Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => NRA & National Gun News => Topic started by: Clarence on October 07, 2017, 10:00:30 PM
-
I read this on another board. I did not write this but I am putting it out here for discussion:
This is not a time to compromise.
Who are we trying to appease? The democrats who have no control over any branch of government?
These last elections were a clear message. America does not want the left and their vision of America.
As for trying to appease the anti-gunners, I could understand having to make a deal of the president were a Democrat, or they controlled any of the other two branches. They don't.
We shouldn't be giving up bump stocks. Are they dumb? Sure. Would I ever buy one? No. This is not the time to make a deal with a group who has nothing to give back.
If there was a handshake and we would be trading bump stocks for the SHARE act, or even the repeal of the NFA ENTIRELY, sure, we could maybe entertain having that discussion.
But right now what do we get in return? Nothing.
I don't give one fraction of one **** about hunting, bolt action rifles, lever guns, single shots, trap/skeet, or any of that crap. They are all toys. Fun toys, but toys.
I care about Americans having the ability to own military style, combat grade weaponry. Are bump stocks that? Not really. But if the NRA is willing to give up something like a bump stock when the Republicans control all three branches of government, what happens when there is ANY type of real pressure? Then what?
Do we give up the ability of any citizen to own any full auto weapon at all? What about short barrels? Silencers? Then what's next? Magazine capacity limits? Detachable magazines? Semi auto firearms? Handguns? All guns? Where does it end?
We should be on the offensive. Not clutching our pearls and fainting on the couch at the first sign of any pressure at all.
It's time to eliminate unconstitutional legislation. To repeal the NFA. To repeal the GCA. Repeal the FOPA.
I don't care what the democrats or media has to say. I don't care if it makes Kimmel or Colbert cry. It doesn't matter to me at all. They are not here to have a discussion. They are here to take our guns, death by a thousand cuts.
Anyone who thinks we should be respectful of the democrats and try to reach across the aisle is delusional. They want to talk about "common sense" gun control and "reasonable restrictions." No they don't. The first chance they get, they will do everything they can to disarm us.
If this were the other way around, and Democrats held all three branches of government and had a majority liberal Supreme Court, you can kiss the 2A goodbye entirely. If that ever happens, America will be a country full of disarmed subjects, just like every other European country.
We are in control, we elected our people into all three branches of government, and even the Supreme Court is looking good too.
If there was a gun to our head, and we HAD to make a deal that was an overall net benefit to the 2A, sure.
This isn't that time. Now is the time we attack.
-
I mostly agree , their running on feelings not facts.. I had a conversation with a 3/4 lib today at work and he insisted we have to do something after this horrible event? I ask what ?? He said well we should have a lic to buy a gun just like a lic to drive a car , then we should register our guns so they know who owns what . (Pssst they already know if bought legally) . Then he goes on about bump stops . Personally I never knew what they were until now . But I ask him so if we make all this illegal that would protect us? He thought and replied yes. Then I ask isn’t it already illegal to shoot people ? ( yesss) so i added if CRIMINALS don’t follow the law now what makes you think they will follow more laws?? At that point his attitude changed and he looked at me and said your right ! I then explained we have to have a lic to drive a car and cars kill way more people than guns so why don’t we outlaw cars? He sorta argued that he thought guns kill more people than cars . I didn’t know the #s but I’m very confident I’m correct . Anyhow I added personally I don’t think a tool or laws will stop crazy people and in my soul I believe we have a society problem ( broken families, working like wild people to stay ahead, kids can’t be corrected without worry of the state ... on and on) . In the end I felt like we both agreed there’s no easy fix or that another law will protect us . So I thought it was a positive debate .
-
The post reads like a rant.
"Repeal FOPA"? The law that allows us to travel with our equipment through anti-gun states? What?
"Democrats held all three branches of government and had a majority liberal Supreme Court, you can kiss the 2A goodbye entirely"? Doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely requires another amendment to the Constitution. A Constitutional amendment (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and ratified by 3/4 of the States (a State convention can also amend the Constitution).
Bump stocks? IMO, that was a mistake by the BAFTE under the Obama administration. Using a design mindset, they reckoned that the bump stock didn't materially alter the weapon. If they had taken a systems approach where the weapons systems is observed outside the "box", the performance is close to automatic fire. Personally, I'm not willing to dig in my heels and defend bump stocks.
-
I had to scratch my head about the FOPA comment to until I realized that he is probably referring to the Hughs Amendment that was tacked on and banned new machine gun registrations after 1986.
-
35,000 vehicle deaths in 2015 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
33,000 opioid deaths https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
88,000 alcohol deaths https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
480,000 tobacco deaths https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
-
35,000 vehicle deaths in 2015 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
33,000 opioid deaths https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
88,000 alcohol deaths https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
480,000 tobacco deaths https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
Thanks Radnor.
-
;D
Where's the outrage on the others??
Any time brother.
10,497 killed by DUI https://www.madd.org/
-
;D
Where's the outrage on the others??
...
It’s easy, they don’t own guns (or if they do, they won’t admit it)
Two Communist comrades having a discussion
Igor: Ivan, if you had two houses, you give me one house?
Ivan: Ya, Comrade Igor
Igor: Ivan, if you had two cars, you give me one car?
Ivan: Ya, Comrade Igor
Igor: Ivan, if you had two pigs, you give me one pigs?
Ivan: Nyet, Comrade Igor, I have two pigs!
-
I fear that this is creating a division. I follow Hikok45 and many have posted their displeasure with him and the NRA for the stance they are taking. Saw quite a few claiming they are canceling their NRA memberships and going elsewhere. Cutting off their nose to spite their face comes to mind.
