# The NRA is Evil and is Stealing Your Money!



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The NRA is just another organization bent on taking your money while not doing a thing to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
Agree? Disagree? Why?


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

Disagree. Any organization that can tick off the dems as much as the N.R.A. Does must be doing something right.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Agreed they have done nothing but help install gun regulations


----------



## Tango2X (Jul 7, 2016)

The NRA has done more FOR gun owners than any other group --- ever.

All those who dislike the NRA, love all the pro gun laws passed by the NRA-- like concealed carry in almost all states, constitutional carry in some states, that sort of thing.

You know-- the ones too cheap to pay a few buck to protect their rights.-- Effin freeloaders!!


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Tango2X said:


> The NRA has done more FOR gun owners than any other group --- ever.
> 
> All those who dislike the NRA, love all the pro gun laws passed by the NRA-- like concealed carry in almost all states, constitutional carry in some states, that sort of thing.
> 
> You know-- the ones too cheap to pay a few buck to protect their rights.-- Effin freeloaders!!


Umm goa is actually defending your rights.. NRA has sold out everytime. Assault weapons ban .. bump stocks


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

They carry the biggest stick, although sometimes I disagree with it's use, or lack there of. If you are being attacked consistently and relentlessly, you are being effective to some degree. I support anyone who attempts the battle for our rights and liberties.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Prepared One said:


> They carry the biggest stick, although sometimes I disagree with it's use, or lack there of. If you are being attacked consistently and relentlessly, you are being effective to some degree. I support anyone who attempts the battle for our rights and liberties.


Even when they fold and give up your rights. Can't really agree with that.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)




----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I am not a member of the NRA, but I do "round up" for the NRA when I buy from places like Midway. I am a member of GOA and GOCRA. With all that said, the NRA has done pretty well for quite a while, but they could be more aggressive. I am a believer in not giving a single inch to the antis. Not bumpstocks, not any single 2nd amendment issue or category.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

whitedeath81 said:


> Even when they fold and give up your rights. Can't really agree with that.


I had no doubt you would agree. :tango_face_grin: Perhaps when you are finished with your training at McDonald's I will place a higher value on your opinion.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

whitedeath81 said:


> Agreed they have done nothing but help install gun regulations


Wrong. Why? The word, "nothing."


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

@whitedeath81, we don't give a rip about a slew of videos. If you can't do more to communicate than offer videos, you are no communicator.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Denton said:


> Wrong. Why? The word, "nothing."


Bump stock ban assault weapons ban. Even the famous Charles Heston was for a assault weapons ban. Sorry Republicans tend to do more anti gun measures then liberals.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

whitedeath81 said:


> Bump stock ban assault weapons ban. Even the famous Charles Heston was for a assault weapons ban. Sorry Republicans tend to do more anti gun measures then liberals.


The bump-stock was allegedly designed for those who have difficulty firing weapons, otherwise. Cripples should not be considered able-bodied people who are to protect the nation. For those who are not crippled, it is a novelty, ammo-waster. Got something else?


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Denton said:


> The bump-stock was allegedly designed for those who have difficulty firing weapons, otherwise. Cripples should not be considered able-bodied people who are to protect the nation. For those who are not crippled, it is a novelty, ammo-waster. Got something else?


So the shall not infringe only applies to things you like I get it now. That's loud and clear shall not infringe unless Denton doesn't like it.. gotta love fudds

So you also only think the second amendment is for the militia. Cripples have no reason to fight for their rights?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

RedLion said:


> I am not a member of the NRA, but I do "round up" for the NRA when I buy from places like Midway. I am a member of GOA and GOCRA. With all that said, the NRA has done pretty well for quite a while, but they could be more aggressive. I am a believer in not giving a single inch to the antis. Not bumpstocks, not any single 2nd amendment issue or category.


I am as well, for not giving an inch, which is what I consider one of the failings of the NRA. The willingness to trade gradual loss of freedoms and rights for temporary concessions, will, in the end, wind up costing you all your rights. Bump stocks are a joke, but any concession is but one step further in conceding to the left's demands.

Still, any resistance is better then none.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

whitedeath81 said:


> So the shall not infringe only applies to things you like I get it now. That's loud and clear shall not infringe unless Denton doesn't like it.. gotta love fudds
> 
> So you also only think the second amendment is for the militia. Cripples have no reason to fight for their rights?


No, you get it no more than you get proper grammar and sentence structure.

Did I suggest the 2nd amendment only applies to that which I like? No, I didn't.
You use shallow thinking when discussing concepts that are old. Drive-by thinking of a headline-reader.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Denton said:


> No, you get it no more than you get proper grammar and sentence structure.
> 
> Did I suggest the 2nd amendment only applies to that which I like? No, I didn't.
> You use shallow thinking when discussing concepts that are old. Drive-by thinking of a headline-reader.


My bad fudd. I'll do better on the grammar and spelling. I suppose when losing a argument based on facts this is the normal insult. Shocked troll hasn't been used.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

whitedeath81 said:


> My bad fudd. I'll do better on the grammar and spelling. I suppose when losing a argument based on facts this is the normal insult. Shocked troll hasn't been used.


There you go with your NPC terminology.

A troll would ignore the meat of a post...wait...


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The NRA is not perfect. No person or organization is. It does have the most clout. I think they are wrong on bump stocks even though I think they are a gimmick. GOA had a few bad stories circulating about them. While I belong to both plus NAGR the point is the NRA has he most cash to throw around politically. Nowhere near as much as the anti gun groups. Want better results? Put your time and money where your mouth is. The NRA is still the most effective of the 2nd amendment groups. U


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Evil is a bit harsh but corrupt I think they sadlynare in that they take members money and hire lawyers. They are losing public opinion, won't even try to win elections now in blue states because they gave up on the PR in favor of the legal fee. Recent survey of young adults ranked mass shootings as a biggest issue why the HELL isnt the NRA out in front of that misrepresentation by the media? Corrupt



Denton said:


> The NRA is just another organization bent on taking your money while not doing a thing to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
> Agree? Disagree? Why?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Camel923 said:


> The NRA is not perfect. No person or organization is. It does have the most clout. I think they are wrong on bump stocks even though I think they are a gimmick. GOA had a few bad stories circulating about them. While I belong to both plus NAGR the point is the NRA has he most cash to throw around politically. Nowhere near as much as the anti gun groups. Want better results? Put your time and money where your mouth is. The NRA is still the most effective of the 2nd amendment groups. U


 @whitedeath81 has a couple points, though. Those who know me on this board (new mouth ain't one) knows what I think.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

stowlin said:


> Evil is a bit harsh but corrupt I think they sadlynare in that they take members money and hire lawyers. They are losing public opinion, won't even try to win elections now in blue states because they gave up on the PR in favor of the legal fee. Recent survey of young adults ranked mass shootings as a biggest issue why the HELL isnt the NRA out in front of that misrepresentation by the media? Corrupt


People think the NRA is flush with money. That's what its enemy wants us to think.

Should they throw sandbags into the flowing water of a compromised dam?


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Camel923 said:


> The NRA is not perfect. No person or organization is. It does have the most clout. I think they are wrong on bump stocks even though I think they are a gimmick. GOA had a few bad stories circulating about them. While I belong to both plus NAGR the point is the NRA has he most cash to throw around politically. Nowhere near as much as the anti gun groups. Want better results? Put your time and money where your mouth is. The NRA is still the most effective of the 2nd amendment groups. U


Lol.... yeah at giving up your rights. Tell me more how the assault weapon ban is efficient for you. NRA is nothing more than a fudd group protecting fudd guns. Your tactical rifles are gone.

Lets face reality trump would sign the assault weapons ban if it helped him win votes in 2020.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

whitedeath81 said:


> Lol.... yeah at giving up your rights. Tell me more how the assault weapon ban is efficient for you. NRA is nothing more than a fudd group protecting fudd guns. Your tactical rifles are gone.
> 
> Lets face reality trump would sign the assault weapons ban if it helped him win votes in 2020.


Here's a fun exercise. Why don't you look up some NRA successes? Post them in this thread. Don't cheat and use the one I offered in the other thread.


----------



## modfan (Feb 18, 2016)

This could also apply to the people who love the "+1"



Denton said:


> @whitedeath81, we don't give a rip about a slew of videos. If you can't do more to communicate than offer videos, you are no communicator.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

modfan said:


> This could also apply to the people who love the "+1"


I chalk that up to a cultural difference. That, or he hasn't found the "like" button.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

Denton said:


> Here's a fun exercise. Why don't you look up some NRA successes? Post them in this thread. Don't cheat and use the one I offered in the other thread.


Cant find any


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Any strategist either in big business or the military knows it's about the final objective, or winning the war. Our constitution has been trampled on so much it barely reads as it was originally intended, yet many want to jump ship with the NRA based on a narrow world view and the smaller issues. 

Listen up, your rights are still intact because of successful 2A lobbying by the NRA. They are committed to maintaining this right and the big picture as long as possible. Yes, this does involve difficult decisions on smaller issues and in Staes and regions where liberalism has already won the fight with the general population.

I attended the NRA convention last year that had the President, VP, governor of Texas, and a senator giving pro 2A speeches. Ever seen this much horsepower show up for another private business on the same day? The voice and clout is loud and big … with or without your critical and waivering stances.

I stand with the NRA and I am the NRA for our continued 2A rights. No need to thank me, I know you appreciated all you still have.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)

A Watchman said:


> Any strategist either in big business or the military knows it's about the final objective, or winning the war. Our constitution has been trampled on so much it barely reads as it was originally intended, yet many want to jump ship with the NRA based on a narrow world view and the smaller issues.
> 
> Listen up, your rights are still intact because of successful 2A lobbying by the NRA. They are committed to maintaining this right and the big picture as long as possible. Yes, this does involve difficult decisions on smaller issues and in Staes and regions where liberalism has already won the fight with the general population.
> 
> ...


However you wanna pretend that the NRA has done anything of value other the support fudd guns rights. I think your better off lighting the money on fire and it might do more good for the second amendment then NRA doing anything of use.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I support the NRA. 
They have been in existence since 1871, and while the organization supported some early gun control legislation, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, it was the Gun Control Act of 1968 which caused the reorganization in 1975 from a sportsmen oriented organization to a political action pro-2nd Amendment one.

It has not lost a major battle over gun control legislation since the 1994 assault weapons ban.

Observers and lawmakers say it is one of the top 3 most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC.

In 2016 they endorsed Trump even before he was the official Republican nominee, something they had never done before.

