our own worst enemy

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by Bald1

Your first paragraph is the problem when it comes to 2A. NO PROPOSAL is ok. Why is someone proposing anything to lessen my rights????? It wouldn’t be tolerated with religion or speech but when it comes to guns it’s ok? C’mon man ! For the record I am a FUDD. But this is about something bigger than my gun preferences.

You're not a FUDD. You'd have to primarily be into hunting, competitive shooting, and/or classic firearms and support "common sense gun control" to be considered a FUDD. Think of Bill Ruger. You may like "FUDD" guns, as do I, but you're not one of them.

From what I've seen, it's typically the older gun owners who are hostile towards AR/AK pistols, bumbstocks, and binary triggers and the like. I've seen other gun owners on other forums also support mandatory training, red flag laws, and universal background checks.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I wonder how many of the folks who chant "no compromise" as their mantra on gun issues have actual, real-world, practical experience dealing with legislators and other elected officials? How many here have lobbied legislators or testified at committee hearings on various issues? And if so, when you did, did you explain why a given proposal was a good or bad idea? Or did you march in and demand that the people you were trying to influence bend to your will because you will not "compromise"?

I have. In Massachusetts no less. And I can report to you that the people pushing new gun legislation do no believe in private ownership of firearms. ANY firearms. They look at your Registered Magnum in the same light as they look at those cranks. It's delusional to to think that there is ANY room for compromise with these people. In 96 they passed the assault weapon ban here. They grandfathered everything manufactured prior to 96. The law mirrored the Fed law that was in effect at the time. Lots of the shooters I know look at it with a yawn. "I can keep the AR that I own now.", "What do I need a bayonet lug for?", "10 rounds is plenty.". Fast forward to today. There is a bill that has passed both chambers and is in committee that will, most likely, be on the governors desk at the end of the next session. It un grandfathers all those guns that are presently legal to own, creating a whole new class of felons with a stroke of a pen. It gets rid of "ghost guns" by requiring just about every part of the gun to be serialized. It will be almost impossible to get replacement parts for any gun INCLUDING YOUR REGISTERED MAGNUM! So, tell me, how do we compromise with the people who are driving this? What part of my 2A rights should I give up in the compromise and what will I get from them in return? And the worst part about this is that it does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. The point is that when people who should know better start demonizing things like that stupid crank, you play right into their hands. You become the example of that "common sense gun laws" argument that they always throw around because it's "common sense" to turn me into a felon. You can virtue signal your willingness to common sense compromise all you want, but the reality is that it does way more damage to our 2nd amendment rights than the crank ever did.

[Rodan]

Our worst enemies tell us it's OK when anti-gun legislation is proposed, because "it'll never pass" or "they're just posturing". They tell us it's OK when some new Federal overreach is enacted because, if you're not doing something wrong, they'll never bother you. They want to play the "reasonable" person in the room... all the worrying is just that, and the talk about agendas is just hyperbole and conspiracy theory.

Anyone with their eyes open can see the cliff we're rapidly approaching, and it's not just about guns. But our enemies are right here among us, telling us it's no big deal. It'll be fine. Things are better than they've ever been... go back to sleep.

[Patrick L]

I will only reply to the intentional mis spelling of the word "boolit." Unless I am mistaken, that come from the Cast Boolit forum, which I am a member. We use that spelling to differentiate our lovingly cast projectiles from those mass produced jacketed bullets. We believe ours are superior, hence the moniker.

As for the rest of this discussion, I think I prefer to wait till my wife asks me if a certain pair of jeans makes her look fat. Much safer!

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by Bald1

Mike, just wondering when was the last time Indiana tried to violate your 2A right ? If you and the sensible more responsible advocates were being harassed and impacted by a never ending assault on your rights maybe, just maybe you’d be a little more strong willed in your approach to advocacy!

The comment was made tongue in cheek.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by Patrick L

I will only reply to the intentional mis spelling of the word "boolit." Unless I am mistaken, that come from the Cast Boolit forum, which I am a member. We use that spelling to differentiate our lovingly cast projectiles from those mass produced jacketed bullets. We believe ours are superior, hence the moniker.

As for the rest of this discussion, I think I prefer to wait till my wife asks me if a certain pair of jeans makes her look fat. Much safer!

If you keep throwing that word around, it will make it very difficult for us to compromise when it comes to gun legislation.

I also want to correct my post #53. It was 1994 that Mass. passed it's "assault weapon" ban. Not 96.

[Bald1]

Originally Posted by cmj8591

I have. In Massachusetts no less. And I can report to you that the people pushing new gun legislation do no believe in private ownership of firearms. ANY firearms. They look at your Registered Magnum in the same light as they look at those cranks. It's delusional to to think that there is ANY room for compromise with these people. In 96 they passed the assault weapon ban here. They grandfathered everything manufactured prior to 96. The law mirrored the Fed law that was in effect at the time. Lots of the shooters I know look at it with a yawn. "I can keep the AR that I own now.", "What do I need a bayonet lug for?", "10 rounds is plenty.". Fast forward to today. There is a bill that has passed both chambers and is in committee that will, most likely, be on the governors desk at the end of the next session. It un grandfathers all those guns that are presently legal to own, creating a whole new class of felons with a stroke of a pen. It gets rid of "ghost guns" by requiring just about every part of the gun to be serialized. It will be almost impossible to get replacement parts for any gun INCLUDING YOUR REGISTERED MAGNUM! So, tell me, how do we compromise with the people who are driving this? What part of my 2A rights should I give up in the compromise and what will I get from them in return? And the worst part about this is that it does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. The point is that when people who should know better start demonizing things like that stupid crank, you play right into their hands. You become the example of that "common sense gun laws" argument that they always throw around because it's "common sense" to turn me into a felon. You can virtue signal your willingness to common sense compromise all you want, but the reality is that it does way more damage to our 2nd amendment rights than the crank ever did.

CMJ, you and I live in similar states. Last year our queen, uh I mean governor passed legislation making “other” firearms illegal to own. No grandfathering. If you owned one such as the very popular Mossberg Shockwave you were instantly a felon. What happens if you’re a casual gun owner/shooter. Maybe you only own a Shockwave for home protection. Maybe you don’t follow the news and know nothing about this. You are a felon without even knowing it. Get pulled over for speeding and it’s in the backseat. You did nothing wrong but know you’re in big trouble.

[fordson]

This thread said much about us as a “community “……. We can be our own worst enemy when try…..

[NFrameFred]

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

My fault. I attempted to appeal to reasonable rational discussion – not primitive ‘lizard brain’ reaction that we’re all susceptible to from time to time. I’ve been guilty of it – venting to an emotional reaction and engaging keyboard (or mouth) before brain – but I really try to avoid it the longer I live. Didn’t think my original post involved any of that so I make no apology for expressing an observation and posing a rhetorical question.

I posited some time ago in another thread that although most of us rarely ever get to meet face to face, the longer we interact on this forum the more we get to ‘know’ each other. That idea, I readily admit has its limitations, caveats, and pitfalls . . . but I’m more careful these days to strive to not give a mistaken impression of myself or be “that guy” that you wouldn’t care to meet in person. We all have our bad days, dislikes, and hot button issues. But frankly I’m finding out more and more which folks here I’d probably avoid in social situations. And I surmise they likely couldn’t care any less. Fine by me – such is life. The world seems to be increasingly infected with such.


I’ve never been one to run from a fight but have learned to avoid one when possible and it’s rare that I’m pushed to seek one. In most cases, win or lose, it’s just not worth it whatever the outcome. I could go on, but as I stated in the original post it never was my intention to provoke in-fighting or tread on any toes; certainly didn’t want to contribute to the lowering of the bar of discourse here on the forum by inviting name calling and deliberate mischaracterization of the topic. Those with the weakest arguments have to resort to those kinds of things and twist what is said from its original intent, if they even bother to read it or have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyone who they perceive doesn’t believe what they believe and marches in lockstep with them is the enemy.


As the originator of the thread I’ll ask the mods to close it before it gets any more contentious. To those who understand . . . my apologies. To those who don’t . . .

[Borderboss]

I don't think that the discussion is contentious. It's a discussion that needs to be had. If we can't discuss the relative merits of "no compromise of our rights" within a community that is supposed to have the same goals, then where would we do it?

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

My fault. I attempted to appeal to reasonable rational discussion – not primitive ‘lizard brain’ reaction that we’re all susceptible to from time to time. I’ve been guilty of it – venting to an emotional reaction and engaging keyboard (or mouth) before brain – but I really try to avoid it the longer I live. Didn’t think my original post involved any of that so I make no apology for expressing an observation and posing a rhetorical question.

I posited some time ago in another thread that although most of us rarely ever get to meet face to face, the longer we interact on this forum the more we get to ‘know’ each other. That idea, I readily admit has its limitations, caveats, and pitfalls . . . but I’m more careful these days to strive to not give a mistaken impression of myself or be “that guy” that you wouldn’t care to meet in person. We all have our bad days, dislikes, and hot button issues. But frankly I’m finding out more and more which folks here I’d probably avoid in social situations. And I surmise they likely couldn’t care any less. Fine by me – such is life. The world seems to be increasingly infected with such.


I’ve never been one to run from a fight but have learned to avoid one when possible and it’s rare that I’m pushed to seek one. In most cases, win or lose, it’s just not worth it whatever the outcome. I could go on, but as I stated in the original post it never was my intention to provoke in-fighting or tread on any toes; certainly didn’t want to contribute to the lowering of the bar of discourse here on the forum by inviting name calling and deliberate mischaracterization of the topic. Those with the weakest arguments have to resort to those kinds of things and twist what is said from its original intent, if they even bother to read it or have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyone who they perceive doesn’t believe what they believe and marches in lockstep with them is the enemy.


As the originator of the thread I’ll ask the mods to close it before it gets any more contentious. To those who understand . . . my apologies. To those who don’t . . .

This topic is nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with a little infighting and debate. It happens in relationships, at the workplace, with politicians, etc....


I and others fully comprehend your point of view. We just disagree with it. Simply put, you think we should make concessions to appease those who are "allegedly" on the fence. You think we can win the hearts and minds of those who are neutral by not pursuing things you and the antigun side see as taboo or scary. I completely disagree with your point of view. IMHO, that has been done in the past, and it has failed. These people will be antigun regardless, and the mainstream media will spin, twist, and lie to make whatever firearms and accessories we use, even the ones you personally approve of, to be deadly, scary, and not "needed." Several members have made this very point, but you seem to keep reiterating that we have comprehension issues.

WE WILL ALWAYS APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE MEDIA WILL PROTRAY US TO THOSE WHO KNOW LITTLE ABOUT GUNS NO MATTER WHAT.

We don't need to walk on eggshells or worry about appeances like you suggest. The one and only thing we can do as gun owners that will change hearts and minds is to get more people to own guns. Period. They aren't going to care about gun ownership, nor are they going to be one issue voters who go against the Democrat party over gun legislation until they too have something to lose. They will only care when it's their, their significant other, their children, friends, etc. rights that are being taken away. For example, during the pandemic, thousands of first-time gun owners on the left and right purchased guns. Before they owned guns, they probably wouldn't have cared if someone else's guns were banned. Now that it will affect them, they will care.

[Bald1]

Lizard Brain ????? Why because someone disagrees with you? A discussion usually means disagreement and exchanging points of view. Did you really think you could bring up this topic and not get emotional responses? And I might point out that some who have disagreed with you had the most articulate and thoughtful responses. Lizard Brain, I think not.

