NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[ArcadiaGP]

You do agree that braces circumvent the NFA though? I'm just saying that any step backwards is like giving a school bully your lunch money once. Think he'll come back again?

I do. Far less effective of a tool, but it's still skirting the NFA. I think we could come up with a good argument regarding "AR pistols". I don't think we can come up with a good argument regarding semi-auto vs simulated full-auto.

 

[SteelersFan]

Dude, what was chipped away that we haven't had but for only a few years? Is everyone ignoring this piece was made to skirt laws? You see no moral wrong with that?

What law is being skirted? The NFA defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

 

[d.kaufman]

Clearly you're emitional and not thinking clearly, as you're telling me what to do.

Whos being emotional by playing " the innocent bystander" card. Aren't all victims of violence like this regardless of the means an innocent bystander. Guess we outta ban cars, bats, knives, ropes, chains, etc because at anytime someone could kill ya with those. At any time your driving down the road, and a car passes you, do you think about the fact that behind the wheel of anyone of those cars, there could be someone hell bent on killing someone by swerving into the other lane. I dont, but it could happen. The lunatic that did this could've used his airplane and killed more people. I dont think to much about that what ifs, its kind of pointless. Bad s**t happens and is going to continue to happen no matter what gets banned, restricted, etc. There's always a way for someone hellbent on hurting others to accomplish their goals!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What law is being skirted? The NFA defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

And this tool simulates full-auto as close as it possibly can. It's a cheating device. No reasonable person will look upon that in a positive light when it comes to legislating it.

I feel like I have to keep repeating that I'm against banning it, or anything... I just don't see how we can possibly win this fight while emotions are high. We were wrong to create such a device.

 

[sheepdog697]

ive never wanted a bumpfire stock. This topic is similar to the brace vs stock debate... Very hard navigate

 

[Kdf101]

Arguing the inane details of what the actual definition of a machine gun is, is just insane at this point. The general public, the people who are the swing votes, equate bump stock to machine gun. Arguing the details, much like “clip” vs magazine just alienate them and makes us look stupid. The vast majority agree that bumpstock=machinegun=nfa. NFA has been around for a while and has apparently survived the constitutional test. We live in good times. Semi auto bans defeated, CC in all fifty states, high cap mag bans defeated. Something that skirts apparently constitutional nfa is not my red line.

 

[sheepdog697]

What law is being skirted? The NFA defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

This is a very good point.

 

[Liberty1916]

I didn't even know what a bump stock was until a few days ago.

Interesting though, that everyone here who has a reason for agreeing to ban/regulate them, you could insert "10+ round magazines" into the sentence instead of "bump stock" and the reasoning wouldn't change.

 

[TheDude]

It's funny, the AWB was only 23 years ago. Why would anyone need more than 10 rnds ???

 

[sheepdog697]

Arguing the inane details of what the actual definition of a machine gun is, is just insane at this point. The general public, the people who are the swing votes, equate bump stock to machine gun. Arguing the details, much like “clip” vs magazine just alienate them and makes us look stupid. The vast majority agree that bumpstock=machinegun=nfa. NFA has been around for a while and has apparently survived the constitutional test. We live in good times. Semi auto bans defeated, CC in all fifty states, high cap mag bans defeated. Something that skirts apparently constitutional nfa is not my red line.

I wish we could come to the table with something we want... i.e. suppressors, and agree to something like this. I also feel that SBRs should be out of the NFA, i cant see a reason they were ever added in the first place. Why cant take something that should never be in there out, and then agree to change the wording on automatic weapons in the NFA. I would be fine with this trade. Just plain out adding that to the NFA without trying to get something in our favor would be "Literally the worst deal ever"(trump voice).

 

[openwell]

I think the NRA is crafty as a fox! Bump stocks meet the "letter" of the law, so they will be accepted. They really do dodge the "spirit" of the law since they work very quickly.
BATFE will have to rule just like the two previous times under obama. And President Trump won't need to interfere or decide anything.

 

[Liberty1916]

We were wrong to create such a device.

Is it "wrong" to own an automatic weapon?

 

[ajeandy]

Nucking futs.

That is all.

 

[ajeandy]

Whos being emotional by playing " the innocent bystander" card. Aren't all victims of violence like this regardless of the means an innocent bystander. Guess we outta ban cars, bats, knives, ropes, chains, etc because at anytime someone could kill ya with those. At any time your driving down the road, and a car passes you, do you think about the fact that behind the wheel of anyone of those cars, there could be someone hell bent on killing someone by swerving into the other lane. I dont, but it could happen. The lunatic that did this could've used his airplane and killed more people. I dont think to much about that what ifs, its kind of pointless. Bad s**t happens and is going to continue to happen no matter what gets banned, restricted, etc. There's always a way for someone hellbent on hurting others to accomplish their goals!

You just proved my point with the "what's next argument"

If you can't embrace change you're going to have a hard time living in the United States of America.

care to open a history book or open a web browser and see how we this contry has changed over the past couple hundred years.

 

[SteelersFan]

Arguing the inane details of what the actual definition of a machine gun is, is just insane at this point. The general public, the people who are the swing votes, equate bump stock to machine gun. Arguing the details, much like “clip” vs magazine just alienate them and makes us look stupid. The vast majority agree that bumpstock=machinegun=nfa. NFA has been around for a while and has apparently survived the constitutional test. We live in good times. Semi auto bans defeated, CC in all fifty states, high cap mag bans defeated. Something that skirts apparently constitutional nfa is not my red line.

The ATF does not agree and I don't agree that bumpstock=machinegun=NFA. Next it will be binary triggers then a Geissele SSA-E because it increases the rate of fire.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

I think the NRA is crafty as a fox! Bump stocks meet the "letter" of the law, so they will be accepted. They really do dodge the "spirit" of the law since they work very quickly.
BATFE will have to rule just like the two previous times under obama. And President Trump won't need to interfere or decide anything.

This is the way I see it as well. The NRA knows what they are doing. They aren't pushing for a ban, they are asking for review of something that has already been proven legal.

However, to the left that gets all emotional and doesn't actually pay attention, this is like a wet dream. "OMG, even the NRA is on our side?" The NRA is making themselves sound understanding, while being very vague, because it sounds great to everyone, but really in effect accomplishes nothing.

If bump stocks get banned, it will not be the NRAs fault here. They are trying to bait the ATF into saying they are legal, as they've already done, which in turn would, I would think, make a bill banning them potentially harder to get votes. They were instantly attacked after this incident and are defending themselves by basically making themselves sound neutral.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Is it "wrong" to own an automatic weapon?

Nope. I think we should be equal to our "betters." I think everyone should have access to them.

But when it comes to established (bull****) laws... we need to make good faith when it comes to arguing this stuff.

 

[ajeandy]

I do. Far less effective of a tool, but it's still skirting the NFA. I think we could come up with a good argument regarding "AR pistols". I don't think we can come up with a good argument regarding semi-auto vs simulated full-auto.

You won't sway someone who is irrational and lives in an alternate reality where they are entitled and no one shall infringe upon their firearms accessories, that isn't even a firearm, regardless of however many get mowed down in the meanwhile by an accessory that was made to fly under the nfa's radar.

They're just going to have to face the facts that this is a stock and it's not a firearm, and it's not protected, and I guess they can continue to rant here about how they're entitled to own one?

starting to sound like millennials aren't they?

 

[churchmouse]

Interesting conversation.
Good points being made.

 

[Kdf101]

Arguing that if we do this, then they will want this is a waste of time. Defend what you actually have to, when you have to, with logic specific to that case. Bumpstocks do not equal high cap mags. We need to win the 2nd Amend fight, not one on a bump stock. I will say one more time, arguing that bump stocks don’t make a gun “fully auto” in all but technical definition is a losing argument. Cut off you nose to spite your face seems to be the case with us. I am in this to win the war, not win a battle that could lose the war.