View Full Version : Trump= 2A threat.
Well trump is falling for the same tactics that always work against the republicans and the RNC.
Every time the Dems pass gun control they lose seats and power in government. It's easier to trick the Republicans to do the dirty work for them since they get what they want AND they'll end up with more seats in government to boot. What do they have to lose?
I think folks are putting too much into what the MSM is pushing.
[snip]
What do they have to lose?
The Republic
They have to live with the legacy of what they have done just like us. Sometimes I really wonder what they hell they are thinking. If political, racial, and/or socio-economic violence is ever realized on a large scale in this country their families are first on the list.
One. It's starting to look like Obama's term is going to be better for guns and rights. Look at all the progress we've made under his watch. Seriously.
Two. The media, the leaders, and the people are all in a very short vision mindset. The Russians, the Muslims, the Asians, and likely others are very long term vision. They understand delayed gratification. Even if it might take multiple generations. Trump might want to get reelected. Not likely that he does. His ego may compel him, but I don't think he's having as much fun as he thought.
Three. I think if the country stays the course we will get a much worse version of Hillary. Hope I'm wrong.
Bailey Guns
02-22-2018, 16:23
I don't what to think about anything anymore.
I don't what to think about anything anymore.
I'm kinda lost too. I'm going to sit back and see how it plays out.
Bailey Guns
02-22-2018, 17:13
Not so much lost for me. I think I'm just getting numb to it. From all sides. I f'ing hate the left but I'm getting tired of my side (myself included) constantly having to defend the same shit over and over. It's very tiring.
gta_spec
02-22-2018, 17:38
Let's wait to see what actually happens. It's just talk now. Trump seems to like to mention possible solutions to show understanding.
Did anyone really expect him to be a 2A supporter? Even during the election he was happy to go against gun owners by publicly supporting the idea that people be put on a terrorist/no-fly list and stripped of their 2A rights without due process. I'm not as conservative as most of the people on this forum, but even I could see that the president is not a conservative and will not stand up for gun rights (though I'm sure had the democrats won the presidency and done a little better in the house and senate we would have had some reaaaally bad shit by now).
We had a bunch of system issues at work so I had almost a full day of internet browsing, and I'm getting sick of a lot of fellow gun owners just believing that this, like every other bit of nonsense, scandal, and infighting, is just some grand strategy that only Trump can see. Trump is NOT a supporter of the 2A in any greater way than paying lip service to get elected.
You guys sound like a bunch of teenage girls. Sit back and R E L A X.
He is putting up a show here listening to what they want. He has to do something right now, if not he is going to look like a complete piece of crap that is unwilling to listen. This is how he extends the olive branch and gets people willing to negotiate. Just like the DACA deal he is sounding like he is giving a little in order to get what he wants. You want DACA people to stay, ok they can if we get the wall built and then they get 10 years to prove themselves citizens and everyone is happy. Same thing here, you want bump stocks, ok well we will attach the HPA to it and national reciprocity along with teachers being allowed to conceal carry.
He is already saying that he is giving it to congress, Hillary wold have been writing EOs last Thrusday.
You guys sound like a bunch of teenage girls. Sit back and R E L A X.
He is putting up a show here listening to what they want. He has to do something right now, if not he is going to look like a complete piece of crap that is unwilling to listen. This is how he extends the olive branch and gets people willing to negotiate. Just like the DACA deal he is sounding like he is giving a little in order to get what he wants. You want DACA people to stay, ok they can if we get the wall built and then they get 10 years to prove themselves citizens and everyone is happy. Same thing here, you want bump stocks, ok well we will attach the HPA to it and national reciprocity along with teachers being allowed to conceal carry.
He is already saying that he is giving it to congress, Hillary wold have been writing EOs last Thrusday.
Even if he were doing what you say, it is still inexcusable. He is willing to negotiate away part of your rights in exchange for a few slices of your rights. No compromise, not one more inch. There is no Gun Community, only individuals that own firearms, some of those individuals want more freedom, some less, pick a side, or step aside.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://youtu.be/1cwyVQrc5BE
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shooter45
02-22-2018, 19:03
Even if he were doing what you say, it is still inexcusable. He is willing to negotiate away part of your rights in exchange for a few slices of your rights. No compromise, not one more inch. There is no Gun Community, only individuals that own firearms, some of those individuals want more freedom, some less, pick a side, or step aside.
I agree with you entirely MOLON LABE, but congress has done this for centuries. We should never give an inch into losses of freedom but it has happened, continues to happen, and will after us. The Constitution is merely "thoughts and ideas" to our politicians. No longer the law of the land.
Even if he were doing what you say, it is still inexcusable. He is willing to negotiate away part of your rights in exchange for a few slices of your rights. No compromise, not one more inch. There is no Gun Community, only individuals that own firearms, some of those individuals want more freedom, some less, pick a side, or step aside.
Tell me how Trump has the power to negotiate away your rights? If legislation lands on his desk, he can either sign it...or not.
Tell me how Trump has the power to negotiate away your rights? If legislation lands on his desk, he can either sign it...or not.
Perhaps you need some more memes and strongly worded T-shirt slogans to help the point sink in.
Even if he were doing what you say, it is still inexcusable. He is willing to negotiate away part of your rights in exchange for a few slices of your rights. No compromise, not one more inch. There is no Gun Community, only individuals that own firearms, some of those individuals want more freedom, some less, pick a side, or step aside.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most likely i see no net change. He is negotiating from a position of power. Would you trade bump stocks for suppressors?
Great-Kazoo
02-23-2018, 00:52
Most likely i see no net change. He is negotiating from a position of power. Would you trade bump stocks for suppressors?
That's not what's on the table.
Being able to buy long guns today. Say July 1st. It's TFB. Oh by the way, make sure you've checked your orders before you ship out.
There's no mention of suppressors even in play here. But if I follow that line of thinking, why not give up semi autos, too. Really now, why waste the potential of that suppressor on a semi. When you could appreciate it on a bolt action.
Tell me how Trump has the power to negotiate away your rights? If legislation lands on his desk, he can either sign it...or not.
When the President comes out and publicly orders the DOJ to look into classifying semi autos, magazine fed firearms, match triggers, Gatling guns, gat cranks, bump stocks, and Echo triggers as Machine Guns, and we have a 84 year history of a bureaucracy,(ATF), that can and does ban and make illegal anything they want to at the stroke of a pen I would call that more power doing more harm than less power doing less harm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most likely i see no net change. He is negotiating from a position of power. Would you trade bump stocks for suppressors?
No. No more than I would trade my right to free speech in exchange for my right to a fair and speedy trial. This isn’t a bump stocks versus everything else fight, none of the Fudds have figured this out yet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where will Trump find the time? Some folks are in angst about him possibly putting a tariff on rubber bands.
