Leaderboard

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” H. L. Mencken

It dawned on me that at this very time exactly 75 years ago, the first of the Allied Forces were jumping into France. The amphibious landing crafts would land a few hours later. All those brave men will be heavily on my mind over the coming days. God bless.

Soooo, you can’t explain how, it just is, right? Here’s the thing, the bump stocks aren’t really the point here. It’s the how that’s the issue. When Kamala Harris or someone just like her gets into office and takes executive action against gun owners and manufacturers, will you be praising them as “someone who gets things done?” I’m sorry, I can’t get down with the idea of praising a tyrant just because he’s my tyrant. I called out Obama for being wrong when he bragged about his “pen and a phone” and Trump is wrong for the same types of actions for the very same reasons.

Remember it well. All over the news that day. People running. People looking like they were cheering him on at some points. Sad that it came to such an end. Perhaps this says too much about me and my thinking, but I empathasize with Mr. Heemeyer's actions. Sometimes you can be pushed just so far when supposedly rational men and actions go against everything you believe is right and moral.

Yeah...the nine of us are a pretty tight group. We'll stand up for your rights even if you don't ours And I think you nailed it. Every single time a "groundbreaking" shooting happens, as long as there is something to point a finger at other than Evil itself (then it was bump stocks, now it seems to be suppressors, at some point it will simply be detachable magazines and semi-automatic functions), it seems Trump is easily persuadable to join anti-gun batter. Seems like a weak president that cannot simply say "Bump stocks were approved under the Obama administration. We will honor that decision. If you don't like it change the law via legislation, but just know I will not sign any bill containing anti-gun material while in office". Again, Republican House and Congress, all he had to do was say "not now, you can try when you're in office". He isn't afraid of saying stupid things regarding anything else (pornstars, Russia, Wikileaks, etc). Why couldn't he just hold strong regarding that? If he had done that, he would have gained my support for 2020. Instead, he single handedly abandoned the one issue I care most about. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT STILL HE DID SOMETHING. It would not surprise me in the least if he encouraged Congress, right now, to put together an anti suppressor bill. Again, I'll reinforce, we DID NOT HAVE TO PLAY THE BUMP STOCK OR AR HEAT, YOU PICK ONE BUT NOT BOTH GAME.

Well I'm special. I am one of those 9. I sincerely believe Trump turned his back on gun owners over bump stocks. Are they worthless? Yes. Do I want one? No. Do I care that they are worthless and they are now considered a machine-gun and thus illegal? 100%. Republican House, Republican Senate at the time. Absolutely, 100% nothing had to be done at that time. He could have shown his sadness over Las Vegas and moved on. People said he was just "working the art of the deal, he's probably going to work something to trade bump stocks for the Hearing Protection Act". Well, he played hard, dealt hard, and got bump stocks classified as machine-guns. How? He suggested that the ATF review them to see if they should or should not be legal. What did we get? I'll ask again. What did we get? What...did...we...get? Where was the NRA? I honestly cannot even remember what the NRA was doing at the time. Yes I do, they needed money to fight the Democrats. Now Trump is making comments about not liking suppressors, not one bit. He likes the idea of banning them. So, what sort of awesome deal can he art for us this time? This is going to be great, especially if he wins another turn. He'll artfully negotiate our rights away one at a time, all the while Trump supporters will pretend to agree with it ---- pretend that he's got some long con game ---- pretend he's better than Obama for our rights ---- and then gripe during either the 2020 or 2024 election that Democrats are taking our rights/guns away. To be fair, I never considered Trump a pro-gun candidate. I thought he might be a less anti-gun president than Hilary, and so far I think I was correct. But Trump was not and is not pro-gun, he's Pro Trump and whatever tickles his boat and floats his fancy at the time. If he even has an inkling that he'd receive praise for signing away suppressors, I think he would do it. He doesn't care that they are already heavily regulated and taxed with stiff penalties for infractions. And either way, it's dangerous. If he does it by Executive Order that sets an extremely dangerous precedent and stage for true believers, truly anti-gun people. If he signs a bill passed by both the House and Senate, there is no telling what gets attached to it at the last moment (see Hughes Amendment for example). Yeah, I don't trust Trump with this or any gun related topics. I don't fear him as much as Hilary, but at least with Hilary we would have had gun owners united against her generally speaking. Now we have a lot of pro-gun people that are excusing the actions and words of Trump that would not be excused if it were Hilary in office.

