Anyone register a pistol brace?

[Seadog]

- Again, the President has very limited powers himself. The best he can do are 'Executive Orders' which are not laws and are, at best, temporary in nature (almost always rescinded/cancelled by the next President). At the Federal level the ONLY ones that can pass laws are Congress. The ONLY ones that can change our Constitution is Congress. The ONLY ones that can ban assault rifles nation-wide is Congress.
- The President calling for assault weapon bans has about the same effective as YOU calling for assault weapon bans - absolutely none.
- People have much more to fear from State legislated weapon/weapon accessory bans which DO become laws (in that State). But if you are not a resident of that state where the laws apply, then it has no affect on you.
- As far as the ATF goes: " The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) was established as a separate component within the Department of Justice pursuant to Title XI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, on January 17, 2003." approved by Congress, so the ATF does have authority granted by Congress to enforce establish rules and regulations concerning firearms. Bump-stocks (for example) were a 'technically illegal' work-a-round to enable fully automatic rifle operation out of semi-automatic rifles, therefore, the ATF ban on Bump-stocks was nothing more than an enforcement of regulations that already existed, the regulations that banned unregulated/unregistered machine guns. Still, if a Bump-stock hadn't played a role in the Las Vegas concert 'mass shooting', then the ATF would have probably continued to just ignore their existence - no harm, no foul!

Beijing Biden with Obamanations hand up his back side and then Soros’s hand up his. My impression of our commander in fake.

Picture a car going slowly with turn tables for wheels on a truck with the same engine as the car.

You know the guy who said it is not going well with his engine but it will get better.

 

[JD8]

A Fudd is someone who doesn't care about other people's rights so long as their niche use isn't affected.
Someone who doesn't care about an assault weapons ban because it doesn't ban his deer rifle, for example, hence "Fudd", as in Elmer Fudd.

Typically, these individuals will support various gun control measures, with the hopes that supporting such regulations now will prevent the gun control lobby from turning on them later.
Like feeding others to the lion in the hopes that it will choose not to eventually eat you too.

Or in this case..... apologize for gun legislature by blaming "gun owners"..... and while forgetting "Shall not be infringed."

 

[JD8]

If the gun community does not want .gov restricting or banning their firearm or firearm accessories, then STOP giving the ATF reasons to do so. That's all I'm trying to say, bend the rules if you will, but stfu about doing so.

You say stop giving the ATF reasons lol? Get fawked man. The law was followed and the RULES were clarified. They THEN changed their mind..... more than once.

How are you this naive? Honest question. You say you're 73, but were you a gun owner during the Clinton ban? It's like you haven't figured out that they know that the only way to compromise the 2A is to erode rights slowly. Funny thing is, they're getting impatient and they are more vocal about their true intentions lately. Of course it doesn't help when gun owners like you pay them lip service.

 

[Chuckie]

Or in this case..... apologize for gun legislature by blaming "gun owners"..... and while forgetting "Shall not be infringed."

Talking on the Federal level (State is a whole different ballgame) I am glad that some restrictions are in place because I certainly would not want some road-rager on the Turner Turnpike to be carrying a load of RPG-7's in the bed of his pick-up when someones wife (with kids in the car) accidentally cut this guy off.
- I wouldn't want that a high school bullied teen to be carrying an MP-5 in his back-pack when he sees that bully sitting in the middle of his math class.
- Restrictions on some other things, like suppressors, have no reason to exist. They do not make the weapon they are attached-to shoot faster, further, or more lethal. If anything they are beneficial to the shooter. If this makes me a 'FUDD' in the eyes of some, then so be it.

If everyone had fantastic 'family values' and a great morale compass to live by then we would not need most of the laws already in place, but we don't live in that type of perfect society and so laws ARE needed for those that don't want to 'play nice'
- If those ". . . Shall not be infringed" people can't understand the reason or need for some of the restrictions in place, then may the Lord protect those that have to be around these people that believe they are so far above laws, so righteous in their lives, that they should be sitting at the right hand of God himself.