-
Personally I think I'd rather have suppressors and national reciprocity than a bump stock. It could be looked at that having bump stocks regulated by the ATF is a good political move of the part of the NRA. They (we) are hit on all sides, everyone and everything that you can think of (media, politicians, entertainment, protestors...) has blamed the NRA. Now they get away with this only because many people allow these forces to be their education. So even our "innocently ignorant" friends and family and their friends and family and so on and so on...is a another hit. Anyway, to be honest I think of a bump stock as a novelty item, and up until this shooting I didn't think of them at all. If the NRA decides to take a hard stand for a novelty item, they (we) could end up falling on our sword. If we should die I at least want it to be worthy! I could go on, but before you disagree think about my position and also I am not saying that other views are invalid by any means.
One last thing, even if the majority do disagree with the NRA's position, is this something worth canceling membership over? I still think the NRA does more good than the mistakes it has made. We need to strengthen it in case this is a mistake so that we have the means to recover. Our enemies will see our displeasure with the NRA and capitalize on the division and weakness. We should never show our hand to those that will use it to slap us.
-
I think those who are quitting are wrong. We need a strong NRA.
I personally think these bump stocks are ridiculous waste ammo and even dangerous. Question is how far do
We go? I think giving them anything will just wet their appetites for more.
That is how we got the Brady Bill.
-
I am a gun owner (7) and a member of the NRA also. BUT, I also believe there is NO NEED for anyone to have a fully automatic (machine) gun, or a silencer. If you are sensitive to the noise of gunfire, put on your noise suppressing head phones. something all of us should have to range shoot indoors or out.
Just my opinion........
-
...I also believe there is NO NEED for anyone to have a fully automatic (machine) gun, or a silencer.
Sure, I'm going to wear my hearing protection. Every time. But what if I'm practicing at the neighbor's farm, and the family who lives across the way dislikes the sound of gunfire? I would want to own a suppressed .22, simply in the interest of preserving the peace for others around me. It's not just about my needs or rights, but of those in my community too.
-
The NRA has always been divided, and it will always continue to be divided. Basically, you always have one bunch that says “that stuff over there doesn’t affect me, and I don’t care about it — so they can ban it.” And then you have the other side, who not only has to convince society that this isn’t a problem, but also the other side of the NRA to deal with.
It really gets a bit old, having so many people still believing that they’re not trying to come for all of our stuff. Pelosi even said so.
Compromising with the Demmies on this stuff is best stated as: them asking for 100% today, them compromising on taking only 50% tonight, and then having them showing up in the morning to start discussing the other 50%.
-
The NRA has always been divided, and it will always continue to be divided. Basically, you always have one bunch that says “that stuff over there doesn’t affect me, and I don’t care about it — so they can ban it.” And then you have the other side, who not only has to convince society that this isn’t a problem, but also the other side of the NRA to deal with.
It really gets a bit old, having so many people still believing that they’re not trying to come for all of our stuff. Pelosi even said so.
Compromising with the Demmies on this stuff is best stated as: them asking for 100% today, them compromising on taking only 50% tonight, and then having them showing up in the morning to start discussing the other 50%.
Very true . I’m positive bump stops are only another steppingstone just as the libs already admit . They will NEVER stop taking all they can .
-
I just watched a video where a guy uses his semi auto rifle without a bump stock. He keeps his finger (stiff) in the trigger guard after the first shot and uses the recoil of the rifle to rapid fire. Turns out the bump stock is really a not an issue after watching the video. It doesn't seem accurate but can be done. Probably easier with a 5.56.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=don%27t+need+a++bump+stock+for+automatic&&view=detail&mid=09907C8E3471D81CA47D09907C8E3471D81CA47D&FORM=VRDGAR
-
Now they will want to outlaw stiff fingers ;D
-
Now they will want to outlaw stiff fingers ;D
That's the problem with this new proposed bill. If you are caught with a stick, piece of plastic or your finger & belt loop, you are basically in possession of a "rate increasing device", which under this new bill you now make you a criminal and charged with a felony. The bill is too vague. That is the PROBLEM. Anyone quitting the NRA are idiots. We need to support the NRA to fight against this bill. They are the biggest voice gun owners have in this fight. But you need to fight it too. Contact all of the Congresspeople that are co-sponsoring this bill and OURS in DC! They need to hear from more people that are against this bill than are for it.
Go to https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hr_3999_republican_semi_auto_ban (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hr_3999_republican_semi_auto_ban) (also http://gopgunban.com (http://gopgunban.com))and let the Congresspeople know that we are against H.R. 3999!
United we stand. Divided we fall.
Of course I'd love suppressors and CCW reciprocity. Suppressors DO NOT silence a firearm when it's shot. That's Hollywood horse pucky fantasy. Suppressors are great to suppress firearms when shot. I've fired a few recently and it was amazing how much more quieter they make the firearms. Yes, you don't need ear pro most of the time when using suppressors, but they will not blow your ear drums out if you're standing next to a suppressed firearm being fired. I know people from a few companies that make suppressors and see their sales all of the time (even paying for the $200 tax stamp) and I'm always disappointed that I can't buy one since I'm in Delaware (yeah I could move, but finding a job is the hardest part right now - I can't even find a new job in DE for what I do).
-
Nice read on suppressors. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/oct/07/spokane-police-will-add-suppressors-to-rifles-citi/#/0 (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/oct/07/spokane-police-will-add-suppressors-to-rifles-citi/#/0)
The type of rifle that is used by the department produces a gunshot that can reach 152 decibels, said Maj. Eric Olsen, who briefed the council on the purchase of the devices. The suppressors the department purchased, manufactured by Boise-based firm Gemtech, reduce the noise level to 134 decibels, which is still louder than the whir of a chain saw. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration identifies any exposure to sound greater than 140 decibels as creating a risk for irreparable hearing damage.