Ok, Ok... Fair enough everyone, and I don't necessarily completely disagree with the logic ljk presents here (and others), however I can make a valid argument for needing a weapon for self defense, hunting, and sports. I cannot do the same for a bump stock. I live in Gary, IN. My local convenience store was robbed two weeks ago, the owner shot in the hand confronting the assailant (need for a firearm for protection). My closest gas station had a carjacking 3 weeks ago by 3 assailants (need for higher capacity magazines, for defense in those situations). I have family in Georgia that depends on hunting for food (need for hunting). I live next to section 8 housing that borders the national park, and the kids there go shooting in their back yard every new year, 4th of July, etc. I depend on my firearms for protection, live with this daily reality, and unfortunate reminders, that I may have to defend myself or my family.Let's just talk aboutbump stocks, Guns, what practical reason do you have for them, honestly?
What was that priority at that time? Did we gain anything at the Federal level to offset it?I totally get why the NRA backed off against the Bump Stock ban, there are other/higher priorities at stake. And now we have probably the worst political situation at the federal level since the Brady Bill was passed. If we don't come together in some capacity and confront this threat, we stand to lose decades of progress on these issues.
But feelz! Got to give the gun banners their fix I guess.If bump stocks are "useless", then they don't need to be banned.
You might be forgetting about the hundreds of lawsuits they were working on at the time. Their strategy has been to flood the courts and establish precedent, at state and federal levels. This is how you actually change legislation, by establishing court precedent, in addition to lobbying on new legislation.What was that priority at that time? Did we gain anything at the Federal level to offset it?
Stephen Paddock found them quite useful.If bump stocks are "useless", then they don't need to be banned.
Stephen Paddock found them quite useful.
Which is....if one thinks on it briefly.....the main reason we are all so twisted up.By the way.... I have yet to hear one solid argument FOR bump stocks, other than freedom.
Couldn't agree more with the chipping away mindset, however you have to look at this from a broader perspective with regards to legislation and court activity. Strategy requires making tough decisions, and this one was strategically a smart move to not get involved in, in my opinion.Which is....if one thinks on it briefly.....the main reason we are all so twisted up.
They keep chip chip chipping away.
Yeah, but bump stocks came up as a reason for not supporting the NRA, and therefore kinda relevant to continuing support for the NRA today.By the way, I think we have a thread on Bump Stocks.
Kind of hijacking the thread about the NRA and Bankruptcy.
Oh no argument. But again, chip chip chip chip chip chip chipping away "Regardless" of how.Couldn't agree more with the chipping away mindset, however you have to look at this from a broader perspective with regards to legislation and court activity. Strategy requires making tough decisions, and this one was strategically a smart move to not get involved in, in my opinion.