• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

POTUS working on gun control "under the radar".

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
I wouldn't say they are small. Definitely not 'radical'. Maybe a bit fringe, huh. I wonder how Brady felt about firearms prior to being shot in the head?

You must have missed the thread where I and a couple others linked to Brady etc's tax returns and I attempted to find good membership numbers without much success.

I think they ARE small; just vocal, well-funded, and well-connected. I will look for the thread.

As to radical and fringe? The above answers that, also. Remember, few HEAR about the opinions of the center. It is radical, fringe voices from ANY FACTION that make the headlines. And headlines mean fundraising.

Kinda goes with my theory that the world is not any bettter or worse than it has ever been. We now just have the ability to know what is happening in real time in Greater Phuckedupistan.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Project Gunrunner alongside the administration's comments about US guns in Mexico are proof enough they are trying to work under the radar.
 

EricDailey X-NRA

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
209
Location
Wake County, NC
A Megaphone

You must have missed the thread where I and a couple others linked to Brady etc's tax returns and I attempted to find good membership numbers without much success.

I think they ARE small; just vocal, well-funded, and well-connected. I will look for the thread.

As to radical and fringe? The above answers that, also. Remember, few HEAR about the opinions of the center. It is radical, fringe voices from ANY FACTION that make the headlines. And headlines mean fundraising.

Kinda goes with my theory that the world is not any bettter or worse than it has ever been. We now just have the ability to know what is happening in real time in Greater Phuckedupistan.

They also have the "dailymedia" working as unofficial members to broadcast their messages.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Can someone link to where the ATF has now made pistol grip shotguns a DD? I'm going to be writing my senator soon and that would be one more thing for me to include when I write him.
 

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
A few observations:

When RR first woke up after his post-shooting surgery, some news-noid stuck a microphone in his face and asked how he felt about the 2nd amendment now. He replied he hadn't changed his mind and still supported the right to keep and bear. The interview was promptly ended and the report barely made one news cycle. Hmmmm. Imagine if he'd said "people shouldn't be able to have guns". It would have been banner headlines all over the US. Reagan later went with the Brady Ban for two reasons: Nancy hated guns and was increasingly influential in Ronnie's decision making, and at that time, RR was certainly in the grips of early Alzheimer's. (One could infer that one of the routes to Bradyism is impending dementia.)

Oh, by the way, the quote about "people shouldn't be able...." was exactly what Obama said when he met John Lott in Chicago when O was a state senator. NO ONE should be under any illusions about POTUS' real attitude about the 2nd amendment.

The Brady Group is and was a small, radical fringe group. It was founded by Mark Borinski,MD back in the 60's I think. He'd been mugged in NYC and decided to blame guns. (brilliant logic, Doc.) His group, Handgun Control, Inc. was nothing but a little group of radical idiots headquartered in some one-flight-up office in lower Manhatten. It got almost no traction, and was later taken over by Pete Shields, whose plan was first to demand all pistols be registered, then all manufacturing was to be stopped, and finally, all guns registered were to be confiscated. He didn't wear a swastika armband, but he should have. The group languished because it was wierd and had no "star power". That changed when the Brady's were courted and brought on board in 1982. The wierdness was more palatable with her name up front, along with her tragic story. The media finally had what it needed to beat the anti-gun drum effectively. The last figures I could find indicated that in 2009 they had 50,500 dues-paying members. Truly a drop in the bucket when GOA, CCRKBA, SAF each number in the hundreds of thousands, and the NRA more than 4 million. Lots of overlap of course, but still significant numbers. How much free press do these groups get? Zilch. Who does the media turn to when they want predictably anti-gun statements? The little radical fringies. I guess Helmke will take over when Sarah gets too feeble, or runs out of lies, which ever happens first.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Can someone link to where the ATF has now made pistol grip shotguns a DD? I'm going to be writing my senator soon and that would be one more thing for me to include when I write him.

They have not made them destructive devices. They have stated that such a weapon would not fit the legal description of shotgun because of the "designed to be fired from the shoulder" part. Some people have put forth the hypothesis that if a shotgun with a pistol grip is not a shotgun and does not have the sporting exception it would fall into the description of a destructive device since its bore is larger than 50 caliber. Part of the problem is ATF is probably right; the law being enforced is unconstitutional.
 

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
I'm not sure "destructive device" is the category they'd decide to use. Perhaps "AOW" (any other weapon)? In any event, its just bureaucratic nonsense. If I put a second pistol grip on the front of my 1911 frame, does that mean it no longer has any "sporting purpose"? Come to think about it, that might be fun. I'm thinking of an elongated base for the grip, like the one used for the forward grip on a Tommy gun. Maybe one of you photoshop guys can illustrate the concept for me, as long as you give me credit for the design. ; > )
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'm not sure "destructive device" is the category they'd decide to use. Perhaps "AOW" (any other weapon)? In any event, its just bureaucratic nonsense. If I put a second pistol grip on the front of my 1911 frame, does that mean it no longer has any "sporting purpose"? Come to think about it, that might be fun. I'm thinking of an elongated base for the grip, like the one used for the forward grip on a Tommy gun. Maybe one of you photoshop guys can illustrate the concept for me, as long as you give me credit for the design. ; > )

I want to see the retention holster for that.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
I'm not sure "destructive device" is the category they'd decide to use. Perhaps "AOW" (any other weapon)? In any event, its just bureaucratic nonsense. If I put a second pistol grip on the front of my 1911 frame, does that mean it no longer has any "sporting purpose"? Come to think about it, that might be fun. I'm thinking of an elongated base for the grip, like the one used for the forward grip on a Tommy gun. Maybe one of you photoshop guys can illustrate the concept for me, as long as you give me credit for the design. ; > )

If you put a foregrip on a pistol that would be making an NFA weapon, specifically an Any Other Weapon. Only a few shotguns can qualify as AOW and they are all short in the barrel. Destructive devise covers anything with a bore over 50 caliber that is not an SBS, without a sporting purpose. This is what shotguns such as the street sweeper were classed as since they were so scary that it couldn't have a sporting purpose.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Regardless of if it's going to be an AOW or DD can someone link me the info so that I can include it in the letteer I'm going to be writing to my senator.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Since when was the 2nd Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" relegated to "sporting purposes only?" The Amendment itself say it's "necessary to the security of a free state," and according to the many supporting documents and letters written by our Founding Fathers about the 2A, that includes both repelling invaders as well as overthrowing tyrants.

As history has clearly shown us, the first act of a tyrant is to disarm the people...
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Since when was the 2nd Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" relegated to "sporting purposes only?" The Amendment itself say it's "necessary to the security of a free state," and according to the many supporting documents and letters written by our Founding Fathers about the 2A, that includes both repelling invaders as well as overthrowing tyrants.

As history has clearly shown us, the first act of a tyrant is to disarm the people...

1934, supposidly when the NRA helped draft the legislation. Seems even back then they only cared about keeping and using arms in hunting and NRA shooting matches.
 
Top