View Full Version : Daniels Defense urges customers to support Fix NICS Bill
Shooter45
03-12-2018, 15:09
I got an email from Daniels Defense a few days ago stating how they support the Fix NICS and urging all customers to contact their Senators in support of it. Definite surprise to me.
https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/03/10/gun-manufacturer-backs-fix-nics-bill-sees-retaliation-from-customers-n2459580
SuperiorDG
03-12-2018, 15:18
Just go a email that he says he made a mistake and is now not supporting the bill.
Just go a email that he says he made a mistake and is now not supporting the bill.
I received the email too. He says and I quote
I was wrong
Shooter45
03-12-2018, 15:24
I got the same email saying they no longer support it. They must have gotten enough emails and phone calls protesting their decision. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180312/76efd51ac8aacf54d04117880d73c202.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kidicarus13
03-12-2018, 16:09
Me thinks Mr. Daniel quickly realized that his stance would have a detrimental effect on future DD earnings ...and 180 degree turn!
Great-Kazoo
03-12-2018, 16:35
Me thinks Mr. Daniel quickly realized that his stance would have a detrimental effect on future DD earnings ...and 180 degree turn!
Curious how many DD true believers will now call for a boycott of their products. It's happened for the same if not less in the gun industry. He already expressed his feelings, then when pressured ($$$$) changed his tune.
hurley842002
03-12-2018, 16:41
Shame he would take the original stance initially, that being said, the DD rifle I had wasn't very reliable, albeit a very nice rifle otherwise.
DenverGP
03-12-2018, 16:43
As a broad concept, I supported the idea of some legislation to improve the background check system. If I have to pay the money every time I purchase the gun, at least the system should do what they claim it does. So it should have all the criminal records from all agencies. As it is now, I pay that money, and know the system is so screwed up that it'll let bad guys thru regularly.
The problem comes when they subvert the bill, adding in ways to fail due to things that don't go thru due-process. I genuinely believe Daniels Defense supported the concept of at least making NICS data correct and complete, but was naive enough to think that the politicians wouldn't try to add crap that circumvents due process.
Edit: I know, the checks won't stop criminals who ignore the system completely and purchase on the black market. But for as long as we're required to pay money and use the system, why not make sure it has all the criminal records that cities/states/counties/the military "forget" to enter into the system.
Some republican should attach something to the new bill that provides funding for, and imposes some response times to challenges as we, so that if someone gets wrongly denied, they have a more direct path to resolve it.
I will never buy another new DD product from them as long as Marty is on the pay roll.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Company policy via popular opinion. -Sounds an awful lot like every politician in existence.
There was absolutely ZERO reason for them/him to open their mouth in the first place.
Contrast DD with Geissele - I prefer the latter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIrFtX8QwPg
I support getting rid of NICS and a checks all together. They have not stopped, nor will ever stop a criminal from obtaining a gun.
Silly we need permission to exercise a right.
Shooter45
03-12-2018, 17:45
I was in complete shock when I got the email last week and couldn't believe it. Researched it today and found out so I will have nothing to do with Daniels Defense.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180313/bc28b9a7ade06c16935c8136cfb81bbb.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180313/965b24d4d6c911d1d1b2dca8c7413650.jpg
Well that was fast. I doubt it will turn public opinion around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Company policy via popular opinion. -Sounds an awful lot like every politician in existence.
There was absolutely ZERO reason for them/him to open their mouth in the first place.
Contrast DD with Geissele - I prefer the latter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIrFtX8QwPg
Have always been a fan of the man and his products, have given him a lot of my money.
Rock on Mr. Geissele
[rockon]
The vid gave me a little chill.
So help me understand the reasoning for/against the Fix NCIS.
As I see it if you are a 2a person against it generally that is because you don’t think a check system is valid or useful?
If you are a gun grabber against it it is because it fails to reduce gun availability and gives cover to the right that they did something?
If you are a 2a supporter who supports it generally it is because you want to hold accountable the institutions responsible for reporting? You generally are ok with a background check idea or accept that it will not go away.
If a gun grabber you think background check will stop bad guys and this is a first step, then close down private transfers...
What am I missing if anything?
Shooter45
03-13-2018, 06:27
Company policy via popular opinion. -Sounds an awful lot like every politician in existence.
There was absolutely ZERO reason for them/him to open their mouth in the first place.
Contrast DD with Geissele - I prefer the latter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIrFtX8QwPg
Awesome video. No wonder I spend my money they, completely justified now.
So help me understand the reasoning for/against the Fix NCIS.
As I see it if you are a 2a person against it generally that is because you don’t think a check system is valid or useful?
If you are a gun grabber against it it is because it fails to reduce gun availability and gives cover to the right that they did something?
If you are a 2a supporter who supports it generally it is because you want to hold accountable the institutions responsible for reporting? You generally are ok with a background check idea or accept that it will not go away.
If a gun grabber you think background check will stop bad guys and this is a first step, then close down private transfers...
What am I missing if anything?
If you are a 2A supporter you know that ALL infringements aka impediments by the State to prohibit, or restrict the private citizens ability to obtain weapons on par with what a current U.S. Military Infantry or Special Operations Squad/Platoon/Company is issued is unconstitutional and illegal by the wording found in the Second Amendment.
If you happen to like Firearms, Target Shooting/Reloading/Hunting/Competition /Collecting/are a Concealed Carry Permit Holder etc, and use the 2A to justify your habit/hobby, you typically could care less about the 2A actually being implemented as intended and are “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, and deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” These folks are fine with the existence of any or all of the following:
The BATFE, the NFA, the GCA of 1968, 1986 FOPA with Hughes Amendment Attached, Gun Free Schools Act of 1990, were probably ok with the AWB of 1994, and currently support the impending legislation to Ban Inanimate Objects of 2018 because reasons.
They are Sunshine Patriots who think illogically that “As long as I follow the laws, and no laws keep me from engaging in my particular hobby/habit associated with Guns then the status quo is ok” They are fence sitters, Fudds, “The Average Gun Owner” and they are in most cases worse for the defense of the U.S. Constitution than the following;
Everyone else? They are either willfully ignorant and “just want to be safe” or “Do it for the Children”
*See the Ben Franklin Quote above*
Or, are calculating and patient enemies of liberty and freedom. True enemies of the people, traitors, conspirators, or enablers of the same.
Political Action Groups: Moms Demand Action, Every Town USA, ANTIFA etc.
The Media: CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, NYT, WAPO, the Denver Post etc.
Politicians: Bloomberg, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Ginsberg, Hickenlooper, DeGette, Bennet etc.
Neighbors and Family: The Subaru Driving Latte Sipping Boulderite, Your Aunt Beatrice in Long Island, The Guy at the gym who never re racks his weights, your Sister in Law Emily etc.
If only things were that simple.
If only things were that simple.
They are. But I know people who can turn 2+2 into a complicated 6 hour legal dissertation on quantum physics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...The Guy at the gym who never re racks his weights...
Lol, we all hate that guy.
Bailey Guns
03-13-2018, 15:55
Wow...I thought I generally had a black and white view of things.
Wow...I thought I generally had a black and white view of things.
You're either me, or you're part of the problem. Any questions?
Wow...I thought I generally had a black and white view of things.
What categories did I miss when it comes to the 2A. Either a person is:
1. A Constitutional Absolutist when it comes to the 2A.
1a. Begrudgingly accept current restrictions only to avoid going to prison, (I’m in this category currently).
2. Use the 2A to advance their gun habit and or hobby and are in favor of some “reasonable restrictions”.
3. Are an enemy of the 2A out of;
3a. A desire to be or feel safe, or,
3b. Because they are a traitor to the very principles on which this Republic was founded.
I guess #4. Would be people who just don’t care?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DireWolf
03-13-2018, 22:39
If you are a 2A supporter you know that ALL infringements aka impediments by the State to prohibit, or restrict the private citizens ability to obtain weapons on par with what a current U.S. Military Infantry or Special Operations Squad/Platoon/Company is issued is unconstitutional and illegal by the wording found in the Second Amendment.
If you happen to like Firearms, Target Shooting/Reloading/Hunting/Competition /Collecting/are a Concealed Carry Permit Holder etc, and use the 2A to justify your habit/hobby, you typically could care less about the 2A actually being implemented as intended and are “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, and deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” These folks are fine with the existence of any or all of the following:
The BATFE, the NFA, the GCA of 1968, 1986 FOPA with Hughes Amendment Attached, Gun Free Schools Act of 1990, were probably ok with the AWB of 1994, and currently support the impending legislation to Ban Inanimate Objects of 2018 because reasons.
They are Sunshine Patriots who think illogically that “As long as I follow the laws, and no laws keep me from engaging in my particular hobby/habit associated with Guns then the status quo is ok” They are fence sitters, Fudds, “The Average Gun Owner” and they are in most cases worse for the defense of the U.S. Constitution than the following;
Everyone else? They are either willfully ignorant and “just want to be safe” or “Do it for the Children”
*See the Ben Franklin Quote above*
Or, are calculating and patient enemies of liberty and freedom. True enemies of the people, traitors, conspirators, or enablers of the same.
Political Action Groups: Moms Demand Action, Every Town USA, ANTIFA etc.
The Media: CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, NYT, WAPO, the Denver Post etc.
