Brace Ban

[churchmouse]

Give it a short rest people........


And my go to is a hardwood board as I have some serious money in my knives.....

 

[churchmouse]

Breaks over.

Be civil please.

 

[snorko]

Whoa, whoa, there Snorko. Unless you've been paying my licensing fees for a while, I decided to surrender my FFL/SOT in 2017. My choice.

I was cordial until now, but morons like you spreading mis-information certainly don't help your point. Knock it off. Discuss things you know, not things you're mis-informed about.

I do apologize for besmirching your character. For eight of the eleven years I have read posts from you on INGO you were an FFL/SOT holder, I did not realize you dropped it. As I previously posted, I was not attacking you, or calling you names, but pointing out there were significant costs beyond the simple $200 tax stamp involved. Again I apologize for any discomfort I caused you.

 

[Aszerigan]

I do apologize for besmirching your character. For eight of the eleven years I have read posts from you on INGO you were an FFL/SOT holder, I did not realize you dropped it. As I previously posted, I was not attacking you, or calling you names, but pointing out there were significant costs beyond the simple $200 tax stamp involved. Again I apologize for any discomfort I caused you.

No blood, no foul. Thank you. *shakes hands*

 

[jamil]

I like to surprise my wife with hardwood.

For knives?

 

[Tombs]

It is allowed by law... today. And tomorrow when it's not and you're a felon? All I said was that it's easier to get your stamp and not worry about it.

Then it's an SBR and you have to deal with all the headaches the NFA creates.

The $200 tax isn't really a big deal at all, it's the headaches with having to notify the ATF if crossing borders, and some states having a wholesale ban on SBRs.
It being a pistol avoids all of those headaches. If it wasn't for all those issues I'd have already done the paperwork for a few lowers I have, just so that I can do what ever I want with them.

If they ban braces, then it's just not eligible for public range use or pictures. Not the end of the world.

 

[WebSnyper]

It is allowed by law... today. And tomorrow when it's not and you're a felon? All I said was that it's easier to get your stamp and not worry about it.

The way you stated that I get, to some extent. It was the reference to skirting the law that made it seem like folks who are using braces were somehow doing something not quite legal that hit me the wrong way.

 

[DadSmith]

Once the totalitarian police state lovers take over government they may ban or add all semiautomatic firearms to the NFA. Then what will you follow the law and not break it?

 

[patience0830]

Once the totalitarian police state lovers take over government they may ban or add all semiautomatic firearms to the NFA. Then what will you follow the law and not break it?

There comes a point in trajectories eventually, when you must finally hit "the dirt" with everything you have.

We are not allowed to discuss the things that may eventually have to come to pass. But we must, when the time comes, know our neighbors and others of like mind to find an outcome that is acceptable to us. Less time in social media. More time in face to face social pursuits.

 

[DadSmith]

There comes a point in trajectories eventually, when you must finally hit "the dirt" with everything you have.

We are not allowed to discuss the things that may eventually have to come to pass. But we must, when the time comes, know our neighbors and others of like mind to find an outcome that is acceptable to us. Less time in social media. More time in face to face social pursuits.

I understand but we are discussing a brace ban possibility in the future and NFA being okay with several members. I just want to know if said members will follow every ban that will come with a Democrat controlled government.

 

[Route 45]

Why is it that the enemy hath left the New England provinces, and made those middle once the fear of war? The answer is easy, New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been under in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to shew them their danger. . . . The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good GOD! what is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward, for a servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave. - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, December 1776

 

[thompal]

The rationale sorta goes like this:

• Requiring an ID (entirely funded by taxpayers) for the purposes of ensuring the veracity of the electorate = poll tax.
• Requiring $200 tax stamp to exercise 2A rights = "minor inconvenience"

The fallacy of this argument is that a valid state-issued picture ID can be obtained at the BMV for free.

 

[johny5]

The fallacy of this argument is that a valid state-issued picture ID can be obtained at the BMV for free.

