"Moms" to protest NRAHQ 10/6 10AM

teratos · Oct 7, 2017

Stoveman said:
Why have they been so easily available if they were truly a menace to a civil society?

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED!

One of our problems is that even the late, great originalist Justice Scalia said that the 2A didn't mean there could be no restrictions.

28Shooter · Oct 7, 2017

I'm almost 60 and anybody who thinks compromise, "giving an inch", will benefit our cause is naive beyond belief. Just look at the history and continuing (accelerating) loss of Second Amendment rights since 1968. Every compromise comes from our side and every compromise is a further nibbling away of our rights.

Mike · Oct 7, 2017

Glaron said:
Let us be quite clear let a wacko determine national policy? Yeah!!!!!

One thing I have learned give an inch the liberals will take it and look for the next inch you pussies will give. Until your back is against the wall. My back been at that wall one too many times Im not going there voluntarily.

I might not own crap they are whining about but I support America. Land of the FREE! That includes not giving an inch for rights.

~G

Who has had the biggest effect on architectural design in the past 20 years? That's right the wacko osama bin laden. Not saying it's bad to design buildings to better resist terrorists, just that since him, we see Jersey barriers everyplace, esp. in DC.

ironpony said:
I'm guessing there were not many moms there?
Why am I not seeing it mentioned that the 2A was created to prevent a tyrannical .gov (foreign or domestic) and seeing what the military has the .gov wants to limit the actual owners of this country (citizens) to owning slingshots in comparison. Please tell me if I am wrong, is this the wrong way to think?

This is exactly what I think the 2A is for; to prevent the government from prohibiting any arms for any reason. Every attempt to limit our right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. And forgive me but Justice Scalia was wrong, nothing is allowable when it infringes on citizens' right to keep and bear arms. Any arms, all arms.

Adolph Oliver Bush · Oct 7, 2017

Most of the American population, including about 3 MDS members, could stand to read (perhaps for the first time), study, and understand the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL rights that are specifically protected by the Constitution.

What part of "shall not be infringed" needs explaining?

Schipperke · Oct 7, 2017

teratos said:
One of our problems is that even the late, great originalist Justice Scalia said that the 2A didn't mean there could be no restrictions.

Yep, conveniently overlooked. Can't un-write that.

teratos · Oct 7, 2017

Schipperke said:
Yep, conveniently overlooked. Can't un-write that.

Not overlooked by the Left. I have heard lefties bring this up.

Schipperke · Oct 7, 2017

teratos said:
Not overlooked by the Left. I have heard lefties bring this up.

Of course, it blows the abolutists "infringe" argument out of the water and it is reflected in the Heller ruling . Where is the line between infringe and regulate? Scalia gave the legislators a gift.

Heller ruling. Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

danb · Oct 7, 2017

So, I see alot of infighting, no actual update on the protest.

Did it happen? How many stroller moms demanding attention showed up?

hillbilly grandpa · Oct 7, 2017

Does anyone remember the old days of LP records? Remember when the stylus hit a piece of dirt in a groove, and got bumped back to the previous groove? From there it just went round and round repeating that one groove. The rest of the music was lost.

This started out as a thread on a specific topic. Then at about post 10 it hit a snag. We're now at about post 49, and the original thread disussion has disappeared, replaced by another topic/debate. It's that repeated bump in the groove.

I'm fully in support of open discussion on a very wide range of topics. But it woud be helpful, if you want to engage in an off-thread topic, take the initiative and start your own thread. Then those who want to follow a specific topic in a given thread will be able to do so--without getting stuck in that one groove. It would seem to me to just be a common courtesy thing.

teratos · Oct 7, 2017

Schipperke said:
Of course, it blows the abolutists "infringe" argument out of the water and it is reflected in the Heller ruling . Where is the line between infringe and regulate? Scalia gave the legislators a gift.

It had to be said. Sadly.

BeoBill · Oct 7, 2017

DraKhen99 said:
They're all a bunch of f**king whiny b***hes. F 'em. They're the same ones who are on social media demanding we get rid of all guns. They just don't get it.

-John

PS: My normal calm, well thought-out statements are quickly going out the window as this s**t keeps on being spewed by the left. I'm done being nice. F 'em all, I hope the zombie apocalypse takes 'em all out.

You have just attained the second stage of enlightenment.

BeoBill · Oct 7, 2017

OK, thread rerail:

Does anybody have any updates on the Demanding Moms' most exciting field trip to NRA HQ? Or did they just meet at Starbucks for a latte?

