Yep, I was part of the NRA establishment, and you clearly are part of the lunatic fringe. -Compromiser Mikey
Spoken like a true government loyalist: label and shun those who don't go with the herd. I see you retained the self annointed arrogance from that establishment. It's soooo EASY to be part of a group mentality and call everyone outside that group "part of the lunatic fringe." I hate to break this to you, but it's the "lunatic fringe" who signed the declaration of independence.
They felt it was necessary to get through NOW, and were willing to take the loss of a niche thing to protect everyone else. I don't necessairialy agree with it, certainly don't agree with the voting method used, but when you look at the 100,000 or so MG owners to the 80 million non-MG owners, I would hope the numbers would say that it is better to save all but 100,, then to let them all sink.
Soooooo, let's see here, since the first true federal ban only affected a minority, the game plan is to treat them as disposable, label them as a niche, and sacrifice them on the altar of some minor improvements for the larger group. Wow, nice perverted principles. Keeping some ammo restrictions
HARDLY qualifies as "letting them all sink." That has to be the worst analogy I've ever heard [the government schools strike again]. First, if nothing would have passed in 1986, then that would be analogous to the ship or the crew continuing AS IS, and not sinking
, and we would be able to buy new MGs TODAY.
Let's try this again jefnvk, and this time could you please answer the question? Maybe if I reword the question I'll possibly get an answer: Where is there movement or a shred of progress in reopening new MG registration? I mean after all, massive denial
has been the hallmark of the responses I'm seeing, but we've lost almost a dozen court challenges to the 1986 ban. Either your rose colored glasses are thick as coke bottles or you just like fantasy land.
Barbara, how do you make the jump to "armed resistance" when I never hinted at such a thing? It's anybody's guess as to what part of my words you heard the "armed resistance" stuff. Instead of putting words in my mouth, how 'bout responding to what I actually DID say. I will respond to YOUR question though as to "how to fix it." Don't you think we should start by getting our own side in order and making it an issue that the NRA can no longer run from? Don't you think we should start by convincing our fellow gun owners that it was the world's stupidest trade in 1986 to trade the whole enchilada for some crumbs? I'm amazed that I even have to say that I'd put up with not being able to order ammo through the mail if I could go buy a brand new full auto today (the reason I have to say it, is because we have many among us who are in massive denial. They refuse to accept that we actually lost our shirts in 1986 and have a 12 inch knife in our backs with Reagan's prints on it).
Clue here: It's not the people who want the same thing you do but disagree on the best way to get it. -Barbara
Here's a clue Barbara, if you read the responses to this thread, it's pretty obvious that we all DON'T want the same thing. Some want to compromise away major rights to get relatively minor improvements. Some want to sanitize and rationalize things to avoid the ugly reality that might upset them. Some want to view Reagan as some sort of hero, when the truth doesn't bear that out. In the past Barbara, I also would have assumed that "we all want the same thing" but it's becoming clear that quite a few gun owners just don't care about the federal machine gun ban, because it doesn't affect
them, and those it DOES affect are a small enough group to sacrifice. Clearly, the powers-that-be saw our dis-unity and utter selfishness in 1986, and knew that we wouldn't stand up for a "niche" group of gun owners. It's a shame they were correct then AND now.
Hey "GoRon," I like how you tell me to "stay on point" when you spend your whole post talking about everything BUT the subject. Also, you massively misunderstand something. I'm not trying to "pursuade" anyone, and God only knows where you got the idea that I am. I'm simply saying things that I think need to be said. Period. I don't give a rat's anus about packaging it to other people's specifications. I'm smart enough to realize that one cannot pursuade fools. We've got people here who think that the 1986 ban was a "good trade." We've got a guy who thinks the 1986 ban will majically dissappear someday soon but he can't explain why or how. We've got a lady who reads the above and somehow hears that I'm advocating "armed resistance." Basically, we've got people who live in their own little world of manufactured "reality." If you think I'm trying to convince them of anything try again. I simply take pleasure in saying the things that people are avoiding, popping their fantasy balloon if you will, and then see how they react. It's usually not pretty, but it's interesting. I know I'm being effective when people like you ADMIT that you have an automatic, programmed, "knee jerk" reaction to oppose me EVEN THOUGH you also admit that I'm speaking things you mostly agree with. The reason you feel programmed to oppose me is because I'm daring to go against the GROUP, and we're heavily conditioned in this country to attack/mock/shun
anyone who goes against the group. Look at "Silver Bullet." He clearly A. had nothing to add, but B. also felt the need to pile on the one who is going against the group. Notice how all he could muster was 3 words to the conversation, but he made sure those 3 words made it clear that he was "with" the group. He took a nice and safe (and easy) position.
