Ammo For Sale

« « Solution to gun violence | Home | Sporting purpose » »


Apparently, my acronym is not too well received, mostly because it’s misunderstood. Says Yuri:

Making a silly acronym for people you donít agree with, who believe firmly that the amendment means what it says, is stupid. Just like adding a ďyĒ to the end of someones name. Itís childish and immature. In addition, does this mean you believe the Second Amendment can be infringed upon? Does that make you SBIs?

David notes we use the term as a pejorative. And we do. But here’s the thing about it:

We all are shall not be infringed types. Some of us realize that there will be infringements and there are infringements. It’s just that we choose to work within the existing system to address those infringements. Where the SNBI, in my opinion, is misguided is that there only responses is some variation of what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand? While the purists and gun nuts (of which I’m one) like that talk, it’s not real conducive to changing hearts and minds to tell people that if they don’t like, you’re going to shoot them. Just sayin’.

After all, in Heller it took a bunch of lawyers, time, and money to work within the system to get the supreme court to affirm 9-0 there was an individual right to arms. No amount of screaming SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED accomplished that goal.

35 Responses to “SNBI”

  1. Kevin Baker Says:

    After all, in Heller it took a bunch of lawyers, time, and money to work within the system to get the supreme court to affirm 9-0 there was an individual right to arms. No amount of screaming SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED accomplished that goal.

    Therefore (by the logic of the SNBIs) Heller was meaningless.

    Said meaninglessness illustrated by the fact that Fincher is still in jail.

    But they’re not ready to start shooting yet.

    SNBI!!! !11!+

    It makes me tired. It really does.

  2. Lornkanaga Says:

    Some people think that the only reason someone would want a shoulder-fired-missile-launcher is to shoot down an airplane or something; however, since the anti-gunnies think a .50 can shoot down an airplane, what then is the difference between owning a shoulder-fired-missile-launcher and a .50? Why can’t a law-abiding citizen have a shoulder-fired-missile-launcher if he/she has the coin to afford one?

    (not that I have the money, or that I even want a SFML–this is simply a “what if”)

  3. ATLien Says:

    If i comment on this, i might be put on a list.

  4. bob r Says:

    While the purists and gun nuts (of which Iím one) like that talk, itís not real conducive to changing hearts and minds to tell people that if they donít like, youíre going to shoot them.

    Agree it may not be effective. But also note that the “infringers” are telling _us_ if _we_ don’t like it, _they_ will have somebody else shoot _us_!!!

    There really is no compromise position. It’s all just saying “nice doggy” while looking for / reaching for a rock or hoping the other guy blinks.

  5. David Codrea Says:

    I utterly reject the notion that I and people like me are not working within the system.

  6. SayUncle Says:

    yes, but not effectively.

  7. Kurt "45superman" Hofmann Says:

    No amount of screaming SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED accomplished that goal.

    Um, who’s “screaming”?

  8. David Codrea Says:

    Well, if someone has to be the final arbiter on what’s effective, I’m glad it’s you.

    What are your qualifications again…?

  9. Kevin Baker Says:

    Well, if someone has to be the final arbiter on whatís effective, Iím glad itís you.

    Well, from what I’ve read voting is useless, the courts are useless, and anything other than “SNBI!!!!” is for pussies in public discussion, so trying to convince the (reachable) General Public with anything other than “SNBI!!” is useless. Final arbiters abound.

    The only useful thing seems to be Physical Training, militia drills, and collecting ammunition, MREs and barter goods for “the Time.”

    I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the way it appears.

    It would seem that “effective” carries two distinctly different meanings here.

    What Mr. Fincher did, for example, was not “effective.” I don’t fault the man for his principles or his bravery, or his willingness to suffer the idiocy of the Court, but based on precedent his conviction was a foregone conclusion. Had he tried something similar in the 5th Circuit, it might have gone a bit better, but I doubt it.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    Well, if someone has to be the final arbiter on whatís effective, Iím glad itís you.

    I never claimed to be said arbiter. But I don’t see much from the take no prisoners crowd other than wild lawsuits, threats of revolution, and other stuff that’s not very helpful. In fact, some of that stuff goes beyond helpful and is harmful. Like this.

  11. Kurt "45superman" Hofmann Says:

    Well, from what Iíve read voting is useless, the courts are useless, and anything other than ďSNBI!!!!Ē is for pussies in public discussion, so trying to convince the (reachable) General Public with anything other than ďSNBI!!Ē is useless. Final arbiters abound.

    And that position has been articulated by what percentage of the “SNBI” [I’ll leave the multiple exclamation points to you, since you’re the only one I know to use that particular form of punctuation in that context] wing of the gun rights advocacy movement?

  12. straightarrow Says:

    Now I have an answer to the question I asked elsewhere.

    How many of you are willing to bet Heller won’t end up being a springboard to ever stricter infringements?

    I know SNBI’s are not your cup of tea, but without the prags we would never have gotten here, would we have? That is somehow laudatory?

  13. Xrlq Says:

    The problem with the SNBIs, and the reason the moniker is deserved, is because they seem to be working off the same goofy definition of “infringe” that RIAA and MPAA use for copyright: if you’re doing something I don’t like, it’s an infringement.

  14. Rivrdog Says:

    I guess I could be counted, like Mr. Baker, as an SNBI. Sticks and stones.

    Here’s what an NRA-type position will get you: let’s do the math. We start out with 100% (the entire Second Amendment), and we give up a piece of it. Then we have less Second Amendment. Then we give up a piece of Less Second Amendment, and we have Even Less Second Amendment, etc, etc, but it WON’T be “ad nauseam”, because you won’t have time to get sick before your guns are gone.

    Some call that the “death of a thousand cuts”, but that’s wrong also, it won’t take a thousand, maybe not even a dozen more of these NRA give-aways.

    So, I have MY acronym for the NRA and the retreat they stand for: 2A4SALE.

    Use it with my compliments.

  15. SayUncle Says:

    and, rivrdog, let’s imagine what the snbi position will get you. nothing.

  16. David Codrea Says:

    Uncle says it, I believe it, that settles it.

  17. SayUncle Says:

    You could assert as to the effectiveness of such an approach with examples. Or continue belittling me.

  18. Chuckster Says:

    The dream of the antis is that we destroy each other from within.

  19. SayUncle Says:

    Chuckster, doesn’t mean we can’t discuss tactics objectively and without destroying each other. And that’s pretty much my point. Same ends, different means.

  20. mariner Says:

    Uncle belittles Dave, Dave belittles Uncle — what’s a little belittling among friends? ūüôā

  21. SayUncle Says:

    I didn’t belittle david.

  22. David Codrea Says:

    Yes, in fact I took it that way. Why do you suppose that is? One answer might be I’m overly sensitive, and I am a fragile thing. The other might be…?

  23. SayUncle Says:

    Well at least you’re belittling yourself now ūüėČ

    And for the record my intent wasn’t to belittle anyone.

  24. Sebastian Says:


    Even accepting that has happened, what do we do about it? Saying we’ve given up far too much of the second amendment is one thing. I might even agree with that, though I might argue over how much was “given up” vs. “outright taken”. But what is your plan for getting us back to 100%, or at least as close as we can get to 100%? And what defines 100%? Legal machine guns? Legal nuclear weapons?

  25. Nick Says:

    So, for the pragmatists: Is there a point at which you will give up on working within the system? I mean, let’s say it continues to not go well (I don’t think Heller is going to turn the tide), are you going to just keep on keeping on indefinitely? Voting from the internment camp sort of loses its luster…

    So is your argument that now is not the time, or that there is NEVER a time?

    Forgive me if this has been covered.

  26. SayUncle Says:

    it’s pretty solidly ‘now is not the time’.

  27. Rivrdog Says:

    SayUncle, I agree with you, today, the Ides of August, 2008, is not the time. When will it be? I think we’ll ALL know that when it gets here, because I think the opposition has just about given up on incrementalism and will try a gun confiscation, despite Heller, in the next year or two. We will, of course, be lulled to sleep, AGAIN, with a “tepid” AWB2, but then there will be an outright, turn-’em-in ban on “AWs” and most high-capacity pistols following THAT.

