NRA Supports Ban on Bumpfire Devices

[Wisco]

The NRA may be done and gone within the next 25 years. They've done some great work on our behalf, but now they're farther right than ever on other issues as the country grows more socially moderate and liberal. Now they're selling out on bump stocks, but not gaining silencers or 50-state carry permit recognition - they may ask, but it won't happen.

The real pro-gun rights (and other conservative issues) are happening at the state level, some whose state houses are getting more red every election.

We also have a president who knows what people want to hear - when they want gun control, it'll happen so fast, believe me it'll happen bigly.

 

[Sam1911]

the bump fire converts a gas operated semi into a binary gas/recoil operated full auto, no?

Not according to the legal definition of an automatic weapon.

Why is it that when we have thousands of laws on the books and we lament how often people have to change or get locked up to comply with them when the law was really intended to address others or other problems -- do we go trying to ADD layers and details of our own to a BAD law we already don't want to have to live with?

Why are so many perfectly thrilled to, in their minds, add on to the NFA to make it regulate things the BATFE itself says AREN'T covered by it???

The mind wobbles.

 

[John Joseph]

Since practically any semi auto rifle can be bump fired without any modification or accessory, your way of thinking would logically lead to banning all semi auto rifles.

No, just the mechanical advantage provided by an aftermarket device. Remember the Hellfire (I think it was) crank device of Waco, TX infamy?

 

[Sam1911]

No, just the mechanical advantage provided by an aftermarket device. Remember the Hellfire (I think it was) crank device of Waco, TX infamy?

WHAT "aftermarket device?" As written, and by most of the other ways I could think of to write this, it would also sweep up nearly any aftermarket trigger, as any trigger lighter than the factory one would unquestionably make any gun easier to bumpfire. Same for binary triggers.

So please don't think this is just about hanging the folks at SlideFire out to dry. This would reach right into every gun case in the country.

 

[CoalTrain49]

How so, please? In fact, mechanism of fire is (currently) regulated.

Why do you think the "mechanisms" are regulated? The purpose of any machine gun is a faster rate of fire. If you regulate the mechanism that can deliver a faster rate of fire aren't you in effect regulating the rate of fire?

 

[blue32]

If the bump fire stock is so bad why are we just now having a discussion? They've been out since at least 2012 and there was no uproar to speak of. So just because one jerkoff uses something while killing a bunch of people the rest have to suffer? You might as well ban motor vehicles and airplanes because they aren't close to being constitutionally protected and have killed far more. But of course that will not happen because the anti-everything people use those.

Think about what you're saying when you mention "it's a good trade for - whatever." Any deal which has the potential to erase our rights is bad. Banning bump fire stocks is a step in that direction. This is no different than trading free speech for speech which does not offend, trading security in your person, papers, and house for the common good of all, or trading due process for a more secure nation. Don't be a sell out.

 

[Matt Dillon]

With such an emotional reaction, I regret renewing my NRA membership.
As seen in the video below, would the NEA advocate banning pine boards and PVC pipe? Once we agree with the gun grabbers on a single accessory, they will do their best to expand that restriction the next time a nutcase let’s loose, and these spineless Republicans will be all too ready and willing to sell us down the river to please the media. We have seen it time and time again.

 

[Walkalong]

For all you NRA bashers, why not just turn in your guns, because the NRA is why we still have them. There have been rocky times in the relationship between gun owners and the NRA, and this will be another one, but in the end they are by far our biggest voice in Washington.

Sure, show some love for other pro gun organizations, but the "The NRA sucks" posts help nothing. Really sounds trollish actually.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I am certainly no troll, and I do appreciate all the NRA has done in the past, but I believe that an emotional reaction so quick to surrender to the Left, is the wrong response. It sets a bad precedent. So when the alert figures out that semiautomatic guns can be bump fired without the “bump fire” stocks will theysupport magazine limitations? Could they not have polled their members to assess what WE think about this? Why be so quick to succumb to the Left? My rule of thumb is, that if someone agrees with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, they have zero credibility with me. Before we agree to give in to the Left in any way, shape, or form, we need to get something in return! If I cannot honestly and openly criticize the NRA, especially when they are so clearly wrong, then why be a member, unless you think that all of their decisions are spot on?

