Gun Control: Don’t Be Part of the Problem

comments

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

    Bring, back,

    Bring back,

    Oh, bring back my ‘Daily Digest’ to me,

    To me –

    (Don’t make me read the Vogon poetry…)

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      AGREE!!!!

      Bring back Daily Digest!!!

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Yeah why’d they get rid of it? Laziness I assume. Or an inner desire to fail. The daily digest is the best part of this site.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        They don’t even realize it.

        1. avatar GapharmD says:

          I only come to this sight once a day now cause they took the digest down. Used to look multiple times a day

  2. avatar sound awake says:

    first they came for the bump stocks and i did not speak out

    because i was not a bump stock owner

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      I’m drawing the line and standing my ground at custom engraved slide plate covers. Sure, a sight line starting with an image of a Spartan in profile or Yosemite Sam carries the very high probability of inciting the typical gun owner into a homicidal, berserker rage, or so the liberals would have me believe.

      Meh, that’s the price of living in a free country. I’ve made my peace with it. I think I’ll get one with the Gadsden flag emblem on it.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Custom graphics/engraved dust covers add 5hp to a gun. Internet truth.

  3. avatar What about...? says:

    First they came for the bump stock…

    Then, and they always planned to, they came for… laser sights, pistol grips, muzzle devices, double actions, fore grips, tuned triggers, revolvers with more than 5 cylinders, range finders, BDC reticles, red dots, open top holsters, match barrels, speed loaders, moon clips, replica black powder revolvers….

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Revolvers with more than 5 cylinders…?

      That, I’d buy!

      (But yeah, I know what you mean.)

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Someone should remake the revolver rifle. Because.

        1. avatar CZ Rider says:

          Someone does – Rossi Circuit Judge.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Thank you!

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          In 1836?

  4. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    It doesn’t count if the president has an R after his name.

  5. avatar darkstar says:

    I don’t understand what’s so hard about this. I do not own a bumpstock. I do not want a bumpstock. I personally don’t see the point of having a bumpstock. But I’ll be damned if they try to ban them, and I will agree with anyone who wants one. Incrementalism people. Don’t you see?

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      The hard part is admitting they gladly took the lesser of two evils in 2016 and that’s all they deserve.

      1. avatar J Gibbons says:

        In a two-party system, the choice is always the lesser of two evils. That is our reality.

        1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          It’s the only reality a peasant can imagine, but that’s not saying much.

    2. avatar Michael Buley says:

      From my limited knowledge of history, the first gun control measure was in 1934. A tax was passed on machine guns. Just machine guns. $200, I think it was, equivalent to $3300 in today’s dollars. Prior to 1934, there were zero regulations on guns.

      It’s ALWAYS incremental. ‘Shall not be infringed.’ Any regulation is an infringement.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        True, that’s what passed Congress. Originally, NFA was intended to also include pistols, but the votes weren’t there to pass that.

      2. avatar JR Pollock says:

        Your knowledge of history is quite limited indeed. Close to 25 states had state laws regulating firearms, and most made no differentiation between semi-autos and machine guns.

        The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first FEDERAL gun control act, and as originally drafted, called for registration of ALL FIREARMS, and a tax of 200.00 on ALL HANDGUNS and machine guns. Handguns then as now, were used to commit the vast majority of crime, and were the primary target of the NFA. Machine guns were included because of their reputation of being “gangster guns”, and all of the salacious movies and stories highlighting and exaggerating their criminal misuse. In reality machine guns were included because they were already prohibitively expensive to acquire, and the tax almost doubled the price of the Tommy Gun. That didn’t matter to the biggest users (and mis-users) of non-government owned machine guns, who were outfits like the Pinkerton and Baldwin-Felts Detective Agencies, who were nothing more than private militias hired to go to war against striking coal miners. They could buy their guns, pay the tax, and then write both off as business expenses against the still fairly new Federal Income Tax.

        Short barreled rifles and shotguns were included to ensnare those who would endeavor to make a handgun out of a long gun without paying the tax. Lastly, silencers/suppressors were added not for a violent crime problem, but for poaching, which is still a crime. In 1934 there were lots of hungry, unemployed people, being it was the middle of The Great Depression, and there was a real possibility of the white tailed deer being hunted to extinction. Silenced hunting rifles were quite effective at confounding the game wardens.

        The NRA mobilized their membership, who flooded Congress with telegrams, which were the most expeditious form of communication at the time. Congress was taken by surprise, and apparently quite annoyed that these “hobbyists”, as they referred the NRA membership in their hearings, at scuttling FDR’s grand gun control scheme. The NRA succeeded in killing the most onerous parts of the NFA, the $200.00 handgun tax, and the registration of all firearms. SBR’s and SBS’s were left on probably as an oversight. It wouldn’t be the first or last time that poorly crafted legislation wasn’t cleaned up and proofread before being voted on.

        This was where the NRA “made their bones”, so to speak, and did it again 34 years later when LBJ again tried to get comprehensive firearm registration, and failed.

        All the above being said, I’m opposed to regulating/banning bumpstocks, and left a comment to the BATFE saying the same/

        1. avatar jwm says:

          But, but, according to nanashi the NRA is the root of all gun control laws. Does this mean he’s less than honest?

        2. avatar Disgruntled Floridian says:

          That’s the always the explanation given, but there’s no proof of any reason for suppressors being added to the NFA. Seriously. There is no official record for the reasoning behind including them. You can read more at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/5t2qsa/on_why_silencers_were_included_in_the_national/

    3. avatar rt66paul says:

      What he said!

      I think bump stocks and full auto is a waste of ammo – but you may not. Who am I to tell you how to run your life? I will only if I think you are behaving dangerously around me and mine – other then that, I don’t have anything to say.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Bump stocks are a complete waste of ammo; but, are justified by “the pursuit of happiness”.

        The argument for machine guns is substantive; and, a good deal more complicated. A machine gun is (so far as we know now) useful only in a few very narrow military contexts. But, in these contexts, they are EXTREMELY important. Notice that militaries around the world do not neglect to include machine guns in their arsenals.

        Now, then, the 2A refers to “a well regulated militia necessary . . . ” where “well regulated” really means “effective” or “fit to purpose”. (A well regulated clock keeps time.) We are compelled to ask: Would a militia NOT trained and NOT equipped with machine-guns be “well regulated” in the sense intended?

        At least a few percent of militiamen ought to practice, at least occasionally, on the use of machine-guns if the militia is to maintain some semblance of being “well-regulated”. We really can’t count on aging veterans – unable to practice occasionally – to maintain the requisite, minimally acceptable, level of proficiency. (This aspiration is far short of ideal. It is a bear minimum if even a modicum of proficiency is to be maintained so as to be available in an emergency.)

        Perhaps the existing stock of 175,000 MIGHT be sufficient to support the requisite practice level. However, these are NOT well distributed and available to those who would practice and maintain their skills. (A more realistic estimate of adequacy might be, perhaps, one in every 2 gun ranges.) And, this is an aging stock. Unless replenished, it will become obsolete as the decades march on.

        Moreover, in case of emergency, this stock would be inadequate to meet needs of the moment. Suddenly, a few percent of the militia would ALL need machine guns all at once. As an example, during WW-II, America was seriously concerned about the prospect of a Japanese land invasion. In that scenario, a stock of 100,000 machine guns would be evenly distributed throughout the nation but they would all be needed instantly on the West coast. The next emergency won’t be from the Japanese; perhaps it would be from the Chinese; or, some other enemy completely off our radar today.

        The Hughes Amendment stands as a clear-cut obstacle to maintenance of skills on the part of the requisite few percent of the militia. Still more importantly, it is an obstacle to maintenance of machine-shop skills required to quickly respond to an emergency to produce Drop-In Auto-Sears. (If machinists maintained the skills they could – in a weekend – rapidly produce all the DIASs needed to meet the emergency. While lacking the practical DIY experience, it would take a couple of precious months for them to come up-to-speed in an emergency.)

        What answer could defenders of the Hughes Amendment possibly give to satisfy the above arguments? Would they argue the “a well regulated militia” is no longer “necessary”? I.e., do they propose to amend the Constitution without following the required Article V procedure? Would they argue that a threat of invasion is not – theoretically – conceivable? Before December 1942 no one could have imagined the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, let alone invading the West Coast. What has changed today? Are the Chinese LESS capable today than the Japanese in 1942?

