NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[T.Lex]

Bad bill....has the potential to pass. Time for everyone to express support for the 2A to the elected representatives.

Skip to 6:00 in the video. Often quoted but it's worth continued exposure.

This thread is getting depressing. Where is the guy that posts the Salma pics?

At the library. "Researching."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You have succinctly addressed the critical truth that our side is having the shadow of Niemöller hanging over us.



We could just as easily say:

First there were the anti-gun nuts or "nutters"
Then there were the folks that thought the 2A is just for protecting hunting or "Fudds",
Along the way we picked up the folks that are all for the 2A BUT or the "butters",
Do we now have another subgroup of gun owners? Ones that don't care about infringements as long as it doesn't affect them? Shall we call the "shruggers"?

 

[JettaKnight]

You said butters.

 

[T.Lex]

First there were the anti-gun nuts or "nutters"
Then there were the folks that thought the 2A is just for protecting hunting or "Fudds",
Along the way we picked up the folks that are all for the 2A BUT or the "butters",
Do we now have another subgroup of gun owners? Ones that don't care about infringements as long as it doesn't affect them? Shall we call the "shruggers"?

One word captures all those groups: voters.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One word captures all those groups: voters.

Ummmm....OK?

 

[T.Lex]

Ummmm....OK?

Yeah - for good or bad, they vote along with what they want to see happen... or allow to happen.

 

[lonehoosier]

[video=youtube_share;sCLoIorYguU]http://youtu.be/sCLoIorYguU[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

The NRA gave legislators a way to avoid a law like this.

Too bad the drive to look like you care trumps (no pun intended) brains.

 

[jamil]

MAC had a good video. The devil is in the lack of details allowing the atf to decide what devices allow increased rate of fire.

I'd argue that the law doesn't really give the ATF all that much latitude to decide that devices that increase the rate of fire can even be regulated. Increasing the rate of fire doens't make it automatic. There really isn't a law that regulates rate of fire. I think they signed off on bump-fire stocks because they can't do much else with it.

 

[HoughMade]

I'd argue that the law doesn't really give the ATF all that much latitude to decide that devices that increase the rate of fire can even be regulated. Increasing the rate of fire doens't make it automatic. There really isn't a law that regulates rate of fire. I think they signed off on bump-fire stocks because they can't do much else with it.

Which is why asking the ATF to review them in the midst of the hysteria, which will inevitably take a long time, long after the initial "DO SOMETHING" push is gone, was smart.

Immediate legislation, obviously, sacrifices these advantages.

 

[jamil]

Which is why asking the ATF to review them in the midst of the hysteria, which will inevitably take a long time, long after the initial "DO SOMETHING" push is gone, was smart.

Immediate legislation, obviously, sacrifices these advantages.

As I said in a previous post but not quite in this way, I'd rather do nothing, because I see no legislation that would be sufficiently selective to stop things like this without impacting millions of people. But if we have to do something, I'd rather do something that amounts to nothing. I guess this sorta fits that bill, unless the ATF just sort of forces square pegs in round holes.

I kinda think that this might explode when Trump's ATF declines to ban them. Then Feinstein and the zealots will get coarse hairs across their ****s and we'll be mostly where we are now, with calls from every media outlet, INCLUDING FOX, to ban devices that increase rate of fire.

 

[rvb]

what is the rate of fire of a semi-automatic?

If I exceed that using just my trigger finger, is my finger banned?

horrible, horrible legislation.

-rvb

no bump firing. No gimmicks. Just me. I've got vids of me shooting an AR just as fast, with a GI trigger and no bumpfiring (technique or widgets).
[video=youtube;i-zBWAEoM4A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-zBWAEoM4A[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

As I said in a previous post but not quite in this way, I'd rather do nothing, because I see no legislation that would be sufficiently selective to stop things like this without impacting millions of people. But if we have to do something, I'd rather do something that amounts to nothing. I guess this sorta fits that bill, unless the ATF just sort of forces square pegs in round holes.

I kinda think that this might explode when Trump's ATF declines to ban them. Then Feinstein and the zealots will get coarse hairs across their ****s and we'll be mostly where we are now, with calls from every media outlet, INCLUDING FOX, to ban devices that increase rate of fire.

But there's now been legislation proposed that bans them...we aren't talking about the ATF any more because a new law end runs the ATF analysis and simply forces the ATF to find a way to define what is banned by the law.

 

[jamil]

But there's now been legislation proposed...we aren't talking about the ATF any more.

There was no way legislation was not going to be proposed. That was inevitable. Virtue-signaling Republicans can't wait to say, "see, I'm not one of those unreasonable gun nuts."

 

[SwikLS]

I gotta say after watching Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox over the weekend, I understand why they support the ban on bump stocks now and as usually they're right.

 

[bwframe]

The NRA gave legislators a way to avoid a law like this...

Some don't really want to see this.

 

[ATM]

There is no argument for banning stocks.

 

[jamil]

There is no argument for banning stocks.

No, there's just feelings and public opinion.

 

[DanVoils]

MAC had a good video. The devil is in the lack of details allowing the atf to decide what devices allow increased rate of fire.

[video]https://youtu.be/sCLoIorYguU[/video]

[video=youtube_share;sCLoIorYguU]http://youtu.be/sCLoIorYguU[/video]

Pull the s off of https for it to display. The "powers that be" here on INGO don't know how to make it work with the s.
Thanks for posting it.

 

[jamil]

Pull the s off of https for it to display. The "powers that be" here on INGO don't know how to make it work with the s.
Thanks for posting it.

Or how to get the rep system working. Apparently.