Hickok 45 call to action

[mlevans66]

+1 not everyone is like Tim @ MAC who complains every 30 seconds. Some people enjoy their firearms and don't feel the need to be political all the time.

With that being said, we need to make a stance and show the gun grabbers our guns aren't up for grabs. Only their p****'s

You must not watch his stuff. He barely does that unless its needed. I mean he talks about it but he mostly does 80s hip fire. LOL

He's right though. Hickcock JUST got on board. Tim of MAC is a fighter. He's tired of seeing less rights and us being cool with it. He does not want the rest of the states to be like CA, NJ, NY. The rest of us should be fighting like Ca gun owners that really fight.

[mlevans66]

I honestly don't see the problem with banning bumpstocks!

I mean a person who isn't a marksman or gun culture person can still blow through tons of unaimed rifle fire by just hooking ones thumb into a belt loop and making the gun fire w/o each pull trigger.

As a gun culture guy and marksman (USMC Rifleman) I approve of the bump stock ban.

For the record I do not approve of the NFA rules which highly regulate automatic rifles and sub guns!

aaaaaaaaaaand we have another giver of rights folks! Another Marine that does not understand what will happen if we give them anything more then what we already did. You are like the hunters that said it was cool to give up ARs. The cowboy gun guys that where for giving up semi auto pistols.

[IVC]

IVC, do you remember the last time the Democrats offered something in return for a gun restriction - because i don't

That’s the trick - nothing moves and it’s not our fault .

[Bangzoom]

most gun channels are way too late to the party ...Years ago I was commenting on their videos how they need to stop worrying about subs and call out the politicians that are harming our freedoms

[MissiontoMars]

meh...Bump-stocks are stupid. Take'em.

I don't buy into the tinfoil hat, stepping stone argument with regards to firearm accessories.

Also, Hickok45 is awesome. He is also entitled to his opinion, just like those on this board are entitled to theirs.

Have a good day.

.

[smle-man]

You guys are seriously debating a bump stock ban?

The message was stop arguing on the Internet and contact the companies that aligned with Bloomberg and the other progressives that are attacking our culture, our liberty and our 2A rights.

Opinions on Hickcok45 and bumpstocks are wholly and completely irrelevant.

Contact the companies that kneejerked it in favor of the loud voices of the useful idiots marching and screaming for their statist masters.

They want you dead, your culture dead, your God dead, your very identity erased. It's not about bumpstocks. They want every last vestige of you wiped out. You, your family, your children ... dead.

History has demonstrated over and over again ... take the guns, then the property, marched to mass graves, erase every memory, build a temple to tyranny upon the ashes.


Here's NRA MEMBERSHIP LINK and the GOA MEMBERSHIP LINK

Join the fight, contact and donate to our supporters in Congress and Governors across the country, contact the companies that banded against us, fight with your wallet, your pen, your vote ...

the adversary is still a minority, a very loud vocal minority.

Don't get divided over Hickcok45 and bumpstock BS,
and don't start some anti-NRA anti-GOA rants.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Strong words but well said.

[ja308]

Thank you to the many who challenged my comments about not caring about bumpstocks.

Each of you have made points that caused me to rethink my statement!

I now agree bumpstocks should not be banned unless we get something of value in return.
I agree with IVC who 1st made this point.

Others have helped persuade me as well . Good arguments that I cannot honestly fefute.

I think a good compromise would be banning the bumpstock device for a repeal of NFA 1934 which protected militia weapons while in effect banning militia weapons. Actually IM OK with getting anything in return for them. It will set a precedent that we are willing to compromise but only if we get something in return.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

It will set a precedent that we are willing to compromise but only if we get something in return.

The problem you run into is the same one people lament, particularly here in California.

With precedent set, where does it stop and what is the end game?

Some don't own so-called assault weapons and don't care about them. So, go ahead and ban them if we can keep our double barrel shotguns?

Some don't think semi-auto handguns are necessary for self-defense. So, go ahead and ban semi-auto handguns in exchange for easing regulations on CCW?

Some don't...

What you are arguing is that you are willing to trade part of your right to keep and bear arms to retain or 'get back' part of your right to keep and bear arms; a right that wasn't supposed to be infringed upon to begin with.

How is that "getting something in return?"

[Jay-lee]

He's one of the idiots who got us into this mess. When the NRA and other gun owners started to sell out bump-stock owners, the left smelt blood and went all in on gun control.

I think he's as much trying to save his own YouTube gig as anything else. I lost all interest in his thoughts when he wanted to be reasonable and support banning bump stocks.

Look at how reasonable gun control is working out for us here in CA.

Agreed I haven't given him any views since he said that.

[terry4130]

Hickok 45 call to action



Being a gun channel I thought YouTube prevented it from being monetized.

[mlevans66]

Thank you to the many who challenged my comments about not caring about bumpstocks.

Each of you have made points that caused me to rethink my statement!

I now agree bumpstocks should not be banned unless we get something of value in return.
I agree with IVC who 1st made this point.

Others have helped persuade me as well . Good arguments that I cannot honestly fefute.

I think a good compromise would be banning the bumpstock device for a repeal of NFA 1934 which protected militia weapons while in effect banning militia weapons. Actually IM OK with getting anything in return for them. It will set a precedent that we are willing to compromise but only if we get something in return.

Ugh I could agree to this. The SBR and suppressor thing is beyond stupid. Its all just a money grab.

[230infantry]

[John Henry]

You just gave them a clever argument to use!! - they would never have thought of it themselves ...

[IVC]

Some don't own so-called assault weapons and don't care about them. So, go ahead and ban them if we can keep our double barrel shotguns?

Some don't think semi-auto handguns are necessary for self-defense. So, go ahead and ban semi-auto handguns in exchange for easing regulations on CCW?

Personally, I think bump stocks are fundamentally different.

Banning any meaningful firearm or feature is certianly a "slippery slope." Banning a toy novelty item doesn't really affect anyone's ability for self defense and it doesn't open doors for future more meaningful bans because we understand that there is a line we will hold if they tried.

So, these types of bans are perfect bargaining chips to use with antis - we both know that bump stock ban/no-ban has no effect on anything criminal, but if Democrats are going to make it sound as if it "makes automatic weapons out of full (sic) semi-automatic weapons," let them actually vote on the ban in which they offer us something *meaningful* that we want. If they decide to vote "no," it's up to them to explain the issue to their base. If they lied about the significance of the ban, it's on them.

If bump stocks are indeed protected by 2A, we can sort it out later, in courts, when we get more favorable composition.

What you are arguing is that you are willing to trade part of your right to keep and bear arms to retain or 'get back' part of your right to keep and bear arms; a right that wasn't supposed to be infringed upon to begin with.

How is that "getting something in return?"

Here is where the trick about negotiation comes into play. What we can get through courts, we will get through courts and we won't give an inch. What we can get through legislation NOW is where some sort of compromise kicks in. The key is that there is indeed a *compromise*, where we get something we want.

If you look at the current state of negotiations, after all that Trump said, we are back to asking for concessions if they want some of these bans. For political reasons, we might even pass the "fixNICS" legislation as standalone - NRA supports it and I support it, so no harm if it gets passed with nothing in return. Bump stocks are a different beast, though. We better not give them up for nothing.

[KahrMan]

Think a lot of gunners agree that bumpstocks should be illegal. Am surprised that the current Fed laws don’t include them as they obviously turn a semi-auto into a fashion of full auto.

I don’t think people supporting bump stock use are doing those supporting 2a much good. It looks bad and for me kinda is.