our own worst enemy

[Bald1]

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]

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]

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]

To answer OPs question

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]

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]

One more bloviating comment

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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.