Gun Owners and Pro-Gun Politicians - It's time to take go on offense

General General Discussion
1

Ok, enough is enough. Enough worrying about the ban. Enough complaining about Obama. Enough talking about armed insurrection. It’s time to actually do something!

Slowly, I am starting to see some fight come out of ‘our’ side. At least the NRA tried to engage the Administration. The NRA is running ads to show what a hypocrite Obama is. That is a good start.

I have seen a few videos where ant-gun folks were asked to put up signs in their yard declaring they were gun free. Most would not. And this is a point that needs to be made everywhere. Anytime you engage someone who is anti-gun, ask them if they have their ‘gun free’ sign put up in their yard. If they say they do not ask them if they would like one. When they say they are only against certain types of guns, ask if they would put up a sign that declares “This home has no assault rifles or high capacity magazines.”

Seize control of the language and the debate. Already, I do see gun owner reminding people that those 30 round AR mag and 17 round Glock mags are the STANDARD capacity mags. Anything less would be a REDUCED capacity mag. I saw one gun show owner on the news showing how fast you can reload 10 round mags in an AR. Would those kids be any less dead if the guy had to reload? What about a home invasion, or flash mobs of ‘urban youts’? How many rounds do you need to manage that situation? Ask these questions. How do they come up with 10 rounds?

Start asking about what kind of medication these shooters were taking. What was their medical history? Were they coming on or going off meds? This question must be asked and there seems to be a full court press to avoid the subject. Why?

Demand congress to negotiate for gun owners. Again, seize the debate. Want to reduce mags to 10 rounds? OK. After I have had my mandatory training, my full background check with medical history, and waited two weeks to buy the gun, can I then get universal unrestricted carry? Can I then get my guns thru the mail? Think incrementalism - the other side does. Take back one right at a time.

Here are a few “very reasonable” laws I think we need to start demanding now:

Universal Carry. NOW! Of the same type granted to LEOs. Is that a bridge too far? Then how about “for our troops”? Everybody loves that “for our troops” shit. Seize the debate - “You mean the returning veteran who carried a loaded gun everyday for a year is now unfit to carry one to protect his young wife and baby?”

Allow deployed soldiers to buy guns thru the mail to be sent to their Home of Record. This one needs to be put to the floor of the House right away. I am currently deployed and a lot of guys I work with are worried that they will not be able to get what they want before they get home. Seize the debate - “You mean the troops serving overseas right now cannot buy an assault rifle just like the one they carry everyday just because they are deployed right now?” “But if they back home they could still buy one?” “Why do you hate our troops?”

So I ask you, what else should we be doing to take the initiative in our fight to preserve the Second Amendment?

Hey! That is one more. We are fighting to preserve the Second Amendment. If they want ban guns fine, then they should work on repealing the Second Amendment. Remind them of this.

2

I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves but I thought if the mag ban and AWB was looking like a no go, we should bargain taking suppressors and short barreled rifles off the NFA in exchange for easy access universal background checks.

Suppressors are an easier case to make and they are legal in many European “progressive” countries

I think we can get national reciprocity anyway after this shit settles down. Hell, it almost passed in a Dem controlled congress.

3

Don’t forget SBS’s.

4

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/west-point-center-cites-dangers-far-right-us/

PDF Copy available here:

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right

Civil War of 2016 :

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/the-civil-war-of-2016/


Eric Holder 1995 “We must Brainwash People To Be Against Guns”

Keep in mind for those who actually listen or read that EH smokes cigarettes as well, the hypocricy is deafening…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw&list=PLB048209465F5AAC0

I know repeat performance again.

5

The real fight is going to be in Congress, and make no mistake politicians remember what happened to those who supported the last ban…Alot of them were voted right out of office. Its been said a bunch on these and other forums, but write your congressman, the speaker, etc. and urge others to do the same. Up your NRA membership and join other gun rights groups.

6

I’d say we start bargaining by offering them NOTHING of what they want and only demanding what we want. Definitely take suppressors and SBR’s off the NFA, repeal the import bans, repeal the 86 ban, get the Russian voluntary export restraint be rescinded, etc. Then let them bargain down to one of those options, and the next year press everything we want all over again. They’re wanting to reduce us to nothing, well, make it to where they can’t even get out of the gate AND take back everything they’ve taken. We’re right, they’re wrong–you wouldn’t even think about negotiating which of your fingers to chop off, would you? We need to stop expecting less.

7

Here is something refreshing from the Las Vegas Sun.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jan/17/shot-show-attendees-respond-obama-gun-control-prop/

Keep writing. Our argument is slowly winning.

8

Absolutely! Another great talking point.

And politicians need to be reminded what happened to the last group of guys who voted for the AWB. There are quite a few powerful Dems that are ‘A’ rated by the NRA. We should ask for everything and negotiate our way back to more than we have now.

9

I don’t “NEED” my Semi-Auto Rifle any more than Rosa Parks “NEEDED” to be in the front of that Bus.

10

You want to do something useful? Stop wasting time with all of that stuff and focus every gun owner on striking the “sporter clause” within the 68 GCA. It would be to date, the most significant thing that we could accomplish as it is the basis for nearly ALL firearms restrictions.

11

President Uses Children To Promote Gun Control During Speech, Ignores the fact of the Children killed in Drone strikes…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AjDy0ygM2Q&feature=player_embedded

Funny parody on “Gun Free Zones”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dg_AcBeHgo&feature=share

12

That’s actually very good. That’s the kind of one liners that would hit the Obama supporter… now… how to get it on the news?

13

Very good idea.

Removing the “sporting purposes” clause is so small and simple that you would think it could be slipped into some other legislation. We need to get our guys working on this.

14

This is priceless.

It points out the sheet idiocy of GFZ in a way that everyone can understand.

15

Interesting enough when I went to do a little research I found posts from you in 2004 on the same subject. They’re still relevant and will help further people’s knowledge so here they are.

It is the msot blatantly unconstitutional piece of gun legilastion going.

The second amendement says NOTHING about guns for “sporting applications” and it is not a “right to hunt” in the Bill of Rights.

If the law was amended to remove the sporting clause ALL legislation based upon it like the 89 Import Ban, The 94 AW Ban and any future law that would restrict firearm importation or ownership by design would become null and void. I also believe it would nullify the 68 machine gun importation law as well as the 86 manufacture law.

Within the 1968 Gun Control Act is something called the “Sporter Clause” by which the ATF determines if a particular firearm has “lawful sporting applications.”

This allows the ATF to basically legislate “at will” and that is why you often encounter the phrase “The ATF has determined that Firearm A is not particularly suitable for sporting applications” and thus it suddently becomes inelligible for importation, ownership, etc.

The problem is NOTHING in the Constution, Bill of Rights, says anything about “Right to keep and bear firearms for sporting purposes.”

If the sporting clause was nullified the majority of gun laws regarding configuration and design would cease to exist.

I’m not gonna lie, I haven’t read all of this yet, but it really goes into the 68’ GCA in exacting detail. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/zimring68.htm

16

The left is all over that, too:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/