Gun Control Advances Because We Are Our Own Worst Enemy

image via Twitter

Over on AR15.com, one of the largest gun forums, discussions about all things ballistic are a dime a dozen. As are arguments. One of the hottest concerns is whether Floridians should back Rick Scott in his race for a U.S. Senate seat. After all, he’s the one who signed SB 7026 into law, betraying Florida gun owners in the name of political expediency.

As a result, come October 1, bump stocks and other firearm accessories will be outlawed and possession of them will be a third degree felony. The sad fact is, many gun owners will be just fine with that because, as AR15.com member ReefRaider put it, the law doesn’t affect him.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we lose our rights to the unceasing efforts of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex. Many gun owners are only concerned with laws and regulation if they’re directly affected. They don’t care about others’ civil rights, as long as theirs aren’t impacted.

They don’t care that removing the right of firearm ownership for a certain age group reduces our numbers and hinders long-term growth.

As gun owners like ReefRaider see it:

“Dont (sic) read the previous sentence wrong. My personal safety is not confined by BS laws. If it came down to it I would stand with those who’s (sic) rights those laws have affected. Nullifying my vote isn’t going to help them at all.”

Click image to enlarge

Gun owners like ReefRaider don’t care because they’re over the age of 21. There are also gun owners who don’t care that otherwise law-abiding citizens may now become felons for owning an item that used to be a legal accessory.

Even here, in the TTAG comment section, I’ve seen some people claim bump stock bans are somehow a win for gun rights.

Replace “bump stocks” with AR-15s or 30-round magazines in the above comment and you’ll find other gun owners who think the same way. For the Roys in the world and the Fudds who don’t care about your AR or your GLOCK or your “high capacity” magazine, it’s no skin off their nose. They can keep their plugged duck gun and non-threatening deer rifle. No one’s ever going to come after those guns…right?

NEWSFLASH: Gun grabbers won’t stop until every civilian-owned firearm is outlawed. They want total civilian disarmament and a government monopoly on gun ownership.

I have personally spoken against gun control on numerous occasions, in the very halls where our lawmakers violate our civil rights all in the name of public safety.

The thing that always amazes me is how small in number we are when it comes to speaking up for our rights. The gun grabbers are always there in full force, in their red or orange shirts, working to limit our freedoms. They organize, rally, march, and yell for more control and more restrictions on our civil rights. They sacrifice their time and their income to advance the cause of civilian disarmament.

Yet, on our side, we have people who express happiness when a fellow citizen is stripped of some of his or her rights. We have people ‘on our side’ who say they’ll stand with others if need be, but don’t bother to show up at pro-freedom rallies or legislative sessions. Are we really going to let the opposition do better?

I leave you with the words of Ben Franklin, who had it right on the money:

comments

  1. 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. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    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…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “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. 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 jwm says:

      The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. You proclaim that the holocaust did not happen and that hitler will be vindicated by history. You just recently referred to RBG as ‘the jewess’.

      I will defend my rights. But not standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of you.

      1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

        Did he really say that or was it a misreading of sarcasm? I’m genuinely interested. Hey, Anarchyst, do you stand by the comments that JWM attributes to you?

        1. avatar Random NYer says:

          I’m not sure about the Hitler part, but I haven’t seen every comment. The “the jewess” comment I did see with my own eyes, though, so I doubt it’s sarcasm.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Sept. 21. ‘The second amendment is so 18th century’. He called RBG ‘the jewess’. The comment about hitler was deleted quite quickly by management. That was a few weeks ago.

        3. avatar WhiteDevil says:

          That’s pretty goddamn disgusting then, and surprising. Everything he’s posted in the past hasn’t been too far off the deep end. Wonder what changed? “Hitler will be vindicated by history.” What the hell is up with that?

      2. avatar Bob Kling says:

        But Ginsburg is Jewish and she’s, rightly, proud of it. So what, exactly, is your problem? Because your post reads a bit antisemitic.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Really? Missed the part of him denying the holocaust happened and claiming hitler will be cleared by history?

        2. avatar Derringer Dave says:

          Bob Kling, you don’t see any problem with calling a Jewish woman a “Jewess”?
          What about the N-word?
          Using “Jewess” is animalizing Jews the way the Nazis did (the Nazi German word was Jüdin).
          It’s like calling a black person the N-word.

          Calling a woman “Jewish” is perfectly fine. Calling her “a Jew” can be okay, depending on context (sometimes people use it as an insult). “Jewess” century. It might have been an acceptable word in the 19th Century, but so was the N-word (see Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn).

      3. avatar Cory C. says:

        Agreed. Well said.

      4. avatar Dan Boyd says:

        You should stand with him. He’s right about Hitler! Never in Human history has a single person been vilified to the same degree. Literally everything about WWII that is supposed to be common knowledge is either entirely untrue of intentionaly misleading.

        All I’m asking is that you look into both sides of the argument about Adolf Hitler and see who makes a more compelling case. Sometimes people take the easy path and just believe whatever is put before them and the masses. Also ask why are all the anti-establishment WWII documentaries banned? If they are so silly why not let people decide for themselves?

        Find whom you cannot criticize to understand who rules over you.

        1. avatar Bananas O'Toole says:

          Generally, people find the systemic and cruelly efficient genocide of large groups of people to be distasteful so they tend not to want to hear idiots argue with “alternative facts” about how it didn’t happen or is in some way justified…

        2. avatar Big E says:

          Dan, if you were to claim that Stalin & Mao were just as evil and responsible for more deaths, I would agree. That isn’t lowering the bar for Adolf though. He was evil on an epic scale and presided over mind-numbing horrors. Evil may be covered up or excused, but it is never vindicated. No amount of “alternative” information will change that.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Dan, I was born in 1946, you are not coming up with new-new all-new *facts* about hitler, you’ve been systematically lied to, just as Hitler lied to the populace in the ’30s and ’40s. Young people have a tendency to think they are coming up with magical new facts which no one else has realized. It’s bullshit, son, get over it and try to get yourself a real life. Hitler was a power-mad monster willing to murder millions in order to maintain power. Nothing more.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      Didn’t I read this before? About 20 times? No? It must be deja-vu then.

    3. avatar Michael says:

      Well We know Soros is behind it,and who Is behind the post.Or wrote it.The David Brock is a gay Man of Moveon.org.a Hillary subsidiary Website.

  2. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possess no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”. State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to considere what I need?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, useable by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    AR15.com blocked my attempt to join, with no more information than that required (https://www.ar15.com/member/register.html) for registration. Inquiries were ignored. So…I don’t care what AR15.com moderators have to say about anything. So long as TTAG remains viable, I’ve lost nothing.

