Poll: If Braced Pistols Are Added To NFA Category, What Will You Do With Yours? Poll

[Dinglenutz]

What's missing from these stories of people dying is what they were pursued for to begin with.

True, however we have way too many laws. While I do believe in obeying the law, a lot of things that are illegal should really be legal. So there is some truth on both sides.

 

[The Heretic]

Probably up to no good but that will be the premise for them coming after us too. Whatever they were doing they decided they were willing to risk dying by not giving in to authorities.

Just like the Army Lt. who was pepper sprayed/etc. because he sought a safe place to pull over.

I usually look for a good place to pull over because I hate it when traffic stops block traffic and cause more danger than the speeding that the LEO is going to give me a ticket for. Once I did that with a motorcycle and the LEO obviously thought I was going to try to run because of it - when I finally got to a good place there was another cop there waiting for me to block my running.

 

[American123]

Probably up to no good but that will be the premise for them coming after us too. Whatever they were doing they decided they were willing to risk dying by not giving in to authorities.

I get that, the difference though is morality. For example, if a rapist dies while fleeing police, no tears from me, what they did to get the attention of police was immoral and hurt others. However, if I put a a stock on an SBR without approval and the ATF kick down my door and shoot me or try to take me to prison. I've hurt no one, endangered no one, and morally speaking, have done nothing wrong, and yet I would still be treated like a major criminal.

That's a significant difference.

 

[American123]

True, however we have way too many laws. While I do believe in obeying the law, a lot of things that are illegal should really be legal. So there is some truth on both sides.

See my post about 2 responses after yours.

 

[arakboss]

I get that, the difference though is morality. For example, if a rapist dies while fleeing police, no tears from me, what they did to get the attention of police was immoral and hurt others. However, if I put a a stock on an SBR without approval and the ATF kick down my door and shoot me or try to take me to prison. I've hurt no one, endangered no one, and morally speaking, have done nothing wrong, and yet I would still be treated like a major criminal.

That's a significant difference.

Ironically you could get more time than the rapist.

 

[American123]

Ironically you could get more time than the rapist.

And that's an example of part of what's majorly wrong with America right now.

 

[The Heretic]

I get that, the difference though is morality. For example, if a rapist dies while fleeing police, no tears from me, what they did to get the attention of police was immoral and hurt others. However, if I put a a stock on an SBR without approval and the ATF kick down my door and shoot me or try to take me to prison. I've hurt no one, endangered no one, and morally speaking, have done nothing wrong, and yet I would still be treated like a major criminal.

That's a significant difference.

The problem is when they use gun (or drug) laws as a pretext to go after criminals. This is always what pols, bureaucrats and LE "officials" (the head of the LE orgs) say when a law is passed; "trust us, we won't misuse this law", then they turn around and misuse it and say "don't take this important tool away from us, we need it to enforce the law". At that point, when they are allowed to keep it, and they are secure in its use (i.e., allow in courts and the public is used to it {or still don't know it exists, or at least that it is being misused}) then they start using it against law abiding citizens.

It is an incremental thing.

No I don't cry when a rapist dies fleeing police - not if he/she is a convicted rapist - but an accused rapist? Well that person has rights regardless of what they are accused of, and then if someone is shot in the back running away from a LEO? It depends on the circumstances - and too often (not always, not commonly, but even once is too often) we don't learn the true circumstances because the LEO doing the shooting is less than truthful about the circumstances.

And if one innocent person is murdered by a LEO and the LEO gets away with it (either by lying or "qualified immunity" or whatever), then what is to stop LEOs (both officers and orgs) in general using that against us. Were Waco and Ruby Ridge just tests or Charlie Foxtrots? Either way, they set a precedent.

So don't be so quick to throw out dismissals of cases just because someone is an accused criminal - when the time comes for the gov to be knocking on your door asking for your "guns" (whether a bump stock or a brace), then they will be using these "tools" to demonize you too. Whether you fight back or not, it is entirely possible that you can be shot and killed - and then portrayed as a dangerous "gun nut" belonging to a "militia" with a dangerous illegal "arsenal" who "resisted arrest".

 

[The Heretic]

On the subject of deciding what your hill to die on is. If you are married or have people you are supporting, it may be prudent to discuss it with them so there is some consensus. You might feel that the gov coming for your braces is going to be what triggers your last stand but your spouse and or family may not share your affinity for pistol braces.

In most everything of consequence, I consider how it impacts my daughter.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't see how this can work. If the fee is waived, We can have free SBR/SBS registration for a bit, which means (I guess) that in that scenario the brace becomes a disposable "SB seed", that infects anything it's installed on with the free tax stamp disease?

Seems like a huge bunch of mandatory-issued and free NFA stamps wouldn't be that palatable to anyone on either side.

I don't think it is politically realistic either - possible, but not realistic. Not sure if they waived the fee with "destructive device" shotguns, but again, some have suggested it as possible so I am saying "if" it happens, and *if* it applies to Shockwaves/et. al., then I *might* consider it for one of my Shockwaves. But combining those two "ifs" together makes it even less likely IMO.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I get that, the difference though is morality.

Not everything is so clear cut. I know a guy who's pretty much a complete dirtbag, but the only thing I know of that he's done actually illegal is to use and grow pot back before it was legalized. He got caught for that, out with AFAICT no time served.

The point is, I think he's a sh*tbird but I also think growing a plant shouldn't be illegal, and I think he should ALSO have obeyed the law. It's possible for all those things to be true.

 

[American123]

Not everything is so clear cut. I know a guy who's pretty much a complete dirtbag, but the only thing I know of that he's done actually illegal is to use and grow pot back before it was legalized. He got caught for that, out with AFAICT no time served.

The point is, I think he's a sh*tbird but I also think growing a plant shouldn't be illegal, and I think he should ALSO have obeyed the law. It's possible for all those things to be true.

Drugs is a grey area for sure, but since they are addictive substances, and alter the mind in a way that can make people not control their actions, I'm personally entirely opposed to them on moral grounds regardless of legality.

The argument you shared could be used regarding heroine or meth, that's a slippery slope I would want no part of.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I'm personally entirely opposed to them on moral grounds regardless of legality.

I think recreational use of most drugs is a terrifically bad idea for a number of reasons and wouldn't do it or recommend it. I also enjoy a couple cups of coffee most mornings and a snort of bourbon some evenings. Hell, some mornings I slip a little of one in the other.

I also think (for another example) that sex work is a bad career track. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is foolish. Buckling my seatbelt is a good idea.

But I don't think my personal idea of what is a bad or good idea should be basis for creating a law.

Trust me, no one wants to see that.

 

[Dinglenutz]

The argument you shared could be used regarding heroine or meth, that's a slippery slope I would want no part of.

I really like the new Wonder Woman. Slippery slope ... hmmm ....

But yeah, I have no issue saying I think all substances should be legal for adults, and all consequences should be borne by the adult in question.

 

[American123]

I think recreational use of most drugs is a terrifically bad idea for a number of reasons and wouldn't do it or recommend it. I also enjoy a couple cups of coffee most mornings and a snort of bourbon some evenings. Hell, some mornings I slip a little of one in the other.

I also think (for another example) that sex work is a bad career track. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is foolish. Buckling my seatbelt is a good idea.

But I don't think my personal idea of what is a bad or good idea should be basis for creating a law.

Trust me, no one wants to see that.

Now we are getting into the weeds (pun not intended) because laws in the early formation of our nation were more derived from biblical morality and the magna carta than they were merely arbitrary restrictions on the people.

Founding fathers saw this coming, and I'm not quoting exactly, but saying: 'as the people become more evil and corrupt, they will have more need of masters, only a virtuous and Godly people would be capable of governing themselves, that our system of government were well suited for a God fearing people, and wholly unsuited for one that was not.

If you watch videos on the concept of moral relativism vs Godly derived morality, it will explain it further, but in essence, without God, morality is nothing more than what society agrees is acceptable, and anything is fair game as long as enough people support it. Compared to morality derived by God, which has nothing to do with how many people in a society may disagree.

 

[The Heretic]

If you watch videos on the concept of moral relativism vs Godly derived morality, it will explain it further, but in essence, without God, morality is nothing more than what society agrees is acceptable, and anything is fair game as long as enough people support it. Compared to morality derived by God, which has nothing to do with how many people in a society may disagree.

Unfortunately, too many people are willing to USE religion to tell use what is moral and what isn't, to their own ends.

That is why the Founding Fathers precluded state religions; to allow us freedom of beliefs, including not believing in religion at all.

Asserting that only people who believe in your God can govern themselves and that all others must have "masters" to govern them is another reason they precluded state religions.

 

[Dinglenutz]

moral relativism vs Godly derived morality

I reject the notion that those are the only two options as a false dilemma, but that's not for this thread I reckon.

 

[nosbocaj]

I only have one braced pistol these days. I had three and SBR'd two. If this goes through, I'm just going to SBR the third and be done with it.

 

[American123]

Unfortunately, too many people are willing to USE religion to tell use what is moral and what isn't, to their own ends.

That is why the Founding Fathers precluded state religions; to allow us freedom of beliefs, including not believing in religion at all.

Asserting that only people who believe in your God can govern themselves and that all others must have "masters" to govern them is another reason they precluded state religions.

Though true, it doesn't change the validity of my statement, if it is claimed our laws and morality are only derived by the consensus of some people, then everything is irrelevant and the only morals or laws that matter are based on what the mob rules they are.

Our own Declaration of Independence includes reference to God, and although they foresaw as it as important that the government establish no official religion, it could easily be argued that pertained to Christianity vs Catholicism since many of the colonists came to "the new world" from Europe to escape religious persecution, which was just another form of tyranny. There's no argument that religion has been and still is, used for personal agenda's. Heck, just look at our last election and see the pandering that took place toward religion. But it cannot be ignored that without a "higher power" from which morality is decreed, there is no morality at all, only what society agrees upon in the moment as codes for behavior and subject to change at the whims of society.

Then we could speak further about how not all religions are created equal. For example, a particular religion demands followers to kill or enslave non-believers. Early America dealt with this and there are writings by leaders at the time explaining how their belief system was incompatible with America's. After all, where do you think "The shores of Tripoli" come from in the Marines?

 

[American123]

I reject the notion that those are the only two options as a false dilemma, but that's not for this thread I reckon.

I understand your rejection, but there is no third option. If morality isn't derived from a higher power, than it's contrived by man and therefore subject to change by man. A simple example of this is looking around the world at any culture and seeing that what "right and wrong" can drastically depend on who is in power and what their personal beliefs are. Even within our own American society there are incredible differences in what people perceive as "right and wrong." And you may notice, that within our lifetime, what is considered "right and wrong" has also changed based on the whims of society.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I only have one braced pistol these days. I had three and SBR'd two. If this goes through, I'm just going to SBR the third and be done with it.

I have an MCX pistol that was made with a brace (not modified, Joe) and an AR carbine that has a 10.5" bbl and a pinned silencer. I'm strongly considering an MCX carbine in that configuration soon.