Criminals who steal guns don’t get a receipt. The fact that he has a receipt for guns proves he’s a law-abiding citizen, yet “An agent with the U.S. Capitol Police” uses it to imply that he’s a threat to public safety! How backasswards is that logic?

    Fourth, the ammo was for a rifle and shotgun, but they found a 1987 receipt for a .38 revolver (not a rifle or shotgun), so how is the 31-year-old receipt for a revolver even connected at all to the ammo? Geesh, if the guy keeps 31 years worth of receipts lying around his house in shoeboxes, all he’s guilty of is being a pack-rat!

    Fifth, it’s a serious violation of First Amendment rights to free speech to arrest someone for such a vague statement as ““You are taking ours. We are taking yours.” The words “You are taking ours” could refer to anything: money, jobs, guns, but it doesn’t sound like a threat of violence in any way. It could mean, “You’re taking our jobs, we’re taking your job,” or “You’re taking our money, we’re taking your money [by boycotting your company/organization/state/city].” If it were a threat of violence, he wouldn’t say, “You are taking ours,” as that would make no sense.

    Finally, this is not a partisan issue, it’s a rights issue, 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment rights. I don’t care if the politicians are Republican or Democrats, either way citizens should be able to call up and peacefully express their opinions of government policies without being arrested like this! And law-abiding gun owners, or former gun owners (as this guy seems to have been) should not be harassed by government for having 10 boxes of ammunition and a 31-year-old receipt for a gun that doesn’t even fit that ammunition!

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