Berger.Fan222
Member
Every step toward smaller government is a positive step, even if there are temporary inconveniences.
Were there previous bills to eliminate ATF that were ignored by the media?Tirod The Senator introduced a bill to eliminate the ATF, the news media actually reported on it, and that in itself is a big step forward from the past.
It gets "people thinking and discussing it" because its pathetic pandering by a congressman. If he REALLY wanted to get rid of ATF he should be aware that the NFA and GCA are the reason for the ATF. I don't doubt in the least that he knows exactly that........but he's relying on you and a few others to get excited at the prospect of ATF disappearing. Throw in the media exposure and he's created exactly what he wants (which is publicity). He doesn't give two hoots about federal gun laws or the ATF......he just wants your votes and a boost to his appeal as a firearms friendly politician.It actually gets people thinking and discussing it. The BATF is an unnecessary and duplicative agency who's recent track record is less than good.
Geeze............there have been issues to discuss on ATF since day one! And the same could be said for the FBI, Secret service, DEA, EPA, CIA, IRS an every other alphabet agency in the Federal government.NOW is the time to bring it up when there ARE issues to discuss and some leverage can be exercised.
.Sitting back and smugly prophesizing no good will come of it is accepting the evil we know. For some that's better than the potential improvements
An illogical analogy. Do you understand the difference between LAWS and the agencies that enforce regulations?When CCW was considered in FL, there were naysayers among the shooting community, did they never apply? When Washington state finally made possessing NFA weapons legal did the frustrated buyers reject the change?When Missouri accepted silencers as legal when hunting did sales remain flat?
I spend plenty of $$$ to help bona fide legislative lobbying for gun rights.....but I won't give a nickel to pandering politicians nor will I fall for such publicity stunts that do nothing. I'm glad to see that a majority of THR members can recognize a phony, pandering politician seeking publicity.All the naysayers line right up and pays their money to enjoy what someone else worked to get for them. They don't often get their words thrown back in their face.
Hogwash.Lots of rhetorical questions, the point is some need an attitude check about politics. It's not from the unflagging support of naysayers that we got most of the country under a CCW permit in the last 30 years. That was accomplished by people who ignored their friends and neighbors telling them it would never happen.
Again, that is LAW.They say the same thing about National Reciprocity, and yet we are just a few votes shy of passing it out of Congress and putting it in front of a President.
Only if that next administration is gun friendly. And so far it ain't looking any different than the last forty administrations.We've gone from the average assessment of "yeah, sure, when pigs fly" to "It's likely to be signed into law in the next administration."
My, my, my what a high horse.Nobody ever remembers they were dead set against improving our Rights as shooters. Never said it. We don't dredge up old posts and PM them.
The victors just enjoy what they brought about and share. And those who said it won't ever happen might remark, well, who'da thought? Few ever say "thank you."
Don't worry, it's expected.
Snarky admonishments aren't an argument. If opposing opinions hurts your feelings then don't post in public forums.Tirod Dgotown, if it pleases you to beat down my arguments that the BATF could be potentially disbanded, then sit back and feel good about the great work you did.
My credibility? Does that mean you agree with me?It accomplishes nothing other than to establish your credibility.
I didn't "put down" anyone, but I did disagree with you and the Congressman. If you feel my disagreement is a put down then you really have no business posting your views in a public forum do you? There are a number of forum members that think the ATF Elimination Act is political pandering so I guess I'm in good company.Apparently you feel the need to put down someone else rather than contribute to the end result - which would be the way we were before the 68 GCA.
Again you confuse elimination of the evil ATF vs elimination of the evil Federal gun laws. Unless the gun laws are repealed there will always be a Federal agency to be your devil.As explicitly detailed over decades, what the BATF is enforcing comes down to naught - evil people still get guns and perpetrate acts of violence. Frankly, defending the BATF by discussing the normal operation of politics and the slow change of law only contributes all the more to a false sense that the government can solve all our problems if we only hand over all our rights to them.
Your smart enough to know that isn't close to being accurate. if you'll reread what others and I have written you'll see near unanimous support for getting rid of the federal laws that make the ATF necessary.Directly or indirectly, it's an admission that a large and onerous government is something you prefer.
Hold on friend..............those laws and regulations aren't affected by your beloved ATF Elimination Act are they? Do you even understand your own argument?Better an bureaucrat sitting on his high horse telling you when you can build a SBR, or own a silencer, or even possess both to defend your home and family?
Uh what?But it's ok for the same goverment to equip the police to use them searching your home for "illegal" weapons, which has and can be done? Plenty of our citizens are under the thread with new anti assault rifle laws passed.
Sorry, but our firearm freedoms are better now than ten years ago. Where have you been?No, we should just give up trying to own our government, tell our elected representatives go ahead and do what you want, then sit back and wait for armed thieves to assault and beat us - the way people in Australia and Britain do now?
I do contribute.........to the NRA-ILA. But this thread isn't about contributions to Second Amendment causes, it's about a feel good bill that accomplishes nothing. It's about a congressman pandering to voters, playing on their ignorance of Federal law.If you aren't willing to at least contribute in the fight to support our 2d Amendment rights and drag down others to wallow in gloom and servitude, that's on you.
Then you didn't read very close. I've said repeatedly that eliminating or repealing Federal firearms laws will eliminate "the evil" you love to speak of. This bill does not....its a waste of time and resources.I'm trying to recover the freedoms we exercised before politicians sold them out for votes. I don't see where anything mentioned in your posts contributes to that. We are already well aware of the forces deployed against freedom.
So I'm a fifth columnist now? Good grief man..... can you respond to an argument without resorting to such petty nonsense?Their "fifth columinsts" post here attacking our goals every day.
If you aren't willing to at least contribute in the fight to support our 2d Amendment rights and drag down others to wallow in gloom and servitude, that's on you.
I'm trying to recover the freedoms we exercised before politicians sold them out for votes. I don't see where anything mentioned in your posts contributes to that. We are already well aware of the forces deployed against freedom.
Their "fifth columinsts" post here attacking our goals every day.
Yeah, John Conyers the great advocate of Second Amendment rights......The idea of eliminating the ATF is not new. It was last introduced by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) in 1993......
Even these kooks like Sensenbrenners bill:The idea of folding the ATF into other agencies has been endorsed by the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress.....
In a statement, National Sports Shooting Foundation spokesman Michael Bazinet said reassigning agency duties of will not make the government more efficient.
"The opposite would more likely occur," the statement said. "NSSF does not favor abolishing ATF and would much prefer the agency be funded at the level required to best carry out its appropriate responsibilities."
The idea of disbanding the ATF and folding the functions into the FBI or another Fed agency was kicked around some years ago. At the time the FBI agreed to absorb the functions but didn't want the ATF personnel so it went nowhere.
Ditto !I think several agencies should be higher on the list than the BATF, plus a couple of amendments to the Constitution too. NO need to go into this on the current thread.
I think the BATF is not the problem like some say, I agree its the laws. I just hope the CDC and EPA do not get their dirty hands on guns, like some people have been pushing for.
Good discussion.
Yes and no.If the ATF elimination bill were passed and signed you would recover not one single freedom.
NOT ONE.
This is not up for debate. It is a simple matter of fact, but somehow you have come to the understanding that the ATF creates these laws. It does not. You can keep painting yourself as a hero for supporting this meaningless legislation all you like, but those of us who actually understand the structure of government and the legislative process aren't buying it.
I'm willing to be proven wrong. Please tell me what specific freedom I will have restored if the law passes. Will I have the freedom to convert my AR-15 to a machine gun? Nope. Make an SBR without a tax stamp? Nope. Sell a gun to a friend in another state without going through an FFL? Again, nope.
Until the laws are gone then I don't particularly care who enforces them.
gun master said:I detest having to have a background check, every time I want to buy a gun. This should be changed for the honest citizen.
Some gun laws are necessary, now.
How does a store (or person) selling a gun tell if a citizen is honest or dishonest without doing a background check?
Possibly, but this is not a "yes" or "no" answerable question, like the courtroom lawyers attempt to do on TV or in films.You believe the 1968 GCA lowered the homicide rate?
Possibly, but this is not a "yes" or "no" answerable question, like the courtroom lawyers attempt to do on TV or in films.