"Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

1
From emotional Esquire Editor-at-Large.
Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I now actually do want to take your guns.

All of your guns.

Right now.
The author seems to be addressing one small organization with ~5 million members that puts less money into it's gun-related concerns than the gun prohibition lobby does, but of course the punishment for which he advocates is for regular gun owners.

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

2
As long as the NRA is the de facto voice of gun owners, we will lose the gun debate with everyone outside of our gun-owning bubble. They are so tone-deaf as to not even know they can't carry a tune. But they keep belting-out the crazy all the way to the back row and it grates on 80% of the public like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Unless something changes, many of us are going to live to see the end of the Second Amendment.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

3
It won’t happen, of course. So let’s meet in the middle. Let’s meet at…literally anything.
The poor dear doesn't realize that we are already in the middle.

But of course, he *really* wants to take my guns. I wonder how he imagines that would happen? If he says that he really, really, really, really wants it, then I guess we have to just do what he says. Or so he imagines.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

5
I just always get a kick out of people who say they want to take my guns. I always think: "I have guns. You do not. So how are you going to take anything from me?"

Of course, what they really mean to say is that they will send the police take my guns, because it's not *their* job. No siree, that's a job for people with guns and that's not them.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

6
senorgrand wrote:They don't have to take shit...they just make it illegal. The rest works itself out. Ask a Californian.
Californian here. Can confirm.

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine who was freaking out cause he has several Sig Sauer DMR's ($7000-8000 value) that don't take AR15 parts, and he doesn't know of any way to make them compliant with the law. He's going to just leave them disassembled for now and hope they become legal again in the future. But they won't. The grabbers are winning, and it's thanks in large part to the NRA being moronic and tone-deaf.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Re:

8
PennyForTheGuy wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:28 pm I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine who was freaking out cause he has several Sig Sauer DMR's ($7000-8000 value) that don't take AR15 parts, and he doesn't know of any way to make them compliant with the law. He's going to just leave them disassembled for now and hope they become legal again in the future. But they won't.
Did you point out that the longer he waits to sell them to someone in a different time zone, the more money he is going to lose? 'Cause you're right: this process is not going to be reversed.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re:

9
PennyForTheGuy wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:28 pm
senorgrand wrote:They don't have to take shit...they just make it illegal. The rest works itself out. Ask a Californian.
Californian here. Can confirm.

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine who was freaking out cause he has several Sig Sauer DMR's ($7000-8000 value) that don't take AR15 parts, and he doesn't know of any way to make them compliant with the law. He's going to just leave them disassembled for now and hope they become legal again in the future. But they won't. The grabbers are winning, and it's thanks in large part to the NRA being moronic and tone-deaf.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
If the guns are that expensive, then sell one and use the money to pay moving expenses to get out of California.

Or rent a storage unit in another state and store them outside of California until he decides on what to do.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

10
You can't blame the NRA. If they didn't exist the CA lawmakers would still do what they're doing.

They always talk about meeting in the middle, but we're past middle ground now and they know it. The article is a lie other then the truth that they want to take away all guns. Any "compromise" will simply be one in a long list of already reasonable acquiescence given. Compromise it's never been, just a string of giving in since 1934. I'm glad they've finally gotten to the point they aren't hiding it anymore, even though they are somewhat pretending they don't want it in the article to "sound reasonable".

The local democratic congressional primary candidate totally agrees with gun confiscation for AR type weapons and is running on it. She beat out the only Dem to win that seat in decades before he barely lost it the last election cycle. Partially due to this sort of talk from his party. This stance will all but guarantee a defeat in a place they've recently won. I'm not sure why the Dems want to attempt to retake the House and Senate by stirring up this sort of controversy. It seems like a losing strategy in swing states. The worst thing you can do in an off election is to fire up the winning side so they show up and vote. Mid term elections are typically won on low voter turnout with slightly better turnout from the losing side in the last presidential election.