This was taken into account. Re-read it.
"(entirely funded by taxpayers)"

This does not make for a fallacy. It punctuates the inconsistency in the mindset of those claiming the tax-stamp is a 'minor-inconvenience'

 

[jamil]

The rationale sorta goes like this:

• Requiring an ID (entirely funded by taxpayers) for the purposes of ensuring the veracity of the electorate = poll tax.
• Requiring $200 tax stamp to exercise 2A rights = "minor inconvenience"

The fallacy of this argument is that a valid state-issued picture ID can be obtained at the BMV for free.

This was taken into account. Re-read it.
"(entirely funded by taxpayers)"

This does not make for a fallacy. It punctuates the inconsistency in the mindset of those claiming the tax-stamp is a 'minor-inconvenience'

I think I agree. It's not a false equivalence per se because it's the idea of burden that's at issue. The anti-voter-id side, for one thing, lost its legal case against Indiana because Indiana has made it not a financial burden to the people who are said to be disenfranchised by it. So the point is actually not applicable to Indiana. But with other states, sure the equivalence is valid. If you claim the tax stamp is just a minor inconvenience, but you're upset about voter-id laws, you're not being consistent.

But is it really representative of the rationale at issue in this thread. That's where I would have a problem with this argument. Does anyone in this thread who is saying the tax stamp is a minor inconvenience, also saying that the voter ID law disenfranchises a constitutional right? I haven't read every post but I don't recall that being a thing.

 

[churchmouse]

I understand but we are discussing a brace ban possibility in the future and NFA being okay with several members. I just want to know if said members will follow every ban that will come with a Democrat controlled government.

Chip chip chip chipping away. This is why we will loose this fight in the end. Lazy and lack luster members of the gun community not willing to take a stand and say enough. Lazy barely covers this. Lack luster is as kind a phrase as I can dig up. Keep bending over and taking it in the.........

Disappointed. Deeply so.

 

[johny5]

I think I agree. It's not a false equivalence per se because it's the idea of burden that's at issue. The anti-voter-id side, for one thing, lost its legal case against Indiana because Indiana has made it not a financial burden to the people who are said to be disenfranchised by it. So the point is actually not applicable to Indiana. But with other states, sure the equivalence is valid. If you claim the tax stamp is just a minor inconvenience, but you're upset about voter-id laws, you're not being consistent.

But is it really representative of the rationale at issue in this thread. That's where I would have a problem with this argument. Does anyone in this thread who is saying the tax stamp is a minor inconvenience, also saying that the voter ID law disenfranchises a constitutional right? I haven't read every post but I don't recall that being a thing.

You are spot-on. It is an extension of the arguments in this thread. I do not believe that anyone on this thread has made that comparison, per se. But, it is illustrative of the discourse in the larger context of society.

We must stand up and defend all rights with similar vigor. All burdens placed on constitutionally enumerated rights should be repelled, not weighed and measured. What appears a reasonable burden to one will likely not to another. These rights should be unencumbered and we should not settle for any amount of interference with them.

This is complicated by the fact that voter ID provisions are meant to protect the integrity of the electoral process. So,the analogy was likely doomed from the beginning.

 

[Hoosier49er]

I've never understood how adding anything to the tail end of a pistol, therefore making it LESS concealable is a crime... I guess it's just another one of those "common sense" things.

 

[worddoer]

There are a portion of gun owners that are willing to let others guns be taken away.....as long as they get to keep the guns they want.

If someone is not willing to defend someone else's rights, then they don't deserve the rights they themselves have. Most soldiers who give their lives for this country do so with the knowledge that they were defending the rights of others.... rights they themselves may never use. Selling out the rights of others because you don't personally use that right is a self centered and narcissistic thing to do.

There appear to be even some here that don't see the inconsistency of supporting restrictions and obstacles to the practice of a natural right to the ownership of firearms (like the NFA) while rejecting any restrictions to other rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those same people would most likely be quite upset if they had to submit a report for government pre-approval and pay a $200 fee each time they would like to exercise their freedom of speech or their freedom of religion. Restrictions on freedom and liberty are wrong...all of them.

