Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 10-11-2017, 5:42 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Both. Yes you can claim both. They are having the ATF review the ruling and at the same time they said they support additional regulations. That doesn't mean that more regulations are coming our way. It depends. But them saying that calms the antis for now.
I know it doesn't mean more regulations are coming our way. That's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the fact that it means that the NRA cannot reverse that support without looking like a liar. But worse, I'm concerned that the NRA might actually mean what it said.

Of course, if you believe the credibility of the NRA's statements is irrelevant to political discourse, then carry on ...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 10-11-2017, 5:45 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I know it doesn't mean more regulations are coming our way. That's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the fact that it means that the NRA cannot reverse that support without looking like a liar. But worse, I'm concerned that the NRA might actually mean what it said.

Of course, if you believe the credibility of the NRA's statements is irrelevant to political discourse, then carry on ...
It buys us time and lets the antis calm down. By saying what they said and having the ATF review the ruling it satisfies the people. And we need to calm these people down. Feel free to be a debbie downer about this, but the right thing to do at this time is wait.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 10-11-2017, 5:58 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
It buys us time and lets the antis calm down. By saying what they said and having the ATF review the ruling it satisfies the people. And we need to calm these people down. Feel free to be a debbie downer about this, but the right thing to do at this time is wait.
Well, it's already done anyway, so I certainly agree that at this time all we can do is wait.

The problem here is in Congress. There are now both house and senate versions of a bill to ban bump-fire stocks. Those are not (yet) tied to any other legislation. If the will to Do Something is there, then they might well pass even without being tied to any other legislation. On what basis would the NRA oppose that, seeing how it has already conceded that it supports "additional regulation" of them?


I absolutely agree that NRA did the right thing with respect to buying time. But I don't agree that it had to concede anything in order to do that.


But most important of all, by doing what it has done in the way it did it, NRA has now conceded the larger picture. It has now assented to the opposition's narrative that "regulating" firearms is a valid means of addressing events such as the LV shooting. It has legitimized the opposition's viewpoint. That is an incalculable loss.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:08 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Well, it's already done anyway, so I certainly agree that at this time all we can do is wait.

The problem here is in Congress. There are now both house and senate versions of a bill to ban bump-fire stocks. Those are not (yet) tied to any other legislation. If the will to Do Something is there, then they might well pass even without being tied to any other legislation. On what basis would the NRA oppose that, seeing how it has already conceded that it supports "additional regulation" of them?


I absolutely agree that NRA did the right thing with respect to buying time. But I don't agree that it had to concede anything in order to do that.


But most important of all, by doing what it has done in the way it did it, NRA has now conceded the larger picture. It has now assented to the opposition's narrative that "regulating" firearms is a valid means of addressing events such as the LV shooting. It has legitimized the opposition's viewpoint. That is an incalculable loss.
You're not getting the real point of politics. Showing compassion to the enemy in this case is a diversion. You may disagree with what I just said, but as you just mentioned, we need to wait at this moment.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:21 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
You're not getting the real point of politics. Showing compassion to the enemy in this case is a diversion. You may disagree with what I just said, but as you just mentioned, we need to wait at this moment.
Showing compassion to the enemy is nice and all, and may even be necessary, but conceding the larger picture to them in order to achieve that is the worst possible thing you can do. But that's exactly what the NRA has done.

The NRA could easily have said that they agree that we should work to reduce or prevent events like this (something there is no legitimate argument against). The NRA could have left it nebulous in that regard. But they didn't. They were specific.

Like the woman who says they'd sleep with someone for a million dollars, the NRA has conceded the fundamental question (of whether or not it is worth attempting to "regulate" arms in order to address events like the LV shooting. The NRA has conceded that it is) and is now in the unenviable position of only being able to negotiate the price.


You still haven't answered my other question: why should we believe the next time will be different, and if it won't, why should we believe we won't lose everything in the end after enough such events?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 10-11-2017 at 6:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:24 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Showing compassion to the enemy is nice and all, and may even be necessary, but conceding the larger picture to them in order to achieve that is the worst possible thing you can do. But that's exactly what the NRA has done.

The NRA could easily have said that they agree that we should work to reduce or prevent events like this (who here would not agree with that?). The NRA could have left it nebulous in that regard. But they didn't. They were specific.

Like the woman who says they'd sleep with someone for a million dollars, the NRA has conceded the fundamental question (of whether or not it is worth attempting to "regulate" arms in order to address events like the LV shooting) and is now in the unenviable position of only being able to negotiate the price.


You still haven't answered my other question: why should we believe the next time will be different, and if it won't, why should we believe we won't lose everything in the end after enough such events?
Who can predict what happens next time? And we haven't lost anything at this point so I don't understand why you are jumping at the moment. It's ridiculous. You are acting like a kid stomping your feet and you apparently have no patience to wait and see what happens.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:27 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Who can predict what happens next time? And we haven't lost anything at this point
No, we haven't. But we now have no legitimate basis to prevent it.


Quote:
so I don't understand why you are jumping at the moment. It's ridiculous. You are acting like a kid stomping your feet and you apparently have no patience to wait and see what happens.
I tend to get concerned when I see an oncoming train, even if it hasn't gotten here yet.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:30 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, we haven't. But we now have no legitimate basis to prevent it.




I tend to get concerned when I see an oncoming train, even if it hasn't gotten here yet.
LOL Apparently so even if you are a block from the tracks! SMH.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:33 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
LOL Apparently so even if you are a block from the tracks! SMH.
Heh.

Well, that's not quite the situation. The situation is that there's an oncoming train with a fork in the tracks. You're not guaranteed to be screwed, but there's a decent chance of it.

That's a situation to be concerned about. Note that I said "concerned", not "alarmed".
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-11-2017, 6:49 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Who can predict what happens next time?
Honestly, with respect to events like LV, pretty much everyone.

It's basically guaranteed that sometime in the future, some nutjob with legally-acquired firearms is going to kill a bunch of people somewhere, even more than were killed in LV. It's basically guaranteed that there will be shrill calls for banning at least some of the arms in question (or something that makes them distinct from other arms) in response.

And since NRA has now conceded that it's acceptable to impose "additional regulations" upon arms under those conditions, that's exactly what will be considered. Whether or not such "regulations" get put into place is, of course, not terribly predictable. But the difference is that whereas before we could say with a reasonable amount of certainty that they wouldn't be put into place, that reasonable certainty is now gone.


So while the exact outcome won't be predictable, what our side has done is to seemingly change the odds in favor of the opposition, since we have removed a major supporting element from our position. We have now given up all pretense of principle. Now all we can do is negotiate on price.

Or, more precisely, that's what the NRA has done to itself.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-11-2017, 7:02 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Honestly, with respect to events like LV, pretty much everyone.

It's basically guaranteed that sometime in the future, some nutjob with legally-acquired firearms is going to kill a bunch of people somewhere, even more than were killed in LV. It's basically guaranteed that there will be shrill calls for banning at least some of the arms in question (or something that makes them distinct from other arms) in response.

And since NRA has now conceded that it's acceptable to impose "additional regulations" upon arms under those conditions, that's exactly what will be considered. Whether or not such "regulations" get put into place is, of course, not terribly predictable. But the difference is that whereas before we could say with a reasonable amount of certainty that they wouldn't be put into place, that reasonable certainty is now gone.


So while the exact outcome won't be predictable, what our side has done is to seemingly change the odds in favor of the opposition, since we have removed a major supporting element from our position. We have now given up all pretense of principle. Now all we can do is negotiate on price.

Or, more precisely, that's what the NRA has done to itself.
Says you. I don't agree and I will wait before making such a judgment.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-11-2017, 8:44 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Says you. I don't agree and I will wait before making such a judgment.
And that's not an unreasonable thing to do, certainly.

A more interesting question is at what point you will make such a judgment.

If, say, a bump-stock ban passes without national reciprocity, what will your judgment be then?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 10-11-2017, 8:58 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And that's not an unreasonable thing to do, certainly.

A more interesting question is at what point you will make such a judgment.

If, say, a bump-stock ban passes without national reciprocity, what will your judgment be then?
I will be disappointed if that happens.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-12-2017, 5:14 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You guys were right, I was wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it:

http://thehill.com/regulation/355183...ng-bump-stocks

EDIT: The NRA says they oppose the bill because it reaches beyond bump-fire stocks. So it's still possible that I'm correct with respect to bump-fire stocks. This, at least, introduces more uncertainty if nothing else.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 10-12-2017 at 6:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 10-12-2017, 8:08 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,954
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

^^^ Some of us saw that train coming...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 10-12-2017, 9:46 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
^^^ Some of us saw that train coming...
It obviously switched tracks.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 10-12-2017, 11:28 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You guys were right, I was wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it:

http://thehill.com/regulation/355183...ng-bump-stocks

EDIT: The NRA says they oppose the bill because it reaches beyond bump-fire stocks. So it's still possible that I'm correct with respect to bump-fire stocks. This, at least, introduces more uncertainty if nothing else.
Quote:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) on Thursday said it opposes legislation in both the House and the Senate that would ban the use of bump stocks, a device that can be used to increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire and was found in the hotel room of the Las Vegas shooter. The NRA’s opposition to the bill comes as Democrats and some Republican lawmakers have called for legislation banning bump stocks in the wake of the country’s deadliest mass shooting.
I don't know how you comprehend the NRA's position on bump-fire stocks being separate from other devices.

Is it because of this one sentence from Jennifer Baker?

Quote:
"These bills are intentionally overreaching and would ban commonly owned firearm accessories," Baker continued.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 10-13-2017, 12:00 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
I don't know how you comprehend the NRA's position on bump-fire stocks being separate from other devices.

Is it because of this one sentence from Jennifer Baker?
It's because of that and because of the text of the bill, which says:

Quote:
11 ‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—
12 ‘‘(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign com-
13 merce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part
14 or combination of parts that is designed and func-
15 tions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
16 rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle
17 into a machinegun; or
18 ‘‘(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any
19 such part or combination of parts that have been
20 shipped or transported in interstate or foreign com-
21 merce.’’.
It targets quite a lot more than bump-stocks, and what it actually targets is very much a matter of interpretation. For instance, does it target reduced-force triggers? A hostile court could easily interpret it that way.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 10-13-2017, 12:16 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It's because of that and because of the text of the bill, which says:



It targets quite a lot more than bump-stocks, and what it actually targets is very much a matter of interpretation. For instance, does it target reduced-force triggers? A hostile court could easily interpret it that way.
Sorry but old news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Think don't emote.

Feinstein wants a ban on anything that 'changes the rate of fire'. That includes your CMC triggers, binary triggers and more.

At its most basic the NRA is referring to regulation not ban as well as focusing on a singular item and not an entire category of accessories.

Add in that getting ATF to class slidefires as 'machine guns' removes Feinsteins cause to legislate and has some potentially interesting effects on the Hughes Amendment.

I'd put money down that the NRA didn't just throw this out without thinking it through.
Now the NRA has to face them head on.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 10-13-2017, 1:38 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default The real reason why the NRA betrayed us this week

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Sorry but old news.
Yes. But what isn't old news is that the NRA opposes the bill. That is a very recent revelation.

Their statement is that they oppose the legislation BECAUSE it is overbroad. As such, whether or not they'd oppose a bill that specifically bans bump-fire stocks is not entirely clear. And that's the reason I said what I did.





Quote:
Now the NRA has to face them head on.
Yep. Now things get interesting.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 10-13-2017, 2:40 AM
GDC GDC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've come to believe the NRA did 100% the right thing after looking at Feinstein's legislation and the amount of support it holds. NRA is placing itself in a position of legitimacy in blocking it by offering an alternative that marginal groups like GOA are not.

Keep in mind NRA gets a lot of its strength from the fact that it has 5.5 million members,~2% of the US adult population, but the fact that it has positive approvals among over half the US population and this ids a huge source of power that does have to be protected to some degree.

NRA was faced with following situation: a) The LV event occurred. No one in their right mind, including people who know semi auto rifles, would contend that bump fire was not somewhat to very much contributory in the number of people injured, b) Feinstein put out a bill that had majority Sen and House support, would pass, and would be signed; c) that bill was extremely and intentionally overbroad, with bump stocks affecting a few thousand gun owners, but other provisions of the bill affecting hundred of thousands if not millions who do not own bump stocks.

Quote:
13 merce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part
14 or combination of parts that is designed and func-
15 tions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
16 rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle
17 into a machinegun;
That affects every 10/22 trigger job, it affects putting a larger button on your mag release, affects a person with arthritis taking a pull weight from 10 to 7lbs., it almost certainly affects even bolts. Feinstein's version puts a chilling affect on anyone making anything to do with triggers, mags, mag releases, springs, bolts etc. Ie rather than worry about compliance they stop making/selling the parts. If Feinstein version passes it sets the state for states that can to adopt the language and modify it from "rifle" to "rifle or pistol" which would affect millions of gun owners.

Now as far as NRA "admitting that regulation is legal": please, really everyone does. I don't believe that 99% of Americans support "universal background checks", especially once people understand they require a universal federal registry, would stop or make expensive family transfers, could make you criminal for taking a buddy to the range and lending him your rifle, not allow your own wife to take your shotgun to the range, but I do bet that a very large number of Americans and majority of gun owners do support, as a minimum, the current background check system. I bet most members here do not want persons adjudicated, proven in a court of law to be a danger to others and thereby confined as mentally ill to not get s a firearm without some kind of indication they have been cured.

Near 500 people were shot by a single individual. OK now I am rational and I know that over the long term people texting on smart devices in a car are way more dangerous to myself and my family. I know way more crimes are prevented by gun owners than shot with guns. And I know several things came in play with his ability to shoot 500 people. But we also know the bump stock was a significant enabler of the sheer number injured. and I also know politics is about playing the long game

Frankly it is a GOOD outcome that people are focused on bump stocks. if this guy had shot 300 people with no bump stock we would be really really screwed. We would be square in the current narrative target of the antis -- any "self loading" ie ALL semi auto firearms.

WE have mid terms coming up and it looks like the house is in creating danger of flipping . Every polls shows GOP losses and increasingly. some show 50 seats turning when 24 will be a flip. The senate just needs three to flip. If we lose only three senate races, Donald Trump will never have another SCOTUS appointment. The last two years of his current term will result in no change on the court. Gorsuch, who replaced Scalia in a one for one, could literally be his first and last and even any federal appeals judges will have to be compromise candidates with the democrats, when conservative compromise judges are typically conservative in being pro business, and anti gun rights.

NRA has to look at all of that. If you are trained in martial arts you know that when you have a 300lb opponent coming at you, stepping to the side and directing his own energy is often much better outcome than standing there and attempting to stop him.

As far as GOA, it is easy to be maximalist and play to the 1/4 to 1/2% of Americans who may belong to your organization, especially of you are mostly unheard of outside your niche. Come on. Please. It PAC gave a whopping $60,00 nationally in the 2016 cycle. i. That sounds like 1960's Dr. Evil dramatically holding the earth hostage for "five million dollars" in 2005. There are probably cat breed organizations that were more significant.

"NRA betrayed"? support that claim it with some DATA as to how many NRA approvers (58% of Americans) or NRA members, 5.5 million, say so.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 10-14-2017, 4:40 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 479
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Do you really want to go down that path? It's so fraught with peril that I hardly know where to begin.
I live in Los Angeles county. I am effectively not even allowed to acquire a CCW due to crap laws and you feel that bump stocks are somehow high on the list of topics to do battle over?

Fighting a battle over bump stocks is about as much a waste of our focus as attempting to liberate France by landing allied forces on Copacabana Beach on 6 June 1944.


.
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION - an eye for an eye
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 10-15-2017, 1:14 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
I live in Los Angeles county. I am effectively not even allowed to acquire a CCW due to crap laws and you feel that bump stocks are somehow high on the list of topics to do battle over?

Fighting a battle over bump stocks is about as much a waste of our focus as attempting to liberate France by landing allied forces on Copacabana Beach on 6 June 1944.
So you think that retreating is a better option, eh?

We retreat. Then something else happens, and we retreat again. And again. And again.

When does it stop?

Every time you give ground, you allow the construction of a framework that is then used to destroy the right even more than you originally envisioned. The enemy uses the ground we give up as the foundation for further attacks on us.

So in that light, do you really think it's a good idea to retreat yet again?


No. Enough is enough. You cannot compromise with these people. You cannot reason with them. They seek the complete destruction of the right to arms, of the right to resist tyranny. And you think it's a good idea to give them even more ground than they've already taken, to further weaken our already severely compromised position, and all because you think we'll get to choose the terms of engagement later?


We don't get to choose the battlefield. We never have, because they attack and we defend. You'd better get used to that fact right now. Either we fight and maybe win, or we don't fight and lose. There is no in between.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 10-15-2017, 3:49 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,202
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
snip

We don't get to choose the battlefield. We never have, because they attack and we defend. You'd better get used to that fact right now. Either we fight and maybe win, or we don't fight and lose. There is no in between.
IMO its high time we go on the offensive. There is only so much that can be accomplished by staying in defensive/reaction mode. Act, not re-act. More attacking, less defending. How do we ever get anywhere if we're back peddling instead of moving to the front?

Interstate reciprocity needs to get a vote, talk of appeasing the radical dems needs to stop. Our voices need to be heard in Washington DC. If we don't speak up for ourselves why do we expect someone else to do it for us?

edit: maybe this is unrealistic based on the real politik in DC but we've tried the other approach, haven't we? Where has it gotten us?

Last edited by Sputnik; 10-15-2017 at 3:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.