They really just don't seem to get the fact that the NRA is a small organization that has helped craft gun control legislation throughout the last 100 years, which is probably why the vast majority of gun owners don't belong to the NRA. Drumming up fear in gun owners with ban talk can only bring a significant portion of the 100 million gun owners out to vote for that one issue alone. It's a great way to lose. If you don't think so, look what happened after Obama told everyone they should be a single issue voter when it came to gun control.
Last edited by inomaha on Mon May 21, 2018 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brian

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

11
I too find it hard to blame the NRA. That doesn't mean I find them blameless but, they are justified in fighting every suggestion and law tooth and nail every time someone bans more ajd discusses other bans. those people who discuss bans are justified in fighting such a far reaching position every time the NRA fights every suggestion and law.

Its kind of a big circle. But I sympsthize far more with the NRA. Legislators on the left have proven time and time again they if you give them an inch they will take a right.

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

12
I disagree. The NRA is a big part of the problem. We (and not just people in CA...I mean nationally) are going to see a significant reduction in our gun rights because of the inability of the NRA to talk like rational people.

CA used to be a pretty red state...but after Pete Wilson, the party eroded to be no more significant than the Libertarians or Greens. They made themselves insignificant. The NRA is doing the same thing.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

13
The rank and file members of the NRA and those gun owners who are not members but believe the NRA speaks for them don't seem to understand that the hardline stance of the executive committee and the directors is actually working against them now.

30-40% of the adult population owns at least 1 gun whereas only about 2% of the adult population are card carrying members of the NRA. So who has more power? Obviously the numbers in the general population would constitute the power If the NRA didn't have the lobbying power it does. It only has that power because of its lobbying on behalf of the gun manufacturers.

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

15
The 2nd Amendment won't be repealed. The votes aren't there. Trump thinks he can repeal the 22nd Amendment.
There is NO political climate I can imagine in which BOTH can be repealed, because if enough people and states are willing to repeal 2A, they WON'T repeal 22A. And Vice versa.

You need 38 states, so just 13 can block either amendment. And will. And definitely not the same 13.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

16
Esquire has to sell magazines so they resort to tabloid shock tactics like the Daily Express does. Just another writer stirring the pot to get more readers, I'm tired of the ranting. The NRA's policy is not to give an inch, even if Wayne LaPierre dropped dead tomorrow I now doubt much would change. Two fortresses, pro-gun and anti-gun and we're stuck someplace in the middle. As long as the "grab the gun journalists" dominate one side and from "these cold dead hands NRA" the other side, nothing will happen. Wake me up when the they want to talk real solutions.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

18
Exactly. I'd love to contribute to and have a real conversation about what we can do about guns and violence but if you come at me with "I'm gonna take yer guns!" my immediate response is "Come at me, Bro."

Yer not taking my guns.....you can repeal the 2nd amendment and *then* get a Warrant, come kick the door down and take anything the Warrant covers but I'm not "turning them in". If someone wants to have a real dialog with me about guns they need to do a couple of things. Number one, don't fucking threaten me. I'm not a Badass but I can play one really well and my response to threats is Not. Pretty.

Number two: The Constitution guarantees me the right to keep and bear and if yer *that* serious (because rest assured, I *am* very serious) then get on with it and repeal the 2nd and force me to be disarmed. For someone who doesn't like violence, these people need to grow up. If you want them repeal the 2nd and take what comes.

But cut out the threats...that there is what has made it necessary to talk about this shit in the first place. The people talking "this talk" ("I'm gonna take yer guns 'cause I want 'em") better be able to walk that walk 'cause telling a Man to get lost and making him do it are entirely different propositions.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

19
IMHO, there are too many guns in this country, and not enough recreational or sport shooting. I started shooting last year because first and foremost I thought shooting was FUN. 2nd amendment issues appeal to me as well (the right to self-defense, keeping a balance of forces between civilians and police or military forces, etc), and it's certainly worth speaking out about them, but it's not enough. There needs to be a more positive or even edifying message, which the NRA is not promoting. Non gun owners by and large think that the NRA represents the typical gun owner, and that may have been true in the past(or so I gather), but it certainly is not the case anymore.

