NRA Supports Restrictions on Bump-Fire Stocks

[NavyVet1959]

The NRA really screwed the pooch on this one. The NRA wasn't originally a pro-2nd-Amendment group and in fact, they helped craft a lot of anti-2nd-Amendment legislation over the years. In recent years, that had supposedly changed and a lot of us were feeling better about the NRA, but here they come and screw it up. They will not be getting anymore of my money. I suspect the GOA will be more appreciative of my money.

I don't own a bump-fire stock and in fact don't even have a desire to own one, but I find it extremely repulsive that the NRA would basically call for their regulation by saying that the ATF "should re-examine them". I reload my own ammo, so I don't particularly want to have a spray-and-pray type device that would allow me to shoot in *minutes* what might have taken *hours* to cast and load. Still, it's the *principle* of the thing.

There are some leftist idiots who think that if we just had yet another law, it would have prevented this incident. We already have a law against murder and if the person (or persons) responsible for this incident didn't care about that law, what makes these leftist idiots think that the shooter(s) would care about breaking one more law? If these leftist idiots want another law, I'll give them one... How about this:

"It is hereby illegal for anyone to use a hammer to break out the window of their 32nd floor hotel room and shoot at a crowd of 20,000 people listening to a C&W concert."

Surely *that* would have prevented this shooting, right?

For what they do, bump-fire stocks are overpriced and inaccurate. They only way that he managed to hit as many people as he did while using one was because the people were packed so tight that it was probably difficult to miss. If you are shooting an AR, the recoil is so light that if you have the muzzle supported (bipod or whatever), it would be entirely possible for a person to shoot two rifles at the same time and given the distance and crowd density, be just as effective.

I'm an engineer and even though I'm not a gunsmith or involved in that sort of business, I can see a much easier way of increasing the fire rate of a semi-auto rifle that does not rely on a bump-fire stock. It would be much cheaper and pretty much any person of marginal mechanical ability would be able to build one as long as they are not concerned with the legalities of it. All they really need is a small motor with a disk that is bored off-center enough that when it rotates, it would alternately press and release the trigger. Depending upon the rate of fire desired and the small motor chosen, you might need to gear it down a bit. I suspect that you could build one for about $5. Not exactly rocket science, ya' know?

 

[easy rider]

In my heart I know that banning "bump stock" mechanisms would not have stopped the Vegas killer from sitting in a window and shooting down on a the crowd, he would have changed his plans to have move guns lined up and ready to go go and instead of dropping the mag, he would have just dropped the rifle and continued to fire like was done with muskets when used in fortified positions. That being said, as I have fired full auto M2 carbines, M16s and the M60, I do not see the rational in any 2nd Amendment gun loving individual having or using anything that makes a semi auto preform as a full auto. I see no purpose in target practice, day to day self defense use or hunting. I don't always or agree with everything that the NRA does, but as an organization that gives voice to our 2A rights, they too have to utilize compromises on certain issues.

A compromise is what you work towards after you put up the fight. I would have probably supported the NRA had they fought against the assumption that a device is what killed 58 people and injured many others, and was losing the fight prompting a comprimise. What the NRA did was to make it sound that they were in agreement that the device was bad giving further steam to the anti's.

 

[benenglish]

...That being said, as I have fired full auto M2 carbines, M16s and the M60, I do not see the rational in any 2nd Amendment gun loving individual having or using anything that makes a semi auto preform as a full auto. I see no purpose in target practice, day to day self defense use or hunting....

I have one. I bought it when they first came out. It's less accurate than any reasonable subgun but that doesn't mean I can't keep mag dumps on a B27 silhouette at 15 yards.

The rationale, though, is simply that they are fun. Nobody needs a Ferrari but I suppose they're fun. Nobody needs a $2M stereo system but they are definitely fun. Need, to me, isn't the point.

I strongly disagree with giving up something just because most people see no purpose in it. For those of us who enjoy it and never hurt anyone with it...well...we'd like to be left alone.

 

[NavyVet1959]

A compromise is what you work towards after you put up the fight. I would have probably supported the NRA had they fought against the assumption that a device is what killed 58 people and injured many others, and was losing the fight prompting a comprimise. What the NRA did was to make it sound that they were in agreement that the device was bad giving further steam to the anti's.

Compromising with the leftists is what has gotten us into the sorry state that we are in today. We have control of the Executive and Legislative branches today and it is time for us to take back all the rights that we have lost due to the compromises in the past. To compromise is to lose. The left just takes that as a new place to fight from. The left wants all our firearms, so we give them our full-auto ones. The left wants all our firearms, so we give them certain classes of people and certain firearms made elsewhere. The left wants all of our firearms, so we give them magazine capacity. The left wants all of our firearms, so we give them bump-fire stocks. Where does it end? Probably something like:

The left wants all of our firearms, but all we have left are muzzle loaders and we give them up also...

