No More Bump Stocks

[Discollector]

Whats the next step? I won't put money in the nra anymore (except membership fees the local range requires membership, hopefully that changes) but what does one do to combat the problem? Should we gather arms and leave family behind to fight for our rights? Years ago that was the normal thing to do. Do we donate money to a non profit other than the nra? I'd love to voice my opinion somewhere other than a forum.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

I'd rather voice my opinion in a place other than a forum. The Internet really screwed things up, but this is what we used to do:

Define your goals and objectives

Recruit at gun shows, gun stores, or any place gun owners gather

Develop a plan of action with group meetings with congresscritters

Rate your legislators on knowledge, experience and commitment. Educate them and track what they're doing. In any event, you have to educate, inform and watch legislators.

Since I can't reinvent the wheel (as one guy used to tell me) here is what used to work:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/usmilitias/how-do-we-effect-change-t25.html

Those are the tactics that worked before the Internet. Getting people to show up at meetings and strategy sessions now seems almost impossible, but if a few of us committed to face to face meetings, it would be more productive than months of back and forth on the Internet.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Said it before.....if NRA collapses, we are screwed to the wall. Nobody else has the powere or recognition to fight for the second. All you naysayers hide and watch.

Let me get this straight.
If the organization fighting to undermine our gun rights collapses, we are all screwed to the wall.
Okay, got it.
I thought this was supposed to be a gun-friendly message board.

 

[Discollector]

Let me get this straight.
If the organization fighting to undermine our gun rights collapses, we are all screwed to the wall.
Okay, got it.
I thought this was supposed to be a gun-friendly message board.

I think this is a gun friendly board. The OP has not complained that we took the thread in a different direction and IMO, the owners of this board would, most likely, not be as uncompromising toward the powers that be.

We are making a couple of good points here: We can lose for free so if the NRA sinks, what do we really lose? Most major gun legislation is signed into law by NRA endorsed presidents. We're so far down the road toward tyranny - especially the belief by the masses that government creates and grants Rights that it's going to take an extreme response for politicians to hear the gun Rights lobby.

IF the NRA or any other group wanted to be effective they would teach politicians how to force the Democrats to the table and we would have go on the offense as opposed to always be begging for money to stop proposed gun legislation (purely defensive.) For example, virtually ALL mass shootings are done by people who are political jihadists and by people who are or were recently under the care of a psychologist or psychiatrist with virtually ALL of them having been put on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs.

Most tv doctors tell us it is too easy to get feel good drugs and if you've ever watched the Dr. Phil Show on tv, he always starts people off with individual therapies or group therapy with drugs being the very last option, not the first. Imagine gun owners floated a bill to require patients be subjected to one on one therapy and group therapy before being given a prescription for feel good drugs. Then, if SSRIs were prescribed under supervised conditions, we could significantly reduce mass shootings. In the alternative, if Democrats stalled the legislation with filibusters and so forth, they will have stopped their own ability to prey on the public's emotions for gun control.

More than 70,000 people die each year due to drug overdoses. That's way more than twice the number of people who die due to firearms in the U.S. each year. Imagine being able to counter anti-gun legislation by saying the Democrats are refusing to save 70,000 + lives with your legislation. They won't be in such an all fired hurry to prey on human emotion then to sell their socialist ideology. But I digress. The fact that the owners of this board allow me to promote that idea says this is still a gun friendly board.

 

[ARCman47]

I think this is a gun friendly board. The OP has not complained that we took the thread in a different direction and IMO, the owners of this board

The OP is the site owner.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Online, we gun owners are the majority of the people we know. Not just regular gun owners, but hardcore gun nuts that have huge gun collections, subscribe to gun magazines, read about guns all the time, constantly talk about gun control proposals, etc.

In real life, people like that are a tiny, tiny, minority of the population. Probably less than a million people in the entire country.

The NRA was founded as a mainstream organization. It was started by former Union Army officers who were dismayed that the city boys who were drafted or recruited to fight in the Civil War had no firearms skills. None. Marksmanship was a an alien concept to them. So, the NRA's first job was to promote rifle marksmanship among all the people SO THAT THEY WOULD MAKE BETTER SOLDIERS FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT when summoned to war.

The NRA didn't oppose the idea of banning machineguns and sawed-off shotguns and silencers in the 1930s. They just wanted to make sure the laws were written carefully so as not to end up banning regular semi-autos, or handguns, or guns that were too quiet naturally (like a .22 LR rifle with a 26" barrel loaded with standard velocity target ammo. That's as quiet as any gun with a silencer!)

The NRA saw the GUn Control Act of 1968 was going to pass, no matter what, so they worked to amend it to be minimally harmful to liberty. Private sales were unregulated. Sales from dealers got additional burdens and paperwork. There was no limit on how much ammo you could buy, but you'd have to show I.D. and the dealer would keep records on ammo sales, too (this lasted until 1986, when the NRA got ammo registration eliminated in exchange for "safe passage" interstate transport in your car trunk. The ban on new machineguns was part of that compromise, too. And the only reason you're allowed to order ammo online or through a catalog and have it shipped directly to your house is because that's part of the deal the NRA brokered on our behalf back in 1986.

The NRA is a mainstream organization of gun owners, target shooters, and hunters.
It was not meant to be a group of government-hating political extremists who think it's time to start a revolution if you can't have an unregistered machinegun, or can't buy handguns through vending machines at the airport terminal lobby, and aren't allowed to anonymously buy hand grenades at the local Army-Navy store for $9.99 each.

Instead of constantly complaining about the NRA's willingness to go along with some types of gun control, hardcore gun nuts really should just create and join some other no-compromise group that lobbies for (1) any weapon (2) carried or sold anywhere (3) by any person (4) anonymously and no questions asked. (meaning, no taxes, no licenses, no permits, no registration)

 

[TheGman]

Online, we gun owners are the majority of the people we know. Not just regular gun owners, but hardcore gun nuts that have huge gun collections, subscribe to gun magazines, read about guns all the time, constantly talk about gun control proposals, etc.

In real life, people like that are a tiny, tiny, minority of the population. Probably less than a million people in the entire country.

The NRA was founded as a mainstream organization. It was started by former Union Army officers who were dismayed that the city boys who were drafted or recruited to fight in the Civil War had no firearms skills. None. Marksmanship was a an alien concept to them. So, the NRA's first job was to promote rifle marksmanship among all the people SO THAT THEY WOULD MAKE BETTER SOLDIERS FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT when summoned to war.

The NRA didn't oppose the idea of banning machineguns and sawed-off shotguns and silencers in the 1930s. They just wanted to make sure the laws were written carefully so as not to end up banning regular semi-autos, or handguns, or guns that were too quiet naturally (like a .22 LR rifle with a 26" barrel loaded with standard velocity target ammo. That's as quiet as any gun with a silencer!)

The NRA saw the GUn Control Act of 1968 was going to pass, no matter what, so they worked to amend it to be minimally harmful to liberty. Private sales were unregulated. Sales from dealers got additional burdens and paperwork. There was no limit on how much ammo you could buy, but you'd have to show I.D. and the dealer would keep records on ammo sales, too (this lasted until 1986, when the NRA got ammo registration eliminated in exchange for "safe passage" interstate transport in your car trunk. The ban on new machineguns was part of that compromise, too. And the only reason you're allowed to order ammo online or through a catalog and have it shipped directly to your house is because that's part of the deal the NRA brokered on our behalf back in 1986.

The NRA is a mainstream organization of gun owners, target shooters, and hunters.
It was not meant to be a group of government-hating political extremists who think it's time to start a revolution if you can't have an unregistered machinegun, or can't buy handguns through vending machines at the airport terminal lobby, and aren't allowed to anonymously buy hand grenades at the local Army-Navy store for $9.99 each.

Instead of constantly complaining about the NRA's willingness to go along with some types of gun control, hardcore gun nuts really should just create and join some other no-compromise group that lobbies for (1) any weapon (2) carried or sold anywhere (3) by any person (4) anonymously and no questions asked. (meaning, no taxes, no licenses, no permits, no registration)

I whole heartedly agree with the last paragraph. (Dont disagree overall).
I am in the category described in the end.

 

[GeauxLSU]

As long as people keep confusing "gun owner" with 2A advocate, we'll continue to lose what's left of the 2A.

 

[TheGman]

As long as people keep confusing "gun owner" with 2A advocate, we'll continue to lose what's left of the 2A.

I assume that you mean that everyone should support 2A whether you own a gun or no.

What right falls next if the 2nd falls. Folks are very myopic and self centered unfortunately.

 

[palmettomoon]

If the NRA had not positioned themselves as the last Bastion of all 2nd Amendment rights Protections in the 1990s and constantly pummeled and begged its members and new members for funds to fight those battles you would not see the backlash that you see today. So drop the false pretense the NRA has always been a bunch of Elmer fudd's protecting rabbit hunting black powder shotgun ownership.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I assume that you mean that everyone should support 2A whether you own a gun or no.

What right falls next if the 2nd falls. Folks are very myopic and self centered unfortunately.

That is true but what I meant was unfortunately some of the biggest threats to the 2A are gun owners who apparently feel the 2A's intent is no longer needed or "practical". You know, the government has tanks, rpgs, nukes, etc therefore the 2A is no longer valid. The irony is simply suffocating.
The NRA and every other self proclaimed "2A defender" group are simply nothing more than the sum of it's members. I have zero doubt that a large portion of NRA members are perfectly fine with "common sense gun laws" and think "shall not be infringed" is the rally cry of lunatics.

The problem with "gun owners" is that far too many want to write a $30 check once a year, get a magazine, and feel they are "defenders of the 2A". I've been guilty myself.

You are correct in that once the 2A falls, the rest will go in order.... under "common sense" of course.