our own worst enemy

Beemerguy53 said:
In any debate about a contentious issue, it's often not enough merely to have the law (or the Constitution) on your side; the weight of public opinion is very important as well.

The in-your-face posture and attitude of so many 2A advocates hurts us far more than it helps us. Inspiring fear or suspicion in the non-gun owning public...or, as in this case, spitting in the eye of government regulators by creating something that is technically "legal" but clearly violates the spirit of the law...does us no good at all.
Click to expand...

Good post, but the wording "2A advocates" might be giving some people undeserved credit. Regrettably, many go far beyond sensible advocacy to the point of being fanatical and intolerant reactionaries. Such folks are quite self-serving and not bright enough to realize or care how they damage the cause of true Second Amendment advocates both within our own realm and as seen by the rest of the public.
 
Last edited:
Beemerguy53 said:
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I look at products like bump stocks and trigger cranks as "cringeworthy" because they invite nothing but trouble for us. They inflame the anti-gunners; they bolster the stereotype of us as "gun nuts"; they provoke legislators and regulatory agencies to take action against us; and they give the news media one more sensational story they can use to bash us.

I am not an attorney, let alone a constitutional scholar, and I don't play one on television. I do know that the the US Supreme Court has the final word on what is or is not constitutional, and I am unaware of any ruling or pronouncement from them declaring the GCA to be unconstitutional. I might not like it...I might not agree with it...but what court has found it to be unconstitutional? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves now what is or is not constitutional?

in the realm of political endeavors, there are things that are possible and there are things that are not. In the same way that the anti-gunners will never get rid of gun ownership in this country, no matter how fervently they want to, Congress is not going to repeal the GCA. I don't care who is president, or what party controls Congress...it won't happen. After ninety years, we're stuck with it. And creating clever products that are designed only to get around GCA, to evade the clear intent of the law, makes it harder, not easier, to advance the cause of Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the GCA of 1934, but they can and will when it's brought to them. But a defeatist attitude is why we keep losing ground a little at a time. Never give in, and never give up. Keep fighting.
 
Appears that there are several here that don’t mind a good old fashioned compromise. The problem is gun owners are the ones that do the giving. When the hell was the last time the anti gun crowd gave anything in a compromise or otherwise. You guys better open your eyes. Having lived in NY all my life I see what compromise gets you. They take a little at a time and before you know it you got nothing left.
 
fordson said:
And manufacturers developing and hawking gadgets, accessories and even firearms that are legal (such as your example) and skirt the intent of the Law doesn’t help us one bit. Don't get me wrong, I’m not advocating a surrender, but a more strategic and less tactical fight.
Click to expand...

I used to think so, too. Just act responsible, comb our hair and act like model gun owning citizens, maybe the gun grabbers will cool off a little.

Baloney. The gun control crowd is totally myopic, has very few fence sitters and is out to dismantle the second amendment at any cost, even if it takes another 100 years. ANY piece of legislation they can get passed is just Another Brick In The Wall.

So, I'm going to continue being my usual low profile self, but I'm not going to criticize anyone doing a safe, lawful thing with a firearm, especially if it makes the Nanny State squeamish.

No good behavior on our part is going to placate them. "Minding our manners" just makes them think they're winning.
 
Bald1 said:
Appears that there are several here that don’t mind a good old fashioned compromise. The problem is gun owners are the ones that do the giving. When the hell was the last time the anti gun crowd gave anything in a compromise or otherwise. You guys better open your eyes. Having lived in NY all my life I see what compromise gets you. They take a little at a time and before you know it you got nothing left.
Click to expand...

The only "compromise" that ocurrs is regarding how much or how little the gun grabbers are willing to take at a given time, and they always return to "the negotiating table" for more, in order to make incremental "progress".

We have more than enough gun laws, some of which are arcane and confusing making them difficult to abide by, and there's no reason to enact our own defacto restrictions that gain us nothing.

Gun laws don't eliminate guns, they only criminalize their possession, which is the goal of all the past compromises.
 
rockquarry said:
Good post, but the wording "2A advocates" might be giving some people undeserved credit. Regrettably, many go far beyond sensible advocacy to the point of being fanatical and intolerant reactionaries. Such folks are quite self-serving and not bright enough to realize or care how they damage the cause of true Second Amendment advocates both within our own realm and as seen by the rest of the public.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you and I are the true Second Amendment advocates! :)
 
BE Mike said:
Having had some experience with feds, I can confidently say that the heads of agencies and even some lower level supervisors are politicos. They bend the way the political winds are blowing. The goal of bureaucrats is to please those above them and impress them so that they can expand their little kingdoms and, as a result, get more personnel and funding, thus "justifying" a raise and/ or promotion. We have only to look back at the Waco raid to see just how far ATF supervisors will go to try to look good. The supervisors put agents into harms way unnecessarily and it cost, not only the lives of agents, but women and children. Bureaucrats can be dangerous. Don't get me started about the FAA or the FBI.
Click to expand...

You make a good point...the heads of various agencies are indeed political appointees, or are accountable to such appointees for their jobs. I was referring more to the field agents and inspectors, the people with whom the public most often interacts.

Thanks. :)
 
BE Mike said:
I'm glad that you and I are the true Second Amendment advocates! :)
Click to expand...

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!
 
Bald1 said:
There are no fence sitters. There is no common ground and there sure as hell is no compromising. Those who say they don’t have an opinion are not being truthful. I can tell you I have no desire to own a bump stock, binary trigger or even a suppressor. I’m not an “AR Guy” . But I will not compromise on my right to own them. I don’t care about the optics. Go ahead and compromise. It will result in a death by a thousand cuts. S&W compromised with locks. How’d that work out.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I think the crank is stupid, but then I think a guy blasting a whole magazine at a range is also stupid. It’s still their right.
 
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"?

Ideological purity sounds really good...but it rarely works as a tactic. There's an old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and that's still true today.

The devices that provoked the creation of this thread are not firearms, nor are they necessary in order for firearms to function as intended. My Second Amendment rights do not depend upon my being able to buy or own one of these gadgets. They are novelties at best, and at worst they constitute a cynical attempt to skirt federal firearms laws. In defense of our rights, we hold ourselves up to the non-gun owning public as law abiding citizens, don't we? And if we do, shouldn't we obey both the letter and the spirit of the law?

Gun ownership is always under attack in this country, with our opponents regularly proposing all sorts of new 2A restrictions. We are in a precarious position. Yes, we have made tremendous progress in many respects (especially with regard to the right to carry for self-defense), but we have had significant setbacks in a number of states, as many of us can attest. Giving our adversaries the rope they will happily use to hang us is just not a good idea, in my opinion.
 
What was previously unthinkable is now being discussed openly - a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Think it can’t happen? Those ain’t red votes pouring across the border.

Every big shooting adds to their side. Nothing adds to ours.

I’m not a doomsday type, but there will come a day when you’ll wish bumpy stocks and triggers cranks were the topic of discussion.
 
I believe FUDS and those who want to appease and bend over for those who want all guns banned are the true enemy. The same type of people upset and got their tight whites all twisted up over the legal accessories in the OP are the same people who supported and were singing the same tune when it came to bumbstocks and pistol braces. Now it has taken years and a lot of money to undo the damage they supported, but they now have the nerve and audacity to thumb their nose and wag their finger while perched up on their high horse while accusing other gun owners of being the enemy? Those types of traders truly disgust me. "We" aren't our own worst enemy. "You" and the ain't are our enemy. You want to keep giving inch after inch after inch while bending over backward like Bill Ruger, S&W, Springfield, Trump, so on, and so because you foolish believe being it will quench the anties thirst. You are willing to sell out and bash your own kind over it.
 
Beemerguy53 said:
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"?

Ideological purity sounds really good...but it rarely works as a tactic. There's an old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and that's still true today.

The devices that provoked the creation of this thread are not firearms, nor are they necessary in order for firearms to function as intended. My Second Amendment rights do not depend upon my being able to buy or own one of these gadgets. They are novelties at best, and at worst they constitute a cynical attempt to skirt federal firearms laws. In defense of our rights, we hold ourselves up to the non-gun owning public as law abiding citizens, don't we? And if we do, shouldn't we obey both the letter and the spirit of the law?

Gun ownership is always under attack in this country, with our opponents regularly proposing all sorts of new 2A restrictions. We are in a precarious position. Yes, we have made tremendous progress in many respects (especially with regard to the right to carry for self-defense), but we have had significant setbacks in a number of states, as many of us can attest. Giving our adversaries the rope they will happily use to hang us is just not a good idea, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
We've had record gun sales, more new gun owners than ever, half the states in the country are Constitutional Carry, even many Democrats are gun owners now, almost half the country have firearms in the home, bumbstock, pistol brace, and trigger bans have been blocked, and we're winning despite your fears.

Gun ownership being under attack is nothing new. Gun ownership has always been under attack. Whenever Democrats have the majority, guns will be under attack. What you don't seem to realize is that the other side has been losing the battle left and right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TXBryan
Mexico sues U.S. gunmakers
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Oldsalt66
Oldsalt66
A
43 years ago…..
Replies
1
Views
451
SGT ROCK 11B
SGT ROCK 11B
chief38
OUR RECENT VACATION SUPERCEDED OUR EXPECTATIONS - HURAY!!
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Farmer17
F
C
CSX E-Series
Replies
0
Views
487
CSX1313
C
chief38
Preparing for our first "annual" (hopefully) Bourbon tasting and cigar night.
2
Replies
26
Views
662
alwslate
A

Latest posts

Back
Top