The time for compromise is over. People need to understand that the left is wanting to completely destroy our way of life. You cannot "compromise" with your mortal enemy since his ultimate goal is your total destruction.

 

[9uc]

Ok, I reckon using that rationale, no personal offense meant, I reckon that Stephen Craig Paddock, was just a another good ole boy, having fun at the Mandalay Shooting Range.

 

[diesel1959]

Did you ever consider that my first name might be Austin? But no, what I would do, however, is change my name to IndigenousPeoplesDayN4.

You do realize that there were no "indigenous peoples", right? All the so-called "Native Americans" peoples migrated across from Siberia. They are as much immigrants as we all are. Consequently, they are all as much "Native American" as any of us who were born here.

 

[diesel1959]

I have one. I bought it when they first came out. It's less accurate than any reasonable subgun but that doesn't mean I can't keep mag dumps on a B27 silhouette at 15 yards.

The rationale, though, is simply that they are fun. Nobody needs a Ferrari but I suppose they're fun. Nobody needs a $2M stereo system but they are definitely fun. Need, to me, isn't the point.

I strongly disagree with giving up something just because most people see no purpose in it. For those of us who enjoy it and never hurt anyone with it...well...we'd like to be left alone.

EXACTLY. The Firearms community does itself no good when some shooters look down on what other shooters prefer to spend their free time/money on. In the past, hunters have looked down on black rifle shooters, and so on and so forth.

I don't own any bumpfire stocks; however, I have NO QUALMS with enthusiasts having them and enjoying bumpfire stocks without a bunch of FUDDS looking down their noses at them.

 

[diesel1959]

Ok, I reckon using that rationale, no personal offense meant, I reckon that Stephen Craig Paddock, was just a another good ole boy, having fun at the Mandalay Shooting Range.

That asshole was a criminal--a murderer--who chose to use legal means to commit illegal acts of murder, aggravated assault, attempted murder, and so forth.

Don't blame the means, blame the criminal who formed the criminal intent and carried out the act(s).

 

[NavyVet1959]

I have one. I bought it when they first came out. It's less accurate than any reasonable subgun but that doesn't mean I can't keep mag dumps on a B27 silhouette at 15 yards.

The rationale, though, is simply that they are fun. Nobody needs a Ferrari but I suppose they're fun. Nobody needs a $2M stereo system but they are definitely fun. Need, to me, isn't the point.

I strongly disagree with giving up something just because most people see no purpose in it. For those of us who enjoy it and never hurt anyone with it...well...we'd like to be left alone.

Agreed... Although not excessively inaccurate for targets that close, when you're talking about the distance involved of the shooter(s) in the Las Vegas incident, it really boils down to "spray-and-pray". Let's assume that you can manage to keep your shots in a 12" circle at 15 yards. He/they were supposedly around 1000 ft away, so that means that the bullets would land in a 22 foot circle at that distance. If you take into account variances in the wind, especially how the wind changes as it blows around buildings, the diameter would be even greater. With a target that was that large, aiming was not particularly important, spray-and-pray was effective enough.

We hear on the news about *500 people injured*. It will be interesting from a statistics standpoint how many of those were actually shot directly, received a shot that had ricocheted or already struck another person, or were just injured in the clamor to get out of the area, but not directly a bullet.

 

[AustinN4]

You do realize that there were no "indigenous peoples", right? All the so-called "Native Americans" peoples migrated across from Siberia. They are as much immigrants as we all are. Consequently, they are all as much "Native American" as any of us who were born here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous
Definition of indigenous: produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment

I was produced and grown in the USA and I live and occurred here naturally; therefore, I am an indigenous person. I am glad my day was celebrated.

 

[diesel1959]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous
Definition of indigenous: produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment

I was produced and grown in the USA and I live and occurred here naturally; therefore, I am an indigenous person. I am glad my day was celebrated.

Agreed. I was born in the USA, but got here to Texas as fast as I could.

 

[easy rider]

Born in the USA, but born again Texan.

 

[Vaquero]

Ok, I reckon using that rationale, no personal offense meant, I reckon that Stephen Craig Paddock, was just a another good ole boy, having fun at the Mandalay Shooting Range.

Damn.

 

[AustinN4]

Agreed. I was born in the USA, but got here to Texas as fast as I could.

Therefore you are indigenous to the USA but not to Texas.

 

[pronstar]

I strongly disagree with giving up something just because most people see no purpose in it.

I think most libs willfully give up rights, like 2A, for much the same reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[NavyVet1959]

Therefore you are indigenous to the USA but not to Texas.

That means he's either an invasive species or a Damn Yankee.

Through an accident of birth, I was born within spittin' distance of Texas (or so the 2nd-hand information *says*). I've lived here for well over all the other places combined, so I guess that makes me an invasive species.

 

[DRJCOMPANY]

So I didn't see a thread for this, but the NRA is supporting that additional restrictions be placed on bump-fire type stocks through ATF regulations.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stocks/index.html


So there is the thought that the NRA is making this statement to avoid legislation and to allow the ATF to make rulings, this way no new gun control laws are passed. See here:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

But here is my thought:
The thought that the NRA made its statement so that the ATF would look at bump fire stocks instead of legislators proposing new legislation, that is stupid. Congress was already going to propose new legislation regardless, but now they can say the NRA is also in support of their gun control bill. Stupid. Anti-gunners are laughing at us now.

What do y'all think?

So I didn't see a thread for this, but the NRA is supporting that additional restrictions be placed on bump-fire type stocks through ATF regulations.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stocks/index.html


So there is the thought that the NRA is making this statement to avoid legislation and to allow the ATF to make rulings, this way no new gun control laws are passed. See here:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

But here is my thought:
The thought that the NRA made its statement so that the ATF would look at bump fire stocks instead of legislators proposing new legislation, that is stupid. Congress was already going to propose new legislation regardless, but now they can say the NRA is also in support of their gun control bill. Stupid. Anti-gunners are laughing at us now.

What do y'all think?

So I didn't see a thread for this, but the NRA is supporting that additional restrictions be placed on bump-fire type stocks through ATF regulations.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stocks/index.html


So there is the thought that the NRA is making this statement to avoid legislation and to allow the ATF to make rulings, this way no new gun control laws are passed. See here:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

But here is my thought:
The thought that the NRA made its statement so that the ATF would look at bump fire stocks instead of legislators proposing new legislation, that is stupid. Congress was already going to propose new legislation regardless, but now they can say the NRA is also in support of their gun control bill. Stupid. Anti-gunners are laughing at us now.

What do y'all think?

I believe that the NRA thought it strategic to give the goons something even though privately they like all true patriots, disagree will ALL Federal Gun laws.

 

[Low_Speed]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

I believe that the NRA thought it strategic to give the goons something even though privately they like all true patriots, disagree will ALL Federal Gun laws.

The goons don't care what you give them, they already have sights on what they want.

 

[bigj480]

In my heart I know that banning "bump stock" mechanisms would not have stopped the Vegas killer from sitting in a window and shooting down on a the crowd, he would have changed his plans to have move guns lined up and ready to go go and instead of dropping the mag, he would have just dropped the rifle and continued to fire like was done with muskets when used in fortified positions.

He would have been more effective with aimed fire and a semi-auto, especially as the crowd dispersed.

That being said, as I have fired full auto M2 carbines, M16s and the M60, I do not see the rational in any 2nd Amendment gun loving individual having or using anything that makes a semi auto preform as a full auto. I see no purpose in target practice, day to day self defense use or hunting.

None of the uses you describe have ANYTHING to do with the second amendment. The second amendment is about supporting an uprising against tyranny of any sort. People don't have to like it, but that is that it's about. If you look up United States v. Miller you will see that the 2A applies ONLY to the types of firearms commonly used by the military and useful in a military setting. It is my opinion that this applies to full auto firearms or, at the minimum, guns that can approach full auto rates of fire. The NFA is an anti-2A law. I own full auto firearms and I see NO reason why 2nd Amendment gun loving individuals should be against them.

I don't always or agree with everything that the NRA does, but as an organization that gives voice to our 2A rights, they too have to utilize compromises on certain issues.

NO THEY DO NOT! There is NOTHING to be gained by signaling weakness. All that happens is that we move closer to the banning of things you might actually care about. The other side is not reasonable and once they are done with the low hanging fruit the will march continually forward with calls for more "reasonable restrictions" until there is nothing left to restrict. You are fine losing this battle but that brings us closer to losing the war. Do you know the NRA's history of compromise and all of the ways they have sold us out in the past? Did that pay off in some what or satiate the opposition? One should not compromise on a god given right, especially when they are paid to argue in favor of that right. Their job is to present the counterargument. I'm a life member of the NRA, I thought they had learned from their past weakness but I was wrong. I have no use for them or people that defend them, to be honest. It's time we had a better default "gun rights organization" because a bunch of paid compromisers will do more harm than good.