    That said, this submission from AR15.com is a decent recap of the Taliban nature of gun owners. And why it is gun-grabbers have such success; the death of a thousand cuts. We had an article during the summer about how a civil rights demonstration by and for gun owners only collected ~500 supporters in the entire city of Tallahassee (not to mention the entire state).

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      It’s the difference in the fundamental nature of leftists and libertarian conservatives.

      Leftists are collectivists. They organize, unionize, they gather in groups and promote sameness in behavior and thought, and authority at the highest social levels (i.e., Worldwide). They feel that strength is in numbers.

      Libertarians and conservatives are individualists. They promote power at the lowest social levels (e.g., individual, family, community, etc.) and minimal governing authority. Libertarians and conservatives tend to feel that, as individuals they are stronger, and the group aggregates and weakens them.They tend not to gather in groups.

      1. avatar Cory C. says:

        Incredibly well said.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          that being said we do tend to vote more often and collectively on this issue than the opposition…we’re a solid, reliable voting bloc…and the politicians know it…

        2. avatar BLAMMO says:

          That’s why politicians don’t necessarily respond to the 5 million members of the NRA or even care about the modest sums of money they might receive from the NRA ILA. They are responding to the OTHER 120-150 million gun owners who vote. That’s something the media have never gotten. They are baffled as to how the NRA, with only 5 million card-carrying members, can exert so much influence. They don’t.

      2. avatar skoon says:

        In addition many of us have full time jobs where taking off a day in exchange for a free tshirt qnd ham sandwhich isnt really an option. House wives students and ppl on welfare literally have alk day…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In addition many of us have full time jobs where taking off a day in exchange for a free tshirt qnd ham sandwhich isnt really an option.”

          And there you have it. A declaration that 2A is not the most important matter in the lives of gun owners, even POTG. We all have priorities. Who among the committed 2A supporters will sacrifice a job for a demonstration of principle? Life is more complex than shouting, “Shall not be infringed”.

          Politics is all about numbers. Demonstrations are indicators of commitment, whether we want it that way, or not. Every gun owner could subscribe to a 2A support blog, all 100 million gun owners, and it would not translate to “numbers” so far as politicians are concerned. Evan mail and email doesn’t convince like vast crowds on TV.

          “Not one inch more” rings pretty hollow when gun owners and 2A supporters depend on someone else to carry the fight (NRA, GOA, 2AF, etc). Molon Labe? When we can’t even impress with rallies at state capitals? Even the statement “Molon Labe” indicates we are losing the argument. When our political activism is reduced to “Molon Labe”, we are admitting we are so politically impotent as to accept “suicide by cop” as the most effective means of protest.

          (note: I am retired, so there is that advantage when it comes to demonstrations; not that I am more active than anyone else)

        2. avatar skoon says:

          It is the most important thing to me politicaly. The reason many of us own guns is to protect our loved ones. Am i really helping my family by quitting my job and going drom rally to rally? I donate to the saf and the goa. More importantly i introduce as many ppl as i can to shooting sports and hunting. Give them a good impression and often updates from ttag or other pro 2a sources. I disseminate as much truth as possible to those who will listen. Ive taken ppl on their first range trip and been there for their first purchase. One of my friends (deff left of center) is apply for his ccw permit today.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Am i really helping my family by quitting my job and going drom rally to rally?”

          Not to be dismissive of all your efforts -false premise. No one advocates chasing rallies across the country. However…..

          This is a visual age. Large crowds at rallies are more impressive than just a report of membership numbers. The question is not one of attending every rally, but attending one that is within a day’s round trip. Example of poor attendance, and no excuse, is the pro-gun rally in the Florida capital, on a SATURDAY, 28July2018. 500 attendees from across the entire state. Should have been at least 500 from Tallahassee alone. The fact that the city could not muster 500 gun owners tells the story. We are trying to be a political force via remote control.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, that does not necessarily follow. All the sandwiches and screeching hysteria adds up to nothing before the vote. Like 2016, Trump was a total loser, Hillary spent 4 times as much (I still cannot believe 1.2 billion), everybody, like everybody, knew he had not only lost, but lost bad. And then came the vote! If no one has told you, Hillary did not lose, she was *crushed*. Destroyed. Humiliated! She lost 80% of the counties in the nation! All the noise stops being important when it’s time to vote.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The popularity of Trump was not predicated on 2A support. Besides, the size of the Trump rallies were impossible to ignore (else the anti-American news media would not have reported on them). The rallies mattered; a pro-constitution bandwagon effect.

          Not having large numbers of gun owners attend pro-2A rallies has worked really well in towns and cities across the nation. We keep losing resistance votes to the gun grabbers at the local levels.

      3. avatar Bananas O'Toole says:

        Conservatives are also collectivists… Try to find a 2016 election discussion without a conservative arguing about it being a “binary choice” or another yelling that if you’re not for Trump, then you are a closet Hillary supporter. It’s impossible… Also they tend to be religious, the most collectivist nonsense there is. Oh, and blindly patriotic. “How dare that person I don’t care about disrespect that flag that is on my favorite underwear by kneeling, let’s all boycott the NFL!” Edit: I just wanted to add that there are already comments on this very page talking about how it’s a binary choice and that we have to vote for the Republican anti-gunner because he’s slightly less anti-gun than the Democrat anti-gunner, collectivism in a nutshell…

        1. avatar J Gibbons says:

          That’s not collectivism. It’s a sad reality forced by our 2-party system.

  4. avatar Specialist38 says:

    No….not voting for Rick Scott.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Well you’re being a child.

      The time to take out Scott was in the primaries.
      Since Florida repubs didn’t do that in the primaries, now they have to suck it up and vote for him to keep the senate.
      The senate is 51-49 and losing the senate means not being able to appoint 2ndA favoriing judges that may last for DECADES.
      Ain’t no F’ing way Scotts opponent will vote for a Trump nominated SCOTUS judge.

      SCOTUS is everthing because all the sheet from the Left is crammed down our throats by Leftist judges.

      Adults understand this.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Take you anger out with Scott in the 2024 Florida primaries.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Zero chance of primarying him when he’s the incumbent. We couldn’t manage to do that fresh on the heels of his attacks on the 2A this year.

          OTOH, the current shitshow in the Senate proves that we don’t need his opponent going there to make it worse.

        2. avatar Specialist38 says:

          It’s resolution not anger. I will do it in Novemeber 2018.

          You wait and let me know how that works for you.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Nobody ran in the primary. Senator Scott would only send a message gun control is OK and ensure there is no Republican in the 2024 election.

      3. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Thanks. Wouldnt mind being 20 or 30 years younger.

        You’re a feckless buffoon.. But….you get a vote like everyone else.

        If you want to vote vote for a spineless, back-stabbing politco. Go right ahead.

