Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 13,114
- Reactions
- 46,703
#RESIST-INFRINGEMENT
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would expect nothing less. Would this be an example of a Republican passing gun control?
And here is my source, strait from the NRA website:
"Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
NRA | Joint Statement
I don't own one either - I have always thought accuracy over speed but the point is we have those that thought were suppose to protect our rights doing the opposite. This just enforces my belief that the Republicans want the same goal as the Democrats but just going about it in different ways.Personally I have no use for them. I think its because I reload and can burn through what took many many hours to reload in less than a half hour with a mag loader. Dont climb all over me yet.
This being said I'm all for HashtagNoMoreNewGunLaws !!!!!!!!!!!!! Since "they" obviously believe that all the current laws arent doing the job they wanted them to I say scrap every single gun law currently on the books and lets start over. Hopefully with more people recognizing the over reaches currently in place.
You raise a good point, its a stock, so part of an arm. Could one say since the upper or any other part of a gun that isnt a serialized part could be banned, thus defacto gun ban.bumpstocks are useless to me anyway. though i dont agree with a ban, i was thinking about it... is a bumpstock an accessory or an 'arm'?
if its an accessory, we dont have the right to bear accessories do we? maybe im ignorant. maybe someone could clarify so that i know?
No - nothing is 'passing'. It's an administrative decision by the ATF.I would expect nothing less. Would this be an example of a Republican passing gun control?
Hope your right but Trump and the NRA agree with this.No - nothing is 'passing'. It's an administrative decision by the ATF.
It's also obviously a public relations fiasco, regarding bump stocks - but highlights the absurdity of ATF arbitrary regs. It's also not remotely close to what democrats want to do to destroy 2nd Amendment rights, federally and in blue states like OR. and WA.
As others commented, it will face legal challange and may well be overturned.
Am not crazy about the idea of any ban, but am reasonably certain there was an assessment based on public sentiment in the context of frequency of mass shootings, that administratively banning bump stocks would be more of a gesture vs. actual legislation that could be more harmful or serve as a federal precedent to semi-auto restrictions, as passed by multiple states.
Rationalizing does not make it right. It is a gun control measure that is being supported by the Trump and the NRA. Call it what it is.Am not crazy about the idea of any ban, but am reasonably certain there was an assessment based on public sentiment in the context of frequency of mass shootings, that administratively banning bump stocks would be more of a gesture vs. actual legislation that could be more harmful or serve as a federal precedent to semi-auto restrictions, as passed by multiple states.
Never owned one cause I can bump fire pretty good using my jeans.
They gonna ban 2x4s too?
I see this as a Republican supported issue - if Trump decided not to sign the bill it would go no where but instead he is approving it. Respectfully I think you need to wake up and recognize it for what it is.Are you seeking argument? It appears so. I said "Am not crazy about the idea of any ban"
I also said in reply to your question/statement of "Would this be an example of a Republican passing gun control?" NO, explaining why. Don't be so dense, try anyway.