        American gun-owners will step to the plate to make and maintain a minimal stock of machine-guns at private expense. All we might ask is for the Department of Defense to contribute a modest supply of ammunition to CMP to help defray the cost of occasional yet regular practice by a few dutiful militiamen. A very small draught on the public treasury for the “necessary” purpose of maintaining a “well regulated” militia.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Let’s compromise!! OK, ban bumpstocks forever, so long as you first repeal NFA 1934 and withdraw any controls on select fire or full-auto weapons, and burn the NFA registry. Select fire would be a lot cheaper than semi+bump stock anyhow, remaining bump stocks would be in museums, everybody’s happy, see how easy that was? You’re welcome.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        lol i would also go for hughes, 68, and 86…. kcuf em all

  6. avatar Bob Watson says:

    A bump stock ban is not just about banning bump stocks. It is about regulating the rate of fire of semi-automatic rifles. It is a precedent for criminalizing having the capability to fire more than x number of rounds per minute. The anti-civil rights bigots have not yet suggested a value for x, but it is coming. “Who needs to be able to fire more than 10 rounds per minute?” Does that sound like a debate you would care to enter?

    1. avatar CZ Rider says:

      If they have any sense, which they unfortunately do, they won’t ever publicly ask that. Instead, they’ll pass some idiotically vague law that leaves specific acceptable rate of fire undefined, then stick an unsympathetic perpetrator in front of an anti-gun judge and an ignorant and apathetic jury and develop some “settled case law” for whatever they can get. Rinse and repeat as needed, give it 10-20 years, and it’ll normalize to the point where people barely question it.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      He shot 1000 rounds into the crowd, not ten and hit 500 people

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Oh yeah? You have the report from Metro or the FBI that says that? Oh wait, no body does. Weird…

  7. avatar Nanashi says:

    It’s missing “First they came for NFA items”.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      And short barrels, but that was 80 years ago.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      The NFA was a mixed-bag of horrors. The $200 tax on transfer of a machine-gun was (at that time) of minor importance overall. Today, we would all cheerfully pay this tax and register our machine-guns (but for the Hughes Amendment). The $200 tax on a silencer was outrageous at that time. The cost of manufacture might have been about $2; so, $200 / $2 was an outrageous percentage – for a hearing protection device! SBSs and AOWs were somewhere in the middle.

      But, these provisions of the NFA were the camel’s nose under the tent skirt. It set the battlefield up for complacency that led to the GCA’68, the Hughes Amendment, the AWB and all the proposals for the 21’st Century.

      Today, we can’t even get silencers moved off the NFA and into the GCA! In 1934 our grandfathers failed to grasp how important it was to guard the liberty of the 2A with absolute jealousy. Our fathers failed us again in 1968. Shall we ourselves fail our children and grandchildren in the second decade of the 21’st Century?

      1. avatar UsedToBePun says:

        Dude, we’re long passed that. The republic died a long time ago. It’s just been a slow slow death…

        “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
        ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

        Time to end this failed experiment and start up a new cause for Liberty elsewhere. Really with Texas would get it’s head out and just secede already…a peaceful divorce would be the best option but Lincoln and his other Tyrant friends took that option off the table when they killed the confederation of states and created the “Union” which now must be preserved at “all costs”.

  8. avatar neiowa says:

    Such legislation has passed which legislative chamber?

    1. avatar CZ Rider says:

      Neither, because apparently they don’t even feel the need to do that anymore to force more idiotic restrictions on us all.

  9. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Finally, now I know I’m not alone. The “gun community” and many on TTAG totally support the 1934 NFA law. They just don’t want to say it in a public forum. They are full of sh#t.

    Calling a Bump Stock a “range toy”, as the founder of TTAG once did on national TV, hurt the Second Amendment more than any gun grabber today. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or three gun. It is not about men and the “toys” they have collected.

    Is a private m60 a “toy”? Is a private Tommy gun a “toy”?? Do you hunt with it?

    Its about the Bundy Ranch. The Athens Tennessee Revolt. And the Deacons for Self-defense and Justice. Three groups in modern times that used small arms to battle a tyrannical government.

    It’s about the ordinary citizen having the same Firepower the government does.

    People are bending over backwards to defend a 3D printed gun that explodes. Someday the technology will be perfected. But not right now.

    The bump stock works. A New technology. An inexpensive rapid-fire weapon. Now the bump stock creators have made everyone equal to a government machine gunner. If you don’t want to bump stock you don’t have to have one.

    And it’s none of your damn business if someone else does have one. And why the hell are you even trying to prevent other people from getting one???

    And how much they spend on ammunition is none of your damn business.

    If you can’t articulate the reason for having a rapid-fire weapon in the hands of ordinary civilians then you really can’t articulate why we have a second amendment.

    Many of you are making the argument that “old fat white men” can have machine guns and the poor should not have a less expensive alternative rapid-fire weapon.

    The bump stock brought the cost down to have such a weapon. But many people want to eliminate it to keep the cost up. This is economic discrimination plain and simple. And there are a lot of people in the gun community who support economic discrimination when it comes to guns.

    The primary purpose of the 1968 gun control act was to make hand guns more expensive. It also eliminated the importation of long guns with bayonet mount lugs.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Don’t hyperventilate Nancy. And try to get your logic organized.

      If you don’t know to shoot or are just undisciplined, then you may think you need a burst/auto rifle. Other than that is just silliness. Amateur hour. You need suppressive fire get an actual MG. Neither is the Feds business.

      M60 IS a POS. “Tommy gun” what are you 12?

      1. avatar CZ Rider says:

        Who cares what you “need”? Who cares what’s “silliness”? Who are you to tell anyone else anything about what they need and what’s silly?

        The great thing about this country is that the government won’t stop you from giving your opinion any more than it’ll stop me from calling your opinion selfish and short-sighted and dumb. The not-so-great thing about this country is that the government is able to get away with restricting my rights in part because of people like you who won’t lift a finger in support of things outside of your interests.

      2. avatar Binder says:

        Your argument is not much better.
        A M60 is a POS so bump stocks are fine, WTF?

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree that a Bump-Stock is no satisfactory substitute for a machine-gun.

        If we didn’t have the Hughes Amendment then anyone who was interested in rapid-fire would simply buy a DIAS for a few hundred bucks, send his NFA registration form with a check to the ATF and wait a year. And, be relatively satisfied with that.

        Nevertheless, the Bump-Stock fits into the pursuit of happiness; and, on that ground, is justified in the mind of the buyer. The Bump-Stock is no more a threat than a machine-gun. Therefore, there is no reason to ban it. And the contemplated ruling is a ban.

        The more important point to make is that our perceptions at any moment in history are limited. We are not blessed with omniscience. Prior to April, 1775, it was clear in everyone’s mind that there was no military purpose to a rifle. It couldn’t be reloaded fast enough (compared to a musket) and the rifleman would soon be eating cold steel.

        Then, came the long cold march from Concord to Boston. Riflemen, with their arms suitable exclusively for killing deer, were picking British officers from their mounts. Warfare has never been the same since.

        The US Army saw no use for the repeater at the outbreak of the Civil War. Nor after the war ended; they resumed using single-shots. Then Custer went to Little Big Horn. If we have any humility at all we should confess that there MIGHT be a military or self-defense (or even hunting) use for the Bump-Stock that we do NOT yet see. It is absolutely foolhardy to ban something on the mere pretext that we are collectively unable – at the present moment – to anticipate its possible usefulness.

        When the NFA was adopted no one (except the inventor, Hiram Percy Maxim) saw much use for the firearm silencer. But, then, not many people had a father who invented noisy firearms. It has been only a few decades that ENTs have told us how damaging loud sounds are to our hearing. Had modern ENTs testified before the 1934 Congress silencers would never have been added to the NFA.

        The Bump-Stock issue was politically complicated. I can not presume to know what would have been the best strategy. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that every concession greases the slippery slope. As gun owners it is incumbent upon us to seize control of the initiative. Complacency will kill the 2A.

        1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          You have made the first in-depth honest comment about gun history and rapid fire weapons that I have read. Thank you.

          The Hi Point is not the best semi automatic firearm. And the Bump Stock is not a machine gun.
          But they both are very capable and inexpensive.

    2. The feds consider 3 gun and the like to be “combat games” not “sporting purposes”. They are martially relevant and arguably protected under the 2nd amendment.

    3. avatar el Possum Guapo ect. says:

      Wow that’s the first rant I’ve heard from Chris T from Ky.That bumpstocks touched a nerve, usually Chris seems pretty reserved.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I have become radicalized. FYI, I was turned down by several Professors who were honest and said they were against gun rights. And two are current history teachers.

        “Firearm Education: Teaching the Second Amendment in Kentucky school system grades K through 12”

        http://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/149

  10. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Death by a thousand bans.

  11. avatar ABJ says:

    Bring back our Daily Digest–we need it !!!! ABJ

    1. avatar Matthew says:

      Agreed, the Daily Digest was why I check in every day. Please bring it back.

  12. avatar Leigh says:

    Let people have and/or make whatever they want. But let the punishment fit the crime if/when things are abused.
    There are already way too many laws and regulations for legal gun ownership.
    Criminals get whatever they want with no checks whatsoever.
    And I understand that laws are in place to deal with what happens AFTER crimes are committed. They do little if anything to actually prevent crimes.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Well, if he had a NFA item going across state lines without sending in a letter, then you could have busted him.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    We’re about to go to hades in Illinois. JB Pritzger will turn it into a gun-free hellhole. I don’t give a rat’s azz about bump stocks. Or anyone’s opinion on them…

  14. avatar ABJ says:

    5 “cylinders” means 5 “chambers”, perhaps ?? ABJ

    1. avatar What about...? says:

      Yes. I got carried away and meant to say 5 chambers per cylinder, or something like that. Looking back, my original statement is more in line with what the gun grabbers would say, like “that thingy that folds up” or whatever that creepy fascist said.

  15. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    And don’t forget mag-fed open-bolts. They were low-output economy-grade guns when they went away, not too sorely missed, but now with people home brewing it would be a valuable option.

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

      If we get the ‘registry’ re-opened, home-brew open-bolt will be an option.

      For a first go, I’d like to try a STEN from one of those ‘parts’ kits I see being sold…

      1. avatar Fudds says:

        Reliable Tec-9 clone for me 😀

  16. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    S’Truth!

    There are only two types of people in the word: Those who think we should be able to have bump stocks if want to, and assholes.

  17. avatar Michael Buley says:

    The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment, was to make sure that ‘we the people’ could overthrow a tyrannical government if the need arose. How could we do that if the government had more firepower than we did? The warnings against a standing army were loud and clear; we’re far past that discussion.

    We, the people, were supposed to be the army, the defenders, of this country, and the Constitution. We got replaced, by design. But we still are the defenders of the Constitution.

    We the people should have every weapon available to the government — and then some. Any restrictions, regulations, should be on the government, not we the people. It’s all gotten completely backwards, of course. ‘They’ regulate US. We should be regulating THEM. They serve US. They do OUR bidding.

    Tanks? Grenades? Lasers and tasers? etc. We’re the ones who should have them, NOT the government. We should be able to overthrow the tyrants — and we have a government full of them. And they’re well-armed, well-protected. And they want to restrict our ability to overthrow them ever more. Until, one day, by incrementalism, it’s impossible.

    Any regulation violates the 2nd Amendment. And if there are any regulations, it should be we the people putting regulations and restrictions on what ‘they,’ the politicians, are able to have.

  18. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    . Palatability is subject to ones taste for plastic, personaly I find it quite flavorless compared to a rotting armadillo.

  19. avatar TomC says:

    Hey, Rick!

    Tell that to our beloved NRA… THAT is where the ban got its blessing.

    1. avatar HP says:

      The NRA’s official statement on the matter was for bump stocks to be “looked at” as something that could be potentially regulated as a NFA item.

      The NRA didn’t call for bump stocks to be banned. If people here are going to disparage the NRA, there are other valid reasons to do so. The liars with NRA derangement syndrome on this blog can’t help but lie, though. (Just like the anti’s).

