So How About That NRA?

[L84Cabo]

*Sorry, this turned out to be a little bit long*

Sooooo...If you didn't catch it, earlier today the NRA called for the ATF to re-examine the policies surrounding the use of bump stocks. And to say a lot of gun owners are livid is an understatement. I was just wondering what folks here thought about all this?

Note that the Daily Wire article summarizes what the NRA said and has a copy of the joint statement that Wayne and Chris Cox issued today. And then the video is of Chris on Tucker Carlson talking tonight. Chris was well spoken...far better than Wayne usually is...but didn't give much reasoning behind their request or indication of their strategy. Note that Chris is only on for about the first seven minutes and the rest is other guests and issues. Wayne was also on with Hannity tonight but I haven't seen that yet.

As for me, ultimately, I'm reserving judgement until I have more information about their reasoning/strategy for this. Initially, however, I was pretty pissed. But then the following occurred to me...

Does anyone think for a second that the bump stocks will remain legal and/or not be heavily regulated after what just happened? Because I think you're kidding yourself if you do. So if there are going to be changes to the laws/policies...who do you want defining those changes? Congress...or the ATF??

Because Congress obviously has ultimate authority to create any new laws around this thing that they wish. And with all the RINO's in congress, there's certainly a chance that they could make changes and/or ban a lot of other things besides just bump stocks. This could be seriously bad. Alternatively, if the ATF handles this, they can't make any new laws. All they can do is possibly reinterpret the existing laws as they relate to bump stocks. To that end, there is even an ever so small chance that they would interpret the laws exactly as the Obama ATF did initially on this issue back in 2010. I mean, I really don't think that will happen and that they'll ban these things, but it is a very slim possibility. ATF is definitely the lesser of evils here.

And I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm just thinking about, and trying to figure out their strategy. There is obviously an enormous problem with what went down today. The NRA has been saying for years that, "It isn't the object, it's the person." Except today they said, "It's the object." That, most certainly, is not going to go unnoticed and could come back to bite us in a big way. The other problem is that so many of us are simply tired of losing our rights and are of the opinion, "Not one more damn inch!" Making this decision causes and enormous PR problem with a lot of NRA members who are ready to cancel their memberships and burn their NRA cards.

But as I indicated above, I think there is far too much "knee jerk" reactions going on in situations like this. I really want to hear more from the NRA on this before I make my mind up. There is PLENTY of time for cancelling memberships and burning cards if it comes to that.



NRA Shocks The Left: Backs 'Bump Stocks' Regulations

Read More

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I am hoping that Trump, Ryan, Republicans and the NRA are just using this "We will examine it" line to stall for time and not feed into the anti-2A fever that the Left has drummed up overnight.

 

[Alexx1401]

No idea what the NRA hopes to achieve but my guess is no one would give a rip what they said one way or another. If they came out and said NO WAY, bump stocks have to stay no lawmaker would care. The left would of course have fun with this since they love to blame the NRA for everything. Last I heard NRA had given I think it was 8 million to candidates in the last several years combined. Just one other well known lobby, Planned Parenthood gave several times that much in the last year alone. So not really sure what it is many seem to want the NRA to do. This issue is being so hyped by the left right now it's laughable. All I can really hope for is if congress does pass something it never gets signed.

 

[Hawaiian]

It is a strategic move by the NRA and the GOP. Bump stocks are the one item that 95% of voters actually do not think should be readily available. Turning standard rifles into machine guns is not supported by the general public voters. It is a hard item to defend. Unlike the HPA which protects the shooters hearing, bump stocks serve no purpose other than having fun at the range. Unless some nut job uses them and pulls another Vegas style shooting.
By going along with this ban, they take the wind out of the liberals claims that the NRA and GOP are to blame for Vegas and want to allow everyone to have machine guns and rocket launchers. Fighting this ban would do more harm than good to other gun rights issues which are much more important to us. I won't loose much sleep if they ban bump fire stocks

 

[billdeserthills]

I'm mad cause I donated $25 to the NRA the day before they bit my hand. I could care less about bump fire stocks but what is the NRA doing giving away Our Freedom's before any proof is even found that bump fire stocks were responsible?

 

[hatchj]

I dont agree with a ban because of what it is.

To be fair though. A bump fire stock isnt a firearm, and wouldnt necessarily be protected by the 2nd...yes?

So in that regard, they can do pretty much whatever they want with them, and it wouldn't be going against the constitution?

Maybe im wrong?

 

[308]

Where is the bumpfire stock?

 

[Goosebrown]

Bump fire stocks are not covered by the second amendment. I'll fight a ban, but there is no legal reason for them not to ban them.

The rubber meets the road an "assault weapons" which certainly ARE protected. That is where we should fight like hell.

 

[eightyeight mag]

Scopes aren't covered by the 2nd amendment either.
Not a fan of bump stocks myself, but what will be next on the list?