Now back to the raging discussion at hand.

IMO, I would trade a crap shoot with loaded dice (remember T45 saying "Now is not the time to discuss this" and Wayne saying "OK look at it. See, we play nice too"?) about an accessory device for National Reciprocity and suppressors becoming non-NFA devices any day.

EDIT/ADD: I have to agree with Schipperke; ATF will NEVER admit it made a mistake, especially when their employer
(T45 who signs off on their operating funds) frowns at the idea of new 2A restrictions.

I also think because of T45's statement (quoted above) that everyone is wetting themselves for nothing. It's not news anymore; tomorrow there will be a new crisis for the Left to wring hands over and the whole thing will be flushed down the news cycle memory hole, never to be seen again. Save the righteous indignation and passionate appeals for the next MGA session, when it will actually have a positive effect on US HERE.

Just my opinions; no endorsement expressed or implied. Flame away. :innocent0

Art3 · Oct 7, 2017

BeoBill said:
OK, thread rerail:

Now back to the raging discussion at hand.

IMO, I would trade a crap shoot with loaded dice (remember T45 saying "Now is not the time to discuss this" and Wayne saying "OK look at it. See, we play nice too"?) about an accessory device for National Reciprocity and suppressors becoming non-NFA devices any day.

I also think because of T45's statement (quoted above) that everyone is wetting themselves for nothing. It's not news anymore; tomorrow there will be a new crisis for the Left to wring hands over and the whole thing will be flushed down the news cycle memory hole, never to be seen again. Save the righteous indignation and passionate appeals for the next MGA session, when it will actually have a positive effect on US HERE.

Just my opinions; no endorsement expressed or implied. Flame away.

I have never wished harder for a transformer NFL player to be caught "praying" in the women's bathroom during the national anthem...

Seriously though, any report on how many moms showed up? (and, were they really silent?)

j_h_smith · Oct 7, 2017

knastera said:
Apples and oranges. Rate of fire is at the heart of the NFA rules on machine guns.

You do sound like a "never give and inch guy." Believe me, I don't want to give an inch on anything because as a libertarian, I want the government to keep its filthy paws off of everything apart from national defense, interstate commerce, and a select few items. However, this to me is the least painful inch to give.

Which is it? Do you stand for liberty or do you stand for an inch less of liberty?

You're either for us or against us. There is no more room for compromise.

Biggfoot44 · Oct 7, 2017

Back at original Rails - What happened 1000hrs Fri in Fairfax ?

j_h_smith · Oct 7, 2017

Biggfoot44 said:
Back at original Rails - What happened 1000hrs Fri in Fairfax ?

It didn't make the news, so my guess if they probably had about 32 hairy arm pits and a bunch of corny songs being sung. Other than that, I have no doubt there was anything done that would be considered meaningful.

Mark75H · Oct 7, 2017

Biggfoot44 said:
Back at original Rails - What happened 1000hrs Fri in Fairfax ?

j_h_smith said:
It didn't make the news, so my guess if they probably had about 32 hairy arm pits and a bunch of corny songs being sung. Other than that, I have no doubt there was anything done that would be considered meaningful.

Covering the boat show in Annapolis was probably more fun, so no one got that assignment.

Park ranger · Oct 7, 2017

Now I know what they mean by 3%. I'm so disappointed

JohnnyE · Oct 7, 2017

28Shooter said:
I'm almost 60 and anybody who thinks compromise, "giving an inch", will benefit our cause is naive beyond belief. Just look at the history and continuing (accelerating) loss of Second Amendment rights since 1968. Every compromise comes from our side and every compromise is a further nibbling away of our rights.

None of these were "compromises."

If someone want 100, and then ends up "settling" by taking 50, and giving nothing of value in return, it's not a compromise. It's just taking less.

FrankZ · Oct 7, 2017

knastera said:
You missed my point. Whether the NRA recommended the ATF examine bump fire, it was going to anyway. The recommendation changed nothing other than the optics which do not look good for us. Not only does the NRA show a willingness to work on things, it also gets to pin this on Obama. Think about how it helps our ability to reason with others, when they say, "the NRA is against any gun regulations" we can say, "what about its recommendations on bump fire stocks?" They'll have no answer for that.

Or they will say "Even the NRA agrees there are limits to the second amendment".

Its the old "we know what kind of girl you are, now we're just haggling over the price" thing.

"Moms" to protest NRAHQ 10/6 10AM

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Eqinsu Ocha

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Liberty = Responsibility

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics