our own worst enemy

[fordson]

Start with the end in mind.
Simple question: What are the end results we, as responsible gun owners and 2A supporters, desire? What are they?
Repeal of the NFA?
Repeal of ALL firearm restrictions?
Some firearm restrictions?
Have actual meaningful, unemotional dialogue with legislators, to address issues of violence and mental health?
What do we desire? Simple question…….

 

[John Patrick]

Start with the end in mind.
Simple question: What are the end results we, as responsible gun owners and 2A supporters, desire? What are they?
Repeal of the NFA?
Repeal of ALL firearm restrictions?
Some firearm restrictions?
Have actual meaningful, unemotional dialogue with legislators, to address issues of violence and mental health?
What do we desire? Simple question…….

How ‘bout we start with ramming home the fact that there is no such thing as “gun violence,” just as there is no such thing as knife violence or hammer violence.

And ramming home that the solution to any violence isn’t locking up guns, knives or hammers but violent people.

I used to have a link to a live camera of an AR15 in a corner, with a timer ticking off the time the AR had been leaning in that corner, with a notation that read something like: “It’ been (timer readout) since this AR15 shot someone.”

Iirc, the timer was reading over 30 years last I saw it. If anyone has or can find that link, I’d appreciate it if you posted it. I’ve tried googling it but struck out.

 

[kbm6893]

There are extremists on every side of every issue, and all of them think they are right.

The FUDD term gets thrown around a lot, and it always comes from the same type. I’ve been called a FUDD before and it always makes me laugh. I’ve got multiple safes full of guns that would give a heart attack to any gun grabber. Semi autos, high capacity magazines. Only bolt gun I own is a .22 I bought to teach my son shooting. Binary triggers and bump stocks are absolute loopholes to the fully auto limitations, just as pistol braces are a loophole to the shirt barreled rifle limitations. There are YouTube videos galore attesting to this.

But yes, we are our own worst enemy. Sometimes I think the most fervent 2A supporters are undercover agents for the anti gun lobby, because their antics make more anti-gunners everyday.

 

[AlHunt]

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.

Yet that's exactly the tactic the disarmament crowd uses and they get away with it. At the very least, it's an Overton Window, where they demand A, B, C and D, then "compromise" and let go of B and D. But wait! Next year they're back for B,D, E and F. The end goal is civilian disarmament.

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.

You're just not up to speed, my friend.

Here are a couple of links to a guy that does a great job presenting legislative actions without a lot of hyperbole, clickbait and overblown garbage. See for yourself how extreme the situation has become. If these strike a chord with you, I'd suggest going to his channel page and trolling through his videos. If they don't get you concerned, then I've got nothing more for you.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7fm0-EkpEg[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpC_koI9YoM[/ame]

 

[WCCPHD]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Gun control is not about guns. Its about CONTROL.

The anti gun people are patient. The anti's are smart. They seek to divide us any way they can. They never let a "crisis" go to waste. They all work toward the same goal. They NEVER compromise (unless compromise is asking for 100 percent and only getting 50 percent, this time.) They see every movement toward their goal as a win. In their so called compromises, they NEVER give up anything. They are winning law by law, issue by issue, step by step.

And most importantly, they will NEVER be satisfied even if all privately owned guns are banned, confiscated and destroyed. Look at England, they effectively banned guns and now they are going after knives.

 

[Heinz]

Every federal government agency has regulators and inspectors. The Federal Aviation Administration; the Food and Drug Administration; the Transportation Security Administration; the Department of Transportation; the Federal Railroad Administration, etc., etc.

Those regulators are not ideologues or provocateurs, nor are they motivated by politics; they are government bureaucrats whose job it is to enforce the law and the Code of Federal Regulations. They don't like or dislike the entities they regulate, nor do they have an agenda to promote. ATF is no different, in my opinion and experience.

I spent 25 years at the CDC. If you think government agencies do not have an agenda and regulators do not have regulatory goals, You need to study Anthony Fauci and rethink your position. The CDC is openly anti-gun and actively looking for ways to make control measures a workplace health issue.

 

[Well Armed]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Gun control is not about guns. Its about CONTROL.

The anti gun people are patient. The anti's are smart. They seek to divide us any way they can. They never let a "crisis" go to waste. They all work toward the same goal. They NEVER compromise (unless compromise is asking for 100 percent and only getting 50 percent, this time.) They see every movement toward their goal as a win. In their so called compromises, they NEVER give up anything. They are winning law by law, issue by issue, step by step.

And most importantly, they will NEVER be satisfied even if all privately owned guns are banned, confiscated and destroyed. Look at England, they effectively banned guns and now they are going after knives.

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.

 

[Oldsalt66]

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.

Rather than the compromisers, it was the "intolerant, reactionary, no compromise", Gun Owners of America who were directly responsible for bringing Constitutional Carry to my state of Florida.

Unapologetic activism has worked extremely well for progressives over the decades, and it's what works for us as well.

Give the enemy nothing.

 

[AlHunt]

Kind of an aside, in Maine they passed a "Yellow Flag" law a while back. Hailed at the time as a much better alternative to Red Flag laws because it better protected people who are flagged from automatic confiscation and preserved some semblance of due process.

Fast forward a year or two and Maine had some guy walk into 2 businesses, kill and maim a bunch of people. The problem is that multiple people tried to alert authorities that he was potentially a ticking time bomb and had done so multiple times in multiple states (including Maine).

At one point some agency went to talk to him, the State Police, I believe. They couldn't find him at home and I think they looked another place for him. Couldn't find him after minimal effort and, to my knowledge, never looked again.

Now of course, the Disarmament Crowd is screaming that the law needs to be strengthened and we need MORE laws, even including to ban guns.

The point is that if the existing laws aren't enforced, what good do more laws that won't be enforced accomplish? Everything was in place to divert this guy, private citizens and health care professionals did their part and still the ball got dropped.

What the Disarmament Crowd takes from all this is that if gun control laws don't stop people from shooting each other, then private ownership of firearms needs to be abolished altogether.

This is part of why any and every new piece of gun control legislation has to be fought tooth and nail. Anything less and the good guys lose.

 

[Bald1]

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.

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.

 

[Well Armed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?