Some legal scholars believe the NRA was influential in providing the foundation for the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller.

I can not speak to NRA successes in other states, but here in Florida, the NRA got legislation passed making the state one of the first, if not THE first, to issue concealed weapon licenses to anyone legally permitted to have one. No longer would a citizen have to prove he "needed" one. We are Shall Issue, not "may issue".
Florida was an early state in expanding Castle Doctrine incrementally to where it is today - a person may defend himself anywhere he is legally allowed to carry a gun. No longer just your own house, or yard. We have no "duty to retreat" thanks to the NRA.

I AM THE NRA!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

whitedeath81 said:


> Cant find any


Bull. You haven't tried, NPC.

We'd all part of the butterknife brigade or would have already been in a "civil" war were it not for the NRA.

You didn't try to find anything.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

whitedeath81 said:


> Cant find any


That comment speaks loudly of both your skill set, and your indoctrinated worldview. I will admit though, that you seem quite adapt at surfing UTube for propaganda videos to copy and paste.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm a member.

Any group that can piss off the left AND trolls like @whitedeath81 is ok in my book. :vs_bananasplit:


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

whitedeath81 said:


> However you wanna pretend that the NRA has done anything of value other the support fudd guns rights. I think your better off lighting the money on fire and it might do more good for the second amendment then NRA doing anything of use.


You can't hide who you really are can you?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> You can't hide who you really are can you?
> 
> View attachment 96589


WHOOOSH!! Right over my head. :vs_lol::vs_lol:

(Remember, I'm an Old Fart :vs_cool: )


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> WHOOOSH!! Right over my head. :vs_lol::vs_lol:
> 
> (Remember, I'm an Old Fart :vs_cool: )


No prob RPD, I will help you out. Our friend whitedeath81 is a sideline player who never actually plays the game. It is even neutral as to it's own sexual orientation.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

A Watchman said:


> No prob RPD, I will help you out. Our friend whitedeath81 is a sideline player who never actually plays the game. It is even neutral as to it's own sexual orientation.


Thanks Watchman! I was in the dark too. I finally gave in and looked up "fudd" in the urban dictionary. It said something about being a guy that owns guns but did not like them or some damn thing. It made about as much sense as Whitehead.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Inor said:


> Thanks Watchman! I was in the dark too. I finally gave in and looked up "fudd" in the urban dictionary. It said something about being a guy that owns guns but did not like them or some damn thing. It made about as much sense as Whitehead.


A "Fudd" (capitalized) is a derogatory term for a hunter who cares not about tactical rifles because they don't apply to him.
Named after Elmer Fudd, the cartoon character.


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

I am a life member of the NRA. I have not been happy with them of a lately. It seems to me if they stopped things on a state level, we might be able to nip it in the bud. ie: Orygun letting 16 year old's write anti gun legislation. This is insane. Do I regret being a member? Never!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

For an organization that has "done nothing but help install gun regulations", they sure seem to tie themselves up in court an awful lot to get gun regulations overturned.

https://www.nradefensefund.org/current-litigation.aspx
And that's only the current list of cases. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds more.

The litigation arm is the primary reason the NRA gets my money.
It is also the reason the GOA gets my money.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> A "Fudd" (capitalized) is a derogatory term for a hunter who cares not about tactical rifles because they don't apply to him.
> Named after Elmer Fudd, the cartoon character.


Of course it would be named after a cartoon. Silly me, thinking it was some kind of acronym that had an actual meaning. I forgot we are living through the Simpsons and Beavis and Butthead generation. Excuse me while I go hang myself with my tie from the urinal handle!


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)




----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

whitedeath81 said:


>


What a crock of crap! That little twit has shot less then 20 rounds at an indoor range.

And the guy who posted it has less than that.

Handle is suspect from the poser.

Gone soon? I think so.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Inor said:


> Of course it would be named after a cartoon. Silly me, thinking it was some kind of acronym that had an actual meaning. I forgot we are living through the Simpsons and Beavis and Butthead generation. Excuse me while I go hang myself with my tie from the urinal handle!


Don't feel bad, I had no idea what a fudd was, and given the mental giant we are dealing with, I didn't bother to look it up. I knew it had to be something stupid.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

hawgrider said:


> What a crock of crap! That little twit has shot less then 20 rounds at an indoor range.
> 
> And the guy who posted it has less than that.
> 
> ...


I couldn't think of a more fitting video for our puppet friend, known as whitedeath81. Later Dude.


----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)




----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)




----------



## whitedeath81 (Mar 13, 2019)




----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Y'all know guns ARE evil, right???? :vs_OMG:


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

whitedeath81 said:


> Bump stock ban assault weapons ban. Even the famous Charles Heston was for a assault weapons ban. Sorry Republicans tend to do more anti gun measures then liberals.


Wait? Whut...???


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Inor said:


> Thanks Watchman! I was in the dark too. I finally gave in and looked up "fudd" in the urban dictionary. It said something about being a guy that owns guns but did not like them or some damn thing. It made about as much sense as Whitehead.


Hell, I thought he was calling us a Fudd...as in Elmer....Hunting Wascally wabbits wif a shotgun...huh...huh...huuuuuuuuh! ANd I thought he'd just mispelled c0ck.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

There is so much misinformation here about the NRA.... I'll pick them off one at a time.

NRA was responsible for the Heller decision = Myth

Reality: Robert Levy of the Cato Institute and Attorney Alan Gura were responsible from beginning to end. 

NRA sticking their non-party nose into it to combine their case with Heller almost blew the entire thing. Also, the NRA didn't want the Heller case heard by SCOTUS. 

Comments directly from the attorneys involved. 

Non-party involvement
National Rifle Association (NRA)

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case". These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision. Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation." He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. "

-----------


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

OK....so the NRA has their own agenda to follow....The fact is the NRA hasn't taken any rights...last I heard they didn't have a vote in Congress. Blaming the NRA for loss of rights is like blaming a gun for killing. In the end there is a person who casts a ballot and you blame him/her for the decision they made. Donors are gonna donate, People are gonna complain, politicians are gonna do whats in their self interest.

Join whichever group you fill more closely alignes with your beliefs, NRA, GOA, NSPCA, Antifa, and do what you think you gotta do. Thats freedom baby!!!! and your free to do it...right up until you interfere with my rights and then I'mma curb stomp you like a tin can.

So Yeah freedom.....booooo bitching and whiners...... yeah different ideas.....boooo people who want freedom of speech, but only for people who agree with them.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Denton said:


> The bump-stock was allegedly designed for those who have difficulty firing weapons, otherwise. Cripples should not be considered able-bodied people who are to protect the nation.


False.

Bump stocks have nothing to do with helping the disabled handle weapons. Arm braces such as the original from SB Tactical and others like the Blade are designed to help disabled shooters. They are also legal for sale.

The Obama administration had properly ruled on bump stocks. Bump stocks did not meet the definition of 'machinegun' as defined in federal law and were not subject to ATF regulations, period. Enter Las Vegas. The NRA then advocated that the Obama admin pro-gun ruling be improperly reversed, and regulated in the context of machinegun.

Background: The NRA went along with the Hughes Amendment in 1986 to get FOPA passed into law. The Hughes Amendment banned the ownership of any machinegun manufactured later than 1986 other than by law enforcement.

By defining bump stocks in context of machinegun that left bump stock owners no legal path of ownership since all bump stocks were manufactured after 1986. NRA helped pass the same law that they later would use to advocate bump stocks be banned with.

Here's the duplicitous joint statement by Cox and LaPiere on bump stocks post Las Vegas. NRA adovocated that the Obama admin pro-gun ruling be reversed. Notice that they bemoan bans while at the same time say that the bump stock should be regulated in context of machinegun which they know is the same as a ban-- re Hughes Amendment.

Cox LaPierre Joint Statement

_Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations._


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

The NRA is giving full-throated support for Red Flag gun confiscation laws and advocates that the Federal government to use your tax dollars to bribe states into adopting them. Chris Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA has produced Red Flag gun confiscation video ads to promote them. Google 'Chris Cox Red Flag' and you'll find the NRA minute-long Red Flag gun confiscation advocacy ad. 

While the NRA does not have a Congressional vote as correctly asserted, the NRA is providing political cover for politicians to vote for Red Flag gun confiscation laws. Politicians can report to their pro-gun constituents that they simply voted with the NRA when they voted for Red Flag gun confiscation. These Red Flag star chambers of gun confiscation are perhaps the greatest threat to liberty since the GCA of 1968, up to and including NRA supported-NICS.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

There was a time when politicians wouldn't speak of controlling guns and restricting rights in the USA. I remember this far leftist dude named Obama that wouldn't do it until after his last election. What changed is that the media sold sandy hook and every other mass shooting as a gun problem and now a generation of voters believes it. The NRA owed it to its members to correct that narrative, pit sand bags in front of that narrative using your metaphor which is fine. Instead the NRA did little but offer ignored statements and hire lawyers to try and convince liberal judges to not take the people's rights away.



Denton said:


> People think the NRA is flush with money. That's what its enemy wants us to think.
> 
> Should they throw sandbags into the flowing water of a compromised dam?


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I
> 
> It [NRA] has not lost a major battle over gun control legislation since the 1994 assault weapons ban.
> 
> Observers and lawmakers say it is one of the top 3 most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC.


NRA just lost their battle with National Reciprocity. Federal lawmakers and Trump gave a collective middle finger to the NRA. On the flip side, the NRA was on the winning anti-gun team to regulate bump stocks out of existence, and the NRA was also on the winning FixNics bandwagon. Hardly the type of influence any self-respecting 2A supporter would celebrate.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Hey, Phil.
It is customary for a new member to introduce themselves in the New Member section.
I suggest you pop over there and tell us about yourself.

That way you won’t sound like just a shill for GOA


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> The litigation arm is the primary reason the NRA gets my money.
> It is also the reason the GOA gets my money.


I donate to GOA.

Speaking of litigation... GOA has filled suite against the Trump admin for the dubious redefinition of bump stocks that the NRA advocated for.

I believe the GOA is on solid turf. For the Trump admin to simply ignore the language in federal law and suddenly pretend that bump stocks magically meet the definition of machinegun, after it had been previously ruled otherwise numerous times, is simply outrageous.

One could only imagine the theatre of GOA litigating against the Feds while the NRA is called as an expert witness to defend the Fed's actions resulting in a gun ban.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> I donate to GOA.
> 
> Speaking of litigation... GOA has filled suite against the Trump admin for the dubious redefinition of bump stocks that the NRA advocated for.


Can you provide me with a link to the NRA's position in support for a bump stock ban?
From what I've found, they've opposed it officially: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule

Also, I have to take issue with a previous claim you made concerning the NRA's support for the "FixNICS" legislation.
This isn't entirely honest in it's assertion. As with most legislation, there is always more than one facet. The NRA has often compromised to support the portion they consider to be the biggest positive impact. That was the case with this "FixNICS" bill. The NRA supported the portion that codifies collaboration between the multiple agencies that have previously failed to submit data to the program, which has lead to unfit people being capable of passing a background check due to mental issues or other issues of a history of criminal problems not showing up.
The portion of the "FixNICS" that was "compromised" on was the part that stands to potentially affect veterans, and could be misused to strip vets of their firearms.

I appreciate GOA in their "no compromise" position, and that's why I am sure to continue supporting them.

However, the NRA now has over 6 million members, and that is a significant voice to be heard. To discount those voices because you disagree with *SOME* of the things the organization has done is short-sighted.
A better solution is to seek to right the ship, contribute to the internal politics of the organization, and start putting in folks who will do a better job. Fix the leadership, and you can fix what's wrong with the NRA.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Hey, Phil.
> It is customary for a new member to introduce themselves in the New Member section.
> I suggest you pop over there and tell us about yourself.
> 
> That way you won't sound like just a shill for GOA


60s. Over 40 years owning firearms of all kinds. Long time NRA member too. And guess what... I live in Chattanooga. I grew up in the LDS church and know something about preparedness and it's importance as a lifelong theme.

When discussing issues regarding the 2A and advocacy groups for same, it is also important to know what it is you are speaking. I see so much BS here I felt obligated to chime in.

How's that?


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> I donate to GOA.
> 
> Speaking of litigation... GOA has filled suite against the Trump admin for the dubious redefinition of bump stocks that the NRA advocated for.
> 
> ...


Excellent information and thank you.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Donkey said:


> Excellent information and thank you.


Howdy.
It is customary for new members to post an introduction in the appropriate section New Members Introduction.
Tell us just a little of who you are and why you're here.
Thanks


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> Can you provide me with a link to the NRA's position in support for a bump stock ban?
> From what I've found, they've opposed it officially: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule


Read post 56 thoroughly. You'll see every answer to your questions, including the joint statement from the NRA advocating that bump stocks be regulated in the context of machinegun which is in effect a ban, re Hughes Amendment.

I can't provide you with the NRA link I quoted because I don't have enough posts here for permission to post links. But if you Google "NRA bump stocks" you will get a link to the NRA page for their joint statement.

In the link you provided the NRA doesn't say they opposed regulating bump stocks out of existence. All they say is bans don't work. Contrary to your assertion, the NRA admits they supported reversing the Obama admin ruling that bump stocks were not machine guns and not subject to ATF regulations. That reversal was in effect a ban, re Hughes Amendment . Just as I have been saying, the NRA is being duplicitous by generally saying that bans don't work yet that's exactly what they advocated for with bump stocks. NRA knew exactly what they were doing and hoodwinked some gun owners.

By the way... notice GOA filed suite against the Trump administration regarding the redefinition of bump stocks, not the NRA? The only thing the NRA has publicly objected to is that the ban didn't include grandfathering.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> However, the NRA now has over 6 million members, and that is a significant voice to be heard. To discount those voices because you disagree with *SOME* of the things the organization has done is short-sighted.
> A better solution is to seek to right the ship, contribute to the internal politics of the organization, and start putting in folks who will do a better job. Fix the leadership, and you can fix what's wrong with the NRA.


It doesn't matter if it's the NRA or GOA or SAF or whomever. Gun owners must speak honestly and frankly.

To that end... To even remotely suggest, as you did, that the NRA's position was against outlawing bump stocks does a disservice to the readership. Seriously. And that's the kind of thing that encouraged me to speak up here.

ps. LaPierre just gave a speech at CPAC saying the NRA had a membership of almost five and a half million. You say it's over 6 million. Did the NRA grow over a half million members in the last few days? Where is your information coming from?


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> It doesn't matter if it's the NRA or GOA or SAF or whomever. Gun owners must speak honestly and frankly.
> 
> To that end... To even remotely suggest, as you did, that the NRA's position was against outlawing bump stocks does a disservice to the readership. Seriously. And that's the kind of thing that encouraged me to speak up here.
> 
> ps. LaPierre just gave a speech at CPAC saying the NRA had a membership of almost five and a half million. You say it's over 6 million. Did the NRA grow over a half million members in the last few days? Where is your information coming from?


Last I heard membership was down.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Donkey said:


> Excellent information and thank you.


Welcome. Maybe I have enough post now to post a link. I'll try.

https://gunowners.org/release-goa-f...-illegal-and-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/

Hey, it worked!

Kauby, here's the link you asked for.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Howdy.
> It is customary for new members to post an introduction in the appropriate section New Members Introduction.
> Tell us just a little of who you are and why you're here.
> Thanks


Whatever floats your boat my ****** eyed friend


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Oh, Phil and Donkey, read the forum rules.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Donkey said:


> Whatever floats your boat my ****** eyed friend


Okay, let's try again.

What say you stop by the intro subforum and introduce yourself so we can all say howdy to you and learn a little about you.

BTW, RPD fought in Vietnam, hence the moniker.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Oh, Phil and Donkey, read the forum rules.


Which rule have we violated?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Donkey said:


> Whatever floats your boat my ****** eyed friend


You don't plan on being here very long, do you Bucko.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

For those who may not know, here is Chris is Cox executive director NRA-ILA, advocating for Red Flag gun confiscation laws and to use your federal tax dollars to bribe states to adopt Red Flag gun confiscation laws.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

rice paddy daddy said:


> You don't plan on being here very long, do you Bucko.


I assumed your humor doesn't exist.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> For those who may not know, here is Chris is Cox executive director NRA-ILA, advocating for Red Flag gun confiscation laws and to use your federal tax dollars to bribe states to adopt Red Flag gun confiscation laws.


That's virtually a violation of the constitution as we stand now.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Read post 56 thoroughly. You'll see every answer to your questions, including the joint statement from the NRA advocating that bump stocks be regulated in the context of machinegun which is in effect a ban, re Hughes Amendment.
> 
> I can't provide you with the NRA link I quoted because I don't have enough posts here for permission to post links. But if you Google "NRA bump stocks" you will get a link to the NRA page for their joint statement.
> 
> ...


I did read the Joint Statement, and it does not call for any ban.
The particular sentence at the heart of the statement is this:
*"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."*
The phrase "should be subject to additional regulations" is NOT calling for a ban. The NRA has long held the position that fully automatic firearms should be regulated. I personally do not agree with this, but it is their position. When viewed from this perspective, the above quoted portion makes sense to them. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, regulate it like a duck. Fully automatic firearms are not illegal, nor have they been banned. The NRA doesn't believe they should be. They just want what they consider to be adequate regulation of them.

The link I provided has a sub-link within the text that points straight to the NRA's submitted comments to the ATF during the open-dialogue portion of the rule-making process.
The article itself points out:
*"In our comments, we further advised that ATF should at a minimum make an amnesty period available to deal with the fundamental inequity imposed on law-abiding gun owners who purchased their bump fire stocks in good faith reliance on prior ATF determinations."*
If that is the only thing you read, you may misunderstand what the NRA actually did.
If you dive into the submitted comments, via the article's link, you will see that they proposed their own reasoning for why the bump stock rule change should not be enacted due to specific definitions previously upheld by the ATF.
The "at a minimum" statement was in reference to the second portion of their comments where they propose options for the aftermath of the rule taking effect. In that section, not only do they propose an amnesty period, they also propose no retroactive application, as well as a modification option to render the device inoperable as a "bump" stock.
Almost all comments provided to the ATF from other organizations during this period included a section like this, with much of the same content. Basically a last ditch "if you ignore our concerns, and do this anyways, here's how you should do it" section.

I can tell from your few responses that you give more effort to these issues than the average bear, which is fantastic. But on this I think a deeper dive is still necessary.
Painting with too broad a brush, or stopping short of seeing the full picture, can lead us to believe that which simply isn't true.
I look forward to hearing back from you on these points.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I did read the Joint Statement, and it does not call for any ban.
> The particular sentence at the heart of the statement is this:
> *"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."*
> The phrase "should be subject to additional regulations" is NOT calling for a ban. The NRA has long held the position that fully automatic firearms should be regulated. I personally do not agree with this, but it is their position. When viewed from this perspective, the above quoted portion makes sense to them. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, regulate it like a duck. Fully automatic firearms are not illegal, nor have they been banned. The NRA doesn't believe they should be. They just want what they consider to be adequate regulation of them.
> ...


If I can't buy a new automatic weapon from the LGS and certainly can't afford to buy a used one, they are essentially banned.

The NRA is against me owning an automatic.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> For those who may not know, here is Chris is Cox executive director NRA-ILA, advocating for Red Flag gun confiscation laws and to use your federal tax dollars to bribe states to adopt Red Flag gun confiscation laws.


0:24: "...they should have strong due process protections..."

If that phrase is not substantiated in the actual execution of the order, then the order is unconstitutional and a violation.
However, if the NRA supports only those laws which ensure this phrase is enforced, how can that be bad?
I know full well all of the nightmare scenarios that red flag laws can produce. No need to retread that road.
But we all know there are people out there that legitimately should not own firearms, yet do.
If a judge signs off on a warrant to confiscate, and there are adequate protections built in for appeal and return of property, how has due process been violated?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> If I can't buy a new automatic weapon from the LGS and certainly can't afford to buy a used one, they are essentially banned.
> 
> The NRA is against me owning an automatic.


The fact that you had to use the qualifier "essentially" implies that you agree that they are not actually banned.
:tango_face_wink:

The capitalist system we enjoy has seen to it that the prices for a limited supply have gone up. That can hardly be called a ban.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> 0:24: "...they should have strong due process protections..."
> 
> If that phrase is not substantiated in the actual execution of the order, then the order is unconstitutional and a violation.
> However, if the NRA supports only those laws which ensure this phrase is enforced, how can that be bad?
> ...


Good lord that's amazing you support gun confiscation. It says shall not infringe so I find it difficult to see how stealing my property is any right of yours.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> 0:24: "...they should have strong due process protections..."
> 
> If that phrase is not substantiated in the actual execution of the order, then the order is unconstitutional and a violation.
> However, if the NRA supports only those laws which ensure this phrase is enforced, how can that be bad?
> ...


