Isn't it amazing ? How socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, has NEVER worked, anywhere or any time, yet these poor dumb arses think that we are different, they can MAKE it work, here. Talk about mind blind. I find it truly amazing that as long as these dip sticks are talking about some one else's rights being quashed, it's all good. But when it is THEIR life and THEIR belief system being scrutinized, oh my hell, Katy, bar the door, cause it is ON !!!
Assault Weapons Ban Document HR 5087
- Thread starter Zen Archery
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
I've talked closely with many of these crazies.
They truly believe that they're going to create some kind of star trek-y society where money, poverty, injustice, intolerance, religion, nations, and conflict don't exist, and all of mankind soars happily into a perfect future.
in reality, they'll create something that looks like the world government of the Tribulation.
Yeah, I get the same thing. Reality is, if and when it gets here, their Utopia is gonna suck badly for anyone who thinks differently....including them. My Mom's mate is 20yr Air Force vet. Funny guy. Votes straight Democrat, but , with the exception of gun ownership, talks straight Conservative. I asked him point blank....is it ok to make laws that deprive me, personally , a law abiding citizen, of my rights, based on the incomprehensible, deplorable, and just all around crappy actions of a very small percentage of the population ? His response ? Oh yeah, of course it's ok. But let the govmint cut his pension, or entitlements in any way, and he is fit to be tied. I am not sure these people really listen to their own words.
Those are the same promises Hitler and the Soviets made.
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
of course. national socialism (the nazis) and international socialism (the bolsheviks/ progressive leftists) are not just political systems, they are both humanistic religions which fundamentally believe they can create heaven on earth. Therefore they despise the religious for being 'disloyal' by trusting God rather than them, that's why they want to eliminate the religious along with anyone else who stands in the way of their Utopia. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm#089 This philosophy explains why these totalitarians despise our founding fathers and the system of government they created:
Classical Liberal enlightenment theory is directly opposed to that totalitarian garbage. For example, the Declaration outlines our political beliefs - natural rights are given by the creator, and government does not have the authority to usurp those rights. The purpose of government is only to protect natural rights, and if it becomes insufferable and usurps power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it - hence the reason for the Second Amendment.
So the totalitarians are at war with God, with the religious, with real (jeffersonian) liberals, and anyone else who disagrees with their idea of utopia, and with anyone who poses a threat of resisting them (us Conservatives with weapons are their enemy number one). Of course they always pretend they are loving and peaceful - but in fact they want "peace" only in the sense that Marx described it: "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism".
just country
Well-Known Member
morning, mudrunner is right. let them blow blow blow, will die from
no support. GBOT TUM
no support. GBOT TUM
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
I agree with this guy. Been saying all along, the more draconian and infringing the Dems make the ""Assault weapons" ban of 2018", the less likely it will pass. And at this point, I'm about 85% confident it won't pass.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
BS on that guy in the 2nd video. the NRA has never traded "black rifles" for "hunting rifles".
the 86 deal was a last minute rider attached to a larger piece of legislation. The bump stocks are a cheat that turn a semi into FA in a very cheap and useless way. If you want a FA, go through the NFA.
Anyone who accuses the NRA of "cowardice" and thinks that the NRA - or anyone- is going to win a massive victory and roll back the clock to 1933 rules is living in a box. We are fighting a long delaying action against a deliberate cultural shift and a manufactured demographic change in this country, all of which is paid for by the globalists who *print* the money. They have unlimited resources and work with a multi-generational blueprint. The thought that the NRA is "betraying" gun owners because they get pushed back after fighting tooth and nail is utter garbage.
Whiny B****es like this are doing the job of the antis, and I have no respect for them. I wouldn't even be surprised if they're taking money from Soros to stab us in the back.
the 86 deal was a last minute rider attached to a larger piece of legislation. The bump stocks are a cheat that turn a semi into FA in a very cheap and useless way. If you want a FA, go through the NFA.
