NRA Warns Hunters to Prepare for War

[ericF]

I thought someone might say that about the militia. You (people who disagree with me, not just specifcally you) cannot pick and choose what rulings the supreme court have made in regard to 2A. I say that they have ruled that you can have regulations on 2A, and someone chimes in saying anyone not defending the constitution (as they see it) is a liar, and in their mind, was not defending It and in violation of their oath. however, when I go by what it says, specifically the militia, someone is quick to point out a ruling that the supreme court made. cant pick and choose their rulings to defend your stance.

Once Again, Mental Gymnastics and circular logic. I can't make sense out of your post. You were the one stating lets go back to the original wording and now your stating that we can't go back to the original meaning because the Supreme Court has stated that there can be restrictions. Regardless, Heller confirmed that the Right to Keep and Bare Arms is a personal right supported by the second amendment of the constitution. Further from Heller: 'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”' At this moment in time, one of the best selling rifles is the AR15. It doesn't get any more common use than being one of the best selling rifles out there, yet you are perfectly fine with the ban on the AR15 in Massachusetts. Are these bans constitutional? Probably not, but the Supreme Court has so far been hesitant to take up a case, but it will most likely happen within the next few years due to conflicting lower court decisions.

In addition, I can give you personal examples of where the background check law which we have in Colorado is a travesty and completely unenforceable, but you seem to think it is a good idea.

ETA: ChrisC, I see your point about compromise and meeting in the middle, but unfortunately, there is no middle for many of those on the left. Look at Feinstein and even what Clinton said about Heller. Their ultimate goal is to do away with the Second Amendment. Any compromise will be met with more restrictions in a couple years when the last didn't work, and then more again a couple years later until the Second is gutted.

 

[ChrisC]

That would be a living Constitution, and I will shoot that notion down in a hurry. If it was meant to be a "living document" that changes with the times, there would have been no need for it in the first place. They could just legislate "as desired to better fit the current needs of the country for those particular times", until they needed them or wanted them to be changed at a later time to fit the fancy of the nation at that particular time. No Constitution would have been needed. They wrote it as a foundational document to meet ALL times.

Are you saying we cant make..an amendment...to the constitution?

 

[charvey9]

Each organization has their agenda. Sometimes it would be nice for them to partner with like-minded efforts and get on the same page, but can not fault them for "sticking to their guns".

It would be like getting mad at BHA because they don't put more focus toward 2nd amendment rights. Its just not their main fight right now.

As an individual you can support either, both, or neither depending on the issue(s) you want to get behind.

 

[ChrisC]

Once Again, Mental Gymnastics and circular logic.

trying to do this on my phone...im starting to get lost, too. hopefully I can clarify so you can understand, or tell me where im wrong.

1. I said that the supreme court ruled that 2A can have regulations.
2. Someone on here said something regarding the oath people take and going against the constitution makes them liars. I took this as saying anyone not taking 2A literally is a liar not living up to their oath.
3. Running with that persons argument and going with the oath argument and taking it literally, I brought up the Militia post, saying that would restrict firearms more.
4. You then mentioned a supreme court case about how militia really isn't relevant to the law.
5. I made the observation that people disagreeing with me are picking and choosing what supreme court rulings they want to observe. You argue/disagree about the ruling of regulating firearms, but not about the militia outcome.

mental gymnastics...

 

[5MilesBack]

Are you saying we cant make..an amendment...to the constitution?

I don't think I said that, but my memory isn't as good as it once was. But any amendment should not be in conflict with the Constitution or any previous amendments.

 

[cuerro viejo]

A couple things...i wasn't comparing the theater argument to the gun rights in the sense that they are being restricted for the same reason. I wanted to make the point that having a right as defined by the BOR doesn't mean it cant be regulated. I just chose a random example to prove that.

As for the pistol grip argument, I dont think that most of the requirements MA has is that frivolous. There are restrictions to make sure the materials can handle the heat of the explosion, making sure that it provides sufficient resistance so that a 5 year old cant accidentally pull the trigger, and that there is an indicator letting the user know there is a bullet in the chamber. I'm not saying im in fsvor of all of their regulations, but some seem like a good idea.

A trigger tha provides sufficient resistance that a 5 year old can't accidentally pull it????

No way in hell you actually hunt... troll on amigo, you ain't one of us.

 

[airlocksniffer]

A trigger tha provides sufficient resistance that a 5 year old can't accidentally pull it????

No way in hell you actually hunt... troll on amigo, you ain't one of us.

How about chime in if you have something constructive to add to the discussion? Random internet guy doesn't really know anything about another random internet guy.

As much as some folks want to claim hunting and hunters are part of their side, it just ain't true. Don't claim to support hunters if you choose not to identify the actual threat to hunting today, which is loss of access (and public land). To be perfectly honest, my guns are tools for hunting. If I don't have guns, I can enjoy hunting with a bow or just hike, backpack etc. If I don't have public lands, I don't really have any reason for guns or hunting.

 

[ChrisC]

A trigger tha provides sufficient resistance that a 5 year old can't accidentally pull it????

No way in hell you actually hunt... troll on amigo, you ain't one of us.

I was listing some of the MA laws...that's the state's wording, or close to it.

Listing a state's laws is an indication that I dont hunt? having a different opinion and respectfully (i hope) trying to see others view points so i can better understand the other side makes it so i "aint one of" you? Seems like you are the one trying to get a reaction out of me.

I know people here disagree with me, but most people who've found the time to respond I feel like have been pretty respectful while disagreeing, some strongly, with my comments. I live in a liberal state, i dont get to hear well informed opinions about the other side of the gun debate. If i'm coming off as a troll, I'll stop responding to the thread...

 

[cuerro viejo]

I was listing some of the MA laws...that's the state's wording, or close to it.

Listing a state's laws is an indication that I dont hunt? having a different opinion and respectfully (i hope) trying to see others view points so i can better understand the other side makes it so i "aint one of" you? Seems like you are the one trying to get a reaction out of me.

I know people here disagree with me, but most people who've found the time to respond I feel like have been pretty respectful while disagreeing, some strongly, with my comments. I live in a liberal state, i dont get to hear well informed opinions about the other side of the gun debate. If i'm coming off as a troll, I'll stop responding to the thread...

There isn't a trigger made that a 5 year old can't pull. Only exception would be some hammered revolvers. And that technically not trigger pull.

So yes I find it suspect that you mentioned that. You maybe very new to the sport, if so I apologize for my troll comment.

If you aren't new to our world, then you would understand It's very odd that you would question the extent of the protections of the 2nd amendment and introduce into dialogue a law or thought for that matter of the incapable, and impractical.

FYI- The law is most likely about locking mechanisms.

 

[itsTyrtruion]

I think there should be some restrictions, that's all. like you said, find a happy medium. We just unfortunately have two sides unwilling to move towards the middle.

that's such a happy thought but unfortunately you have forgotten a few things.
1) there already are restrictions
2) there will be more restrictions tomorrow than there were yesterday
3) chip away or as you said earlier, death by 1000 cuts... its happening now and weather we are on cut #2 or #999 they wont be satisfied until guns are gone/banned/illegal

I remember an interview with one of the leaders of Hamas several years ago. He was basically asked why they keep attacking Israel even tho they are greatly overmatched and have sustained tragic losses each of the last several attacks.
my quote isn't exact but he said
"we only have to win once, and we are getting closer each day to that victory"

your claim about the trigger pull is nonsense also and I mean, you may believe that what they intend was for accidents to be limited by making the trigger stiffer but its just more chips. here is straight from California the things that make your firearm an "assault" weapon and therefore illegal. please help me locate which of these chipped away freedoms are intended to make sure the weapon operates in a safe manner regardless of my intentions?

However, a firearm that meets any of the following descriptions is also an “assault weapon”:8
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; 2) a thumbhole stock; 3) a folding or telescoping stock; 4) a grenade or flare launcher; 5) a flash suppressor; or 6) a forward pistol grip;9
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds;
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches;
A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; 2) a second handgrip; 3) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or 4) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip;
A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds;
A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip;
A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
A shotgun with a revolving cylinder

 

[Brendan]

This is what Chris is referring to. MA state law requires the following regarding pistols, with some exceptions (trying to stay high level here)

Handgun Sales Information

Guns sold by dealers must have mechanisms that preclude an average five year old from operating the handgun, such as requiring multiple motions or a ten pound trigger pull;

Guns must have either a load indicator or magazine safety disconnect.

Guns must be on two different approved rosters - state law and AG approved.

That specific model must have been tested by an independent testing lab paid for by the manufacturer regarding the above requirements.

Testing includes drop tests onto concrete making sure it doesn't fire.

Many manufacturers don't want to deal with the BS. For example - good luck buying a Springfield or a Kimber in MA... Glock is even iffy - many dealers refuse to sell them because there's some disagreement on whether or not they're legal to sell.

 

[Brendan]

Agree with this:

1) there already are restrictions
2) there will be more restrictions tomorrow than there were yesterday
3) chip away or as you said earlier, death by 1000 cuts... its happening now and weather we are on cut #2 or #999 they wont be satisfied until guns are gone/banned/illegal

ChrisC - I'm actually not too far off from you in terms of what could be construed as "smart or acceptable" restrictions and what I'd be ok with. Here's the problem:

I don't think existing laws or existing restrictions are being utilized or enforced fully, so why the hell make more laws if you're not going to stand behind those on the books first?

I think a lot of restrictions and laws don't do a damn thing to make the world safer.

I have zero faith that it would stop there. None. It's like the wolf scenario - changing goalposts, regardless of what has been said in the past. Some people in this country and world will take every little restriction they can as a step towards making it impossible to own a firearm. Beating this dead horse, but death by 1000 cuts...

The problem for me is - I really hate the NRA's fearmongering approach, and wish there was a middle ground, but I'm not convinced that there is because of how polarizing the issue is.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I don't think existing laws or existing restrictions are being utilized or enforced fully, so why the hell make more laws if you're not going to stand behind those on the books first?

I think a lot of restrictions and laws don't do a damn thing to make the world safer.

this right here pretty well summarizes the anti vs. gun nut debate at least the way I rationalize things. Insert something other than firearms, For those old enough to remember the last 20-30 years of driving, look at how enforcement nationwide has changed drunk driving and dwi laws. BAC's have mostly been dropped from 1.0 to a .08, fines have gotten heavier, awareness is higher, etc... yet people still continue to die via drunk driving. No one has ever mentioned going after the cars themselves, just the behavior. Flip it around, I don't know a single gun nut, NRA lobbyist, 2A supporter, etc.. that wants to see another school shooting or kid accidentally off himself playing with dads hunting rifle. I think for most of us (that are again old enough to remember) gun control has generally proven to fail in the US. Thinking back to Bill Clinton's administration, we saw some of the heaviest, most restrictive gun laws we've ever seen.... yet Columbine still happened, gang violence soared, etc... Some of the cities in Canada (toronto specifically) and Mexico see some of the highest gun violence in North America, and yet they occur in countries with heavy restrictions on firearms. Chicago continues to mark it's place on the map as having a ridiculous amount of gun related crime, despite being Barack Obama's poster child for gun control. Going after guns from law abiding citizens has, and will continue to fail.... until we change the behavior, a gun is nothing more than a car to a drunk driver.

 

[5MilesBack]

If I don't have public lands, I don't really have any reason for guns or hunting.

And that's fine.........as your position. Just so you aren't willing to give away MY rights in the process.

 

[ChrisC]

This is what Chris is referring to. MA state law requires the following regarding pistols, with some exceptions (trying to stay high level here)

Handgun Sales Information

Guns sold by dealers must have mechanisms that preclude an average five year old from operating the handgun, such as requiring multiple motions or a ten pound trigger pull;

Thanks for posting that. I think people thought I just made that up.

 

[airlocksniffer]

And that's fine.........as your position. Just so you aren't willing to give away MY rights in the process.

Nope. If the NRA wants to maintain hunter membership/donations, perhaps it would make more business sense to focus on real threats to hunting.

 

[cuerro viejo]

How about chime in if you have something constructive to add to the discussion? Random internet guy doesn't really know anything about another random internet guy.

As much as some folks want to claim hunting and hunters are part of their side, it just ain't true. Don't claim to support hunters if you choose not to identify the actual threat to hunting today, which is loss of access (and public land). To be perfectly honest, my guns are tools for hunting. If I don't have guns, I can enjoy hunting with a bow or just hike, backpack etc. If I don't have public lands, I don't really have any reason for guns or hunting.

Says the guy yelling at the NRA about public land when the top 18 states via hunting license holders have very limited Public land. So ya your agruement is a little pointed.

How many hunters does Cali have for there 35 million in public land? 300k compared to Montana 483k. Cali has a lot more public land then Montana. Why less hunters?

Texas has over a Million hunters yet only 1.5 million acres of public land vs Montana's 30 million. Explain that? Even if you double the size of Montana and the amount of people public land and hunting licenses then you are looking at 60 million acres of public with still less hunters then TX? How is that possible via your agruement?

Alaska has 271 million acres of to hunt yet only 106k licenses.

So tell me again what you think the majority of the 14million hunting licensed hunters feel is more of a doom for hunting... public land or gun laws.

Again like I said earlier I'm not trying to discount the public land situation. Losing our public land would be like losing the corner stone of our hunting heritage.

Your agruement shouldn't be pissing on the NRA like it currently is, it's should be how can the NRA work to educate the 8 plus million hunters that don't hunt public land on how loosing the people's land would cause us to loose a huge voice in congress. A voice that is solidified via a high hunting population percentage in western states.

I'm sure you will call this troll post also, ironically it mirrors my first post on this thread ...: roll eyes...

 

[cuerro viejo]

Thanks for posting that. I think people thought I just made that up.

I stand corrected but there is a very big difference to what you paraphrased vs the law. You can own a pistol with less then a 10lb trigger pull. You just cant buy one from a dealer in that state that way apparently.

 

[vanish]

The "Death by 1000 cuts" argument is the current state of all politics in the USA.

Neither side wants to compromise on ANY issue because giving up just a little bit is seen as a sign that the entire stance is slipping.

 

[MtnOyster]

A farmer around Selkirk Canada we used to goose hunt on once told me " son we made a mistake in this country letting our government change the gun rules here, a pistol here is almost impossible to own, you can but it's not worth the trouble anymore, if you or the people in the United States ever let your government get the wedge stuck in the crack of the door you and all the people there will regret it from now on because once the wedge starts it only keeps getting deeper until the door is wide open it will just keep guns away from the good citizens and the crooks will still have access to them".

I've never forgotten that conversation and that was in 2004, we'd ride around in the evenings talking about Canadian gov vs US gov, the good and bad in both while looking for geese, he was around 75-80 years old at the time and had seen quite a bit, I've learned over the years when someone that's been around that long is giving you some advise on life, you'd better listen.