Time to turn em in, boys

Our 2nds amendment loving president, supported by the NRA, is implementing an NRA supported ban on bump stocks. You'll have 90 days to turn em in our destroy em.
Bump stock ban

Gee I'm sure glad we voted for a pro-2A president.

move

Bumpstockers were that bump you felt as they were thrown under the bus as a COMPROMISE. 18-20 year old Floridians know what's it's like to be thrown under the bus by Republicans as a compromise. I don't find it surprising, as the NRA is a gun control group, that they want to help government control who has the guns and what kind.

sensible

It is unclear to me how many gun control measures have to be backed by an organization, and enacted into law by a political party to declare them to be disingenuous at least or lying scumsuckers. I've heard tell by the NRA and Republicans that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or shooting sports, but to have the means for The People to put an end to tryannical government. Well, these deeply conflicted groups speak one thing but their actions show differently. When they want to control the firepower of The People and thereby the means to throw off a tyrannical government it is one tick in each column marked scumsucker.
Be waryor as history has shown, you and your family may end up in the carcass pile after all the compromising has been done and there is nothing left to give away.

Stop nominating the most liberal R as your candidate would help.

Thank god some of us belong to the NRA we have quite a few to cary.

You'd rather have Obama?

I don't own one, don't care to own one, but....... Am very unhappy with the president, the NRA and the republicans that passed this

I left the NRA in '96 when they didn't fight hard enough against the assault weapons ban and once again they have exhibited to me the reason that I should not support them

Tired of the caving in. Drip drip drip drip

And given the opportunity, do you feel the democrats and Obama would have done better? I do. I think they would have gone much farther than just bump stocks.

I am going to call my local Libertarian congressman and file a complaint, darn it, aint got one. Well , I guess I can not blame them. BUT, the Libertarians can blame everyone else.

I think his other option was Hillary. She would of been so much better...

Trapper 7 I didn't vote for Obama, and I didn't vote for Trump (Or Hillary either). Michigan, it's being done through a rule change, not a law change. Congress isn't involved, which brings up the whole separate issue of the executive branch ceding it's lawmaking power to the executive branch. A long time ago, congress decided that the ATF gets to make the rules, not congress. To those who think it's sensible, if bump stock bans are sensible, how about binary triggers? Rubber bands wrapped around the mag well? Stronger trigger return springs? 30 round mags? Where does it change from sensible to not okay? That's a serious question, not rhetorical.

No one "passed" anything. It's an ATF rule change by POTUS. Congress didn't do anything.....yet

The lesser of two evils. Nope I'm tired of it


Drip drip drip drip drip

Kinda of like saying at least the rapist didn't kill ya Right?

ADC, as of November 1, 2016, a total of 1,780 presidential candidates had filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC. There were man, many more choices than Trump and Hillary.

Bans on bump stocks and on any gun has nothing to do with the NRA or Republican or democratic party's it's all about the people that we live with the more people feel there isn't a need for these things the more bans that will get pushed. If they didn't make compermisees then the liberal people that everyone feels has the right to voice there opinions would take everything from us. The cold hard truth is less liberals better world. So now the people who truly want to hold on to there gun right will have to find a way to either make peace with the liberals or move away from them. It's a loosening battle.

If you were at the track and there were 2 thoroughbreds and 1678 horses with broken legs, who would you put your money on?

I bet memebers of other gun control groups say the same thing.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were/are political thoroughbreds?!?!? Yikes!!!!! If they're the best we can come up with, well, I don't even know what to say about that.....

I voted for Trump because he was a better choice than Hillary, IMO. A vote for anyone else was a wasted vote. Logically, to think it was not going to be between these two was silly. My point was Obama would have banned all guns, probably even BB guns if he could have. I doubt you would have seen much change from that stance had Hillary been elected. Trump was the best option when it came to guns. Were there better pro-gun candidates out there? Probably, but they weren't going to be president. It was going to be between Trump and Clinton. Those were the only real choices.

No compromise. Compromise with nothing in return will not end well. Follow it to it's conclusion at the carcass pile. There are plenty of examples of people's who compromised their guns away during the last century. How anyone can support further compromise is a mystery.

How do they plan to enforce this?

Mike

No, not thoroughbreds. But, realistically they were the only two candidates who were going to win. Realizing this, if you don't like Trump's opinion when it comes to gun control, you must think Hillary would be more lenient.

No idea, Mike. I don't own one, but from what I understand they don't have a serial number, so they cant be grandfathered like a full auto. Likely just get arrested and put in a cage if you're caught with one. (As an interesting aside, the city I work for has a bump stock ban. I've heard from an officer or two that they'd turn a blind eye to any bumpstocks they come across, as long as there are no firearms-related crimes being committed.)

Until you folks come up with something better, that could actually work I think I will stay with the NRA. I want my kids to own guns.

That must be it, trapper7. The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that I'm a secret Hillary Clinton Supporter. It's hard to argue with logic like that

Exactly what I am saying but not many people are willing to sacrifice there freedom and lives to keep there rights for the next generation. Its not about us its about our children's children. The lefts population will continue to grow and the rights will slowly die off the it's over

So if you own a bump stock but have committed no crime you can still face prosecution... Depending on officer's discretion does not ease my mind at all either.

Are they banning fingers and beltloops too?

This country has become a @$&# joke.

Mike

By continuous compromise they won't.

Money sent to the nra is a feather in nancy pelosis cap. Yep reasonable gun control what a wonderful idea

I think it's hard for anyone to know what you support. You post about the ban on bump stocks but have said that we should let immigration be open for all. Which will only grown the left stronger to make more bans on guns. You make no sense. You have to pick a side and be happy with that side, not ride the fence to be on what ever side looks good at the time.

So what is your excuse?

But the republicans were in charge of pres house senate for two years and didn't change it

So yes they are responsible TOO

The NRA doesn't support a bumpstock ban. Your listening to too many rope smokers.
After the Vegas shooting, they did support regulations on them, meaning background checks or at most needed a stamp like ya would for an automatic, but not a ban.


https://thehill.com/regulation/355183-nra-comes-out-against-legislation-banning-bump-stocks

Matt28, I've never said our immigration system should be open to all, just that we shouldn't light immigrants on fire and chop their heads off. It's a subtle difference, I know. I think we need strong borders and even a border wall, and base our immigration system off of skills only, menaing if you don't bring something to improve our country, you don't get in, period. But that's beside the point. I don't pick a side and the believe whatever that side believes, that's being a sheeple. I believe what I believe, and if that puts me on a certain side of the fence, so be it. Trapper7, excuse for what? For voting outside of the two party system?

And too top this off, all this from an un-named source as reported by CNN.

Pretty scary to make it a crime to possess something you legally purchased less than a year ago.

Banning the sale of something is one thing, but requiring you to destroy it or turn it in is quite another.

I never would have thought something like this could happen in the land of the free.

I guess we'll see if it actually happens.

It's all over the news, just google bump stocks banned. It's easy to find. Just because it doesn't appear on fox news's homepage doesn't mean it's fake news. ( and before you get too up in arms, fox news and NPR are the only two news sources I look at on a daily basis besides the local paper. Believe it or not, there's really not much difference between the two.)

bump stock ban-fox news

If it makes anyone feel better, here's a fox news article when Trump originally called for a ban back in February. It also talks about how he wants stronger background checks, and bans on other "gun modifiers" (gat cranks and binary triggers. likely). If that's not bad enough, he basically says "Obama said they're okay, but I don't think they should be." If Obama thought bump stocks were okay, and trump doesn't, that should tell you something.

I get what you're saying. But here is the deal...

The NRA has compromised many times and the membership keeps paying their dues... So the NRA gets the message that what they are doing is OK with their membership. Keep feeding the beast and it will keep doing what it has been doing all along.

You dont necessarily have to quit suppodying them... But a phone call or strongly worded letter threatening to cancel continued financial support is definitely in order.

They need to know that their compromises will cut their own throats.

Mike

But the republicans were in charge of pres house senate for two years and didn't change it

So yes they are responsible TOO

i think i should be able to buy c4 by the ton but can't do that either,oppression is everywhere.

I agree, Michigan. republicans didn't do anything to reduce gun restrictions when they could have. They talk a better talk than democrats, for sure, but they walk the same walk as democrats. At least a democrat will be honest about their desire for gun control. The same can't be said for a republican.

You can, you just need to pay the government extortion money first.

C4 isn't an "arm", arm implies a personal weapon, like a gun, knife, flamethrower, sword, bazooka, whatever. But I agree, you should be able to buy C4 if you need some. I don't believe in punishing people for what they "might" do, only what they've actually done.

Yes. You must have realized you were wasting your vote. What's the point? If I thought that way, I wouldn't bother to vote.
Trump wasn't my choice, but since he had the nomination and either he or Hillary was going to be the winner, when it came to gun ownership, it wasn't even close. I voted for him. History has shown none of the other parties have ever come close to winning.

Build a type 1 mag and go get you an FEL. Doable.

Gun control group gonna do what a gun control group does-decide who gets and who doesn't and who gets what and who doesn't. No different than a democrat in my mind. At least Democrats are up front with their final solution.
Would it be too much to ask for the NRA to support every Americans right to arm themselves as they fit?

They don't walk the same walk. If they did, you wouldn't own a gun.

Trapper7, if you keep voting like the 2 party system is going to be in place forever, then don't be surprised if the 2 party system is in place forever. Trump was going to win Nebraska's electoral votes, guaranteed. So how did I waste my vote? I didn't vote for the guy and my vote wasn't the deciding factor in whether or not he won Nebraska.

What if the only gun I own has a bumpstock? I guess pretty soon I wouldn't own a gun then.....

Trapper obviously likes to vote for the winning team. I mean, if your convictions are support of big government and trampling of the second amendment, fine. Otherwise it really isn't anything to pat yourself on the back over to vote for a team that continually effs you over and over and over again

I'm with you regarding the two party system. I would like to see a 3rd, 4th, or more parties that had a realistic chance to win. But, common sense says that will never happen. If you look at past elections and it was ever close to a victory for another party then I'd consider there's a chance. But, it never was. Vote how you want and know it doesn't mean anything.

They gonna ban belt loops and thumbs too?

If you're too fearful of voting for anyone besides an R, than it is pretty obvious to see who is to blame for the continuation of the 2 party system.

First of all, Trump wasn't expected to win. So, I wasn't voting for the winning team. These two nominees were so far apart on everything I felt important, it was a no-brainer on who to vote for.

If ever a 3rd party candidate seriously made a run at the presidency, that would be one thing. But, that's never happened. And 5% or 10% isn't a serious run.

Perhaps if people that supported 3rd party ideals voted 3rd party the percentage would magically go up.

I think most of them think the same way I do. Look at how many independents there are in congress. We should be concentrating on who we nominate to run for office.

It's likely that all 47 democrats in the senate agree with a bumpstock ban. How many republicans do you think will support it, because they support the president? Not all 53, for sure, but probably most. Do those republicans who (will) support a bumpstock ban think like you? What about Trump? He wants a bumpstock ban; does he think like you? If not, will you vote for him in 2020 anyway?

When I say they think like me, I'm referring to people who vote either for democrat or a republican, not for a 3rd party because they know a 3rd party has no chance of winning.

Let me ask you this: I don't know if you were in the military or not. Don't know if you know what an M60 machine gun is. But, it has maintained it's status in the military for a long time because of it's firepower. Do you think anyone who wanted to own one should be allowed to? Or, should that be banned?

Never in the military, but I'm aware of what an M60 is. They can currently be legally owned already, as long as the serialized part was made before 1986. The serial number is on either the trunnion or the bottom channel. The trunnion-serialized guns are worth more than the bottom-channel-serialized guns because the bottom channel is just a stamped part, and is more likely to wear out. everything but the serialized part can be replaced. So, if your bottom channel-serialized m-60 wears out, bends, etc it bottom channel, the whole gun is junk, only useful to sell for parts. You cant replace it unless you get another pre-1986 bottom channel. (That's probably more info than you wanted.) Those rules are ridiculous. Yes, anyone should be allowed to own one. It's an "arm", as stated in the constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

......yeah hiltabeast was a much better choice lol

So you're okay with a bumpstock ban wallfur?

I started the article, seen who is reporting it, CNN.
When I hear it come from a law maker I will believe it. BS

Some people will never learn

Already pointed that out to them, over their heads Wetdog.

Goose, who did ya vote for? Surely not Johnson..........

Sorry I didn't read any comments.
Just started the article.
Well you understand hippie

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-urges-ban-on-bump-stocks-other-gun-modifiers

Wetdog and hippie, check out this article. I already posted it once, you obviously missed it. It's from Fox news. You wanted to hear it from a politician-here it is from Trump himself.

I didn't vote for Gary Johnson. As much as I find myself agreeing with the libertarian party, I find their position of abortion to be abhorrent. Keep guessing who I voted for. It's a fun game:) You have 1,777 more guesses.

In a country of three hundred and thirty million people you're going to find the one disgruntled individual who feels his only way to get his point across is to do as much harm and mayhem on those he despises as possible. It's impossible to guard against that. Robbing everyone else of their liberty is not the answer. There is no answer.

That's from Feb. and those pesky Republicans shot that down. This latest fluff was brought about by CNN and an unidentified source.

That's an easy guess if it wasn't the two main ones Goose....

Keep telling yourself that, Hippie. Don't worry, I'll advocate for your gun rights, even if you, our president, and the NRA won't. What's your guess?

All i'll say is..........at least ya made an effort to vote.

Constitution party

I'll just tell you all, because you'll never guess. I don't agree with everything about the constitution party but a lot. They're libertarian-ish with a Christian bent. Check out what their 2016 candidate had to say on various issues, you might find yourself agreeing with some, most, or even all of it.

Thats it .... no more NRA for me. I'll double up my payments to GOA instead. Trump has just managed to make himself the lesser of two evils in my book.

Loosegoose that guy was for no same sex marriages, that put him out right there. I agree with most of what he stood for but. We will never have a president like that in this world we live in. Over half the population would have to die off first. Again I would have never guessed that to be who you supported, especially with your love for leftist immigrants.

Frist they came for the straws...

NOT!

Again, I don't support open borders. Just not lighting immigrants on fire and not chopping their heads off. I actually support strong immigraion controls, and possibly even a border wall, and only letting in people with some sort of skill to put to use. If you can't support yourself, you don't get in, period.. Nobody ever asks me what my immigration position is, they just tell me I'm weak and a liberal because I don't want to just execute them😁 If that's leftist so be it I guess. I don't "support" same sex marriage either, but I also don't think the government has any place in marriage at all.

Just put up a sign saying no bump stocks allowed.That should work good.

Let me throw this out there for debate.
Do the manufacturers of the bump stocks have any fault in this goat roaping?
I think they looked at manufacturing a somewhat questionable device to skirt around nfa laws.
Not giving a flip about the consequences down the road for gun owners and the industry as a whole.
When they came out with this device years ago my thought was this is going to end up costing gun owners in the long run.

5,4,3.....2..........1 GO

Yes, it was a sketchy way to skirt the law.
But the law is rediculous!
Bump stocks don't kill people!

Do auto manufactures share any fault in the millions that have been killed by drunken drivers?

I agree the NFA is ridiculous. The latest opportunity to repeal it was squandered by the same party that took away the second d amendment for 18-20 year old Floridians. These bunp stocks would've been a perfect opportunity to examine the folly of the NFA, but instead they are used as a 'skirting the law device to endangers gun owners'. Pathetic

It's no worse than making AR-15s that "skirt around" various assault weapons bans. Should we just comply and follow the intent of the law, not just the letter, and not buy AR15s of any sort, if we live in California, for example?

I think Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose Party" won out over the Dems and Repubs way back when.

w

This talk about a 3rd party is a hoot. Libertarians are the same as democrats. Open borders, pro abortion. Oh yea, libertarians do like screaming freedom after every sentence.
That being said Trump is an idiot for wanting to ban firearm accessories, along with the republican party that is full of democrat light senators and representatives. More like a one party system we have. It's a very slippery slope to be on banning such things. Hope they don't ban scopes next, my vision is not as good as it once was and shooting with iron sights would be a chore.

Searching for the phrase, "Trump is an idiot," brought me to here.

Does anyone seriously believe that Trump has any genuine commitment to our Second Amendment rights?

Does anyone believe that Trump wouldn't sell our guns rights in a second, if he thought political considerations favored it?

Jim

the interesting thing to me, is that you have to ask the questions in the first place..


you don't have to ask those questions of Dems...most of them (Leaders, at least) are ON RECORD calling for bans and confiscation of certain firearms.

[if you need me to, I'll post the videos]

James I don't believe Trump is necessarily anti 2nd but it is rather unnerving to consider what compromises he might make with those who are in order to make a deal. Certain things, such as the 2nd, that are as clearly defined by the Constitution should not be compromised. Although one could argue a bump stock is not a firearm.