Many of these people don't even know how restricted our firearms freedoms have become in the last 100 years. Many including myself have learned this information and have had enough. We will no longer stand by and let our freedoms be further taken away. We will become even more active and politically involved and take every legal measure necessary to maintain and if at all possible regain our natural rights.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done and are still trying to reinstate it.

In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 2020 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." And right now we are seeing a stirring to ban pistol braces. Are we once again going to idly stand by and let this happen like all the others? Those who do, those who refuse to defend the freedom of others even if they don't use that freedom, those are self centered, narcissistic people.

We currently have a flurry of legislation in many state governments trying to take even more of our natural rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried 7 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side gave nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough. They only continue to ask for more and more and more.

After losing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 7 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. And those who think that the anti-gun crowd will not ban NFA items the instant they have enough control are IMHO foolish. They have stated publicly many times they would LOVE to remove the NFA and ban all those items. How will that little $200 stamp save you when that happens?

The anti-gun crowd hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of American's in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise (including the NFA) is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to elect pro gun people into office and get these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

 

[mechmc17]

There are a portion of gun owners that are willing to let others guns be taken away.....as long as they get to keep the guns they want.

If someone is not willing to defend someone else's rights, then they don't deserve the rights they themselves have. Most soldiers who give their lives for this country do so with the knowledge that they were defending the rights of others.... rights they themselves may never use. Selling out the rights of others because you don't personally use that right is a self centered and narcissistic thing to do.

There appear to be even some here that don't see the inconsistency of supporting restrictions and obstacles to the practice of a natural right to the ownership of firearms (like the NFA) while rejecting any restrictions to other rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those same people would most likely be quite upset if they had to submit a report for government pre-approval and pay a $200 fee each time they would like to exercise their freedom of speech or their freedom of religion. Restrictions on freedom and liberty are wrong...all of them.

Many of these people don't even know how restricted our firearms freedoms have become in the last 100 years. Many including myself have learned this information and have had enough. We will no longer stand by and let our freedoms be further taken away. We will become even more active and politically involved and take every legal measure necessary to maintain and if at all possible regain our natural rights.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done and are still trying to reinstate it.

In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 2020 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." And right now we are seeing a stirring to ban pistol braces. Are we once again going to idly stand by and let this happen like all the others? Those who do, those who refuse to defend the freedom of others even if they don't use that freedom, those are self centered, narcissistic people.

We currently have a flurry of legislation in many state governments trying to take even more of our natural rights away yet again.

As you can see above, we have tried 7 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side gave nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough. They only continue to ask for more and more and more.

After losing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 7 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. And those who think that the anti-gun crowd will not ban NFA items the instant they have enough control are IMHO foolish. They have stated publicly many times they would LOVE to remove the NFA and ban all those items. How will that little $200 stamp save you when that happens?

The anti-gun crowd hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of American's in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise (including the NFA) is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to elect pro gun people into office and get these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

100%

 

[mechmc17]

You are spot-on. It is an extension of the arguments in this thread. I do not believe that anyone on this thread has made that comparison, per se. But, it is illustrative of the discourse in the larger context of society.

We must stand up and defend all rights with similar vigor. All burdens placed on constitutionally enumerated rights should be repelled, not weighed and measured. What appears a reasonable burden to one will likely not to another. These rights should be unencumbered and we should not settle for any amount of interference with them.

This is complicated by the fact that voter ID provisions are meant to protect the integrity of the electoral process. So,the analogy was likely doomed from the beginning.

I would never be concerned with voter ID if our constitutional rights were not up for a vote. Anytime a large enough number of power hungry people are elected, they decide what rights we are allowed to exercise. That’s not how rights work. If we firmly establish that these rights are ours regardless of who controls the government, which is what a right implies, we’ll be just fine.

In truth, if our rights were inalienable, I would never waste time on politics again. Wouldn’t that be nice.