Bailey Guns
02-23-2018, 07:30
No. No more than I would trade my right to free speech in exchange for my right to a fair and speedy trial. This isn’t a bump stocks versus everything else fight, none of the Fudds have figured this out yet.
Exactly. The FUDDs haven't figured anything out yet. FUDDs are worse than the rabid anti-gunners.
I know how the political system works and it's fucked up. We keep giving up just a little here and little there, pretty soon we're not gonna have anything left. It's long past time to stop giving and start taking back. I just wish I knew what that looked like.
anyone who is surprised by Trump caving has not been paying attention. He was a liberal East Coast democrat for years, donated to slick Willy's campaign, hobnobbed with the liberal elite. When he decided to make a run for the White House, suddenly he's a true blue, america first, God fearing conservative. The fact that he had a NYC carry permit doesn't speak to his support for gun rights, it speaks volumes about his political connections. His throwing gun owners under the bus is about as surprising as the sun rising in the East.
If you haven’t already stop what your doing, and call your Representatives and Senators and tell them to vocally oppose any and all further infringements of the Second Amendment at the Local, State, and National levels.
*Rep. Ken Buck (R) at
(970) 702-2136
*Sen. Michael Bennet (D) at
(303) 455-7600
*Sen. Cory Gardner (R) at
(303) 391-5777
Call the Republican National Committee at
(202) 863-8500
Tell them enough is enough, we’re done “having the conversation” about “common sense gun control” and shall not be infringed means something last time you checked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aloha_Shooter
02-23-2018, 11:42
I actually think Trump is doing well. You know/knew there was going to be pressure to "do something" immediately after an incident like Parkland. Trump isn't giving up much ground, just on bump stocks and putting some more teeth into background checks, and he's really only calling for "talking" about them right now. He has to look like he's trying to be accommodating even as he's closing the doors on much of what the gun grabbers want to do and while he's raising the uncomfortable issues that they are ignoring like how the an armed teacher (or the on-site deputy) could have stopped the rampage much quicker or how SO many flags were already raised about Cruz.
Good on him for playing a delaying game just like the Dems have done to the non-Socialists for years.
Shooter45
02-23-2018, 11:42
If you can't find the time to call your Representatives of Senators as MOLON LABE made it easy, send them an email. This literally takes seconds to send a pre written letter.
https://nagr.org/2018/893_NoGunControl-p.aspx?pid=10b
UrbanWolf
02-23-2018, 13:33
Third parties are looking better day after day.
The third party is looking better day after day.
[Eek3]
I actually think Trump is doing well. You know/knew there was going to be pressure to "do something" immediately after an incident like Parkland. Trump isn't giving up much ground, just on bump stocks and putting some more teeth into background checks, and he's really only calling for "talking" about them right now. He has to look like he's trying to be accommodating even as he's closing the doors on much of what the gun grabbers want to do and while he's raising the uncomfortable issues that they are ignoring like how the an armed teacher (or the on-site deputy) could have stopped the rampage much quicker or how SO many flags were already raised about Cruz.
Good on him for playing a delaying game just like the Dems have done to the non-Socialists for years.
Are you shitting me?!! What part of rate increasing devices don’t you understand? When the Democrats were doing and saying only 50% of what they’re doing and saying now immediately after the Sandy Hook Massacre, Gun Owners went into a frenzy, toting long guns at capital buildings, writing, calling, and emailing their representatives and Congress critters, Republicans didn’t go turn coat on us Constitutionalists, there was NO AMMO on the shelves ANYWHERE. But because Trump is in office and is only giving in “ just on bump stocks” people are cool with it. The NRA is backing anti gun legislation and we are all supposed to just sit around on our hands while liberty is chipped away, just because Donald Trump is the President. Remember that Reagan banned Machine Guns in 86’, and Bush Sr was the one that created gun free zones in 89’ just because there is an (R) at the end of their name on TV doesn’t mean they care about RKBA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
02-23-2018, 14:44
I wonder how many people were thinking "it's okay, it's just machine-guns" back in 1986. Probably most of those that already owned a couple dozen. CACHIIIING baby. *dollar signs in eyes*
The sad thing is a lot of gun owners have the mindset of "it's okay, I already have that" or "it's okay, I'm not going to get that anway". WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. Aka the upcoming ones who aren't even old enough to buy and will never have the chance (for whatever ban is proposed).
At any rate, if they want to ban them without grandfathering they are OBLIGATED to pay for all of them. Legislated, EO or otherwise, it will catch up to them if they don't.
What if they just move it into NFA and make a 2018 cutoff. Would any of you pay $200 to get a tax stamp on a $85 stock ?
ETA: I am always opposed to any ban. I will say I somewhat saw the writing on the wall the moment "bump stocks" got marketed, knowing their time on the market was limited and they were guaranteed to be merely another Atkins Accelerator at some point in time, within one office or another.
They did it arbitrarily with the factory High Standard Wallet gun Holster, for the HS Derringer.. I found that out the hard way.
This is why Machine Guns, SBR’s, SBS’, AOW’s, DD’s, Mail order surplus rifles, shotguns, and handguns, Chinese firearm imports, SVD’s, Russian 5.45x39 7N6 ammo, Russian AK’s, and for a time Pistol braces were either flat out illegal, or highly regulated. Because people said to themselves “Well it don’t effect me none, I don’t use _______XYZ item, so as long as it doesn’t effect me, it’s cool!”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Infringed is infringed - no matter what item
This is why Machine Guns, SBR’s, SBS’, AOW’s, DD’s, Mail order surplus rifles, shotguns, and handguns, Chinese firearm imports, SVD’s, Russian 5.45x39 7N6 ammo, Russian AK’s, and for a time Pistol braces were either flat out illegal, or highly regulated. Because people said to themselves “Well it don’t effect me none, I don’t use _______XYZ item, so as long as it doesn’t effect me, it’s cool!”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
+1.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180224/ac6e446b8d290e9fdb41880defbc8192.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180224/fa278c41497e877c24961aa85f2a95b9.jpg
I know it’s hard for some to comprehend but their is a comprehensive all out, bare knuckled, no rules assault being carried out NOW on YOUR 2A and the rights recognized therein. Also believe it or not but YouTube channels like MAC, Hank Strange, MrGunsandgear, Reid Henrichs, and others HAVE more pull and sway over the outcome on this fight than the NRA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know it’s hard for some to comprehend but their is a comprehensive all out, bare knuckled, no rules assault being carried out NOW on YOUR 2A and the rights recognized therein. Also believe it or not but YouTube channels like MAC, Hank Strange, MrGunsandgear, Reid Henrichs, and others HAVE more pull and sway over the outcome on this fight than the NRA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reading about this on Twitter today too. Google owns YouTube and is not just censoring pro gun channels/people but pulling search results. They are targeting not just gun owners but anyone questioning these mass murder shootings (e.g. "crisis actors").