Differing perspectives are always valuable, but there are two main issues I’d take with that article. First it frames it as if Heemeyer was somehow obligated to sell his property to the concrete folks. (Nope!) Also, it omits the two main facts that go a long way towards justifying his actions to me. The access road and the sewage hookups and fines. Those two things take it from a “petty zoning issue” to an egregious trampling of the man’s property rights.

I’m not asking for you to explain the why, but the how. It’s a very simple and direct question that is always sidestepped, including by the ATF. How does the bump stock meet the legal definition of a machine gun? Its operation and use still requires a full operation of the trigger for every round fired. It does not and cannot cause more than one round to fire for a single trigger pull, so how is it a machine gun. Somebody, anybody, please provide an explanation on that simple technical detail. Youre right, whatever Dem gets the White House next will go for executive action why hand them a head start by not challenging now? Wrong is wrong no matter who’s doing it To be clear, I don’t think Trump is a tyrant. I think he’s a childish buffoon who opens his mouth way too often before engaging his brain for sure. Overall though, I’m not in opposed to most of his policies and they are undertaken in a just and appropriate manner. In this case he acted in a tyrannical manner by instructing an executive agency to reverse a legal decision that effectively resulted in the taking of tens of millions of dollars in property from citizens with no compensation. The declaration by fiat that possession of legally acquired property one day is legal and the next day is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison is a pretty textbook definition of tryannical action. You’re right, Obama was way better for us. Nothing got banned and millions of acres of federal land were opened up to hunting and for legal carry. It’s laughable to compare the two Just like here in TN, a Democrat executive with a Republican legislature results in a net gain while a Republican trifecta results in no gains or even a net loss. I really wish someone could explain how that works to me.

Trump...who has pro-gunningly "got more anti-gun stuff" done than Obama the Anti-Gunner.

26 U.S. Code§ 5845.Definitions (b)Machinegun The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. I’m still waiting for an explanation on how a bump stock meets this definition. Even the ATF ruling (made at the specific direction of the president) didn’t say how, just that it did.

The "tactical advantage" the guy in VA Beach had was that he was armed and the victims were not. The suppressor (if it really was a suppressor) was irrelevant. And he was killed by the responding officers so we have incontrovertible proof once again that ARMED good guys are what stops armed bad guys.

Didn't seem to stop him from banning bump stocks. I seriously doubt he will listen to anyone on suppressors. He's going to do whatever he wants and we'll all stand by and watch it happen.

Zero malfunctions is normal. The reason we run a bunch of rounds through a gun is so that we have confidence in them - and our ability with them. I'd argue that once you've had the failures, you probably know all you need to know about that particular weapon. You might smooth it out and run hundreds of rounds through it flawlessly. But you'll still have that question in the back of your head. You can talk yourself into it - but why?

I've been pretty lucky as I have only had one bad gun. Every gun I ever bought except one has ran well right out of the box. The exception was a CZ P-07 . I got it the year it came out. I couldn't get through one magazine without a malfunction. The trigger would not reset al the time. Then the frame began to "bow" outwards. I couldn't not trust it anymore. CZ sent me a new one but I traded it in for a used Glock 34. I try to run at least 75-100 rds before I trust it will run correctly. In my opinion a good gun should not require a break-in period.

I have USCCA. If I would change, it would be CCW safe. Like all of my insurance.....hope I don't have to use any of it.

Old thread but I have been interested in a smaller carry pistol. Well today, after much deliberation I picked up a Glock 48X. I shot one before getting mine and looked at reviews and talked to folks who had one. The reviews and folks who have one would fight you over their Glock 43X or 48X. It is, for me, the most accurate Glock I have ever owned or shot and seems like it will carry very well. I am retired so I got the Blue Label price and traded in a S&W-M&P 2.0 Compact 9mm, which I liked but always seemed a little off to me.

You are likely 99.9% correct regarding Trump in 2020. It'll be him vs. someone very, very anti-gun. But that doesn't mean the fine folks here at TGO will be spared from hearing me complain about Trump's fallacies. So...no votes were for sale? I guess that's a fact. But surely, surely the "monstrous" NRA that the left seems to be so afraid of could have met with Trump? Surely, surely Wayne could have met with Trump, stated that the NRA supported all gun rights, and that if he pushed the anti gun/anti bump stock agenda, they'd have to lower their support rating of him and write critical articles of him. They could have simply suggested that doing so would cause him to lose the support of some gun owners, which would translate to less votes. What did they do instead? https://home.nra.org/joint-statement And that...is the single reason I refuse to give a dime or even a penny to the worthless, filthy organization known as the NRA. But hey, it's their priority to reverse the Hughes Amendment.

You’d be surprised.

May your projects never run afoul of a man pushed to the edge like Dawes.

Another tangent coming from me as well. I love this comment, and it inspired me to make the following statement. I love TGO and all of its contributing, fruitful members. I myself and not like some people, let me define "some people" in that regard, can argue all day long with my best friend and not get mad. Some people: Refers to some people I've met over my lifetime. Friends, family, coworkers, etc. "Those guys" that everyone knows at least one of. So. I'm not like "some people" in the sense that I can disagree 100% with someone on basically anything and/or everything. I can still consider that person a good friend. I don't have to agree with someone somewhat or mostly in order to identify or find friendship with them. With many people (such as perhaps members here at TGO), I can find myself in a wonderful debate. I can disagree with someone 100%. As long as that person does not take personal offense as to who I am, I'm perfectly fine in finding friendship with that person. Anti-gun people, vegetarians, pro or anti LGBTQ people, global warming supports or planet coolers, democrats and/or liberals, I can generally call any of them my friend if they personally do not hate me for who I am. I am who I am, but if you respect me I can generally find room to respect you. A lot of what a person believes is shaped by their experiences. In different experiences, it may be possible that I'd hold vastly different values. For an example, if my mother was shot by a drunk guy wearing an NRA shirt, I may not be a gun supporter. I enjoy a good debate. It can be very beneficial. I enjoy debating issues for the fact that it keeps me open minded. It makes me defend my own opinions. Some people (again, read definition of "some people" shown above) only like hanging out with people that are like minded. I have the opinion that doing so is fine, but these people run the danger of confirmation bias and perhaps not challenging their opinions enough. Therefore sometimes I enjoy surrounding myself with people that hold different opinions. My thoughts on general topics in life? Test what you believe. Debate. Defend what you believe. Be open to the possibility that you could, at any point in time, be wrong about something.

Being a road builder, I just put that one on my must read list.

The King of England put his stamp on a few things as well.

I agree with you except for the justification part. He opened fire on gas tanks and would have killed innocent people if he had set them off. Heck with that; had he lived he would have needed to go to prison for a bunch of years, and life if he killed anyone. However, Eminent Domain is an egregious trampling of a persons property rights. But the SCOTUS put their stamp of approval on it. I’m surprised more people haven’t lost their lives trying to enforce that. Not that they used it with him; but they could have.

Some background, and maybe a different perspective: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/09/killdozer-day-marvin-heemeyer/

Perhaps if it is as innocent as it sounds, the NRA might find themselves in a bidding position if some type of RFP is put on the streets for a program.

I’ll add this… The role of a School Resource Officer changed when the school shootings started. It went from the day to day enforcement of the laws in school, drugs, violence, etc., to being responsible for engaging an active shooter. Scot Peterson was too old and too out of shape to be doing that. And I don't think he had the ability to deal with that situation. Our schools need Officers capable of handling the threat, not giving the job to someone as a pre-retirement gift, or someone that wasn’t good on the streets. Our SRO’s when I was a kid was cops going from the street headed to the bureau. They were more than capable of doing the job. When I retired one of my friends ask why I didn’t go back into Law Enforcement if I wanted to do something. I laughed and told him I would get my azz kicked and I’m not chasing anyone unless I’m in a car. While I’m sure with my experience I could find a Department to hire me; my common sense tells me that would be stupid. The streets are a young mans job. I have never made the assumption criminals aren’t trained in the use of weapons or violence. Taking on a serious threat would require good training and being in shape. I know that with absolute certainty because I have experienced it firsthand when I was a young man in good shape.

