quote:

Originally posted by GaryBF:
I am pleased that the NRA has decided not to fight this issue. We don't need bump stocks and other silly shit. By not fighting over useless gimmicks, it may actually improve the NRA's position at the table. There is a problem in today's society and we all need to act like grownups to control it.

I agree.
I am normally in the SigMonkey 'never give 'em an inch' mindset regarding the leftist/Marxists. But the so called bump stocks strike me as something that most gun owners consider as important as, and analogous to, a wind-up set of chattering teeth. If they are ever to get any kind of concession from us, let it be crap like this.

I don't like the idea of giving anything up thst the left would consider a victory.

Ultimately I think that Jager is correct, likely we won't end up giving even this up. In the mean time, their value will quadruple for the next few months.

I don't exactly agree with the NRA for two reasons: 1. I have to wonder when the "giving in" will stop and 2. I personally believe the NFA restrictions are a denial of 2A rights----that said, If giving up a device, which is nothing more than novelty to most, will give the Libs their victory, so let it be. I only hope it stops there.

I will remain an avid supporter of the NRA and a Life Member.

If the NRA can get the suppressors taken off the NFA restrictions, it will be the greatest leap forward for gun rights in 83 years. It is worth taking a negotiable stance on the bump stocks to get that achieved.

Think of it, man! A great leap forward for gun rights and a fantastic benefit to shooters of all classes and ilk. It will be the first time that the needle has not moved to the left in order to get a piddling gain for conservatism. It will be a very BIG gain for conservatives.

No way they will trade suppressors for bump stocks, especially when they know everyone is willing to give them up. First rule of negotiation, don't tell what you are willing to do. Maybe if the NRA had fought a little and then said, hey, give us suppressors and we will give you bump stocks, someone may have relented. But they know the momentum is 100% on their side.

I wont stop being an NRA member over this, but I wish they would have handled it better

The best negotiation is whenever they do not know that you are negotiating.
If the left knew that it was a negotiating ploy, they would really raise a stink on both issues. Let the public think that you are a good guy and the left will have to play the evil role to say that the NRA is wrong on both issues.
THAT is shrewd negotiating.

the left is already after both issues. Hillary is already crying about how much worse this would be if the guy had suppressors, and the public already hates the NRA.

But her argument is perceived as weak. We do not want the left to ramp up their arguments to appear as strong.

I am another who supports the NRA's position on bump stocks. While I do understand that this might be viewed as a "first step" on a slippery slope I have NEVER understood why the ATF didn't rule that these devices were an illegal modification. As we have just seen demonstrated about the only real use for these devices is to inflict massive carnage on a large group attending a public event. IMO that just isn't the image that the Pro Gun lobby needs to defend.

quote:

Originally posted by enidpd804:
We would have nothing if it weren't for the NRA.

I agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:
I am another who supports the NRA's position on bump stocks. While I do understand that this might be viewed as a "first step" on a slippery slope I have NEVER understood why the ATF didn't rule that these devices were an illegal modification. As we have just seen demonstrated about the only real use for these devices is to inflict massive carnage on a large group attending a public event. IMO that just isn't the image that the Pro Gun lobby needs to defend.

Not to mention, pretty much ever respected person on gun forums said they are useless bubba / chump devices (bump stocks). I mean, who has one on a serious use weapon? Anyone?

Not something I want to drop anchor on, especially when it can be lateraled to the BATFE, which allowed them in the first place.

I don't know folks keep bringing up suppressors even before this incident we were not going to see them pulled from the NFA requirements.

Y’all remember Hostess, right? Fighting for raises and then ended up with no job at all?
The bump-stock issue to me, aligns with that. They are a gimmick, and have swayed public opinion drastically against ARs. It may be tactically sound to throw them a useless bone. I know it stinks, always concerned about the slippery slope, but it would be political suicide to defend bumpstocks. Besides, pretty sure almost every store will drop them, legal or not, to save face.

I'm not putting my rights on the table in defense of the bump stock. The bump stock isn't even a firearm.

We have to pick our fights and this is a loser from the start.

Bump stocks are stupid and I have no issue with them being banned or the NRA calling for their ban or calling for a look-see into them. They are pointless. The NRA are doing this to keep anyone from calling for a ban for anything else. You think for one second I'm going to slap a stupid bump stock on a rifle to defend my family you must be crazy.

so we are agreed, there should only be ten bump stocks in the nation and everyone that wants to use it for a week end may borrow it,
just to experience the experience.

quote:

we would have nothing if it weren't for the NRA.

This notion is grossly overstated.

Helpful, sure, beneficial, sure, better than nothing, sure, but the above?

Outrageously, absurdly, overstated.

What's actually true is that we'd still have everything were it not for weaknesses in moments exactly like this, "compromises" just like this, proposed regulations just like this.

I will continue to endorse the NRA.

Not doing so especially in this time is just dumb, like the bump fire device.

Exactly what is the NRA supposed to do, the bump stock is still legal for sale and possession, what exactly is the case they should be making, that legal items should still be legal?

So the NRA feels that bump stops should be reviewed by the ATF, where the law said they should be reviewed and where they were reviewed prior to the Vegas shooting.

Nothing has changed.... Its the correct decision, anything else requires an act of congress or a ruling by a court, right now, nothing has happened to change the status of the ATF's rules prior to Vegas...

I believe that the 1934, 1968 and 1986 major federal firearms acts are all unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Courts don't agree with me, but courts once decided that black people who's ancestors were slaves couldn't be citizens (Dred Scott decision), so sometimes they get it wrong.

I am frustrated when the NRA backs down, even for something as stupid as a bump stock. This is the part that really bugs me:

quote:

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

That seems to me that the NRA accepts the proposition that the 1934 act regulating fully automatic weapons is just fine. I think it's bullshit. In 1934, you could buy a Tommy gun in a hardware store. That's common use. Fully automatic is everywhere around you today. The police, federal agents, the military... For God's sake, even the university near me has full auto and full auto suppressed in its arms room. I know this because I have fired them. That's common use. These weapons shouldn't be restricted as they are. I should not have to pay fees, register my property, and submit to government inspection to enjoy rights that pre-date the constitution.

I don't give a rat-fuck about bump stocks, but I care mightily about compromising principle because it is politically convenient to do so. The NRA could just as easily have said, "The BATFE approved these items during the Obama administration as being consistent with the law as written." And left it at that. What they are doing is playing into the guns are dangerous and certain gun accessories are dangerous theory, and that plays to the gun banners in government. They don't need to be supporting additional restrictions, even when those restrictions don't affect particularly useful accessories.

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:
I think that on the bump stock issue the NRA is screwing up.

But I have no intention of cutting off my nose just to spite my face.

Don't alienate your allies.

I feel the same as Sap.
The NRA is trying to show the middle of the roaders that they are sympathetic and not hardliners, but you will not change minds with that. When we start banning things to stop insane people or terrorists from causing this type of thing, it will never end until we simply have no rights.