shortgrass
Well-Known Member
How about "federalregister.gov." click on "current issue". The ATF is about the 4th on down the page
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Bumpstocks banned
- Thread starter cohunt
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
They circumvented the entire judicial system to push a ******** political narrative stripping us of more rights at the fear of losing even more... Do you really think they give 2 ***** about what WE THE PEOPLE actually think???
They had 2 separate comment periods on the ATF's website... I've stated my piece on both occasions, and on both occasions, the responses for "no ban" were greater than the responses wanting the ban. I also sent a letter directly to the President's desk...And got a response, assuring me that he supported our 2nd Amendment rights. That's why I feel the most backstabbed over this crap, and that nothing we do really matters 1 iota to Big Brother. It appears that politics is more important than the rights of those who put you into "the game" in the first place.
And if you want to send President Trump a letter about your concerns (any citizen can do so), you can go to the WH website, and there's a place you can click on to send a letter directly to his desk. It took about 2-3 weeks for me to get a response, but it was a legit and actual response from him.
They had 2 separate comment periods on the ATF's website... I've stated my piece on both occasions, and on both occasions, the responses for "no ban" were greater than the responses wanting the ban. I also sent a letter directly to the President's desk...And got a response, assuring me that he supported our 2nd Amendment rights. That's why I feel the most backstabbed over this crap, and that nothing we do really matters 1 iota to Big Brother. It appears that politics is more important than the rights of those who put you into "the game" in the first place.
And if you want to send President Trump a letter about your concerns (any citizen can do so), you can go to the WH website, and there's a place you can click on to send a letter directly to his desk. It took about 2-3 weeks for me to get a response, but it was a legit and actual response from him.
Last edited:
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
And they claimed the response was like 3-1 for the ban. Figures cannot lie but liars sure can figure.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Yep! The mainstream media tries to push that BS narrative that more support the ban. Before Las Vegas, none of them even knew what the hell a bumpstock was, and they still don't...They just know "bumpstock bad, guns bad, ban good, confiscation good..."
Yes, that was meant to be read in a neandertholic troglodyte tone, because those who are scared of guns and those who fear suppressors and bumpstocks are obvious mental midgets, that goes for idiots on both sides of the fence.
Don't ban guns, ban idiots!!
I am not a fan of bumpstocks, however if that is what you want to play then great, they are not my cup of tea. I am however totally against having the government restricting me from doing what is constitutionally guaranteed, especially when it involves the 2nd amendment!! Banning is simply a systemic process, being incrementally done to eventually disarm this country with the total goal to eventually repeal the second amendment.
I am not a fan of bumpstocks, however if that is what you want to play then great, they are not my cup of tea. I am however totally against having the government restricting me from doing what is constitutionally guaranteed, especially when it involves the 2nd amendment!! Banning is simply a systemic process, being incrementally done to eventually disarm this country with the total goal to eventually repeal the second amendment.
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
If they cannot disarm us they will do everything in their power to make sure that we are at least inferiorly armed.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Yep! If the Dems weren't doing dirty evil underhanded crap, and weren't scared of us, they wouldn't constantly be trying to disarm us. That means we automatically have the upper hand on them, and THEY know it, and it petrifies them to their evil crap-filled cores.
NEMTHunter
Well-Known Member
The only Rights WE the People have is what the Government gave us back when they wrote up the Law and constitution. Those are the only Rights we had and have.
The Government give's and it take's..
And New Law's that goes against what was wrote to begin with contradicts what was and still should be.
I have no Dog in this fight. I have less rights then most here...
The Government give's and it take's..
And New Law's that goes against what was wrote to begin with contradicts what was and still should be.
I have no Dog in this fight. I have less rights then most here...
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
Bump stocks are a small issue that is a component of a greater concept.
the entire premise of our social contract (meaning, the deal between people and government, which makes government legitimate) and the constitutional republic which our founding fathers devised is that people have natural rights - which are life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness) and they come from God, not government. This is enlightenment, classical liberalism 101 and it is the main theme of our Declaration of Independence, and the iron writ of our Bill of Rights.
Since God outranks human government, bureaucrats have no authority to overrule these rights. So the premise that "government gives, and government takes" is 100% opposite our founding ideals - and yes, that concept was around back in 1776 - Hobbes was the apologist for it - and our FF completely rejected it. And, incidentally, that same evil concept later evolved into into Marxism, Fascism, Soviet Marx-Leninism.... well, socialism in general.
the limiting factor to classical liberalism, as Jefferson explained, is that you cannot use your rights to infringe on the rights of others...that is the non-aggression principal. so if you mind your own business and peacefully enjoy your own liberty and property, you cannot be interfered with, and if you are, after a period of putting up with abuses until they become insufferable, it de-legitimizes the authority of government. This is why we fought a revolution to evict an intrusive, invasive government (which was nevertheless OUR OWN government) back in 1775.
So when do we reach the "boiling point" where that long train of abuses de-legitimizes government? Probably at the point where government gets uncomfortable about people talking about the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights....and when people get uncomfortable and feel that it's "seditious" to quote our founding fathers.
Merry Christmas, and God Bless.
the entire premise of our social contract (meaning, the deal between people and government, which makes government legitimate) and the constitutional republic which our founding fathers devised is that people have natural rights - which are life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness) and they come from God, not government. This is enlightenment, classical liberalism 101 and it is the main theme of our Declaration of Independence, and the iron writ of our Bill of Rights.