As I remember, he damn near leveled the whole town.

Here you be. From the Department of Public Safety appropriation: 48. Statewide Safe Gun Storage Campaign. Included in the amounts appropriated above in Strategy G.1.1, Headquarters Administration, is $500,000 in fiscal year 2020 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2021 in General Revenue to establish and promote a statewide safe gun storage campaign. The public awareness campaign shall begin no later than September 1, 2020. The public awareness campaign may include online materials, printed materials, public service announcements, or other advertising media. The public awareness campaign may not convey a message that it is unlawful under state law to keep or store a firearm that is loaded or that is readily accessible for self-defense. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB1

The devil is in the details. What’s the actual language involved here? It seems it would be bad PR for the gun orgs to oppose it if it was strictly about promoting safety, but as we all know, the words “gun safety” mean very different things to different people.

I will try to explain it, as I think about this a lot. Complacency. By us. I think we are much more vocal when someone such as "Obama and the Democrats" are "out to get our guns". But when we are "winning", time goes by and we forget. Since the Republicans are "our guys", we softly accept their answers of "now is not the time!" or "I tried but it didn't work". Us. That's the problem.

These might help you get started...

Agreed. I feel like they have kept the fires stoked since the day he descended that escalator. He didn't expand because he doesn't know jack about the subject, which is why he probably moved on once he answered. It would be asinine to believe he stays up to date on every gun law out there and I wouldn't be surprised if when someone told him they are already heavily regulated he would pretend to know that but in reality it would be a surprise.

I'm still waiting on this: Repealing the machine gun ban amendment tacked on to the McClure-Volkmer bill will be a high priority. Guess who! https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-flip-flop-on-mac_b_2741689

I agree. I’ve always said that if I was being questioned by the cops after a good shooting; I’ll talk to them without a lawyer. But if the FBI wanted to talk to me about anything; I would either refuse or tell them I need a lawyer. And I would tell them its because they can charge me with a crime, simply if they don’t believe what I’m saying. Good grief man, if cops could do that you would have to start building super big jails right away. Most criminals can’t do anything other than lie to the Police; even when its something that has nothing to do with the case.

Hey! It doesn't! And since someone beforehand mentioned the spirit of the law, don't all firearm restrictions violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

I have guns all over my house, I would have a huge problem if they attempted to mandate how I am to keep them at the ready. My kids are now grown, my granddaughter is 12, but all have been exposed to guns and know not to touch a weapon they don't intend to use. I don't allow other kids around my guns, if my granddaughter has a friend over, the weapons are secured so no "accidents". All our friends, with kids, know I have guns and know how I keep them and don't have any issues, even the few that don't own any themselves.

I love surprises like that! Can't wait to see what it produces peejman!

I don’t see any way that it stands. SCOTUS has made it clear multiple times that police have no legal duty to act to protect citizens from harm. Peterson absolutely failed his moral duty to protect those kids, but he had no legal duty to act.

That will never stand; even if a jury agrees (they will probably want to). It’s another political stunt. If it does stand, arrest and charge the people that don’t allow teachers to defend themselves and their students by banning guns in schools. No question that cost lives.

The only load of b.s is this statement.

I'm a Burris or Leupold guy, but I've had good luck with Weavers on my cheaper rifles, good clarity and quality for the lower price they are.

Big difference between bump stocks and Suppressors. Bump stocks were always in question as legal or not. Suppressors are not legal without application and approval. Apples and oranges comparison. Can't as easily take away something codified in law and clearly known what is legal or not. It will take Congress to change it and I don't see that happening right now. Lawsuits will last years if anything is forced. I am not losing any sleep over this.

Yeah, the HPA is dead as a doornail. We might think it died when the Dems took the house but that’s not true. It was never really alive in the first place.

Was he wearing his “Churchill hat” while discussing domestic issues with that pompous British ass?

The president decided to expound further on his thoughts regarding suppressors with none other than our good old buddy, Piers Morgan. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-banning-gun-silencers/story?id=63502902

Didn’t you read my previous post? The NRA is working on appealing the Hughes Amendment.