Politicians: Bloomberg, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Ginsberg, Hickenlooper, DeGette, Bennet etc.
Neighbors and Family: The Subaru Driving Latte Sipping Boulderite, Your Aunt Beatrice in Long Island, The Guy at the gym who never re racks his weights, your Sister in Law Emily etc.
What categories did I miss when it comes to the 2A. Either a person is:
1. A Constitutional Absolutist when it comes to the 2A.
1a. Begrudgingly accept current restrictions only to avoid going to prison, (I’m in this category currently).
2. Use the 2A to advance their gun habit and or hobby and are in favor of some “reasonable restrictions”.
3. Are an enemy of the 2A out of;
3a. A desire to be or feel safe, or,
3b. Because they are a traitor to the very principles on which this Republic was founded.
I guess #4. Would be people who just don’t care?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk^^^100% spot-on.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Bailey Guns
03-14-2018, 07:10
What categories did I miss when it comes to the 2A. Either a person is:
1. A Constitutional Absolutist when it comes to the 2A.
1a. Begrudgingly accept current restrictions only to avoid going to prison, (I’m in this category currently).
2. Use the 2A to advance their gun habit and or hobby and are in favor of some “reasonable restrictions”.
3. Are an enemy of the 2A out of;
3a. A desire to be or feel safe, or,
3b. Because they are a traitor to the very principles on which this Republic was founded.
I guess #4. Would be people who just don’t care?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is substantially different than your first post. It may have been your intent in the first post but it's not what you wrote.
I'm likely a combination of 1, 1a and 2 (probably to a very slight degree here) on your list. I think the 2A means exactly what it says. I also understand rights are not absolute, even though they may be close to that. I comply with most restrictions to stay out of trouble, more for my family's protection than mine. On the other hand, I do believe there are some people that should be prohibited from owning guns. If Charles Manson had been released a few decades ago I don't think he should've been able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. Same with the average MS-13 member. I'm OK with restrictions on some people. What I have trouble with is identifying those people. With the Manson/MS-13 types, it's often pretty easy. But with the guy that appears to be living a normal life but is a mental wreck on the inside who buys a gun(s) knowing he's going to do harm with it...how do you stop that guy without infringing on my rights or yours? I wish I had the answer and as long as I've tried to figure it out, looking at things from all sides, the best I can come up with is, it just can't be stopped within the framework of what our Constitution says. And I think that's where we get into trouble...people want an answer even when the only answer is not what they want to hear. That's why we hear "we have to do SOMETHING" so often. Most people don't know what "something" will actually work.
One of the perils of a free and open society is living with a certain degree of risk in order to keep freedoms intact. But I can see how a person who's lost a child in a school shooting or to some other violence will see things differently than I do, whether their viewpoint is grounded in the Constitution or not.
I generally don't agree with background checks. However... As an example of a restriction I'd agree to, here's one: I'd be willing to submit to a one-time national background check in exchange for being able to walk into a gun store in any state and buy whatever gun I wanted (or buy privately). You could get a code printed on your DL that says you're good to go to the seller. The FFL could have a simplified "4473" that he keeps on premises...name, DL, gun make/model/SN. The only time big brother gets involved is when a gun is recovered at a crime scene it could still be tracked. If I fuck up and do something to put me into a prohibited category of person then my DL is flagged and reissued without my "gun buyer" code. Obviously, the bureaucrats administering the program would have to be on top of things and not drop the ball with record keeping and such like we've seen so many times recently. And of course, everything would be subject to due process. If I did screw up, then my number is temporarily suspended pending due process. Once that's complete it's either restored or revoked.
Bailey Guns
03-14-2018, 07:13
I meant to add:
My "gun buyer" DL would also serve as my nationwide carry permit.
Shame he would take the original stance initially, that being said, the DD rifle I had wasn't very reliable, albeit a very nice rifle otherwise.
Hey! You sold that to me!
J/K. It was just a 300BLK upper, and it's been great...
Shooter45
03-14-2018, 07:52
No more infringements on the 2nd Amendment. It is clearly written and expressed. It is a "right" not a privilege.
73849
This is substantially different than your first post. It may have been your intent in the first post but it's not what you wrote.
I'm likely a combination of 1, 1a and 2 (probably to a very slight degree here) on your list. I think the 2A means exactly what it says. I also understand rights are not absolute, even though they may be close to that. I comply with most restrictions to stay out of trouble, more for my family's protection than mine. On the other hand, I do believe there are some people that should be prohibited from owning guns. If Charles Manson had been released a few decades ago I don't think he should've been able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. Same with the average MS-13 member. I'm OK with restrictions on some people. What I have trouble with is identifying those people. With the Manson/MS-13 types, it's often pretty easy. But with the guy that appears to be living a normal life but is a mental wreck on the inside who buys a gun(s) knowing he's going to do harm with it...how do you stop that guy without infringing on my rights or yours? I wish I had the answer and as long as I've tried to figure it out, looking at things from all sides, the best I can come up with is, it just can't be stopped within the framework of what our Constitution says. And I think that's where we get into trouble...people want an answer even when the only answer is not what they want to hear. That's why we hear "we have to do SOMETHING" so often. Most people don't know what "something" will actually work.
One of the perils of a free and open society is living with a certain degree of risk in order to keep freedoms intact. But I can see how a person who's lost a child in a school shooting or to some other violence will see things differently than I do, whether their viewpoint is grounded in the Constitution or not.
I generally don't agree with background checks. However... As an example of a restriction I'd agree to, here's one: I'd be willing to submit to a one-time national background check in exchange for being able to walk into a gun store in any state and buy whatever gun I wanted (or buy privately). You could get a code printed on your DL that says you're good to go to the seller. The FFL could have a simplified "4473" that he keeps on premises...name, DL, gun make/model/SN. The only time big brother gets involved is when a gun is recovered at a crime scene it could still be tracked. If I fuck up and do something to put me into a prohibited category of person then my DL is flagged and reissued without my "gun buyer" code. Obviously, the bureaucrats administering the program would have to be on top of things and not drop the ball with record keeping and such like we've seen so many times recently. And of course, everything would be subject to due process. If I did screw up, then my number is temporarily suspended pending due process. Once that's complete it's either restored or revoked.
Of course Charles Manson shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun. He also shouldn’t have been able to kill people, or live as long as he did, or break laws. If someone is so untrustworthy they shouldn’t be able to purchase property and own it, then maybe we should just execute them and be done with it. The .gov doesn’t want someone to own a gun? Fine then the .gov shouldn’t give them one or sell them one.
We could have the best background check system in the world and it still would do nothing to prevent the private transfer of firearms between two consenting adults. And even with that impossible to obtain best background check system in place we would still have gaps and we would still have people that could pass every single test given to them and still do evil horrible things.
If you commit a crime, found guilty, and sentenced, serve your sentence and are eventually released then you should have your rights restored. People will invariably say “Gasp you want to arm child molesters, rapists, pants, drug dealers, and gang members?” No I want them Executed, or exiled. For everyone else rehabilitation and given a second chance.
My original post excluded people who begrudgingly comply, I figured that was a given, as well as those who do not care because they are unimportant to the larger topic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bailey Guns
03-14-2018, 08:46
Well, I gave you examples, that you apparently agree with, of how some restrictions on the 2A are acceptable.
Obviously if some people "can't be trusted with property" were not going to execute them and it's ridiculous to suggest that. There may be other reasons they can't be trusted that are non-violent...such as physical or mental limitations.
It also sounds like you're willing to compromise on other parts of the Constitution considering how many people you want to eliminate.
Well, I gave you examples, that you apparently agree with, of how some restrictions on the 2A are acceptable.
Obviously if some people "can't be trusted with property" were not going to execute them and it's ridiculous to suggest that. There may be other reasons they can't be trusted that are non-violent...such as physical or mental limitations.
It also sounds like you're willing to compromise on other parts of the Constitution considering how many people you want to eliminate.
My point in saying people who can’t be trusted with property was that there should only be an extremely small percentage of 18+ citizens denied the right to arms.
The incarcerated, and insane asylum patients/inmates. Period.
Once an inmate has served their sentence, full rights. If the crime they committed was so heinous they can’t have their rights back, why release them?
I cannot think of any physical limitations that could prohibit a person owning legal property such as firearms.
I only want violent convicted criminals to be eliminated.
Everyone else gets a fair shot, pun intended, at keeping them-self, their families, property, and our Republic safe.
Currently if a criminal commits a crime and happens to be armed it’s an add on charge. Why? Aside from cases where the gun is used to assist them in said crime, i.e. armed robbery, murder etc. why charge them for possession of arms? Do we tack on an additional charge because they were wearing pants? Driving a car otherwise lawfully? We have made owning something a crime. What other inanimate object gets this much special attention aside from drugs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What other inanimate object gets this much special attention aside from drugs?
Cash. That's always bothered me.
Cash. That's always bothered me.
Pineapple on pizza. No one needs that.
Can we just be reasonable and ban it? No one is coming for your pizza. Just the pineapple.
Cash. That's always bothered me.
Never been around enough of it for long enough for it to annoy me... [Coffee]
Cash. That's always bothered me.
Never been around enough of it for long enough for it to annoy me... [Coffee]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.