So How About That NRA?

[etrain16]

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.

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.

Do you really think the R's would just push through D authored legislation without consulting their pro-gun constituency first? Don't forget, those R's need to be re-elected some day. Caving completely on a vague anti-gun bill assures a lot of them get kicked out. They may be stupid, but when it comes to getting re-elected, they know better.

I simply caution jumping to conclusions before this plays out. They can't just turn their backs on the pro-gun crowd and not expect some huge backlash for it. I really believe there is something bigger at work here.

 

[ob1]

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 RepubMcCollum, RepubRyan, RepubMcCain, RepubGraham.......

Can you say 'Bamacare repeal ?​

OK you guys..this is a gag, right ?
We've already had April 1st this year.
Stop scaring the abnormals.
​

 

[MxOverkill]

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

I wouldn't piss on LaPierre if he were on fire.

 

[Retired Guy]

*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

 

[etrain16]

Like RepubMcCollum, RepubRyan, RepubMcCain, RepubGraham.......

Can you say 'Bamacare repeal ?​

OK you guys..this is a gag, right ?
We've already had April 1st this year.
Stop scaring the abnormals.
​

I get everyone wants to jump to conclusions - which everyone did right after the shooting - and so many folks have been wrong about that. All I'm saying is wait and see. Their current actions don't make sense when they're the ones in charge. They are going to answer to the voters at some point, and they know that. I'm only speculating - I have no idea what will actually happen - but politicians have surprised me before - even the rotten ones.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I see the word "compromise" in a lot of the posts here and it is wrong. Compromise is when all parties give up something to come to an agreement. The anti's aren't giving up anything, unless you consider agreeing to steal less of something as giving it up. They have nothing to offer in the spirit of compromise. All they can do is take, take more or less, but take.

Also, the bump-fire stock may be insignificant in itself, however, by offering it up on the altar of sacrifice the NRA and others are agreeing that it IS the tool, not the fool, that is responsible and that is going to cost us dearly in the future.

 

[Member 5605]

"shall not be infringed..."

Means that.

Any F£|€^ing questions?

 

[uberguy]

Read four pages, agree with many of the points but didn't catch anyone else pointing out this (in my view) is a smart play by the NRA to ask the ATF to revisit a Bump Stocks compliance or lack of with existing law.
If there's a way to have the ATF restrict them via a reinterpretation then it renders new legislation a moot point and all the lefts slathering to layer on excess bubblegum is stopped in its tracks.
The Rs won't have answer for supporting restrictive legislation and the libs are sort of placated on this unpopular accessory.
I think bump stocks are a neat idea but totally impractical for anything except combat oriented suppressive fire, maybe.

 

[Tufel]

The nra just gave cover to every liberals idea of "reasonable" gun restrictions by their "should be regulated" portion. They also lost any further money from me. The let Hughes pass and now just came out against mg for the masses. I'll find else where to spend my money and actively campaign against them with other gun owners they would even think about joining..

 

[jackrv]

Do you really think the R's would just push through D authored legislation without consulting their pro-gun constituency first? Don't forget, those R's need to be re-elected some day. Caving completely on a vague anti-gun bill assures a lot of them get kicked out. They may be stupid, but when it comes to getting re-elected, they know better.

I simply caution jumping to conclusions before this plays out. They can't just turn their backs on the pro-gun crowd and not expect some huge backlash for it. I really believe there is something bigger at work here.

About the part about the Rs pushing through D authored legislation without consulting their pro-gun base.... I say that they would do it in a heart beat.

 

[Jabba]

I really wish the NRA would have tied support for banning bump fire stocks to the suppressor bill. It's a compromise that I can live with. Bump fire is for fun, and not having the stocks doesn't detract from the utility of a rifle at all. Just giving it away with no quid pro quo is really dumb though.

In terms of making the silencer bill more palatable, maybe ban a device that lowers the sound of a clearly defined "standard round" for every caliber below 100dB and make everything louder no tax stamp status. I think this could enable the dumb public to more clearly understand what a real suppressor sounds like, and lets them feel like they're doing something effective.

 

[L84Cabo]

Read four pages, agree with many of the points but didn't catch anyone else pointing out this (in my view) is a smart play by the NRA to ask the ATF to revisit a Bump Stocks compliance or lack of with existing law.
If there's a way to have the ATF restrict them via a reinterpretation then it renders new legislation a moot point and all the lefts slathering to layer on excess bubblegum is stopped in its tracks.
The Rs won't have answer for supporting restrictive legislation and the libs are sort of placated on this unpopular accessory.
I think bump stocks are a neat idea but totally impractical for anything except combat oriented suppressive fire, maybe.

This is a VERY slippery slope, however. The law should, in fact, be the law. The ATF has already "interpreted" the bump stock laws and their ruling made an awful lot of sense and was (IMO) the correct interpretation for the way the laws are currently written.

By making this request, the NRA is basically giving the ATF a "free pass" to ignore the law and ban bump stocks...because the NRA certainly isn't going to challenge them. That could create a monster. What's to stop the ATF from trying to reinterpret other laws and rulings?

And you might say, "well, the NRA would stop them." And perhaps that's true. But we certainly don't need an emboldened ATF going after more of our rights. Moreover, laws should mean something. They can't mean one thing one day and a different thing the next. If the laws are written that poorly, then they should go back to Congress to have the laws clarified.

This whole thing is just a mess IMO. I certainly don't want congress mucking around with this stuff. But this is creating a very bad precedent which could easily come back to bite us.

 

[trikerdon]

I am a member of the NRA but are there are other pro gun organizations out there that have an impact on what happens in DC?

 

[Goosebrown]

I am a member of the NRA but are there are other pro gun organizations out there that have an impact on what happens in DC?

second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America. BUT. GOA will never leave you alone once you donate once. I would stay away from them at all costs. Money grubbing bottom feeders.

 

[Core]

*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

I think the NRA needs to stop voting for members without holding a census.

 

[tourproto]

All of this nonsense, all of it, hinges on the left's perspective that guns kill people. People kill people. The variation is the implement to kill someone.

With all the terrorist attacks with cars, you don't hear the left talking about banning cars do you? Same with knife attacks. And neither of them are protected by the Constitution. Bad guys will find something to kill someone with if they want to do it badly enough.

They go after guns because they don't like them and don't see why anyone should need one. It is all about their personal bias, which is where it all falls apart for them. While the SCOTUS may allow the 2A to expand or retract a bit over time, it isn't going away. No way to ever pass an amendment that would repeal 2A. Just not realistic to get 38 states to vote for it. Thank goodness that ratifying an amendment is by state, not population. otherwise it could happen with the rate that CA's population is growing.

As for the bump stocks, it is just the scapegoat of the day, just like clip (my apologies, magazines) were before. The left will always looks for the weak link to attack the 2A and make it a wedge issue to try to go after the whole shebang.

Personally I think bumpstocks are stupid and a waste of ammo. However, since I am not a pathological sicko, I would never have thought about using them to inflict mass casualties. However, in the current climate, I think this particular item will end up like the sawed-off shotgun and will be banned because of what it can be used for, as seen in LV.

 

[jbett98]

LaPierre looks like he has early onset of Parkinson's disease.
I saw him on TV Sunday morning and he was trying real hard to keep his hands from shaking.

 

[JohnFay]

*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

I have not been a member of the NRA for more than 30 years and this is just ONE of the reasons why. One would think that a Pro Gun organization would shoot you in the face, not stab you in the back!

 

[The Heretic]

I made my mind up when they and Reagan stabbed us in the back with FOPA.

 

[Tufel]

To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. As a life member they have received their last dime from me until Chris and Wayne are gone.