Author Topic: Done with the NRA -- NRA wants to ban bumpfire stocks & other near f/a devices  (Read 2365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bulla

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Whatever you do don't  let them introduce Australian based gun laws, they are ridiculous compared to most countries. Exception being Californoa I suppose.  Cannot even have airsoft here and paintball guns require the same weapon licence as rifles etc


Offline foxstowe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
I wish the nra would focus more on the future of guns and be more proactive.

things like 80% builds, 3d printed parts, and what the tech world will be doing with sights and trigger systems.

Offline Moken

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
The title of this thread is "stretching" the intent of the NRAs statement. And what the NRA feared has now happened since Feinstein proposed a bill yesterday. So, instead ATF re-evaluating it there may be a law.

Offline Tenbones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
Apparently a bill has been introduced by U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo, a Republican from Florida. Currently, the bill has bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans.

 H.R.3999 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

Offline John A.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
Yeah, the Replublican bill from Curbello is almost a mirror image of feinsteins.
When people ignorant of guns make gun laws, you end up with ignorant gun laws.

Offline IDescribe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3342
A bump stock makes the rifle less accurate, and thus less safe, and ultimately less useful.  I would support the banning of such a product in any industry.  Factor in that the production of such a device is clearly intended to circumvent existing legal restrictions, in this case restrictions for fully automatic weapons, and banning them is not only perfectly logical, but also entirely predictable. 

They should be banned.

Offline John A.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
I disagree that they should be banned.

Full autos are not only 100% legal, I also believe that they would be a lot more popular and common than they are if they weren't restricted as heavily and since there is a finite amount of them, those numbers will only decrease.

Further, they are only as expensive as they are for a few reasons.

The ones that are transferable due to the Hughes Amendment in 1986, are so popular with real firearms enthusiasts and collectors that many people will pay outrageous prices because that's what the market will bear.

Do you realize that a police agency can purchase a full auto M16 from various manufacturers for less than $900 each, while a heavily used M16 transferable receiver for a civilian cost nearly $20,000.00 or more?

Remember, back in 1934 when Congress initially started restricting them, only the rich could afford the $200 tax.  That was the equivalent to around $3500 in what would be todays market.

And to further that, many corporations would spend the money to buy them, like during the coal wars in the early part of the 1900's near where I live.

Contrary to popular knowledge, did you know the national guard even used surplus gas bombs from WW1 from airplanes in the battle of Matewan and Battle of Blair Mountain against US civilian coal workers?

There were more rounds fired during that seige than were fired during the entire civil war combined from all estimates.

While all the above probably made your eyes gloss over and develop a twitch in your neck, facts are still facts.

I have no use for bump fire or bump fire stocks whatsoever, but I will never say they should be banned.  The antigunners have already taken enough items away.  It's not about guns.  It's about control. 

Long as I wake up in the mornings, I will never ask a politician what they think I should be allowed to own.  I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions without their help or opinion.

Some would ask what our founding fathers would say about it?

I think I have a good idea.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 02:38:30 PM by John A. »
When people ignorant of guns make gun laws, you end up with ignorant gun laws.

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
@ RSR
You forgot to mention that now the NRA is selling insurance.

They've been selling insurance for awhile -- all sorts of life, transit accident, accidental death and dismemberment, etc, for awhile.  The concealed carry insurance is brand new and led to them banning competitors who already served large portions of their membership from NRA events.   The NRA is all about money.  The industry guys on the board only care about money.  The NRA should be about preservation of god given rights, not profit margins.

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. (Quoted from The Bill of Rights Institute)
FOCUS!!!!!
The Government does not give us the right to defend ourselves. GOD did that at birth. That is why we have large brains and thumbs.
I am equal to any other. If he has a full auto I am equally justified in having the same. That is what the first constitutional congress enacted in the second amendment. ANY COMPROMISE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If they want to change the Constitution they know the steps they need to take  to amend it.
The subterfuge and cowardice has us all confused.
Study, read, focus. The devil is loose, do not let your guard down!

Thank you for your earlier post.

I quoted it just because it needed to be read again.

+1 million. 

While I am upset that the NRA basically said in their opinion a large portion of their membership are defacto lawbreakers, or rather felons in violation of the NFA and presumably also deserving of the decade plus mandatory prison sentences and permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights that such violations incur, it is the fact they choose to immediately compromise or betray the organization's and the 2nd Amendment's principles and advocate for actions that are in clear violation of the letter of the law and will serve as evidence in future legal proceedings/attempts to expand/restore 2nd Amendment rights that the NRA does not in fact believe what they're selling.

For what it's worth, I tend to concur with this in full; worth the click through for the full thing: https://web.archive.org/web/20170603184504/http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/forget-bans-where-are-my-constitutionally-protected-suppressed-machine-guns/
Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We—all of us not disqualified for criminal acts—are the militia.

“Well-regulated” meant at the time and for a century afterward referred to something in proper working order and smoothly functioning. It did not, and could not, refer to laws or restriction as obtusely argued by some intellectually stilted souls today. They ignore, to their own error, the all important phrase that none of these laws may supersede, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is plainly written in clear English, supported robustly by contemporary accounts, that the Founders meant no free American should restricted the military arms of his kind.

Were they alive today, perhaps Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, etc., might reconsider that perhaps some arms should be restricted. The city-leveling power of bomber fleets and ballistic missiles armed with the power of the atom, capable of eradicating entire populations in a moment, would seem be something no individual or small group should have the power to own and use indiscriminately.

That stated, they would almost certainly agree that handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, submachine guns, machine guns, hand grenades and grenade launchers, and artillery are precisely the kind of weapons they would want citizens to have.

How can we say this with such certainty?

The Founders themselves armed for war with muskets, which at four shots per minute, were the commonly issued assault rifles of their day. Contemporary flintlock rifles, while having more far range in the hands of elite marksman only fired one shot per minute, and some took far longer to load. Hand grenades had been in military use in the United Kingdom as early as the Battle of Holt Bridge in 1643, and had been in widespread use for 100 years. Artillery, from swivel guns to cannon, howitzers, and mortars, were in common use and owed by private citizens and communities.

Warships, the most powerful weapons of the day, were often privately owned; in fact, the eight frigates of the Continental Navy performed pitifully, and were all sunk by 1781. The only real naval success enjoyed by the rebellious Americans were from privateers, who made the best of the 1,697 letters of marque issued by Congress.

And so we can say to you without reservation, that yes, the Founding Fathers would have wanted the American people armed with the best contemporary handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, submachine guns, machine guns, hand grenades and grenade launchers, and artillery that they could buy, and they would want us well-trained so that we were deadly accurate in their use.

It would seem that the various National Firearms Acts are clearly unconstitutional, as plain as can be an unquestioned violation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does this make you uncomfortable?

Does this outrage you?

Would you like to see this horrible antiquated practice of the support of heavily arming Americans undone?

There is a mechanism for that, and shady backdoor interpretations and usurpations of the citizen’s rights need not rear their ugly heads.

Only through a Constitutional Amendment can a Constitutional Amendment be struck down.

Until the day comes that the American people reject or revise the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed” is the law of the land.

I want to purchase my suppressed machine guns over the counter at Walmart and Walgreens, and I want them, now.

There is also a lot of scholarship regarding interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in light of 1st -- which goes to why a principled, letter of the law defense of the 2nd Amendment is critical for not only maintaining current 2nd Amendment rights but also restoring those that have been unlawfully curtailed...  Good summary: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/21/the-first-amendment-guide-to-the-second-amendment/
And the actual paper: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/First-Amendment-Guide-to-the-Second-Amendment.pdf

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
A bump stock makes the rifle less accurate, and thus less safe, and ultimately less useful.  I would support the banning of such a product in any industry.  Factor in that the production of such a device is clearly intended to circumvent existing legal restrictions, in this case restrictions for fully automatic weapons, and banning them is not only perfectly logical, but also entirely predictable. 

They should be banned.

The reason bumpfire stocks are legal is the same reason AR15 pistol braces are legal (the reason the BATF approved either/or) -- they allow those with disabilities to fire weapons that they'd be otherwise unable...  IIRC, bumpfire stocks were related to folks with arthritic fingers or otherwise had trouble bending finger joints in a controlled/consistent/timely manner -- pushing forward w/ support hand while holding finger in position allowed one to overcome this disability. 
Takeaway bumpfires, next are pistol braces, and on and on. 

Offline Tenbones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
The only function of a bump fire or other firing enhancing device is so some leftist loon can attach them to a semi-auto and kill a bunch of innocent people and then blame us 2nd amendment advocates and try to revoke our 2nd amendment rights.

Offline IDescribe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3342
The reason bumpfire stocks are legal is the same reason AR15 pistol braces are legal (the reason the BATF approved either/or) -- they allow those with disabilities to fire weapons that they'd be otherwise unable...  IIRC, bumpfire stocks were related to folks with arthritic fingers or otherwise had trouble bending finger joints in a controlled/consistent/timely manner -- pushing forward w/ support hand while holding finger in position allowed one to overcome this disability. 
Takeaway bumpfires, next are pistol braces, and on and on.

To help those with disabilities is what the inventor put down on the ATF application.  How he markets the product is this:

"Bump firing is a well-established capability that uses the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire multiple shots in rapid succession. "

That's what a bump stock is for.  We all know what it's for -- momentary indulgence of adolescent fantasies.  And shooting indiscriminately into a crowd.  Let's not pretend they're to help the disabled.

Offline John A.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
I am very certain the company owner would disagree that they were ever meant to be fired into large crowds of people.

Sheesh.

That sounds like a very emotionally charged answer.

Just look at France.

Germany.

England.

They've nearly all but outright banned guns altogether.

If killers can't get guns, they'll use bombs or delivery trucks. 

Banning anything will not make you safer.  Banning them will not stop a determined person from killing you or anyone else.

Go ahead, outlaw every means of killing someone else that you can think of.

Millions of gun owners in the USA didn't do anything wrong in Las Vegas, yet elected buffoons want to prohibit millions of people from owning a piece of plastic.

Murder has been illegal since the earliest civilized nations have existed.

Yet, it hasn't stopped anyone from doing it yet.





« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 04:53:49 PM by John A. »
When people ignorant of guns make gun laws, you end up with ignorant gun laws.

Offline nonamehavei

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
A bump stock makes the rifle less accurate, and thus less safe, and ultimately less useful.  I would support the banning of such a product in any industry.  Factor in that the production of such a device is clearly intended to circumvent existing legal restrictions, in this case restrictions for fully automatic weapons, and banning them is not only perfectly logical, but also entirely predictable. 

They should be banned.
If you feel the government should ban other people from owning something because YOU don’t find a use for it, YOU are part of the problem.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
    Douglas Adams