    In the mean time, even if you think that having to fight for said rights is ONLY a remote possibility, what’s wrong with training so as to be able to win that fight? What’s wrong with discussing that training? Above all, what’s wrong with telling the NRA that if they give another inch, THEY will become the target for both the gun banners and the SNBIs, which could include ALL their former members.

    Who is going to rise to save the NRA the next time they give a chunk away, just so they’ll be seen as “reasonable”? I can buy their gear and schlock insurance from damn near anyone, and anyone else I buy their gear from won’t put their surrender mark on it.

    Yeah, I’m more than bummed on the NRA. You won’t catch ME marching behind their white flag. The only reason I have been a member the past few years is that the rifle club I belonged to required membership, but I gave up that club membership so I have no need for the 2A4SALE org now.

  28. Sebastian Says:


    What ground has NRA given up? NRA has only existed as a political organization since the 1970s. Their opposition to gun control before then was a lot more sportsmen oriented and a lot less rights oriented.

    What exactly did they give up? They didn’t have time to fight the Hughes Amendment, because it was slipped onto FOPA at the last minute. They fought the Brady Act for years before it finally passed, in a far less meddlesome form than was originally proposed. They fought the Clinton gun ban. They defeated candidates for president that supported licensing and registration and got that off the table. They pushed to repeal the assault weapons ban in 1996. They managed to scare enough politicians that it was allowed to die quietly in 2004, and hasn’t been renewed.

    What has the NRA “given up”? Or do you blame them because the anti-gun people have had any political success. And if their political success is bothersome for you, what are you doing to help defeat them?

  29. straightarrow Says:

    Sebastian, your questions aren’t even honest. And you know it. Back before you became afraid of me, for no good reason, I made you a list what the NRA not only gave up, but the give-ups they themselves proposed.

    As for the prags, how much traction do you really think you would have if it wasn’t for the existence of the SNBI’s. Government not having the knowledge of how many there are, or how they will react to a future infringement, or just where that line in the sand is, but pretty sure there is one, is what gives you traction. You can be thrown a bone, while the meat is eaten from yours and you think you have won something.

    They would rather deal with you because you have told them you have no sticking point past which you won’t go. That gives them hope that if they foster an appearance of effectiveness for your approach the SNBI’s will remain passive in hopes you are effective. That has been working for them, so far. Think how much less pressure on our rights there would be if they couldn’t count on you to back them when the ugly starts.

    So you prags pat yourselves on the back all you want, your power comes from their fear of others. From their viewpoint, I guess one could call you the lesser of two evils. Not a position I hold, for I don’t believe you are evil, but I don’t believe you are right either.

  30. Sebastian Says:

    I did not become afraid of you. I got tired of you. You can be reasonable and insightful, but you can also be a dick. I got tired of the latter.

  31. straightarrow Says:

    Bullshit! You accused me of threatening you, which I did not. Only fear causes that crap. As far as dicks go, you and your girlfriend took a boatload of cheapshots before you were answered in kind, and after you had no answers for the issue under discussion. Don’t try to regain your manhood now. Or at least, don’t ask me for it. That’s your problem.

    Now, to the reason I am commenting again. What I said above is true, but it does not give credit where credit is due. What I referred to as traction is not solely because of the existence of SNBI’s, a large portion of it is also because of the cost of litigation, and the likely possibility of loss that has caused some favorable occurrences recently. That dynamic is almost solely due to the efforts of the pragmatists. Chicago suburbs come to mind, and Heller was mostly due to the same pressure, but in that case, the fear of the consequences of deciding otherwise, once the case was granted cert played a big part. That is one of the reasons there were so many minefields sown in the decision. Avoidance of dire consequences, a bone to the peasants and plenty of cover to allow more infringements if the infringing party is creative enough.

    I didn’t intend to insinuate that the pragmatists hadn’t accomplished anything. That would be a lie. But they weren’t alone, the quiet presence of the SNBI’s had an effect.

  32. Roberta X Says:

    Wedge, wedge, wedge.

    Fight all you like, it emboldens the opposition.

    We all have the same end-goal in mind; that one side gets all worried ‘cos the other side talks tough, or that the other side frets over the first side’s willingness to try inching along, pushing back in the same racheting way our rights were lost, is the real meaninglessness here. Other gunnies ain’t the Enemy. Might be a PITA sometimes, but so’s everyone, get used to it.

    A) Fears of Extreme Talk Scaring The Fatheads are silly. They’re scared when you talk about going to the pistol range or shooting skeet at te club. They’re scared of any non-LEO owning guns in their midst. It’s not a matter of degree; go read the false-flag blogs if you need a reminder.

    B) Fears of Loss Through Attempts To Work Within The System are equally illusory. Gun-owners are already more-or-less screwed over by gun laws and in most states (well, at least in American-occupied America, I dunno from CA or the worst of the Northeast), efforts to improve matter by changing the laws have worked.

    We have the same goal. Yes, some scary extremists (and I’m one) think we need exactly one gun law for adult citizens, the one that starts out “A well-regulated miliia…” and others would be okay with some more but we share a vector: moving towards less firearms regulation. Likewise, some folks are born lobbyists, some are born activists (and some, like me, excel at neither); these are skill sets that do not necessarily overlap and sometimes appear to be in conflict.

    It is a big, complex, complicated world and if we are unable to tolerate ambiguity and — ahem — spirited discussion — within our ranks, our opposition will benefit from it.

  33. Sebastian Says:

    While not wanting to undermine your general message that we ought to all just get along — I think you’re right about that. But we’re going to argue, especially since once side views the other as undermining it, which is a fundamental problem to get over.

    But as to your A) point, there is not a clean division of people who are totally pro-gun on one side, and a group that’s totally gun fearing and unreachable on the other. Those people certainly exist, but they aren’t the majority in any case. The fundamental argument against the hard liners is that their message is fundamentally off putting to people who might have sympathies towards gun rights, but who aren’t deeply involved in the issue. I’m not just talking about non-gun owners either, I’m talking about gun owners, who might have sympathies, but who hard line activist either scare, or in many cases actively chase out of the movement. I certainly don’t have a problem with every hard liner out there, because a lot of them understand how to bring people in, but the ones who enjoy chasing away heretics in their quest to purify the movement, I have absolutely no patience for. Those people aren’t seeking allies and trying to build a movement, and there is no getting along with them. They, quite honestly, are actively sabotaging the movement.

    I say this because more than a few of them, and I don’t just mean on Al Gore’s Internets, have actively tried to chase me out of the movement far various perceived purity issues, and I believe the second amendment necessarily should cover some military hardware.

  34. straightarrow Says:

    An addendum to my comment above. “I didnít intend to insinuate that the pragmatists hadnít accomplished anything. That would be a lie. But they werenít alone, the quiet presence of the SNBIís had an effect.”

    May not be entirely accurate. It is not us vocal few whom the state fears that provides traction to the pragmatists. If they were sure that we were all there are, confiscation of firearms would start tomorrow. Their uncertainty as to whether we are just the tip of the iceberg is the far more restraining influence on their ambition.

    The prags refuse to admit that all courtesy and all obedience all the time, by itself, would never be effective.

    If it was simply a matter of honorable men with honest differences of opinion or interpretation of rights and the constitution we would never have arrived where we are. Therefore the possibility of SNBIs being less than malleable is an important component of the pragmatists successes. There is duty of SNBIs to warn, so that we may avoid that which none of us want. Without that warning there would be no fetters on the power hungry.

    This scenario has played innumerable times throughout history, most often over different issues, but no advancement of dignity, liberty or benefit has ever accrued to the common man without the use of force or the realistic threat of the use of force.

    I didn’t make that rule, it just is. History bears it out. Not once in the history of mankind has that rule been broken or circumvented. Is it any wonder the SNBIs resent the ridicule heaped on them by people who haven’t learned the lessons of history?

    I and everyone I know who fits their description of us hopes for their ultimate success. We don’t like or want the alternative any more than they do. But we do not fool ourselves as to the nature of our would be oppressors, nor do we fool ourselves as to the good intentions they would supposedly hold if only we explained it better and showed them the proof. The proof for them is how much they can take. They need to know their is a limit.

  35. straightarrow Says:

    there is a limit, not “their”……

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges