Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 145

Thread: Proposed Criteria for Braces

  1. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    So as far as the braces go, I'm not going to get too wound up about it, nor do I feel it is an overwhelming attack on our liberties, we have bigger things to worry about at the present.
    This is why we keep losing ground inch by inch. They propose new regulations and gun owners who won't be affected shrug their shoulders and start pointing out how we are the ones in the wrong. That's not a personal attack, just statement of how these things go down every single time. I didn't own a bumpstock but I damn sure emailed elected representatives and voiced my opposition to them banning them. Same with M855. I don't own any revolvers or 1911s but if Slippy Joe and the ATF came after them you can bet your ass I'd be lighting up their inbox letting my opinion be known. As far as gun rights, we do not have bigger things to worry about right now. They will not stop at pistol braces. They want America disarmed.

    And, reference amending the GCA and the NFA, we should be careful what we wish for, things could be much, much, worse.
    Solution is simple. Get rid of the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, and everything in between. Disband the ATF. They're not needed. Let them apply for jobs elsewhere in the federal govt or go get a job as a roofer. No "law enforcement" agency should have the kind of free reign that they possess.

  2. #112
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    That is why comments to the ATF, etc. are just virtue signaling unless progunners can convince legislators that there will electoral consequences of gun bans. I continually write my antigun reps about how they will lose elections and lose on their more important issues unless they can peel away folks who think guns are a one issue vote decider but are sympathetic to the other issues the rep is in favor of. If they buy that - I doubt it but it is a chance. We are too much in litmus test politics nowadays. Or the Olympian Gods of Scotus get off their butt.

  3. #113
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Away, away, away, down.......
    If the pro marijuana folks had just said ďoh well, thems the rules and rules is rulesĒ then pot would still be illegal everywhere, but itís not. Itís still illegal on the federal level, but how many DEA raids do we see happening at dispensaries in states where itís legal? There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
    H4 HEADING Ė MUST EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW ALL THIS MISTAKEN IDEA OF DENOUNG PLEASURE AND PRAISING PAIN WAS U HOW ALL THIS MISTAKEN IDEA

  4. #114
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    There might have been under AG Jeff Sessions who was dead set against marijuana but he crossed the Donald and was sunk. However, the idea of state initiatives against various liberties - sexuality and reproductive acts, gun restrictions, marijuana, varieties of free speech - should convince most people to give up trying to constrain personal liberties. However, zealots cannot realize this and just want their restrictions to stay in place. No compromise ON MY ISSUE!

  5. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    That is why comments to the ATF, etc. are just virtue signaling unless progunners can convince legislators that there will electoral consequences of gun bans. I continually write my antigun reps about how they will lose elections and lose on their more important issues unless they can peel away folks who think guns are a one issue vote decider but are sympathetic to the other issues the rep is in favor of. If they buy that - I doubt it but it is a chance. We are too much in litmus test politics nowadays. Or the Olympian Gods of Scotus get off their butt.
    It's not virtue signaling, at least not in any definition of the term that I've come across. Public comments got them to back off of braces last time, albeit only for a few months, and it stopped them from banning M855.

  6. #116
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by WobblyPossum View Post
    Iím with you. Fingerprints and photographs requirements are remnants of the law being old. Itís 2021 now and you can get a NICS background check done in minutes. If itís a good enough background check to buy an AR with a 16Ē barrel or an actual handgun, I donít know why it doesnít work for buying an AR with an 11.5Ē barrel or a suppressor. The whole thing was intended to be a huge pain in the ass from the start. From the $200 tax, which was the equivalent of $4,000 or so back then, to fingerprints, photographs, CLEO concurrence, etc. Make it as difficult as possible to acquire these weapons legally, and the law abiding people wonít acquire many of them. Never stopped some gangster from adding a stock to an AR pistol or an auto-switch to a Glock but it sure inconveniences us.
    There's like what 180,000-ish transferable machine guns? The reason that number is as low as it is is is because as you said $200 was a lot of money for most of the time people could legally acquire one. If that $200 was $10 there would be a lot more of them transferable. But the point of the NFA was never to make it harder for criminals to posses them the point was to make it harder for everyone to possess them.

    If the goal was truly to make it harder for a crazy person to acquire a gun period the NFA would go away entirely and background check we have would be revamped to include more than it does now.


    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    Simply demonstrate how difficult it is to actually conceal a 10.5 inch barrel AR pistol with a 30 round magazine and brace - or even a simple buffer tube - in any way that provides meaningfully fast access. (Yes, a LAW folder simplifies concealment but also slows access.)

    Show how much easier checking a bump in the night becomes with a short barrel.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    You are assuming logic will work here but it won't. If logic was all it took we'd have silencers removed from NFA a long time ago and we wouldn't be dealing with new and stupid laws all the time.

  7. #117
    Lowly Production C-Class olstyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Quote Originally Posted by Caballoflaco View Post
    If the pro marijuana folks had just said ďoh well, thems the rules and rules is rulesĒ then pot would still be illegal everywhere, but itís not. Itís still illegal on the federal level, but how many DEA raids do we see happening at dispensaries in states where itís legal? There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
    Potheads were already committing crimes. They had nothing to lose.

    IMO it's a bit different when you are not in violation of the law but suggesting (if I'm reading you right) committing acts which could land you in federal prison in order to make a point.

  8. #118
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    You are assuming logic will work here but it won't. If logic was all it took we'd have silencers removed from NFA a long time ago and we wouldn't be dealing with new and stupid laws all the time.
    Persuading anti-gun people is not the goal. The goal is persuading enough persuadable people in the middle to make a difference.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    This is why we keep losing ground inch by inch.
    That isn't a realistic take on the last few decades. Everywhere outside the CAs and NYs is lookin pretty rosy compared to what it was back in `89.



    If that's losing inch by inch then you have an impossible standard for winning.

    Ignoring the CCW revolution of the 90s and the permitless revolution that's ongoing even the NFA has been effecitvely whittled away at by 2% inflation, the internet (eforms, how-to guides, kiosks) and no more CLEO permission, etc. What used to practically be a secret society is vastly more approachable. It's worth mentioning that it's gone from asking permission to a bureaucratic statement of intent.

    No, it isn't perfect and no one's saying call it won and done. The brace situation is a reversion to the mean, not some sign that gun rights are doomed. There are absolutely more important things to focus on than how some bloody stock that's not a stock has turned into a slow motion trainwreck.

  10. #120
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    I think the broad gun community has been begging for comeuppance by over reaching with open carry all over creation and also with some of the constitutional carry outside of wild places like AK. Serious and knowledgeable hobbiests are now joined at the hip with the fringe elements.

    Whether those freedom reforms affected crime rates is hardly the point. It has/is turning too many folks against us while looking at scenes of open carry at Starbucks, or jackasses waiving their guns in parking disputes or militia LARPers marching on government offices with ARs/AKs/shotguns. We're going be forcked to some degree and to a significant degree "we" brought it on ourselves.

    The wonderful "shall issue" gains nationally weren't enough. Had to have more.

    Doesn't help when pols pandering to us fetishize their ARs in their own campaigns and get national coverage for it.

    "Those who demand all or nothing, generally end up with nothing."
    As a man sows, so shall he reap.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •