Survivalist Forum banner

21 - 40 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,033 Posts
"point system"

I'm curious if we'll see more of this method and angle of approach toward negating the 2a.

They need to be careful, the more rule changing they propose, the more openings the supreme court gets to strike down this garbage possibly opening up the door to even less regulation.

They are desperate and grasping at straws....this arbitrary assignment of points won't hold up under scrutiny of law.

The criminalization of millions for what was once perfectly legal with a point system? They can **** off
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
"Because short-barreled rifles are among the firearms considered unusual and dangerous, subjecting them to regulation under the NFA, it is especially important that such weapons be properly classified. Indeed, firearms with “stabilizing braces” have been used in at least two mass shootings, with the shooters in both instances reportedly shouldering the “brace” as a stock, demonstrating the efficacy as “short-barreled” rifles of firearms equipped with such “braces.”9"

This is a quote directly from the proposed rules.
Three million (at least) braces and two "mass shootings".
Riskier to drive on the public roads.

Don't have a use for a brace? Ok. How about those who do? Maybe you will find one useful as you age. Maybe it'll always sound silly. Why care? Because it's another nibble at the Second Amendment that "shall not be infringed".

I have and use them, find them a great aid to my practical accuracy, especially when my blood pressure is up and I'm breathing like a steam engine. Like, if it were an emergency.

And I like 'em on my Glocks. Don't like the idea and don't want to go out on a limb by writing to the feds? Then don't cry when they come for the guns and accessories you DO like.

If we can't stop 'em now, when?

If not over this, what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Sojurn87 asked about the "point system".

That's what they went with in 1968 that said you couldn't import a PPK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,033 Posts
Sojurn87 asked about the "point system".

That's what they went with in 1968 that said you couldn't import a PPK.
Now imagine if that point system went before the supreme court and it got struck down....just saying it can go both ways.

If the BATFE were wise, they wouldn't offer it up to possibly get overturned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
But those idiots making the youtube videos like I posted are the reason for a new law and maybe tax. They should have just shot their guns and kept their mouths shut. That picture in the video doesn't look like a brace to me. it like just what it is being used for. A shoulder stock.
I am not debating you and actually agree with you to a point. Like you said, debating is not really worth your time or mine. Guys on Youtube have been pushing the issue as far back as when the BATFE ruled that shouldering a brace didn't change its classification. Although I love free speech, I agree they should have kept their mouths shut and enjoyed what they had. The Youtube guy MAC really ran his mouth about shouldering braces for a long time. He just wouldn't shut up about it.

I don't own braces but I do own registered SBRs. I am not against braces or law abiding citizens owning them. I don't like the NFA but I follow it to a Tee. I always thought the braces were just an end around from people paying the $200 stamp. I think the original maker SBTactical was genius for finding a loophole or end around or whatever you want to call it. Although I don't own one, I thought they were extremely cool but I also though one day this will end.

We all either knew it or should have know this day was coming. Is it BS, yes but it should not be surprising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
This is a quote directly from the proposed rules.
Three million (at least) braces and two "mass shootings".
Riskier to drive on the public roads.
I said earlier that I didn't think had been any crimes committed with these guns and I guess I was wrong. But that is still not a basis for banning them. When are they going to figure out its not an object that commits a crime or a shooting but a person?

In reality you can't regulate or jail a person until after the fact. And any determined person can take the life or lives of a lot of people if they just have the desire. Where was it? In France where the driver ran his 18 wheeler over 60+ people? No gun needed. Just the desire to kill.

But I'm sure yet another new gun law will make us all feel safe. I feel the love already? How about you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
StoneWallAdam very well said. Thank you. You said it better than I ever could. I guess we were typing at the same time. I don't see the problem but I guess those guns scared somebody. And it always seems like when you find something fun or cool someone has to come along and sh*t on your parade. And most of the time the ones with the worse case of the runs is our own government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,504 Posts
De-facto in common use in civilian hands. ( there's certainly more around than the few hundred K nun-chucks ).
Not used in crime to any significant fraction of total crimes committed with firearms = no legitimate .gov need even under intermediate scrutiny

Don't see how they can get away with this.
 

·
Hail to the King, Baby
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
They are getting away with it because people are not fighting back. Comments, courts, WHATEVER IT TAKES AND HOWEVER FAR THE ROAD.

The old fudds don't give a damn as long as they leave their thuddy-thuddy's and remmy shotguns alone.

The fogies will GLADLY throw you under the bus all the while TELLING you, "you don't need that fer huntin' deer." You think you won't get turned in by Grandma after they threaten to cut off the Social Security she needs to live on?