And here goes James. I guess he want's to get this thread deleted.

A bump stock not a firearm. Right ... neither is a scope or a repeating action or a moderator or a magazine. Its a very slippery slope we are on right now and the NRA has put some extra soap on that slope with this issue.

Agree. I enjoy my scope and sling on my bolt action deer rifle.

I take deep offense to being lumped in with statists...

Those "libertarians" are the kind of folks who thought our constitution and bill of rights were a good idea when they founded the country...

As for open borders... Quit providing free sh!+ and the flies will quit swarming.

Abortion is denying another human the right to life and liberty without due process.

Not all libertarians are obsessed with legalizing weed. A lot of us are sick to death of a bloated GD government that can't seem to keep its ever-growing parasitic hands out of everyone's business... And the same two parties are doing nothing to change that.

And why would they change it? As long as we allow them to keep us squabbling over which flavor of big government is better... They get to keep on bleeding us dry.

Mike

AMEN MIKE

Who needs a friggin bumpstock. Cripes.

With all do respect Mike that is your party's platform.
Explain to me how a libertarian believes in the sovereignty of an individual but not in the sovereignty of a group of individuals.
I myself am without a party. Republicans have no backbone, democrats are way out in left field, and the libertarian party believes you have the right to liberty and happiness but not the right to life or national sovereignty.

It's not the fact that you need one. It's the fact that the government has no right to say you can't. And I'll say it again, the fact that the wack job in Vegas used bump stocks, while dramatic, definitely saved peoples. In fact it probably saved hundreds. Had he took time to aim and tried to be at all stealthy about things, a lot more people would have been killed. Once again, an inanimate object gets the blame and the real cause is overlooked.

You are being far too charitable towards Democrats !!

Chock me up as a Constitutional Libertarian then J...

Mike

Well all they need to do is make the bumps illegal and then when caught with them you could lose all of your firearms and or rights to own and utilize. There are countless ways to get what is desired by and for those that want to get what they want. The part that becomes more concerning is that things can start from places one would not think they may and thus much of the "NOISE" that would be created by opposition will not be there.

Bryce

If it was "legal " last week , but not "THIS WEEK" doesn't that sort of fall into the 'ex post facto' definition ???

I think that ship has sailed Ken.

Mike

I'm afraid you're right !

Well said...

Does anyone seriously believe that Trump has any genuine commitment to our Second Amendment rights?

Does anyone believe that Trump wouldn't sell our guns rights in a second, if he thought political considerations favored it?

Jim

That statement is just as ridiculous as most of Finn's statements bashing the NRA!!

Why is it ridiculous gman? Trump's the guy who said we should take away people's guns and give due process after the fact, buying lots of ammo is a red flag, we need stronger background checks, at one time he supported an assault weapons ban and long waiting periods to purchase, and supports a "terrorist watch list" gun buy ban. You think that sounds pro-2a?

Probably no one. It's not about "need." Who needs more than a single shot shotgun? If someone proposed getting rid of anything other than single shots, I'm guessing you would be po'd over that.

Who needs a car that goes 100mph? Who needs an ar-15? Who needs a semi-auto-pistol? Who needs 50 different choices of toothpaste? Who needs 1,000,000 different shirts to wear when just gray will work? Who needs pants in warm weather? Who needs to be allowed to have more than two kids? Who needs to go to whatever church they want?

He is going to sell our gun rights for political gain. It is inevitable.

And how would he gain politically by becoming anti 2A? As a liberal, would you vote for him for a second term if he did? Do you think any of your screaming, protesting, vagina-hat wearing peers would? Do you think the media will suddenly become pro-Trump?

Please explain how becoming anti-2A would cause political gain for this President and not cause a huge political loss.

Anti's being anti's and trolls being trolls Lugnut. They are all too happy about the news and to trash Trump, even tho they know he was our only option (well, coulda voted for Hillary). Ain't worth the effort.

Don't care about bump stocks but I do care about being forced to get rid of them. Come January you will see the effects of the left and our second amendment . 2 years from this January will be even worse. The left cant be stopped as easy as our complacent Right

Perhaps if this cause wasn't so fiercely championed by a raving lunatic more people would be convinced.

Lugnut I'll be happy to explain....If Trump won a second term and democrats took the senate, and nancy Pelosi (or whatever democrat) came to him and said they'd pass a bill to fully fund a wall if he'd agree to sign a permanent assault weapons and high-cap magazine ban bill, do you think he'd go for it?

No, i don't think he would, but i'm darn sure the other choice would.

Her husband already has banned them. Got any more stupid questions?????

Hippie you really don't think so? The man who loves dealing so much that he wrote a book about the art of the deal wouldn't jump all over that deal? I tell you what-I know he would. In the year 2000 he wrote a book called "The America We Deserve". On page 102 of that book, Donald Trump said "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record." So there you have it, straight out the big man's mouth. Does that sound like the America we deserve? I guess it's the America we got because we thought we couldn't do any better.

No loose goose, I don’t think he would.

Building the wall wouldn’t be much of a political gain after he alienates the majority of his base would it?

So you just keep dredging up a 20-year-old statement in an effort to prove that this president is anti-gun? Seems a little desperate and pathetic to me.

Lugnut see the comment I made right before you. Trump supports an assault weapon ban. Also, he wouldn't need to worry about his base in his second term.

Listen Goose, you told me you like to troll, or your words were "debate". You say things to antagonize to get your "debate" going. I ain't playing your game. you seem smart enough to know that the person in office is by farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr our best choice the last election.

No, i don't think he will ban any GUN.

SSS, They're not recorded anywhere are they?

I'll tell you what hippie-if a bump stock ban doesn't happen, I'll come on here and publicly apologize, and declare trump to be a pro-2A president.

Lugnut, what other politician that said "I support the ban on assault weapons" would you vote for? Seriously-if a guy (or gal) said I support banning assault weapons, and later said they support the 2nd amendment, do they still win your vote? Keep in mind Hillary Clinton claimed to support the 2nd amendment too.

A republican could ban assualt weapons and most idiots would still go along for the ride making excuses the whole trip, cuz da Democrats so much worse.

About as dumb as someone voting for some offbreed every year knowing they won't be elected, huh Finn?

Libertarians elected Joe Manchin in WV this fall.

Candidate Party Votes Pct.
Joe Manchin* Democrat 288,808 49.5%
Patrick Morrisey Republican 269,872 46.3%
Rusty Hollen Libertarian 24,231 4.2%

The two hypothetical statements that you illustrate above are not necessarily contradictory.


Using Hillary's statement doesn't prove anything. Shes a Democrat and we all know that no matter what they say, they want to ban all firearm ownership and have made that clear for 60 years or more.

Donald trump was a registered democrat up until 1987, and then again from 2001 until 2009.

But he was not an elected Democrat.

You keep assuming every Librarian would vote republican. When it comes to open borders and dope smoking, they align more with democrats, so i don't get the same impression from those numbers as you do.

Didn't Reagan used to be a democrat too? He worked with the NRA in the 1960s to make open carry illegal in California. As well as signed the GCA of 1986.

True Finn, and in the past Gary was a republican.

That's right

You know who else had a fence on their border? East Germany. So people couldn't escape. Fences work both ways. When Democrats and Republicans get done playing tiddlywinks together and have compromised away all of our guns we'll be wishing we hadn't put up fences to keep us in. To think it couldn't happen here is an example of supreme ignorance. The capcity for true evil lies within us all, and those who seek power through force of government seem to have more capacity

Reagan at least said why he left the Dems...

Well I dont think trump will win another term and i hope that we get a democratic president so all the cry babys will shut up. The Republicans conservatives or how ever you labeled them never cried so much when Obama was in. The just payed the higher taxes and gave all the lazy people food stamps and got there health care raised to almost double and just took it like a man. But God forbid when the shoe is on the other foot that the same happen. I wish Hillary would have won just to see how much some would have complained then. No one is thankful for what they got. Is it perfect...no, is it better then what we would have had... yes. When we do get a president that will take all that we love away I hope some of yall will be happy.

Can't believe people trust Trump anymore than any other celebrity...he will do what he thinks is best for himself.

Or y'know you could just support a party of less government. Who the president is should be essentially irrelevant. I wish Trump, before he grabs his tweetin' phone or his reggaelattin pen would ask himself, "What would Calvin Coolidge do?"

It really isn't going to matter in another 5 years or so.

The demographics are against us. I will not be surprised if we never have another Republican president. There is just no way, at this point, to overcome the public school indoctrination of the NEA, the illegal immigrants, and vote fraud.

Too many vote for a living provided by those who work for a living.

So I see no way to preserve either the second amendment or the first. Those will be reserved for only the special people.

Nobody knows who old Cal is unfortunately.

Than it is all the more important to preserve whatever means we have to fend off tyranny between now and then. Tactically bump stocks won't help the cause much, in my humble opinion. However, holding them up as an example of compromise and pointing towards groups responsible for compromise....makes me feel better while the hammer falls. Thanks for the burst of optimism Mr. Sunshine.

I guess that the old plow mare and the old gimped up saddle horse with one nut are "thoroughbreds" now. Time to cleanse the gene pool.

I really wouldn't bring up the horse thing if you're a Trumpist as that family subscribed to the race horse theory.

Yes it is pretty depressing but...realistic. We might have some time to decide individually just what we will and will not tolerate.

Well, that is what it all boils down to really. Individuals making decisions to try benefit themselves and their families. This is why I am against a fence or a wall. I am not tied down to a B.S. government and I don't believe blocking avenues of egress is a good idea.

The cycle is supposed to switch in 2025 so we just have to survive the next 8 years.

On the other hand, our founding documents lay the obligation on us to remove a tyrannical government, and they give us the means to do so.

I believe that our founders wouldn't try to obligate us to anything. They were bold enough to leave their King and ffind a more free place and I think that they expect us to do the same. If the fight can't be win here I'll paddle my hide to where more freedom is. I think this whole 'open borders ' deal is simply a misunderstanding of self determination.

Well you people elected a soulless psychopath who is only concerned with satiating his own greed for money, sex, and power. You shouldn't be surprised at anything he may do.

Jarhead

This idea of 'obligation' makes me think of the selective service and how UN-American that agency is. We own our bodies and owe nobody or nothing our labor or lives. Scary proposition, as we may lose the next war. However, if we are at such a loss of Patriots who will not fight because it is dire, than we deserve subjugation.

The most truth I've seen on this thread so far

Well, your candidate is one of the most corrupt individuals ever to roam the hallowed walls in Washington.

"Illegal" immigration is only a symptom of the problem.

I agree with you Steven, Hopefully, in 2020 we will have a more respectable choice. I'm hoping Trump will decide he's had enough by then.

Respect and government functionaries are antonyms. Hold them at arm's length and look at them with a proper amount of disdain while realizing they are a necessary evil.

Elected officials rank alongside proctologists... You wish there was no need for them even though they have a legitimate purpose... And you hope you never have any use for one.

Mike

X2.

Jim

I don't have any doubt that Trump would trade gun rights for Congress granting funds for the wall.

He'd expect the wall to be named after him, of course.

He'd also trade away gun rights in exchange for being allowed to build a Moscow hotel.

Preferably, while he is still in office.

Jim

Jarhead and James be waiting for a Democrat so their version of big government be done. No different than trumpians.

IMHO, Larry, there is no chance of that happening although I will reserve my judgment on the current POTUS until his term/terms are done.

The system is corrupt and always will be until we return to sound money practices.

There is almost zero difference between neoliberalism and neoconservatism. They both serve the same masters.

Sorry, Finn. I've voted R more than D, and your party more often than R & D combined.

Jim

Dang...

Then and now buddy.
Then he was our only option and now we are stuck with him. But if he sells us down the swanny on any constitutional rights ( for me mostly 2A I have to admit ) put up another republican up for voting and his position is gone. No second term. Paid my share to the NRA but next year they can beg at someone else door. My vote in that respect and my money goes to GOA from now on. Until they screw up

As a conservative I don't see a lot of reason to be optimistic about the future, but, we may be as a group, too pessimistic. After what I've witnessed with Antifa and the general lawlessness of the left, I'll be of no mind to just roll over and fall in line with a bunch of radical leftists. That's assuming they win.

vote for Batman

I'll file this post in the same spot I filed your first post on this thread.

easy now i'm sensitive.

You're just another Pennsylvanian. Sensitive ain't got nothing to do with it.

yeah but 3/4 of a mile north and i'd be in NY state.lesser of 2 evils thing.

Is that the same place we file all your annoying posts?

Oh looks looks, another penisylsvanian doling out his yip yip for free.

We speak English here, could you please translate?

vote Librarian.

I'm good with that!

Well I did vote for Goldwater, Nixon, Eisenhower, Illinois Congressman Les Arends, and several State and local Republicans in the past. I will remain a never Trumper forever though.

Jarhead

No reason to quote this other then I like this picture better then the rest of this thread

Goldwater was the last Conservative of consequence in the Republican party. Paul, Amash, and that other curly haired dweeb from Kentucky are alright, I guess.

Finn, shut up

Do you think she is wearing a bra ???

She appears to be braless.

Swing low.....sweet chariots....

OK I'm a librarian too!!!
Redheads are my criptinite.lol

One for good measure

Gotta go, I have very overdue library books to return.
I hope she has the discipline me lol

Calm down... Bill Clinton has been out of office for a while.

Mike

That's great lol.

All the Doomsdayers,anti Trumpers, anti NRA freeloaders on here really have short memories---or didn't you want 2 good Supreme court pics!! What is wrong with you guys???????????? Seems to me they are both very pro 2a!!

Kavanaugh wasnt a good pick. He wasnt even on the original list of mostly good picks of 25 that Trump ran on. Only good thing his pick did was save an electoral massacre from being worse a few weeks ago. And that was on accident.

As of November 30, 2018, the United States Senate has confirmed 84 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 29 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals and 53 judges for the United States District Courts.

All of these nominees have been conservatives. I don't think any of you complainers and never-Trumpers fully understand how favorably that effects conservatism in the judiciary and the second amendment.

The economy is doing great, lowest unemployment ever for most minorities, trade is starting to work in our favor finally, to conservative SCOTUS judges, over 50 conservative federal judges appointed and confirmed, ISIS is decimated and almost non-existent at this point, factories pouring back into the United States, Bogus Paris agreement axed, Iran in check, North Korea in check, and people still cry and complain that he tweets to much, or he's mean, or whatever. Good Grief, some are beyond pathetic little sissy girls.

A good definition for a liberal.

I couldn't have picked a better name. And for crying out loud, turn off CNN, it will rot the brain.

I'd love to agree with you but I can't.

Once the demographic doomsday clock kicks in, the Democrats will discover that SCOTUS needs 13 justices rather than 9..................just like FDR tried to do.

But this time there will be no congress to stop them. At that point it is OVER. We Are Done as a representative republic !

Are you willing to trade your gun rights for all these things you listed?

beat me up but honest question.is there any practical purpose for the bump stock that is escaping me??

Not as far as I can see ! BUT.............I don't want to tell some brain dead moron that he can't have one !

That sounds like a tactic the democrats might try again.

Try to be optimistic White: Trump wins a second term and nominates two more justices. Then, even if Democrats change the rules, we could still hold the balance of power on the SCOTUS (from 5-4 to 7-6).

Also, those 82 other federal judgeships Trump nominated conservatives to is a huge win for conservatives.

yep the bump stocks eat up a lot of ammo and makes one feel like Rambo, really as far as guns or any other issue its all about votes Hillary would back full autos if she thought she could win an election, the NRA yeah its big business also and they might throw a bone of compromise to keep in bed with the right politicians and business leaders thats the real world. When enough voters are out of touch with the outdoors, guns and trapping we loose that is the fact of democracy.

Yeah that might be looked at as a "huge win" but I seem to recall that Odungo had 1100 lower court judges confirmed. I sure hope I'm wrong

Bumpstocks...pfffftt, I can make my AR-15 function like a full auto simply by hooking my thumb in my belt loop. Lets see them confiscate that!

I'm going to have to look that up. I was under the impression most of these vacancies were left unfilled by the previous president.

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade.

He had eight years. Trump is off to a good start.

Bumpstocks are only good for making noise and wasting money. The biggest issue, as far as my concern, is that it's playing fast and loose with the rules. A semi is defined as one shot per function of the trigger, a full auto is more than one shot per function of the trigger. A bumpstocks just let's you pull the trigger faster, it's still one shot per function of the trigger. To ban them because they increase rate of fire is a dangerous slippery slope. Lots of things increase rate of fire-lighter trigger pulls, lightweight bcgs, lighter buffer springs, carbine vs rifle gas length, even better sights and scopes, slings, pistol grips, and forward grips, depending on how wonky you want to get. If we're going to have ridiculous gun laws, let's at least base them on things that are definablee, and stick to that, not base them on whatever the political winds are doing today.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I may be really old but I doubt that the length of the barrel, better sights, scopes, slings and pistol grips and forward grips , increase the rate rate of fire of anything in this world.

No, however with Trump there is a much better chance of protecting the 2nd than Hitlery. If she was in there right now, we would be beyond screwed at this point. Anyone that believes differently needs a mental evaluation. I'm under no illusion that Trump walks on water. When you compare him to the other choice, we got really, really lucky he pulled it off.

I should have been more specific. I was referring to two separate things. Cyclic rate is how fast the action of a firearm can cycle, expressed in rounds per minute. Things like lighter bolt carrier groups, lighter buffers and buffer springs, and a carbine length gas system (compared to a rifle length gas system), even a stronger hammer spring to decrease lock time increase cyclic rate, because they allow the action to cycle faster. It has no real world effect, because we're shooting semi-auto and nobody could ever shoot at max cyclic rate even if shooting full auto.
Rate of fire is how fast you can accurately put rounds down range. Things like a better trigger, better sights, pistol grips. forward grips. even slings can allow you to put more rounds downrange accurately. (Think of things that allow you to regain sight picture and make follow up shots-big bright night sights on a pistol allow you to shoot faster compared to, say the original sights on a WW2 1911).
If I asked you to shoot ten rounds at a 4 inch target 50 yards away, would you be faster with an ak with the standard notch and post sight, no pistol or forward grip, or with an ar-15 with an eotech and forward and pistol grips?
Some proposed bills use wording that attempt to ban things like bump stocks use wording that bans things that increase a guns cyclic rate, or ban things that increase a guns rate of fire. While supporters of such a bill would say that language only applies to things like bump stocks, binary triggers, and gat cranks, we all know gun grabbers like to twist definitions and would use that kind of language to make sure the only thing we're shooting is black powder muskets with a bead at the end of the barrel for a sight. Hope that all makes sense.

I get your point Mike, but UNLIKE Trump Bill Clinton is not a soulless psychopath.

EVIDENCE?

Yes, please.

Mike

Just do a search for psychopath/psychopathy and my point will become clear to you. Also check the definition of soulless

Jarhead

So in other words you have no proof. You have nothing that you can even point to that says Trump is a psychopath. Nothing but you own vitriol and hate. OK... Got it.

guess we'll just have to take his word for it.

This explains it all...

https://youtu.be/tqqwTgk8ri0

Mike

If you are too lazy to inform yourself I guess I'm unable to help you.

Jarhead

How many kids did Donald Trump kill in Waco Texas?
Because Bill Clinton killed 77, does that fit the definition of soulless?

I can't help but think that Addicted Angler is back

I get your point Mike, but UNLIKE Trump Bill Clinton is not a soulless psychopath.

Why would you say that?

I'm not a Trump fan. But the left's "Orange Man Bad" narrative is beyond tiresome.

Mike

For all you Trump haters,.what exactly has he done that has caused all your dissatisfaction?

1) banned bump stocks

Yep!, what else?

Beat Hillary ??????????

ding,ding,ding,tell White what he's won Bob.

Yes,.I cant understand why so many can not see where we could be at this time if any Dem would have gained the reigns.
I look it as a call to arms,..literally,..each state will be subjective to an onslaught of gun "reform",...Its their platform!

It would be nice if the great negotiator would actually do something to move some legislation instead of needlessly (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) off the people needed to help advance the agenda.

This thread is concerning Trump's attempt at gun control, hopefully this point isn't lost as we're wondering what the demos might have done.

It would be nice if the great negotiator would actually do something to move some legislation instead of needlessly (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) off the people needed to help advance the agenda.

There is a whole list of accomplishments he has moved,..despite of the people needed to "help"!

Trump is now pro- gun control, just the same as the Florida republicans. As both parties have a long and infamous history of supporting gun control, I suppose you could add this event onto the list of accomplishments.

Might of done? Jeeze Flynn,..have you recognized our incoming political future in our own state?
I agree and admire many of your thoughts, but we are at a crossroads,...a step up is better than a step back,..

Are you against criticism of gun control simply because it could have been so much worse? I believe gun control is terrible no matter who or what party does it.

Trump is now pro- gun control

Expand on this

Thats easy. He and the NRA threw us under the bus with bump stocks and the wording to pass this bit of gun control is a very slippery slope as mentioned before. Leaving the door wide open for the next bit. of legislation. Drip by drip you can fill a bucket.

And yes I hear it .... " It would have been so much worse if hilderbeast would have won" Bla Bla Bla... yes and if pigs could fly and all that. Point is at the time he was the better choice for sure. Don't know if that stands in the 2020 election though. And as far as the NRA goes. With what they did there, they lost my support as I said earlier on and I for one will put my money on the GOA horse for now.

Thats good ! Gun Owners of America is another angle fighting for owners rights! Why disparage a difference,..end game is what we all desire,..right?

The difference is that I am not going to support an organization that thrown us under the bus like the NRA did .... GOA would not have done that.

Nor would the SAF

Are not all gun orgs.,..advocating on behalf of its members?

show me all GOA has done.maybe i'll join.

Gun organizations SHOULD advocate on behalf of their members. The NRA says right on their website "we believe devices that allow a semi-automatic firearm to function like a fully automatic firearm should be subject to additional regulation." Im not intelligent enough to figure out how to link it from a smart phone or I would. If that sounds like what you want them to advocate for, then keep giving them your money. If that isn't what you want, why would you give them money? (And by the way, the only things that make a semi-automatic function like a fully automatic are drop-in auto sears, lightning links, etc. Bump stocks make a semi-automatic function like a semi-automatic.)

i guess i can't look at it like the trapping industry where we have had to give to even apply our trade.

You na sayers need to do you're research before you go all Trump derangement.
I went to the NRA,ATFE and White press release's.
It is under review. No talk of a out right ban.
Some people just like to be haters.
The truth will set you free

Requiring firearm sellers to be licensed and keep a record of who they have sold each firearm to is unconstitutional.

Point of sale background checks are unconstitutional and do nothing to prevent murder, armed robbery or any other assault.

I don't believe people who own full auto firearms are any more likely to commit a crime than the guy who owns a lawn mower.

IMO taxing and licensing owners of suppressors and automatic firearms is an infringement on the right of free people to be armed.

I am not supporting any candidate or any organization that disagrees with those statements.

Bump stocks are not constitutionally protected. It is unfair to say that a politician/organization is pro gun control if they support regulating and/or banning bump stocks.
I don't agree with this proposed ban and the politicians/organizations that support such measures are not using their noodle.

if telling people which firearm accessory or fire arm they can or can not own is not gun control then what is? support Nancy Hillary and joe. they all believe reasonable gun control is a real thing too.

The 2nd protects firearms, not accessories. Like I said I don't at all agree with it and GOA will likely gain another member.

It should not be reviewed. Summarily dismissed with prejudice.

like moths to a porch light.

X2

Bunch of whiners, nothing more.
Same ones whining and GONNA join the GOA.

What? Do ya rejoin them everytime someone like Loosegoose fabricates a story like this one? Ya didn't join the NRA and you'll not join the GOA or ya already would've.

Hippie what is your stance on banning/regulating accessories?

I don't like more regulations at all, i'm very pro-gun.......Which is why when i see people biting the hand that feeds them STUPID.

There's reason that in our lifetime, little to no gun laws have effected you or i, and it's the exact people being bashed here.

Somewhat realistic is what needs focus! P.C. or not. IMO

Hippie, there is no help for CNN MSNBC believers.
Those who don't do the research them self's, are the sheepal those outlets count on to be leave.
WWG1WGA

I think recoil pads should be banned too. Who needs a recoil pad? Or checkering on the stock.

My opinion also!

while I agree with you intellectually, that means you haven't voted since [at least] 1968....you've taken yourself out of "the game". yeah, you can claim "purity" when it comes to holding fast to your beliefs, but not voting has consequences for the rest of us, too.

wouldn't it be better to run [yourself], as a "No Compromise, Staunch Defender of Personal Freedom"?

I'd vote for you!l

if 'the hand that feeds you' is also a bunch of pro gun control weasels it is probably time to find a new hand to feed you or start feeding yourself.

So we agree that the NRA is wrong in wanting to regulate and the president is most definitely wrong in the move to ban bumpstocks.
As an NRA member who should one contact to voice their concern?

The memebership department to ask for a refund.

Unless you run as a libertarian or constitution party, you won't even get out of the primaries. Too many people buy the "electable candidate" argument. And even in those parties, you still get the Squishies or the loser from the main party primaries as their candidate.

I was a member for both GOA and NRA. But had my doubts about the way the NRA went the last couple of years. They have spent more time and money asking us members for more money with letters and e mails then actually getting our interests forward. The bump stock thing was the last straw for me. I am not saying that what I am doing is right but it feels right for me. GOA has a pretty firm stance and takes the 2A as what it is and does not compromise our rights away a little at the time. All the while holding a hat in front of its members to put more money in. So I am trying to do my part by getting an organization to grow that actually stands for what I think is right.

in my lifetime it has been made illegal to :

buy firearms mailorder, mail a firearm to anyone other than the manufacturer, refuse to id or or fill out a registration form at point of sale, give a firearm as a gift to a minor, buy a firearm for any other person, or have a firearm in my pickup at my grandsons football game, you need to sell somebody else that wheelbarrow full of fertilizer.

White Marlin you are partly correct and I regret some of the ballots I've cast.

can't remember Pelosi, Schumer or any of the Kennedy's ever even MENTIONING GOA...

how large is their membership?

re: NRA's hat-in-hand...it takes MONEY to buy influence in DC. sad fact, but a FACT none-the-less.

I say do what feels right to you.

but you're a darn FOOL to denigrate a fearsome (ask Pelosi) ally because you disagree with a few of it's positions.

in other words, join GOA and not the NRA (or vice-versa) if that makes sense to you...but don't BASH the other one!

heck, why not join BOTH? that way, you'll have a vote in their platforms.

come ON, folks...you're falling right into their trap...you ever hear of divide and conquer?

[just like an opossum...RIGHT into the flashy dirt-hole, no hesitation!]

What purpose does continuing to financially support an organization with a track record of doing things that one disagrees with? Wouldn't it help the siade of freedom to withdraw support of the compromised in order that it loses its influence?

White Marlin EVERY SINGLE ONE of the things I listed in my previous post were supported by the NRA. I am not sending money to any organization that is a gun control advocate.

so, DON'T Danny.

but you're a darn fool for publicly bashing a group that SUPPORTS 90 percent of what you believe.

Posting truthful examples of gun control measures drafted or supported isn't bashing.

I'll bet there's not ONE pro-trapping organization that hasn't (at one time or another) supported SOME restrictions on Trapping.

Danny, can you use 4 1/2 Newhouses on public land, and check them whenever you darn feel like it? how about tooth-jawed traps on public Park land?

by your reasoning, you should be bashing (or at least calling them out on it) NTA, your state trapping organization, etc.

and while I'm on my soapbox...

how come GOA didn't stop those restrictions?

Trapping is not mentioned in our document limiting government. Arms are.

they have to be checked daily.

what does that have to do with gun control?


IMO laws making murder illegal are not gun control either or an infringement on my right.

you've compromised on your freedom...or MINE!

what if I want to set toothed jaw traps on public ground and check them every two weeks?

You better go back to analogy school Marlin

fair enough, but I aint joining libertarians, either...their open border platform is ludicrous.

If you're not a Libertarian than I encourage you to not join the Libertarian Party.

okay...so it's not an infringement of the first amendment to yell "fire" in a crowded venue?

Libertarians cool with that?

never heard them complain about it...

fair enough...that's why you have no real influence.

There are Constitutionally copacetic laws that regulate speech that does result (not "could"result, as I am willing to bet I could go to town and yell fire in the theater and nobody would give two rips) result in violence or calamity. Just as there are Constitutionally copacetic laws governing threatening someone with a firearm. A good analogy would be not being allowed to speak at all in crowded venues because someone might yell fire. This is what gun control laws do.

you're still compromising principles...

White Marlin I was a member ( still am ) of both. But will not renew my membership with the NRA and instead pay more to GOA. I am not bashing the NRA. They just seem to have different interests then I have. The way I think they are going, compromising rights away a bit at a time, in a couple of decades we will be back to a flint lock front stuffer ...one per adult and a dozen round balls. Not what I signed up for.

White is correct . We all know the train is and has been headed in the wrong direction. Its not going to change direction no matter what stand you take. EVER !!!!!

The cliff is straight ahead and all we can do is slow the train down , we can not stop it

By the grace of god we have Trump to thank for this temporary slow down

Sometimes compromise is the only tool available and taking a stand can be detrimental

Slow down the ride to the cliff in hopes that you may too old or dead of old age to have to fight off the tryannical government that is guaranteed to arise once the compromising is done? Wow.

First, lets get something straight................Trump hasn't banned or regulated anything yet. In fact he has turned a couple regs around that Obama threw at us as he was leaving office. This means all you guys calling him an anti are in fact full of B.S.

Second.......The NRA doesn't support a ban on bumpstocks. In fact they are in the lawsuit stopping Florida from banning them. So there's yet another lie several here have posted to rile folks up.

And third.......Like it or not, sitting on your hands and whining isn't going to stop the ones comming after our guns. They are the majority of the population and i think the Republicans and the NRA have done a pretty good job holding them off so far.

Your ideas are dreams, and your smart enough to know it.

Your la la libatarian land wont have a chance until after full collapse .........im ok with speeding it up as long as we are all on board .........thats not going to happen either

1) Trump says he will ban them. I believe him.
2) The NRA supports restrictions on bump stocks, which is gun control- no surprise there
3) Sending money to a pro gun control organization or supporting a politician or political party that supports gun control trol is markedly worse than not.

All on board for what? You're hoping for a mass upwelling of support for a revolution to overthrow a tyranny AFTER you had been complicit in the compromises that led to the tyranny in the first place?

I believe him too.BUT

Republicans past and present have put Judges in place that when it gets challenged, it won't fly. IMO

I guess they will be placed where you'll need the stamp to own one. Over 90% of the population would like to see them gone, so if the people in place and the NRA.SAF can keep it to just regulation, it can be considered a win.

Your group/ideas are dreams.

Your smoking some good stuff if you beleive your gonna change the direction of the country before full collapse with your libtarian jiberish

You, and I believe it or not, don't like the way the wind is blowing but there is this thing called.....Reality.

I may not be able to change it, but I am at least trying. If collapse is, as you say, imminent, I would rather it happen while I am young enough or at least alive to have an affect on that. Rather than coasting along on the shoulders of our ancestors hoping to skid out of this life through compromise and leave follow on generations to wonder why great grampa was an appeaser.

X2

As we have for the past 242 years.

Danged old appeasers.

Maybe the old windy fartbag can more eloquently inspire the ladies knitting circle to quit compromising the second amendment, unless he is a compromiser as well?

I am, thank you.

Have you considered votin republican and joining the NRA??

For example, I don't think a drunk man should be able to walk into a gun store screaming "I'm gonna kill the b***h!" and be legally allowed to buy a gun. That's gun control isn't it?

I have voted Republican quite often, and I am a life member of the NRA.

Yes, Hal, any restrictions set forth by force of government is gun control. However, there is no need for a seller to be compelled against his will or judgement to sell anything to anyone for any reason in a free market.

For cryin' out loud. You're saying the seller has an option. Then by your own logic, and under your proposal, he has the option to sell the gun, exercising "his will or judgement".

Well of course he does. That is called freedom. The concepts of freedom and liberty only work if you believe in personal responsibility. If you believe personal responsibility can be abdicated to the collective thru legislation, there is no end to the possibility of 'good' that can be forced upon others. Our federal government has so many laws and regulations for us that they can no longer be compiled or accurately counted. In return we have one document called the Constitution which is supposed to limit what government can do to us. I say adhere to the Constitution and accept the bad with the good that comes from a limited government.

Besides, in your example of a lunatic wanting to purchase a firearm- the transaction will be prevented only by the sellers sense of personal responsibility anyway. For so as long as the lunatics 'background check' is clear the sale can proceed legally.

That's all I needed to know. Rave on. As long as folks with some modicum of intelligence can plainly see you're nuts, you'll be of little import in these discussions.

popcorn,get your hot popcorn here.

dude, THAT ship has sailed....a LOOOOONG time ago!

you ARE a fool, if you think you are protecting the Constitution from its first assault.

Good Lord...I'm agreeing with Hal!

FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!! You now want your lunatic to undergo a background check that you don't believe in?

Curiouser and curiouser, Alice.

All we need is for the right calamity to come along and bring people to their sense. Then we can dust off the Constitution and take another look at it.

Me too. I'm scared now.

Be not afraid.

it works just the OPPOSITE way, historically...

major upheavals usually are accompanied by increasingly shrill calls for the government to "do something"....that invariably leads to less Freedom for all.

our only hope is to take back control of the schools and begin teaching the value of Individual Freedom to new generations.

Frankly, I'm leery of anybody who wants to "dust off" the constitution. A lot of them want to dust with an eraser.

It should be required reading followed by a test before any elected official takes office.

Heck, I'm willing to go so far as to make a literacy test a requirement for voting. But if I strenuously advocate a position like that, I'll get lumped in with Captain Goofy here.

they know what it says and they have ALL sworn an Allegiance to the Constitution.

they choose to ignore it, and we keep electing them...

No, I do not want anyone to undergo a background check. However, we suffer with them with support of the NRA and Republicans and they are mostly powerless to prevent a lunatic from buying a gun- as your example shows.

My example only shows your lunacy.

Brutal! Please all join the NRA or some gun supporting group. Work out a little to strenghtin your back you have a lot of folks to carry. America is worth fighting for!

The NRA has done far more for the American gun owner than any other organization on the planet. Probably more than all other pro-gun organizations combined. They spend millions on public shooting ranges, safety programs, hosting matches, litigation against all sorts of anti-gun laws and lobbying efforts. I made a detailed list the last time the handful of NRA bashers here on Tman tried to derail a pro-NRA thread and none of them wanted to hear about it.

To the poster that ask about what to do when not happy about the direction the NRA has been going lately; I addressed that as well. All members get a board of directors ballot. We got one last year. There were several members that I urged all members here on Tman to vote for including Adam Kraut, a pre-2A lawyer who only does 2A cases and someone who could make some needed changes from with the NRA..

He didn't win a seat on the board. Only 7% of eligible members even bother to vote. That kind of apathy leads to power abuse by those in charge.

I don't agree with some of the things the NRA does but I'm smart enough to realize that they are far and away the most effective pro-gun organization there is. Me and many other members (although not nearly enough) are working to change the things we don't agree with. In my opinion, being a gun-owner and refusing to join the NRA for whatever petty, ridiculous reasons you want to spout is just plain stupid. When compared to the huge amount of good they've done an continue to do, all the complaints I'm hearing are insignificant.

Machine guns have been illegal as long as I can remember, son.

That's a myth also.
You can own one...200$ and a background check and you are good to go. Don't fall into this "banned" crap these guys are spreading.

Like i told Finn one day.....If ya can't afford a 200$ stamp, ya can't afford 10 seconds on the trigger.

Hey, I found a picture of Hal and FlyinFlinn from back in the day!


I always knew they were a couple of muppets.

No, you've got it wrong. That's me and your mama.

So now you are advocating registration?

Thanks Hal, it's encouraging to see that an increasing number of us have come to the realization that Finn is not of sound mind.

Jarhead

LOL, steven, i get you troll me, but don't put words in my mouth son.

I don't think that was a position of advocacy at all. One fellow said machineguns were illegal, the other pointed out that they weren't. Where did you get advocacy?

Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.

The NRA goes on to state that the organization believes “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Republican lawmakers, who are typically opposed to federal agencies writing regulations to accomplish what Congress hasn't directly legislated, had insisted that the Justice Department and ATF write a new regulation. Whereas some Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, have repeatedly cautioned that such a ban would likely result in lawsuits given ATF's earlier interpretation.

ATF Acting Director Thomas Brandon acknowledged in a Senate hearing this summer that he has been advised that banning bump fire stocks through executive regulation could lead to court challenges that would delay the implementation of a ban.

Trump said last month he told the NRA "bump stocks are gone," but how the group responds to the final rule remains to be seen. A spokesperson for the NRA said in October 2017 that the ATF "should review bump-fire stocks to ensure they comply with federal law," but made clear it opposed the broader gun-control legislation raised by some in Congress.

Quotes that are in links on the NRA website.

so, the NRA DIDN'T say they wanted bump stocks banned....just that they should be reviewed.

[bump stocks do NOT make the firearm fire more than one bullet per trigger pull]

sounds like a way to make the dumb masses [mistakenly] believe they would favor a ban, in order to get the political "heat" off of them, while not giving anything up.

It is evident that I have shown and we all agree that the Democrats, Republicans and the NRA all support gun control. The manner in which they support seems to vary by a few degrees either way and, boy, that is where the big money in contributions, litigation and bumper stickers seems to be made.

Oh for pity sake.



That's just about everybody ain't it? It looks to me like you have fallen into a tiny minority,

Are you fixin' to lead us to the promised land?

Exactly. It will get pushed to the ATF who already said it's ok, and the courts (should) too IF Trump writes an order.

This whole thread was started by CNN report and an "unidentified source" who claims Trump is going to. They've been known to start crap right before Trump goes overseas, and this looks the same. Time will tell, but like i stated earlier, i don't see them being banned, and if anything, going under the stamp regulation at worst. I guess i better say i don't agree with the regulation, so as some don't try to say i do since i'm being practical about this.

Actually Hal, he can say that with some truth to it. I already pointed out that over 90% of the population want's them gone, and if memory serves me right it's high 80's that agree with background checks. I guess that would include Republicans and NRA members.

Actually it was not CNN alone. I had similar things on Breitbart as well. Simple fact is that instead of saying NO, The NRA was fine to throw another bit of legislation up for debate. We all know how that will work out. Past examples , some posted in this thread should be a pretty good indicator. Maybe it is just a way for the NRA to squeeze more funds out of the members. Who knows.

Holy smoke! That was NOT sarcasm. I believe him. Here you say 80-90 percent. How that [b]not[b] include Republicans, Democrats, and the like?

It's those folks we need t to get along with, this cry from the wilderness ain't gonna get it.

Scuba, I read most all reports on this, and everyone of them said, "according to a CNN report". Different news agencies wrote their own spin on it, but all credited CNN and their un-named source.

Finn, do ya think there are some Librarians included in the 80&90 percent ? I know Gary Johnson and Weld wanted to add people to do background checks, so i'm guess yes.

Ohh.

Go along to get along boys. I want no part of it, as I believe the Constitution means what it clearly says. Also, as a member of a minority group speaking towards the majority, I request instead of compromise that you amend the Constitution to allow just the right kind of infringement (gun control) to make you feel happy and safe. Get together with your democrat breathern and amend away

Here's your Breitbart report Scuba.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...n-citizens-have-90-days-to-turn-them-in/

Notice it says....CNN reports.

You've got a lot of gall making a request, You're lucky we let you stand on our street corner with your tambourine.

Didn't realize I was at the corner of senile street and old avenue.

Bubba, you are at the corner of Wiser and Wizened, And I'll push you under the bus in a heartbeat.

Oh calm down and enjoy the slide.

I stay calm.

FACT.
His last day in office, Obama signed an order banning all lead bullets and sinkers.

One of the first things Trump did when he took office was rescind that order. You guys can thank us now for preventing Clinton from taking office and making you eliminate your lead bullets. Your welcome.

Law only affects people willing to obey them. I have quite a bit of lead and molds

Obeezy bans this; Cheeto bans that. Around and around we go.

Your reading skills are lacking Finn.

Obama banned this, and cheeto rescinded it. Cheeto hasn't banned a dang garn thing.....yet, lol.
Why you wanna lie?

then you're a fool, because it hasn't meant (according to US Supreme Court rulings) what it says for several hundred years, now.

you're several hundred years late and a dollar short, Amigo.

as I said, that ship has long since sailed.

and don't be surprised if some of your neighbors (or fellow trappers) rat you out for a piece of government cheese...

I'd agree with Hal here too. Call me Goofy.

should be able to pass the test required to become a naturalized citizen.

As to be carefully differentiated from "Captain Goofy" no doubt.

That too.

Be nice.

So, Hillary 2020 then?

Roll up your sleeve and stop wearing your heart on it , crybaby..

Only if the Democrats want to hand another election to the Republicans. Bernie won't get it either. Pray that the Democrats don't run some sane person for office.

not too much chance of that.

problem is: no matter what brand of "crazy" they run, there's an automatic 40+ percent of the vote that will go to them.

Hitlery was criminally insane, yet she won the popular vote.

Okay, 40 percent demcorat and 40 percent republican. "Crazy" isn't the sole province of Democrats . What about the pivotal 20 percent?

I didn't know that, Hippie. My estimation of Obama has dropped. His order would not have been effective because it would probably require an act of Congress, along with the president's signature, to ban lead. He fooled the middle twenty percent of voters into thinking that he wasn't as far left as he was.

Every new administration rescinds the last-minutes orders and regulations passed by the previous administration. So the credit goes to long-standing practices, not Trump, for rescinding the lead order.

Anyone else's Republican administration would have done the same.

A Democrat administration might have done the same, depending on the person in the Oval Office. I don't think Hillary would have tried to ban lead bullets, unless Congress presented such a bill to her.

Jim

Come on there are people voted into office that would have to study for a urine test. Occasional Cortex come to mind or whatever her name is.

Occasional Cortex...now that's funny.

She is lucky breathing is involuntary or she would have suffocated long ago.

both Hillary AND Obama sold her candidacy as his third term...

what makes you think she wouldn't have promoted EVERY environmental rule he approved of?

provide evidence to the contrary.

This thread is concerning Trump's attempt at gun control, hopefully this point isn't lost as we're Trump is now pro- gun control, just the same as the Florida republicans. As both parties have a long and infamous history of supporting gun control, I suppose you could add this event onto the list of accomplishments.wondering what the demos might have done.


Attempt at gun control??? Could you explain that???

#6388276Yesterday at 06:37 PM
FlyinFinn Online Content
trapper

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 10,691
MN
It is evident that I have shown and we all agree that the Democrats, Republicans and the NRA all support gun control.


Another ridiculous statement!!!

Banning and or additional restrictions on semi automatic weapons is gun control Gman.

Bernie would have had a better chance at beating Trump than Hillary.

Hillary is done, over, a has been. She'll forever go down as the person who couldn't beat Trump.

I don't believe she's ever gone down.

Think they will notice if mine stays here? Lol. Got a few around here that can shoot faster than you and your bump stock. We taking fingers next?

LOL

She outsourced that job to a miss Lewinsky I believe.

I just saw on a "news" feed that Bernie is wanting to run again in 2020.

I just saw that too. They bill him as an "anti-establishment socialist."

nutjobs what he is.

Crazy Bernie has a huge following on the left.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being groomed the same way b.o. was. she will be the scary one come 2024

nah-i'll just claim she groped me.

So, you feel anyone who wanted one should be allowed to own one? No background check at all because that's against the constitution. I don't doubt that for you to own wouldn't be an issue and the general public would be safe. It would probably be that way for most people. But, turn one loose on a MS-13 member or any other crazy, the damage that they could do would be devastating. I have experience because I fired an M-60 many times while in the military. I watched two soldiers set at angles to each other completely reduce to rubble a 20X20 wooden building in a minute's time. In the wrong hands, a massacre would be immense putting a M60 in the wrong hands. Background checks would be a must at the least.

You seem to assume that everyone else would be unarmed.

Mike

you also assume ms13 doesn't already own m-60's. probably own 50 cals. all kinds of u.s. military arms in the hands of evil doers worldwide. fear is the number one reason people give up liberty. in 1968 it was fear of armed black men. in 2018 its fear of illegal alien organized crime. in the early 90's it was fear of released from custody convicts. here's a funny fact. none of the gun control laws honest people abide by affect outlaws even a tiny bit.

End the drug war and MS13 members would be back to manning tamale carts in Tijuana.

hate it but that's the truth Finn.

So you think that if all drugs were made legal the recreational and/or addiction markets would simply vanish? You think MS13 and all the various drug cartels would quit selling drugs just because they suddenly became legal?

I don't.

I think the demand for heroin, fentanyl, coke, crack, weed and every other kind of mood-altering drug would remain high, the market would continue to be driven by addicts and recreational users. And there would continue to be huge profits to be made. And those currently controlling the drug flow would continue to do so. And they would continue to brutalize and kill rivals, rip-offs and anybody else that got in the way of profits.

Maybe lugnut. but the gang wars of the ethanol peddlers stopped when it was made legal again. still plenty of addicts around but ive never seen a news story where anybody was murdered over ethanol distribution competition.

since we are on the subject what are any positives to come out of the war on drugs? any drug anybody wants is readily available even in rural America. plenty of addicts around. so far as I can tell anybody who wants to try a little heroin or meth has done so. serious question. list some positives. for the life of me I cant see any where the war on drugs is concerned.

The mob didn't quit when alcohol was returned to legality, I don't reckon MS13 would quit if drugs were made legal.

No, they still had drugs, gambling, and prostitution... Which makes me wonder if the mafia is actually the biggest reason all those other vices have remained illegal.

Mike

Mike, of course, it's the Mafia keeping all those vices illegal.

Just not Italian, it's called the government.



Milton Freidman was quite possibly one of the smartest and articulate men to live.

Danny, of course there are positives. The government makes money of prohibition, the lawyers make money, anyone involved in the prison system, banks laundering money and the list goes on.

Anyone that can watch Milton Friedman and still support the war on drugs is highly likely monetarily interested in it's continuence.

This started out about making bump stocks illegal. There is a huge difference between an M60 and bump stocks. Bump stocks are like shooting a single shot compared to an M60. To say anyone who wants one should be allowed to have one is just plain crazy.

I was in the military in the late sixties. We had the M60 back then. It's such an effective weapon with awesome firepower, the military still uses them. A lot of other weapons have been replaced by better options.

The thinking along the lines of anyone should be allowed to own such a dangerous weapon guarantees there will always only be two parties as serious contenders for president because both parties will never agree to allow just anyone to own dangerous weapons like the M60.

trapper7 how do you propose to stop people from owning them? the only reason everyday outlaws don't have them is price. you really think the guy flying in 20 tons of heroin cant get his hands on a m60 to resell? can easy buy a semi 50 cal but again price keeps the gangsters from using them. cant be that hard to modify a semi 50, or ar10, to full auto, I wouldn't think. it is time to repeal the nfa and subsequent attempts to stop gun violence by prohibition. its not any more effective than drug prohibition.

Sure can't disagree with that.

Danny,

Obviously, you can't stop the guy who is rich from selling heroin from obtaining one. But, allowing anyone who wants one can have one without any background check of any kind is ridiculous. If the crazy man who did the shooting in Vegas with the bump stock had an M60, a lot more people would have died that night. Based on your way of thinking, it would have been OK for him to own an M60 if he could afford it.

I'm not familiar with an AR10, but if it got its roots from the AR16, it would never compare with the M60 due to heat alone. The AR16 was replaced many times by new and improved weaponry. The M60 still stands on it's own. It's an amazing weapon. Ask anyone who's ever fired it.

Trapper7, if you denied the las vegas shooter whatever gun he wanted before the shooting, you'd be denying a man with no criminal history a gun. We shouldn't punish people ( by denying firearms sales, for example) for something they might do in the future, only what they have actually done. (And yes, I'm aware that the las vegas thing would have been way worse with an m-60, but we all know that those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.)

Also, the AR-10 came before the AR-15. Ar-10 was introduced in 1956, it was scaled down to .223 in 1957-ish. The AR16 was a prototype only rifle made by armalite, it later became the AR18.

Again...

How do you know that MS 13, the Mafia, or any other nefarious organization doesn't already have these fearsome weapons?

Mike

Im willing to bet they do have them.

All the more reason to deny anyone from owning an M60. You've made my point. Accordingly, you feel it's better to allow someone to own one otherwise you're compromising their freedoms. Their freedom is more important than potentially risking the lives of human beings. That kind of reasoning is why there will probably never be a viable third party in the US.

I'm only familiar with the M16 rifle. That's what we had back then. That's what I meant in my prior posts. We also trained with the M14 in AIT which was a much more dependable rifle than the M16.

Lean into freedom. Don't let the fear of what might happen keep you and everyone else from the enjoyment of belt fed automatic weapons.

I would prefer an M134 myself... Crowd pleaser.

Mike

what from there-rocket launchers-hey its my right.

pcr2, the 2nd amendment says "arms". That's generally understood to mean something an individual soldier might carry around. (Think of what you might store in your home to carry on your own if you participated in a militia). So firearms, flamethrowers, RPGs, grenades, etc all fit that description.

Couldn't find anything about rocket launchers...

But grenade launchers and miniguns are legal if you are willing to jump through the NFA hoops.

And there is no federal prohibition against flamethrowers.

Mike

2nd amendment "arms"

This gives a good definition of "arms" along with a good explanation of one of the founder's arguments against a standing army. (The gist is that allowing a standing army to have exclusive access to certain arms ensures that standing army the ability to control the population.)