Yankee Marshall and IraqiVeteran8888 feud

[Ridgerunner665]

Hickok 45 has sponsors, but he doesn't review items from them.

[sqlbullet]

So you would trade bump stocks for new NFA guns, a $300 everyman's option for a multi thousand dollar rich man option. OK. You would give up UBC, which has shown no true discouragement to crime, for reciprocity, which was making it's way through Congress on it's own before LV. OK. What will you give up for "assault weapons"? What will you give up for magazine restrictions? Come on once you start dealing everything is on the table. There are no sacred cows once compromise has been started.

Let's see, what did we get for the 34' NFA? Oh that's right, nothing(well except restrictions). What did we get in return for the GCA of 68', let's see... more restrictions. The AWB of 94' got us...restrictions, but hey at least the only made it for 10 years right, compared to the others that is progress. So, what can we get out of restricting a, by the law, legal accessory? I mean let's be honest once we make a deal, it's not like the Antis will come back wanting more or challenge the deal in court(of course they will only say their side of the deal was illegal and the bump stocks will remain restricted).

We are starting off at a deficit and I don't believe that giving more up will help dig us out of this hole.

Are you willing to give up bump stocks, because you see no purpose in them? Because there hunters who see no need for handguns other than revolvers and no need for ARs(which are not as good as bolt guns...right). I mean a revolver and bolt action are still firearms, so the "heart" of the 2nd is preserved and the Antis promise that they won't come after those.. as long as you keep them in your house...in a safe...with a trigger lock...with the key kept at your local police dept... and give a good reason to check it out.

Death by a thousand cuts, is still death. I would rather stand strong and fight, always forward never back.

Did you really read my post?

Back in the day a full auto AR-15 was the same price as the semi-auto version.  Just pay the tax ($200) and deal with the hassle of an NFA gun, which most buyers elected not to.

In other words, trade a temperamental facsimile for the real thing and pay only $50 more.  Doesn't sound to me like a multi-thousand dollar rich mans option.  That is how it was in 1982.  If you wanted full-auto, just order it that way, fill out the form, pay your $200 tax and when your stamp came in, get your gun.

And, you are right, our great grandfathers rolled over on the NFA and rolled again in the GCA.  But the times have changed specifically because of those restrictions.  They now come wanting something relatively inconsequential, and we don't point to something they have and say "trade?"

Sorry, a guy shows up on my doorstep and says he will trade me his full-auto AR for my bump fire stock and $50, and I am all in.

Edit - I would further add that the legislation would have to be very, very carefully worded and narrowly crafted to only apply to a bump fire stock, not the generic "rate increasing devices" BS they currently have authored. 

I am not saying throw caution to the wind.  But we have given up a bunch of stuff.  Which means going forward there is no reason not to horse trade if we come out on top.

[biggen]

 Which means going forward there is no reason not to horse trade if we come out on top.
[/quote]

The only problem with that is, both horses in this trade belong to us.  They're just agreeing to not shoot one of the horses in the head if we'll give it to them.

This isn't horse trading, this is school yard bullying.

[sqlbullet]

Again, I don't disagree philosophically that they should not have our horse.

But, as legally interpreted, the horse is theirs.  And the courts are NOT going to over-turn the 34 NFA, as they should have in Miller.

Further, they are not going to apply the jurisprudence of Miller to modern firearms, as that reading indicates that the 2A specifically protects assault rifles (selective fire) and standard capacity magazines.

If we choose to ignore the reality of our existence in favor of some philosophical ideal, we also loose.

Do I agree it is our horse?  Yes.  But, the sheriff is recognizing their claim.  And I want the horse back, so I better be prepared to negotiate.  Or live without the horse.

[SavageOne]

So you would trade bump stocks for new NFA guns, a $300 everyman's option for a multi thousand dollar rich man option. OK. You would give up UBC, which has shown no true discouragement to crime, for reciprocity, which was making it's way through Congress on it's own before LV. OK. What will you give up for "assault weapons"? What will you give up for magazine restrictions? Come on once you start dealing everything is on the table. There are no sacred cows once compromise has been started.

Let's see, what did we get for the 34' NFA? Oh that's right, nothing(well except restrictions). What did we get in return for the GCA of 68', let's see... more restrictions. The AWB of 94' got us...restrictions, but hey at least the only made it for 10 years right, compared to the others that is progress. So, what can we get out of restricting a, by the law, legal accessory? I mean let's be honest once we make a deal, it's not like the Antis will come back wanting more or challenge the deal in court(of course they will only say their side of the deal was illegal and the bump stocks will remain restricted).

We are starting off at a deficit and I don't believe that giving more up will help dig us out of this hole.

Are you willing to give up bump stocks, because you see no purpose in them? Because there hunters who see no need for handguns other than revolvers and no need for ARs(which are not as good as bolt guns...right). I mean a revolver and bolt action are still firearms, so the "heart" of the 2nd is preserved and the Antis promise that they won't come after those.. as long as you keep them in your house...in a safe...with a trigger lock...with the key kept at your local police dept... and give a good reason to check it out.

Death by a thousand cuts, is still death. I would rather stand strong and fight, always forward never back.

Did you really read my post?

Back in the day a full auto AR-15 was the same price as the semi-auto version.  Just pay the tax ($200) and deal with the hassle of an NFA gun, which most buyers elected not to.

In other words, trade a temperamental facsimile for the real thing and pay only $50 more.  Doesn't sound to me like a multi-thousand dollar rich mans option.  That is how it was in 1982.  If you wanted full-auto, just order it that way, fill out the form, pay your $200 tax and when your stamp came in, get your gun.

And, you are right, our great grandfathers rolled over on the NFA and rolled again in the GCA.  But the times have changed specifically because of those restrictions.  They now come wanting something relatively inconsequential, and we don't point to something they have and say "trade?"

Sorry, a guy shows up on my doorstep and says he will trade me his full-auto AR for my bump fire stock and $50, and I am all in.

Edit - I would further add that the legislation would have to be very, very carefully worded and narrowly crafted to only apply to a bump fire stock, not the generic "rate increasing devices" BS they currently have authored. 

I am not saying throw caution to the wind.  But we have given up a bunch of stuff.  Which means going forward there is no reason not to horse trade if we come out on top.

So, you believe that the Antis would ever agree for a 1 to 1 swap of an accessory for allowing all modern automatic firearms to be available to the general public? You further seem to believe that market forces would then bring down price of said automatics from 10's of thousand to, conceivably, 100's of dollars. I must, respectfully, say I believe that to be a pipe dream. Even if you could get Antis on board, the very least I could see them demanding is that we up the NFA permit fee from it's 1934 price to a price adjusted for inflation(which I am surprised they haven't done already), which would be around $3600-3700. Would you make that deal?

Let me be very clear, I don't believe that the Antis are dealing in good conscience. Their goal is not compromise, it's elimination. Any dealings with them, without this key fact in the forefront of your mind, is foolhardy.

[pacapcop]

Nobody does it better than Hickok45. IraqiVeteran8888 is up there and sootch00. IMHO

[4949shooter]

Yep. When the "Yankee Marshal" threw ole Hickok 45 into his mix of badmouthing other Youtubers, I completely tuned him out. Nobody badmouth's Hickok!

Okay, to be honest, I had tuned him out before this comment. Something about his negative comments toward 10mm and the Glock 29.

[SavageOne]

Nobody does it better than Hickok45. IraqiVeteran8888 is up there and sootch00. IMHO

Does what? Paid reviews? Paid promotions? If that's what you mean, then I would agree. Hickok45 and IV8888 are the two biggest gun channels on YouTube and what they do is appealing to a large segment of people. But, they are PAID for what they do, by the people who make money off the products they show and that's fine. But, because they receive compensation for their views, those views should be taken with a grain of salt.

[sqlbullet]

I am gonna try this one last time, without examples since I keep offering them as a general attempt to outline and they keep getting attacked like straw men.

The courts have already shown they won't guarantee our rights as they should.  We have to negotiate for them.

Given that reality, I will accept bargains in which provides a net increase of recognition of my rights.

There is good news.  The anti-gun groups irrationally fear guns.  Irrational fears lead to irrational decisions.  And, they are motivated to deal in the wake of these kinds of tragedies.  We are doing ourselves a dis-service by not smartly negotiating when our opponents are both irrational and emotional.

[SavageOne]

Yep. When the "Yankee Marshal" threw ole Hickok 45 into his mix of badmouthing other Youtubers, I completely tuned him out. Nobody badmouth's Hickok!

Okay, to be honest, I had tuned him out before this comment. Something about his negative comments toward 10mm and the Glock 29.

YM pointed out that there are different categories of gun channels on YouTube. He called Hickok45 a Presenter/Entertainer/Mark(in the positive meaning of the word) and commented how this type of channel is the most important type on YouTube, because they help to open the gun community to larger audiences. I can't see how that's throwing him under the bus.

He made a point to say that the onus really lies on the person watching the videos to recognize the difference between a Presenter and, say, a Reviewer. I can see where some might take exception to him using the word "shill", but he made a point of saying being a shill is not necessarily a bad thing. The definition of shill is " is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization". This is not bad thing unless the person takes it to the level of giving credibility to organizations that are actually at odds with the gun communities best interests. Admittedly, he did seem to start using the term "shill" in the more negative aspect as he went along and can see where this might have been confusing.

If you are interested in seeing him say it in his own words here are the links to the videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl4wZMmpfo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUBZ3EwoiRc

[SavageOne]

I am gonna try this one last time, without examples since I keep offering them as a general attempt to outline and they keep getting attacked like straw men.

The courts have already shown they won't guarantee our rights as they should.  We have to negotiate for them.

Given that reality, I will accept bargains in which provides a net increase of recognition of my rights.

There is good news.  The anti-gun groups irrationally fear guns.  Irrational fears lead to irrational decisions.  And, they are motivated to deal in the wake of these kinds of tragedies.  We are doing ourselves a dis-service by not smartly negotiating when our opponents are both irrational and emotional.

Please understand that I hold you in high regard. I have learned a great deal from your posts on this forum and am appreciative of you sharing your knowledge. With that said, you did not give generalities, you gave two specific examples and I responded to those two examples. That is not straw manning. We disagree on this subject, but I would appreciate if you didn't imply that I was using fallacy based arguments to express that.

[Rojo27]

If you only want firearm or ammunition content online that's free from all traces of sponsorship, product placement or marketing plugs...  There isn't any. 

Hey now...you're on the ONLY firearms content online that's free on any kind of paid content.

We are owned by nobody. Our reviews are real and come from real experience. We'll never take a penny from any company to push a product. And believe me, there has been a ton of offers from some big companies.

You're right, poor word selection.  My intention was to reference YouTube content.

What about TNOutdoors 9 and Shooingthebull? They don't seem to advertise.
.

Have you seen new content from either in a year?  I haven't either.   

[sqlbullet]

SavageOne,

I meant to imply no disrespect.  I was acknowledging that we are both reasonable people on the same side of this issue and that the fact that we are disagreeing is most likely due to my shortcomings in this mode of communication.  I am certain were we discussing this in person, we would rapidly reach points of agreement.

Please accept my humble apologies.

[SavageOne]

sqlbullet,

Thank you. I believe you are right.

[Desertrat]

I watched Yankee for awhile.....but it became increasingly not amusing anymore.