We all know what is going to happen eventually, just a couple more stolen elections and some of those blues you all love to back will be kicking down YOUR door and killing your pets, while sticking the SBR you paid for with taxes in your wife's face.

Have the courage at least to ADMIT to yourselves where they are going and to what lengths they are willing to go.

And before a Mod edits my post, consider: A LOT of good cops are quitting. You think this wasn't planned? The ones that are left are Philip Brailsforth types that will gladly do whatever they are told.

I back the GOOD cops that won't enforce this. You CANNOT infringe on rights without enforcers.

MANY different heads on this snake.

They are setting the framework, commies play the long game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
"Unusual and dangerous"...

SBRs aren't really that unusual any more, they're fairly common. Less common than braced pistols to be sure, but most manufacturers offer them.

What would make them dangerous? Are SBRs prone to malfunction in a way that is likely to injure the shooter or people around the shooter? Are they prone to firing without the trigger being operated? Unless a firearm is unsafely designed or manufactured, or in a damaged state, it can be no more dangerous than the person holding it.

So I think we should attack the whole "unusual and dangerous" concept for the sham that it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
The ones that are left are Philip Brailsford types that will gladly do whatever they are told.
I am so glad somebody else remembers that murderers name. He is right up there with Lon Horiuchi in my book.

I corrected Brailsfords name for you. Hope thats OK?
 

·
Weed 'em and reap
Joined
·
30,938 Posts
I don't own any firearms with braces but I'd like the AG to explain in detail why they feel the need to dictate to people how to shoot their firearm. I mean they are not the one shooting it and know very little if anything about how to use and operate firearms. Just because some jackass in a suit in the district of criminals doesn't like firearms doesn't give them or anyone else the right to tell others how to operate them. Same goes for the idiots at the ATF, I want them to explain in detail just how making something safer to use is a bad thing.

I'd also like the ATF, AG and every politician at the state and federal level to explain in detail using actual verifiable data how these rules and proposed changes will change the behavior of criminals. I'd like a report on just how many firearms with braces have been used in the commission of a crime and were those who used one already ineligible to legally own a firearm to begin with.

...and lastly, I'd like a like a law to be enacted that BEFORE any agency, AG or politician submits a change to rules or bill that they have to demonstrate their knowledge of firearms and write a full detailed report on why their proposed change(s)/bill are nessicary using real verifiable data to be reviewed by a panel of experts in data, firearms, crime etc
Academia is crawling with lefties. Your panel would not only rubber stamp what the ATF wants; it would expand the scope and urgency. They would even ban "the shoulder thingy that goes 'up'."
 

·
Weed 'em and reap
Joined
·
30,938 Posts
Unusual and dangerous, i like that. Plus they say used in 2 mass shootings. Also say there are 3 million out there.
As much as I love Scalia, he really screwed the pooch in Heller. The "Common Use" standard damns the right to keep and bear arms to include only that which was common in 2010. Nothing new is ever in common use, therefore firearms technology is forever frozen in 2010.

To put it another way, if the Supreme Court had concocted concocted common use standard in 1810, instead of 2010, muzzle loading blackpowder muskets would be the only lawful firearms. Breechloaders, revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions, rolling blocks, etc., would have been uncommon when invented, thus never lawful to own.
 

·
Weed 'em and reap
Joined
·
30,938 Posts
The "Pistols" in question are a far cry from a handgun. These are chopped off AR rifles that would never fit in a belt holster or a front pocket. Have a look at these "Pistols" and I think you will better understand. These were never intended to be concealable guns.


And this video shows exactly why there is a proposed law being made about them being regulated. Doesn't look like much of a pistol to me.

A few morsels of food for thought:

1) The original intent of the NFA was to ban handguns by levying a $200 (about $10,000 adjusted for inflation) tax that nobody could afford. Fearing that people would turn to sawed off rifles and sawed off shotguns as an alternative, they included those as well. Then they caved to the outcry about banning handguns, but still banned SBR and SBS, for no apparent reason.

2) The AR pistol is a pistol because government decided to draft statutory definitions that shoehorned all guns into pre-determined categories. Not only does that stifle creativity and innovation, but it also lands things into inopportunely-defined categories.

3) Neither the statutory definition nor the colloquial definition of a pistol includes anything about holster or belt carry, nor about being concealable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
They are getting away with it because people are not fighting back.

The old fudds don't give a damn as long as they leave their thuddy-thuddy's and remmy shotguns


Sir,I agree with what you are saying,however calling people fudds in a derogatory way is not helping at all !
I'm pretty much a FUDD,99.99% of what I shoot is muzzle loaders,lever actions,bolt actions,or revolvers.

I have one or two AR's,SKS's,semi auto handguns,truthfully probly more then well over 90% of folks on here and also truthfully I wouldnt miss them hardly at all,I believe in 2nd ammendment 100% and any restrictions on guns are wrong,but when folks start calling other folks names because of their preferance for firearms that makes me care a lot less about guns I really dont get overly excited about.

Disgruntelled this isnt aimed at you,just want to show how folks on here may be chasing off people that are on your side but not crazy about being called names in a sneaky way! doing more harm then good by ticking us guys off that really wouldnt miss semi autos a bit..Keep calling folks that could be huge asset names,get us gunowners against each other and play right into the anti gunners hands.
 

·
Hail to the King, Baby
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
Sir,I agree with what you are saying,however calling people fudds in a derogatory way is not helping at all !
I'm pretty much a FUDD,99.99% of what I shoot is muzzle loaders,lever actions,bolt actions,or revolvers.

I have one or two AR's,SKS's,semi auto handguns,truthfully probly more then well over 90% of folks on here and also truthfully I wouldnt miss them hardly at all,I believe in 2nd ammendment 100% and any restrictions on guns are wrong,but when folks start calling other folks names because of their preferance for firearms that makes me care a lot less about guns I really dont get overly excited about.

Disgruntelled this isnt aimed at you,just want to show how folks on here may be chasing off people that are on your side but not crazy about being called names in a sneaky way! doing more harm then good by ticking us guys off that really wouldnt miss semi autos a bit..Keep calling folks that could be huge asset names,get us gunowners against each other and play right into the anti gunners hands.
OG, I'm not trying to chase anyone off. I'm trying to point out the utter silliness and head in the sand attitude I have personally seen and dealt with. If people don't like the term fudd, then maybe they should ask themselves why that term persists, and why us ""other gun owners" are so upset at what we see as a betrayal by our own people.

In ANY other community we would be able to look to our elders for advice and trust what they had to say was earned through experience and wisdom.

WHY is the elder portion of the gun community so seemingly AGAINST the younger generation's choices? Is it because you grew up with revolvers and lever/bolt guns? (Not you specifically, OG, the Royal you)

If this isn't the case then we need to come together damn skippy quick, because the younger generation is feeling BETRAYED by the older, and that is a damned shame. I didn't write the above post just because I was bored, this is a serious problem in the gun community and needs addressing.

I have been told by more old men with beer bellies than I care to count, that I don't need that kind of rifle and it's just for killing people, why do I want that for, in a tone that implies I am unstable.

Until they have a ton of feral hogs in their fields and need someone with night vision and one of those silenced black guns to help clear them out.

These same old men that more often than not have an NRA sticker on their truck.

I have had the local self appointed "range overseer" (usually an old fella with a john deere hat and a Winchester 70.) ask me if that AR-15 is fully automatic, like he has ANY authority over the public range and any place to pass judgement on me.

There is NOTHING wrong with a Winchester 70, by the way, it is a fine deer gun, and in Carlos Hathcock's hands was an excellent assault rifle.

"As long as they get those black guns they'll leave mine alone."

Until some convenient bomber uses black powder to kill a bunch of people, then they will come for your muzzleloaders.

They will come for the deer rifles as "sniper rifles".

You sure will miss semi-autos when they are gone and they come after your handguns, and then your "indiscriminate and dangerous" shotguns.

The other camps of gun owners need to ABSOLUTELY care about semi-autos, because we are between them and you.

WE are on the front. WE have been taking the heat ever since Stockton, California.

If you care at lot less about guns you don't get excited about over an internet label, then how resolute was your love for the 2nd in the first place?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Sir,I agree with what you are saying,however calling people fudds in a derogatory way is not helping at all !
I'm pretty much a FUDD,99.99% of what I shoot is muzzle loaders,lever actions,bolt actions,or revolvers.

I have one or two AR's,SKS's,semi auto handguns,truthfully probly more then well over 90% of folks on here and also truthfully I wouldnt miss them hardly at all,I believe in 2nd ammendment 100% and any restrictions on guns are wrong,but when folks start calling other folks names because of their preferance for firearms that makes me care a lot less about guns I really dont get overly excited about.

Disgruntelled this isnt aimed at you,just want to show how folks on here may be chasing off people that are on your side but not crazy about being called names in a sneaky way! doing more harm then good by ticking us guys off that really wouldnt miss semi autos a bit..Keep calling folks that could be huge asset names,get us gunowners against each other and play right into the anti gunners hands.
With all due respect, imagine a person who loves free speech not being so excited on some words and if those words become illegal then so what, that person hardly used those words. As long as the government doesn't ban his favorite words then he will feel that the 1A is still strong and he still has freedom of speech.
 
21 - 40 of 96 Posts
Top