I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests
An analogy... Imagine three companies in 1776 owning all the printing presses and refusing to sell one to Franklin. If a person doesn't have a vehicle for free speech, he has no free speech.
(I'm half way kidding, relax. I do think it should be threatened... Use their own rules against them.)
Grant H.
02-24-2018, 15:17
Reading about this on Twitter today too. Google owns YouTube and is not just censoring pro gun channels/people but pulling search results. They are targeting not just gun owners but anyone questioning these mass murder shootings (e.g. "crisis actors").
I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests
An analogy... Imagine three companies in 1776 owning all the printing presses and refusing to sell one to Franklin. If a person doesn't have a vehicle for free speech, he has no free speech.
(I'm half way kidding, relax. I do think it should be threatened... Use their own rules against them.)
Unfortunately, Youtube/Twitter/FB/Instagram etc, are private companies that provide a service and can therefore restrict what information is shared on their service. While they are large and do, in effect, maintain a monopoly on information on the internet, there are alternatives to Google/Youtube/etc (not so much FB, if you want to avoid corporate data farming and control), so anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws don't apply currently.
To change this, they would have to be classified as a public service, and would then be required to allow all messages, but would restrict them in other ways (FCC decent language and conduct rules).
This kind of move may be coming, but will bring a whole new set of problems with it. While I agree that there is an "all out, no holds barred" war against the second amendment, and the voices on YT are an important part of the puzzle, they are, in fact, using a companies service and being paid in the process...
The reality of "he who pays the piper, picks the tune" is absolutely true.
Maybe this was part of the push to get rid of Net neutrality.
Guess I should have voted for Hillary then.
Unfortunately, Youtube/Twitter/FB/Instagram etc, are private companies that provide a service and can therefore restrict what information is shared on their service. While they are large and do, in effect, maintain a monopoly on information on the internet, there are alternatives to Google/Youtube/etc (not so much FB, if you want to avoid corporate data farming and control), so anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws don't apply currently.
To change this, they would have to be classified as a public service, and would then be required to allow all messages, but would restrict them in other ways (FCC decent language and conduct rules).
This kind of move may be coming, but will bring a whole new set of problems with it. While I agree that there is an "all out, no holds barred" war against the second amendment, and the voices on YT are an important part of the puzzle, they are, in fact, using a companies service and being paid in the process...
The reality of "he who pays the piper, picks the tune" is absolutely true.
Use the Bell model. Zuckerberg has too much money anyway.
Forward!
(I don't believe this should be done, but in the world Libs are creating it would only be consistent)
Grant H.
02-24-2018, 15:44
Use the Bell model. Zuckerberg has too much money anyway.
Forward!
(I don't believe this should be done, but in the world Libs are creating it would only be consistent)
Wouldn't do anything to Zuckerberg's financial situation. Xcel still gets to make a profit.
Google and all the others will still get to make money, even if they were turned into a government allowed/protected monopoly on the internet.
Wouldn't do anything to Zuckerberg's financial situation. Xcel still gets to make a profit.
Google and all the others will still get to make money, even if they were turned into a government allowed/protected monopoly on the internet.
Sigh. Why are you crushing my collectivist dreams?
The Bell approach would break YT from Google and give YT it's own board that would have to be independent. If those officers in anyway colluded with Google to sensor free speech it would be a criminal offense. Doesn't FB own IG? Same approach.
Ultimately we need freedom focused platforms and now the have the precedent to censor speech we don't like even if it violates our mission statement ("town square").
Grant H.
02-24-2018, 15:55
Sigh. Why are you crushing my collectivist dreams?
The Bell approach would break YT from Google and give YT it's own board that would have to be independent. If those officers in anyway colluded with Google to sensor free speech it would be a criminal offense. Doesn't FB own IG? Same approach.
Ultimately we need freedom focused platforms and now the have the precedent to censor speech we don't like even if it violates our mission statement ("town square").
LOL... Sorry, wasn't exactly picking up the direction you were going.
Agreed.
Has there been a "How to Leave Google" published anywhere online? I've never had any email address but a gmail address, so all of my businesses, contacts, and other stuff is tied to them. If I were to switch to a new email address, browser, search engine, etc, I wouldn't know how to save all my info. A lot of people don't do things because it's easier to just stay.
With Google you have to pick your poison. They seem to know everything about everyone (too much), but then I've never found a better search engine that integrates into almost everything.
Oh agreed, I wish this topic weren't even on the table. Something I wanted to throw out there (always have an exit strategy), but I don't know if it will be necessary at this point.
I try to use yahoo until idiot Marissa mayer came to yahoo. I cannot stand her business decision. One female executive worse than her is sheryl sandberg.
Going back, I will use google, buy I refuse to click on top "ad" link.
I will scroll few lines down and click on same Web page without "ad"
I've been guilty of that as well.
Aloha_Shooter
02-24-2018, 21:23
What part of rope-a-dope don't you understand? I think Trump understands trying to stand like an oak in the current situation loses us the leverage and folks in the middle. Bending a little like the willow enables us to snap back as we did after the Clinton AWB. Wear them out with negotiating the "right" mix instead of just saying "no" and getting steamrolled again. Remember, a large chunk of the middle ground (which we need) is being fed pablum and lies by the regressive Stalinists/Maoists who control most of the print media, most of TV, Hollywood, and the music industry and they simply aren't listening to "shall not be infringed".
I try to use yahoo until idiot Marissa mayer came to yahoo. I cannot stand her business decision. One female executive worse than her is sheryl sandberg.
Going back, I will use google, buy I refuse to click on top "ad" link.
I will scroll few lines down and click on same Web page without "ad"
Clicking one of the top ads is something everyone should think about. I talked at length with a guy that uses Google ads and I was amazed at how much they cost the companies. He was paying 20 bucks for some of his clicks. Some were 10 cents. Based on their demand pricing. I don't click ads unless its a super company that I dont like.
I knew to not trust Trump on guns.
He only went as a Republican for the money in campaigns. Even if he WAS an actual Republican, he's still a Manhattan born and bread Republican, which is still liberal.
People should have known better than to think he'd expand gun rights.
SamuraiCO
02-25-2018, 20:32
I think everyone is over reacting. Until there is actual legislation it means nothing, He knows the Dems will over reach and go for more without agreeing to anything. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't raise hell.
I think everyone is over reacting. Until there is actual legislation it means nothing, He knows the Dems will over reach and go for more without agreeing to anything. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't raise hell.
Since you understand the government theatrics and posturing, I'd recommend folks relax and take it down a notch. But that's just my opinion.