So, one of my ex-wives could try to mess with me, a judge could sign off on it and then I have to prove something in order to get back my guns? I have to pay for it, too?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> ps. LaPierre just gave a speech at CPAC saying the NRA had a membership of almost five and a half million. You say it's over 6 million. Did the NRA grow over a half million members in the last few days? Where is your information coming from?


My source for the figure: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/8/3/nra-is-6-million-strong/

If membership has declined since that article, go with the latest count.
:vs_cool:


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The limited supply is simply government infringement on the right to bear arms. This causes artificial shortages and excessive cost. The second amendment was meant to be a means for everyday average people to have modern infantry squad/ platoon weapons at home so when militias rallied they would have sufficient arms and ammunition ititally with government being able to resupply.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> The fact that you had to use the qualifier "essentially" implies that you agree that they are not actually banned.
> :tango_face_wink:
> 
> The capitalist system we enjoy has seen to it that the prices for a limited supply have gone up. That can hardly be called a ban.


Actually, it is a ban. The purchase of a new auto is banned. Only previously owned autos may be sold, providing the purchase (by someone who can afford the price) is granted by the government.

The skyrocketed price of something that is banned is not capitalism.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Donkey said:


> Good lord that's amazing you support gun confiscation. It says shall not infringe so I find it difficult to see how stealing my property is any right of yours.


Indeed, it does say that. And I absolutely support gun confiscation from criminals. Do we wait for a trial before incarcerating people? Do we wait for a trial before confiscating a criminal's weapons? Is that "stealing"? The charge may have nothing to do with violence or firearms, but the same steps are followed.
No. So you accept that there are instances where "shall not be infringed" is ignored. Otherwise, you'd have to support a suspect retaining his firearm while awaiting trial. Do you?
If so, that is far more absurd than my views on confiscation of said firearms.
In the case of a charged criminal, witness testimony can be sufficient to arrest, search, and confiscate.... all with nothing more than a judge's signature.

Now we turn to "red flag" laws. These are instances where a person with close family ties (IT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANYONE OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSEHOLD) can bear witness to your dangerous state of mind, and with a judge deciding on the merits, a warrant can be issued for the confiscation of your firearms.
Can anyone tell me how this differs from a family member reporting calling your sanity into question, and having you forcibly admitted to an institution? (a danger to yourself or others, right?)
Your right to live freely FAR exceeds your right to own a firearm, in the grand scheme. For consistency's sake, you must also defend against such activity against those reported and admitted for mental illness.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Actually, it is a ban. The purchase of a new auto is banned. Only previously owned autos may be sold, providing the purchase (by someone who can afford the price) is granted by the government.
> 
> The skyrocketed price of something that is banned is not capitalism.


A "ban" is not "unable to be purchased".
A "ban" is "legal prohibition".

You are not legally prohibited from owning such a firearm.
Since no ban is in effect, the laws of supply and demand are still in play.


----------



## watcher (Aug 24, 2013)

Notold63 said:


> Disagree. Any organization that can tick off the dems as much as the N.R.A. Does must be doing something right.


I like to keep the base's covered so I am a life member of the NRA and a yearly member of GOA...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> So, one of my ex-wives could try to mess with me, a judge could sign off on it and then I have to prove something in order to get back my guns? I have to pay for it, too?


Not being a member of your immediate family, your ex-wives should hold no credence in the matter.
The burden of proof would still remain with the state. I would never support a law that provided for the permanent relinquishing of property without further legal action being necessary.
Also, you should be able to be fully reimbursed for the cost involved.

I would even go further to add that false-accusations should be treated harshly and with criminal penalty.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> A "ban" is not "unable to be purchased".
> A "ban" is "legal prohibition".
> 
> You are not legally prohibited from owning such a firearm.
> Since no ban is in effect, the laws of supply and demand are still in play.


You are playing word games and nothing more.

The insane price of a previously owned automatic is due to the banning of the sales of new autos. That can't be more clear.

I didn't know the NRA is for this. I learned something new, today.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Not being a member of your immediate family, your ex-wives should hold no credence in the matter.
> The burden of proof would still remain with the state. I would never support a law that provided for the permanent relinquishing of property without further legal action being necessary.
> Also, you should be able to be fully reimbursed for the cost involved.
> 
> I would even go further to add that false-accusations should be treated harshly and with criminal penalty.


There seems to be a whole lot of _shoulds_ in your thoughts.

What about neighbors? Are you saying a concerned (or vindictive) neighbor can't tell the authorities I'm crazy?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You are playing word games and nothing more.
> 
> The insane price of a previously owned automatic is due to the banning of the sales of new autos. That can't be more clear.
> 
> I didn't know the NRA is for this. I learned something new, today.


I'm speaking from a strictly legal point of view.
There is no legal prohibition on automatic firearms.
If there are completely legal ways for a citizen to obtain them, then they are point-of-fact not banned.

Qualifying claims with adjectives such as "essentially" is playing word games. Such use is meant to imply something which is not factual.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> There seems to be a whole lot of _shoulds_ in your thoughts.
> 
> What about neighbors? Are you saying a concerned (or vindictive) neighbor can't tell the authorities I'm crazy?


There are a lot of "shoulds" because this is an issue being (rightly) left to the states, and that potentially means 50(ish) possible variations.
I laid out the optimal conditions as "shoulds", and would not support anything that would fail to meet these conditions.
Unfortunately, a minute long clip is being used as a gigantic generalization of all of these laws as if they all do/say the same thing. They don't.
Your neighbors should get to say bupkiss about it. Unless you've done something that involves them, such as assault or threats, they have no standing to bear witness to anything you do. Your spouse(if married), father/mother(if living with the folks), or your live-in Nana, as examples, should be able to make factual statements as to your state of mind. The opinions of anyone outside the confines of your home *should* be considered suspect and without merit.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I'm speaking from a strictly legal point of view.
> There is no legal prohibition on automatic firearms.
> If there are completely legal ways for a citizen to obtain them, then they are point-of-fact not banned.
> 
> Qualifying claims with adjectives such as "essentially" is playing word games. Such use is meant to imply something which is not factual.


Can I go to the LGS and purchase a new auto? No. Must I purchase one that was purchased before the ban, assuming I can find an owner who wants to sell it, assuming I can afford the government-inflated price and assuming the government allows it?

We can play word games until the cows come home, but it is a ban. The government's desired result was obtained, and it had nothing to do with safety. You know that.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Can I go to the LGS and purchase a new auto? No. Must I purchase one that was purchased before the ban, assuming I can find an owner who wants to sell it, assuming I can afford the government-inflated price and assuming the government allows it?
> 
> We can play word games until the cows come home, but it is a ban. The government's desired result was obtained, and it had nothing to do with safety. You know that.


It had nothing to do with safety.
It was not a ban.

:vs_cool:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> There are a lot of "shoulds" because this is an issue being (rightly) left to the states, and that potentially means 50(ish) possible variations.
> I laid out the optimal conditions as "shoulds", and would not support anything that would fail to meet these conditions.
> Unfortunately, a minute long clip is being used as a gigantic generalization of all of these laws as if they all do/say the same thing. They don't.
> Your neighbors should get to say bupkiss about it. Unless you've done something that involves them, such as assault or threats, they have no standing to bear witness to anything you do. Your spouse(if married), father/mother(if living with the folks), or your live-in Nana, as examples, should be able to make factual statements as to your state of mind. The opinions of anyone outside the confines of your home *should* be considered suspect and without merit.


My right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be left up to a Minority Report. I shouldn't have to fight to retrieve that right, and you know I won't be compensated when (if) I win the case. Nobody is compensated when they are found innocent.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> My right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be left up to a Minority Report. I shouldn't have to fight to retrieve that right, and you know I won't be compensated when (if) I win the case. Nobody is compensated when they are found innocent.


You haven't addressed my corollary comparison to mental health admission against one's will. If you can be admitted because a family member has given witness that you are a danger to yourself or others, how does this differ in the slightest?

You are crossing criminal and civil areas. There are countless instances where people seek damages from criminal proceedings in civil court. Yes, you can most assuredly be compensated when found innocent, it just takes a bit longer.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You haven't addressed my corollary comparison to mental health admission against one's will. If you can be admitted because a family member has given witness that you are a danger to yourself or others, how does this differ in the slightest?
> 
> You are crossing criminal and civil areas. There are countless instances where people seek damages from criminal proceedings in civil court. Yes, you can most assuredly be compensated when found innocent, it just takes a bit longer.


So, that it takes a bit longer, assuming I can afford the process in the first place, makes it just a constitutional as the banning of the purchase of new autos.

Yup. I disagree with you and the NRA.

The ban was pushed through because someone who claimed he was trying to get Jody Foster's attention shot a president with a .22 pistol. Red flag laws are being passed because of a very, very few incidents of unstable people using firearms to kill people.

Ten years from now, you might have to toe the same line when we have to pay a $200.00 tax stamp to purchase a semi-auto rifle. I'm sure the NRA will have an eloquent speech that will explain why it doesn't violate the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> Indeed, it does say that. And I absolutely support gun confiscation from criminals. Do we wait for a trial before incarcerating people? Do we wait for a trial before confiscating a criminal's weapons? Is that "stealing"? The charge may have nothing to do with violence or firearms, but the same steps are followed.
> No. So you accept that there are instances where "shall not be infringed" is ignored. Otherwise, you'd have to support a suspect retaining his firearm while awaiting trial. Do you?
> If so, that is far more absurd than my views on confiscation of said firearms.
> In the case of a charged criminal, witness testimony can be sufficient to arrest, search, and confiscate.... all with nothing more than a judge's signature.
> ...


Glad you can predict crimes. Terrible people like you are happy for a disarmed public.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Donkey said:


> Glad you can predict crimes. Terrible people like you are happy for a disarmed public.


Take your emotional retorts elsewhere.

Discuss the merits of the argument, or go twiddle your thumbs. We are adults having adult conversations. Contribute with something of substance or move along.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> Take your emotional retorts elsewhere.
> 
> Discuss the merits of the argument, or go twiddle your thumbs. We are adults having adult conversations. Contribute with something of substance or move along.


Well so far you seem happy to disarm criminals. Yet the second amendment still applies as shall not infringe.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> So, that it takes a bit longer, assuming I can afford the process in the first place, makes it just a constitutional as the banning of the purchase of new autos.
> 
> Yup. I disagree with you and the NRA.
> 
> ...


I'm saying it's as constitutional as any other instance where a judge signs off on the confiscation of property (or unwilling admission to an institution) based on the merits of witness testimony.
Are you going to address my comparison?
Consistency demands that you also stand against unwilling admission of the mentally ill based on nothing more than a family member's testimony.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Donkey said:


> Well so far you seem happy to disarm criminals. Yet the second amendment still applies as shall not infringe.


You haven't argued for anything to the contrary with any form of reasoning.
Do you believe that a suspect should retain their firearms while awaiting trial, whether in jail or out on bond?
How far does "shall not be infringed" go for you?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I'm saying it's as constitutional as any other instance where a judge signs off on the confiscation of property (or unwilling admission to an institution) based on the merits of witness testimony.
> Are you going to address my comparison?
> Consistency demands that you also stand against unwilling admission of the mentally ill based on nothing more than a family member's testimony.


Seems we might have common ground.

If someone is unstable enough to have his God-given rights taken, he must be unstable enough to be hospitalized.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Seems we might have common ground.
> 
> If someone is unstable enough to have his God-given rights taken, he must be unstable enough to be hospitalized.


An interesting point, and one I'll need to give some thought to.
To my POV, should a subject of a red flag order also be detained until such a time as the order is relieved?
To your POV, should a person who would originally qualify as requiring admission be allowed to remain free, even though declared unstable?

If you would, allow me some time to ponder these things...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> An interesting point, and one I'll need to give some thought to.
> To my POV, should a subject of a red flag order also be detained until such a time as the order is relieved?
> To your POV, should a person who would originally qualify as requiring admission be allowed to remain free, even though declared unstable?
> 
> If you would, allow me some time to ponder these things...


Ponder away. Meanwhile, I err on the side of my rights.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Donkey said:


> Last I heard membership was down.


Dirty little secret is no one knows, not even the NRA, how many raw members there are or actual interested members,

How many lifetime members are no longer alive? How many memberships are from gramps to his little grandkids who are too young to even understand what the NRA is or does. How many members are generally disinterested gun owners but got a Cabela's gift card for joining or some other gimmick to inflate the numbers?

Don't misunderstand, I think the higher the number that can be stated the better. But let's not fool ourselves. When the NRA says they represent their membership on a certain issue quite often they aren't representing my views, and my guess is millions others fall into the same category.

That said, the NRA is without a doubt the premier firearms safety, training and related sports organization on planet Earth. Fantastic organization.

Unfortunately, their operations of appeasement would embarrass even Neville Chamberlain.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> You haven't argued for anything to the contrary with any form of reasoning.
> Do you believe that a suspect should retain their firearms while awaiting trial, whether in jail or out on bond?
> How far does "shall not be infringed" go for you?


Nobody should lose their gun rights. It's my job to keep myself safe not you and your cowardly attacks on the 2a.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Donkey said:


> Nobody should lose their gun rights. It's my job to keep myself safe not you and your cowardly attacks on the 2a.


Drop the "cowardly" thing as well as other such things.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> My source for the figure: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/8/3/nra-is-6-million-strong/
> 
> If membership has declined since that article, go with the latest count.
> :vs_cool:


That NRA article you linked is dated August 3rd, 2018 claiming 6 million.

Here is Wayne LaPierre at 2019 CPAC. *"The NRA has grown to almost five and a half million members. THE MOST IN OUR HISTORY".*

So... the NRA cited number in 2018 of six million could have never been truthful, ever, according to Wayne LaPierre.

Like I suggested earlier, no one knows how many members the NRA has, not even the NRA.

The claim of almost 5.5mil is only a couple minutes into Wayne's 2019 CPAC speech linked below.

https://www.nraila.org/media/20190302/video/wayne-lapierre-cpac-2019


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> I did read the Joint Statement, and it does not call for any ban.


Bump stocks were regulated out of legal existence as advocated by the NRA, pure and simple. Dancing on the head of pin trying to say that regulating something so that it can no longer be legally owned isn't a ban is intellectual dishonesty. You know it. The NRA knows it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Ponder away. Meanwhile, I err on the side of my rights.


Do you?
Two rights are at play in my comparison. Which do you "err on the side of"? Both, or just one?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Do you?
> Two rights are at play in my comparison. Which do you "err on the side of"? Both, or just one?


Want to tell me what is the other right or do you want me to beg? I ain't gonna do it! :glasses:


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Bump stocks were regulated out of legal existence as advocated by the NRA, pure and simple. Dancing on the head of pin trying to say that regulating something so that it can no longer be legally owned isn't a ban is intellectual dishonesty. You know it. The NRA knows it.


It isn't dancing on anything, nor word games. It is the legally stated and upheld fact of the matter.
Automatic firearms are legal items to be owned and sold by the public. Hence, not banned.
Bump-stocks cannot be legally owned, by the public or otherwise. Hence, banned.
The banning of bump stocks was NOT what the NRA's joint statement nor comments to the ATF argued for.

I am stating facts. Not interpreting actions to mean something they don't.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Want to tell me what is the other right or do you want me to beg? I ain't gonna do it! :glasses:


I stated it repeatedly. The unwilling admission of a person into an institution by simple witness that the person poses a risk to themselves or others. It was literally the thing I called into comparison on numerous occasions.
The right of a person to live freely.
If you oppose firearm confiscation for the same reason above (poses a risk to themselves or others) then consistency demands that you oppose this too. Yet it's been legal for decades and I've never heard much of a peep from any advocacy group.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> It isn't dancing on anything, nor word games. It is the legally stated and upheld fact of the matter.
> Automatic firearms are legal items to be owned and sold by the public. Hence, not banned.
> Bump-stocks cannot be legally owned, by the public or otherwise. Hence, banned.
> The banning of bump stocks was NOT what the NRA's joint statement nor comments to the ATF argued for.
> ...


And, ObamaCare was just a tax.

See? Even the USSC can play word games so that the government can get what it wants.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I stated it repeatedly. The unwilling admission of a person into an institution by simple witness that the person poses a risk to themselves or others. It was literally the thing I called into comparison on numerous occasions.
> The right of a person to live freely.
> If you oppose firearm confiscation for the same reason above (poses a risk to themselves or others) then consistency demands that you oppose this too. Yet it's been legal for decades and I've never heard much of a peep from any advocacy group.


Oh, okay.

So, the government taking someone's weapons is akin to someone being admitted against his will?

The psychiatrist will determine if I am a danger to myself or others. He will undoubtedly release me as I am the picture of perfect mental health. On the other hand, the cops show up at my house demanding my weapons and I then have to go through the court system to get them. If I am so unstable that my firearms must be taken, I suppose I should be commited. 
Why stop at my firearms? Why not take my knives, my baseball bat and even my chainsaw?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Oh, okay.
> 
> So, the government taking someone's weapons is akin to someone being admitted against his will?
> 
> ...


So you are ok with the period of time, however long it is, that you would be detained against your will until a psychiatrist can ascertain your state of mind? That's interesting.
You skipped the part where the men in white coats show up at your house and drag you away, whether you want go or not. You skipped the part where it takes little more than a family member stating you are a danger for all this to transpire.

So, if I may summarize your position... and feel free to correct this, as I hate using strawmen...
1. You are ok with a family witness bearing testimony as to your state of mind, and a judge deciding on an action based on this testimony alone.
2. You are ok with men showing up to your home to take you away, by force, against your will and detaining you for an unknown period of time until you can be evaluated.

If these two things are accurate about your position, then I can't understand why you are opposed to firearms confiscation when the above two actions take place with respect to a red-flag order.
1. A family member bears witness to your state of mind, and a judge decides on an action based on the merit of this testimony alone.
2. Men show up to take away your guns, by force, against your will and will hold them for an unknown period of time until you can be evaluated.

But... only one scenario do you object.
Why? Because "gun"?
I would think you, of all people, would put freedom of self above all else. The first scenario should be appalling, and detestable to your core.

I'm still thinking on the second piece, about how far we should go with red-flag orders.
If the penalty were increased, and the person was also detained, that would increase the burden of the testimony given. It would throw the entire conversation into a new light, and it would be FAAAR less likely to be abused. No?
Would that raise or lower the likelihood of these orders?

Still thinking...


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Donkey said:


> That's virtually a violation of the constitution as we stand now.


Notice the language the NRA uses smacks of Bloomberg and his gun-grabbing pals to justify their anti-gun crusades. Listen to Chris Cox using lines like "the culture of violence in America" to justify these Red Flag star chambers of gun confiscation. Total disgrace.

Apparently, no one told the NRA that violent crime has plummeted in the past quarter century... all without these Red Flag star chamber gun confiscation schemes. Go figure. Of course we need not worry ourselves with reality. The head of the NRA can't even speak to the number of members without being in gross conflict with his own website. Shame.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> So you are ok with the period of time, however long it is, that you would be detained against your will until a psychiatrist can ascertain your state of mind? That's interesting.
> You skipped the part where the men in white coats show up at your house and drag you away, whether you want go or not. You skipped the part where it takes little more than a family member stating you are a danger for all this to transpire.
> 
> So, if I may summarize your position... and feel free to correct this, as I hate using strawmen...
> ...


If I am a danger to self or others, it shouldn't take a head-shrink long to determine that. Certainly quicker than a cop, a lawyer and a judge. Seems quite simple to me. After all, we're good with untrained people taking away my firearms while leaving me with all sorts of weapons.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> I am stating facts. Not interpreting actions to mean something they don't.


No you're not. You're stating intellectually dishonest spin.

One last time...

The NRA advocated that bump stocks be regulated in the context of machinegun (you've got the quotes directly from NRA website). Doing so bans them because of the Hughes Amendment, period. And that's what happened.

I understand the desire to not want to believe or otherwise admit that the NRA would advocate reversing Obama admin pro-gun rulings, but that is precisely what happened. Obama pro-gun ruling. NRA anti-gun advocacy. Ban.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> If I am a danger to self or others, it shouldn't take a head-shrink long to determine that. Certainly quicker than a cop, a lawyer and a judge. Seems quite simple to me. After all, we're good with untrained people taking away my firearms while leaving me with all sorts of weapons.


You can't know when the shrink will get to you.
A judge's decision takes place in both instances.
Men without law enforcement authority show up to take you away.

You seem to think this is an issue of expediency. As long as it doesn't "take too long", you're cool with any violation?
What other rights can we take away from people temporarily? What is this arbitrary length of time that all must be set right before it's a violation?

I'm trying to give myself time to think on things.
You seem to be ready to allow the most heinous of rights violations without consideration, as long as they have the chance to be over quickly.
This doesn't have to be a game of "respond quickly to earn points". Let's take time and flesh this out. What else are we gonna do with the day? Haha!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> No you're not. You're stating intellectually dishonest spin.
> 
> One last time...
> 
> ...


Before throwing down the "intellectually dishonest" gauntlet, did you bother to go and read the NRA's submitted comments to the ATF?
Or are you limiting your knowledge of the subject to a few sentences that don't include the word "ban" at all?
Their submitted comments directly opposed your claim about what they advocated for.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Denton said:


> If I am so unstable that my firearms must be taken, I suppose I should be commited.
> Why stop at my firearms? Why not take my knives, my baseball bat and even my chainsaw?


That is a legitimate question.

The answer: Red Flag gun confiscation schemes are not about protecting the public from a possible threat but rather implementing star chamber end-runs around normal due process to make those in legal possession of firearms a prohibited person-- grab you guns. In the Rubio/Nelson bill would someone threatening to behead you have his sword ordered confiscated? No. Or any other weapon related type of threat? No.

The glaring problem with these star chamber gun confiscation schemes is that the CYA default position for the judge or magistrate will be to confiscate the guns. No judge wants to be the guy who ignored a warning, whether it sounded legit or not, and then something bad happens. Grab the guns will be the safe CYA default position.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

I'll never understand why a gun owner wants regulation.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Donkey said:


> I'll never understand why a gun owner wants regulation.


You keep repeating these things as if I'm the one doing them. Stop trying to personalize this discussion.
I am explaining the NRA's stated positions on the matter, and why they feel the 2nd is not being violated as a result.
Nothing I've stated is about my own position.
I'm also calling out inconsistencies in the positions of others. Not so much to call them out, but to make them think.
You've still not given a solid answer concerning your "line" where "shall not be infringed" ends.

Does a charged suspect still retain their right to a firearm? Can he carry said firearm on his person while in custody?
If I've given any indication about my personal stance, it is on this topic. I say no. A charged suspect does not retain this right until his trial has ended and he has been restored to full rights or he has been incarcerated and lost most of them while in lock-up.

If you bothered to read any other parts of this site, you'd know my position on the 2nd Amendment, and you'd be ashamed of yourself for being so foolish with your accusations.
I've even gone so far as to advocate on this site for ALL freed felons to have their firearms rights reinstated. I caught flak for that too.
You can't please everybody, I suppose.

But no. You take the discussion here, where I'm laying out the reasoning for another group's position, you consider it to be my own, and condemn me.
Blindly short-sighted doesn't begin to describe you.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Donkey said:


> I'll never understand why a gun owner wants regulation.


NRA is in appeasement mode because they are struggling to remain relevant. And the more they roll over in appeasement the less relevant they become.

I understand the motivation of NRA apologists. An honest examination of NRA positions is often viewed as an attack on the NRA.

Here is the NRA Mission Statement. Is there anyone here who can honestly say that the believe the NRA hasn't betrayed their own mission statement?

Mission Statement

NRA Bylaws Article II

The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are:

1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual 
American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, 
collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the
right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position
to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and
defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve 
effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the 
Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> NRA is in appeasement mode because they are struggling to remain relevant. And the more they roll over in appeasement the less relevant they become.
> 
> I understand the motivation of NRA apologists. An honest examination of NRA positions is often viewed as an attack on the NRA.
> 
> ...


Personally, no. I cannot state that.

But that doesn't mean the cause is lost. It means more work is needed. It means the members need to reassert control, and take out the trash. I've not yet made a decision on whether North was the right choice for the new president. His past tells me "no", but I've not seen enough action from his present to solidify a position.
I'd like to see an infusion of young blood, from some of the men and women who have fought for this country in recent conflict, and understand what it takes to defend a nation, should a civilian force need to be armed in the call.
Not sure I'll get that. Cronyism sneaks in everywhere, and is a tough weed to kill.


----------



## Tango2X (Jul 7, 2016)

Question for Chat-phil,
Are you an NRA member?
Do you own a gun?
Do you like that states have open carry?
Do you carry a gun?
Do you support the 2nd?
Or are you an anti gun troll??


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> False.
> 
> Bump stocks have nothing to do with helping the disabled handle weapons. Arm braces such as the original from SB Tactical and others like the Blade are designed to help disabled shooters. They are also legal for sale.
> 
> ...


OK Cat...Let me axe you a question? If the intent of the NFA is to limit who can have a full automatic weapon.....Then any device that facilitates a semi to function as a full automatic should fall under it...Thats my view. Now here is the question....why are you gonna bitch about a ban on bump stocks and "will not Infringe" when even the NFA infringes on what you can own?

To me....your bitching about nickels while your tossing quarters in a wishing well buddy.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

WHere in the hell did all the Dip shits come from?....This place is like a florescent light at a moth meeting all of a sudden....

What I think, is we have a rash of hard core right wing, anti government....pro 2nd A, but pushing a little anti muslim ...screw em all tilt....


Yep, that sounds like somebody is trying to get something started that plays to a strategy that does not coincide with that of those i know nor with my own beliefs....

Just saying.....that don't sound like its actually right?...sounds like somebody has left out the important parts.... well maybe I'm just right about being left out when I was at the center..... er....yeah!


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> OK Cat...Let me axe you a question? If the intent of the NFA is to limit who can have a full automatic weapon.....Then any device that facilitates a semi to function as a full automatic should fall under it...Thats my view. Now here is the question....why are you gonna bitch about a ban on bump stocks and "will not Infringe" when even the NFA infringes on what you can own?
> 
> To me....your bitching about nickels while your tossing quarters in a wishing well buddy.


Considering it's not full auto but i guess their is a reason only 3 percent did anything in the revolutionary war.


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> WHere in the hell did all the Dip shits come from?....This place is like a florescent light at a moth meeting all of a sudden....
> 
> What I think, is we have a rash of hard core right wing, anti government....pro 2nd A, but pushing a little anti muslim ...screw em all tilt....
> 
> ...


So your comfortable as long as your firearms are left alone.... nicely put their porky


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Donkey said:


> So your comfortable as long as your firearms are left alone.... nicely put their porky


Well sweetpea...if my guns are left alone...thats all right with me....but whats not right is that you left off the answer to the question that was right in front of you? Here...I left you a clue...

What in the hell are you on about anyways Cat?


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Old SF Guy said:


> WHere in the hell did all the Dip shits come from?....This place is like a florescent light at a moth meeting all of a sudden....


Must be some of Cricket's Facebook friends, huh? :devil:


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Donkey said:


> Considering it's not full auto but i guess their is a reason only 3 percent did anything in the revolutionary war.


Yeah...and only 1 and 10 frontline soldiers is really a killer....which one are you sugar?


----------



## Donkey (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> Yeah...and only 1 and 10 frontline soldiers is really a killer....which one are you sugar?


Not a baby killer their porkey


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Donkey said:


> Not a baby killer their porkey


Ok, Donkey. I think your a BOT. Your intro post was a two second intro..."Hello....I'm a Homestead"......Hi back...I'm a strip mall. Then a silly thread on strip clubs....and after 27 total posts...most of them here.... You know us.

Well congrats buddy...way to meet new people and influence them. You are full of one sentence retorts and I just get the sense that your here to bait a hook. ...I'm not really the bait chasin type....I'm in to disco and lasers so I really need to get something more from you...what's your gripe with us here...what do you have against people who inherently believe its not ok just to pretend like every decision the government makes, while not being good for us, is somehow invalid and we don't have to follow it?

What is it you want us to do? Only give money to GOA?...Vote for the Libertarian.... shoot all people opposed to your doctrine?

I'm easy...all I want you to do is send selfies...in a g-string ...cause I ain't seen a donkey in a G-string since 84 and that polaroid disppeared.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Did the White death killer guy come here riding on a jackass or what....who left the damn barn door open!!!!! Jesus Leon! you got one job....


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Donkey said:


> Considering it's not full auto but i guess their is a reason only 3 percent did anything in the revolutionary war.


There is some lower bowel movement levels of thought process right there... How you jumped from bump stocks to 3 percent in the revolutionary war... that, I think is a distance record....let me see.... yep....longest jump to a conclusion conducted in a virtual altercation after 9:00 pm on a Monday in march :vs_gift:


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Old SF Guy said:


> Did the White death killer guy come here riding on a jackass or what....who left the damn barn door open!!!!! Jesus Leon! you got one job....


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> OK Cat...Let me axe you a question? If the intent of the NFA is to limit who can have a full automatic weapon.....Then any device that facilitates a semi to function as a full automatic should fall under it...Thats my view. Now here is the question....why are you gonna bitch about a ban on bump stocks and "will not Infringe" when even the NFA infringes on what you can own?
> 
> To me....your bitching about nickels while your tossing quarters in a wishing well buddy.


For starters, the bump stock does not make a semi-auto function as a machinegun regardless of the bogus Trump admin ruling that GOA is suing them over. Secondly, it was the 1986 Hughes Amendment that effectively banned bump stocks post bogus ruling. The 1986 HA banned the ownership of machinegun manufactured after 1986. Since no bump stocks were manufactured prior to 1986 that left bump stock owners no legal path of ownership. Hope that helps.

As far as the NFA... The correct answer for any self-respecting 2A supporter is that the NFA should be repealed, not used as some type of faulty logic argument to justify or otherwise rationalize more regulations and bans. That type of thinking is what I would expect from Bloomberg and his ilk.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Did the White death killer guy come here riding on a jackass or what....who left the damn barn door open!!!!! Jesus Leon! you got one job....


Awww, OSFG, you know when we whack 'em too quick some of the guys get annoyed they didn't get any play time in.
Heck, man, ya been here goin on 6 years now, you've seen this before. :vs_peace:


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> Personally, no. I cannot state that.
> 
> But that doesn't mean the cause is lost. It means more work is needed. It means the members need to reassert control, and take out the trash. I've not yet made a decision on whether North was the right choice for the new president. His past tells me "no", but I've not seen enough action from his present to solidify a position.
> I'd like to see an infusion of young blood, from some of the men and women who have fought for this country in recent conflict, and understand what it takes to defend a nation, should a civilian force need to be armed in the call.
> Not sure I'll get that. Cronyism sneaks in everywhere, and is a tough weed to kill.


Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

As far as an effective gun rights organization I believe the NRA is well on it's way to become a lost cause if they haven't already arrived.

Another example: NRA was just crushed like roadkill in Florida by a republican majority. It was an astonishing rebuke of the NRA's claimed 'influence' even in friendly territory.

NRA has rolled over and colluded with anti-gun lawmakers so many times that there is simply no longer an '800lb Gorilla' in Fairfax but rather a three hundred million dollar quisling.

The NRA is going to have to do more than get into a sophomoric public spat with YETI.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Tango2X said:


> Question for Chat-phil,
> 
> Are you an NRA member?
> Been for decades. Stopped renewing in 2017.
> ...


Answers above. Anything else? More bonafides required? Did you want to know how many guns and what variety? I have a few.

I was at the club today with these. 
Rem 700 SPS with Hunter stock and APA brake, and that's the new Magpul bipod which I much prefer to the Harris. Mossberg Shockwave and Ruger III with Silencerco Sparrow,




























----

Although I have a safe full of large frame handguns I choose to keep this in my pocket at all times. LCP.










Want to see some other pics?

Here's a few...

This is one of my favorite plinkers-- Savage FV-SR .22LR. I had EGW custom cut a 40moa base for me, and along with the SWFA scope with over 100moa of elevation I can reach out to 300yrd and keep it in the crosshairs. A ton of fun shooting suppressed (YHM Wraith) at steel. The delayed ding will put a smile on yer face.










A couple of my AR15s. The one with the Trijicon RMR is a lightweight pencil barrel for the wife.










Pretty picture of my Kimber Solo but they have a poor reputation and would not consider carrying it.










Never have carried my 642. I leave it in the wife car.










Just picked up this Marlin 1894 .38/.357. Reloaded some light .357 for soda can plinking the other day. Ton of fun.










CMMG dedicated with same Silencerco Sparrow










Springfield XDs 45










This is an interesting Kimber 1911 I picked up back in 2002. It is a special edition precursor to the Kimber's tactical series. It's a Pro Tactical instead of the Tactical Pro that came to be the Tactical Pro series. A bit of trivia for ya.










No gun collection would be complete absent a 3in Model 65.










And no self-respecting Tennessee boy would be withou the iconic White Tail deer rifle, Marlin 30-30. This one is a JM if that means anything to ya,










Another .22 plinker. This was when Sig Sauer first introduced as a matching set the .22 and 5.56 SWAT rifles.










This is a ported .357 7-shot Taurus Tracker. It shoots remarkably well.










I picked up this LCR just for the novelty of a plastic frame revolver though it does shoot well.










I''m a little tired now. If you'd like I'd be glad to fill up the screen with more pics tomorrow.

Cheers,

-------------


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Tango2X said:


> Question for Chat-phil,
> Are you an NRA member?
> Do you own a gun?
> Do you like that states have open carry?
> ...


I answered, now it's your turn.

Can you name your local and state representatives without using Google?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Answers above. Anything else? More bonafides required? Did you want to know how many guns and what variety? I have a few.
> 
> I was at the club today with these.
> Rem 700 SPS with Hunter stock and APA brake, and that's the new Magpul bipod which I much prefer to the Harris. Mossberg Shockwave and Ruger III with Silencerco Sparrow,
> ...


Wish we were neighbors!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Answers above. Anything else? More bonafides required? Did you want to know how many guns and what variety? I have a few.
> 
> Want to see some other pics?
> 
> ...


Not enough, you're clearly a shill. I expect a full thread devoted to your safe contents, with the same quality lighting, resolution, and attention to detail.

:devil:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Not enough, you're clearly a shill. I expect a full thread devoted to your safe contents, with the same quality lighting, resolution, and attention to detail.
> 
> :devil:


Chill! He has a Marlin 30.30! I'm planning a vacation to go and hang out with him - at a range!


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Did someone say hi-res attention to detail?

Here's a LaRue MBT 2S that's in the wife's AR.










God no... not an ugly Glock pic. Well... ya can have some fun dressing up Glock pics to keep the eye attracted to something else.





































But Glocks alone just don't work... here's both my 19 and 17. The 17 is a Gen 2 I've had for nearly 30 years. Can it really be that long? Geeeez...










Coffee is ready... see ya later.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Phil....I'm not one to ask bonafides ...especially over a forum where nearly all the female members are actually 45 year old fat guys.... But, While I appreciate the pictures, I'd recommend against posting anything with a serial number exposed. Just recommending.... 

I am one who believes the validity of a point is made by the content of the argument. Thats why I dislike unwieldy comments like the NRA is all bad...or America is lost.

So understand that most of us don't care if you can spell gun or cock it... just be prepared to discuss the comments. And also learn a little about those you all criticize... us here.


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

I’m pretty sure this is the other identity of Donkey.

They sprang up at the same time exactly.

And I believe Donkey supported a statement from our new friend chat.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Well that makes sense...


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Answers above. Anything else? More bonafides required? Did you want to know how many guns and what variety? I have a few.
> 
> I was at the club today with these.
> Rem 700 SPS with Hunter stock and APA brake, and that's the new Magpul bipod which I much prefer to the Harris. Mossberg Shockwave and Ruger III with Silencerco Sparrow,
> ...


You have 8 different types of wood that are all different ages that you take pictures of guns with? Do you have a secret you'd like to share with us?


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Ragnarök said:


> You have 8 different types of wood that are all different ages that you take pictures of guns with? Do you have a secret you'd like to share with us?


Glad I am not the only one to have this hallucination LOL... seemed kinda suspect to me as well, but then again sometimes I'm just an idiot @$$hol3 so who knows?


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

StratMaster said:


> Glad I am not the only one to have this hallucination LOL... seemed kinda suspect to me as well, but then again sometimes I'm just an idiot @$$hol3 so who knows?


I just recovered from a hiccup attack so...I'm a happy idiot @$$hol3!


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Well, fellas, I'm right proud of my last gun purchase.
A numbers matching military surplus Turkish K.Kale 7.92X57JS Mauser made in 1944. 
I had to pay a whopping $240, but man, is she pretty!!

Nothing but a svelte 8 pounds of wood and steel that shoots a real round and doesn't need an extra 10 pounds of tacticrap to perform to standards.
Yeah, she's got a steel buttplate, but those old Mausers like to be held by men, not boys.

I'd post a picture, but by the time I got the print back from developing at Walgreens this thread would be nothing but a memory.


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Well, fellas, I'm right proud of my last gun purchase.
> A numbers matching military surplus Turkish K.Kale 7.92X57JS Mauser made in 1944.
> I had to pay a whopping $240, but man, is she pretty!!
> 
> ...


Make a thread on it. I want to see it. I've been thinking about getting an old gun but am a miser so it's difficult to get there. Takes me around a year to chose a new one...


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

This is actually my third Mauser.

My first was a WWII K98k refurbished by the Yugoslavs after the war. Yugo refurbs have their own collectors/enthusiasts and in their opinion i got one of the best. It was done by factory VR69.
My second was a WWI GEW98, made in 1917 at the Danzig Arsenal, and re-tooled to K98k specs in the 1930's when the Nazi's couldn't build new ones fast enough. It has no import marks and was most likely a bring back by some GI. He cut down the front of the stock and put on a rubber butt pad, which turned a $500 - $600 rifle into one that cost me $188 including tax.

My collection lacks a 7.7 MM Jap Arisaka, a Number 4 MkI British Enfield, and an Italian Carcano of some type.

Military surplus rifles, once dirt cheap, are increasing in cost because there are no more being made. And so many were "sporterized" that unmolested examples are getting harder to find. 
A good example would be Model 1903 Springfields. Once going for $10 - $20 after WWII, so many of them were hacked up to become "deer rifles" that an original will set you back up to $1,000 or more, depending on condition. The Model 1903A3 (made April 1943) that I paid $500 for ten years ago I could sell for $800 tomorrow.

Anyone who wants an inexpensive rifle today should look at a freshly made Savage or Remington bolt action. The entry level models will be less than a WWII military rifle.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Ragnarök said:


> You have 8 different types of wood


HE HE HAHAHA!!! He said: "You have wood". HE HE HAHAHA!!! :vs_rocking_banana::vs_bananasplit::vs_rocking_banana:


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

What he said...haaaaa


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I wonder if those were taken in the morning?


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Hmm! Those Gun pics are screaming "O6" to me. Time for a little investigation cross check.


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

Not one sign of and wear from use nice Google images you have there

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Did someone say hi-res attention to detail?
> 
> Here's a LaRue MBT 2S that's in the wife's AR.
> 
> ...


Well with the time I had this was what I came up with... its not much but O6 likes to stack his glocks.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Ragnarök said:


> You have 8 different types of wood that are all different ages that you take pictures of guns with? Do you have a secret you'd like to share with us?


No secret.

The pics on the back deck are all the same wood over a period of years. You will see differences in stain, condition, cleaning, wet or dry, angles and lighting conditions as well as photo processing. Some have little processing while others are heavily processed.

This is an example of a freshly stained deck with little processing.










This an example of subtle processing to bring out the wood and darker bluing. You always want to take these type of pics outdoors but in the shade.

Original









Processed









This is an example of heavy processed pic to B&W posted above.










And here is the original.










--------

Lighting is always the key, and natural lighting can deliver some very nice results.

Here is the natural lighting I use for some of the black desktop pics.










And with some processing you can achieve pleasant results.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

StratMaster said:


> Glad I am not the only one to have this hallucination LOL... seemed kinda suspect to me as well, but then again sometimes I'm just an idiot @$$hol3 so who knows?


What do you mean by suspect? Do you doubt the authenticity of any photo?

Tell ya what.... Pick any two guns shown in the pics above and I'll post a pic of them together, including a current edition of Guns and Ammo and I'll also include a special message for ya.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> What do you mean by suspect? Do you doubt the authenticity of any photo?
> 
> Tell ya what.... Pick any two guns shown in the pics above and I'll post a pic of them together, including a current edition of Guns and Ammo and I'll also include a special message for ya.


I think you should take a picture with your glock and your head, so that we know its you...maybe your glock beside your head...or your glock against your head... I will let you use your creative juices since you know about processing and stuff..... but I don't think your you unless you can show me...that your you and that you own a glock.... but not just a glock but a glock owned by you...so you gotta be in the pic of the glock or the glock is suspect and so are you.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> Phil....I'm not one to ask bonafides ...especially over a forum where nearly all the female members are actually 45 year old fat guys.... But, While I appreciate the pictures, I'd recommend against posting anything with a serial number exposed. Just recommending....
> 
> I am one who believes the validity of a point is made by the content of the argument. Thats why I dislike unwieldy comments like the NRA is all bad...or America is lost.
> 
> So understand that most of us don't care if you can spell gun or cock it... just be prepared to discuss the comments. And also learn a little about those you all criticize... us here.


Yet, you were asking all those questions that were not related to the content of the discussion. hmmmm....

I didn't criticize you. I simply answered the personal questions you asked of me. So far I haven't seen an answer to my single question of you. Can you name your local and state representatives without using Google?


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> I think you should take a picture with your glock and your head, so that we know its you...maybe your glock beside your head...or your glock against your head...


You sound like a prime candidate for NRA's Red Flag gun confiscation.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> You sound like a prime candidate for NRA's Red Flag gun confiscation.


Naw..Imma anti gun guy... I think most of the people here are suppressed homosexuals. I hate guns. Will never own one and live by the sword.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Good video.

Tittle: *NRA Betrays Gun Owners AGAIN *

Gun owners Ohio, Georgia, Minnesota and Iowa illustrating NRA's continued betrayal.

Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Good video.
> 
> Tittle: *NRA Betrays Gun Owners AGAIN *
> 
> ...


Hey look buddy... I get that you ain't no fan of the NRA...and well thats one of about million things on this site that is actually talked about.

Here's my reclama....(thats a big government word) I don't give a rats ass about the NRA... I dont care about the tea party...I don't even care about Antifa....so If you wanna fight with me...you gotta get personal... You gotta call my kids names...like that they look like my best friend.... or that you seen my wife cheating...or that you think I look faggish... I mean damn.....you gotta hit me were it hurts.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Yes, the NRA is evil! hehe


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

More cool Google pics.









Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Yankee Marshall does a good job of describing NRA's betrayal of the 2A again as well as characterizing NRA apologists.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

RubberDuck said:


> More cool Google pics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like a match!


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

See...now I'm all confused...I thought I was talking to a 45 year old transvestite...now I just dont know.... Je suis confuse...... you gotta be real man.....or be a real man...or just be real.....man....


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Kauboy said:


> For an organization that has "done nothing but help install gun regulations", they sure seem to tie themselves up in court an awful lot to get gun regulations overturned.


The NRA is quite good at spending countless millions on lawsuits that don't result in jack. Linked below is a classic case of NRA chest-pounding victory over Washington ballot initiative, I-1639. Then a few days later it's overturned. Really, the only winners are NRA paid litigators being paid big bucks with your donations. The state doesn't care, they're paying for it with tax dollars.

That's not to say that keeping up the fight doesn't have merit, of course it does. Unfortunately, the NRA is known for incompetence in matters of important litigation. Heller is a perfect example. Yet, many gun owners still think it was the NRA that was responsible for Heller. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In some ways, many NRA members remind me of drunk Green Bay fans. The ball could be down on the 10-yard line but Cheese Heads will scream touchdown!

GOA filed lawsuit against the Trump admin over the NRA endorsed bump stock ban. I think they have a good chance of winning.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...tate-prevents-i-1639-from-appearing-on-ballot


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Naw..Imma anti gun guy... I think most of the people here are suppressed homosexuals. I hate guns. Will never own one and live by the sword.


DAMMITT, MAN!!!! 
I'm eating breakfast, and you almost made me choke on my toast!! :tango_face_smile::vs_laugh:


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

Old SF Guy said:


> Hey look buddy... I get that you ain't no fan of the NRA...


It's not about being a fan, but rather the NRA's betrayal in matters of 2A.

On the flip side, the NRA is a fantastic organization for gun safety, training and sports.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Phil, of your 31 posts, 30 of them are in this thread.
We get it - you don't like the NRA. And that is your right as a free American.

There is a lot more to this forum than this one topic.


----------



## ChattanoogaPhil (Mar 18, 2019)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Phil, of your 31 posts, 30 of them are in this thread.
> We get it - you don't like the NRA. And that is your right as a free American.
> 
> There is a lot more to this forum than this one topic.


Okay... I'll move along.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

You seem to be an intelligent, level headed guy. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to this forum in other areas as well.
Homesteading, weapons, "prepping" (I hate that word), growing food, etc.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> You seem to be an intelligent, level headed guy.


Those were not the adjectives I was thinking of...


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Inor said:


> Those were not the adjectives I was thinking of...


I'm a moderator, I'm supposed to set an example.

Besides, he seems to be a decent guy.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I'm a moderator, I'm supposed to set an example.
> 
> Besides, he seems to be a decent guy.


I'm a moderator too (somewhere)... I would set an example too but @Denton won't let use those words here anymore... :devil:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Okay... I'll move along.


Why? Was this thread your only interest?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> I think you should take a picture with your glock and your head, so that we know its you...maybe your glock beside your head...or your glock against your head... I will let you use your creative juices since you know about processing and stuff..... but I don't think your you unless you can show me...that your you and that you own a glock.... but not just a glock but a glock owned by you...so you gotta be in the pic of the glock or the glock is suspect and so are you.


Why are you playing around the edges of what got you in hot water, before? Come on! :vs_mad:


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Howdy.
> It is customary for new members to post an introduction in the appropriate section New Members Introduction.
> Tell us just a little of who you are and why you're here.
> Thanks





Donkey said:


> Whatever floats your boat my ****** eyed friend


Well, I gotta say, that explains why Donkey is no longer with us. Or it is one good reason why he was flushed.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Howdy.
> It is customary for new members to post an introduction in the appropriate section New Members Introduction.
> Tell us just a little of who you are and why you're here.
> Thanks





rice paddy daddy said:


> Phil, of your 31 posts, 30 of them are in this thread.
> We get it - you don't like the NRA. And that is your right as a free American.
> 
> There is a lot more to this forum than this one topic.





ChattanoogaPhil said:


> Okay... I'll move along.





rice paddy daddy said:


> You seem to be an intelligent, level headed guy. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to this forum in other areas as well.
> Homesteading, weapons, "prepping" (I hate that word), growing food, etc.





Inor said:


> Those were not the adjectives I was thinking of...


ChattanoogaPhil has 15,000 posts on Smith-WessonForum.com, I remembered the name, so I looked him up over there. 
I have no idea what he was trying to prove over here, on this forum. But, like he said, he moved along.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Hmm, I’m over on S&W too, for probably 5 years now, but since I only own two I don’t have a lot to contribute.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

MisterMills357 said:


> Well, I gotta say, that explains why Donkey is no longer with us. Or it is one good reason why he was flushed.


Actually, I have a pretty thick skin, but when he started trashing fine members like Dwight, well that raised my dander.
I know Dwight, I have seen his DD-214, he is real. And he is my Brother.
Anyone who messes with my Brothers and Sisters In Arms is messing with everyone of us who have ever said The Oath.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Hmm, I'm over on S&W too, for probably 5 years now, but since I only own two I don't have a lot to contribute.


I am a member there, but it must have been two years since I bothered with it.



rice paddy daddy said:


> Actually, I have a pretty thick skin, but when he started trashing fine members like Dwight, well that raised my dander.
> I know Dwight, I have seen his DD-214, he is real. And he is my Brother.
> Anyone who messes with my Brothers and Sisters In Arms is messing with everyone of us who have ever said The Oath.


Same here, and what is up with the loudmouths that have come here? It comes in flurries or something.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Mish said:


> Yes, the NRA is evil! hehe


Speaking of evil &#8230;. where the hell have you been sweetheart?


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

A Watchman said:


> Speaking of evil &#8230;. where the hell have you been sweetheart?


I've been working and still going to school. My time is very limited these days. Anyone want to take my College Algebra class?


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Mish said:


> I've been working and still going to school. My time is very limited these days. Anyone want to take my College Algebra class?


I thought you were likely strapped at school, hope all is progressing well.


----------



## watcher (Aug 24, 2013)

Donkey said:


> Whatever floats your boat my ****** eyed friend


WHOOOAA!! That is not good...Nobody talks to RPD like that!!!:vs_shocked:


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

I would paint the NRA guilty--but on the same level as my MIL counting cookies in the big kitchen jar. She's 91 years old.

Last time I checked, joining the NRA was voluntary. I had more fear when my inactive status hung in the balance of my brothers. But that's a reasonable fear, those boys have more guns than the NRA.

John Wayne said that heroes have fear, but saddle up and go anyway--it's why I've come to respect being around Rice Paddy Daddy. I can still (maybe) pull up a front wheel from a screaming 100 BHP Harley, but I would not have gone to Vietnam as a cameraman, much less a combatant.

Now, what if there is wrong doing? Okay, that I'd saddle up for. But right now I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more dangerous, just around electric outlets...


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Mish said:


> I've been working and still going to school. My time is very limited these days. Anyone want to take my College Algebra class?


Throw an algebra problem my way and I'll have Mrs Slippy knock it out for you...(Seriously! She has a Masters Degree in Math/Statistics...and loves algebra and calculus)


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

Mish said:


> I've been working and still going to school. My time is very limited these days. Anyone want to take my College Algebra class?


No :vs_smirk:.

I'm thinking about doing the same for aircraft mechanic... but it's very complicated with scheduling since I'm on call with my company now.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

damn...i think i pulled something....awww shit that hurts.......... damn......


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Denton said:


> Why are you playing around the edges of what got you in hot water, before? Come on! :vs_mad:


what? suck starting things......


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

ChattanoogaPhil said:


> The NRA is quite good at spending countless millions on lawsuits that don't result in jack. Linked below is a classic case of NRA chest-pounding victory over Washington ballot initiative, I-1639. Then a few days later it's overturned. Really, the only winners are NRA paid litigators being paid big bucks with your donations. The state doesn't care, they're paying for it with tax dollars.
> 
> That's not to say that keeping up the fight doesn't have merit, of course it does. Unfortunately, the NRA is known for incompetence in matters of important litigation. Heller is a perfect example. Yet, many gun owners still think it was the NRA that was responsible for Heller. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> ...


So fuq the NRA....ok...Im on board.....


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Wow... the Stalinist purges have nothing on these NRA guys. For crying out loud! I'm a member by the way, and have the right to bitch about how our beloved organization is being mismanaged. Not to mention this nonsense undermines our main message and makes us all look like keystone cops. We had less bodies falling in my old mob-run union. Time maybe to turn WAY more control over to the membership: no more multi-million dollar salaries, no scores and scores of padded positions at the national level and in every state, no more truck giveaways, no more contests, just business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/...AC1bCcsh2FJw-X5hvqcnWxo1tUoRzU0Anwxve3R-IRWgo


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

The NRA has defaulted the political strength it had in the 80’s to trying to pay lawyers and win in front of progressive liberal judges. They will eventually fail.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

RIHNOs.

Got that? Gun Owners. If not just vote D-

There as bad as REpukulians, that let 2016 go by without a damm thing done!!! They all craweled up under Pelosesys Skirt, cowards and traitors.


----------