        I will vote for Nelson, who has never presented himself as anything but anti-gun.

        Scott can rot.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          And when the Democrats come for your guns you will blame … Susan Collins./sarc.

        2. avatar Specialist38 says:

          It will be the RINOs leading the charge and waiving the flag coming for OUR guns.

        3. avatar doesky2 says:

          What a narcacistic child you are who let’s your feelz dominate you.

          The SCOTUS is the most powerful tool to the Left because they are able to cram shit dow your throat regardless of how the public believes.

          And you want to help them.

        4. avatar CZ Rider says:

          Man, for an adult, your command of spelling and proper placement of apostrophes is awful.

          Who’s basing their opinion on “feelz” by the way? Are you not basing this support of Scott and denigration of anyone who thinks differently off of a feeling that he’s going to act in your interest just because he’s a Republican? I’m basing my opposition off of his very recent history of acting in direct opposition to his own base for the sake of political gain, and I see a potential five-term Republican who has a demonstrated history of turning on their base as more of a threat than an incumbent Democrat who’ll be lucky if he sees the end of a second term. My hope is that by the time Nelson shuffles off we’ll have been able to at least make some headway on a Republican party humbled by that one time in 2018 where they tried to screw their base over and got burned pretty bad for it in the election.

      4. avatar CZ Rider says:

        Did it occur to you that some of us made a value judgment that it’s better to suffer through a term or two with a pretty old Democrat senator than it would be to reward a guy who could potentially hold the seat for a good 30 years for openly betraying us all? What kind of message does it send to Scott and the party if we respond to their legislative sucker punch by wagging our fingers, telling them not to do it again, and then giving them exactly what they wanted all along anyway? And what makes you think that this is the one and only issue that Scott is going to stab us in the back on? What happens when, say, Senator Scott decides it’s better for his re-election chances to block Trump’s next Supreme Court pick?

        Take your “I’m the adult now bend over and take it” tripe and shove it. I’d rather see the entire state go blue for a term or two if that’s what it takes to make the FL GOP clean house and get back to representing us instead of seeing how much compromise and betrayal we’re willing to tolerate. I think it’s childish to view them as acting on anything but political expediency and fear, and I want to make it as scary and uncomfortable as possible for them to even consider compromising on our rights.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Without some political struggle it’s only a matter of time before there’s no place left to move into.”

          Ok. Scott is the nominee. There is no Republicrat alternative, now. Here is where you crystallize the dilemma: Work to defeat a RINO who is a squish on 2A, but solid on conservative federal judges, or accept that 2A must take a secondary position today, in order to protect/restore 2A via the courts later?

          Which to choose? Lose the Senate over 2A, lose the courts over 2A, or “not one more inch” regardless of the long term cost? 2A über alles, now and forever, or one step back and two steps forward? It is not a decision to address lightly.

        2. avatar CZ Rider says:

          Again, what makes you think he’s so solid on everything else? When he signed that bill, I didn’t see him saying “I’m going to compromise on gun rights this time for our future benefit.” I saw him saying “I’m going to compromise because of the political pressure of the moment for MY future benefit.” I saw him launch a Senate campaign with a blatant slap in the face to a large part of his own base, and I can only assume it was on the cold calculation that he’ll pick up more purple votes than he loses in red votes. And I can’t help but see him doing the same thing when the next conveniently-placed tragedy makes it good for his poll numbers to be the caring and sympathetic government leader working to promote “gun safety” for the greater good. Or, y’know, when it’s convenient to look all cool and moderate by, say, helping to block an “evil extreeeeeeeeeeeemist (and also totally sexist 30-odd years ago at an unspecified time and place)” Supreme Court pick.

        3. avatar doesky2 says:

          Again, what makes you think he’s so solid on everything else?

          Because even the shit show in Washington essentialy every Repub senator votes for Trumps nominees.
          Ain’t no way that you can make an argument that Scott is a Flake or Collins type Repub.

        4. avatar CZ Rider says:

          I can make an argument that Scott turned his back on his gun-owning base to score some political points for his upcoming Senate run. Because that’s what he did. So far, the most convincing arguments I’ve seen you put out there are essentially “everyone who disagrees with me is dumb” and “he wouldn’t betray the people who voted for him because c’mooooooon”

          Since I’m feeling charitable, though, I’ll point something else out. Assuming he sold us all out to gain some moderation points and look more appealing to the purple vote, what happens in 10-15 years when he’s an entrenched incumbent and is watching his state lean moderate/left? Do you think he’ll be willing to risk his seat for a group of people he got elected by betraying?

        5. avatar Big E says:

          Unfortunately the consequences extend beyond your “suffering” with that old Democrat. Along with him comes Chuck Schumer et al. Rick Scott is a total d1ck-head and I wish him nothing but personal misery and misfortune…..but there are often bad options in life. Cut off your arm or your head?

          I don’t like Trump personally, he’s a buffoon, but I voted for him and will again, because he is the only option and has done a number of good things. SCOTUS being the biggest.

          The lesson learned by electing Nelson will not be “Scott paid the price for screwing with 2A!” There will be no lesson at all, it will only be a doubling down on the lunacy of the Democratic party.

      5. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        I’m an adult and I seriously doubt Rick Scott will be anything but a total RINO!

        The time to take Scott out is NOW!!!

        Floridians ought to be paying close attention to the crowdfunding effort being run against Susan Collins. The very same strategy should be implemented immediately to fund a true conservative write in candidate to prevent Scott from winning that seat.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Indeed.

          It is about actions and consequences.

          If Scott will roll on the some rights, it is a good possinility he will roll on others.

          We see how fast he rolled rights unders the bus try and garner votes from Nelson’s base.

          He knew he needed the south Florida yankees to take Nelsons seat.

          He didnt even protest…..he led the charge. And then groused about arming teachers.

          These sad sacks may believe he will vote for a conservative for SCOTUS, but he has recent actions indicate otherwise.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “These sad sacks may believe he will vote for a conservative for SCOTUS, but he has recent actions indicate otherwise.”

          Agree. Better to have the Dimowit win the seat and ensure an end to a conservative SC, rather than take a chance Scott might vote against future conservative court nominees.

          Better a loss you can depend on, than a win that might not appear.

    2. avatar Don says:

      Scott is far from perfect but infinitely better than Nelson. If the current ussc nominee isn’t confirmed republican controlof the senate is required to have a chance at trump naming another. Justice.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I am actually happy that I do not have to make that choice. From my removed distance, I think I would actually vote against Scott. It would hurt, but shit like he pulled has to cost. Not to mention broken promises. It might cost 2A people a bit, but it would cost that asshole everything. We need an example that we cannot simply be lied to and taken for granted. For that, Scott is perfect. And, hey! He may still win, possibly getting the message without the DAMDEM senator.

