Ammo For Sale

« « Yes and no | Home | And another thing » »

NRA calls on ATF to re-evaluate bump stocks

No, I don’t think a ban is a good thing. If we ban those, we’d need to ban rubber bands and boards. But here’s the statement. Based on the statement, I’m presuming they see the writing on the wall. They do not call for a ban. The want the ATF to look at the issue again. They also point out that it was Obama’s ATF that gave the OK to bump stocks. And it gives a nod to national reciprocity. Overall, it’s a pretty brilliant approach to it.

I think these things will be banned. I think it’s stupid to ban them. However, a derpy product that I didn’t want a week ago and still don’t want now is not exactly the fight I’m willing to focus on. As I said before, if they ban this then the pro-gun side better get something out of it. You know, compromise and all that. And we should go for reciprocity and if we add bump stocks to the NFA, we should remove silencers. The Second Amendment Foundation seems to agree.

What options does the ATF have?

And this guy went full retard: Second Amendment supporter and Tennessee resident destroys AR-15 bump stock, calls for it to be outlawed. Just to get some TeeVee time. Sad.

7 Responses to “NRA calls on ATF to re-evaluate bump stocks”

  1. Maxpwr Says:

    Excellent summary.

    Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll “get anything out of it”. If it is done by ATF then that’s just fiat and not legislation.

    There aren’t 60 senators willing to overcome a filibuster of SHARE or National Reciprocity.

    Have to live in reality. Only way to change this is even more pro-gun senators in 2018, but that still may not be enough to go over 60.

    Bump stocks…stupid. I get the optics of allowing something to be banned look like a compromise, but there is no practical difference between this and a machine gun.

    Just pull the trigger really fast on your semi-auto if you want to make it sound like you’re an 80s Action Hero with your gun. Just like the machine-gun wannabes did before the bump stock was invented.

  2. Lyle Says:

    A ban is correctly understood to be a government-enforced monopoly, granted to criminals. It’s insane. Only criminals will have the banned object after that, and they’ll have as many as they want.

    I refuse to support insanity.

    I don’t agree that a “ban” (criminal monopoly) would be a “compromise” no matter how it flushes out. Rather, it’s chum in the water for the anti rights, pro-criminal sharks.

    Here’s the proper compromise; agree not to prosecute most of the anti rights crusaders for their federal crimes of Conspiracy to Deprive Rights, and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, if they agree to back the fuck off and sign an agreement to never bring up the subject again either in public or in private. I’d rather see them in federal prison, but I’d be willing to make that compromise. It gets us something valuable (not having to spend our time and resources to defend what are supposed to be guaranteed rights), it’s extremely generous to the politicians (they don’t end up hanged or in prison), and it upholds the U.S. constitution. It’s a win for all concerned.

  3. Ron W Says:

    I think Feinstein’s bump stock bill bans not only the sale and manufacture, but bans possession. The possession ban is a flagrant violation of the Constitutional ban on “ex post facto laws” (Article I, Sec. 9.3) But then she’s an authoritarian criminal against the Constitution. She once said, “if I could get 51 votes in the Senate, I would say, Mr. And Mrs. America, turn them all in!!

    @Lyle, you’re absolutely correct re: “a government-enforced monopoly”. And how is that enforced? Oh, by guns, of course. Governments always want a monopoly on force and history shows that millions are murdered when that happens, especially those who refuse their slavery and tyranny. You’re exactly correct, government-enforced monopolies only benefit criminals and their legalized government counterparts.

  4. Jeff Knox Says:

    Why do people keep ignoring the most important sentence in the statement? Everything else is just window-dressing. The part that matters is this:

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

    If they had left that sentence out of the statement, your analysis could apply, but with that sentence in there, this can be seen as nothing less than capitulation. Very stupid move on Wayne and Chris’s part. Maybe the Board of Directors could issue a statement disavowing that statement, but I don’t think they have the cajones.

  5. Rivrdog Says:

    Jeff Knox +1 Yes, with that statement, they raised the white flag. It’s not the first time the NRA has caved snd it wont be the last. Next: their “send money” letter, or even more on their scammy insurance scheme.

    It’s time to dump the support we give the NRA, and throw it to GOA, 2AF or JPFO.

  6. Fred Says:

    This is why I have not supported NRA for years and will never support them again. I’m pro 2A. They are something other than pro 2A.

  7. Blounttruth Says:

    ” if they ban this then the pro-gun side better get something out of it.”

    They wont, and they never will, only further continued pushes to restrict or completely destroy the 2nd amendment. You cannot give the left an inch, as they see it as another notch in their belts, and they will continue to move forward banning other accessories until they get what they want. A stand for bump stocks is a stand for the 2nd in the long run, for they will never stop moving forward and giving them yardage only gets them closer to the goal line.