NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

[Ole_grizzly]

I just saw a video clip from our local NBC station shooting some guy shooting a watermelon while the narrator says "just watch this watermelon explode when it gets shot with an AR15"

Are we REALLY supposed to listen to, understand, and negotiate a "compromise" with this type of idiot?
How?

Do I say "OK, you can ban the bump stock as long as you stop calling the 12 gauge pump an AR15" ??

One of you "common sensers" give me some advice here.

How about take a page out of buckeye firearms book with educators, and pay for training at TDI for media members. I will pledge the first $5,000 right now if you decide to offer a program to this effect.

Why do we need to mimic BFA’s playbook? We have our own playbook. We are trying to further gun rights by legislation and through the judiciary. That is not a cheap effort. Lawyers expect to get paid well. I guarantee that $5000 would be a huge help in our efforts against Cleveland et al.

Why do we need to mimic? Because our current legislative priorities won't even come close to having the impact that having educated media and editorialists would. Repealing notification will not advance our rights and causes. It will make the once a year traffic stop slightly less tenuous and aggravating, and potentially help the very few that run into ignorant cops. I was at TDI this weekend for my second time for handgun 1,2,3. They said they're over 100 school districts that have gone through their program. That right there is such a bigger impact than our current priorities. And I am not being casual either about offering $5k. If we institute a scholarship program for Ohio based media to take the tdi program for educators, I'll donate the day it becomes official. I am not donating that amount to make things more convenient.

[Chuck]

OK,
I'm gonna try to do this right, hope I don't screw it up

So explain to me how the paper "made us look like fools"

- "I think they like us" - From your earlier post

I don't think they makes us look like fools. My sarcasm was meant to show that they are making themselves look like fools.
Their tactics and arguments are so textbook that they're predictable.

And let me ask you, do you think these "bump stocks" ought to be outlawed?

- Yes, they are ridiculous, serve no legitimate purpose, and are an absurd accessory to take a stand behind.

I too, think they are ridiculous, and serve no purpose than to spend money foolishly on ammo.
However, I will take a stand on principle that banning an inanimate object in the wake of a tragedy is anything but counter productive.
Stupid people will think something was accomplished and nothing will be done to address the real concerns of the event

I am disappointed in the knee jerk reaction of banning something just because someone did something bad.
The antis know that bump fire is possible by a variety of means, belt loops and rubber bands are only a couple.
Their goal is to ban the entire AR platform, as they did once before.
They are on record as hoping that banning bump stocks is only the beginning of the slippery slope towards achieving that goal.
Remember Fast and Furious? They wanted a massacre then too, for the same purpose

Why would any freedom loving American support them in their quest?

I would really appreciate an answer to this part, as I see allowing their stupid little accessory ban as the beginning of rowing the boat upstream when I've can't even get everyone to row together downstream.

I have plenty of Liberal friends who discuss gun rights with me all the time and the one thing all reasonable people can agree with is that laws are only followed by the law abiding, and do nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes. So they want registration and confiscation, thinking that the mad men won't be able to find the guns in the first place. They have no understanding of the concept of freedom and self reliance, thinking that government will provide for all their needs, from health care to personal safety to baby formula, they think they shouldn't be responsible for anything that happens to them, and don't want you being responsible for yourself neither.

I take exception to your claim that I, we, don't understand nor listen to the other side.

- If you did, then you wouldn't write letters that alienate anybody that doesn't already totally agree with you.

I didn't write it, but I'll stand behind it. We, (I), considered it to be a rallying cry, rather than a wedge driver, but make no mistake,
It is our position that anybody who thinks banning anything is addressing the problem of the Las Vegas shooting is fooling themselves.
And we ain't falling for it.

I don't believe that the NRA is making a "strategic move" by calling for more ATF intervention; I think they're screwing up.

- We can agree to disagree. Fighting for an innocuous accessory that serves absolutely no purpose no matter your opinion of the second amendment in the name of fighting incrementalization without realizing our current political climate is beyond my understanding. We have the entire media against our opinions and rights. The NRA is simply giving an out to republican legislators in contested districts that can't remain on the far right of gun control when mass shootings continue to occur, and low information voters who can't and won't think for themselves decide their contest. Being against every possible gun control regulation is self defeating, and this seems like an easy compromise. This does not preclude a future fight against legitimate attempts, it gives us a leg to stand on that we're not totally against everything just because. Your position (and apparently OFCC's) does not allow for that discussion, and it's severely disappointing.

Republicans control EVERYTHING!!
WHY DO THEY NEED AN "OUT"??

They should pass reciprocity as a single item bill, and the hearing protection act as another
They should grow some balls
The time is perfect

I will say personally that I love your engagement with the membership, respect the hell out of your effort at the statehouse, your attitude and ability to listen to those that have had problems, and I respect you greatly. I hope this sounds sincere, because it is, I just disagree on this issue, I'm giving my opinion, you can choose whether or not to be affected by it, and I will remain a patron member as long as this organization exists.

TBH, your opinion as a Patron member holds great sway with me.
So change my opinion, hit me with facts
Thanks for the kind words

[WestonDon]

The thing is that a strict reading of the statute would result in a determination that bump stocks are not violative so ATF would have to find something else to hang its hat on unless they just decide to arbitrarily ban them, which is not unusual for them. An administrative ban would be better for us as it could later be overturned in court or by a future administration. For that reason, the NRA's gambit will probably fail and we will almost assuredly end up with a legislative knee-jerk to this incident.

This is all true. In order to make a bump stock ban consistent with the statute they have to tamper with the definition of "machine gun".
That is my biggest fear. Let's say congress decides to add something like "any firearm that can achieve (insert rate of fire here) with or without any modifications or attachments" to the full auto definition. There's your de facto AR ban right there.

[Imcrazy]

Bump fire stocks are silly toys for people with too much $$ to spend wasting away ammo IMO.... Full auto/bump stocks serve no purpose for civilian armament and they shouldn't be in the hands of anyone who isn't a trained professional...

[schmieg]

Bump fire stocks are silly toys for people with too much $$ to spend wasting away ammo IMO.... Full auto/bump stocks serve no purpose for civilian armament and they shouldn't be in the hands of anyone who isn't a trained professional...

Full auto serves very little purpose in the civilian community other than entertainment value for those who can afford it. In six years in the Army, including a year in Viet Nam, I only fired full auto on the range. In Viet Nam, I chose my targets carefully, but I personally never had to lay down covering fire as I had other people that I could order to do that. Full auto can be useful there, but it is better handled by an M60 than by an M16 which was limited to 30 rounds before reloading. Some training is required, especially if you don't want to be replacing barrels on a regular basis and you want your rounds to be in the proper target area.

Bump stocks are even harder to control than full auto, especially if you are aiming for the preferred 3 or 4 round burst. I have never fired a firearm with a bump stock and I personally have no desire to do so.

[bignflnut]

Bump fire stocks are silly toys for people with too much $$ to spend wasting away ammo IMO.... Full auto/bump stocks serve no purpose for civilian armament and they shouldn't be in the hands of anyone who isn't a trained professional...

Full auto serves very little purpose in the civilian community other than entertainment value for those who can afford it. ... In Viet Nam, I chose my targets carefully, but I personally never had to lay down covering fire as I had other people that I could order to do that. Full auto can be useful there, but it is better handled by an M60 than by an M16 which was limited to 30 rounds before reloading. Some training is required, especially if you don't want to be replacing barrels on a regular basis and you want your rounds to be in the proper target area.

Bump stocks are even harder to control than full auto, especially if you are aiming for the preferred 3 or 4 round burst. I have never fired a firearm with a bump stock and I personally have no desire to do so.

Here's a video (run by a person who needs a script and some safety training) of how to run the semi-auto very quickly (as if one had a bump fire stock)...
Imagine the fury of the antis...
If the NRA want to ban items based on rate of fire, to appease the fury of those who assign moral agency to metal objects...who are the pragmatic compromise politicians & orgs to argue with them?

[Chuck]

Imagine the fury of the antis...

Oh, I do!
I can just hear them already screaming that banning the bump stocks was meaningless, if those guns can be fired that way.
They’ll just have better case for banning the whole platform.

[bignflnut]

Imagine the fury of the antis...

Oh, I do!
I can just hear them already screaming that banning the bump stocks was meaningless, if those guns can be fired that way.
They’ll just have better case for banning the whole platform.

That's Right!
They have all the faux outrage in the world. We have moral agency, history, law, reason, facts, etc...but not the fortitude to tell the petulant children NO!
Sacrificing bump stocks on the Altar of Compromise won't slake their thirst to take all the power away from the citizen and give it to the State, who we have already demonstrated, cannot keep us safe.

We've tried the AWB in the 90s. Didn't change a thing. As the culture has slouched further toward Gomorrah, we find ourselves surrendering ground to those who prescribe poison pills and the ongoing chemotherapy that is killing America's first principles.

[bignflnut]

Here's Uncle Jerry running an AR-15 faster than Speedy Gonzales.
5 shots and reaction time at .96seconds
Semi-auto!

How fast is too fast, NRA?
Do we need a speed limit or a rev limiter on our arms?

[kcclark]

NRA gives them cover and they are going to use it.

Lawsuit Over Las Vegas Shooting Tests Gun Industry’s Immunity

Even the National Rifle Association has said that “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

[Ole_grizzly]

I am disappointed in the knee jerk reaction of banning something just because someone did something bad.
The antis know that bump fire is possible by a variety of means, belt loops and rubber bands are only a couple.
Their goal is to ban the entire AR platform, as they did once before.
They are on record as hoping that banning bump stocks is only the beginning of the slippery slope towards achieving that goal.
Remember Fast and Furious? They wanted a massacre then too, for the same purpose

Why would any freedom loving American support them in their quest?

I would really appreciate an answer to this part, as I see allowing their stupid little accessory ban as the beginning of rowing the boat upstream when I've can't even get everyone to row together downstream.

Here's my answer in the best way I know how. By being against everything 100% of the time, we will never reach people that are moderate on the issue. To most of the country, and I'd say a healthy majority of liberals, they see absolutely no reason that anyone needs to own multiple firearms, carry them outside the home, own weapons that look scary, have access to so-called armor piercing ammunition, have big magazines, have more than 20 rounds of any ammo, etc. Even people I know that I can talk to about owning firearms have come over, I've shown them my Rock River LAR-8, what a 308 round looks like, and some are physically upset that these can be privately owned. However, in all the instances I just named, all of those are worth fighting for, there are valid reasons if someone would just think them through for a few minutes why there's a justification to be had. However, there simply is none for a bump stock. In my opinion, by coming out against this for a future reason of never allowing a "creep" just is foolish, as our side has proven time and time again, even with a democratic president and senate (beginning of Obama's term) that we won't lose the fights that matter most. We don't need to make a stand on crap accessories when the negatives of making us look crazy outweigh some future possibility of opening the door a crack.

I don't believe that the NRA is making a "strategic move" by calling for more ATF intervention; I think they're screwing up.

- We can agree to disagree. Fighting for an innocuous accessory that serves absolutely no purpose no matter your opinion of the second amendment in the name of fighting incrementalization without realizing our current political climate is beyond my understanding. We have the entire media against our opinions and rights. The NRA is simply giving an out to republican legislators in contested districts that can't remain on the far right of gun control when mass shootings continue to occur, and low information voters who can't and won't think for themselves decide their contest. Being against every possible gun control regulation is self defeating, and this seems like an easy compromise. This does not preclude a future fight against legitimate attempts, it gives us a leg to stand on that we're not totally against everything just because. Your position (and apparently OFCC's) does not allow for that discussion, and it's severely disappointing.

Republicans control EVERYTHING!!
WHY DO THEY NEED AN "OUT"??

They control everything? They have a slim majority in the senate, everyone is not caucusing together on what was supposed to be solid conservative issues such as health care, and to call our current president a republican that controls anything is a stretch. I agree that the time is now to get national reciprocity, and more federal level legal judgements, as the situation is unlikely to improve, but our own governor doesn't agree with the state republicans on most things, and most people in congress can't stand trump. To think we're united and things would be smooth sailing legislatively, and in turn getting the american people to understand and agree, is also a stretch.

They should pass reciprocity as a single item bill, and the hearing protection act as another
They should grow some balls
The time is perfect

Agree, but the hearing protection act is something I'm not interested in at all as I'm not a hunter, and many firearms enthusiasts are not either, and in this climate putting any weight behind a narrow scope that doesn't really advance actual rights or help us in the defense of our families and loved ones is a waste of time and opportunity.

[Ghost]

"We mourn this senseless slaughter and our hearts go out to the families of survivors. But does anyone believe that more laws are the answer? Does anyone believe those calling to ban bump fire stocks will settle for that one change?" Rieck said in an email to supporters.

I was speaking in the context of the legislative process. I am very skeptical that administrative action on bump stocks will preclude legislative action on anything. If I thought it would I would be all for it.

It certainly won't if the Democrats have their way. They want that to be only a part of the legislation along with universal background checks and other restrictions.

From the horse's mouth, so to speak.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson ... s-n2391259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Towards More Gun Control

Just saw your post after re-reading through them. This is exactly why I oppose any new anti-gun legislation. Slippery slope indeed!

[Mustang380gal]

Why do we need to mimic? Because our current legislative priorities won't even come close to having the impact that having educated media and editorialists would. Repealing notification will not advance our rights and causes. It will make the once a year traffic stop slightly less tenuous and aggravating, and potentially help the very few that run into ignorant cops. I was at TDI this weekend for my second time for handgun 1,2,3. They said they're over 100 school districts that have gone through their program. That right there is such a bigger impact than our current priorities. And I am not being casual either about offering $5k. If we institute a scholarship program for Ohio based media to take the tdi program for educators, I'll donate the day it becomes official. I am not donating that amount to make things more convenient.

And just how many of those 100 districts are really allowing armed teachers? I bet not many. One of our coordinators is trying to get teachers in his district to carry. So far, no joy.

Duplicating efforts does not get the whole job done. If my husband and I both do the dishes, then how will the table get washed off?

Both groups have jobs to do and there is more than enough to do. You may value one job more than another, but there are many jobs that need to get done. We choose to fight it in the legislature because our freedoms need to be restored. Arming teachers is nice. If we can help them see the importance of gun rights, that is wonderful. But alone, it will not change any law that we all have to live under. Thus we spend time talking to politicians, and suing cities to get our rights back.

[WestonDon]

I agree that bump stocks are a frivolous novelty and probably dangerous. I have never used one and have no intention of ever using one. I also have no intention of telling anyone else they CAN"T have one and I think anybody that does is an arrogant butt hole.

I am constantly amazed by people who are shocked at the things we mere civilians can lawfully own. Some of these people are old enough to remember, as I do, when you could buy firearms in a hardware store or through a mail order catalogue. In comparison just look at all the paperwork, background checks, licensing, record keeping and general irritating nonsense we have today and most of it serves only to annoy the law abiding citizens. If all these laws and regulations even came close to accomplishing their stated purpose the latest atrocity never would have happened and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

My first awareness of a gun control law was GCA68. It and every subsequent law passed began with a seemingly benign common sense measure that was supposed to prevent the last heinous crime from ever occurring again and make the world a kinder, gentler place. Guess what. None of them ever worked and there is always a call for more restrictions. This time around they don't even pretend their proposed infringements would have prevented the latest insanity. It's been my experience that accepting "reasonable" regulation has never satisfied the anti gun hounds. Conversely it appears to have emboldened them.

This is why I oppose any new restrictions. I wasn't always this way. I had some very good teachers on the anti side.

I do have one suggestion that I hope is positive. Want a new restriction? Get rid of an old one. That could be something we could talk about

[Imcrazy]

Full auto is at least controllable and well thought out... After seeing the negative impact of reckless shooting and how a few bullets leaving a range can destroy a shooting range I don't think it's right for the average Joe to have full auto and I think bump stocks should be illegal they're reckless... Full auto should be easier to obtain but, should still have additional licensing and require some type of qualification and class room instruction...