  20. avatar Bugs Nasty says:

    Okay, I DO NOT want a Bump Stock, but I fully oppose banning them because I oppose regulating the rate of fire for any semi-automatic firearm. Once we accept going down that path we are accepting another infringement on the right to keep and bear Arms that can breed unintended consequences eventually rendering said firearms useless for the purpose they were designed for (multiple rapid fire shots instead of manipulating a bolt or lever). It is the same as accepting the limits on magazine capacity, which have been rammed down our throats in several States already. It is the same as not opposing NFA 1934. Any citizen should be able to own a full automatic firearm(s), if he/she so chooses, to use peaceably for self defense, sport or recreation. GCA 1968 and the Brady Background Check System need to go, as well. You cannot fully support the Second Amendment’s protection of our natural right to keep and bear Arms, if you do not support the repeal of all Federal, State and Local firearms infringement laws. It is a well established fact that NONE of these “gun control” laws significantly reduce crime and it looks like many of them actually cause crime rates to increase by feeding the black market in guns going to prohibited persons and in preventing Citizens from carrying guns in public places for personal defense, which includes active intervention in criminal activity encountered by chance. “An armed society is a polite society.” – Robert A. Heinlein
    You have to call an infringement what it is and keep focused on the illegality of these legislated denials of your freedoms so that you keep focused on the fact you are not as free as you could/should be and, most importantly, as you were intended to be. Hopefully, that will expand the scope of your understanding of the infringements being placed on the full scope of your Liberty. There’s no net difference in the end result of letting liberty go little by little, or all at once.

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Well, if they ban all but double barrel shotguns, I am fine with that as we all know that the 2A was for duck hunting anyway. Tactical Joe is right. If people are on your porch, just fire a couple blasts through the screen door. Someone in your lawn? Just blast away from the balcony of your house. See Tactical Joe has it all figured out.

  22. 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 pg2 says:

      You can expand that by including the gun owners who approve and support the post 9/’11 growing police/surveillance state and the diminishing/loss of of our other fundamental individual rights.

  23. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses 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 criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able 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 dont 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: you don’t need and AR-15, counter with, Who are YOU to consider what I need?
    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 and cowered in fear while children were being murdered, citing officer safety, 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.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Storm Front is doing his cut and paste again.

  24. avatar Toni says:

    As you guys know i am an Aussie but i detest any and all infringements on liberty. I also support harsh penalties on those in any position of power who seeks to impose any restrictions on liberty. When govt has the power to impose their will on the people there is tyranny and it always starts in small ways that most never notice. It always ends up with ALL liberty lost Unless the people make a stand and take those traitors down in a way that sets an example for any future potential traitors.
    Yes in my own country I have on numerous occasions said the same needs to happen here and this goes back to a few years before 96 when our own NFA was put in place. In 96 I turned 22. I was 16 when i started saying this

  25. avatar Cea says:

    I couldn’t agree more!!!
    I have a shooting buddy (for how much more time, is debatable) that is ALWAYS saying things like “I would be willing to go with a ban on this, or that, because I don’t see the need, or want for one”. Bump stocks are one of his favorite sacrificial lambs. I keep telling him that that attitude will eventually bite him in the arse, when “they” want to ban something he IS into!
    He even started buying reduced capacity magazines for his handguns, for when they come to take away the standard capacity (or, as some would say, high capacity) magazines. That attitude makes me sick!

  26. avatar Gman says:

    Exactly which part of shall not be infringed is so tough to understand? Scalia did us no favors with his bullshit “common use” test. Under that flawed philosophy any new weapon is not “common use” and therefor may be banned. Rubbish. All weapons trace their origins and efficacy to the battlefield. Many are adopted in form, whole or part, for civilian use. No law is constitutional which restrict, inhibits, or dissuades the free exercise of any right in any way. The “common use” test is diametrically opposed to the finding in US v. Miller (1939). Miller cites the prefatory statement as specifically protecting military grade weapons. That finding virtually negates the NFA wholesale. Then Scalia went on to talk about “dangerous” weapons may be restricted. Excuse me? I define a dangeous weapon as one that fails to perform as designed and goes boom when it shouldn’t. In other words, a defective weapon. Yes, let’s do ban defective firearms. I’m all for that!

    dangerous adjective
    dan·ger·ous | ˈdān-jə-rəs;
    ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs
    Definition of dangerous
    1 : involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss : characterized by danger
    2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm

    Under that definition all firearms are “dangerous” and could be restricted or banned. And that is crapola of the highest magnitude. This is what happens when people try to justify restricting rights.

    Exactly which part of shall not be infringed is so tough to understand?

  27. avatar m. says:

    gun control = a**hole

  28. avatar Ralph says:

    Unlike most of you chronic complainers, I actually owned a Slidefire stock until Massivetwoshits made them illegal and promised to send me to prison for life — for life!!! — if I didn’t turn it in. I sent it out of state instead.

    This kerfuffle is not about a semi-useless piece of plastic. It’s not even about 2A. It’s about the swine who run this country. It’s about turning law-abiding citizens into felons. It’s about cultural ostracism. It’s about a government drunk with its own power.

    Adapting Pastor Niemöller’s poem is stupid. They’re not going to pick us off one at a time. The Democrats tried that in 1994 and it failed. This time they’re coming for all of us at once.

    The mobs taking over the streets of Chicago and pounding the doors of the Supreme Court building are one and the same, and the sons and daughters of idiots will lead them.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      @Ralph; I think you hit the bullseye.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I agree and I own a Bump Stock. I believe Slide Fire sold about 400,000 of them. So we are a small population.

  29. avatar K42inPO says:

    A bump stock ban is fairly pointless for a couple of reasons:
    1. you don’t need a bump stock to bump fire.
    2. you can probably already design and make your own with a 3d printer.
    3. many people would have comparable results by simply pulling the trigger faster.

    It is a bit silly to ban ownership of plastic if it is shaped into certain shapes, but not others, especially when we’re on the edge of a second industrial revolution of garage-fabrication using 3d printing, laser cutting, and CNC machining.

    Calls to ban guns and stuff are annoying because they address only the symptoms of what is broken, while mostly limiting the majority, who are responsible owners. Banning guns is a bandaid on an underlying problem of violence (which seems to be continuously dropping, regardless). Guns are simple tools (distance drills), you can ban a tool, but it stop the motivated from getting a task done; people tend to find or make a better tools.

    The gun thing is over politicized to the point that nobody is even talking about the underlying problems. The anti-gun folks have presupposed the solution without even acknowledging the problem.

    1. avatar What about...? says:

      For the reasons you point out, the gun grabers are now coming for ALL semiautomatics (even .22 LR rifles with fixed tubular magazines) in WA State. All are going to be reclassified as “semiautomatic assault rifles” by popular vote on the ballot on November 6th. Where is the line in the sand to protect the 2A from fascists?

      1. avatar Toni says:

        We The People are supposed to be that line in the sand but most of us kick up a stink and then bow down to it…. NO it needs to be that we draw the line and guard that line with arms at the ready and take down any who cross that line be they politician, justice or law enforcement

  30. avatar G Man says:

    Does anyone know where you could purchase the “First they came for the….” As sshown in the color graphic at the top of this article? This would make a great addition to my outdoor local range. Lots of Dimmicraps there target practicing. Maybe they could learn something form this. Is it available as a yard sign, or bumper sticker? Please speak out. thanks.

  31. avatar Ted says:

    Because throwing a tantrum on social medias is “speaking out” and making a difference?. You guessed it, I did not speak out when they came for the bump stocks. But start by looking in the mirror, who can really say they have done anything useful? All people are doing is expressing themselves on the internet, the lobbying and politicians don’t give a *#@& about that.
    The guy who posted a picture is basically telling me I am not doing anything, lmfao. Do you want the Purple Heart with that?

  32. avatar TAFR says:

    Corrupt Rick Scott and the Sunshine State’s legislators are probably so mad and scared someone named Rick Ector is going so wild on tweeter! But hey, YOU are the problem, bwahahahaha, let me create a tweeter account so I can join the “fight”. Wish me luck for this crusade!

  33. avatar el Possum Guapo ect. says:

    President Trump says Bumpstocks must go. All hail, glory unto thee, long live the King

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