[BE Mike]

David Hogg is trying to influence gun owners to be more willing to give ground. He lies and says that he is pro-2A. One of his goals is: “If we’re successful, future kids will look at guns the way we look at cigarettes—not as something cool and sexy, but as something that’s dangerous and gross,” he says. “Because death is gross and murder is gross.” The only lizards in the picture are the chameleons, like him, who will try to appear to be reasonable while all along wanting to outlaw the possession of all guns. Any gun owner who buys into the "reasonableness" argument is like a fly falling for the attractant that leads to his demise in the Venus Fly Trap. Comparing anti-gunners vs. pro-2A arguments to husband/ wife discussions is ludicrous. BTW, David Hogg rides around in a chauffeured SUV with armed guards. I have to drive my own vehicle and can only depend upon my Second Amendment right for defense.

[Bald1]

OP I just walked out to mailbox and got latest issue of NY Outdoor News. They listed 12 new firearms bills for 2024. I’ve provided pics of the 3 most egregious. There are 12 but some pertain to hunting. You tell me which ones are reasonable and have room for compromise. This is what they do. Keep throwing stuff out there hoping something, anything sneaks through.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

My fault. I attempted to appeal to reasonable rational discussion – not primitive ‘lizard brain’ reaction that we’re all susceptible to from time to time. I’ve been guilty of it – venting to an emotional reaction and engaging keyboard (or mouth) before brain – but I really try to avoid it the longer I live. Didn’t think my original post involved any of that so I make no apology for expressing an observation and posing a rhetorical question.

I posited some time ago in another thread that although most of us rarely ever get to meet face to face, the longer we interact on this forum the more we get to ‘know’ each other. That idea, I readily admit has its limitations, caveats, and pitfalls . . . but I’m more careful these days to strive to not give a mistaken impression of myself or be “that guy” that you wouldn’t care to meet in person. We all have our bad days, dislikes, and hot button issues. But frankly I’m finding out more and more which folks here I’d probably avoid in social situations. And I surmise they likely couldn’t care any less. Fine by me – such is life. The world seems to be increasingly infected with such.


I’ve never been one to run from a fight but have learned to avoid one when possible and it’s rare that I’m pushed to seek one. In most cases, win or lose, it’s just not worth it whatever the outcome. I could go on, but as I stated in the original post it never was my intention to provoke in-fighting or tread on any toes; certainly didn’t want to contribute to the lowering of the bar of discourse here on the forum by inviting name calling and deliberate mischaracterization of the topic. Those with the weakest arguments have to resort to those kinds of things and twist what is said from its original intent, if they even bother to read it or have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyone who they perceive doesn’t believe what they believe and marches in lockstep with them is the enemy.


As the originator of the thread I’ll ask the mods to close it before it gets any more contentious. To those who understand . . . my apologies. To those who don’t . . .

Just because not everyone agrees with your position, it does not mean it's "gone off the rails". Closing the thread at this point would just neuter an important discussion.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by Bald1

OP I just walked out to mailbox and got latest issue of NY Outdoor News. They listed 12 new firearms bills for 2024. I’ve provided pics of the 3 most egregious. There are 12 but some pertain to hunting. You tell me which ones are reasonable and have room for compromise. This is what they do. Keep throwing stuff out there hoping something, anything sneaks through.

Several of the pieces of disarmament legislation ban shotguns, for heaven sake. And some of it will pass this year.

Furthermore, even when SCOTUS hands down a ruling, the states openly defy it anyway. The utter contempt for the Constitution, SCOTUS and the federal government generally are an enormous problem far beyond just the 2nd amendment.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

Seriously? What did you think was going to happen when you posted this on a gun enthusiast forum? I think the discussion thus far has been pretty respectful. Why would it be shut down? I think it is ironic that the very behavior that you rail against is the very behavior you display when you bemoan the fact that not everyone is willing to "compromise" their beliefs to agree with you. Far from shutting this down, this is a discussion that the gun community MUST have.

[kbm6893]

Originally Posted by Well Armed

The problem is were fighting against gun grabbers and FUDDS who want to sell the rest of us out and cave to the anties because they believe it will change their minds about firearms. They believe that gun owners who don't give in and cave to the anties are "extremists" when it comes to gun rights. We have enemies within that we have to fight against who are more than happy to side with the grabbers when it comes to things they don't think anyone should own, and we have to fight the antie gunners.

I don't think I'm ever going to change the minds of Anti-gunners. What I do know is that the antics of many gun owners sway the opinions of those who generally didn't care more about guns to begin with. Several people in my family are pretty ambivalent about guns, but when they see bump stocks and binary triggers they look at me and say "are you serious"?



Some hills aren't worth dying on. I am aware of the end goal of the true anti-gunner. I'm not about to get behind something like bump stocks and binary triggers. As for FUDD's, I am the furthest thing from it, but you'll keep using that word anyway.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by kbm6893

I don't think I'm ever going to change the minds of Anti-gunners.

Just to be clear - "Anti-gunner" is not what they are. The vast majority of them are "Civilian Disarmament Advocates". The ones who think they aren't because they only want "weapons of war" out of private hands are going to be very rudely awoken when the disarmament crowd comes after the .22 revolvers and bolt action rifles. Then it'll be too late. Only criminals will have guns and there will be no shortage of them. Yep, I'm looking at you, Mexico.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Bald1

Lizard Brain ????? Why because someone disagrees with you? A discussion usually means disagreement and exchanging points of view. Did you really think you could bring up this topic and not get emotional responses? And I might point out that some who have disagreed with you had the most articulate and thoughtful responses. Lizard Brain, I think not.

I think you may have misinterpreted the "lizard brain" reference. As soon as I read it I was sure it would be misinterpreted as some kind of insult. It isn't.

It is a reference to the most primitive portion of the brain right at the brain stem. Using that term is synonymous with saying "gut reaction" - our most basic instinctive reaction to something.

It is NOT a pejorative term meant to say - or even imply - that those of a differing viewpoint have the brain of a lizard.

The phrase is referring to the fact that so many of us (on BOTH sides of the argument) immediately react viscerally and instinctively, instead of really applying our higher brain functions to analyzing the question.

FWIW....

[mchom]

I mostly love vintage revolvers. But To me it’s simple; If all we had were revolvers there are those who would try to take them away. I say these new devices are ok. Keep em coming. I probably won’t buy one but I like their ingenuity. I believe the anti’s will never fail to find “Some reason” to further their cause regardless.

[Rustyt1953]

No snarkasm intended nor am I picking a side as to the term but I, too, grasped what Fred meant when he said "lizard brain".

[Bald1]

Originally Posted by BC38

I think you may have misinterpreted the "lizard brain" reference. As soon as I read it I was sure it would be misinterpreted as some kind of insult. It isn't.

It is a reference to the most primitive portion of the brain right at the brain stem. Using that term is synonymous with saying "gut reaction" - our most basic instinctive reaction to something.

It is NOT a pejorative term meant to say - or even imply - that those of a differing viewpoint have the brain of a lizard.

The phrase is referring to the fact that so many of us (on BOTH sides of the argument) immediately react viscerally and instinctively, instead of really applying our higher brain functions to analyzing the question.

FWIW....

I am well aware of the meaning of the term Lizard Brain. That is why I take exception to it. FRED seems to think people who disagree with him cannot make rational decisions and arguments. Perhaps we are not as sophisticated or well rounded as him. It’s insulting period.

[NFrameFred]

My last post on this. There are some here that would argue with a fence post and determined to be offended no matter what is said. If I wanted to offend them I’m confident they could be sure it was my intention. As far as those with their faux outrage at being “insulted by my comments” grow up and learn to read.
As I said, my last post on this and the only reason I wished it to be closed is because it degenerated into smarminess, name calling, mind reading and putting words in my mouth to suit other’s agendas. It has been an education for sure reinforcing the opinion I had reluctantly been forming about some based on their comments and behavior in other threads.
Some read into it what they want and offer no respect or benefit of the doubt when told they have mischaracterized my position. I’ve been that they know what I think, and called me their favorite veiled slurs and pejoratives. Not interested in participating in such with people that can’t express themselves without going that route. I’m out.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by kbm6893

Some hills aren't worth dying on. I am aware of the end goal of the true anti-gunner. I'm not about to get behind something like bump stocks and binary triggers.

"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by kbm6893

I don't think I'm ever going to change the minds of Anti-gunners. What I do know is that the antics of many gun owners sway the opinions of those who generally didn't care more about guns to begin with. Several people in my family are pretty ambivalent about guns, but when they see bump stocks and binary triggers they look at me and say "are you serious"?


Some hills aren't worth dying on. I am aware of the end goal of the true anti-gunner. I'm not about to get behind something like bump stocks and binary triggers. As for FUDD's, I am the furthest thing from it, but you'll keep using that word anyway.

You claim they're ambivalent. Are those people going to change their vote for Democrat or Republican based on whether bump stocks or binary triggers exist? Are they going to protest against gun control or donate to progun organizations whether bump stocks or binary triggers exist? Your flawed logic that gun owners should not exercise rights or enjoy particular 100% legal guns or accessories because of what "ambivalent" citizens may think makes absolutely zero sense. What do those "ambivalent" folks think about NFA items? Should all gun owners give up legal ownership of suppressors, SBR, SBS, and full auto rifles because of optics and what "ambivalent" citizens may think too?

As far as FUDDS go, if you are okay with some guns and accessories that you like and deem acceptable, but believe gun owners should not own things you don't like, then that's the definition of being a FUDD. You say that's not you, so I'll take your word for it.

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by mchom

I mostly love vintage revolvers. But To me it’s simple; If all we had were revolvers there are those who would try to take them away. I say these new devices are ok. Keep em coming. I probably won’t buy one but I like their ingenuity. I believe the anti’s will never fail to find “Some reason” to further their cause regardless.

Exactly. If the Vegas shooter used a plain Jane AR15, the focus and the heat, so to speak, would be on "assault weapons of war." Because he used a bump stock, that's the low hanging fruit they went after. If the shooter used a Ruger Mini14 with a 20-round mag, they would have tried to ban "high capacity magazines" and .223 and 5.56 ammo. If he used bolt action rifle, the push would be for red flag laws with lout due process, universal background checks, gun registration, etc. All of the above that the anties would have gone after would have been spun so that the "ambivalent" citizens who don't own guns, don't know much about them, and care much about them would STILL think that gun owners were "unreasonable" for not supporting these "common sense" gun control laws and legislation.

Heck, I hear my liberal family members who know nothing about guns other than what mainstream media presents to then complain about and think gun owners are crazy and it's insane that we own and are allowed to have 100 rounds of ammo when it's brought up in the news. They think it's crazy that anyone would have more than one or two guns. When they see 5 firearms and 100 rounds of 22lr ammo sprawled out on a table for a law enforcement and media photo op, they think that's an arsenal and enough ammo to take out a small city. They think all of the above is just as crazy as bumbstocks and binary triggers because that's how it's portrayed in the media. Giving up our rights to placate those who hate guns or are willfully ignorant about them, aka useful idiots, is a fools errand that will lead up closer and closer to a complete gun ban.

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by cmj8591

I have. In Massachusetts no less. And I can report to you that the people pushing new gun legislation do no believe in private ownership of firearms. ANY firearms. They look at your Registered Magnum in the same light as they look at those cranks. It's delusional to to think that there is ANY room for compromise with these people. In 96 they passed the assault weapon ban here. They grandfathered everything manufactured prior to 96. The law mirrored the Fed law that was in effect at the time. Lots of the shooters I know look at it with a yawn. "I can keep the AR that I own now.", "What do I need a bayonet lug for?", "10 rounds is plenty.". Fast forward to today. There is a bill that has passed both chambers and is in committee that will, most likely, be on the governors desk at the end of the next session. It un grandfathers all those guns that are presently legal to own, creating a whole new class of felons with a stroke of a pen. It gets rid of "ghost guns" by requiring just about every part of the gun to be serialized. It will be almost impossible to get replacement parts for any gun INCLUDING YOUR REGISTERED MAGNUM! So, tell me, how do we compromise with the people who are driving this? What part of my 2A rights should I give up in the compromise and what will I get from them in return? And the worst part about this is that it does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. The point is that when people who should know better start demonizing things like that stupid crank, you play right into their hands. You become the example of that "common sense gun laws" argument that they always throw around because it's "common sense" to turn me into a felon. You can virtue signal your willingness to common sense compromise all you want, but the reality is that it does way more damage to our 2nd amendment rights than the crank ever did.

