JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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.

This isn't how it will work. You cant compromise with someone who doesn't have anything to give up in return. The antis don't "have" our silencer or reciprocity rights, they are the ones that have taken it away.

For a better idea on how compromises work with someone who doesn't have anything to give up in return, this is a very timeless quick read that sums it up nicely.

The LawDog Files: A repost
 
Problem is, Joe, once they get that taste of blood in the water...

I say the only way we give up Bumpfire is as a bargaining chip to get more out of them than we give up in return.

Nationwide Carry, HPA, Reopened Registry or similar in return, or Go Drown In A Sewage Tank.

I don't think I understand your reasoning here Joe.

Granted the Bubba Fire is just a plastic POS for simulated whacking. It's not what it is that is important...it is what the banning will represent to the leftist politoscum, and those who don't and won't have a clue. If it is banned, it will become the poster child of all future ban agendas.
"See, even the NRA is giving up now, we are seeing a chink in their armor. Now is the time to go for the full kill, while we have the momentum with us. The Repub's are even afraid to stand up and fight on this anymore".

Sadly, we are losing the Trump momentum with this. Reciprocity and suppressor bills are becoming pipe dreams again. Now we need to be concerned with semi-auto and mag bans again.

The anti-gunners will never be appeased until Andy in Everson's collection is re-classified as destructive devices. With the massive left wing, post election hive mentality that has arisen, the ball is definitely not in our court now. If the left smells blood now, thats it... it will morph into the "gunpocalypse".

Edit... Diamondback ..looks like we had the same thought at the same time :D

I'm with you guys mentally, but practally I would rather get no stamps for suppression devices etc in return for some crappy stock or at the least have them focus on the stock and then let it fizzle out.

The anti's are frothing right now and I'd prefer to keep them distracted with a chew toy until they realize all gun laws are stupid.

Punish the abusers severely, not just a slap on the hand and leave the rest of us alone would be my ideal.
 
I'm with you guys mentally, but practally I would rather get no stamps for suppression devices etc in return for some crappy stock or at the least have them focus on the stock and then let it fizzle out.

The anti's are frothing right now and I'd prefer to keep them distracted with a chew toy until they realize all gun laws are stupid.

Punish the abusers severely, not just a slap on the hand and leave the rest of us alone would be my ideal.

the antis are not going to compromise anything. We lost silencers to the antis in 1934. They don't own it and they don't have anything to compromise, no one is trying to take away their constitutional rights. You cant compromise with someone who doesn't have anything to give up in return. Give them the bump stocks and they will use that as proof its the guns fault and the NRA will be admitting that by caving in. Next up, mags and pistol grips.

The LawDog Files: A repost
 
How about this - we trade bumpstocks for a ban on Twitter and Facebook and similar "assault speach" platforms that allow instantaneous dissemination of harmful ideas and propaganda. You can still have your internet and your free speech. We are just placing "reasonable" restrictions on some nonessential items to better allow government oversight and control of information and idealogical flow to prevent hate speech and deter mass butthurt...
 
I'd rather them go after a piece of plastic to get the warm and fuzzy feeling they're so wanting instead of going after evil black rifles. Let them put all their attention into the stocks. I say that one is a fair "compromise".
 
Pmags are plastic too.

There are many states that have already gone after that plastic. The feds haven't done anything about it nor do I want them to. Again, keep the bump fire stock their goal. Then give us stamp-free suppressors. I would call that a win-win.
 
I need to preface this by saying I don't support a ban, not because I have any interest in the item (I don't), but the notion of the federal government banning the mere possession of an inanimate object is anathema to a free society. It is even more so with a Constitutionally-protected right such as firearm ownership.

That said, I suspect their tactic is to keep the narrative on the bump-stock. They make a tepid statement ("subject to additional regulations" can mean a lot of things) to keep the media conversation on this particular accessory, rather than things that could seriously hurt firearms rights. I don't know if it has anything to do with the NRA's statement, but I've noticed the buffoons in the media are largely only talking about that, rather that the usual, and much more troubling, subjects of banning semi-autos and limiting magazine capacities.

If I had to take a wild guess, the initiatives proposed to ban the bump-fire will fail in Congress, because they can't pass anything, but the BATFE will reexamine it and suddenly find that it is a "combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun" (26 U.S. Code § 5845). In light of the past ruling, and the mechanical aspects of the device, that would, naturally, be utter flapdoodle. However, it wouldn't be the first time a previous ruling was overturned and with dubious rationale.

If this is their tactic, will it work? Is it ethical? Seriously debatable on both points, and I can more than sympathize with those that were aghast at the announcement. However, much like the enemies of the RKBA, we too must play the long game.
 
sigh... do you guys honestly think that now is the time to say "hey guys, how bout them silencers"?

they aren't going to compromise bump stocks for silencers.

there is NOT going to be a compromise.
Gov. Kate Brown aims to further restrict gun ownership

It is if they want to get a ban on bump stocks passed - it's very simple, they don't have the votes, period. It's an R congress and and R president - they don't get bump stocks unless the R's agree. So yes, there is plenty of leverage here - if they need to get something for their constituents and the voters expect bump stocks, they can give it to them - but they'll have to agree to vote for a bill that gives us something - and we need some of their votes if we're going to get the HPA to go through.