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

i could careless about bumpfire stocks. waste of ammo IMO. i do not however think they should be banned. it accomplishes nothing.


any idiot with a piece of steel, a drill, and a hacksaw could build a DIAS or lightning link if they wanted to... but thats illegal.... the law IS going to prevent this

oh yeah 3 rubber bands work too... i forgot.

 

[308]

Bump fire stocks are not covered by the second amendment. I'll fight a ban, but there is no legal reason for them not to ban them...

Whaaaat? How does the Constitution play into anyone banning anything firearms related? Where is the "legal" reason to ban them.
Bumpfire stocks are a fad, and I don't want one, but that is not legal grounds for anything.

 

[Aero Denezol]

It is a strategic move by the NRA and the GOP...

By going along with this ban, they take the wind out of the liberals claims that the NRA and GOP are to blame ...

(FYI I have parsed this quote^^^ Original complete text is #4)

Exactly right. The public has a vague notion what a machine gun is from watching movies. The public also has the attention span of a gnat. By shifting the argument to bump stocks (which are not firearms) they have essentially created a straw man, which they will knock down. Most of the public will be bored by then and go back to watching cat videos on their phone. It is smart, IMO.

The reason why I think Vegas is different from Sandy Hook is there is a ready-made groundswell of people communicating on social media who cannot stand Donald Trump. This is a ready-made army for anti-gun leftists to recruit from. Said another way, they don't need to kick the hornets nest to make the hornets angry. When Sandy Hook happened, Barry was in office and most of the left was asleep.

The GOP and the NRA need to put some calamine on this thing. I don't want it to be a hot button issue during the next election cycle.

 

[peternov01]

when i first seen the bump stock i knew it was just a matter of time, and i couldn't believe it was passed under obama's admin. I even wondered if it was allowed to go through so they could let some dumb patsy or just some dumb person commit a crime with one and have a good in to banning "assault" weapons again.

 

[KKG]

To be fair though. A bump fire stock isnt a firearm, and wouldnt necessarily be protected by the 2nd...yes?

Personally, I have to think that is right and likely what the NRA feels. When the Constitution was written, I don't think anyone would have guessed or imagined that something that would fire Thousands of rounds a second(the modern Gatling Guns) would ever exist. The NRA was founded by Rifleman who were Shooting for Accuracy and Not for how fast they could empty their rifle.

 

[Ownerus]

I find the whole concept of burning lots of ammo to no purpose but making noise to be silly and wasteful.

I also know that "compromise" is just defeat on the installment plan.

The compromise is rarely in our favor.

 

[Goosebrown]

Whaaaat? How does the Constitution play into anyone banning anything firearms related? Where is the "legal" reason to ban them.
Bumpfire stocks are a fad, and I don't want one, but that is not legal grounds for anything.

They can ban anything the like that is not a gun more or less. Guns are covered by the 2ns A but unless the part is required to use the right then it is not covered. Banning ammo or magazines you can't do. Banning flash hiders or bayonet lugs or bump fire stocks is fair game.

This is how the law works not how we would like it to work.

 

[Joe13]

BAnning bump stocks is the smartest thing we can do.

Anyone actually use one for anything other then a novelty?

Appease the anti-gun folk and leave all the other bans they might think up alone and forgotten.

Just my 2¢

 

[Koda]

how do we make a case for deregulating "silencers" when we agree to ban bump stocks? How will banning bump stocks reduce future mass shootings? The LV shooter could have easily done more damage with a dialed in scope, we should ban scopes too... cause, they are not a gun and thus not protected. Nobody "needs" a scope to shoot a gun.

I thought we figured this out with those "things that go up" years ago.

 

[etrain16]

My initial reaction was to be pissed at the NRA, but like some others have said, I have to wonder if this isn't part of some clever political move that may culminate in a give and take type of situation. They have to have R support and Trump's signature to get their ban, and to do that, there may have to be something offered on their side - HPA or national reciprocity, for example. Personally of those two, I'd take the HPA over national reciprocity.

I'll reserve my anger at the NRA until after I see how this plays out. BTW, they called me yesterday, presumably asking for money, I didn't answer the phone. I'm a life member, happy to be one since the NRA is such a huge thorn in the side of the anti's, but the NRA is not without it's failings. I don't support them 100%, but I would never not be a member because they just hold too much sway in protecting our rights in D.C. - no other group comes close - and when the anti's start whining - they only target one pro-gun group - the NRA. If the NRA keeps Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein and others pissed off, then that's worth every penny I've given them. When's the last time you heard someone like Clinton whining about GOA? SAF? OFF? or others? No, they know the power of the NRA to block a lot of what they propose, and for that reason, the get my support. But, if they give in on this without working some deal in our favor, they can plan on not getting another cent from me in the future.

I also would like to see LaPierre go - I think that time is long overdue.

 

[DONOTBUGME]

View attachment 395835

Where is the bumpfire stock?

The gun on the left has a bump fire stock