SamuraiCO
02-26-2018, 08:15
Exactly GMAN
Yes no legislation has been passed, but it's disappointing news for sure. The R's wont control both the houses and the white house forever so eventually they'll get something to go through if the R's don't cave first.
Martinjmpr
02-26-2018, 13:17
One thing that gives me a little cautious optimism is that there's obviously a great amount of overlap between the hardcore anti-gunners and the hardcore anti-Trumpers.
That is going to make it awfully tempting for the anti-Trumpers to use the gun issue as a wedge to try and push whoever is the Dem candidate.
And I think THAT is very likely to backfire on them because then instead of looking like people who want "common sense gun reform" or some such meaningless twaddle, it will make it easier to portray the anti-gunners as merely partisan hacks who are riding the gun issue in order to defeat Trump, and that is more likely to make pro-gun and pro-Trump people stand against them.
Aloha_Shooter
02-26-2018, 14:57
I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests
No, nationalizing assets is what the regressive Stalinists/Maoists do. I'd say the thing to do is hit them where it hurts and show the public that Google/YouTube are NOT free speech facilitators but in fact speech monetizers and censors. In addition to that, set up the infrastructure and monetization that directs people to a different domain for free speech about the Second and Tenth Amendments or other issues that Google stomps on. These channels host on YouTube because they make it free and easy but there's no reason they couldn't host the videos elsewhere. Yes, they'd have to pay for storage and bandwidth but Google pays for that now and gets its money back by monetizing the content. Creators could monetize their content themselves instead of letting Google make all (or most) of the money from them.
The other excuse I hear is that YouTube makes it easy for people to search for video content but if someone has a link to your webpage, you can already point them to your videos regardless of where they are hosted.
No, nationalizing assets is what the regressive Stalinists/Maoists do. I'd say the thing to do is hit them where it hurts and show the public that Google/YouTube are NOT free speech facilitators but in fact speech monetizers and censors. In addition to that, set up the infrastructure and monetization that directs people to a different domain for free speech about the Second and Tenth Amendments or other issues that Google stomps on. These channels host on YouTube because they make it free and easy but there's no reason they couldn't host the videos elsewhere. Yes, they'd have to pay for storage and bandwidth but Google pays for that now and gets its money back by monetizing the content. Creators could monetize their content themselves instead of letting Google make all (or most) of the money from them.
The other excuse I hear is that YouTube makes it easy for people to search for video content but if someone has a link to your webpage, you can already point them to your videos regardless of where they are hosted.
That's my point. ;)
If we live in a post-Constitutional America, let's get post-Constitutional already!
I too think the solution is to create Conservative platforms but I am reminded of how Gab was attacked and similars. Unless you are hosted at Sealand, you are vulnerable. Net Neutrality was an attempt to bring much of the webs under centralized control.
It would be all too easy to say a Conservative platform is harmful (e.g. Russian bots interfering in an election) and censor.
I think the general public knows these companies do actively censor. There are two groups that fall along the lines of political polarization...
1. Those who are okay with it because their political enemies are harmed
2. Those who are not okay with because they are harmed
Right now, we need something to cover all this stupid media coverage of FL to go away. I just wish NASA would have moon landing scheduled this month.
StagLefty
02-26-2018, 17:19
I just wish NASA would have moon landing scheduled this month.
A car on the way to Mars wasn't enough ?
JohnnyDrama
02-26-2018, 18:44
Right now, we need something to cover all this stupid media coverage of FL to go away. I just wish NASA would have moon landing scheduled this month.
While I'm with you on wanting the media coverage to go away, I doubt a Lunar landing would suffice. While listening to the news this afternoon, it occurred to me that the media has been chasing the Trump-Russian-collusion thing for over a year and gained no traction. They smell blood with gun control and are going to give it all they've got.
Great-Kazoo
02-26-2018, 19:22
While I'm with you on wanting the media coverage to go away, I doubt a Lunar landing would suffice. While listening to the news this afternoon, it occurred to me that the media has been chasing the Trump-Russian-collusion thing for over a year and gained no traction. They smell blood with gun control and are going to give it all they've got.
LIKE
Aloha_Shooter
02-27-2018, 11:59
I agree with JohnnyDrama. The regressive Stalinists/Maoists are frantic and desperate to overthrow Trump. They wouldn't pay any attention to a lunar landing or even a trip to Mars. Heck, NASA could announce they've developed warp drive and are building the Starship Enterprise for a trip to Alpha Centauri next year and the media would still be focused on whether they could nail Trump and/or Republicans for sexual harassment or gun control.
RblDiver
02-28-2018, 15:24
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second
I was just about to post this. It's getting hard to figure out what his overall thought process is here. This can't end well.
Firehaus
02-28-2018, 15:46
I was just about to post this. It's getting hard to figure out what his overall thought process is here. This can't end well.
Misdirection & Distraction?
🤷🏻♂️
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WillysWagon
02-28-2018, 17:04
His statements today didn't sound good, at all.
I was just about to post this. It's getting hard to figure out what his overall thought process is here. This can't end well.
The thought process is that he thinks this will gain him popularity. President Trump is not a masterful 4D chess player, has a history of not being a man of principle (shocking for a person in politics I know), and is not going to be a staunch friend of the 2nd amendment except when it suits him. I've been talking with people about this since the primaries, but any "I told you so" moments are tempered by the fact that this is going to fuck us over.
Trump went absolutely full potato today . . . what a train wreck.
henpecked
02-28-2018, 17:35
Wait and see
Grant H.
02-28-2018, 17:41
Wait and see
I'll wait and see for a little while, but I'm worried that he's going to end up on the wrong side the 2A...
ETA: I watched part of the meeting live, while waiting on a customer, and Trump is adamant that he's going to ban bump stocks and sign any legislation that will raise the age limit for some/all firearms, and strengthen back ground checks...
henpecked
02-28-2018, 17:44
His kids are big into guns and hunting. Wait and see.
What is there to wait and see about? This is the president showing once again that he is not in favor of the 2A. Take a look at this one too:
https://twitter.com/RiegerReport/status/968951709706924032
Not willing to discuss getting CCW reciprocity as part of the bill either.
Wait and see
It may end up going nowhere . . . but the damage in terms of his message is going to be long lasting. Now you have a "Republican" president publicly backing gun control and making democrats actually giddy in a public meeting. And his comments about "due process later" are nothing short of abhorrent.
Grant H.
02-28-2018, 17:52
His kids are big into guns and hunting. Wait and see.
Ah, so his limits will come down to prohibitively expensive O/U's and old hunting rifles.
henpecked
02-28-2018, 17:54
Dems have nothing going for them this fall. They will try to make this there issue. Public does not see it that way.
Grant H.
02-28-2018, 17:58
Dems have nothing going for them this fall. They will try to make this there issue. Public does not see it that way.
And this excuses the BS that Trump is pulling? I think not.
I will gently suggest that you are misjudging the public reaction to the proposal of stricter gun control, in the wake of this latest shooting.
His kids are big into guns and hunting. Wait and see.
They're into exotic big game and other Ivy League FUDD activities. They could care less about the things 99% of this forum cares about.
And this excuses the BS that Trump is pulling? I think not.
I will gently suggest that you are misjudging the public reaction to the proposal of stricter gun control, in the wake of this latest shooting.
Yeah, I'm not friends entirely with gun owners, and public opinion isn't exactly with us now, and it's only going to get worse over time as more people move to/are born in cities and don't get the traditionally rural positive exposure to guns. We have to be able to ride out all of these panics, they only need to get lucky once.
It may end up going nowhere . . . but the damage in terms of his message is going to be long lasting. Now you have a "Republican" president publicly backing gun control and making democrats actually giddy in a public meeting. And his comments about "due process later" are nothing short of abhorrent.
His comments alone were very harmful and will come back to haunt us for a long time. I know he deals in results not words so maybe he doesn't see it that way.
He may have just made himself a one termer. Unless he's sitting on some bombshell that will make everything he said irrelevant.
It's hard to believe a guy who just got worked over by the "Deep State" and has his life threatened on a daily basis would disarm his constituency.
Dems have nothing going for them this fall. They will try to make this there issue. Public does not see it that way.
Conversely, GOP has been losing local elections. This may help get out the Conservative vote if folks get angry. They may want to keep a GOP Congress to hold the President in check.
A Dim Congress with Trump's statements today spell doom for gun rights.
At least with the FOPA we got something decent out of that
nogaroheli
02-28-2018, 19:20
The thought process is that he thinks this will gain him popularity. President Trump is not a masterful 4D chess player, has a history of not being a man of principle (shocking for a person in politics I know), and is not going to be a staunch friend of the 2nd amendment except when it suits him. I've been talking with people about this since the primaries, but any "I told you so" moments are tempered by the fact that this is going to fuck us over.
This^
Shooter45
02-28-2018, 19:48
The comments from today scare the crap out of me. I can only hope it is talk but time will tell for sure.
JohnnyDrama
03-01-2018, 15:02
The president is just talking this way to get gun companies back in business....
Someone must have told him sales were way down.
The president is just talking this way to get gun companies back in business....
Someone must have told him sales were way down.
[LOL]
Martinjmpr
03-01-2018, 15:47
The president is just talking this way to get gun companies back in business....
Someone must have told him sales were way down.
Nah, he's trying to help out the voters who stocked up on guns when they assumed Hillary would win the 2016 election.
I expressed my concerns about Trump to someone who frequents the DC political scene last night. No one major, just someone who works with lobbying and policy (on our side).
He said the rumor has been that Trump is very afraid of certain groups in the US and is willing to sacrifice 2A in an attempt to disarm them. I replied with how nonsensical this was as gun control never succeeds in disarming the bad people. His response was that if these groups start making the news there would be an overwhelming demand for draconian gun control (essential to order) and Trump would lose on the security issue which means more to him than 2A.
He pointed out there is an understanding current gun owners will likely be grandfathered even if an AWB passes to maintain some balance.
He said Trump's opinions on guns changed back in early 2017, well before Florida because of this fear. Thinks bump stocks have absolutely no utility/purpose and doesn't really understand them.
Also said 2A won't be the only civil right that gets sacrificed if they lose the perception of security (think TSA, everywhere).
I can't justify this line of thought but it does explain Trump's behavior.
I do wonder who the hell the Feds are letting in and run around in this country if they are secretly this afraid of them and don't currently have black rifles.
Here is my over acting imagination at work after a 17 hour work day, lol. What if Trump ran just to be a pain in the real candidates ass, but then people gravitated to him. Then the Russians got a hold of him and told them they could help, and showed that they had before and what Hillary was doing. So he said ok, because at first he thought Hillary was the worst option like the rest of us. But then he won, and half the country lost their damned minds. He literally can't turn on a TV without them blasting him. Then the Russian investigation started and keeps going. If they can get him on this he will be impeached and instead of stepping down he wants to burn the house down. He talked about how great Putin was in the early campaign, and he actually said that Collusion isn't illegal so so what if it happened? His demeanor has changed in the last couple months, so something has made him really rethink his position. A weapon ban certainly could start a hell of a fire.
A different opinion than most but I'm not going to endorse it.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/01/hawkins-trump-pulling-gun-control-rope-dope/
If they pass the 21 -year-old age restriction on the purchase/possession of long guns are they going to make it retroactive? Yeah I can totally see that going over well there are a lot of veterans and active-duty military that are under 21 that won’t be too happy about having to rifles and shotguns taken away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hurley842002
03-02-2018, 09:45
If they pass the 21 -year-old age restriction on the purchase/possession of long guns are they going to make it retroactive? Yeah I can totally see that going over well there are a lot of veterans and active-duty military that are under 21 that won’t be too happy about having to rifles and shotguns taken away.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDid anyone say anything about possession or is it just purchase (genuinely curious as I don't know)? Just trying to get the facts right, so I know rather the sky is falling or not.
"Oh, this is going to piss the liberals off in the end! I just know it!".
And those same morons would laugh their butts off if some SJW moron cut off his willy because #rapeculture.
kidicarus13
03-02-2018, 10:03
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/02/trump-nra-due-process-guns-433531
"I had a great meeting tonight with @realDonaldTrump & @VP. We all want safe schools, mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people. POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control. #NRA #MAGA" Cox wrote on Twitter.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/02/trump-nra-due-process-guns-433531
"I had a great meeting tonight with @realDonaldTrump & @VP. We all want safe schools, mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people. POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control. #NRA #MAGA" Cox wrote on Twitter.
If they are wrong I predict the end of the broader support for the NRA aside from F Class Bench-rest and Sporting Clay shooters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they are wrong I predict the end of the broader support for the NRA aside from F Class Bench-rest and Sporting Clay shooters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem with those closed doors meetings is you never know what agreements were made and how both sides want to spin them.
The fact a meeting happened tells us something.
I think the NRA positioned themselves previously to compromise on bumpstocks but not semi-auto rifles. And certainly not mag mags. If they give on those two, they are worthless to gun owners.
Resistance to age restrictions is going to be weak. We already let that happen to handguns.
Martinjmpr
03-02-2018, 12:18
Age restrictions are tough to fight because the people affected only have "skin in the game" for 3 years max, and it usually takes longer than that to get a bill through Congress.
An 18 year old might be all fired up to fight against age restrictions right after he turns 18 but by the time he's within months of his 21st birthday he'll be "meh" and it's really tough to get over-21 people worked up about something that will never affect them personally.
Age restrictions are tough to fight because the people affected only have "skin in the game" for 3 years max, and it usually takes longer than that to get a bill through Congress.
An 18 year old might be all fired up to fight against age restrictions right after he turns 18 but by the time he's within months of his 21st birthday he'll be "meh" and it's really tough to get over-21 people worked up about something that will never affect them personally.
The age of the voting population is greatly tilted against the younger voters. "Doesn't affect me, so why not?"
ZERO THEORY
03-02-2018, 12:53
anyone who is surprised by Trump caving has not been paying attention. He was a liberal East Coast democrat for years, donated to slick Willy's campaign, hobnobbed with the liberal elite. When he decided to make a run for the White House, suddenly he's a true blue, america first, God fearing conservative. The fact that he had a NYC carry permit doesn't speak to his support for gun rights, it speaks volumes about his political connections. His throwing gun owners under the bus is about as surprising as the sun rising in the East.
^^^
Said it in '16. Said it in '17. Saying it now. Anyone who ever bought his "Republican" shtick should inquire about the bridge I'm selling.
ZERO THEORY
03-02-2018, 13:13
I have maintained since the minute he decided to run that he is the most elaborate agent provocateur in American history. He's playing a Democrat-designed character that is meant to kill off the Republican party's establishment for good. If he had lost, the Dems get to say, "We finally moved on from the old America" and lock in their ideology with this generation and the next. But him winning is even better. He cartoonishly supports a bunch of non-sensically stupid establishment talking points. He spouts off at the mouth (or fingers, as it were) with inane bullshit like the military trans ban, dick-measuring contests with nuclear nations, pseudo-patriotic conviction, climate change denial, etc. He assigns corrupt, moronic, and/or shameful charlatans like Sessions, Tillerson, Perry, et. al. All the while, he just chips away day by day at the current and next voting generations' interest in the Republican party. He gives the leftist media plenty of ammo to tear him down with intentionally, and they run it 24/7/365.
The 18-30 segment is already overwhelmingly blue, let alone these kids that are gonna hit 18 by 2020. This is the end of the Republicans as you know 'em. There is a silver lining, however. We may have a chance to finally turn the party around and make it a small government, fiscally-conservative, hands-off party as it should be. Focus on civil liberties and trimming the fat, and stop with this 1950s bullshit where we're bitching about abortion, gay marriage, and other things that don't effect anyone else, and aren't anyone else's business whatsoever. We can purge the racists, xenophobes, and religious zealots. Go back to just letting each man (or woman) live their own lives, of their own accord. Without trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of employees tangled up in the mess. We're playing the long con already, so perhaps this annihilation is necessary to rebuild the right way.
How our gun rights fare in this metamorphosis remains to be seen.
BushMasterBoy
03-03-2018, 02:07
It is still better than Hillary. Her brother in law got caught with a kilo of cocaine and only did 6 months for it. Yeah, Roger Clinton! Got a presidential pardon too. Lot of dead bodies in Little Rock unexplained. I'm lucky I left Arkansas with my life. Hillary fainting before getting in the Secret Service armored vehicle sealed her fate politically.
They will never take away the 2A and the deficit is approaching $22 trillion. They can't afford to remove the protection of a 100 million guns. It is the part of the national defense plan they don't want to talk about. Besides, it is our money...
Except few out of 100, we all knew what Ted Cruz meant.
All I will say is that I tried my best not to speak ill of other republican on year 2016.
Now as of 2018, it is extremely difficult to follow 11th commandment. I will do my best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM6qRl3dSME
Great-Kazoo
03-03-2018, 07:38
I have maintained since the minute he decided to run that he is the most elaborate agent provocateur in American history. He's playing a Democrat-designed character that is meant to kill off the Republican party's establishment for good.
Interesting thought. Exactly the same one another forum member and i had a discussion about some time back.
<MADDOG>
03-03-2018, 09:20
I posted this during the primaries, and I stand by it still...
73687
The only person who was going to win '16 was Trump. Everyone else was going to be a good loser. We could tell early when the GOP field cowered in fear of the MSM. Trump shoved it up their collective ass and broke it off.
"You would be in jail." "They're not sending their best." No one else would have said that. Remember how Romney got on his knees after the "47%" comment? And he was right and his base knew he was right!
Cruz is a good man, would be a great president, couldn't win in this climate. Rubio is giving away 2A right now. Yeb? Trump had to stand up to 95%+ negative coverage, FBI/Deep State colluder's insurance policy, and all the nasty accusation that used to frighten Conservatives (racist!).
If Trump burns down the establishment and demonstrates that Conservatives have to fight to win, so be it. It needed to happen or all we would be able to do is negotiate our losses which would inevitably include 2A. 62M Americans now know we can beat them. Maybe Cruz or someone like him can win in the future.
The country needed Trump, even if he does turn out to disappoint, to demonstrate we don't have to do as we're told. We can still win elections (for now). We don't have to be nice. And we don't have to cower because of what someone said about us on FB.
If you believe voting is a solution, even a temporary necessary step to try and right the ship, voting for Trump was the best possible choice.
Take the "I told you so's" and tell us how a Clinton presidency would look right now because that was the only other option.
RblDiver
03-05-2018, 12:09
Take the "I told you so's" and tell us how a Clinton presidency would look right now because that was the only other option.
For one, Clinton would be talking various gun bans, and R's would actually be united in opposition.
For one, Clinton would be talking various gun bans, and R's would actually be united in opposition.
Really?
What would stop the reasonable GOPers from being reasonable with a Clinton in the WH?
Does Rubio grow a pair just because Clinton wins?
What is different about Florida and Sandy Hook? Hint: it isn't who's in the WH.
ETA: And by this logic we should NEVER vote for a Republican president because of the risk to gun rights.
Really?
What would stop the reasonable GOPers from being reasonable with a Clinton in the WH?
Does Rubio grow a pair just because Clinton wins?
What is different about Florida and Sandy Hook? Hint: it isn't who's in the WH.
ETA: And by this logic we should NEVER vote for a Republican president because of the risk to gun rights.
How are you getting that last bit from what the previous poster said? A republican president taking an anti-2A stance is potentially much more damaging to our gun rights than a democratic president continuing their party line. Voting republican doesn't pose a great risk to gun rights if that republican president actually supports the second amendment.
How are you getting that last bit from what the previous poster said? A republican president taking an anti-2A stance is potentially much more damaging to our gun rights than a democratic president continuing their party line. Voting republican doesn't pose a great risk to gun rights if that republican president actually supports the second amendment.
For one, Clinton would be talking various gun bans, and R's would actually be united in opposition.
The previous poster argued that GOPers would be united on gun rights with a Dim president. I have quoted and highlighted it.
So if we don't want a fractured a GOP on a gun rights we have to make sure they stay united in opposition to a Dim WH by not electing a GOP president.
