Trump moves on bump stocks.

[Skip]

And now the NRA is seeking to support the National Rate Increasing Device Ban Of 2018.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what they need to clarify for me.

1934 and 1968 won some concessions back when people thought we could negotiate. It should clear to all we no longer can.

Those willing to give up bump stocks need to ask where in the ban/law semi-autos will be protected. I have yet to see any grabber law draw a box around what they won’t take. And we all know why... The limit is total disarmament.

[Zundfolge]

Or when they supported the 1986 Machine Gun Ban?

They didn't support the '86 machine gun ban, they supported the Firearms Owners Protection Act which did a TON of good things (like outlaw a national registry, force anti gun states to leave travelers alone and stop registering ammo sales). The Hughes Amendment (that banned post 86 full autos) was snuck in at the 11th hour by Democrats.

As for the 34 NFA or 68 GCA, the NRA wasn't really a political lobbying organization until after the 68 debacle, so they created the NRA-ILA in 1975 as a response.


Also if you take the 68GCA as an example, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans. It was truly a bi-partisan vote. (totals here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/h398 ). So based on that are you going to tell me that the Democrat party is the defenders of the Second Amendment?

Our country has changed a lot since 68 (and a WHOLE lot since 34) hell its changed a lot since 86. I think its silly to claim that the Democrat Party, Republican Party or NRA are somehow exactly the same as they were back in the day.

[SamuraiCO]

Well said Zund. We don't even know what will happen if the legislation is debated on. I would love to see amendments added for hearing protection act and reciprocity. I know the Dems will scream for a clean bill but F them. Bump stocks are a gimmick but if they were sacrificed for reciprocity, hearing protection act and reaffirming our rights to carry what we want in all states, no restrictions. Something similar to the civil rights to affirm what the constitution lays out and to undo state laws.

Just my 0.02 cents.

[Joe_K]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SamuraiCO]

I hear ya Molon you been in the debate longer than me and I am tired of taking steps backwards.

[Skip]

Well said Zund. We don't even know what will happen if the legislation is debated on. I would love to see amendments added for hearing protection act and reciprocity. I know the Dems will scream for a clean bill but F them. Bump stocks are a gimmick but if they were sacrificed for reciprocity, hearing protection act and reaffirming our rights to carry what we want in all states, no restrictions. Something similar to the civil rights to affirm what the constitution lays out and to undo state laws.

Just my 0.02 cents.

I would love to even see it suggested that this is possible. Thus far we haven't. Again, I have yet to see a true compromise gun law in my lifetime. I think the last one on record was 1968 where we got something for giving something. One could argue that opening up the registry in '86 was a compromise but that was temporary.

When you understand the actual goals of those involved you understand more about how this game is being played. Gun safety isn't an actual goal. Taking all guns out of your hands is.

So how does compromise fit in with that goal?

On the topic of bump stocks... Even if it were to be sacrificed for preserving semi-autos (in a parallel universe where this is possible) how would that look? To be effective they would need to prohibit "increasing the rate of fire" not just ban a single device. Which as we know is nuts because a semi-auto doesn't have a fixed rate of fire. Would they need to establish one?

Once established would it apply to pistols too?

The spirit of this is to decrease the speed/amount of rounds of bad person can fire in a mass murder event. If we legitimatize that, do mag bans now get more legitimacy? Hey, we only need two or three rounds to hunt, right?

[crays]

ATF is basically telling Trump that they can't ban them, and that it will have to be done through legislation.

Mission accomplished.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

Not till it's in writing. I don't believe anything I see or hear till the ink's dry. Been around the block a few times with weapon restrictions & bans.

Trump says bump stocks are 'gone' even if Congress doesn't act

ABC News Article

President Donald Trump said he will ban bump stocks himself if Congress doesn't take action in a meeting with governors at the White House today.

"By the way, bump stocks, we're writing that out. I'm writing that out myself. I don't care if Congress does it or not, I'm writing it out myself. You put it into the machine gun category, which is what it is. It becomes essentially a machine gun and nobody's going to be able, it's going to be very hard to get them, so we're writing out bump stocks," he said.

[Rucker61]

Trump says bump stocks are 'gone' even if Congress doesn't act

ABC News Article

Who the hell does he think he is that he can do this? The man needs some training in basic civics.

[Joe_K]

Who the hell does he think he is that he can do this? The man needs some training in basic civics.

He probably believes he can do what he wants, kind of like another president of late, except with that one we bought ALL the ammo and Guns we could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ridge]

I'd been a fan of his using EOs to REMOVE EOs as they were an overreach of the Executive branch, but this is just the same thing.