Since you directed this post toward me, I have to ask...

At what point, in any post I have made on this (or any other) thread, have I endorsed the idea of "compromise", or even used that word?

I don't mind people taking issue with something I've said; I do mind people deliberately attributing to me things I've never said, and attitudes I don't have.

I'm finished with this thread.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

Since you directed this post toward me, I have to ask...

At what point, in any post I have made on this (or any other) thread, have I endorsed the idea of "compromise", or even used that word?

I don't mind people taking issue with something I've said; I do mind people deliberately attributing to me things I've never said, and attitudes I don't have.

I'm finished with this thread.

Your entire post was about compromise. Just read the first sentence and go from there. You talk about how it might be a mistake to fight for certain accessories, which, I have to assume, means the crank that the op talks about in his original post. It is amazing to me how people come to these posts and express their opinion about a topic then stomp off when someone takes issue with it. You have every right in the world to have an opinion but don't get mad with me if I don't agree with it. I happen to think it's wrong to try to compromise when it comes to ANY gun legislation.

[John Patrick]

Lost in this discussion is the fact that the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government. Which had recently been accomplished!

The flint lock musket and pistol were the days’ pinnacle weapon of war. And exactly what was protected by the Second Amendment.

Every infringement on a law abiding citizen’s right to own a weapon, whether infringing on the type of weapon, the rate of fire, the capacity, the projectile or anything else is an infringement of the Second Amendment and the founders’ original intent.

[Bald1]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

My last post on this. There are some here that would argue with a fence post and determined to be offended no matter what is said. If I wanted to offend them I’m confident they could be sure it was my intention. As far as those with their faux outrage at being “insulted by my comments” grow up and learn to read.
As I said, my last post on this and the only reason I wished it to be closed is because it degenerated into smarminess, name calling, mind reading and putting words in my mouth to suit other’s agendas. It has been an education for sure reinforcing the opinion I had reluctantly been forming about some based on their comments and behavior in other threads.
Some read into it what they want and offer no respect or benefit of the doubt when told they have mischaracterized my position. I’ve been that they know what I think, and called me their favorite veiled slurs and pejoratives. Not interested in participating in such with people that can’t express themselves without going that route. I’m out.

FRED, you said what you said. Now you are backpedaling and trying to walk it back. In doing so you are slinging your share of mud as well. You imply that anyone disagreeing with you is not sophisticated enough to have a conversation with you. And no I DID NOT misunderstand your use of Lizard Brain. You were implying those that took exception to your opinion were cave men. Not having the mental capacity to think things through. They just flew off the handle in a bluster. You are correct in that we don’t know each other. But In many of your post you come across as a know it all. With an air of superiority. If you want a sensible, rational conversation how about this. GET OVER YOURSELF ! Meanwhile I’ll go chat with a fence post.

[BE Mike]

The left always seem to think that the common folks need shepherding. They think that since they are so intellectually superior, that they are the ones to do it. A lot of folks call it socialism, despotism, fascism or communism. The self-proclaimed elite lately call it democracy. Has there been any proof that a "trigger crank" has been used in a crime. I see a lot that the Las Vegas shooter MAY have used a gun with one. Is the "trigger crank" something that has been used in so many crimes that we must take notice and restrict or eliminate it from society?

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by John Patrick

Lost in this discussion is the fact that the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government. Which had recently been accomplished!

And look how hard some states and certain members of congress are working to disarm the populace.

I saw an interview with, I think it was a Colorado legislator, who has sponsored a bill outlawing all kinds of guns. Included is the "feature ban" they're all hanging their hats on. One of the "features" is a barrel shroud.

Asked if she knew what a "barrel shroud" is, she admitted she did not!

They don't even know what the heck they're banning!

I'll see if I can find the video again and add it back here.

[dockmurgw]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

My fault. I attempted to appeal to reasonable rational discussion – not primitive ‘lizard brain’ reaction that we’re all susceptible to from time to time. I’ve been guilty of it – venting to an emotional reaction and engaging keyboard (or mouth) before brain – but I really try to avoid it the longer I live. Didn’t think my original post involved any of that so I make no apology for expressing an observation and posing a rhetorical question.

I posited some time ago in another thread that although most of us rarely ever get to meet face to face, the longer we interact on this forum the more we get to ‘know’ each other. That idea, I readily admit has its limitations, caveats, and pitfalls . . . but I’m more careful these days to strive to not give a mistaken impression of myself or be “that guy” that you wouldn’t care to meet in person. We all have our bad days, dislikes, and hot button issues. But frankly I’m finding out more and more which folks here I’d probably avoid in social situations. And I surmise they likely couldn’t care any less. Fine by me – such is life. The world seems to be increasingly infected with such.


I’ve never been one to run from a fight but have learned to avoid one when possible and it’s rare that I’m pushed to seek one. In most cases, win or lose, it’s just not worth it whatever the outcome. I could go on, but as I stated in the original post it never was my intention to provoke in-fighting or tread on any toes; certainly didn’t want to contribute to the lowering of the bar of discourse here on the forum by inviting name calling and deliberate mischaracterization of the topic. Those with the weakest arguments have to resort to those kinds of things and twist what is said from its original intent, if they even bother to read it or have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyone who they perceive doesn’t believe what they believe and marches in lockstep with them is the enemy.


As the originator of the thread I’ll ask the mods to close it before it gets any more contentious. To those who understand . . . my apologies. To those who don’t . . .

It could be worse, you could have made the mistake I made...and dare to say anyone who puts on tactical gear and carry's an AR to a gun rights rally is an idiot, or a less than flattering comment about John Wayne (that one gets you suspended). But getting out of the doghouse and back to the In Crowd is easy, just join one of the many state bashing threads. (Extra points if you lived in one the hated states and moved to a free state, and demonstrate a dislike of people based on where they live)

[mchom]

In a more direct manner….

The laws are construed to offer such "innovations" and "products" that navigate legal twists and turns, resulting in (rightfully so) the individual states deciding if such products are to be acceptable in their jurisdictions. As in most things "progress" comes from 'pushing the envelope' . . . but I have to wonder if pushing the limits with offerings like this ultimately hurt us more than help us in the final analysis.

Answer…..Resounding NO!
Maybe a bit redundant
Hypothetical example: If every gun owner was limited to one gun and that being a single shot .22 rifle rifle there would still be the same rabid hatred to disarm. It’s not the tool, it’s not the accoutrements. It’s what they represent.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by mchom

Hypothetical example: If every gun owner was limited to one gun and that being a single shot .22 rifle rifle there would still be the same rabid hatred to disarm. It’s not the tool, it’s not the accoutrements. It’s what they represent.

Excellent summation to 85 posts.

[mchom]

I apologize in advance for any thread drift. It’s easy to allow anger to enter this discussion. I liken this situation to our nations hatred of consuming animal fats. Without getting into the medical details (Our Govt and medical community knew as early as 60’s maybe earlier that consuming fats was very possibly not the issue with heart disease and other ailments) in my opinion it was easier target. After several decades ppl are literally brainwashed. Sugar & processed foods are the real issue. I think the same thing is happening today with opioids. 10 and more years ago the level of fentanyl’s deaths was not anything like today. At least this is what my DR has shared with me (on both aforementioned points) I’ll avoid further bloviating but the point of this post: each of us is vulnerable to “some kinds” of indoctrination.
Again pls pardon thread drift.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Bald1

I am well aware of the meaning of the term Lizard Brain. That is why I take exception to it. FRED seems to think people who disagree with him cannot make rational decisions and arguments. Perhaps we are not as sophisticated or well rounded as him. It’s insulting period.

As I read Fred's "lizard brain" comment he said it is a reaction "we're all susceptible to from time to time". I didn't see where he singled out any one or any group, or where he excluded anyone either - including himself.

FWIW, I wasn't defending or "siding" with him either. You "got" the reference - that's good. It wasn't clear from your reply that you had, and there may have been others who didn't. It is kind of an obscure reference.

You have a right to be offended - that is a choice we all have to make for ourselves. Hopefully I haven't also offended you - because that was never my intent.

[Sevens]

Originally Posted by John Patrick

Lost in this discussion is the fact that the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government. Which had recently been accomplished!

The flint lock musket and pistol were the days’ pinnacle weapon of war. And exactly what was protected by the Second Amendment.

Every infringement on a law abiding citizen’s right to own a weapon, whether infringing on the type of weapon, the rate of fire, the capacity, the projectile or anything else is an infringement of the Second Amendment and the founders’ original intent.

...and when they did, they also allowed for the most beastly top-end of all that was available, the cannon. You were free to load your boat with as many as your boat could hold and you could afford, for exactly the same reason.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Sevens

...and when they did, they also allowed for the most beastly top-end of all that was available, the cannon. You were free to load your boat with as many as your boat could hold and you could afford, for exactly the same reason.

There are prominent anti-gunners who would make - and have made - public statements that these historical facts aren't true.

Unfortunately, a large number of the "ambivalent" were never taught enough real history to know that your statements ARE true - they only know what the anti-gunners say - which is what the media then parrots as if it were FACT, because it suits their agenda.

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by mchom

Hypothetical example: If every gun owner was limited to one gun and that being a single shot .22 rifle rifle there would still be the same rabid hatred to disarm. It’s not the tool, it’s not the accoutrements. It’s what they represent.

There are two arguments going on here. One is with members who are arguing about not compromising with the antigun side. The other is with members who somewhat agree with the latter argument but think the ends justify the means. That although they don't agree with compromising with anties, they think that we should make concession and pick our battles for the greater good of not appearing to be extreme or to turn off those who are ambivalent when it comes to firearms.


I think the point that some who side with the OP are trying to make is that they believe there are a lot of citizens who don't care one way or another about guns. They believe that bumbstocks, braces, binary triggers, etc. push those ambivalent citizens into the progun control and antigun camp. What they fail to or refuse to realize (partly because they are bias against some of these accessories that they personally wouldn't own and think are stupid) is that the media will just spin another common class of firearm, common firearm accessory, etc into being the equivalent and just as crazy as bumbstocks, braces, and binary triggers, and the ambivalent will be non the wiser. They will be just as outraged. These same "ambivalent" people, some of whom are coworkers and family members of mine, think gun owners are extreme and are overly paranoid for wanting to carry outside of the home while grocery shopping, running to the story, or going to church, or being in a crowded setting.

The members who side with the OP also don't realize that if we pick or battles aka not fight for controversial "loopholes" like bumbstocks, braces, binary triggers, "ghost guns," and the like, the antigun lobby will start to focus on some other low hanging fruit. Then once they get the next peice of lowest hanging fruit under their belt, they'll go after the next peice, then the next, and the next until after time, the only fruit left to pick is at the top of the tree. That's their strategy, and that's EXACTLY why we need to draw the line and fight the bumbstocks, braces, binary triggers, and "ghost gun" type of battles even if we may think the latter are pointless, stupid, and we'd never buy them.

[BE Mike]

Great point. It isn't a battle of things, it's a battle of ideas.

[Echo40]

This tread reminds me of one of my own from a couple of years back...

Do you ever wonder if Gun Control Advocates lurk or even sign up on Gun Forums?

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by cmj8591

Your entire post was about compromise. Just read the first sentence and go from there. You talk about how it might be a mistake to fight for certain accessories, which, I have to assume, means the crank that the op talks about in his original post. It is amazing to me how people come to these posts and express their opinion about a topic then stomp off when someone takes issue with it. You have every right in the world to have an opinion but don't get mad with me if I don't agree with it. I happen to think it's wrong to try to compromise when it comes to ANY gun legislation.

I'm not sure why you insist on attributing to me things I haven't said. Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you really not understand this issue?

Here is what I wrote that you chose to mischaracterize:

"I wonder how many of the folks who chant "no compromise" as their mantra on gun issues have actual, real-world, practical experience dealing with legislators and other elected officials? How many here have lobbied legislators or testified at committee hearings on various issues? And if so, when you did, did you explain why a given proposal was a good or bad idea? Or did you march in and demand that the people you were trying to influence bend to your will because you will not "compromise"?

Clearly, I was asking how many people on here have any real-world experience in the legislative process, and what tactic they think works best with regard to legislative proposals. Do you win people over to your viewpoint by persuasion, or do you do it by chanting "no compromise" while your opponents hand your head to you?

From the beginning of this thread, I have been clear in expressing my opinions.

We do not live in a libertarian fantasyland, where each of us gets to decide what laws he will obey, or what is "constitutional". We have laws, enacted by our representatives, found constitutional by our courts, and we are obliged to obey them until such time as we persuade our legislators to change them. That's how things are supposed to work here in the United States.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 is one such law. I might not like it, but I live in the real world, and after almost 90 years, it's not going away, no matter how fervently we wish it would. The ATF is not going away either.

The ATF, under the authority of the FFA, regulates the possession of machine guns, or automatic weapons, or select-fire weapons, or whatever you want to call them. The trigger cranks that inspired Fred to start this thread are, like bump-stocks, clearly intended to circumvent federal gun regulations, and make a semi-automatic firearm function like an automatic firearm while being technically "legal". They might or might not comply with the letter of the law, but they certainly violate the spirit and intent of the law, and that's the problem...unless you don't think we are obliged to obey the law.

Devices like this are not firearms, nor are they necessary for the firearm to function. They do nothing but invite regulation, provoke anti-gun activists and lawmakers to come up with more ways to attack us, and put us on the defensive socially and legally. The people who invent and sell these gadgets are not defenders of the Second Amendment. They simply want to make money, and in doing so they create headaches for the rest of us, and provoke internecine warfare, as this thread has so ably demonstrated.

Finally...I love a good debate, and a respectful exchange of different points of view. But when people take what you say out of context, or misquote you deliberately, further debate is futile. As George Bernard Shaw famously said: "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

[dsf]

Originally Posted by cmj8591

I have. In Massachusetts no less. And I can report to you that the people pushing new gun legislation do no believe in private ownership of firearms. ANY firearms. They look at your Registered Magnum in the same light as they look at those cranks. It's delusional to to think that there is ANY room for compromise with these people. In 96 they passed the assault weapon ban here. They grandfathered everything manufactured prior to 96. The law mirrored the Fed law that was in effect at the time. Lots of the shooters I know look at it with a yawn. "I can keep the AR that I own now.", "What do I need a bayonet lug for?", "10 rounds is plenty.". Fast forward to today. There is a bill that has passed both chambers and is in committee that will, most likely, be on the governors desk at the end of the next session. It un grandfathers all those guns that are presently legal to own, creating a whole new class of felons with a stroke of a pen. It gets rid of "ghost guns" by requiring just about every part of the gun to be serialized. It will be almost impossible to get replacement parts for any gun INCLUDING YOUR REGISTERED MAGNUM! So, tell me, how do we compromise with the people who are driving this? What part of my 2A rights should I give up in the compromise and what will I get from them in return? And the worst part about this is that it does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. The point is that when people who should know better start demonizing things like that stupid crank, you play right into their hands. You become the example of that "common sense gun laws" argument that they always throw around because it's "common sense" to turn me into a felon. You can virtue signal your willingness to common sense compromise all you want, but the reality is that it does way more damage to our 2nd amendment rights than the crank ever did.

I was born and raised in MA - northeast, at the NH border fortunately. Family still lives in Andover, Haverhill and Sandown, NH. I'm in CA for now. It's worth hammering home that the gun ban industry (because that's exactly what it is) seeks to prohibit private ownership of any and all guns step by step, all the while talking about "gun safety". There is no such thing as an acceptable gun nor a private citizen worthy of owning a gun - any gun.

Look at what they do in CA and MA where they have the ability to do so - banning advertising, pushing legislation that puts gun stores out of business, requiring gun owners to carry insurance, prohibitive tax enhancements and so on. And we've not even touched on AW bans, mag restrictions.

There is no better illustration of the depth of their collective ultimate goal and contempt for private gun ownership than the CA law just struck down which prohibited advertising that may appeal to younger people. It absolutely strangled promotion of shooting sports and education to young people. "Nits become lice" is the best way to describe how they feel about us.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

...The trigger cranks that inspired Fred to start this thread are, like bump-stocks, clearly intended to circumvent federal gun regulations, and make a semi-automatic firearm function like an automatic firearm while being technically "legal". They might or might not comply with the letter of the law, but they certainly violate the spirit and intent of the law, and that's the problem...unless you don't think we are obliged to obey the law.

Devices like this are not firearms, nor are they necessary for the firearm to function. They do nothing but invite regulation, provoke anti-gun activists and lawmakers to come up with more ways to attack us, and put us on the defensive socially and legally. The people who invent and sell these gadgets are not defenders of the Second Amendment. They simply want to make money, and in doing so they create headaches for the rest of us, and provoke internecine warfare, as this thread has so ably demonstrated....

VERY well stated.
I have nothing to add...

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I'm not sure why you insist on attributing to me things I haven't said. Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you really not understand this issue?

Here is what I wrote that you chose to mischaracterize:

"I wonder how many of the folks who chant "no compromise" as their mantra on gun issues have actual, real-world, practical experience dealing with legislators and other elected officials? How many here have lobbied legislators or testified at committee hearings on various issues? And if so, when you did, did you explain why a given proposal was a good or bad idea? Or did you march in and demand that the people you were trying to influence bend to your will because you will not "compromise"?

Clearly, I was asking how many people on here have any real-world experience in the legislative process, and what tactic they think works best with regard to legislative proposals. Do you win people over to your viewpoint by persuasion, or do you do it by chanting "no compromise" while your opponents hand your head to you?

From the beginning of this thread, I have been clear in expressing my opinions.

We do not live in a libertarian fantasyland, where each of us gets to decide what laws he will obey, or what is "constitutional". We have laws, enacted by our representatives, found constitutional by our courts, and we are obliged to obey them until such time as we persuade our legislators to change them. That's how things are supposed to work here in the United States.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 is one such law. I might not like it, but I live in the real world, and after almost 90 years, it's not going away, no matter how fervently we wish it would. The ATF is not going away either.

The ATF, under the authority of the FFA, regulates the possession of machine guns, or automatic weapons, or select-fire weapons, or whatever you want to call them. The trigger cranks that inspired Fred to start this thread are, like bump-stocks, clearly intended to circumvent federal gun regulations, and make a semi-automatic firearm function like an automatic firearm while being technically "legal". They might or might not comply with the letter of the law, but they certainly violate the spirit and intent of the law, and that's the problem...unless you don't think we are obliged to obey the law.

Devices like this are not firearms, nor are they necessary for the firearm to function. They do nothing but invite regulation, provoke anti-gun activists and lawmakers to come up with more ways to attack us, and put us on the defensive socially and legally. The people who invent and sell these gadgets are not defenders of the Second Amendment. They simply want to make money, and in doing so they create headaches for the rest of us, and provoke internecine warfare, as this thread has so ably demonstrated.

Finally...I love a good debate, and a respectful exchange of different points of view. But when people take what you say out of context, or misquote you deliberately, further debate is futile. As George Bernard Shaw famously said: "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

I don't think it's as much a reading comprehension thing as it is a bit of gaslighting going on with your positions. Your post, in both context and tone, are arguing that we should allow prohibitions on things like the crank because we can't just keep stamping our feet an saying "no more". You also propose that by fighting against the crank, it puts gun owners in a bad light so that when it comes to the "real" gun prohibitions, it makes it harder for people to see it our way or be sympathetic with our causes. We need to give up the crank so that gun owners will be seen in a favorable light. I'm not sure how anyone reading your posts could say that they are not advocating for compromise. I really don't think I've mischaracterized your posts at all. And I really don't know how anyone who has been paying even passing attention to how gun control legislation is playing out could come to the conclusion that you are correct in your assumptions. You are using the same logic as the gun control advocates use when you try to make that argument about the crank being unnecessary. They use it when they argue about bayonet lugs, flash hiders, semi-auto capable guns, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, polymer frames and a thousand other things that are prostituted into their argument because they are nothing more than scary to a civilized society. And it is done with an eye towards, first, eliminating a class of firearms and second, the elimination of private ownership of firearms completely. Maybe you can't see it, but you are making their argument for them. You're also wrong about obeying our laws. We are not obligated to obey any law. The difference between a free republic and a dictatorship is that we comply with our laws willingly as free citizens, not under threat of punishment. It's the difference between being a citizen and being a subject. In return, we require that the laws be structured so as to preserve certain rights and privileges. In the case of the US, those are set out in the US Constitution. It can be a fine line and it gets taken advantage of once in a while by those seeking to empower themselves which is why that pesky amendment number 2 is there. National Socialism seems to come to mind here. There was a lot of obeying and compliance in the name of compromise going on with that population. It's not a "libertarian fantasy", it's how government is supposed to work. I answer these posts not just to be contrary to what you think because, as I've said before, you have every right to think what you want. But I have seen what that slippery slope of compromise brings us. We become the only side of the argument to actually loose anything in the compromise. I'm about to become a felon by fiat. I'm not sure I have anything left to compromise with. If I thought that the whole gun argument would come to a screeching halt if we gave up the crank, then I'd say lets let it go but history tells us that that won't be the end.

[dockmurgw]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

Clearly, I was asking how many people on here have any real-world experience in the legislative process, and what tactic they think works best with regard to legislative proposals. Do you win people over to your viewpoint by persuasion, or do you do it by chanting "no compromise" while your opponents hand your head to you?

I do. Now don't laugh, elected member of my local Selectboard counts. In my experience its 55% persuasion, 40% compromise and 5% pig headed no compromise. But in dealing with gun rights, I'm on the no compromise fence. I understand your opinion and share your frustration on certain issues, but I will still stay on the no compromise fence. My reason? The people I would compromise with would look at it as just a step in what they consider the right direction, they will not look at it as a compromise and move on. A compromise just gives them time to regroup, develop new tactics, and continue their attack. They will come back, year after year...by compromising we are just giving it up one piece at a time instead of all at one time. Unlike municipal governance where compromise is the norm, I think where gun rights are involved, its better to fight hard and lose than to acquiesce and embolden.

[fordson]

Compromise is not the prime issue, unless we are in it for the Fight and not the Cause. The Cause should be the issue. Compromise or not, enough voters elected anti-2A politicians, and voted for anti-2A legislation, to put us where we are at. And I suspect those voting numbers are growing as the younger generation, raised on the “guns-are-bad” mindset, become a voting block in and of themselves. At some point(if we’re not there already) the numbers in that voting block that will eventually out number our votes. It all comes down to numbers….of uncommitted voters that can be swayed to our view point. Enough people vote with us, and anti-2A politicians lose their jobs; enough people vote against our positions, and the 2A is lost…… it’s votes, compromise or not, that will make our case.

[Aukula1062]

First off, we should have access to full auto in this country. Full auto firearms have been placed out of reach for most of us. It had also destroyed many historically significant guns. My problem with trigger cranks, binary and forced reset triggers etc. isn't about loopholes, it's about shoddy products and the safety risks using this stuff. Screw the NFA. The ATF needs to abolished and the ATF with it. No more NFA and a return to industry standards would eliminate this situation.