 

[Sam1911]

Look, I'm as alarmed, scared, worried, and angry about the NRA's move here as anybody, HOWEVER..

Politics is politics. I don't know what game the NRA is playing and so far I'm dire worried about it. Danged close to cancel-my-membership worried. But these guys live and breathe the insider world of DC and "the art of the possible" every single day, with no days off. It is a game played at a very high level. They've got the odds figured on how to handle this. I hope. It is STILL a huge gamble. But I'm trusting -- barely -- that they see a minimal loss strategy to get us through it.

If you feel that they are WRONG to do what they're doing in this move/strategy/gambit, stop and admit you'd be a baby toddling through the woods if dropped into the world of federal political lobbying and your own efforts to deflect, delay, diffuse, and reduce the national pressure for gun control and get the hundreds of national representatives in the House and Senate to come up with an "effectively ineffective" action that both appeases the population and preserves our rights would be somewhere between laughable and actually harmful.

It is fine to let them know that you DO NOT approve of going in the direction implied by their statements. It is good for the members to let the leadership understand that we are HARD LINE supporters and do not agree that guns are EVER the problem, and gun control NEVER the solution. That's fine.

But give them a little leeway to work this out and navigate some very stormy waters. I don't know that their play will work. I don't know that, in the end, it will be the right one. It sure isn't the one my heart and my beliefs would lead me to follow. But I'm not Chris, Wayne, and their team of strategists and lawyers, and I can't play at their level. I'm not cancelling my membership just yet.

Remember: Strategy is the opposite of instinct. Doing the best thing is very often the opposite of doing what you WANT to do in the moment. Let's see how it goes.





As a closing point to ponder: I'd be extremely surprised, come to think of it, if they don't already have contingency plans laid out as to exactly what to say in public and in specific Congressmen's offices, in the event of probably a dozen different sorts of news-grabbing mass crimes with guns. This whole play might just be "Plan Q" in their big black strategy book.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I am certainly no troll, and I do appreciate all the NRA has done in the past, but I believe that an emotional reaction so quick to surrender to the Left, is the wrong response. It sets a bad precedent. So when the alert figures out that semiautomatic guns can be bump fired without the “bump fire” stocks will theysupport magazine limitations? Could they not have polled their members to assess what WE think about this? Why be so quick to succumb to the Left? My rule of thumb is, that if someone agrees with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, they have zero credibility with me. Before we agree to give in to the Left in any way, shape, or form, we need to get something in return! If I cannot honestly and openly criticize the NRA, especially when they are so clearly wrong, then why be a member, unless you think that all of their decisions are spot on?

The NRA clearly has a problem here that they are trying to solve. If I were advising them I think I would have taken the same approach. There is a very good chance that congress is about to enact some more legislation dealing with semi auto rifles. All you have to do is look at Pelosi's bill to see some open doors there. Once this bill, or any bill as there are others, gets on the floor for debate things can get very unpredictable. Thus the slippery slope that the media is referring to. Pelosi and others are actually counting on this debate to get some traction on their real aganda.

The fact is the NRA isn't on board with any proposed legislation. They are asking the ATF to make a ruling on BF stocks. Big difference between that and proposed legislation that could could end up giving us a 10 rd magazine limit or something even worse.

The NRA realizes, as I do, that a determination by the ATF on BF stocks is small potatoes here. BF stocks are going away one way or another. The only play here is how they go away. The NRA is being very pro active here with this proposal. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the NRA calling on the Trump adm to make a ruling on BF stocks. If the bills in congress get any traction, there will be more than one, the NRA will also be doing the best job they can to block those or at least get a concession.

Individuals like yourself may be in a position to draw hard lines when it comes to gun control but the NRA doesn't have the hard line option. The truth is there isn't any other political organization that can be as effective as the NRA in the political arena.