Does that make sense? Of course not!
Here is the roll call for the 1994 AWB. See all those Rs voting "Yea?" Bill Clinton was president in 1993. He was a Dim. GOP was not magically united on gun rights against the Dim WH.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00375#position
Zundfolge
03-05-2018, 17:15
But then things get weird https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/28/wapo-senate-dems-torpedoing-gun-bill/
RblDiver
03-05-2018, 17:49
So if we don't want a fractured a GOP on a gun rights we have to make sure they stay united in opposition to a Dim WH by not electing a GOP president.
Foxtrot said it better than I.
If we elected a GOP president who too was opposed to anti-gun legislation, then it wouldn't matter as much if a few R squishies were for it, as such legislation would be killed. But when the president is in favor of these restrictions? I think in that case, the answer is not to elect a Dem, but to elect an R (well, or better yet a real lower-case l libertarian) who actually is in favor of gun rights.
Foxtrot said it better than I.
If we elected a GOP president who too was opposed to anti-gun legislation, then it wouldn't matter as much if a few R squishies were for it, as such legislation would be killed. But when the president is in favor of these restrictions? I think in that case, the answer is not to elect a Dem, but to elect an R (well, or better yet a real lower-case l libertarian) who actually is in favor of gun rights.
Foxtrot said something totally different from what you said.
What he said made sense.
Believing the GOP would be united because Clinton beat Trump makes no sense to me. We saw a lot of unity on the tax bill. We saw unity on the ACA. Both different parties in the WH on each. I don't think we'll see GOP unity on the gun issue. Too many closeted authoritarians and useful isle crossers.
[snip]
A r voting for a pro-hillary bill would have been hung in a public street. But a R voting for something the MAGA camouflage supports? The fallout is debatable. It could even be beneficial. Thus, time will tell what happens but your rights are actually at greater risk under Trump than Hillary if he starts to shift even the littlest bit anti-gun, and he has. With the noteable exception of the AWB (which was programmed to expire), much of our anti-firearm legislation has passed under republicans.
[snip]
Even without a Dim bill there are GOPers asking for a AWB right now (e.g. Kasich). They aren't being hanged. I hope they are thrown out of office!
And Trump asked the Dims to put together their own bill, it was never going to be a Trump bill. They said "we want AWB" in the meeting and he said "make it a strong bill!" Is that brinksmanship or smarmy politician? I don't know... I wish we had a window into a parallel universe where we could see if Trump would sign such a bill.
WH is back peddling hard this week, btw.
MAGA camo is indeed dangerous. I don't see that as justification to vote Dim. This election offered two choices.
I knew it since 2004 on 1st season of Apprentice.
I win.
Honey Badger282.8
03-05-2018, 21:23
I don’t know about everyone else but I voted for Gorsuch. Both candidates were abysmal and the idea that the next four years would be a roller coaster of suck was a foregone conclusion. Anything either administration did could be undone by a later one, SCOTUS decisions, not so much.
It is absolutely incredible to me that the left will prop up 14, 15, 16, and 17-year-olds ideas and opinions as gospel and amongst our ranks we can’t even get 100% agreement that 18, 19, and 20 year olds should legally be able to protect and defend themselves, their families, communities, and anyone they choose to lawfully defend with a firearm.
I have way too many friends that fought and died for this country they were under 21 years of age, I have way too many friends that were and are fathers and mothers before turning 21 for me to even consider for a moment the idea of restricting people aged 18 to 21 from being able to protect themselves and fully exercise their Second Amendment recognized God-given rights.
At 18 you are an adult and SHOULD be able to have full rights, including possessing and purchasing Handguns, Machine Guns, Silencers, SBR/SBS/AOW’s, Alcohol, and anything else that is currently reserved for 21 plus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But then things get weird https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/28/wapo-senate-dems-torpedoing-gun-bill/
That's not weird. The zealots don't think it's enough.
Will1776
06-11-2018, 12:27
So what's going on with bump stocks? Haven't heard anything in a while. Are they banned yet? ATF still doing review?
So what's going on with bump stocks? Haven't heard anything in a while. Are they banned yet? ATF still doing review?
Last I saw there were about 17000 responses. Reuters did a check of 4500 of them and came up with a total of 10 in favor of banning them.
Bailey Guns
06-11-2018, 13:20
So 4500 is about 25% of the responses. So, 10 of 4500 would equate to about 40 of 17000, roughly.
Somehow the ATF will be able to justify that as a majority opinion in favor of banning them.
Martinjmpr
06-11-2018, 14:00
So 4500 is about 25% of the responses. So, 10 of 4500 would equate to about 40 of 17000, roughly.
Somehow the ATF will be able to justify that as a majority opinion in favor of banning them.
They don't even have to do that. The comments could be 100% against banning them and the ATF could still make the decision to ban them.
"Notice and Comment" requirements are just that: They are required to post a notice and to solicit comments.
But they are not under any obligation to heed (or even pay attention to) the comments.
They don't even have to do that. The comments could be 100% against banning them and the ATF could still make the decision to ban them.
"Notice and Comment" requirements are just that: They are required to post a notice and to solicit comments.
But they are not under any obligation to heed (or even pay attention to) the comments.
So...like the rest of government, basically.
Dlesh123
06-12-2018, 09:11
Actually as of today it is showing 57507 responses. I have been following daily for a while and most of the comments in recent days are for banning. Lots of the form letters, lots of simplistic; bump stocks bad, ban them, No one should have automatic weapons, type comments, just emotional responses, no basis in fact. As mentioned above, they don't have to heed any of them or use a majority of comments for or against. I would hazard a guess at the moment that there are far more comments for banning than not. They do have to respond to the generalized comments content in their rule promulgation but as we have seen earlier, "We do not agree" can be the response and they do what they want.
Comments close June 27, 2018, it will take a while to process the comments and then finalize the illegal rule change.
Will1776
06-12-2018, 12:14
Actually as of today it is showing 57507 responses. I have been following daily for a while and most of the comments in recent days are for banning. Lots of the form letters, lots of simplistic; bump stocks bad, ban them, No one should have automatic weapons, type comments, just emotional responses, no basis in fact. As mentioned above, they don't have to heed any of them or use a majority of comments for or against. I would hazard a guess at the moment that there are far more comments for banning than not. They do have to respond to the generalized comments content in their rule promulgation but as we have seen earlier, "We do not agree" can be the response and they do what they want.
Comments close June 27, 2018, it will take a while to process the comments and then finalize the illegal rule change.
So the rule change is 100% going to happen and bump stocks being banned is just a matter of time?
Florida is forgotten and no longer a threat to trump.
Trump is riding high and may let this fade away into nothing. No twitting or press release, just erased.
Wishful thinking, since I have been told many times, the ATF disagrees with the ban.
