NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[ScouT6a]

I don't think we should ban anything.



It shouldn't, but currently... without paperwork and a gun made for it... it is. We, as a community, look bad when we try to beat the system. Gun owners already look bad enough to some people.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No. The BATFE has twice said it is NOT regulated.

Single trigger pull, multiple rounds is regulated.

Pulling the trigger really fast, even with help of recoil, is not.

Following the rules is not cheating.

I know what you're saying, and we're all talking about simulated full-auto. We understand the difference, but those in power and the lay person doesn't necessarily see it the same way.

Lots of bullets fired really fast from the gun because he used a tool to achieve this... that's how they see it, and I think a good-faith approach from the gun community would be to acknowledge that. It sucks, I don't like it, and I hope no regulation happens... but pretending it's completely normal and no different than any other accessory is silly.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson

By all means, do so. I just can't fathom doing so for something so small.

 

[jamil]

What I am talking about, here, is every person that has posted a comment such as, they (bump stock) are a worthless piece of plastic, range toy, gimmick. The ones that said they are a cheat to get around the NFA regulations, the ones that said they would trade a bump stock for National reciprocity or suppressor. Anyone who has said this is not their hill to die on or they will not fall on their sword for a bump fire stock.
The ones that can't see past the end of their nose on this issue. The ones that seriously think the Left will compromise with them. The ones that think it will end when the bumpfire stock dies an agonizing death. Until the next mass shooting, when the guy uses strategically placed Tannerite or a 14" Shockwave, non NFA shotgun or a ____________(insert whatever firearm/accessory you wish, here)
You know, the yellow ones.

This subject isn't all that objective. A lot of things to consider. Different people have different priorities and mental models of how it all plays out.

My thing is that I don't want to concede on bumpfire, because I don't want to give tacit approval of banning things to solve the issue of mass random murders. Banning these things will not solve that problem, and at most, it may prevent people from using THAT device and force them to use some other, perhaps even more lethal device. Also, banning stuff takes attention away from the real problem, and that is the people who do these kinds of things. But that's my model of how things play out.

I can imagine that a number of gun owners have a different model of how this plays out. One concern of mine, even though I'm against banning stuff, is that some other crazy is going to do this again with a bump-fire, now that it's been introduced to the masses. And each time it happens, there'll be even more emotional arguments against them.

But don't start thinking of the people who've drawn a different conclusion than you have from a different model of how this plays out.
It's just a turd of a problem. Having to decide to defend a silly toy or not. I choose to oppose banning it. I can see the other side of the argument as well. I'm not going to view those people with contempt. My contempt is reserved for the hypocrites like Jimmy Kimmel, who blame me for what the shooter chose to do.

 

[TheDude]

Also lots of posts rattling off other accessories, as though they're equal to what the bumpstock does.

Again... slippery slope argument is valid, I won't deny that... but don't pretend the wrong-thinkers here on INGO would be okay with those other items being regulated, too.

Obviously folding stocks, magazines, holsters, blah blah blah... are much higher priority than a recently made cheating device.

Did you miss the ATF approval letter at top? Please explain " cheating device"?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Did you miss the ATF approval letter at top? Please explain " cheating device"?

Using common sense, I don't care what the ATF thinks. A toy was made to simulate full-auto fire. That's just a fact.

Be honest with yourself... you know what the stock is used for. You know people use it, even if just for fun, because they don't have the opportunity to buy and fire a real full-auto gun.

 

[eldirector]

Got it. You are willing to give a little.

I'm just not. Even less so (less than zero?) when it is all based on misconceptions.

I find it sad the the shepherds are willing to sacrifice a few sheep, in the hopes that the wolf doesn't show back up the next time it is hungry.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Got it. You are willing to give a little.

I'm just not. Even less so (less than zero?) when it is all based on misconceptions.

I find it sad the the shepherds are willing to sacrifice a few sheep, in the hopes that the wolf doesn't show back up the next time it is hungry.

I didn't say I'm willing to give anything up... Jesus Christ people, the allegories are getting ridiculous... stop with the sheep/wolf nonsense.

I'm trying to say that I understand where the lay person is coming from, and I'm not lying to myself about what the tool was made to do. I hope nothing is done to regulate it.

 

[T.Lex]

I didn't say I'm willing to give anything up... Jesus Christ people, the allegories are getting ridiculous... stop with the sheep/wolf nonsense.

I'm trying to say that I understand where the lay person is coming from, and I'm not lying to myself about what the tool was made to do. I hope nothing is done to regulate it.

So what you're saying is that you hate guns, gun owners, and sheep.

Got it.

 

[BravoMike]

NRA Life member here. I agree that if we ban bump stock and say that its an accessory that makes the gun more dangerous, there are other many other impractical accessories that we don't "need" to have that could make the gun more dangerous. Sounds like 1994 mentality. I do not see us getting reciprocity or silencers off the NFA either. In fact, I think this weakens our position to get silencers off the NFA. After all, it could be viewed as an accessory that could make the gun more dangerous.

The anti-gunners know that if they use the word compromise, it makes them look like the good guys and us the bad guys. The problem is that they don't mean compromise, they mean take. I don't see why we should be giving up anything at this point because I don't see us getting anything in return.

We had someone who was hell bent on mass casualty who has way more money than I and planned out this attack. Do you really think banning bump stocks would stop such a person from committing such a heinous crime? Did it help? Maybe, but I don't think we should exaggerate its effectiveness either. Besides, what if the next guy decides he's going to illegally modify a SA to FA? Should we ban all SA too? Heck, might as well go back to hanging the musket on the wall and call it a day.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So what you're saying is that you hate guns, gun owners, and sheep.

Got it.

 

[ScouT6a]

Paul Ryan has already stated that the Hearing Protection Act has been tabled, due to the shooting in Las Vegas.
I am certain that is/will be the case for National reciprocity on handgun licenses.
We are not likely to convince the Left of any type of compromise, at the present time. And like others have stated, IF we did, it would be construed as a sign of weakness, by many on the Left.
I think the NRA made a smart move by suggesting that bumpfire stock should be "reviewed". If the BATF comes back and says they were wrong, after the initial ruling and then two reviews, they are going to lessen their own credibility. Something they don't want to do.
We can only hope that many of the responses, the last few days on here, were knee jerk, emotional reactions.

 

[jamil]

I don't think we should ban anything.



It shouldn't, but currently... without paperwork and a gun made for it... it is. We, as a community, look bad when we try to beat the system. Gun owners already look bad enough to some people.

The law doesn't ban rapid fire. It bans automatic fire. So it's not really skirting around anything. It's not trying to beat the system.

However, I think J.Q. Public would see it being a distinction without a difference because they live far from a world that accepts any guns at all as a normal part of people's lives, let alone auto-ish guns.

The reason gun owners look bad enough is that the mainstream channels of communication present things from a point of view opposing guns and gun owners. They've presented that as the default position. As normal. Whenever they pretend to present both sides, they present the side of idiots like Ted Nugent. (sorry Nuge fans, but, c'mon. He's no Guy Relford).

 

[Vigilant]

Using common sense, I don't care what the ATF thinks. A toy was made to simulate full-auto fire. That's just a fact.

Be honest with yourself... you know what the stock is used for. You know people use it, even if just for fun, because they don't have the opportunity to buy and fire a real full-auto gun.

There have been many cosmetic accessories the ATF has banned as suppressors over the years, but this accessory has passed regulatory scrutiny multiple times. But to address your line of reasoning, ALL 80% receivers MUST be banned, because if ANYTHING could be considered cheating, those are it!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The law doesn't ban rapid fire. It bans automatic fire. So it's not really skirting around anything. It's not trying to beat the system.

However, I think J.Q. Public would see it being a distinction without a difference because they live far from a world that accepts any guns at all as a normal part of people's lives, let alone auto-ish guns.

