Why is the gun industry so STUPID?

[Lavan]

This is a CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS issue!

Why are we not getting the ACLU in on this trammeling?

Why don't we burn down a section of town whenever we have our RIGHTS invaded?

Why don't we boycott ANY media or product sponsor who even UTTERS "assault" rifle?

Why aren't we getting together to DEMAND that the new terminology has to be "Personal Defense Device" and any other reference is a slur on our CULTURE?

"PDD" or we RIOT!

Why aren't we demanding RESPECT???

Why don't we ask anti gunners why they're so PREJUDICED?

This has worked before.

[manta49]

I assume you are having a joke.

[LockedBreech]

Because this is the real world, and logic seldom applies.

Also because the Angry/Riot mindset plays right into the tactics the other side uses against us. By appearing like the calm, rational ones they sway undecided parties.

[jnichols2]

Maybe the OP has a point. It got Obama elected twice.

[Lavan]

Calm and rational seldom apply to war.

Does anyone think we are not in a WAR for our rights?

Does anyone think that the progression of ever more restrictive laws is a ...victory?

I may be satirizing but I ain't joking.

[speedrrracer]

I guess you didn't know the ACLU is against gun rights, or was that a typo (done that myself) ?

[JimDandy]

Maybe the OP has a point. It got Obama elected twice.

Speaking purely on process, and not on actual position, President Obama hasn't been nearly that extreme. He has been much more subtle than that.

[NWPilgrim]

Because we are not rude, uneducated, dependent, savages?

Gun owners tend to be polite, independent, and not demanding that govt provide for us. We ascribe to Teddy Roosevelt's maxim to " Talk softly and carry a big stick." And since 1994 we have started using that stick and been making headway. Come 2014 and 2016 the politicians making hay at our expense will get to feel that big stick at the election polls once again.

[Tickling]

Calm and rational seldom apply to war.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong there. Any war, especially a political one, requires us to be calm and professional. We win when they are the screaming, ranting, lunatics. And they win double when we act like that, make no mistake.

I guess you didn't know the ACLU is against gun rights, or was that a typo (done that myself) ?

That is an oversimplification, and not entirely true.. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/05guns.html?_r=0

[Skadoosh]

Why are we not getting the ACLU in on this trammeling?

The ACLU has publicly stated that they do not support individual gun rights.

http://www.mcrkba.org/ACLUGun.html

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why not argue that we have the right to have assault rifles? Rather than call them some fuzzy-wuzzy name?

It's not a bad gun, because it is for personal defense - like a deodorant.

Folks, we have debated the terminology argument into the ground. If the argument is why gun folks are so disorganized and passive - that's another issue.

BTW, politico.com analyzes that the antis feel the same way, all their energy after Sandy Hook is fading.

Once ammo is available again - all will be right with the world for us.

[Strafer Gott]

Well, it does kind of feel like the "Cold War", with Feinstein in the role of Kruschev pounding the podium with a shoe screaming "We will bury you!"
And just like then, I'm not taking her lightly.
The country's mood is a little too grim for my taste.

[Old Grump]

Why is the gun industry so STUPID?
This is a CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS issue!

Why are we not getting the ACLU in on this trammeling?

Why don't we burn down a section of town whenever we have our RIGHTS invaded?

Why don't we boycott ANY media or product sponsor who even UTTERS "assault" rifle?

Why aren't we getting together to DEMAND that the new terminology has to be "Personal Defense Device" and any other reference is a slur on our CULTURE?

"PDD" or we RIOT!

Why aren't we demanding RESPECT???

Why don't we ask anti gunners why they're so PREJUDICED?

This has worked before.

I don't know about you but I remember Rodney King and I know where the term postal comes from. Not good outcomes and not good policy, we are supposed to be better than that. Why should we lose our heads just because the other side has taken leave of their senses. Following your plan of action just gives them an excuse to point their fingers at us and say "See, that is what we mean." And then we lose what ever rights we had because we went insane.

[fishhead1]

So, the ACLU sticks hard by the Constitution, unless it doesn't support their leftist liberal views. So typical.

[Tickling]

So, the ACLU sticks hard by the Constitution, unless it doesn't support their leftist liberal views. So typical.

Now now, they do a good job at what they do. They just usually choose not get embroiled in this topic.. See my post #9

[JimDandy]

And they will fight the good fight that's unpopular, and against their very being. They defended some racist group trying to get a permit to peacably assemble. They lost a lot of donors for doing it, but they knew the same laws that protect them, protect people who "Have A Dream". They're not always right, but then neither is the NRA.

[Jim March]

Two things...until recently I was a member of the board of directors of the Southern Arizona chapter of the ACLU. The AZ chapter (along with Nevada and South Carolina) broke from the national org and declared the 2nd to be a personal civil right. I'm going to try to bring that concept now to Alabama where I am now, possibly elsewhere in the south if I can.

Second...violence is not the answer. A *threat* of violence can be. Let's be clear: the "civil rights movement" of the 1950s and '60s was really about whether white society was going to support the reforms of guys like Dr. King, or suffer the wrath of the "crazies" like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. Exactly how crazy the latter were I'll leave it to others to ponder...I do think the BP make a big mistake when they started not only selling copies of Mao's "Little Red Book" as a fundraiser ("buy a book on revolution from a real revolutionary!" - awesome capitalism right there!) but then they went and cracked 'em open and took the contents seriously.

Anyways. Do we have our equivalents? Sure. They're what the media calls "militia", more or less. A case can in fact be made that somebody needs to play that role.

[speedrrracer]

So, the ACLU sticks hard by the Constitution, unless it doesn't support their leftist liberal views. So typical.

This is exactly correct. They actually disagree with the Heller decision!
Can you believe..an org claiming to represent civil liberties, yet which disagrees with a ruling from the Supreme Court in favor of civil liberties! I guess they want us to fall down and worship them as the supreme arbiter of what rights we should enjoy.

They are clowns, and you don't want any part of them and their hypocrisy. There are, however, real civil liberties orgs which support all our precious civil liberties, such as the ACRU, and those orgs deserve your support, NOT the ACLU.

[Lavan]

I shall sit quietly and support the NRA.

Tyranny is OK with me. Whatever the popular vote dictates, I shall enjoy as a civilized citizen should.

[357 Python]

Why don't we? Because we are not like them. We are better. We are law abiding not law breaking until the law is changed.

[Mike38]

Come 2014 and 2016 the politicians making hay at our expense will get to feel that big stick at the election polls once again.

You’re counting on the general voting public to have an attention span better then a two year old. Not going to happen. Maybe 30 years ago, but in today’s world, nope. As long as the game of the week is on the boob-tube, there’s a 12 pack of beer in the fridge and a bag of Doritos in the pantry, Joe Voter doesn’t care, and that includes the Joe’s that own firearms.

This doesn’t include the folks that frequent forums such as this one. We will remember, and we will vote accordingly. But we are a rare breed. We are not like Joe Voter. We care. We are well read. We have read the Constitution a few times since being forced to in High School. Yep, we are a minority, a small minority.

[Come and take it.]

The ACLU bases their decision not to support the 2nd amendment based on their claim that the courts have long upheld that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I am puzzled, as from my understanding the highest court in the land has never done such a thing, If they ever have. The latest supreme court decision clearly demonstrated that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

They appear to basing this decision based on lower courts decisions and upon some lawyers opinions.

[Tom Servo]

Too political, too confrontational (even in jest), and it doesn't make us look good. If someone wants to discuss the ACLU (without sinking to left/right politics), feel free to start a new thread on the matter.