  5. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Two things to note:
    1. Just because some bozo says he is a gun owner doesn’t mean he is.
    2. Dianne Feinstein is (or was) a gun owner. Lots if people of that ilk will use a gun as a prop. See political ads put out by the likes of Joe Manchin.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      I really hope we get to kick him to the curb this election.

  6. avatar Quasimofo says:

    “Just move.”

    I absolutely hate reading that response in threads dealing with state/local gun control. Talk about not seeing the long game. Look how far the nanny state/bureaucratic mindset has migrated out of CA and the NYC metro? Without some political struggle it’s only a matter of time before there’s no place left to move into.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Without some political struggle it’s only a matter of time before there’s no place left to move into.”

      It’s about numbers. There are not enough POTG in Californication (Oregon or Washington) to alter anything. Moving to a free state, consolidating the vote, adding to the numbers of like-minded. “Concentration of Force”. Reinforce the free states such that the virus of leftism cannot survive. “Dying” in political outposts is futile; you will be assimilated.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        It’s not about numbers. If the right of one individual is being violated that is against the constitution and the BOR. The ‘just movers’ agree with and abet the dems who believe that the rights of the individual do not exist or are based on zip code.

        How can a person say that we all have tights and then advocate moving for those whose rights are being violated? You give away the rights of half the nation and then stand on a soap box and proclaim ‘muh rights’.

        Makes no sense at all.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How can a person say that we all have tights and then advocate moving for those whose rights are being violated? ”

          Because when your vote does not count, it does not count; a waste, period. Without numbers, you cannot protect anyone’s rights. Principles be damned. We are talking about warfare. Throw yourself over the cliff about protecting someone’s rights, and there is one less person available to provide protection. You can’t advance principles when you don’t have the vote.

          Dying for a cause when you cannot win (now, or ever) is not honorable, it is tragic. Please note that there is no mass migration of POTG from red states into blue.

          In politics, it is always about numbers.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          According to your line of reasoning Sam we’ve already lost. The entire nation will be blue in a few generations. Why fight? You concede the tyranny of the majority.

          Why spend treasure and resources on a battle you’ve already given up on? Why proclaim we have god given or natural or constitutional rights when you give them up so readily?

          Stay in your red state and when the blue sweeps back into dc your red state becomes blue.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “According to your line of reasoning Sam we’ve already lost. The entire nation will be blue in a few generations. Why fight? You concede the tyranny of the majority.”

          Please re-read my comments. Nothing about them says “give up”. They say, consolidate, create an overwhelming majority where it is possible. Prevent the anti-gunners from gaining ground in places where pro-gun people are the majority.

          There is not justification for “fighting the good fight” you are destined to win, when a change of tactics can advance your cause. Ex: anti-gunners out number the pro-gunners (somewhere) by 10,000 to 100. The 100 refuse to move to where they have more influence. Legislation arises that prohibits the use of guns outside the home, except for duty with the militia. 10,000 anti-gun voters get the legislation passed. 100 pro-gunners lose miserably.

          Where’s the victory? Where’s the reward for remaining in the minority? Where’s the honor for futile voting? How many anti-gunners were persuaded that, “Those principled 100 gun owners are setting an example for fighting regardless of hope for victory; let’s take their side from time to time.”

          Pickett’s charge (actually Longstreet’s) was glorious, honorable, evidence of an indomitable spirit.

          Pickett’s charge was a disaster that wasted good fighting men for future battles. Glorious, and futile. Where’s the victory from that?

          As Sam Kinison once screamed, “Move to where the food is!”

      2. avatar Quasimofo says:

        The problem with that thinking is that the people who oppose you will also move, and will probably end up outnumbering you or at least having significant political clout in what is considered a “free” state. Witness the Californication of Colorado, Oregon, and Washington as an example, and we’re seeing similar trends in PA, FL, etc. Their beliefs will spread, while your beliefs will be “consolidated” via gradual retreats until you’re essentially isolated and relatively too weak to have meaningful representation at the federal level. And then that’ll be it.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Bingo. The ‘just movers’ are making the loss of our rights nation wide easier.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Bingo. The ‘just movers’ are making the loss of our rights nation wide easier.”

          Can you cite examples of where the minority represented by gun owners prevailed over the anti-gun majority?

          The notion that minorities can overturn the majority at the ballot box is still looking for that first victory.

          Using Californication as the example, there are not enough pro-gun voters in the state to overcome the anti-gun majorities in SD, SF, LA. How does remaining a minority voter in that state promote the restoration of the Second Amendment? Where is the pro-gun wave of immigrants desperate to move to those cities and wrest control? And if that would happen, what happens to the free states that then lose pro-gun population?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The problem with that thinking is that the people who oppose you will also move, and will probably end up outnumbering you or at least having significant political clout in what is considered a “free” state. ”

          Now THAT is a declaration of doom. No sense fighting the battle of migration. In the end, the tyrants will outnumber everyone else. Save your energy for something else.

          If the spread of the ebola disease is inevitable, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you shall die.

          If it is not possible to build communities (states) where anti-gun fever can be eradicated (the virus does have a feedback loop to warn followers of a hostile host), then “game over”.

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “The notion that minorities can overturn the majority at the ballot box is still looking for that first victory.”

          Uhh…Sam, were you here for the last presidential election? Because that’s exactly what happened, and it ain’t the first time.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Uhh…Sam, where you here for the last presidential election? Because that’s exactly what happened, and it ain’t the first time.”

          Perhaps you did not understand what actually happened. “The majority” did win. Popular vote for US President does not count for anything. The “electoral vote” determines the winner, and the winner must have the majority of electoral votes. (in the not distant future, popular vote effective majority will determine the electors from each state – popular vote winner-take-all)

          In any other elected position, the person with the most votes (effective majority, to account for plurality wins) wins. In any legislative election, the majority of votes wins. In any local election, the majority of votes wins. In any vote regarding gun control, the majority vote wins. (super majority requirements provides the minority some measure of containment over a simple majority)

          My question remains: where has the minority vote actually been declared the winner?

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          BS flag. The only gun control vote of interest is a modification of 2A, and that is *not* simple majority. We need to really get behind Brett Kavanaugh, all the crap of 40 years is about to get rolled back, we can finally see why no cases have been brought while waiting for a conservative majority. No precedence has attached to any decision, because there has been no decision. So, waiting for 75 years may bear fruit.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So, waiting for 75 years may bear fruit.”

          Waiting assumes the enemy will remain static for 75 years. Their advances are growing. Why does 75 years assure a turnaround?

          Regardless of whether talking plurality, simple majority, super majority, 3/5s majority or 3/4s majority, numbers are all that matter. Either you have the most votes (“the numbers”), or you lose.

          Kavanaugh will be good for preservation of the constitution overall, but he publicly declared tradition and history are the proper means for adjudicating a constitutional issue. His will not be an absolutist stance regarding the wording of the constitution and amendments.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, Sam, but resistance is futile!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Yeah, Sam, but resistance is futile!”

          Resistance which cannot win is futile. Resistance in states where pro-gun advocates cannot win is futile. Indeed, such resistance is wastage, denying resources in free states that could be used to bolster effective resistance.

          If leaving outposts behind enemy lines can drain enemy resources, reduce the size of the enemy, destroy infrastructure (via legal tactics) of the enemy, resistance just might be worthwhile. Otherwise, outposts left behind enemy lines will “wither on the vine”, and be lost to all.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    People who value their rights will generally lose the short game because those people want to be left alone and want to leave everybody else alone.

    The authoritarians do not want to leave anyone alone and they even would rather themselves not be left alone. They get off on bureaucracy. Paperwork, fees and permits make them feel special like a child with a decoder ring. Plus they mostly have nothing better to do with their empty lives like work or be with their families and Soros cutting checks never hurts.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Damn, that’s good!

  8. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Shall not be infringed.

    I read the Reefraider post as, he’s not going to follow the law on restricting rights no matter what it says, but I might be projecting.

    You highlight a important issue.. that gun owners are not collective, or legion. We are a group of individuals with our own dumb ideas and perceptions on the world and how it should be ran.(See Open Carry vs CC) We have our own biases and bigotry, Heroes and villains.. and just like the left, progressives, liberals, you name it.. we have our extremes as well.

    The biggest problem with anti-gunners isn’t that they want to take away our guns.. The problem is that they are anti-American, they want a different way of life. A different world to live in. They want to tear down what they did not build, and remake in their own image.

    They FUNDAMENTALLY think differently then we do, and they will not be happy with anything remotely resembling the American dream. They will never stop because they believe they are righteous. They have political backing and monetary backing. Attacking guns is for the lazy revolutionary, its an easy button.

    Politicians lie, obfuscate and deflect to get into and maintain office.. it is no longer about what’s best for the country and its people, its about serving selfish interests and maintaining power. They no longer represent their constituents, only themselves.

    Thank you for all you do Mr. Valdes.

  9. avatar doesky2 says:

    So the author does this dump and doesn’t come back to the most important item as of Sep 25,2018…………………Should gun owners vote for scott in Novemeber?

    The adult answer is emphatically YES.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      The RINO-enabling answer is yes.

      Fixed that for you.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Despite the RINOs, we are maybe only 2 national election wins away from cementing a pro-2A SCOTUS for the next 30 years and dumb fvcks like you can’t get that through your thick skulls.

        1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

          Doesky2, you’re spot on brother man!

        2. avatar Cory C. says:

          I wish you’d find a nicer way to state your point but I ultimately (begrudgingly) agree with it. Punishing Scott is a worthy thing to do in a vacuum. But we’re not in a vacuum.

        3. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Then we should be able to do it without a turd like Scott.

          If you think you know exactly how a justice will vote and which things he will GET to rule on, you are dumber than you appear.

          The left is CERTAIN he (Kavanaugh alone apparently) will overturn Roe v Wade.

          I think they live in the same vacuum as you.

          I believe (not know), that Kavanaugh will rule on the constituionality of cases. That doesnt mean that each vote will be a decisive conservative win.

          It just means we are less likely to slide further down the slope toward Britain.

          But you do you…….and I will vote against Scott.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But you do you…….and I will vote against Scott.”

          How many Republican Senators are needed to maintain the majority in the Senate? Can you predict that if only Scott is defeated, there will be sufficient Republican wins elsewhere that will maintain a Republican-controlled Senate?

          Are you a member of the “burn it to the ground” Republican voters? Are you convinced that three or four Senate election cycles will guarantee a Republican Senate in the future? Are you convinced that three or four Senate election cycles with Dimowits in control cannot do irreparable damage to the country? Look what Obama accomplished in only two cycles.

    2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      The adult answer is faced with 2 odoriferous candidates, neither of which can be trusted, you go and find ANOTHER CANDIDATE. It can be done, and the fact is it’s a perfect time to do it. Crowdfunding raises insane amounts of money in very short order. You roll out your write in 2 weeks ahead of the election and give both sides no time to react with the carefully crafted smears and lies.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    We are our own worst enemies because we are all rugged individualists. Each of us goes our own way.

    Leftists, OTOH, are lemmings, marching in lockstep over the nearest cliff while George Soros laughs his @ss off.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yeeeeep

  11. avatar Rocketman says:

    I have said this repeatedly to any gun owner that will listen. I have in the past contacted my NRA state representative and anyone else in a pro-gun organization and nothing has been done. Hear it is. The reason that some Republicans have sold out the NRA is because they feel that all they have to do is just be a little less anti-gun that their democrat opponent running against them. If there was another clearly pro-gun political party that could possibly win the election and the Republican knew it, they wouldn’t sell out gun owners. You would see Republican pro-gun resistance stiffen considerably. The Libertarian Party is the most pro-gun party out there. If there were a race where the Democrat was rated an “F” by the NRA and the Republican was only rated a “D-” then it makes sense to me that the NRA should support the Libertarian who quite likely would rate an “A” if not an “A+” even if the Libertarian wouldn’t win. Hear me out. That helps set up the Libertarian Party to gain strength so they can become a viable political force in the future. Years ago, the head of the RNC who’s name I believe was Atwater commented to a group of gun owners after the Republicans sold them out that gun owners had no other place to go. The Libertarian Party could be the party to go to for gun owners when the Republicans stab them in the back the next time. And there sure as hell WILL be a next time.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Well the NRA demonstrated in the Georgia governor’s primary that gun rights aren’t actually the main consideration when choosing who they endorse.

      Cagle’s record on guns was horrible except he once punished a company for taking money away from the NRA. Kemp had an excellent record on gun rights. The NRA endorsed Cagle, proving their endorsements were determined by the highest bidder and all other factors merely tiebreakers.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        No need to consult Negotiating Rights Aways voting recommendations as they also backed Dirty Harry Reid for most of his political career,among others.

      2. avatar Rocketman says:

        I’m not talking about voting for the Libertarian when the Republican is only halfway pro-gun. I’m talking about the Republicans that rate a “D+” or so to an “F”. Force the Republicans to either find pro-gun candidates or lose the pro-gun supporters to the Libertarians.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Jesus, the most stupid thing about Libertarians is their desire for a party.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      In case you were asleep, the candidate for VP for the libertarian party in 2016 was vocally pro-gun control. And was not slapped by the Pres candidate. The libertarian viewpoint I support without reservation, the “libertarian party” is a freaking joke, has nothing to do with the libertarian viewpoint, it’s a fraud.

      1. avatar Rocketman says:

        Unfortunately, I cannot deny your accusation. Bill Weld was a stain on the LP IMHO and there were many
        in the party that opposed him, myself included. However, this time around Gary Johnson who is somewhat pro-gun is running for the U.S. Senate in New Mexico and if Weld attempts to run for the LP presidential nomination I don’t think he will get it. The LP membership decided that having two former republican governors would give the LP extra creditability and that’s why he and Johnson were chosen. If it had been the Weld/Johnson ticket I doubt that they would have been the 2016 nominees. They just barely were the nominees.

  12. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Haha. I remember that guy. What a child. Good article Valdes. I despise Scott. Unfortunately I’ll have to vote for him over the democrat though. I voted against Scott in the primaries but he won by a large margin. But I don’t think anyone should get too hung up on that one particular race. The real battle is the governors race this year. DeSantis must win this election. Gollum will be an absolute nightmare for this state. For more then just gun rights. He’ll completely fuck up the economy, tax us to death, make us a sanctuary state, and once he’s done burning it to the ground he’ll move on to the White House. Democrats are already calling him Obama 2.0. DeSantis on the other hand is a real conservative and real gun rights supporter. This is a must win battle.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      I agree with everything except voting for Skeletor.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        I dont blame you, and I won’t bother defending the scumbag. But I made a serious vow to never vote democrat ever again, even if there was a gun pointed to my head, even if Lucifer himself was the other option.

        1. avatar Rocketman says:

          “…..even if Lucifer himself was the other option.”

          Yea, I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton either.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Hypothetically, Lucifer would probably come off as an awesome politician. Though even he would probably be shocked at the level of backstabbing, lying, treason, debauchery, and sodomy committed by the democrats on an hourly basis in the Congress.

    2. avatar Nanashi says:

      If the Constitution is not absolute, any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment can be placed upon the 13th. The Democrats proved this in ’42.

    3. avatar Nanashi says:

      Meant the above to be its own thing.

      DeSantis could be better (distinct lack of introduced legislation), but he’s better than most. Scott however offers no benefit over Nelson. Nelson ensures an actual Republican will be up in 2024 and could die and have DeSantis replace him with a Republican. Scott simply tells Republicans latching onto gun control and illegal aliens aren’t political suicide.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Exactly. Fight the battle in front of you first.

      2. avatar doesky2 says:

        Scott however offers no benefit over Nelson.

        You’re so full of shit.

        You and I both know that Scott would vote for a Trump SCOTUS nominee.

        You and I both know that Nelson would never vote for a TRump SCOTUS nominee.

        Name something more important to 2A folks about the federal government than the SCOTUS? That’s right there isn’t.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          He’s kinda FOS. But more than that, he suffers from NRA Derangement Syndrome. The poor l’il fella.

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          “You and I both know that Scott would vote for a Trump SCOTUS nominee.”

          Like John McCain voted to repeal ObamaCare? We only need 50 for appointees and we can get them from the other states.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We only need 50 for appointees and we can get them from the other states.”

          We have 50 already (allegedly). How’s that working out? How many other contested Senate races do you think will roll Republicrat? What if you’re wrong? What if “the other states” are having the same issues with their candidates? Why wait for someone else to do the work?

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Ideal solution is a Senator who *never* introduces or passes any legislation. WTF do we need more laws for? Rating congresscritters by how much ridiculous bullshit they pass is insane. How many laws did they repeal? Must be hundreds or thousands of laws from the 19th century which are meaningless or counterproductive today, when re we going to start repealing? Like NFA 1934, for example!

    4. avatar CZ Rider says:

      I’m writing in “giant meteor” on the Senate seat and I encourage you to at least not support someone who secured their Senate run by stabbing us all in the back. Everyone seems to think they can just hold their nose and vote for him and he’ll go up and start doing their bidding in DC… If he was willing to sell us all out for political gain while he’s still in Tallahassee, what’s going to stop him from doing the same or worse when he’s hundreds of miles away in the DC swamp and nicely insulated from having to deal with any actual Floridians? You think he’s going to suddenly discover some untapped well of principle up there if, say, another Supreme Court nominee comes up and he starts hearing from advisors that it’d be better for his re-election prospects if he votes against them and claims some moral high ground as a “maverick” centrist?

      I say to hell with him and with the party that would put him there. The actuary tables are going to start catching up with Nelson pretty soon anyway, and I’d rather risk 6-12 years of a known bad quantity than several decades with someone who’s liable to stab me in the back for their own benefit. If this is the best Republicans can do, let them wander in the wilderness for a while until they’re willing to actually stick up for their base.

  13. avatar MGD says:

    Every human being comes equipped with 10 bump fire devices. They’re called fingers.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      About half have eleven.

  14. avatar johnny go lightly says:

    Well worth watching when you get depressed…

  15. avatar barnbwt says:

    Meh, the anti-bump stock Fudd crowd were never going to hang with us anyway. You didn’t see Franklin giving the Canadians shit for not throwing in with the US colonists against the crown (or at least I never heard of anything like that)

    I do have to say, as a member of ar15 no less, that linking that cesspool with this…stagnant pool, is a good example of being our own worst enemy as well. 😉

    I hope it’s a long, long (long) time before random shitposts are the basis for articles here again.

  16. avatar TweetyRex says:

    “The perfect is the enemy of the good “
    I am very unhappy with Scott, he made a major screwup. He may well screw up again. That’s not what’s important. Holding the Senate, blocking impeachment and appointing the next two Supremes is what’s important. If we lose the House and Senate, what makes you think the Dems will ever let us win again. This is our last chance to hold onto our rights and The Republic. Let’s not cut our own throats.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      ^^ Somebody that gets it. ^^

      1. avatar Eli2016 says:

        Amen. We are all muslim.

    2. avatar CZ Rider says:

      He didn’t screw up. He did exactly what he needed to do to secure his shot at a higher office and counted on FL gun owners to not notice or care. I can understand the impulse to keep doing the “vote R, better than D” thing, but for God’s sake, how can you think you can trust someone who will loudly and publicly sell out a substantial portion of his own base to gain some favorable optics and good press on the national stage? If he’s willing to do that while he’s still sitting in an office in Tallahassee, what would stop him from doing the same once he gets an office hundreds of miles away in the middle of “the swamp” because the people he stepped on to get there were too afraid of the Democrats to make him face any consequences?

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        There’s only 2-3 major Repub azzholes that the senate has to worry about during SCOTUS nominations.

        There is essentially zero chance that Scott is that F’d up at this time.
        Plenty of time to exact your revenge in 2024 primary.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I suspect he’ll be a Democrat by 2024. Did ya’ll forget that possibility?

      2. avatar Rocketman says:

        The second half of your comment CZrider is EXACTLY what I have been saying. They will sell you out as long as they can get away with it. That’s why getting the Libertarian Party to be the third MAJOR PARTY is so important.

  17. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Hunter’s know a lot about hunting. But they know nothing about the Second Amendment. Competitive Shooters know a lot about competing. But they seem to know nothing about the Second Amendment. Or if they do they’re certainly not willing to go public about it.

    My family didn’t do guns. I didn’t do guns as a child. But I’m a Believer in the Bill of Rights. Reading forms following speeches and statements made by prominent gun personalities. I’ve observed that very few of them actually know any history about the use armed self-defense in American history.

    They certainly don’t talk about it in public forums. The only way to grow the numbers of gun owners in the United States is to get children involved. Somehow someway they need to bring back rifle teams to Public Schools.

    Gun ownership in the United States has effectively become a “private club”. And the only way you seem to get in is through family connections ie your grandfather’s gun handed down to you.

    Fewer and fewer grandchildren today are receiving their grandfather’s guns. The public education system as bad as we all know that it is, is our only place where public school children can be exposed to firearms in a positive manner.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      I agree about the rifle teams in school.
      Will be fought tooth and nail by the Leftist hamerlock that teachers have over schools.

      There needs to be an all out effort to reinstitute it in the most RED state in the union and get the model established for other states to copy.

  18. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    [Gun grabbers] sacrifice their time and their income to advance the cause of civilian disarmament.

    Um, no. First of all, many of the Moms Demanding Action “demonstrators” are stay-at-home wives/moms. Second of all, Bloomberg and/or Soros PAY many of those “demonstrators” to show up at the hearings and rallies.

  19. avatar strych9 says:

    They sacrifice their time because they have time to sacrifice. Look at that picture, mostly housewives. What are they “sacrificing”? A few hours of daytime TV and making hubby drive the kids to soccer practice once a week?

    The rest of us have shit to do. Like school and making money so we can pay the bills.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Just become a Commie and let Soros pay your bills.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I feel like there’s a catch to this that you’re not explaining Ralph…

  20. Any idiot NOT behind ALL Pro2a groups better take a cold hard look into Canada, UK, Australia, and other European countries to see where things are heading…Any doubts in your mind, just look over there, just ask one of THEIR “governments citizens!” Peasents, while YOU still can…..

  21. Vote responsibly in the general elections! YOUR Constitutional rights depend on it !

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Well all you in FloriDUH have a conundrum on your hands. I do too in ILLinois. RINO Rauner is damn weak on guns(and went pro baby murder)but compared to JB the hutt Prickster he’s a god. Good luck-we’ll need it!

  23. avatar Agreed says:

    Why should I care? That holes not on my side of the boat! This will never affect me!

  24. avatar Hannibal says:

    “The sad fact is, many gun owners will be just fine with that because, as AR15.com member ReefRaider put it, the law doesn’t affect him…”

    Eh, I think it’s a little more broad than that; it’s because bumpstocks are toys.

    The real reason gun control advances is because we’re in a political system where both sides want it to remain an issue for elections and we can’t figure out a third way.

  25. avatar Buddy says:

    I also blog on a hunting site.
    I’m constantly surprised by those hunters who are willing to give up bump stocks and ARs/AKs simply because, “I don’t like them!” and “I don’t have any use for one! Let the antis have them.”
    FWIW, I have built (assembled) several ARs.
    Two now reside in my gun safe along with their blued steel and hand rubbed walnut safe mates. Deer or coyotes, the AR’s are the ones I reach for.

  26. avatar MilitantCentrist says:

    You should add a “sic” caption to the Ben Franklin quote as well, since it should read “most assuredly” not “must assuredly.”

  27. avatar 2aguy says:

    There is a process to protecting our gun rights that needs to be followed…First, vote out every single democrat that you can. Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. Second, Primary anti gun republicans, teach republicans that anti gun votes will get them out of office. 3rd, between a squish republican and an anti gun democrat, always….always, vote for the squish republican…they vote out of cowardice and you can scare them back into line…..democrats vote because they hate guns and no matter what a lower level democrat may say about supporting guns…they give power to the national party to ban and confiscate guns….Learn it, love it, vote it….

  28. avatar sound awake says:

    “NEWSFLASH: Gun grabbers won’t stop until every civilian-owned firearm is outlawed. They want total civilian disarmament and a government monopoly on gun ownership.”

    oh yeah and they hate us

    that is no longer up for debate

    its a pretty solid argument that because they want all our guns and they hate us that we need bump stocks now more than ever before

  29. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

    I have been around a long time, and in the last 50 years a totally radical transformation has occurred in America.
    The male hero has changed from John Wayne to Justin Bieber, from self-determination to self-indulgence, from “How The West Was Won” to “Jackass The Movie”.
    Thankfully, I won’t be around to see the final result of the liberal majority’s quest for government as parent.

    Those who are left after me better get ready to protect your Life, Liberty and Sacred Honor. At this point in time, it’s almost useless to try to change the majority, with most Republicans backing down every chance they have to Democrat lies and corruption.

    I have been ready for a while………..Good Luck, I’ll be watching……..

  30. avatar paco says:

    Funny as shit reading posts where people think voting will accomplish anything.

  31. avatar JBS says:

    You have to take the long view. If we don’t take revenge against our enemies, pretty soon we won’t have any friends. If politicians see that they can pander to the paranoid busybodies advocating against gun owners’ civil rights and suffer no consequences, then its to their advantage to pander.

    I take names, not just of politicians but all of those who act or advocate against us. Thus, I will never deal with Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, Citigroup, or Bank of America. I will also discourage others as well. If a parent on my son’s little league says she plans to go to Dick’s to buy a batting helmet, I’ll suggest that Target carries them at a better price also and is a shorter drive.

    Revenge is the name of the game.

  32. avatar Docduracoat says:

    I am a Florida voter and a single issue voter for gun rights.
    Rick Scott presents a conundrum.
    I want him punished for selling us out on the bump stock bill.
    But Trumps’ next two choices for Supreme Court Justice will be important for gun rights for the next 20 years.
    I will vote for him this time and then work tirelessly to get rid of him next time.

  33. avatar Vicky says:

    It was the same way with the fight against illegal aliens crossing the borders twenty years ago. Americans who lived on the border were suffering greatly due to a massive surge in violent illegal alien activity. I saw then that no matter how eloquently or impassioned the alarms and calls for help were, few folks not living on the border cared one tiny bit.
    Now illegal immigration is affecting all Americans. At the ballot boxes where they now illegally vote with ease. In Housing, the job market and in an astronomical increase of crime. In every other way you can imagine.
    It’s too late, they’re here stealing our wealth, changing our lives, our society and they’re empowered by the corrupt government. They’re not going away. Because, as many of us were crushed to realize, the United States people would never again join together to fight any domestic enemy. They had grown too progressive, self involved and disconnected. They had left God, each other and the defense of freedom.
    And when Obama took office, militias popped up everywhere. All promising to defend the country at the first SHTF moment. Well when rancher Lavoy Finicum was ambushed and murdered by the feds, with his hands in the air surrendering, for protesting the illegal activities of the Bureau of Land Management, along with others who had set up camp at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, and all you could hear from militias was crickets…I knew there would never be a concerted effort by civilians to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, let alone each other.
    America’s days are numbered and few.
    As Winston Churchill so wisely warned;

    ‘If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate, you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
    ~ Winston Churchill

  34. avatar Michael says:

    Write Chris Cox to stop this Bill from Taking Hold.at all.It is Unconstitutional and goes up against Fed Firearm laws period.Accessories are protected, under the:The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.Look the bill up in detail on wikipedia.

  35. avatar timbo762 says:

    Our problem is the Republican Party. They take the “pro gun” vote for granted because we vote for them regardless of what they do between elections due to the fact that they are the lesser of two evils. As a rule, Democrats are monolithic in their goals and Republicans are not. The first goal of every politician is to get elected and then re-elected. Even when Republicans control the House and Senate with a Republican President, they can’t agree on many things and wind up getting nothing done. Hell, many of them are perfectly happy being the “loyal opposition” so all they have to do is vote against the Democrats to keep their seats and not take the blame for anything since they are the “minority party”. Until Republicans can get it together, it will be two steps forward and one step back for the Democrats and their “Socialist Heaven”.

    1. avatar Rocketman says:

      Timbo, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying and I even once had an NRA representative admit that he agrees with me. If there was a third major party that was more pro-gun than the average Republican then the Republicans couldn’t hide behind the fact that all they have to do is just be “a little” more pro gun than the Democrats to ensure that pro-gun voters vote for them. The Libertarian Party IS THAT PARTY. Go to LP.ORG and you will see how pro-gun they are.

      1. avatar timbo762 says:

        There will never be a viable third party. This country was set up as a two party system and it is almost impossible to change it at the late date. Look how both parties are conspiring to make sure an “outsider” President fail. It would be the same with a third party that didn’t win an overwhelming victory right from the start. Theodore Roosevelt was the most popular President ever and even he couldn’t win as a third party candidate. What’s worse, he drew enough votes to get Woodrow Wilson elected and that got us started on the road to where we are now. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected with only 43% of the vote, and many of Perot”s supporters were gun owners. We as a nation and those we elect to govern us have lost site of the fundamental ideas of the founding fathers. We now “interpret” The Constitution rather that follow it and parse every individual word for it’s meaning rather that the documents intent as a whole.

        1. avatar Rocketman says:

          If that’s true and I pray your wrong, then we the average people of the United States are really and truly totally screwed. If you believe that then you might as well accept the inevitable and start looking for another country to imigrate to and start to build a life away from what the USA is going to devolve into.

        2. avatar timbo762 says:

          Unfortunately, there really is no viable place to go. We are still the freest people in the world and that’s why so many people want to come here. That’s why so many foreigners invest in land or park their money here so as to have some where to go if their country goes down the shiter. Nowhere else does the common man live so well or free. Unless your independent rich, the only other real choices are a Third World shit hole, a democratic socialist “paradise” (Europe, Our Asian allies, etc.), or a dictatorship/theocracy. We are not as free as we once were but we are still freer than anyone else. At some point it will all collapse and we can start over. And I guarantee survivors won’t be the pseudo intellectual, bleeding hart, hippy type, anti gun, big government liberals.

        3. avatar Rocketman says:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6hb4mh_zqM

          There are others. Let me know if your interested and want more info.

        4. avatar timbo762 says:

          I’m too old to worry about it, but I do feel sorry for young people. They play their video games, drink their Frappuccinos, and worry about their Facebook friends and how many “bars” they have on their cel phones. And the real fun of it all is they think Trump is an idiot and that he’s the real problem.

        5. avatar Rocketman says:

          I understand what your saying. I’m 66 myself and am taking full time care of my mother. After she passes on then I’m probably going to move there. I’m getting increasingly tired of listening to the leftists heads blabbering on the idiot box about one thing or another and I don’t need to have my intelligence constantly insulted by their accusations. Moving on, what did you think of the video? Paraguay seems to me a lot better on guns than a lot of states like California or New York.

        6. avatar timbo762 says:

          I live in Arizona, and you can have any gun you want as long as it’s Federally legal. It’s about the most gun friendly place I know of and I love living here.

        7. avatar Rocketman says:

          I’m in Indiana which is also basically pro-gun. Back in the early 80’s I accepted a job assignment in Connecticut and have always regretted it. Had a Connecticut State Trooper hassle me over my target shooting a simple single shot cheap pellet gun that I had just purchased there. Told me he would have arrested me if it had been a “real” gun. Got so mad at him because I was shooting into a dirt bank out in the country away from any homes and taking proper safety precautions that I let him know exactly what I thought of his F***ED U* state. He didn’t like it one bit but he left me in peace and I never shot the pellet gun ever again even after leaving the state. Too many bad memories associated with it.

          Going to bed now. Have a good night.

  36. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    Whenever I read comments on articles on this site it always amazes me how ignorant people really are. All the hysteria generated by some individual writing an article whether pro or con gun control. Haven’t you all figured it out yet? It’s just all hype. Those that represent us in DC are either for or against gun control not because they are patriotic or unpatriotic but because they make bundles of cash to be so. Those that are not for any type infringement on our 2nd amendment rights are paid millions a year to voice and vote their opinions based on a pro 2nd amendment doctrine, those that are against the 2nd amendment are paid millions to voice and vote their opinions based on against 2nd amendment doctrine. As long as there is lots of money to be made either way nothing will ever change in your right to bear arms I assure you. This debate has gone on since the inception of this country and it will go on well into the future unchanged. Until nobody cares about their right to bear arms anymore. Get the Fu*# over it already, nobody cares about your breathless over stated opinions!

    1. avatar Rocketman says:

      You are wrong. Absolutely wrong. There are many examples if you care to actually look at American history when wads of money was thrown at a bill that the average person DIDN’T WANT and was defeated by the American people. When Jimmy Carter was president their was a big push by internationalists to completely replace our foot, yard and mile standard with the metric system. The international billionaires and the United Nations were completely for it, the American people were not.
      While they made some head way they didn’t succeed.

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