It's not time to panic, but it's damn sure time to get (and stay) serious.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
It's not time to panic, but it's damn sure time to get (and stay) serious.
I'm astounded that I made it this far before ignoring this thread...
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
Yes it is. I have a child with special needs, and I made the move. From beginning to end, including finding a new home, finding care for the child, finding a job, etc. it took me about five months. And that is with a job that requires an extensive background investigation.
The NRA needs to engage in some legislative budgeting and come up with a way to do business. And gun owners in general need to come to grips with the fact that they will be forced to accept some laws they don't like. I don't like the idea of it either, but that's life in a country where 80% to 90% of the electorate believes universal background checks are a great idea. Instead of these ridiculous lines in the sand, how about some intelligent realization that progress can be made if we are willing to bargain.
Using those background checks as an example: the NRA should have seen this coming on the horizon (knowing full well that at some point the fed legislature would push it). Instead of stomping their feet they should have preemptively set up a meeting with legislators on both sides of the aisle, hammered out an exchange (like background checks and banning bump stocks for taking suppressors off the NFA and making them 50 state legal), and then let the legislators have some big news conference where they announce their new legislation written with input from the NRA. Even better, they could have cut Pelosi out of the entire conversation, because that way they give a chance to junior Democratic politicians to show up some dinosaur from their party they likely hate, are tired of listening to, and want to replace. Really, they were going to ban bump stocks no matter what, so we should have negotiated it. And universal background checks are coming, you can bet on it. Now we are faced with a background check bill that will make loaning a hunting rifle to your friend illegal and will allow unlimited fees for the background check. We could have easily had a hand in the negotiation, got something we wanted in return, rolled back some other legislation, and let them walk out of the room feeling like they won. That way they would have come back to the table the next time we wanted to deal on new laws. If the current background check bill doesn't pass, it won't matter - at some point a bill will pass, and if we don't have a say in how it is worded, it will suck. By going into discussions on the bill, the NRA will look like they recognize there is a problem (the same problem the public already overwhelmingly believes exists) and is willing to work to solve it.
The "no compromise" crowd is walking us into a wood chipper. Besides, ever filled out a Form 4473? You compromised. Everyone has compromised, but it's easy to pretend you won't from the safety of a keyboard. Let's see how you do when a SWAT team is kicking in your door. I suggest a better route is trading them some minor victories for a more comprehensive reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Look - the Republicans have had plenty of time to give us national carry. Did you get it? Maybe it is time to form some alliances with the other side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, the best way to seize power from Pelosi and Schumer is to cut them out of the deal and bargain with the juniors - After all, Pelosi and Schumer are getting old, have made lots of enemies, and leaving them out of future gun legislation proposals will probably make room for someone we like better to seize power in that party and cut the head off the beast.
As far as GOA...do you really trust someone that was too stupid to see through Sacha Baron Cohen?
With friends like you we don't need any enemies.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
Well, we've been refusing to work with the other side for some time now, and we have nothing to show for it. We can't even claim we defeated the AWB - the only reason it went away was because it had a sunset provision built in to it.
Silencers still on the NFA and illegal in some states? Yep - opportunity lost.
Bump stocks banned? Yep - opportunity lost.
National carry? Nope - opportunity lost.
NFA weapons 50 state legal? Nope - opportunity lost.
We are looking down the barrel of universal background checks. That will be followed by ammunition controls, adding semi-autos to the NFA, national emergency gun seizure legislation, national laws that allow local preemption of state gun laws, etc. All because we handed over control of an extremely powerful lobbying organization to people that seem to believe the best way to fight gun control is to act like toddlers. Yeah, we got a bunch of states to approve concealed carry, in some cases constitutional. Some other states legalized SBRs, some legalized suppressors - all great stuff. But this is a national fight, and if we fight it on a national level we only have to pay for one struggle, not 50 at once.
If we were making alliances with our "enemies", we could probably offer them something they want in exchange for what we want. If I'm wrong, we are no worse off than we were before.
Or, we could sit around and listen to people talk about how they won't compromise, knowing full well they are just overweight walter mittys fantasizing about their epic Second American Civil War. Having seen what bullets do, I prefer negotiating with my well-meaning (albeit mislead) countrymen. I am willing to give them something if it means you and I can transport our SBRs to California whether the DOJ likes it or not, can carry a Glock 17 with the normal mag in NYC whether they like it or not, and can thumb our noses at the New Jersey State Police as we load our magazines with hollow points in the City of Trenton.
So, yeah, whatever...I guess I'm a frenemie or full on enemy or something. Cool.
Besides being incorrect — you dismissively included plenty of examples — that post is offensive to a lot of friends of mine who worked very hard for what we have.
Gun control when I started shooting in the nineties was intense by today’s standards. We lived under the awb, we had to go to the Sherriff to get a permit to purchase, and concealed carry was something you did rather than something you were permitted to do.
Concession will earn us nothing in return. We have had a non-concession position for the last 20 years and it’s been very effective — besides what we’ve gained legislatively, popular opinion of and participation in defensive firearms use is completely different from the 90s.
Ignore Alien Orders
Key point! It would be death by a thousand concessions. The other side wants total victory. Universal background checks won't get us national reciprocity and standard capacity mags in all US jurisdictions.
Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, but what am I incorrect about? From what I can tell, one third to one half of this nation's population is living with gun control more onerous than ten years ago. I know this personally, as I moved from a ban state to a free state. You and I may have it better, but I have read posts from several people on this thread that clearly have seen things go down hill, and they deserve the same freedoms you and I have.
Like I said - losing the AWB was no great victory, the sunset for that law was built in. Going to the Sheriff to get a permit is a local issue, and we should be fighting this on a national scale. Besides, many people have seen it get worse. For me, there was far less gun control in the nineties, and it got progressively worse. If you are in it for yourself, cool - at least be honest about it. Since I have moved I have to remind myself to look beyond the borders of my state. We should all be doing that.
If non-concession is so effective, why do my fellow citizens in California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado (!!!!), Connecticut, Vermont, and more have to deal with an endless barrage of new gun control laws produced by legislators elected by exasperated voters who time after time tell pollsters they think background checks/one gun a month/magazine bans/AWBs/gun control ad nauseum are a good idea? Why do some courts outright refuse to follow the Heller decision? Why do other courts refuse to hear 2nd Amendment cases? Seriously, why? Because they are impressed with our refusal to come to the table? Because Wayne LaPierre asked me for another $50 for the billionth time this month? Because the media is getting really good at making us look like chumps? Besides, I'm not talking about concession - I'm talking about negotiation. If they don't want to negotiate, we can walk away from the table and re-assume business as usual. If they do, then great. We can get something in return. Really, if we repealed the NFA, and the cost of that was allowing some legislator from Chicago to go home and tell his voters, "We won!!!! We banned bump stocks!!!! - you wouldn't take that?
I agree, the popular opinion of defensive gun use has improved. The problem with hanging your hat on that statistic is we don't know what kind of gun the average person has in mind when they think of defense. For all we know, they think the average joe fends off burglars with grand dad's old revolver. Considering the level of support for magazine capacity restrictions, that is probably what they think. Remember, we are talking about people who think racking a shotgun is a magic talisman that will make every blood, crip, and cholo in America piss their pants.
I'm a cop, so for me a lot of this doesn't matter - every time they come up with a new gun control law there is a carve-out for me. That's BS, quite frankly, as the 2nd doesn't read "the right of the police to keep and bear arms." They can pass any law they want, chances are I will still be allowed to purchase what I want and likely keep it after I retire. That shouldn't be an issue, and we make it one by refusing to sit down with the other side of the aisle and hash it out. By making this an "us vs. them" situation they have the opportunity to buy support by offering cops goodies that everyone else can't have, and it works. This can be taken away, but not if you won't sit down with them and steal that arrow from their quiver.
One of the gun controller's best weapons is the claim that we are intractable and refuse to be reasonable. This is an opportunity to make that weapon ineffective. America is changing, and rapidly. Those of us who think we can bully our way to gun freedom are in for a rude awakening. It doesn't have to be that way. We can turn our "enemies" into "partners" and roll back 100 years of stupid gun laws by letting a bunch of politicians pretend they are winning, or we can dig in our heels and end up on the losing end of demographics.
I am completely flummoxed as to why some people think it is so bad to take a guarded position of negotiation with the other side. Pelosi is a horrible person, but not every person who thinks some gun control is a good idea is bad. If an otherwise intelligent person approaches you with a reasonable concern about the possession of weapons and you don't take the opportunity to hear them out and take them seriously, they aren't the nitwit - you are. We should be building bridges, not stroking our beards and muttering about "those damn liberals."
Banning bump stocks. There was no negotiation. Trump told them to do it. They wanted to do it. They said, "OK, sky green, grass blue, bump stock equals machine gun. Done." Tens of thousands of people made their voices heard. The BATFE gaslighted every one of the voices that opposed it. Congress wasn't even involved. Exactly how were we supposed to "negotiate" that?
The goal of gun banners is total annihilation, not just of guns and gun ownership, but of the culture of personal responsibility, the culture that recognizes the government is not and cannot be the solution to every problem. Guns both teach those lessons, and are one of the answers once those lessons are learned, so they must go.
When your enemy's goal is your complete and utter destruction, the time to fight is now. There is no compromising, because you will always give up more than you get and in the end, be left with nothing.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Reply With Quote