Right. We understand this. They don't. I've seen enough bull**** and misinformation, though, to know explaining the difference isn't going to help.

600 rounds per minute and 700 rounds per minute are a difference that doesn't matter.

 

[ScouT6a]

NRA Life member here. I agree that if we ban bump stock and say that its an accessory that makes the gun more dangerous, there are other many other impractical accessories that we don't "need" to have that could make the gun more dangerous. Sounds like 1994 mentality. I do not see us getting reciprocity or silencers off the NFA either. In fact, I think this weakens our position to get silencers off the NFA. After all, it could be viewed as an accessory that could make the gun more dangerous.

The anti-gunners know that if they use the word compromise, it makes them look like the good guys and us the bad guys. The problem is that they don't mean compromise, they mean take. I don't see why we should be giving up anything at this point because I don't see us getting anything in return.

We had someone who was hell bent on mass casualty who has way more money than I and planned out this attack. Do you really think banning bump stocks would stop such a person from committing such a heinous crime? Did it help? Maybe, but I don't think we should exaggerate its effectiveness either. Besides, what if the next guy decides he's going to illegally modify a SA to FA? Should we ban all SA too? Heck, might as well go back to hanging the musket on the wall and call it a day.

 

[Vigilant]

Right. We understand this. They don't. I've seen enough bull**** and misinformation, though, to know explaining the difference isn't going to help.

600 rounds per minute and 700 rounds per minute are a difference that doesn't matter.

So why be so willing to concede, as you know "common sense" not being so common anymore, they will not be happy with just that?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So why be so willing to concede, as you know "common sense" not being so common anymore, they will not be happy with just that?

I can't predict what they'd be happy with. I just know they have the leverage on this issue, we don't.

 

[BravoMike]

I know what you're saying, and we're all talking about simulated full-auto. We understand the difference, but those in power and the lay person doesn't necessarily see it the same way.

Lots of bullets fired really fast from the gun because he used a tool to achieve this... that's how they see it, and I think a good-faith approach from the gun community would be to acknowledge that. It sucks, I don't like it, and I hope no regulation happens... but pretending it's completely normal and no different than any other accessory is silly.



By all means, do so. I just can't fathom doing so for something so small.

What do we get out of this good faith? In my experience good faith is used in negotiations and I may be wrong, but I don't see any negotiating happening. Also, I've seen good faith used just to have the other party pull out the knife and stab it in the back.

 

[jamil]

I know what you're saying, and we're all talking about simulated full-auto. We understand the difference, but those in power and the lay person doesn't necessarily see it the same way.

Lots of bullets fired really fast from the gun because he used a tool to achieve this... that's how they see it, and I think a good-faith approach from the gun community would be to acknowledge that. It sucks, I don't like it, and I hope no regulation happens... but pretending it's completely normal and no different than any other accessory is silly.



By all means, do so. I just can't fathom doing so for something so small.

I do acknowledge that. For his bump-fire use, he sacrificed accuracy for "spraying" bullets. Given the time they say he was shooting, and the number of people hit, included dead, he averaged hitting someone about every 2 1/2 seconds. Bumpfire would do what, shoot maybe up to 40-50 rounds in that time? Obviously Most of the rounds fired didn't hit people, and most of the people hit weren't fatal wounds.

In other words, the bump-fire didn't make the gun more lethal, it made it more scary. And I'm not saying that to diminish the impact. I can see why it would make the experience more terrifying, even though it wasn't as lethal as it could have been. But we're not going to hear that point of view on the media. We're only going to see Alex Jones types defending it in the media.

And as for the size of the thing I'm defending, it's not the bump fire stock. It's the idea that it was the guns that did the terrorizing and not the shooter.

 

[jamil]

I can't predict what they'd be happy with. I just know they have the leverage on this issue, we don't.

Making them happy shouldn't be our goal. Our goal should be convincing sane people to put the blame on the person and not the tools he used to terrorize. The insane ones won't be happy with just banning bumpfire anyway.