TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:44 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:18 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:28 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:13 pm
You're really are desperate to get away from your erosion claim, aren't you? Okay, I know I can't recall every bill that passed in the last 51 years, but here are some off the top of my head.

1. Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 protects travelers with firearms;
2. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting frivolous lawsuits to put manufacturers and dealers out of business;
3. Emergency Powers Act prohibiting New Orleans-style firearm confiscation during disasters;
4. Prohibition on ban of firearms in National Parks
5. Repeal of ban on buying long guns in states other than one's state of residence or contiguous states;
6. Prohibiting the destruction of military brass;

There are probably more, but that's what I can recall at this point.

Chas.

Charles, you are the one having a problem with my use of the term slow erosion. As I stated before the erosion even with my one example is huge for the patriots who owned bump stocks.

"Erosion" is a continuing process, not a single event. Your false claim of "erosion" of gun rights implies that there is a continuing loss of those rights and that simply is not true. The overall trajectory of gun rights has been an upward trend since the unconstitutional GCA of 1968. That's the exact opposite of an "erosion" of Second Amendment rights. The only downturn during that 51 year period was the Clinton/Assault Weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, but we turned that around in spite of repeated attempts to reinstate it.

I initially asked you to list the events supporting your "erosion" claim because such false aligations are insulting to so many people who have worked hard to expand gun rights and block anti-gun bills and regulations. I'm not talking about me, I'm I'm talking about many people. Some of us have made that a lifelong quest, yet people like you mock our efforts and make false claims about our success. The job has been infinitenately harder at the federal level because of the makeup of the federal Congress, so our gains are fewer than here in Texas and many other states. But less progress does not mean no progress and your claim of an "erosion" of gun rights is both false and insulting. You have been a Forum member for fourteen years and have over 7,000 posts. It is exceedingly rare for you to ever make a positive statement about progress we've made on gun rights, whether at the federal or state level. Yet there is no shortage of your gloom-and-doom posts.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmYou threw bump stock owners under the bus so you could focus on more important issues. Things that really mattered, at least to the NRA board.

Ignoring the facts is necessary in order for you to make this absurd claim. Bump stocks are important to the people who own them, but that number is tiny compared to the number of people that own AR platform rifles and pistol, AK platform rifles, H&K platform rifles/pistols, etc. That is what was at stake. You and your ilk either don't believe or choose to ignore the tidal wave of calls for another assault weapons ban after the Las Vegas slaughter. I cannot and will not give full details for obvious reasons, but the NRA quite literally saved those firearms from being banned. Yet you want to ignore that fact and essentially claim that bump stocks "were thrown under the buss." Apparently, you would have preferred that the NRA do nothing. The result would have been a new and a much farther-reaching assault weapons band and your bump stock poster-child would have also been banned. You are also ignoring the fact that the bump stock issue is far from over. Ironically, the ATF reclassification of bump stocks may actually bring an end to the BATFE's unlawful usurpation of regulatory authority.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmYour continued claim that my term is insignificant just shows the gap that exists between the upper echelon, the elites and those of us common folk. The NRA's responsibility is to protect everyone's firearms rights, not just those that they think are worth their time and trouble.

You clearly do not feel constrained by the truth. I've never stated that your use of the term "erosion" is "insignificant." My clear and unambiguous statement is that "erosion" is an ongoing process, not a single event. I've also never stated that the attempt at a bump stock ban is "insignificant." It is significant to the people who own them, just as the lawful possession and use of so-called assault weapons is significant to over 5 million Americans.

Your "upper echelon, the elites" and "common folks" comments are great examples of your self-righteous, arrogant know-it-all attitude. You don't know the first thing about me and people who do will tell you I'm the furthest thing from an "elitist." I won't bother responding to your latest lie about the NRA selecting which firearms are worth protecting. It's nothing more than your typical hyperbole.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmThank you for the list, sir. Wow. The NRA has accomplished all that since 1968. I have a few comments though. FOPA is a flop. We still can't drive through Maryland, New Jersey, New, York or many other Northeast states because they ignore FOPA. National Parks Ban? We can't carry in the buildings. I have bought long guns in Louisiana.

You might be impressed with that list but I am not. I'm holding that list in the same light as you do my slow erosion.

I must express my gratitude for your comments about progress made on the federal front. Nothing I could type could better exemplify your utter disdain for progress and the fact that you live in denial. There is no "erosion" of gun rights; progress has been made and is ongoing. Progress on the federal front is not as rapid as either of us wish, but it exists and there is no "erosion" of gun rights.

FOPA is not a "flop." Tens of millions of American gun owners travel throughout the country with firearms that would have resulted in their arrest, conviction and imprisonment were it not for FOPA. You name three states that have not followed FOPA as they should have, but you ignore the others. (Do you care to expound on your nebulous claim about "many other Northeast states" by listing specific states?) Even your claims about Maryland, New Jersey and New York are inaccurate. While there have been unlawful arrests, those have been very few, primarily because of the lawsuits filed by or on behalf of the NRA that you so love to denigrate.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmI'm done for this thread. I'm going to wait and see if suppressors are thrown under the bus too. Bump stocks were never officially named as being used in the Vegas shooting. Government coverup. Ban bump stocks to make the commies happy. Suppressors are used more in crimes every year than bump stocks ever were.

You may or may not be done with this thread. However, why don't you consider being "done" with posting anonymously. If you are going to continue to spew your venom, then have the courage to do so under your real name. How about putting your real name and reputation behind your comments as I have done. Man up, tell us who you are and stop being a keyboard-Rambo. This is a request, not a demand, so I won't hold my breath.

Chas.

Charles, You are truly an eloquent speaker and writer, which is no surprise given your vocation as a litigator. I'm not going to try and match wits with you on any more debate on this thread. I have my opinions on what is going on with the 2A and our firearms rights. My opinions are mine and you have taken exception to them on many occasions, usually when it seems as if you are under a lot of stress, This is just my observation over the years when you have given me one of your lawyer dressing down posts over something I have posted. You once dressed me down for using the term "constitutional carry" and told me it was an inaccurate term and to stop using it.

You really don't like anyone criticizing the NRA. Being a life member, I have the right to criticize the NRA when they do something I do not like. I am not criticizing you. Is this facebook? I know this is our private forum so the 1A does not apply. I obey the rules. No profanity, not even pseudo-profanity. Yes I do post about religion and abortion occasionally and if that has rubbed you wrong, I apologize. Based on the forum rules I am not braking any rules by posting what I post, just like the other thousands of members post. I still believe that in the 51 years since the GCA was enacted, there has not been satisfactory progress at the federal level. 51 years Charles. I guess this means agree to disagree.

I'm really not sure where you come up with this request that I stop posting anonymously and post under my real name. By the way, calling me a keyboard Rambo is a personal attack, but then I guess that is allowed since you pay the bills. Of all the times you have jumped my back on this forum I have never personally attacked you. I have openly complimented you. I have thanked you. You and I have met at PSC. I have friends on this forum. Forum members and I have chatted on the phone. I'm not anonymous. If anyone wants to know about me all they need to do is ask. I'll even go one n=better. My name is Eddie McDonald. I have posted my name on many posts but I guess you missed those. I live in La Grange. I am married to the most beautiful woman I ever laid eyes on. Her name is Linda. I am a Catholic. The reason I have not responded until now is because she and I have been cooking for two days to support Vacation Bible School at our church in La Grange. Yes, Catholics have VBS too. I'm a veteran, US Navy Submarine Service. Six years, I got drafted out of college, No rich boy deferment for me. I never got my degree, but I have a successful career. I'm still working. I'm heading off to Irving tomorrow on a job for a client who called me to fix a problem they are having. I used my GI bill to become a paramedic. I was chief of EMS where we lived in Chambers County for 12 years. If anyone wants to know more about me all you have to do is ask. I'm not hiding anything.

I'm not a keyboard Rambo. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of my word too.

Yesterday I celebrated 6 months of sobriety. I'm one of the sanest persons here.

None of this has anything to do with the "discussion" you started. I've had enough of your constant negativity and argumentative attitude when anyone challenges your outlandish posts. Stop now.

BTW, calling me an "elitist" v. "common folks" wasn't a personal attack? Again, stop now.

Chas.

Texas_Blaze wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:54 pm I don’t know anyone on this board. I certainly don’t know anygunanywhere but over the years that I been on this board he doesn’t appear like keyboard Rambo fella to me at all. He strikes me as a fella that just likes liberty. Maybe he’s like me, feels betrayed by NRA and Trump with respect to firearms rules / laws. I can’t speak for him but I don’t like the in-fighting at all. It’s easy to criticize leaders. I do it. We all do it. I try to consider their pressures. I ain’t a leader of nuthin now. Not at church, not at work but I have been many years before. It’s not easy to lead. To make strategic decisions. I understand that. But from this side of things, all I see is infringing by the so-called protectors of gun rights. It is frustrating and angering. Especially since it is by people that you trusted. So, that makes the erosion, to me at least, feel much more real. I expect fights with libs and anti-gunners but when your own defenders turn on you, that feels like erosion to me. Takes a long time to build a good reputation but only a moment to destroy it. Same goes with trust.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:28 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:13 pm
You're really are desperate to get away from your erosion claim, aren't you? Okay, I know I can't recall every bill that passed in the last 51 years, but here are some off the top of my head.

1. Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 protects travelers with firearms;
2. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting frivolous lawsuits to put manufacturers and dealers out of business;
3. Emergency Powers Act prohibiting New Orleans-style firearm confiscation during disasters;
4. Prohibition on ban of firearms in National Parks
5. Repeal of ban on buying long guns in states other than one's state of residence or contiguous states;
6. Prohibiting the destruction of military brass;

There are probably more, but that's what I can recall at this point.

Chas.

Charles, you are the one having a problem with my use of the term slow erosion. As I stated before the erosion even with my one example is huge for the patriots who owned bump stocks.

"Erosion" is a continuing process, not a single event. Your false claim of "erosion" of gun rights implies that there is a continuing loss of those rights and that simply is not true. The overall trajectory of gun rights has been an upward trend since the unconstitutional GCA of 1968. That's the exact opposite of an "erosion" of Second Amendment rights. The only downturn during that 51 year period was the Clinton/Assault Weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, but we turned that around in spite of repeated attempts to reinstate it.

I initially asked you to list the events supporting your "erosion" claim because such false aligations are insulting to so many people who have worked hard to expand gun rights and block anti-gun bills and regulations. I'm not talking about me, I'm I'm talking about many people. Some of us have made that a lifelong quest, yet people like you mock our efforts and make false claims about our success. The job has been infinitenately harder at the federal level because of the makeup of the federal Congress, so our gains are fewer than here in Texas and many other states. But less progress does not mean no progress and your claim of an "erosion" of gun rights is both false and insulting. You have been a Forum member for fourteen years and have over 7,000 posts. It is exceedingly rare for you to ever make a positive statement about progress we've made on gun rights, whether at the federal or state level. Yet there is no shortage of your gloom-and-doom posts.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmYou threw bump stock owners under the bus so you could focus on more important issues. Things that really mattered, at least to the NRA board.

Ignoring the facts is necessary in order for you to make this absurd claim. Bump stocks are important to the people who own them, but that number is tiny compared to the number of people that own AR platform rifles and pistol, AK platform rifles, H&K platform rifles/pistols, etc. That is what was at stake. You and your ilk either don't believe or choose to ignore the tidal wave of calls for another assault weapons ban after the Las Vegas slaughter. I cannot and will not give full details for obvious reasons, but the NRA quite literally saved those firearms from being banned. Yet you want to ignore that fact and essentially claim that bump stocks "were thrown under the buss." Apparently, you would have preferred that the NRA do nothing. The result would have been a new and a much farther-reaching assault weapons band and your bump stock poster-child would have also been banned. You are also ignoring the fact that the bump stock issue is far from over. Ironically, the ATF reclassification of bump stocks may actually bring an end to the BATFE's unlawful usurpation of regulatory authority.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmYour continued claim that my term is insignificant just shows the gap that exists between the upper echelon, the elites and those of us common folk. The NRA's responsibility is to protect everyone's firearms rights, not just those that they think are worth their time and trouble.

You clearly do not feel constrained by the truth. I've never stated that your use of the term "erosion" is "insignificant." My clear and unambiguous statement is that "erosion" is an ongoing process, not a single event. I've also never stated that the attempt at a bump stock ban is "insignificant." It is significant to the people who own them, just as the lawful possession and use of so-called assault weapons is significant to over 5 million Americans.

Your "upper echelon, the elites" and "common folks" comments are great examples of your self-righteous, arrogant know-it-all attitude. You don't know the first thing about me and people who do will tell you I'm the furthest thing from an "elitist." I won't bother responding to your latest lie about the NRA selecting which firearms are worth protecting. It's nothing more than your typical hyperbole.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmThank you for the list, sir. Wow. The NRA has accomplished all that since 1968. I have a few comments though. FOPA is a flop. We still can't drive through Maryland, New Jersey, New, York or many other Northeast states because they ignore FOPA. National Parks Ban? We can't carry in the buildings. I have bought long guns in Louisiana.

You might be impressed with that list but I am not. I'm holding that list in the same light as you do my slow erosion.

I must express my gratitude for your comments about progress made on the federal front. Nothing I could type could better exemplify your utter disdain for progress and the fact that you live in denial. There is no "erosion" of gun rights; progress has been made and is ongoing. Progress on the federal front is not as rapid as either of us wish, but it exists and there is no "erosion" of gun rights.

FOPA is not a "flop." Tens of millions of American gun owners travel throughout the country with firearms that would have resulted in their arrest, conviction and imprisonment were it not for FOPA. You name three states that have not followed FOPA as they should have, but you ignore the others. (Do you care to expound on your nebulous claim about "many other Northeast states" by listing specific states?) Even your claims about Maryland, New Jersey and New York are inaccurate. While there have been unlawful arrests, those have been very few, primarily because of the lawsuits filed by or on behalf of the NRA that you so love to denigrate.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pmI'm done for this thread. I'm going to wait and see if suppressors are thrown under the bus too. Bump stocks were never officially named as being used in the Vegas shooting. Government coverup. Ban bump stocks to make the commies happy. Suppressors are used more in crimes every year than bump stocks ever were.

You may or may not be done with this thread. However, why don't you consider being "done" with posting anonymously. If you are going to continue to spew your venom, then have the courage to do so under your real name. How about putting your real name and reputation behind your comments as I have done. Man up, tell us who you are and stop being a keyboard-Rambo. This is a request, not a demand, so I won't hold my breath.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:13 pm
You're really are desperate to get away from your erosion claim, aren't you? Okay, I know I can't recall every bill that passed in the last 51 years, but here are some off the top of my head.

1. Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 protects travelers with firearms;
2. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting frivolous lawsuits to put manufacturers and dealers out of business;
3. Emergency Powers Act prohibiting New Orleans-style firearm confiscation during disasters;
4. Prohibition on ban of firearms in National Parks
5. Repeal of ban on buying long guns in states other than one's state of residence or contiguous states;
6. Prohibiting the destruction of military brass;

There are probably more, but that's what I can recall at this point.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:22 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:41 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm


They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.

So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.

To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**

You expressly stated "At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. One event, bump stocks, is neither 1,000 cuts nor a slow "erosion." My point is the Chicken Little approach doesn't help advance Second Amendment rights, especially when you conspicuously ignore progress on that front.

As for your two-year question; 1) I didn't claim any claims as did you; and 2) of course you want to limit any claims of advancement of firearms rights to two years because you know there have been several since the 1968 Gun Control act or the 1934 NFA.

Chas.

My approach is not a Chicken Little approach. I'm not screaming that the sky is falling. so please stop mischaracterizing my comments. The bump stock ban is a Trump presidency ban. Give me Trump presidency advancements in our 2A freedoms. I never brought up the NFA or GCA. You did. I'm certain I could mischaracterize your claim of advancements since the GCA and NFA. THE ATF is still in full force. Everything banned and regulated by the NFA and GCA are still banned and regulated. The Feds have not let up one bit. Oh wait!! Obama lets us carry in National Parks!! Halleluia!! We get to carry on land that we, American Citizens Own!

You made a false statement and you are now trying to avoid the question. You claimed a slow erosion of Second Amendment rights, but you can only list one item -- bump stocks. You know quite well the only point I'm making is that there is no slow erosion of Second Amendment rights. Yes, there are restrictions that should not exist, but they have been in place for decades. Over those same decades, we have expanded gun rights at the federal level. Not as much as in Texas and other states, but progress has been made, contrary to your insinuation.

Of course you didn't bring up the GCA 68 or the NFA. You don't want to acknowledge the progress we've made since 1968. BTW, Obama didn't let us carry in national parks. That provision was shoved down his throat as part of the credit card bill have was forced to sign.

Chas.

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:28 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:21 pm

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:15 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.

There is that ATF finding under Obama that specifically said they were not illegal and I would hope that is what is used.

I believe this is what the ATF said in 2010. "We find that the bump stock is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act," ATF said in a letter at the time."

I understand what you are saying, however government attorney's will likely argue that the Obama era determination by the ATF was in error and did not make the devices legal, meaning they were always illegal. Just be happy they chose not to charge you with a felony comrade.

Texas_Blaze wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:23 pm I’m ok w/ President ______________ banning bumpstocks said the ____________.

A. Obama / conservatives
B. Obama / liberals
C. Obama / NRA
D. Trump / liberals
E. Trump / conservatives
F. Trump / NRA

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.

So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.

To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**

You expressly stated "At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. One event, bump stocks, is neither 1,000 cuts nor a slow "erosion." My point is the Chicken Little approach doesn't help advance Second Amendment rights, especially when you conspicuously ignore progress on that front.

As for your two-year question; 1) I didn't claim any claims as did you; and 2) of course you want to limit any claims of advancement of firearms rights to two years because you know there have been several since the 1968 Gun Control act or the 1934 NFA.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.

So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.

They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them.

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?

Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:03 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:16 pm

TexasJohnBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:44 am Seriously, what’s going on with this? Has there been any response by the NRA to this?

Ordering a solvent trap if they are banned will be just like ordering those Glock auto sears off Wish.com. If you build your own, you won’t be able to use it anywhere on public.

This is not ok.

If we roll over on this, there will be more to come.

What do you mean if “we” roll over on this?

There’s no "rolling over" for me. If ATF agents show up in overwhelming force like a SWAT team to take my suppressors, I’m going to choose to live to fight another day, and not take them under fire. They can take them and leave in peace. Why? Because having already done so twice, I already know how to manufacture my own. And they work really well, too. If I see a need strong enough to warrant defying the gov’t, I will do so.

I seriously doubt that confiscating suppressors would be enough trigger to kick off a CW2. There’s only something like 250,000 active suppressor registrations right now, and - just as with firearms - a number of those are cases of one person owning multiple cans. So it’s not a big enough population to motivate an uprising. A lot of the nation's 100+ million gun owners will say that a suppressor ban doesn’t affect them, and they won’t commit to a struggle over something that affects less than 1/4 of 1% of them. It’s going to take something like a national level confiscation of all semiautomatic rifles to trigger a CW2.....and THAT would be the kind of need that would motivate me to manufacture a suppressor in secret. Because at that point, federal law enforcement no longer has any legitimacy. In fact NOTHING about federal gov’t has any legitimacy at that point. When it turns upon the people, it becomes our duty to abolish and replace it.

TexasJohnBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:25 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:16 pm

TexasJohnBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:44 am Seriously, what’s going on with this? Has there been any response by the NRA to this?

Ordering a solvent trap if they are banned will be just like ordering those Glock auto sears off Wish.com. If you build your own, you won’t be able to use it anywhere on public.

This is not ok.

If we roll over on this, there will be more to come.

What do you mean if “we” roll over on this?

The collective “we.”

“It’s fine, it won’t affect me, I don’t own any suppressors” - that mentality.

Specifically I want the nations largest gun rights organization to step in somehow and be publicly against this idea.

I’m not trying to be combative or argumentative but this is pretty unnerving.

TexasJohnBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:44 am Seriously, what’s going on with this? Has there been any response by the NRA to this?

Ordering a solvent trap if they are banned will be just like ordering those Glock auto sears off Wish.com. If you build your own, you won’t be able to use it anywhere on public.

This is not ok.

If we roll over on this, there will be more to come.