I think so. See, your reading...Is my perception inaccurate?
...goes way beyond the actual text.I read it to say that they believe bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun, ...
..., a statement that clearly does not say "convert" but says "...allow...to function like..." Around here, we understand that those two are not legally or mechanically equivalent.The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
...because this is where the NRA outsmarted itself. Apparently, the NRA thought they could throw bump stocks under the bus, put Slide-Fire out of business, and basically forget about the whole mess if they could just get BATFE to issue yet another letter contradicting a previous letter. Since such letters seem to often be pretty arbitrary in their reasoning, the NRA apparently thought that such a letter could go out and the entire issue could be thereafter ignored....they are asking the BATFE to bureaucratically decree them as such (something they should be condemning the practice of; not requesting more of it),...
Definitely not mechanically equivalent, but "additional regulations" would make it legally equivalent. Like shoelaces...The NRA didn't say bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun. They simply said that...
..., a statement that clearly does not say "convert" but says "...allow...to function like..." Around here, we understand that those two are not legally or mechanically equivalent.
I don't know what other's perceptions are, but I'm definitely irritated that they are participating in the bureaucratic rule shenanigans. That's not something that should be validated at all; 2A related or not.What did happen is that a whole lot of people got an inaccurate perception that "The NRA supports gun control in some way that I don't really understand so they must be willing to support any gun control anyone wants to propose!"
That's clearly wrong. The NRA was trying to play a bureaucratic rule-making game but most people don't know enough about the processes involved to understand that. Most people just perceived a change in position and decided it meant whatever they wanted it to mean.
For the most part I agree with your assessment, but I also think the NRA needs a wake up call and then maybe if I see that they are truly on the right track I can go back. For now, I hope my cut off from them and many others have provided some kind of wake up. I supported them to be my voice in the matter and they failed me on this matter and I find it hard to support failure.I think so. See, your reading...
...goes way beyond the actual text.
The NRA didn't say bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun. They simply said that......, a statement that clearly does not say "convert" but says "...allow...to function like..." Around here, we understand that those two are not legally or mechanically equivalent.
Of course, I'm with you completely when you say......because this is where the NRA outsmarted itself. Apparently, the NRA thought they could throw bump stocks under the bus, put Slide-Fire out of business, and basically forget about the whole mess if they could just get BATFE to issue yet another letter contradicting a previous letter. Since such letters seem to often be pretty arbitrary in their reasoning, the NRA apparently thought that such a letter could go out and the entire issue could be thereafter ignored.
That didn't happen. What did happen is that a whole lot of people got an inaccurate perception that "The NRA supports gun control in some way that I don't really understand so they must be willing to support any gun control anyone wants to propose!"
That's clearly wrong. The NRA was trying to play a bureaucratic rule-making game but most people don't know enough about the processes involved to understand that. Most people just perceived a change in position and decided it meant whatever they wanted it to mean.
This is why I'm angry with the NRA's judgement in this matter. Instead of banking on an arcane, technical rule-making strategy, they should have foreseen the way they would be misinterpreted. No, I don't expect people to be able to see the future but if you're in the business of influencing people I do expect you to anticipate the basic human reactions that will result from any particular course of action. In this case, the wording and the basic idea of the statement were wrong on so many levels that it shocked me; the NRA should have anticipated that plenty of anti-gun people would take their statement and run with it.
In short, the NRA failed us in a situation where we had every right to expect them to know better.
I don't expect any human institution to be perfect; I can forgive, eventually. But this is a screw-up so big it should get you fired off your job, instantly, and escorted off the premises by security. Unfortunately, we really don't have anyone else who can take over the position so we're stuck with them for a while.
I've already stated how my giving will be impacted.
I just hope the NRA can be a little smarter over the next year or so. They've seriously hurt their credibility and it's going to be tough to earn it back.
Side note: I just hope to God that some commenters (like Yankee Marshall on YouTube) are wrong when they say that this probably wasn't a mistake and the NRA screwed up on purpose, just to keep the fight going and keep having a reason to hit us up for more donations. Even I'm not that cynical.
Most likely by accident. Has to be.There is so much good info and intelligent conversation in this thread...
I had to check to make sure that "good" and "intelligent" could be used in the same sentence here.There is so much good info and intelligent conversation in this thread guys I just wanted to say thanks. I learned a few things here today. Great resource, keep up the good work.
SAF was one of my first gun rights orgs. Of course at the time I lived in Seattle and the headquarters were in next door neighbor Bellevue.I blame the NRA for this bill getting any traction. Had they not made such an asinine statement that breathed new life into a dying anti-gun movement, this bill would have died on the legislative scrap heap like all the anti-gun bills of the last five years. The NRA statements almost seem like they WANT the anti-gunners to win one to drum up business.....like the NAACP finding "racism" everywhere it can.
Time for new leadership.....or a new group to take over the fight. Second Amendment Foundation, anyone?
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
If there was a bill that specifically stated bumpfire stocks and related names and it passed, I can live with it. The problem is that the bills are too broad in their statement to include just about anything they can think of that would enhance a performance of a firearm and where would it end? Single shot firearms?I do t think the NRA is to blame for the bill getting traction.
Even among the more active pro gun Americans (like those on this forum) many find bump stocks to be a bit of a gimmick and have little interest. Although a greater number of our demographic will still fight bump stock legislation.
Applying that to a bell curve of willingness to expend energy in defense of gun rights, bump stocks are probably about the lowest of the low hanging fruit for anti gunners to go after. It's got traction because far fewer people are willing to expend energy fighting against legislation banning them, far more people (even gun owners) will see it as a real infringement.
I've been getting Emails from Cruz weekly since the Vegas shooting and he has yet to mention any defense of 2A rights, only speaking on Harvey relief and tax cuts.
Repubs don't want this fight. None of them want to touch it. The media has been quiet about it (compared to previous calls for gun control). My opinion is that most politicians feel only a small minority of gun owners will get upset about a bump stock ban and hope that the bill won't make it to a vote, and if it does they will probably try to quietly pass it and move on (with possibly a few voting against but still not making any noise about it).
The NRA made a stupid statement, but the bills relating to bump stocks would have had much more traction than recent gun legislation without the NRAs gaff. They just aren't popular enough to draw widespread support from gun owners and many are still too short sited to see the broader effects of such bills.
If there was a bill that specifically stated bumpfire stocks and related names and it passed, I can live with it. The problem is that the bills are too broad in their statement to include just about anything they can think of that would enhance a performance of a firearm and where would it end? Single shot firearms?
Even though it took two weeks, but then I haven't gotten any response from the others, other then it had been received.Yeah, John Cornyn is a bastion of conservative values and steadfast resistance.
It deeply saddens me that you are right about this....the broad scope...is what many less politically active gun owners will fail to see.
What's even sadder is it's not hard to write. I think it took me all of 15 minutes to a half hour to write to all my reps. Not like the old days of actually writing a letter and having to go through snail mail.It deeply saddens me that you are right about this.