The NRA Response

I think what Brad is getting at is that someone will have to clean up the mess.

so how about some suggestions for solutions ? Enforce the existing laws.. how many prison beds are we short right now ? Mental health crisis certainly.. who is going to shoot and who will crawl into a corner ? We as citizens have a right to bear arms, but how does more guns reduce gun violence ? There are no easy solutions to this issue. The simple one line explanations are for the simple minded.

I do believe that sums it up Joemama.

I’m taken aback by your support Mr. B.K.

I’m with you, joemama. If you think complex problems have simple solutions, then you are probably a little bit simple yourself. I strongly support and believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I also strongly believe that many people are being manipulated by the gun lobby. Like all issues, there is probably a middle ground somewhere that has hunters and shooters exercising their rights and pursuing their hobbies and ways of life BUT does not allow criminals to stockpile weapons willy-nilly. There IS a difference, folks. As sportsmen, have the guts to from your own opinion. You don’t need to get it from cable TV.
Gov. Jesse used to say “follow the money.” Is someone getting rich as they tell you what to believe? They added a 3rd shift up at Federal a couple years ago. Coincidence?
(When I was a young man we used to grade how drunk we got by what we talked and argued about. “Gun control drunk” was pretty drunk. I’ve only had a few tonight, though, I swear.) Rock on, my brothers! I’m grateful to live in a country where we can blab about this stuff!
Go Vikes! Tight Lines!

Quoting Jesse about anything in any context is pretty bizarre. Follow the money is correct. They never will, never can get your guns. Can’t be done. Period. End of discussion.

Keep your NRA strong and pay attention who you vote for and you will be alright.

Deer and birds will be extinct before complete gun control hits this country.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the entire plan is to put the 2nd Amendment in front of the Supreme Court once again. His executive actions may very well be deemed unconstitutional, but will probably force the court to further define and/or reword the Constitution.

“Death by a thousand cuts” is the best way I’ve heard it described.

This guy’s legacy will be putting the nation on the verge of bankruptcy. He can’t afford to go after the gun crowd also.

Legacy is all these guys think about, or like Clinton how much can I charge for a speech and how do I stay in the public eye.

If you need something to worry about, worry about the world economy or that nut case running North Korea. Thats where the real threats are.

gixxer01 wrote:

It wouldn’t surprise me if the entire plan is to put the 2nd Amendment in front of the Supreme Court once again. His executive actions may very well be deemed unconstitutional, but will probably force the court to further define and/or reword the Constitution.

“Death by a thousand cuts” is the best way I’ve heard it described.

Actually, the central problem is that gun owners are so fixated on the Federal government that their getting run over by the Gun Control Bus that’s being driven by their own state legislatures.

On the Federal level, there is almost zero chance of this Supreme Court or any in the near future making a significant ruling that would erode the Second Amendment. Congress knows they are so unpopular that even liberal Democrats from NE states have little appetite to do anything but make noise about large scale Federal gun control. Obama has 11 months left, anything he can do by executive order will be dumped as soon as the White House Door hits him in the backside.

It’s a completely different story on the state and local level. Just look at what happened in Colorado. People tend to joke this off as “Colofornia” and by saying, oh, hell, Colorado isn’t the real west anymore, anyway. So it doesn’t matter.

Bull. It matters a lot because THAT is the threat of the future for gun owners–state and local efforts that have the effect of strangling gun owners with a noose of micro regulation.

It’s already happened, BTW. Anybody that travels with guns knows, you have to be very, very, very careful these days not to accidentally cross into or pass through a state where a weapon or accessory that’s perfectly legal in your state, is completely illegal in that state. It used to be just the Eastern Bloc states where nobody wanted to go anyway, but now…

Grouse

It is all politics. The timing is due to the upcoming election, nothing more. He stated he would only endorse a candidate that supported gun reform.

If this was truly important to his legacy, it would have been done in his first two years in office when the Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency.

He was too busy enacting Obamacare back then.

Gun control has become to main stream at this point not to take it seriously. Its been pushed by countless Democrats for far too long.

My concern is if they go in front of the Supreme court and get a beneficial ruling as to the meaning of a “well regulated ‘militia'”. If they determine that militia is not you and I, then they can strip us of the 2nd amendment as we understand it. Hillary Clinton has already gone on record as stating the 2nd doesn’t pertain to civilians, but rather the National Guard.

I agree with Dutchboy, as a constitutional law professor, I think he gets his kicks out of putting his signature all over the Constitution.

gixxer01 wrote:

My concern is if they go in front of the Supreme court and get a beneficial ruling as to the meaning of a “well regulated ‘militia’”. If they determine that militia is not you and I, then they can strip us of the 2nd amendment as we understand it. Hillary Clinton has already gone on record as stating the 2nd doesn’t pertain to civilians, but rather the National Guard.

The Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruling affirmed that the 2nd Amendment conveyed an individual right to bear arms. Your point about the meaning and purpose of the “militia” and weather the right to bear arms was meant to be conveyed only the collective organization of a state-run militia was at the center of this case.

This ruling was a very clear victory for 2nd Amendment supporters because it specifically stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm and also clearly stated that this right was NOT connected with service in a militia, but rather to use that arm for any traditionally lawful purposes.

BTW, listening to the oral argument in front of the court is very interesting. There is an audio recording available.

That ruling initially lead to a smackdown on a host of illegal state/local level laws, but now that has stalled and even reversed. The problem now is that states are limiting WHAT can be owned in an attempt to slowly strangle ownership itself.

People have spent a lot of time lately talking about what Obama might do or is trying to do, but the truth is that the main threat comes from what Minnesota or Minneapolis or any other state/city might try to do to restrict our rights. Just look at states like Illinois and you’ll see the problem, they have a mountain of state and city micro-regulation that, take together, blocks out the whole 2nd Amendment.

Grouse

gixxer01 wrote:

My concern is if they go in front of the Supreme court and get a beneficial ruling as to the meaning of a “well regulated ‘militia’”. If they determine that militia is not you and I, then they can strip us of the 2nd amendment as we understand it. Hillary Clinton has already gone on record as stating the 2nd doesn’t pertain to civilians, but rather the National Guard.

The Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruling affirmed that the 2nd Amendment conveyed an individual right to bear arms. Your point about the meaning and purpose of the “militia” and weather the right to bear arms was meant to be conveyed only the collective organization of a state-run militia was at the center of this case.

This ruling was a very clear victory for 2nd Amendment supporters because it specifically stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm and also clearly stated that this right was NOT connected with service in a militia, but rather to use that arm for any traditionally lawful purposes.

BTW, listening to the oral argument in front of the court is very interesting. There is an audio recording available.

That ruling initially lead to a smackdown on a host of illegal state/local level laws, but now that has stalled and even reversed. The problem now is that states are limiting WHAT can be owned in an attempt to slowly strangle ownership itself.

People have spent a lot of time lately talking about what Obama might do or is trying to do, but the truth is that the main threat comes from what Minnesota or Minneapolis or any other state/city might try to do to restrict our rights. Just look at states like Illinois and you’ll see the problem, they have a mountain of state and city micro-regulation that, taken together, blocks out the whole 2nd Amendment.

Grouse

People have spent a lot of time lately talking about what Obama might do or is trying to do, but the truth is that the main threat comes from what Minnesota or Minneapolis or any other state/city might try to do to restrict our rights. Just look at states like Illinois and you’ll see the problem, they have a mountain of state and city micro-regulation that, taken together, blocks out the whole 2nd Amendment.

Grouse, probably the best point you’ve posted in the last number of years that most people over look. We have evolved into a Urban Vs Rural society and you have a majority obviously in the metro areas that control the laws that affect the wants/needs of the rural areas. I’ve been saying this for years that we need to make significant changes in how we elect our politicians, create laws, and so on. As an example of voting – In Wisconsin, the population density is so lopsided. Take Milwaukee, Madison, and the adjoining cities to them and you can by far out vote the rest of the state. So regardless if your talking firearms, land-use, re-formulated gas,….. the wants/needs of those living a city lifestyle will supersede those wants and needs of rural lifestyles. This makes it much easier for micro-managed state laws/regulations down to local ordinances.
As a manufacture rep in industry, I cover WI and IL, plus work in a number of other states. Enjoy your freedoms folks, because I can tell you when city officials make knee-jerk ordinances/laws to react to the rare mass shooting incidents…..your stripped of the 2nd amendment. At times its like the Federal Gov’t is just a smoke and mirror diversion while you don’t even realize the little slices of your rights are taken away locally.

I frequently go out to Colorado. It is just mind blowing that with all the failures that have occurred in California, so many of them have relocated to CO and get elected to State and local enities. With that, they have been steadily passing laws to make CO much like CA. Thank God for the NRA and RMGO out there. Looking at how many trapping methods that have been taken away, lost state land from hunting, and protecting varmints….just crazy.

Your rights are being shaved away from many different angles. If you don’t open your eyes and respond accordingly, its just a matter of time before we loose it all and go back to a dictatorship

Randy, I see you reference your a manufacture rep alot lately…? Do you not do remodel/building anymore ??? Did you get a job in the firearm industry ? With whom and can we all get a discount ?

big_g wrote:

Randy, I see you reference your a manufacture rep alot lately…? Do you not do remodel/building anymore ??? Did you get a job in the firearm industry ? With whom and can we all get a discount ?

G – I don’t compete with low ballers and bullsh$!tters. This area around me has turned into the mecca of builders low balling jobs by deliberately making an entire house an “Allowance” and then under-cutting what they need. Sounds great when you think you can save 30, 40, 50…thousand on a 700,000 home. Reality is – YOU CAN’T. Cost is cost, and you can’t escape it. But what guys around here do is cut the allowances. If a house has a bid of 42K in cabinets, they’ll put a 28K allowance in the contract. As the homeowner, you go to your selection meeting, ppick out what you think your going to get….then get asked to write a check for $14,000. because you ONLY have 28,000 in your contract. Well, by that time you can be as pissed as you want…you signed a contract and they own you. I REFUSE to play that game. So, started a rep firm and hooked up with a few guys in other territories. I quit doing the Pro-staff gigs and now have almost 30 different manufactures in my portfolio I work with.
G, a special deal for you. When you can get me a new 2016 Dodge 2500 crew cab diesel for less than 50% of MSRP, I’ll return the favor on a few products
In all seriousness, this has been a good transition. I still love designing and building high quality homes. I probably will never be 100% out of it. But Spring/Fall goods have been a passion for many years. Now I get to work with the products that will be next year

Good for you Randy ! I did not know that you were doing that ! Sounds like a good gig ! Now about that 2500, I can service the poop out of it, but I don’t sell them