Sacrifice Bump Stocks to save Silencer bill?

"According to the Washington Post, Pelosi asked House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) to allow a vote on a Democratic bill banning the devices. Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, "So what? … I certainly hope so."

This is what Pelosi said, and it is what liberals want. Like the camel, just let us get our nose under the tent. After all, it is perfectly reasonable gun control legislation. It appears that many here are too young to realize all of the previous instances where "all we want is some common sense, reasonable restrictions". All of the common sense, reasonable restrictions that have become law in the last 50 years have done absolutely nothing to stop the evil in some people's hearts. I'll stop here. Additional comments by me will only serve to raise my blood pressure.

Let's be honest. the reason that most gun owners and willing to make small sacrifices (bump stocks) in exchange for suppressor deregulation or national reciprocity is because we are rational people. the problem is, the anti-gun folks, who may be rational, do not recognize our rights and our desire to protect those rights as legitimate or rational.

Paul Ryan and Mitch Mcconnel have proven they are very much status quo supporters. they do not want to pass legislation that will increase freedom.

Paul Ryan said, before the Vegas Shooting, that now is not the time for National Conceal Carry Reciprocity.

I don't care about bump fire stocks all that much, I have no use for one just like I have no use for a binary trigger. I do not want to see a new law banning these devices.

when was the last time there was a law passed that increased liberty?

1. You cannot negotiate with anti-gunners. They are content to play the long game and chip away. How do you negotiate with people in good faith who are not even honest about their intentions to begin with? How many times have you heard an anti gun politician state they don't want to take guns from people, but in the same breath reference Australia and Great Britain both of which banned and confiscated firearms. How many times have you heard "gun show loophole" or that we need to regulate "assault weapons?" Hell, even this week, I've heard the lie that a "bump stock" turns a gun in a fully automatic firearm. You don't negotiate with people you cannot trust and you cannot trust people who have to lie about what they actually want to accomplish.

2. If you for a second think this is a fight over "bump stocks," you are short sighted. This is a fight over "rate of fire." When banning bump stocks doesn't work, it will be magazine sizes, trigger reset speed, any other new technologies developed, and eventually semi autos themselves. You are not agreeing to a ban on bump stocks here, you are agreeing that too high a rate of fire is un-necessary and they will begin to define that argument to go after semi automatic firearms.

Remember, they will never stop and they are more than happy to take your rights piece by piece if they have to.

z7 said:

Let's be honest. the reason that most gun owners and willing to make small sacrifices (bump stocks) in exchange for suppressor deregulation or national reciprocity is because we are rational people.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is "most gun owners".
The gun owners that are willing to make sacrifices may be rational, they are also naive.
There will be no reward for sacrificing our rights, only more infringement.
What would the discussion be if we were talking about our first amendment right?
After asking the question I am a little afraid of what the answer might be.

I agree with JohnKSa. The Hearing Protection Act is dead in the water. Banning the bump stock is just the start. The hosts on NPR's 'the World' said that's what the leadership of the left wants as a bare minimum this morning. Next it will be all in for binary/echo triggers, lightened triggers, magazine caps, and eventually the entire AR platform (weapons of war don't you know), Culminating in AWB 2 : anti-gun boogaloo.

I'll repeat myself from the Wiki Talk page discussion on the Los Vegas Strip Shooting:

Here in Tennessee this week a man arrested driving on revoked license (he missed a court appearance) had his car packed with survival gear including two handguns and two ''home-built'' full-auto AR-style rifles, a .223 and a .308. He built the lower full-auto receivers himself (the barrels, stocks, other parts were probably bought as commercial spare or replacement parts). Similarly Sweden, Israel, India, Australia and other countries have to deal with underground manufacture of full-auto weapons. Not to mention theft from military and police. A ban on bumpfire stocks sounds like the usual non-answer from smug authorities.

Sad that Ryan is somehow third in-line for succession. Jelly for a spine.

petrel800 said:

If you for a second think this is a fight over "bump stocks," you are short sighted. This is a fight over "rate of fire." When banning bump stocks doesn't work, it will be magazine sizes, trigger reset speed, any other new technologies developed, and eventually semi autos themselves. You are not agreeing to a ban on bump stocks here, you are agreeing that too high a rate of fire is un-necessary and they will begin to define that argument to go after semi automatic firearms.

Click to expand...

This really touches upon the crux of the issue.

No use looking for an easy out, especially of a situation we've put ourselves into by advancing the specious argument that semi-autos are somehow "cool" and relatively benign in comparison to the "uncool" and taboo full-auto.

I don't trust Ryan as far as I can spit.

If the NRA cuts some sort of behind-closed-doors deal with hi you can bet that he will stab them in the back.

Being stubborn to the point of we are just taking, compromising means we are just taking less but still not giving any thing. has worked for the it's bad ban it sorts for over a century.

As of the end of the AWB and seeing that, no... once the scary things are gone, shot guns become street sweepers capable of clearing a room in one blast,
and every thing with a scope becomes a sniper rifle firing rounds more powerful than what the military uses did the firearms community fully pick up the mantra of not one more inch did we start seeing head way.

Making gains instead of losses to the point uppers in the BATF were considering loosening restrictions on silencers as job security, do to so many being on the heels of yanking the organization in full.

So no in no way shape or form is this the time to give in, to loose momentum, or give the antis momentum, it is most certainly the time to stand in a resounding chorus of "from my cold dead hands"

Paul Ryan is not any better than the Democrats at this point,

He is not going to push legislation that increases individual liberty because “the time is not right”

The dems want to disarm us,

I agree that we should not compromise because the other side is only interested in winning and limiting freedom