NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, I doubt that. After all, you have stated the "choice for potus is indeed a binary choice".

All that would have to be done is convince you that Trump is less evil than the other candidate of the "binary pair". Given your stated position, I expect you would then vote for him. Perhaps you would rationalize the action claiming it a "vote for the "lesser evil"; be it a vote for evil nonetheless.

This is the rationalization I expect most Trump supporters to have. I've stopped playing the "lesser of two evils" game.

 

[jamil]

I’m pretty pissed right now. It would likely come down to a question of best realistic outcomes. Hopefully we can flush this turd in the primaries, so I don’t have to make that choice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I’m pretty pissed right now. It would likely come down to a question of best realistic outcomes. Hopefully we can flush this turd in the primaries, so I don’t have to make that choice.

I'll be honest, I'm really surprised he's let it get this far. This ain't 4D chess.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is the rationalization I expect most Trump supporters to have. I've stopped playing the "lesser of two evils" game.

Really? Because to one extent or another, unless the candidate meshes with you 100% on everything, you're voting for the lesser of two evils, you're voting for the person that least violates your principles. Now, maybe what you're really saying is that there's a lower limit to which "both evils" can stoop and you'll still vote for one or the other. That I could see.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I’m pretty pissed right now. It would likely come down to a question of best realistic outcomes. Hopefully we can flush this turd in the primaries, so I don’t have to make that choice.

I can possibly see someone running against Trump in the primary but unless the economy really goes into the ditch or we actually get nuked or some other big event happens, I don't see the party throwing its sitting president over the rails. A serious primary challenge, if it's by a more liberty minded person, could do Trump some good.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Really? Because to one extent or another, unless the candidate meshes with you 100% on everything, you're voting for the lesser of two evils, you're voting for the person that least violates your principles. Now, maybe what you're really saying is that there's a lower limit to which "both evils" can stoop and you'll still vote for one or the other. That I could see.

Ok, that's acceptable.

 

[jamil]

Oh, I doubt that. After all, you have stated the "choice for potus is indeed a binary choice".

All that would have to be done is convince you that Trump is less evil than the other candidate of the "binary pair". Given your stated position, I expect you would then vote for him. Perhaps you would rationalize the action claiming it a "vote for the "lesser evil"; be it a vote for evil nonetheless.

It is a binary. On of exactly two candidates will be potus. I guess one could decide not to participate. But that doesn’t change the choices.

 

[Fargo]

It is a binary. On of exactly two candidates will be potus. I guess one could decide not to participate. But that doesn’t change the choices.

That presumes that your vote actually matters in the outcome of the election. If you lived in Indiana, your vote was pretty much meaningless. If Trump was remotely close to losing Indiana, there was no way in hell he could win the electoral college.

 

[jamil]

That presumes that your vote actually matters in the outcome of the election. If you lived in Indiana, your vote was pretty much meaningless. If Trump was remotely close to losing Indiana, there was no way in hell he could win the electoral college.

There’s that. And the way primaries are done, Hoosiers generally get to vote for whoever the other states already chose.

 

[T.Lex]

As a guy with some computer programming backround, this sign was funny to me.

Thoughts and prayers > New policy.

I can probably agree with that comparator.

 

[KLB]

As a guy with some computer programming backround, this sign was funny to me.

Thoughts and prayers > New policy.

I can probably agree with that comparator.

Yeah, they would probably be more effective, since we wouldn't be going backwards.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As a guy with some computer programming backround, this sign was funny to me.

Thoughts and prayers > New policy.

I can probably agree with that comparator.

I noticed that too. If logic were their strong suit, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

 

[jamil]

As a guy with some computer programming backround, this sign was funny to me.

Thoughts and prayers > New policy.

I can probably agree with that comparator.

Or, one could say that "x" > New Policy, where the domain of x includes at least "thoughts and prayers" and, most importantly, may also include Selma Hayek.

 

[MRP2003]

So if bump stocks become illegal to own, does the government buy them back or do the current owners have to just get rid of them without getting any compensation?

have not read all 24 pages of this post so the answer may have been mentioned.

 

[T.Lex]

So if bump stocks become illegal to own, does the government buy them back or do the current owners have to just get rid of them without getting any compensation?

have not read all 24 pages of this post so the answer may have been mentioned.

It depends on the lawsuits that will almost certainly follow.

Grandfathering/buybacks are the generally-preferred way to avoid making a gov't action become a "taking." It is possible for it to happen without either one, but it is riskier (from the .gov perspective).

The federales don't have the money for a buyback.... so....

Oh, and making it an NFA item could present another path: limited time period to register (perhaps for free, perhaps not), then any possession after that would be illegal.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It depends on the lawsuits that will almost certainly follow.

Grandfathering/buybacks are the generally-preferred way to avoid making a gov't action become a "taking." It is possible for it to happen without either one, but it is riskier (from the .gov perspective).

The federales don't have the money for a buyback.... so....

Oh, and making it an NFA item could present another path: limited time period to register (perhaps for free, perhaps not), then any possession after that would be illegal.

Wouldn't an amnesty be interesting!?!?

 

[T.Lex]

Wouldn't an amnesty be interesting!?!?

HA!

You keep dreaming.

 

[Hop]

If there were to be an amnesty, I wonder what could we quickly make that would qualify? An HK sear? A DIAS/Lighting link? I'm thinking HK sear might be the easiest way to go.

With no serial # on a bump stock I don't see how an amnesty would work unless the .gov raided the manufacturers and confiscated all the manufacturing equipment. It's not like a 3D printer couldn't make the same exact thing either.

Now that I think about it, a 3D printed (mostly) DIAS would be pretty easy too.

[stay away from me ATF! I don't have anything illegal!]

 

[T.Lex]

Re: the lack of a serial number - the ATF could require "engraving" of a SN for registration purposes.

Yes, that would be on a polymer accessory.

Yes, I know that's a bit of a foolish requirement.

No, that won't matter to the people writing the rule.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Re: the lack of a serial number - the ATF could require "engraving" of a SN for registration purposes.

Yes, that would be on a polymer accessory.

Yes, I know that's a bit of a foolish requirement.

No, that won't matter to the people writing the rule.

Like a metal plate like on Glocks?

This is complete folly.

I wonder if what I used as a kid (wooden boards) will be deemed Title II weapons?