The NRA - with friends like these...

[DaveTN]

We (most of us here) won’t be fighting our government in our lifetimes. If we have another Civil war it will be the Right against the left. And the government will be handing out Full autos to those on the RIGHT side.

[Garufa]

5 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

We (most of us here) won’t be fighting our government in our lifetimes. If we have another Civil war it will be the Right against the left. And the government will be handing out Full autos to those on the RIGHT side.

The government won't be handing out arms to anyone but if they did it would be to those on the "right" side.   

[MacGyver]

The political compass needle shifts so much over time...

Figure Obama was well to the right of Nixon.  But, George W. Bush would be considered a “liberal RINO” by most of the right today.  At the very least, there’s no way he could win the GOP nomination today. Who’s who?

One thing I will note is that the needle seems to be swinging a lot faster these days.  I’m not sure what the cause is.  Probably multiple factors.  Human existence has evolved more in the last 50 years than it has in the last 50,000.  Maybe we’re just not ready to adapt to so much change. Could be social media. I think there’s a lot to us consuming relationships online as opposed to having to invest in them in person.  That’s not to mention how effective social media is at telling us how to think instead of requiring us to put the time in to consider our rhetoric.  

There are no easy answers, that’s for sure.  

[Chucktshoes]

33 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

I hope you're wrong

But you know I'm not. It requires pain, and lots of it for the people to develop the will to risk everything for the hope of something better. It takes a hell of a lot for folks to think that the juice of revolution is worth the squeeze, especially when their bellies are filled with bread and their nights are filled with watching the circus. 

 

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

- H.L. Mencken

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

That was then, try getting to someone seriously in charge with only a popper.

Again, try getting to some of these guys calling the shots.  You think Pelosi has lasted this long because of her good personality?  Hell, nowadays try getting to just about any high profile Hollywood individual,  most have security up the wazzoo, but still calling for us to be disarmed. 

That is a hard proposition if one is trying to survive the encounter. However, if one values the target's death over their own life, then the rest is only planning. 

[JayC]

6 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

I agree with that first sentence, but I don't think the second one is true. The disparity between civilian-grade weapons and military-grade weapons today is simply too great for we mere civilians to overcome. The thought of going up against that with small arms, automatic or otherwise, is a fantasy.

If we're ever forced to fight on our own soil against our own government, we'll have to use tactics that make SA vs FA irrelevant until we can scavenge enough of their equipment.

Still, it's not the government's place to tell us what we can and can't have. That's supposed to go the other way around.

I'll point out we've basically lost a war to illiterate goat herders with nothing more than AK's, mortars, and arty shells to use as IED's.

Mind you, they don't speak our language, there aren't millions of them who understand our tactics and weapon systems as well as current active duty service personnel, and they don't have access to the homeland where the basic supply chain is completely unprotected and families live in near complete safety.

All those fancy weapon systems require 100's of man hours of maintenance, replacement parts, and a bunch of civilian contractors to keep them running.

If you're scared of fighting the military on our soil, trust me the military is 100x more scared of fighting an insurgency here.  

Edited October 7, 2017 by JayC

[Garufa]

5 minutes ago, JayC said:

I'll point out we've basically lost a war to illiterate goat herders with nothing more than AK's, mortars, and arty shells to use as IED's.

Those same goat herders in Afghanistan had a lot to do the fall of the USSR after eight years of war.  They started out with old flintlocks and Enfields.

[Omega]

32 minutes ago, Garufa said:

Those same goat herders in Afghanistan had a lot to do the fall of the USSR after eight years of war.  They started out with old flintlocks and Enfields.

Well yes, but it wasn't until the stingers showed up that the tide turned.  But, I agree that an insurgency wouldn't be as one sided as all that, there are more than a few active duty patriots out there.

[Garufa]

3 minutes ago, Omega said:

Well yes, but it wasn't until the stingers showed up that the tide turned.  But, I agree that an insurgency wouldn't be as one sided as all that, there are more than a few active duty patriots out there.

Pardon me, but bull####.  The will of the people cannot be defeated by technology and a bunch of Stingers did not turn the tide.  

[Omega]

4 minutes ago, Garufa said:

Pardon me, but bull####.  The will of the people cannot be defeated by technology and a bunch of Stingers did not turn the tide.  

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/10/02/soviets-afghan-rebels-pressure-us-on-arms/1011636c-7396-4a11-ba7a-35259125c258/?utm_term=.b48868a51289

But there were many more articles just like that, many of which I read then.  I was on active duty so kept up with all these events in case it meant deployment.

Quote

The Stinger was introduced in Afghanistan two years ago and at times the Stinger and other U.S.-provided antiaircraft missiles were bringing down a Soviet or Afghan aircraft a day. The Soviet Union never found an effective defense against the Stinger, a shoulder-fired heat-seeking weapon with a range of three to four miles. Its introduction has been credited with turning the tide of the war in favor of the resistance and convincing the Soviets to withdraw.

Tech alone doesn't win wars, I agree somewhat, but it sure makes for a long protracted war  and with enough tech it's nearly impossible to win without tech of your own.

[m16ty]

1 hour ago, JayC said:

I'll point out we've basically lost a war to illiterate goat herders with nothing more than AK's, mortars, and arty shells to use as IED's.

Mind you, they don't speak our language, there aren't millions of them who understand our tactics and weapon systems as well as current active duty service personnel, and they don't have access to the homeland where the basic supply chain is completely unprotected and families live in near complete safety.

All those fancy weapon systems require 100's of man hours of maintenance, replacement parts, and a bunch of civilian contractors to keep them running.

If you're scared of fighting the military on our soil, trust me the military is 100x more scared of fighting an insurgency here.  

IMO, our enemies learned a lot from the Vietnam War. They learned that if you can just hold out long enough and not try to fight toe to toe with the US, you can win a war against us. Politics also prevents us from winning modern wars. We haven't actually won a war outright since WWII. 

 

On the NRA, here is my take on them.  Back in the '80s and '90s, they were pretty content on letting some gun control slip in, as long as it didn't affect hunters and the like. The '94 AWB, that they more or less let happen, taught them a lot, as it did lots of lawmakers. The NRA realized, after the AWB, that they were dying if they didn't stand for all gun owners. They turned stuff around and wound up pretty much single handily getting GWB elected. Now I know GWB wasn't the best we've had but if Gore had been elected, there is a good possibility that we would still have the AWB and probably lost a lot more. They also played a significant role in getting Trump elected. Now I know a lot here don't really like Trump but you have to at least concede we dodged a bullet with Hillary. 

Washington is all about picking you battles. I'm not ready to throw the NRA under the bus just yet. There could be deals going on behind the scenes that would produce legislation that may do something with the bump stock but we could come out with a net gain. IMO, that's why the NRA is much more relevant on a national stage than the GOA, they know how to pick their battles and play the Washington game. I'm not saying it's right but that's how it is. Lets face it, there is no way in the world we could ever get some pro gun legislation passed after the Vegas shooting but they could slip some pro-gun amendments into a bump stock bill and get it passed. 

[ken56]

The NRA sees  this as a pathway to national reciprocity. They compromise on this and they put the pressure on to get national reciprocity passed. Its the NRA's holy grail at this time as they believe it will open the door to states that refuse 2A rights to non residents. Legislators also know that they can turn it into leverage on other issues.

[DaveTN]

35 minutes ago, ken56 said:

Its the NRA's holy grail at this time as they believe it will open the door to states that refuse 2A rights to non residents. 

Some states will flat out refuse. I don’t think it will pass muster with the SCOTUS unless they are ready to rule anyone has a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun without a permit. Otherwise it’s going to remove carry laws from the states and hand them to the Feds.

[leroy]

8 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Some states will flat out refuse. I don’t think it will pass muster with the SCOTUS unless they are ready to rule anyone has a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun without a permit. Otherwise it’s going to remove carry laws from the states and hand them to the Feds.

Dave hit the nail squarely on the head here...I think...

While the second amendment has been strengthened recently; there are some troublesome words in state constitutions that say that, as the Tennessee State Constitution does; ..."That the state may regulate the wearing of arms (...read that "carrying arms"...) with an eye toward keeping the peace..."... Or some such nonsense... This was a Post Civil War addition to most all state constitutions that was added to disarm newly freed slaves, and other lesser children... If you watch and listen closely, what the Supremes have said up to now is in strict accordance with this principle... They will allow "reasonable" restrictions, which we can quibble about... I don't see that changing... I'm like Dave, i cant see the reciprocity thing passing constitutional muster... It should, but it wont... I think...

Here's hopin it will... My guess is that it wont...

leroy

[ken56]

I didn't say I agreed with this, just that its the NRA's goal. I do agree with Dave and Leroy's comments. Even though the states (some) will/may disagree with it if it should come up in the Congress as It certainly does take away states right to regulate within their own boarders, as wrong as some may be.

[JAB]

On 10/7/2017 at 6:33 AM, ken56 said:

The NRA sees  this as a pathway to national reciprocity. They compromise on this and they put the pressure on to get national reciprocity passed. Its the NRA's holy grail at this time as they believe it will open the door to states that refuse 2A rights to non residents. Legislators also know that they can turn it into leverage on other issues.

 

On 10/7/2017 at 7:14 AM, DaveTN said:

Some states will flat out refuse. I don’t think it will pass muster with the SCOTUS unless they are ready to rule anyone has a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun without a permit. Otherwise it’s going to remove carry laws from the states and hand them to the Feds.

As Dave says, the biggest thing national reciprocity would achieve would be to take the right to create carry laws from the states and hand them to the feds.  Even worse, it would open the door for Kalifornistan style regulations to be put into place in all states.  Many proponents like to point at drivers' licenses and an example of how carry permits ought to work.  Those folks don't seem to consider than many of the regulations that apply to automobiles, emissions, etc. that begin on the left coast are often used as models for federal regulation.  Why, then, do people believe that firearms related rules would be any different? 

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/epa-allows-california-emissions-rules/

It is no stretch to imagine the fed - especially under an anti-gun administration - deciding, "Anyone with a valid carry permit issued by any state can legally carry in any state that has a procedure by which a private citizen can legally carry a firearm.  However, in the interest of uniformity the list of 'California legal' firearms will be applied to all privately carried firearms in the country.  Henceforth, only firearms on that list will be legal for sale to private individuals and any firearm that does not meet the criteria to be on this list will henceforth be illegal to carry by a private citizen."

That isn't even considering the likelihood that the fed will likely decide that, since a legal permit holder will be allowed to carry in any state, the rules, regulations and requirements for carry should match up to those of the most stringent state so that state isn't being 'forced' to allow those with 'less training' or who have been 'less thoroughly vetted' to carry in their state.  National reciprocity is not a boon to gun owners/legal carriers and it certainly isn't worth trading away other rights in order to achieve it.

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by JAB

[john455]

1 hour ago, JAB said:

 

As Dave says, the biggest thing national reciprocity would achieve would be to take the right to create carry laws from the states and hand them to the feds.  Even worse, it would open the door for Kalifornistan style regulations to be put into place in all states.  Many proponents like to point at drivers' licenses and an example of how carry permits ought to work.  Those folks don't seem to consider than many of the regulations that apply to automobiles, emissions, etc. that begin on the left coast are often used as models for federal regulation.  Why, then, do people believe that firearms related rules would be any different? 

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/epa-allows-california-emissions-rules/

It is no stretch to imagine the fed - especially under an anti-gun administration - deciding, "Anyone with a valid carry permit issued by any state can legally carry in any state that has a procedure by which a private citizen can legally carry a firearm.  However, in the interest of uniformity the list of 'California legal' firearms will be applied to all privately carried firearms in the country.  Henceforth, only firearms on that list will be legal for sale to private individuals and any firearm that does not meet the criteria to be on this list will henceforth be illegal to carry by a private citizen."

That isn't even considering the likelihood that the fed will likely decide that, since a legal permit holder will be allowed to carry in any state, the rules, regulations and requirements for carry should match up to those of the most stringent state so that state isn't being 'forced' to allow those with 'less training' or who have been 'less thoroughly vetted' to carry in their state.  National reciprocity is not a boon to gun owners/legal carriers and it certainly isn't worth trading away other rights in order to achieve it.

 

It is posts like this that makes me realize just how much more intelligent some of you are than I am, I never thought of it from this prospective 

[gjohnsoniv]

Here's my half-baked thought on what is happening here.  Remember, the NRA was in favor of zero tolerance gun laws and gun free zones and all that jazz after Columbine and supported the 1994 AWB.  I think that they're making a play to deflect from themselves and Republican lawmakers they support when it all goes south in a couple years.  What I mean by that is by asking the ATF to "review" bumpfire stocks it takes the blame off them if the ATF decides to do something with them.  However they're banking on the ATF not doing anything under Republican control due to the political fallout at the time.  When the government swings Democrat again though, the ATF won't have an issue going after bumpfire/similar and whatever else they arbitrarily decide they don't like because there won't be the same fallout.  At this point the NRA can come in screaming about how rights are being infringed and that we need to stand and do something to protect them I.E. donate to the NRA and convince more people to join.  Never mind that at some point in years past they gave the .gov the keys to do this.  In other words they're creating a monster to fight so they keep making money and stay relevant.  After all, they're a business, they exist to make money and that's truly what they care about.

[macville]

5 hours ago, JAB said:

Those folks don't seem to consider than many of the regulations that apply to automobiles, emissions, etc. that begin on the left coast are often used as models for federal regulation.  Why, then, do people believe that firearms related rules would be any different?

Except those laws don't apply because of driver's licenses, it's because cars are sold across state lines. So that argument doesn't exactly fly. For example, I noticed this morning under the hood of my F150 that it was not for sale in CA, but I obviously was able to buy it in TN. You are also considering that this law would apply to carrying, not to the purchase of items. Just like the feds cannot make traffic laws, they would not have the power to make certain carry laws. I totally understand the concern, but the bill only forces states to acknowledge all other states carry permits. No more no less. I would be more worried about states like NY simply making it impossible for anyone to carry pretty much anywhere with a carry permit (they would be happy to screw the special people that do currently have carry permits.)

[mikegideon]

This came out yesterday. Kinda the way I viewed it until I got corrected...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/johannes-paulsen/nras-position-bump-fire-stocks-genius/

[scooter]

11 hours ago, macville said:

Except those laws don't apply because of driver's licenses, it's because cars are sold across state lines. So that argument doesn't exactly fly. For example, I noticed this morning under the hood of my F150 that it was not for sale in CA, but I obviously was able to buy it in TN. You are also considering that this law would apply to carrying, not to the purchase of items. Just like the feds cannot make traffic laws, they would not have the power to make certain carry laws. I totally understand the concern, but the bill only forces states to acknowledge all other states carry permits. No more no less. I would be more worried about states like NY simply making it impossible for anyone to carry pretty much anywhere with a carry permit (they would be happy to screw the special people that do currently have carry permits.)

Just some food for thought. Actually read the national reciprocity bills in question! They are based on the Commerce Clause, like most gun control laws. According to those national reciprocity bills, the act of carrying a firearm outside your state of residence is considered interstate commerce and can be therefore regulated by the federal government like any other interstate commerce activity. It is essentially the same mechanism that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) use. The key phrase in H.R. 38 is:

"a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"

The key phrase in S.446 is:

"a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"

Once passed, this or another administration can easily add restrictions to the point that you could be required to have a federal carry permit when carrying outside your state of residence, even if you visit a state with Constitutional carry, and that the type of firearm you can carry outside of your state of residence is restricted. Also, this federal law would override any state law.

There is a rather simple solution to national reciprocity, sue every state denying a visitor their 2nd Amendment right! After all, you don't lose your 1st or 4th Amendment right when visiting another state. Unfortunately, no one seems to interested in enforcing the 2nd Amendment this way, neither the NRA nor the current administration, despite the fact that this is a basic civil rights law suit. Instead, everyone wants more laws, gun control laws to be specific.

Again, this is just some food for thought.

PS: Driver license reciprocity uses an entirely different mechanism, so a comparison to that makes really no sense.

[DaveTN]

4 hours ago, scooter said:

There is a rather simple solution to national reciprocity, sue every state denying a visitor their 2nd Amendment right! After all, you don't lose your 1st or 4th Amendment right when visiting another state. Unfortunately, no one seems to interested in enforcing the 2nd Amendment this way, neither the NRA nor the current administration, despite the fact that this is a basic civil rights law suit. Instead, everyone wants more laws, gun control laws to be specific.

You would need a lot of money that you would probably lose. You would need a SCOTUS ruling that everyone can strap on a gun (permit or not) and the state can’t do anything. Although not a ruling yet, the SCOTUS has indicated they believe states have the right to have reasonable restrictions on "Carry" in place.

The SCOTUS just refuses to hear the cases. At that point you have to abide by whatever Federal District ruling is in place where you are.

Buying a privilege from a state should never give a person any kind of Constitutional protection that all other citizens don't have.

[JAB]

5 hours ago, scooter said:

Just some food for thought. Actually read the national reciprocity bills in question! They are based on the Commerce Clause, like most gun control laws. According to those national reciprocity bills, the act of carrying a firearm outside your state of residence is considered interstate commerce and can be therefore regulated by the federal government like any other interstate commerce activity. It is essentially the same mechanism that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) use. The key phrase in H.R. 38 is:

"a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"

The key phrase in S.446 is:

"a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"

Once passed, this or another administration can easily add restrictions to the point that you could be required to have a federal carry permit when carrying outside your state of residence, even if you visit a state with Constitutional carry, and that the type of firearm you can carry outside of your state of residence is restricted. Also, this federal law would override any state law.[/quote]

 

I agree.

Quote

There is a rather simple solution to national reciprocity, sue every state denying a visitor their 2nd Amendment right! After all, you don't lose your 1st or 4th Amendment right when visiting another state. Unfortunately, no one seems to interested in enforcing the 2nd Amendment this way, neither the NRA nor the current administration, despite the fact that this is a basic civil rights law suit. Instead, everyone wants more laws, gun control laws to be specific.

 

Simple, maybe, but probably not really possible - and as DaveTN said, even if one had the money, as the Supreme Court has the power to legally (mis)interpret the Constitution, winning would be unlikely, anyhow.

 

Quote

PS: Driver license reciprocity uses an entirely different mechanism, so a comparison to that makes really no sense.

Maybe not but that is exactly the argument many (I would say most) of those who I have heard/read supporting the idea of national reciprocity use.  The above is my response to that argument.  Bottom line is that if the feds put themselves into a position to dictate to the states that everyone (with a legal permit) can carry everywhere then they will also be in a position, at some point, to dictate the requirements that must be met - both by the carrier and the firearm - or even that no one can carry anywhere, period.

Edited October 10, 2017 by JAB

[JAB]

21 hours ago, john455 said:

It is posts like this that makes me realize just how much more intelligent some of you are than I am, I never thought of it from this prospective 

Not smarter, at all.  Just more suspicious .  If the fedgov can wriggle its way into something that is a state's issue then the fedgov will, eventually, find a way to use that usurped authority to enforce more unneeded regulation. 

[monkeylizard]

4 hours ago, JAB said:

 Bottom line is that if the feds put themselves into a position to dictate to the states that everyone (with a legal permit) can carry everywhere then they will also be in a position, at some point, to dictate the requirements that must be met - both by the carrier and the firearm - or even that no one can carry anywhere, period.

Yep. Even if they don't directly dictate it, they can coerce the states to setup carry the way the Fed wants it done.

.Gov: "What's that Tennessee? You're not going to require annual re-certification with a minimum of 40 hours of training time per year like we asked? OK....how about we withhold $200 million from your Medicare (or roads, or education, or whatever) funding? Oh ... what's that? You DO want to comply with that request? That's a good little boy. Now run along and play in the street some more."

That's exactly how we get fairly uniform seat belt and Interstate highway speed limit laws across all 50 states. This wouldn't be any different.

I don't want F-Troop anywhere near this.