Florida is forgotten and no longer a threat to trump.
Trump is riding high and may let this fade away into nothing. No twitting or press release, just erased.
Wishful thinking, since I have been told many times, the ATF disagrees with the ban.
Any particular reason they disagree? I imagine it would make their work much harder with such ambiguous language and far reaching implications.
Martinjmpr
06-12-2018, 17:05
Any particular reason they disagree? I imagine it would make their work much harder with such ambiguous language and far reaching implications.
My guess would be that it greatly increases the scope of their duties without increasing the resources they have.
As much as people on gun boards vilify the BATFE, they actually do go after real criminals, and I can't imagine that they want to cut into their actual-criminal-chasing time to pursue a politically driven flavor-of-the-week non-issue like bump stocks. Especially given that there is no real way to track them down - there are no 4473's for bump stocks, no record keeping requirements, etc.
Also, although they were used in the grisly mass shooting in Las Vegas, my assumption is that most actual criminals have no use for bump stocks, which means that chasing after bump stock owners means chasing after people who aren't an actual threat to anybody, and that takes time away from chasing after drug dealers, biker gangs and other people who traffic in illegal weapons.
My guess would be that it greatly increases the scope of their duties without increasing the resources they have.
As much as people on gun boards vilify the BATFE, they actually do go after real criminals, and I can't imagine that they want to cut into their actual-criminal-chasing time to pursue a politically driven flavor-of-the-week non-issue like bump stocks. Especially given that there is no real way to track them down - there are no 4473's for bump stocks, no record keeping requirements, etc.
Also, although they were used in the grisly mass shooting in Las Vegas, my assumption is that most actual criminals have no use for bump stocks, which means that chasing after bump stock owners means chasing after people who aren't an actual threat to anybody, and that takes time away from chasing after drug dealers, biker gangs and other people who traffic in illegal weapons.
Without naming names and specific agency, had a situation that happened here in the metro area. A local banger was arrested one evening. Subject happened to have an illegal SBS in his possession. Party is also a felon with a rather lengthy criminal record. Watch commander notifies local BATFE agent and states what he has. BATFE agent (in short) states we (the municipality) can deal with it however we want, they have no interest in it. So, from my experience, the BATFE does pick & choose what fish to fry. Not the first time that has happened either.
OtterbatHellcat
06-12-2018, 20:17
What's different about Bump Stocks?
Hyper sensitive MSM and pussified people that actually have the nerve to call themselves Americans?
Great-Kazoo
06-12-2018, 21:00
What's different about Bump Stocks?
Hyper sensitive MSM and pussified people that actually have the nerve to call themselves Americans?
Just renewed my subscription to your news letter
OtterbatHellcat
06-13-2018, 19:54
Congratulations, ….you're the first Lifetime Member Plus.
Your promotional gifts are in the mail already, and positions on staff are available to secure if interested.
Our "vision" meetings are on Fridays at the bowling alley/carwash with free pizza donated by Costco. Please indicate your preferred uniform size.
Rucker61
06-14-2018, 08:37
Without naming names and specific agency, had a situation that happened here in the metro area. A local banger was arrested one evening. Subject happened to have an illegal SBS in his possession. Party is also a felon with a rather lengthy criminal record. Watch commander notifies local BATFE agent and states what he has. BATFE agent (in short) states we (the municipality) can deal with it however we want, they have no interest in it. So, from my experience, the BATFE does pick & choose what fish to fry. Not the first time that has happened either.
It's their MO. As we all know, it's a felony to lie on the Form 4473 trying to buy a gun. If you're a convicted felon, you have to say so. If you lie hoping to pass, you've identified yourself as a felon trying to get a gun, the kind of person that should be number one priority to arrest. After all, the FBI has your name, address, phone number and signature on a legal document that should easily lead to arrest and conviction.
In 2010, there were 76,142 denials referred by the FBI to the ATF for investigation, 34,459 of which were convicted or indicted felons. Only 4,732 were referred by ATF HQ to the field for further investigation. Of that almost five thousand referrals, 1,164 firearms were retrieved, a total of 62 cases were referred for prosecution, a total of 10 were convicted of offenses under 18 USC 922g and exactly 1 of those was convicted of lying on the Form 4473. One.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
In 2010, there were 76,142 denials referred by the FBI to the ATF for investigation, 34,459 of which were convicted or indicted felons. Only 4,732 were referred by ATF HQ to the field for further investigation. Of that almost five thousand referrals, 1,164 firearms were retrieved, a total of 62 cases were referred for prosecution, a total of 10 were convicted of offenses under 18 USC 922g and exactly 1 of those was convicted of lying on the Form 4473. One.
If you do the math for how many 4473 forms were processed vs. the number of prosecutions, it's an insanely low percentage. When you realize how much is spent on so little value, a rational person wonders why so much is being spent for so little value.
Based on the math in the report you linked;
Table 1. Background checks by the FBI in 2010
Applications for firearm transfer 6,037,394
Denials / denial rate 72,659 1.2%
Most common denial reasons / percent of denials
Felony indictment or conviction 34,459 47.4%
Fugitive 13,862 19.1%
State law prohibition 7,666 10.6%
Conviction rate (13 guilty pleas) based on the number of applications: 0.0002153 %
...but if it saves only 1 life...[Puke]
BlasterBob
06-15-2018, 09:35
Wackiest thing (to me) is that the so called “bump stocks” have been around for a while now and they have been no big deal. So one A$$hole in Las Vegas shoots up a lot of people and the stocks are now to be banned. Here in Illinois, there is a Legislative drive to outlaw not only those stocks but also all .50 BMG rifles of any type AND all .50 BMG ammo (even a single round). I am really not aware of any illegal actions with .50’s but apparently the snowflake Illinois State Legislators seriously believe this caliber may potentially be involved in a future tragedy so they just outlaw them too. There are far too many Liberals here in Illinois.
Rucker61
06-15-2018, 13:03
Wackiest thing (to me) is that the so called “bump stocks” have been around for a while now and they have been no big deal. So one A$$hole in Las Vegas shoots up a lot of people and the stocks are now to be banned. Here in Illinois, there is a Legislative drive to outlaw not only those stocks but also all .50 BMG rifles of any type AND all .50 BMG ammo (even a single round). I am really not aware of any illegal actions with .50’s but apparently the snowflake Illinois State Legislators seriously believe this caliber may potentially be involved in a future tragedy so they just outlaw them too. There are far too many Liberals here in Illinois.
It took 48 years from when the first AR-15 was sold to civilians, with sales in the millions, before a civilian used one in a mass shooting.
OtterbatHellcat
06-15-2018, 23:28
It's pretty clear now though.
We need to ban civilians in order to prevent crap like this from happening again...I'm sure of it at this point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.