So yeah, it could happen. Maybe a long shot, but it could happen. If they're not willing to give the R's something, they're not going to get the bump stock ban they want. I don't think the R's are stupid enough to give it away for nothing.
 
I don't think the R's are stupid enough to give it away for nothing.
Really...? o_O etrain, come on my friend....

don't forget that it was Bush that gave us the GFSZ act. And look how many have been killed in our schools since then. Hows that for a compromise.
 
Really...? o_O etrain, come on my friend....

don't forget that it was Bush that gave us the GFSZ act. And look how many have been killed in our schools since then. Hows that for a compromise.

Different people this time around. We haven't yet seen how this group, with Trump at the lead, will react. I'm simply looking at a reason why the R's and the NRA are doing what they're doing. If they're planning something like this, then it makes sense to me. If they're suddenly just giving in, that actually doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said, I'm reserving judgment until I see whether or not they actually have a plan behind this. Fact is, in this position, the D's need the R's to make anything happen - that gives the R's the power position to make a deal in their favor. I know what I'd be doing if I were in Washington, I'm curious if they're thinking the same thing.
 
If they're planning something like this, then it makes sense to me.
if I entertain the idea, my first thought is that bump stocks do not carry the same weight as silencers or reciprocity. And even if they did, the NRA already screwed themselves over by asking the BATF to make the call. Look at how they made pistol stabilizers suddenly illegal. The antis don't have to give up anything. If they dont get their way from the BATF, they will campaign on the state level. They don't have to give up anything.
 
if I entertain the idea, my first thought is that bump stocks do not carry the same weight as silencers or reciprocity. And even if they did, the NRA already screwed themselves over by asking the BATF to make the call. Look at how they made pistol stabilizers suddenly illegal. The antis don't have to give up anything. If they dont get their way from the BATF, they will campaign on the state level. They don't have to give up anything.

Well, the ATF is a branch of the federal government, and as such, they do answer to the federal government - just as they did under Obama. Seems Obama had sway over them during his time in office, so Trump should have similar influence. Why should the ATF bow to the Dems - they're not the ones in power.

Are suppressors equal to bump stocks? Not even close. But they want them gone. The only way to be absolutely certain of that is to have congress ban them - the ATF can only make a determination. A true ban will take congress. And the D's can't make that happen - they don't have the votes or the White House. They are the ones in a bad place here, and if they want something to happen, it is they who have to really give something up.

Like I said, I'm waiting to see what happens. Nothing is done yet. I'm trying to understand the very quick change in the R's position - and it only makes sense to me if they see some political capital in it for them.
 
If I might propose a compromise we all might be able to support. We could acquiesce to the POSSIBILITY that MAYBE the presence of guns is a hazard. Enact test legislation to ban all possession of firearms by any congressional protective detail or any police that might be in the vicinity of any congressman or senator. A golden opportunity for them to lead by example. They could call it the "First Us" act. Every proposed piece of anti-gun legislation should have the FU act attached as a rider. I can see Nancy and Chuck tripping over themselves to promote this forward looking legislation!
 
I have to agree with @Koda, listen to all the liberal heads giving commentary. Even on Fox, "This is a necessary first step..." FIRST, not last, not only, not good enough for now, FIRST.
Stephen Paddock Bought 33 Guns in 12 Months. That Should Be Illegal.
At least the guy in that article is honest, it's not about "sensible gun safety," in our view as gun owners, it's about banning the supposedly evil nazi republicans because they can't be trusted. However, we should trust the supposedly evil nazi cops and miltary... (how the hell this makes sense to the left I'll never understand).

The really scary thing is all the RINOs (including Ryan) are jumping at Feinstein's bill that has the potential to ban nearly the entire parts industry and nearly all ammo.
it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi- automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
There is no definition for "component" or "device" or "attachment." The interpretation for "designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire" is so insanely vague it could be used to ban nearly anything.
 
I'm trying to understand the very quick change in the R's position - and it only makes sense to me if they see some political capital in it for them.
because their falling for the very same knee jerk emotional reaction as the Dems have been for years with every tragedy.

The gun lobby has been saying for years... years, its not the tool its the person. And now, suddenly, its the tool. o_O

This compromise has deeper implications that whats on the surface.
 
because their falling for the very same knee jerk emotional reaction as the Dems have been for years with every tragedy.

The gun lobby has been saying for years... years, its not the tool its the person. And now, suddenly, its the tool. o_O

This compromise has deeper implications that whats on the surface.

I get what you're saying, but them caving so quickly doesn't add up to me - no reason for it. That's why I suspect a deeper motive on the R's part.

Again, I withhold my conclusion on this matter until something happens. Until then, it's nothing more than speculation. Chances are we could both be wrong and there is some other way this plays out that neither one of us can see.

And don't get me wrong, I know how evil and conniving the anti-gun bastards are - I don't trust them one iota - but they're not the ones in power this time.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top