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

22
You can skip donating to the NRA (education) or NRA-ILA (lobbying), and donate to the much more low key NRA Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund (litigation): https://www.nradefensefund.org/current-litigation.aspx

You won't get a range bag or a pocket knife, but you can directly help fund litigation against onerous laws. One example that is pretty relevant today is Duncan v. Becerra (CA magazine ban): briefing available here: http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

The recent 9th Circuit Argument from May 15, 2018, on whether the temporary injunction should remain in place while the case procedes is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKa1Gz81sfk The first two thirds is pretty dry and very much about procedural issues, but the last third on the 5th Amendment and the takings clause is pretty interesting beginning about 31:46.

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

23
senorgrand wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 5:53 pm I disagree. The NRA is a big part of the problem. We (and not just people in CA...I mean nationally) are going to see a significant reduction in our gun rights because of the inability of the NRA to talk like rational people.

CA used to be a pretty red state...but after Pete Wilson, the party eroded to be no more significant than the Libertarians or Greens. They made themselves insignificant. The NRA is doing the same thing.
How about this. The NRA isn't hardline enough and is the reason we're at this point right now. They roll over for political favors and have helped draft all the major gun control regulations on the books now because their old man fudd membership didn't see any of the GC Acts as problem.

Now we're at a point where everyone with their silly feelings thinks every time someone on the news scares them that gun owners have to give something else up or we're being unreasonable. No we're not. Removing a right protected by the constitution using thousands of pages of contradictory buearacratic legalese across multiple states and at a national level is unreasonable. Using the issue to gain political power for your specific party and candidate is even more unreasonable.

My solution. No assault weapons ban, no new taxes, repeal all the useless laws, nationwide 2A preemption with consitutional carry in all 50 states. They get background checks and gun free zones. Theres the compromise. It's the reason I don't belong to the NRA. They are ineffective so I give my money to more effective gun groups and to buy off local politicians as much as possible to stem the tide of democratic dumbassery working it's way into their platforms at all levels.

You want a seat at the table but they don't have one for gun owners. They want them to go sit in the other room at the kids table and they'll bring you whatever they feel you deserve later.

CA will not allow guns in the near future. They'll slow ban them, make it illegal to purchase from outside the state, zone gun stores out of existence so you can't purchase in the state, and then tax guns and ammo to death, or wait for you to actually die before destroying them instead of you passing them on to family. That's the side being irrational. Listening to CA politicians talk about guns makes Ted Nugent sound like a Mensa candidate.
Brian

Re: "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns"

25
inomaha wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 4:08 pm
senorgrand wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 5:53 pm I disagree. The NRA is a big part of the problem. We (and not just people in CA...I mean nationally) are going to see a significant reduction in our gun rights because of the inability of the NRA to talk like rational people.

CA used to be a pretty red state...but after Pete Wilson, the party eroded to be no more significant than the Libertarians or Greens. They made themselves insignificant. The NRA is doing the same thing.
How about this. The NRA isn't hardline enough and is the reason we're at this point right now. They roll over for political favors and have helped draft all the major gun control regulations on the books now because their old man fudd membership didn't see any of the GC Acts as problem.

Now we're at a point where everyone with their silly feelings thinks every time someone on the news scares them that gun owners have to give something else up or we're being unreasonable. No we're not. Removing a right protected by the constitution using thousands of pages of contradictory buearacratic legalese across multiple states and at a national level is unreasonable. Using the issue to gain political power for your specific party and candidate is even more unreasonable.

My solution. No assault weapons ban, no new taxes, repeal all the useless laws, nationwide 2A preemption with consitutional carry in all 50 states. They get background checks and gun free zones. Theres the compromise. It's the reason I don't belong to the NRA. They are ineffective so I give my money to more effective gun groups and to buy off local politicians as much as possible to stem the tide of democratic dumbassery working it's way into their platforms at all levels.

You want a seat at the table but they don't have one for gun owners. They want them to go sit in the other room at the kids table and they'll bring you whatever they feel you deserve later.

CA will not allow guns in the near future. They'll slow ban them, make it illegal to purchase from outside the state, zone gun stores out of existence so you can't purchase in the state, and then tax guns and ammo to death, or wait for you to actually die before destroying them instead of you passing them on to family. That's the side being irrational. Listening to CA politicians talk about guns makes Ted Nugent sound like a Mensa candidate.
Yep.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests