ATF rules, anti-gunners, & other ways they want to stop us

[contender]

We all have seen it in many ways & forms. Some politicians, anti-gunners, & many others want to take away our freedoms by removing our ability to enjoy our firearms. The recent info about the ATF wanting to re-classify powder to make it harder to store is just another example of their attempts to control us, the lowly citizen. It has re-kindled my thinking of how we can stop them cold.
They know they have a hard, uphill battle in trying to change the Second Amendment. But they are also smart enough to attack things that is NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. Ammunition, components, legal trade (like the recent gunsmithing issues,) are but a few of the things they can easily regulate & control w/o "infringing" on the Bill of Rights. Taxes, business laws, regulations on who & how they "allow" to get the items we need are the loophole they use to chip away at our rights, legally.

Has anyone ever noticed that they almost always include language in these regulations & laws the says; "Military & law enforcement excluded" or something similar?

I have approached a few firearm manufacturers about this, and asked them to look at it hard & make some hard decisions. I've been rebuked by them so far. It's simple folks.

If we, as consumers can band together & get the NSSF & it's members to SERIOUSLY look at that simple exclusion, and accept the fact that the government is slowly choking off the private sector & all that retail market, that in the long run, they will be a lot of them out of business.
My solution would be for the NSSF members to stand together & NOT sell to the military & LEO's their small arms & ammo, and to restrict them to the same regulations they expect us to abide by.
When the LEO's can not get any magazines that are "high capacity" or have to jump through hoops to find ammo, I'm SURE a lot of police departments would suddenly become aware of the problems they are putting upon the private sector. Or if the military can not get ammo to train with or take into a combat zone due to shortages, storage regulations of powder or whatever,,, I'm SURE the Pentagon leaders would SCREAM!!! As would the soldiers & all the others affected.
How about police departments who do not have the ammo to meet training requirements? Or have the ability to buy firearms w/o a lot of red tape & background checks & paperwork? What about the places where the citizens are severely restricted in where they can carry?

If we as lovers of Freedom can band together & start talking to any & all members of the NSSF, & any manufacturers of firearms, ammo, components, to be willing to NOT accept the "exclusions" allowed the LEO's & military until they are willing to remove the restrictions upon the private sector, we could win this fight.
Yes, I know that many members of the NSSF are publicly traded companies. I know they have to answer to stockholders. I know that if they do not have LEO & military contracts that they can lose a big chunk of income & there would be jobs lost. BUT,,,,,,,,, if they do NOT stand against the divided groups, (private sector & the government groups,) then eventually they will lose more jobs, more money & many will be put out of business. The loss there will be much larger & greater than the initial loss experienced if they stood strong against them.

Remember the Clinton era jack in the fees for a FFL? How they went after "kitchen table gun dealers?" They stopped a lot of small mom & pop gun dealers by their attacks.

I also remember how Ronnie Barrett refused to work on a Calif. LEO Barrett 50 cal because the law changed & stopped the citizens from owning them. But he stood alone & wasn't supported by the rest of the NSSF.
Or, how about Magpul who moved their business out of a state that the politicians voted to restrict it's citizens of a legal product made in their own state.

So, I'm asking here, what are your thoughts? Could we, as the private sector have a big enough voice to get the members of the NSSF to listen? Do you think it would work?

[jgt]

I doubt it. The monumental task in front of us is to get people off their duff and write their elected officials. Even better start electing people from the local elections up to national elections that are patriotic constitutional Americans. These people could go a long way in not only keeping unconstitutional laws from being passed but they are on oversight committees that keep the bureaucrat in line. Our number one challenge at hand is to elect the one who is going to appoint the next Justice to the SCOTUS.

[jimtx]

Sounds good in theory but truth is we are all to opinionated in our sport, hunters, completion shooters, weekend plnkers, etc It's the I shoot and have no need for "assault weapons" frame of mind that gets in the way, they could take those hunters don't need them type of mentality, you give a Liberal/Dem an inch they will take 10 miles!

IF we all stood up in one voice things would change but in never happens, then everyone just sits back bitching & crying hoping so year things will change or we can go to court, courts are slow, drawout, and usually never change anything once it happens, it takes them 2 seconds to take away our rights, but years to correct a blatant injustice, it's ridiculous!

[JSilva]

The problem has already been brought up. Money.
Barrett is in a unique position to sell or not sell as he likes, the other major manufacturers aren't so picky. As you mentioned, they have stock holders to appease.

In regards to ammo for military, it's worth knowing that the military produces ammo for their use at their own facilities. I believe the same is true of the gunpowder. Radford arsenal comes to mind.

I believe it will take a war here at home to change people's minds in any meaningful way. Politicians and the entitled will need to be dragged from their towers of high ideals and wishful thinking to be slaughtered wholesale in the street before any note is made about resistance and change.

Civil war maybe, invasion I suppose.
Either way, it's my firm belief that change will have a cost that will be paid with the average citizens blood.

[contender]

Good points all.

And yes, the military does have it's own ammo plants.

But we have already had a case of us banding together enough to bring a change. Remember the .223 ammo fiasco several months ago when they tried to ban a common type? LOTS of screaming until it was shut down.
Currently, the powder re-classification. Once they realized that LEO facilities would also be in violation & that many of their suppliers would be affected,, they backed down a bit.

But yes,, it is a money thing. I feel it's better to suffer a little now than lose it all later. When they say; "I'd lose money." I like to reply with; "What will you do when their regs shut you down completely?"