Since God outranks human government, bureaucrats have no authority to overrule these rights. So the premise that "government gives, and government takes" is 100% opposite our founding ideals - and yes, that concept was around back in 1776 - Hobbes was the apologist for it - and our FF completely rejected it. And, incidentally, that same evil concept later evolved into into Marxism, Fascism, Soviet Marx-Leninism.... well, socialism in general.
the limiting factor to classical liberalism, as Jefferson explained, is that you cannot use your rights to infringe on the rights of others...that is the non-aggression principal. so if you mind your own business and peacefully enjoy your own liberty and property, you cannot be interfered with, and if you are, after a period of putting up with abuses until they become insufferable, it de-legitimizes the authority of government. This is why we fought a revolution to evict an intrusive, invasive government (which was nevertheless OUR OWN government) back in 1775.
So when do we reach the "boiling point" where that long train of abuses de-legitimizes government? Probably at the point where government gets uncomfortable about people talking about the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights....and when people get uncomfortable and feel that it's "seditious" to quote our founding fathers.
Merry Christmas, and God Bless.
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
Thank God they are so afraid of AR's and have no concept of a hunting rifle
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Yeah, they'll stop at bumpstocks, won't they???
"Red flag laws" go national... AKA, forceful confiscation without proof!
We have to stop this crap!
"Red flag laws" go national... AKA, forceful confiscation without proof!
We have to stop this crap!
Orange Dust
Well-Known Member
I know better than to step into this but hear me out here, im not one to roll over and deal with anything but I look at this one a little different. This is just another point of view to think about, I don't feel good about it but this is what I see, please try not to crucify me for it...
The gubment is officially made up of a high percentage of pansies, not the same type of people that put it into play in the first place. Also, a way too high percentage of citizens are pansies, not the same type of people that came here in the first place. Even if every single american voted and we all held our ground there's a really depressing chance that we are outweighed or soon will be altogether. Ya, we gave an inch and they'll be aiming to gain a mile but I think I understand what mr pres was thinking. A useless *** was on they're radar, giving it to them was enough to shut them up (for now..) and prolong a further attempt on they're part to keep reaching. In the end it's not losing anything anyone actually cared about and they'll think they won something. Was it the right decision? I don't know, there may not have been a right decision. Personally I'm all for the stfu and deal with it approach to this but unfortunately I'm not sure it's going to work forever. It's a chess game from this point forward, that move may f us but it should atleast buy us a little time to game plan.
That's what I'm guessing his thought process was and why I think the nra is keeping quiet about it. I might be wrong, really don't want to get in a debate about it, just wanted to say what I'm guessing they are thinking right now. They gotta play chess to swing voters to keep what we have left, hopefully they know what they're doing because I sure don't.
For the record I agree. It's unconstitutional and overall bs.
The gubment is officially made up of a high percentage of pansies, not the same type of people that put it into play in the first place. Also, a way too high percentage of citizens are pansies, not the same type of people that came here in the first place. Even if every single american voted and we all held our ground there's a really depressing chance that we are outweighed or soon will be altogether. Ya, we gave an inch and they'll be aiming to gain a mile but I think I understand what mr pres was thinking. A useless *** was on they're radar, giving it to them was enough to shut them up (for now..) and prolong a further attempt on they're part to keep reaching. In the end it's not losing anything anyone actually cared about and they'll think they won something. Was it the right decision? I don't know, there may not have been a right decision. Personally I'm all for the stfu and deal with it approach to this but unfortunately I'm not sure it's going to work forever. It's a chess game from this point forward, that move may f us but it should atleast buy us a little time to game plan.
That's what I'm guessing his thought process was and why I think the nra is keeping quiet about it. I might be wrong, really don't want to get in a debate about it, just wanted to say what I'm guessing they are thinking right now. They gotta play chess to swing voters to keep what we have left, hopefully they know what they're doing because I sure don't.
For the record I agree. It's unconstitutional and overall bs.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
The NRA is keeping their **** mouths shut, because they're the a-holes that proposed this infringement in the first place. They want everyone to forget who it was that cranked this train... I won't ever forget, and as long as I'm alive, I won't let people forget.
I agree, he was probably just trying to get the Dems to shut up. However, the've already got more gun-control on their new House agenda as one of their top 3 focuses while in control for 2019 until the next election. So, no, they always claim "we just want this", but then once they get it, they want more and more and more. It never stops until we're completely helpless and disarmed, so the elites (on both sides) can rule us like kings vs. slaves. It really is all about the power dynamic.
Trump is learning to be a politician, and it's ****ing me off, because he's ****ing on the rights of those who got him elected in 2016, just to get votes for 2020. If someone is anti-gun, they're anti-American...PERIOD!
I agree, he was probably just trying to get the Dems to shut up. However, the've already got more gun-control on their new House agenda as one of their top 3 focuses while in control for 2019 until the next election. So, no, they always claim "we just want this", but then once they get it, they want more and more and more. It never stops until we're completely helpless and disarmed, so the elites (on both sides) can rule us like kings vs. slaves. It really is all about the power dynamic.
Trump is learning to be a politician, and it's ****ing me off, because he's ****ing on the rights of those who got him elected in 2016, just to get votes for 2020. If someone is anti-gun, they're anti-American...PERIOD!
Similar threads