It's been an interesting ride but I'm no longer participating in this thread because it's not worth the emotional cost to keep beating my head against a . . . wall (trying to remain civil here ).

 

[JD8]

Talking on the Federal level (State is a whole different ballgame) I am glad that some restrictions are in place because I certainly would not want some road-rager on the Turner Turnpike to be carrying a load of RPG-7's in the bed of his pick-up when someones wife (with kids in the car) accidentally cut this guy off.
- I wouldn't want that a high school bullied teen to be carrying an MP-5 in his back-pack when he sees that bully sitting in the middle of his math class.

Ah yes, let's dispense with retarded strawman arguments.

- Restrictions on some other things, like suppressors, have no reason to exist. They do not make the weapon they are attached-to shoot faster, further, or more lethal. If anything they are beneficial to the shooter. If this makes me a 'FUDD' in the eyes of some, then so be it.

Wow. It's almost as we could agree on braces then? or are you saying restrictions on SBRs or SBSs should exist?

If everyone had fantastic 'family values' and a great morale compass to live by then we would not need most of the laws already in place, but we don't live in that type of perfect society and so laws ARE needed for those that don't want to 'play nice'
- If those ". . . Shall not be infringed" people can't understand the reason or need for some of the restrictions in place, then may the Lord protect those that have to be around these people that believe they are so far above laws, so righteous in their lives, that they should be sitting at the right hand of God himself.

So which is it? We are talking about braces and the fact that YOU said it's our fault. Again, get fawked with that mentality. Several companies and millions of individuals followed the law.

Here's the fun part though...... we aren't talking about a law..... we are talking about a "rule" made by a government agency acting like it is a law.

It's been an interesting ride but I'm no longer participating in this thread because it's not worth the emotional cost to keep beating my head against a . . . wall (trying to remain civil here ).

Well some self awareness is probably in order? You're on a gun forum and you just regurgitated FUDD talking points. Speaking for myself I don't expect it here but here we are...... yes yes I know...... can't fight the government and their F-15s.

 

[Beautiful Mulberry]

Ah yes, let's dispense with retarded strawman arguments.




Wow. It's almost as we could agree on braces then? or are you saying restrictions on SBRs or SBSs should exist?



So which is it? We are talking about braces and the fact that YOU said it's our fault. Again, get fawked with that mentality. Several companies and millions of individuals followed the law.

Here's the fun part though...... we aren't talking about a law..... we are talking about a "rule" made by a government agency acting like it is a law.



Well some self awareness is probably in order? You're on a gun forum and you just regurgitated FUDD talking points. Speaking for myself I don't expect it here but here we are...... yes yes I know...... can't fight the government and their F-15s.

Facts

 

[bigred1]

I just don't get it, some people are like....it's just pistol braces plus we get a free tax stamp starter pack. To that I say.... Well lah tee fukin dah! It's just bayonet lugs, it's just standard capacity magazines, it's just bump stocks, it's just black rifles, it's just semi-auto handguns, etc etc etc. You wake up one day and you are only allowed a double barrel shotgun and 2 rounds of birdshot a year IF you turn in your hulls. To hell with that boys and girls.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Talking on the Federal level (State is a whole different ballgame) I am glad that some restrictions are in place because I certainly would not want some road-rager on the Turner Turnpike to be carrying a load of RPG-7's in the bed of his pick-up when someones wife (with kids in the car) accidentally cut this guy off.
- I wouldn't want that a high school bullied teen to be carrying an MP-5 in his back-pack when he sees that bully sitting in the middle of his math class.
- Restrictions on some other things, like suppressors, have no reason to exist. They do not make the weapon they are attached-to shoot faster, further, or more lethal. If anything they are beneficial to the shooter. If this makes me a 'FUDD' in the eyes of some, then so be it.

If everyone had fantastic 'family values' and a great morale compass to live by then we would not need most of the laws already in place, but we don't live in that type of perfect society and so laws ARE needed for those that don't want to 'play nice'
- If those ". . . Shall not be infringed" people can't understand the reason or need for some of the restrictions in place, then may the Lord protect those that have to be around these people that believe they are so far above laws, so righteous in their lives, that they should be sitting at the right hand of God himself.

It's been an interesting ride but I'm no longer participating in this thread because it's not worth the emotional cost to keep beating my head against a . . . wall (trying to remain civil here ).

You just proved you are in fact, a fudd.

 

[HiredHand]

I’m just making a wild guess that most of us here wouldn’t have any trouble legally purchasing a NFA firearm like an SBR, SBS, or silencer. It’s just the principle of paying the additional tax, months long wait to shuffle paper and the registration part that hangs some of us up. Arguably that’s the whole intention behind the NFA.

But the funny part is that we’re also basically responsible and reasonable for the most part and, yet, we’ll argue and degrade each other over the issue of whether it’s morally right to pay the man for the right to own, boycott owning NFA items, or finding the NFA loopholes that allow us to have an NFA-like firearm.

Meanwhile, people who live a life of criminal behavior give two ducks about what the law is and just do their thing because being in trouble with the law is normal for them. So, modifying a firearm is done to suit their need, not whether is violates the NFA. Any of us could make or modify our non-NFA firearm into a NFA firearm; keep it to ourselves and never be in legal jeopardy because we simply lead a life that doesn’t involve interactions with law enforcement.

There isn’t anything morally wrong with owning registered NFA items or even the NFA-like loophole firearms and the more we normalize owning both then the better we will all be for it. Fear mongering over being on .gov lists and mass gun confiscations just plays into the idea that we are paranoid irrational people that deserve to be scrutinized. It’s also irrational to say someone asked for trouble by how they held firearm while using it. The main reason the definitions of handguns, rifles and shotguns is important in the NFA is to define them in terms of conceal-ability not lethality or how it’s conventionally used.

I hope the current legal challenges will eventually lead to less legal restrictions and broader protections for people to own and use firearms Historically, we’ve actually seen this happen with the massive increase in states that permit and affirm concealed carry, and Supreme Court decisions that have further affirmed our 2A rights. Most gun owners act in a moral way that fits into our society and most of the firearms we own are not used in criminal activity.

 

[Chuckie]

You just proved you are in fact, a fudd.

So you believe that everyone should be able to have any weapon they want under your '. . . shall not infringe', mantra?
Well great, lets allow convicted murderers to own long range night-visioned scoped rifles with suppressors then - '. . . shall not infringe'.
How about MP5's for those found to have paranoid schizophrenia? That could sure clean out a few businesses fast - '. . . shall not infringe'.
So 'Sawy Chawlie' that your kid, while in school happened to be sitting near that bully when that bullied kid with the Glock18 opened up against him - '. . . shall not infringe'.
So who cares if your wife got vaporized by that road-rager packing the RPG in his truck because he thinks she cut him off while he was trying to change lanes? - ' . . . shall not infringe!'
Oh, and what about that crappy neighbor of yours that decided to rig that fragmentation grenade up to the inside of your mailbox because he just doesn't like your dog? ' . . . shall not infringe'.
Shall we move on to larger or more devastating weapons like flame-throwers and Thermobaric Bombs because, after all when it comes to weapons - '. . . shall not infringe'?

Maybe you are just not capable of understanding the consequences of allowing anyone to own anything they want or can afford, or perhaps you're just voicing the same ignorant crap that your buddies say because you don't want them to think that you might be some type of '2A traitor'. Of course that's why THEY also keep saying the same things.
None of 'ya got the balls to stand-up on your own two feet and say that 'hey, maybe SOME peoples shouldn't be able to have certain types of weapons because their irresponsible, or emotionally unstable, or have anger issues, or any number of other reasons that would make them a danger to me and those in my society.

At least I'm intelligent enough to understand that not everyone should have access to any weapon they can afford because not everyone may be able to handle the responsibility needed to own that weapon, and if that makes me a 'FUDD' then so be it.