Anyone who accuses the NRA of "cowardice" and thinks that the NRA - or anyone- is going to win a massive victory and roll back the clock to 1933 rules is living in a box. We are fighting a long delaying action against a deliberate cultural shift and a manufactured demographic change in this country, all of which is paid for by the globalists who *print* the money. They have unlimited resources and work with a multi-generational blueprint. The thought that the NRA is "betraying" gun owners because they get pushed back after fighting tooth and nail is utter garbage.
Whiny B****es like this are doing the job of the antis, and I have no respect for them. I wouldn't even be surprised if they're taking money from Soros to stab us in the back.
Last edited:
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
You can get mad all you want, but the fact is, he's correct. There are 2 factions in the NRA... Those who are progressive gun owners that actually want to FIGHT for our rights, and then there's the complacent "Fudds" who only give a crap about wing-shooting and shotguns and don't care about AR's, so they don't care if they ban them and are willing to compromise with the left. These are the same 2 factions that exist in the current gun community as a whole, right now. If you don't believe me, do some research on Marion Hammer's comments about her fellow colleagues that want to repeal the Hughes Amendment, pass the HPA, and remove SBR's off the registry... She called them "The enemy within". That should tell you all you need to know about how alot of the board of directors feels about AR's, bump stocks, etc...
The fact is, the NRA gave the nod to start this whole **** mess when they opened their mouths after Vegas.
You have to face facts brother... It aint the same Association it used to be. They used to be a hard-nosed bunch of fighters that would NEVER give in. But now they're infiltrated with half-assed wannabe politicians that love compromising with the enemy, and then claim they're still fighting for our rights...
Until they actually decide to grow a pair of balls, and actually FIGHT for our 2A rights, and don't give one **** inch to the anti's, then I don't have much faith in them.
Also, bumpstocks don't make a S/A an F/A rifle...In ANY way, shape, or form. They SIMULATE F/A fire. There's a HUGE difference. That's like saying your Pontiac Fiero with a cheap fiberglass Lambo body kit on it, is actually a Lambo... In no universe is it a real Lamborghini. Just like in no universe does a bumpstock turn a semi-auto rifle into a full-auto rifle. And I agree with you on this one, that if you want a full-auto, drop the change on one, and get you a REAL transferrable. I'd love to have a few in my collection, but don't have the money. That being said, I have no use for, or desire to own a bumpstock. They're cheap pieces of plastic. But this whole thing is more about principle and precedent, than it is about the cheap plastic device itself.
Also, I can just about guarantee you that Tim @ MAC is NOT taking globalist money. That dude is legit. He owns legal transferrable machineguns, suppressors, even bumpstocks, and TONS of military rifles... He's not a shill. I also share his desire to roll things back to 1933... Before the NFA started the whole infringement ball rolling.
The fact is, the NRA gave the nod to start this whole **** mess when they opened their mouths after Vegas.
You have to face facts brother... It aint the same Association it used to be. They used to be a hard-nosed bunch of fighters that would NEVER give in. But now they're infiltrated with half-assed wannabe politicians that love compromising with the enemy, and then claim they're still fighting for our rights...
Until they actually decide to grow a pair of balls, and actually FIGHT for our 2A rights, and don't give one **** inch to the anti's, then I don't have much faith in them.Also, bumpstocks don't make a S/A an F/A rifle...In ANY way, shape, or form. They SIMULATE F/A fire. There's a HUGE difference. That's like saying your Pontiac Fiero with a cheap fiberglass Lambo body kit on it, is actually a Lambo... In no universe is it a real Lamborghini. Just like in no universe does a bumpstock turn a semi-auto rifle into a full-auto rifle. And I agree with you on this one, that if you want a full-auto, drop the change on one, and get you a REAL transferrable. I'd love to have a few in my collection, but don't have the money. That being said, I have no use for, or desire to own a bumpstock. They're cheap pieces of plastic. But this whole thing is more about principle and precedent, than it is about the cheap plastic device itself.
Also, I can just about guarantee you that Tim @ MAC is NOT taking globalist money. That dude is legit. He owns legal transferrable machineguns, suppressors, even bumpstocks, and TONS of military rifles... He's not a shill. I also share his desire to roll things back to 1933... Before the NFA started the whole infringement ball rolling.
Last edited:
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
Not even Schumer or Feinstein attacks the NRA as much as some allegedly "pro gun" guys.
Apparently the new tactic is to assassinate the character of the NRA within the shooting and hunting community, and by creating doubt and division, hope that they lose members and money so that the left can do even more damage.
Anyone who attacks the NRA loses all credibility with me.
Apparently the new tactic is to assassinate the character of the NRA within the shooting and hunting community, and by creating doubt and division, hope that they lose members and money so that the left can do even more damage.
Anyone who attacks the NRA loses all credibility with me.
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
The NRA's Position on Bump Fire Stocks was Genius
BY JOHANNES PAULSEN |
OCT 08, 2017
.....The National Rifle Association's decision to stand down over the issue of bump fire stocks has generated a lot of concern, both among TTAG's readership and elsewhere in the gun owning community..... I'm not worried.
This is the strongest position the NRA could have taken, and it has made me roll back some of my general concerns over whether the gun rights org's leadership has the chops to fight for the Second Amendment during the Trump years and beyond.
....
From the NRA's official statement:
In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.
The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
This was a smart move. For the price of giving up something that couldn't be defended anyway, they've improved their strategic position in two ways:
1) The NRA dodged an incoming blow from the enemy aimed at poisoning the image of their organization in the minds of the people.
2) The NRA has taken a position that requires the enemy to attack its own allies if they want an immediate victory.
On the first point, the gun control lobby and its collaborators were already ginning up a propaganda salvo against the nation's oldest civil rights organization. Instead of taking the blow, the NRA stepped out of the way.
"In war," Sun Tzu tells us, "the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."
Wait a minute, shouldn't the NRA fight tooth-and-nail against every regulation that remotely affects guns?
No. As any gambler knows, you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. In this case, the enemy has blind, ignorant, emotional fear in a mass audience and a clearly-defined target: bump fire stocks.
In opposition, the pro-bump fire stock side has…well, not much. Bump fire stocks don't add anything to a citizen's ability to use a rifle in defense of herself or our nation. They appear to be fashion accessories for entertainment purposes only. In fact, the SildeFire tag line is "Prepare to change the way you play." As far as self-interest goes, we're lucky if maybe 1/10th of 1% of gun owners actually own or aspire to get one.....
We could compose a well-crafted libertarian argument for the abstract right of a man to possess anything he wants as long as he's not harming others, and the freedom to be square pegs in round holes. But in the court of fickle public opinion, an abstract argument in the clouds falls to one based on mass fear aimed a concrete target any day of the week.
Standing against this would devalue the credibility of the NRA in the minds of people who, again, are being guided by irrational fear in the aftermath of an atrocity. People tend not to respond well to others who exacerbate their fears.
So the NRA declined the opportunity to fight on terrain that could not be defended, and that would leave them with a stain on their record in the eyes of the many whose analysis on this issue is guided by fear in the wake of the Las Vegas attack.
That was good by itself. But the NRA also laid a subtle trap for its opponents.
They said regulations should be reviewed — and they encouraged the BATFE to do so. Not Congress. Now, if the gun control left wants a quick win for which they can gain political credit, they need to endorse Steve Bannon's position on the administrative state.
Yes, that's right, the NRA just walked away from a losing hand and moved to the most favorable ground possible.
my comment: But in the meantime the so-called "pro gun" enemies of the NRA have ramped up the attacks and helped out the antis by trying to make the pro-gun lobby self-destruct.
BY JOHANNES PAULSEN |
OCT 08, 2017
.....The National Rifle Association's decision to stand down over the issue of bump fire stocks has generated a lot of concern, both among TTAG's readership and elsewhere in the gun owning community..... I'm not worried.
This is the strongest position the NRA could have taken, and it has made me roll back some of my general concerns over whether the gun rights org's leadership has the chops to fight for the Second Amendment during the Trump years and beyond.
....
From the NRA's official statement:
In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.
The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
This was a smart move. For the price of giving up something that couldn't be defended anyway, they've improved their strategic position in two ways:
1) The NRA dodged an incoming blow from the enemy aimed at poisoning the image of their organization in the minds of the people.
2) The NRA has taken a position that requires the enemy to attack its own allies if they want an immediate victory.
On the first point, the gun control lobby and its collaborators were already ginning up a propaganda salvo against the nation's oldest civil rights organization. Instead of taking the blow, the NRA stepped out of the way.
"In war," Sun Tzu tells us, "the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."
Wait a minute, shouldn't the NRA fight tooth-and-nail against every regulation that remotely affects guns?
No. As any gambler knows, you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. In this case, the enemy has blind, ignorant, emotional fear in a mass audience and a clearly-defined target: bump fire stocks.
In opposition, the pro-bump fire stock side has…well, not much. Bump fire stocks don't add anything to a citizen's ability to use a rifle in defense of herself or our nation. They appear to be fashion accessories for entertainment purposes only. In fact, the SildeFire tag line is "Prepare to change the way you play." As far as self-interest goes, we're lucky if maybe 1/10th of 1% of gun owners actually own or aspire to get one.....
We could compose a well-crafted libertarian argument for the abstract right of a man to possess anything he wants as long as he's not harming others, and the freedom to be square pegs in round holes. But in the court of fickle public opinion, an abstract argument in the clouds falls to one based on mass fear aimed a concrete target any day of the week.
Standing against this would devalue the credibility of the NRA in the minds of people who, again, are being guided by irrational fear in the aftermath of an atrocity. People tend not to respond well to others who exacerbate their fears.
So the NRA declined the opportunity to fight on terrain that could not be defended, and that would leave them with a stain on their record in the eyes of the many whose analysis on this issue is guided by fear in the wake of the Las Vegas attack.
That was good by itself. But the NRA also laid a subtle trap for its opponents.
They said regulations should be reviewed — and they encouraged the BATFE to do so. Not Congress. Now, if the gun control left wants a quick win for which they can gain political credit, they need to endorse Steve Bannon's position on the administrative state.
Yes, that's right, the NRA just walked away from a losing hand and moved to the most favorable ground possible.
my comment: But in the meantime the so-called "pro gun" enemies of the NRA have ramped up the attacks and helped out the antis by trying to make the pro-gun lobby self-destruct.
Last edited:
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Feel however you like, you're allowed to (for now, unless evil a-hole Dems in Congress get their way and strip everybody of their rights) but the fact is, the NRA hasn't fought as hard as they should have the last few decades. I'm allowed to feel that way, just like you're allowed to feel your own way. I never said they don't do anything...I simply said I don't support them because they aren't fighting hard enough. I also used to be an NRA member, for many many years.
There are also current board members in the NRA that are as bad as Schumer and Feinstein...Which is NOT good, and which is what is causing them to be split. It's an internal schism, and is not an external one.
Also, the NRA is not a part of government... They're simply a lobbying firm. They don't make laws, but they are a HUGE lobbying firm, and they sure can influence some things, good or bad. And the will of the people, and the will of their average members doesn't mean anything to them. They're still going to do and say whatever they want to, because the ones in charge, are going to push their own personal agendas regardless.
I am 200% pro-gun, and I am 200% a Constitutionalist. I believe that the U.S. Constitution affirms my God-given right to own whatever the hell gun or devices I want, and that the government doesn't have the right to dictate that. So, don't confuse me or my opinions. I'm not trying to sway anyone's thinking. I'm simply pointing out things I've noticed, and expressing my opinions on them.
Last edited:
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
I put "pro gun" guys who attack the NRA on the same level as Pelosi and Feinstein.
Just an enemy who will actively work against my 2nd Amendment rights by sowing discord and division for their own nebulous purposes. Screw that and all their self serving bs. At this point, I really do not care what any of them have to say. They have lost all credibility by helping the totalitarians fight against my rights and property.
