PSA: The Giving of an Inch

Just about everyone has heard the saying: if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. I like to utilize this saying a lot when talking about the Anti-Firearms Coalition (AFC). I also like to specifically use the reference in terms of rope. An inch of rope can still be the beginning of a noose.

Over the weekend, under very stormy conditions, I was standing around on the range talking with three friends. The conversation eventually turned to the ownership of fully-automatic weapons. Of course, there was back-and-forth as of to why civilians should and should not own them. I am a staunch believer that Americans in the United States should be able to own fully-automatic firearms as a means of leveling the field against any aggressor — foreign or domestic. My reasoning behind this, and something that I have been extremely vocal on, is that the assault on one’s rights always starts with one simple thing.

A little background to all of this. At the last minute of passing the Firearms Owners Protection Act (H.R. 4332), in 1986, the Hughes Amendment (House Amendment 777) was thrown into the bill. This amendment specifically banned the sales of newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms to the public upon the passing of FOPA — which was May 19th, 1986. In my opinion, this was the first inch of rope that was given to the AFC.

Newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms are off of the table, but the “equally scary” semi-automatic clones are still available. That’s currently what the AFC is after — AR-15s, AK-47s, etc. Imagine that actually coming to fruition. A ban on all semi-automatic rifles and no grandfathering clause: which means you have to turn them in. Putting the ‘Murica, Three-Percent, gung-ho B.S. aside. Ask yourself what might be targeted next. Do you really believe they would be content with that? The smart man’s answer is no.

A few years ago, a novel was written by an author (which I will leave unnamed) about how the next mass-shooting could lead to the ban on rifle scopes. It sounds stupid… until you teach yourself about rifle ballistics and scout-sniper tactics, analyze long-distance shooting and then directly compare it to suppressors regulation. Suppressors were regulated under the pretenses of them being used by assassins and poachers. Today, the standard rule of thumb, used by the AFC and journalists who don’t know anything, is suppressors are regulated because of poaching worries. But, back up. Change suppressors to rifle scopes and analyze the former reasoning.

“Rifle scopes were regulated / banned under the pretenses of use by assassins”.

Then, we look over at an America’s First Freedom (NRA) article from a couple of weeks back. Australia has historically been used by both the AFC and Pro-Firearms Coalition (PFC). The cover photo that the NRA used reminded me how far left Australia went after the Port Arthur shooting. Standard pump-action shotguns and rimfires like the Ruger 10-22 are Class-C categorized (heavily restricted to farmers and collectors only).

When you give an inch, they will take a mile.

That’s what it looked like in Australia and could look the same here, at any moment.

The AFC is desperately trying to restrict “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines; and, they will continue to do so. The current stance of most firearms owners is to hold the status quo. However, more and more big-named firearms owners are calling for an equally aggressive push in the opposite direction. A retaking of ground that’s been lost already, so to speak.

Last month, Tim “MAC” Harmsen (The Bang Switch) announced he would work with other YouTube firearms celebrities to repeal the Hughes Amendment. A bit of background that’s included on the Hughes Amendment is that, at the time, Wayne LaPierre may have let the machine gun ban slide for the greater good of Firearms Owners Protection Act. LaPierre is now the National Rifle Association’s vice president and the simple suspicion is why I’m not apart of the NRA as a paying member. I will mention that the Gun Owners of America and the Heller Foundation have been actively assisting the Hollis vs. Lynch machine gun lawsuit, if you’re looking for an alternative to the NRA.

At the end of the day, firearms owners need to come together on this one thing. A firearm is a firearm. All firearms are mechanical in nature. When we are divided, you’ll see the Anti-Firearms Coalition come for firearms, by category, because of our in-fighting. Make no mistake, we are enabling them.

I believe that work should be focused on the machine-gun ban first, but I also urge you to join NFA Deregulation groups such the NFAFA, SilencerCo’s #FightTheNoise Project and many others. You should also continue to support the Heller Foundation’s efforts for donations on the Hollis vs. Lynch case. Hollis’s attorney, Stamboulieh, mentioned a 3rd Circuit rehearing petition on

It’s time to take back that inch.

One thought on “PSA: The Giving of an Inch”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.