Maybe you should move to DC and try your negotiating skills as a lobbyist.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I’ll tell you what I am tired of. I am sick and tired of hearing those who are supposed to be representing MY interests start to negotiate MY rights as a law-abiding citizen away, because crazy mad men abuse our liberties, and those who represent me are so willing to allow the rights of all of the rest of us to be infringed upon. Why? When a drunk driver kills innocent people, does the American Automobile Assiciation call to bring back prohibition?
Why should those of us who are responsible citizens feel that it is ok to bear the responsibility and consequences of this horrific crime? There is but one to blame and no restrictions on bump fire stocks will ever prevent homicidal maniacs from executing their evil deeds. Why should I relinquish my rights?

 

[Sav .250]

I have no need or desire for one.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Neither do I, but that is beside the point. Before the bodies were even in the morgue, Republicans and the NRA were all to ready to once again infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. What a spineless bunch!

 

[Sam1911]

Yes. A spineless bunch that has to get re-elected if they want to be in a position to keep the country on the track they support. Any smart politician has to figure out how to uphold the values he (and his constituents who elected him) want to direct the country by, while simultaneously not grossly irritating enough people to lose his/her seat and then NOT be around to hold the line in the next round of attacks on his constituents' values.

It stinks, but that's how politics works. If everyone believed as we do, we wouldn't have to deal with wishy-washy or "slimy" politicians. I sure wish there weren't any folks who want "reasonable" actions taken to stop mass shooters. I sure wish every voter understood that banning guns and gun parts won't stop mass killers. Wish in one hand, poop in the other, and let me know which piles up faster...

But they have to play to such a wide audience, and try to appear sympathetic to as many people as possible that they can't be the stone walls we wish they could be.


The very best that can probably come of this is to throw up a flurry of "concerned talk" and propose that committees be formed to discuss the feasibility of preparing to begin the process of formulating the strategic, bipartisan...blah, blah, blah. Get the BATFE to take a few long months to review this matter that they've already studied and decided on. And use the time wasted by all of that to let public anger and outrage and demands to "do something" die down.

 

[CoalTrain49]

There is but one to bkamek and no restrictions on bump fire stocks will ever prevent homicidal maniacs from executing their evil deeds.

Sell that to the the uninformed, fascist, progressive masses. No one here will argue with that.

 

[Deanimator]

No matter what kind of deal you make with the devil, he's still the devil...

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The NRA clearly has a problem here that they are trying to solve. If I were advising them I think I would have taken the same approach. There is a very good chance that congress is about to enact some more legislation dealing with semi auto rifles. All you have to do is look at Pelosi's bill to see some open doors there. Once this bill, or any bill as there are others, gets on the floor for debate things can get very unpredictable. Thus the slippery slope that the media is referring to. Pelosi and others are actually counting on this debate to get some traction on their real aganda.

The fact is the NRA isn't on board with any proposed legislation. They are asking the ATF to make a ruling on BF stocks. Big difference between that and proposed legislation that could could end up giving us a 10 rd magazine limit or something even worse.

The NRA realizes, as I do, that a determination by the ATF on BF stocks is small potatoes here. BF stocks are going away one way or another. The only play here is how they go away. The NRA is being very pro active here with this proposal. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the NRA calling on the Trump adm to make a ruling on BF stocks. If the bills in congress get any traction, there will be more than one, the NRA will also be doing the best job they can to block those or at least get a concession.

Individuals like yourself may be in a position to draw hard lines when it comes to gun control but the NRA doesn't have the hard line option. The truth is there isn't any other political organization that can be as effective as the NRA in the political arena.

Maybe you should move to DC and try your negotiating skills as a lobbyist.

Yep, this. The NRA has played its "trump" card (lol), by hoping to keep this issue in the ATFs purview, thus giving the Republicans an out on the issue. It would be very bad for all of this for this to snowball into a legislative issue in open session. However, even if the ATF acts quickly to reverse its opinion on these fitting within existing law, the Democrats, and some Republicans in purple districts will still feel the need to make noise like they are"doing something."
The NRA was right to this extent, and should not waste resources over the lost cause of bump stocks. Still, they should avoid any outright support for ANY further restrictions- this will only embolden our enemies. If the left sees us as willing to throw this item to the wolves, they will come after hi-cap mags again. Then detachable mags. Then semi autos. They will pick us apart one feature at a time.
The real fight is yet to come.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I have no need or desire for one.

I don't either. But how would you feel if that madman had a dozen .250 model 99 Savages at hand? Would you support a ban on rotary magazines?
Look at it this way. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting, personal defense, or recreational shooting. It could be argued that any weapons NOT suitable for the purposes of overthrowing a tyrannical government are not in fact constitutionally protected. Now who wants to define those weapons by their features?
Would .22s count? Lever actions? How bout shotguns?
When we start nitpicking our weapons by their technical qualities, things get scary fast.
It MUST be all or nothing.

 

[JN01]

In regards to getting something in return for giving up bump fire stocks, would gun owners feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot?

The next time one of our Congressmen proposes a pro-gun bill, should we demand that he add in some new gun control restrictions in order to "compromise" and be fair? I don't think so.

What makes people think Feinstein and company would be any different?

 

[alsaqr]

Wayne La Pierre had gotten blow back and is eating crow:

On Sunday, the organization said it was open to regulation but opposed any legislation banning the devices.

"We don't believe that bans have ever worked on anything. What we have said has been very clear - that if something transfers a semiautomatic to function like a fully automatic, then it ought to be regulated differently," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said on "Fox News Sunday."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nr...killer/ar-AAt5znr?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

 

[Sav .250]

I don't either. But how would you feel if that madman had a dozen .250 model 99 Savages at hand? Would you support a ban on rotary magazines?
Look at it this way. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting, personal defense, or recreational shooting. It could be argued that any weapons NOT suitable for the purposes of overthrowing a tyrannical government are not in fact constitutionally protected. Now who wants to define those weapons by their features?
Would .22s count? Lever actions? How bout shotguns?
When we start nitpicking our weapons by their technical qualities, things get scary fast.
It MUST be all or nothing.

Sir.
My comment was not ment for debate. It was a comment on how "I" felt about the item. It was neither a for or an against vote! Read again............Neither a for or against vote!!
As to your phase," when we start nitpicking........................." Who`s nippicking??
I just don`t have a need or desire for one." Just like I don`t need or desire a bigger house.

 

[JO JO]

correct the NRA is opposing a ban, I think bashing the NRA or GOA or any other pro 2A organization makes no sense they fight to ensure our 2A rights if not for them we maybe using sling shots , they will do more to protect our 2A rights then folks do complaining on the internet I feel, the NRA has grown to what 12 million strong now ? I never understood any NRA hate, they are the ones that keep California type laws and California politics from going national on a Federal level right ?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ses-ban-on-bump-stocks-used-in-vegas-massacre
anyway just my opinion only to each their own

 

[Sam1911]

My comment was not ment for debate. It was a comment on how "I" felt about the item. It was neither a for or an against vote! Read again............Neither a for or against vote!!
As to your phase," when we start nitpicking........................." Who`s nippicking??
I just don`t have a need or desire for one." Just like I don`t need or desire a bigger house.

Well I certainly understand his response. Whether or not you personally want one doesn't really inform this conversation very much at all now does it? Not very many of us actually want one, but that really doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether or not we are supporting or opposing a ban.

Maybe your comment was just off topic.

 

[Sam1911]

Not very many of us actually want one

Though I should add the caveat that, if Slide Fire and other companies making products like that do survive with their product still legal for sale, they will be millionaires many times over.

Nothing like a ban threat to make millions of gun owners become convinced they really ought to have one or a dozen of whatever it is stashed away just in case.

It's a happy thought, let's hope it comes to fruition!