Search found 13 matches

by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:35 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

bblhd672 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:36 pm
bblhd672 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:09 pm

As you said, there’s only one reason suppressors are considered “unusual” in the United States, the 1934 NFA. Which was supported by the NRA.
What do you mean the NRA supported the NFA?

Chas.
I’m repeating what was printed on pages 22 and 23 of NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, March 1968 edition.
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA’S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy’s accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables,including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd’s attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
A. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
B. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
C. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
D. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
E. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
F. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. … The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy’s "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
###
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA’S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
I should apologize for setting you up on this one. LOL. The NRA did support the NFA of 1934, as people have noted. However, you never see anyone tell the hole story about the NRA's support. (Most people don't know this because it's never included in the attacks on the NRA.) The original version of the NFA was going to include handguns, all handguns! The NRA was hardly politically active in 1934, or 1968 for that matter. However, the NRA did prevail on Congress not to include handguns in the NFA. Too bad that part of the story is never told.

The weak position espoused by Orth is what culminated in the "Revolt at Cincinnati" in 1977. This in turn led to the creation of ILA which made the NRA the political powerhouse it is now.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:44 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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 pm
You 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 pm
Your 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 pm
Thank 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 pm
I'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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:36 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

bblhd672 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:09 pm
G.A. Heath wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:59 pm
While I do not agree with the Trump administration I do see what I believe is their logic:
The truth of the matter is that Silencers, like machine guns, are relatively unusual in regards to the general public due to the NFA. Since they are unusual they do not qualify for protection under Heller as it currently stands.

Now for my thoughts:
As for regulating them out of existence, like they did with bump stocks, it might become a bit more difficult. Consider that the same law that makes them so unusual regulates them so strictly that it will likely protect them from regulatory fiat. As a result it would likely require an act of congress and the signature of the president to eliminate them.

The NRA and NSSF have invested in advancing 'silencer rights' so they have a vested interest in protecting the progress they made and any future progress they hope to make. While we are here talking, chatting, and demanding the NRA make some public statement I suspect they are busy working to educate the president, his staff, and everyone who will listen in congress about why suppressors need to be protected. While I suspect they are doing that other groups are out there going King Kong thumping their chests and shouting "Trump Bad, Suppressor Good. Frum Mah cold ded hans." and sending out chain emails saying "Trump is gonna ban suppressors!!! Donate money to us now to stop him. Don't let Trump take away the suppressors because only we can stop it."

There is a reason the anti gunners, socialists, liberals, and so on (I know I repeated myself) constantly bash the NRA while they ignore nearly everyone else and it's probably because they are the most effective and don't telegraph their intentions in the media.
As you said, there’s only one reason suppressors are considered “unusual” in the United States, the 1934 NFA. Which was supported by the NRA.
What do you mean the NRA supported the NFA?

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:46 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Bitter Clinger wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:20 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:48 pm
Bitter Clinger wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:51 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm
Bitter Clinger wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 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.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

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.
Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?
So your version of a "slow erosion" ended in 1934.

Chas.
FIFY. "So your version of a "slow erosion" began in 1934". :tiphat:
Nice try, but no cigar. Only you and Anygunanywhere are claiming there is an erosion of Second Amendment rights. When asked to list the events that are part of that erosion, each of you could list only one law. Yours dates back to 1934. Erosion is a process, not a single event. More pro-gun bills than anti-gun bills have been passed at the federal level. We've done much better at the state level in many states, but that's just the difference in the makeup of Congress. My point is simply that overstating a problem doesn't help solve it; it simply destroys your credibility.

Chas.
To the extent that we do not enjoy Constitutional Carry in all 50 states, there has clearly been an erosion of rights. This does not take way from the very real efforts made to re-gain, but to deny erosion is simply playing lawyerly semantics.
No lawyerly semantics at play here, just a clear reading of the dictionary. "Erosion" is a continuing process and there is no erosion at either the federal level or in most states. There are states that are experiencing an erosion of gun rights like California, New Jersey, New York just to name a few. But that does not constitute a country-wide erosion anymore than one could claim that flooding in the Texas gulf coast constitutes flooding throughout the U.S.

I'll even agree that overall in the country, there was a time when gun rights were being eroding and this created the status quo that exists to some greater or lesser degree in all states. But the trend over the last 40 years has been to regain Second Amendment rights, not experience further erosion. If you are interested in why I took issue with AnygunAnywhere's "erosion" comment, then read my prior post responding to his latest comments.

If most American gun owners were of the gloom-and-doom ilk who deny progress, falsely accuse Second Amendment advocates and operatives of selling out and generally spew their crap, then I would have walked away from this fight decades ago. They aren't worth 5 minutes of my life, much less 40 years. Thankfully, such people make up a tiny fraction of American gun owners who, by and large, are honorable people who appreciate the work that has been done on their behalf. They don't make false allegations about the status of current gun laws, they don't lie about the NRA and they don't engage in spewing gloom-and-doom garbage. They also don't expect every wrong to be righted overnight and they appreciate progress even when it does not come at a pace we all would prefer.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:28 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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 pm
You 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 pm
Your 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 pm
Thank 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 pm
I'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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:13 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:50 pm
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

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.
Progress since 1968? What progress??
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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:48 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Bitter Clinger wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:51 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm
Bitter Clinger wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 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.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

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.
Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?
So your version of a "slow erosion" ended in 1934.

Chas.
FIFY. "So your version of a "slow erosion" began in 1934". :tiphat:
Nice try, but no cigar. Only you and Anygunanywhere are claiming there is an erosion of Second Amendment rights. When asked to list the events that are part of that erosion, each of you could list only one law. Yours dates back to 1934. Erosion is a process, not a single event. More pro-gun bills than anti-gun bills have been passed at the federal level. We've done much better at the state level in many states, but that's just the difference in the makeup of Congress. My point is simply that overstating a problem doesn't help solve it; it simply destroys your credibility.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:22 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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

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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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

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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Bitter Clinger wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 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.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

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.
Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?
So your version of a "slow erosion" ended in 1934.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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

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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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

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.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:45 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Trump: Banning Suppressors?
Replies: 115
Views: 7753

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

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?
Don't expect a public statement, but also don't assume the NRA is doing nothing. Public beating of one's chest is what is done by people and organizations that have no impact. They can't make a difference so they just make noise. As much as I'd like to say more, I cannot.

Chas.

Return to “Trump: Banning Suppressors?”