NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[ArcadiaGP]

Bump-fire in itself is a turd. That's not the hill I'm fighting for. I'm fighting against the idea that banning stuff will solve this. I'm fighting against the idea that it's the tool at fault and not the shooter.

Is THAT hill worth the fight?

Now that I can understand. I don't think anyone else is going to think of it that way in Washington.

Like anything else gun-related, this only hurts the people that don't use them for nefarious reasons. Of course if a killer wants one, they'll get one.

 

[HoughMade]

...Would that have happened anyway? Sure. So why join this particular bandwagon.

Because it would have happened anyway. Nothing changes based upon their statement, and they can deflect criticism.

 

[Alpo]

Replace "bump stock" with "30rd mag" and the same logic applies.

"Magazine" is clearly an assembly that is an integral part of a firearm, whether that be a tube, a well in the stock, a permanently attached feature such as the Krag, or otherwise.

"30-round" is a modifier. A bump stock is not necessary for the firearm to function as designed.

 

[Plague421]

"Magazine" is clearly an assembly that is an integral part of a firearm, whether that be a tube, a well in the stock, a permanently attached feature such as the Krag, or otherwise.

"30-round" is a modifier. A bump stock is not necessary for the firearm to function as designed.

Well, if the gun functions just as designed with a 10rnd mag, then there is no reason for the 30rnd mag. Is what they'll say.

 

[courier6]

"Magazine" is clearly an assembly that is an integral part of a firearm, whether that be a tube, a well in the stock, a permanently attached feature such as the Krag, or otherwise.

"30-round" is a modifier. A bump stock is not necessary for the firearm to function as designed.

So you are admitting their is a problem with the rate of fire that bump-stocks provide?

 

[TheDude]

I personally don't care for the bumpstock. I've always been fond of accuracy and automatic fire has only one purpose, keeping heads down.
Truth be known, the killer could have achieved the same result with aimed fire in a crowd like that. There's just no reasonable compromise with Democrats and anyone who thinks there is, is living a fantasy.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Let's forget about bump stocks and think about other accessories that change the rate of fire. Buffers, buffer springs, lightweight bolt carriers, aftermarket triggers. That's just for ar15s, what about other guns. Can't a Volquartsen or Kidd trigger increase the rate of fire from a 10/22?

Yes. This has been on my mind as well. All of the items, including bump stocks, are engineering solutions to specific problems. Same with California bullet buttons and New York compliant AR-15 stocks. We are in for a rough time because as Jamil points out, people are blaming the tool and not the murderer.

Funny thing, I don't think bump stocks would have even been created if the Hughes Amendment hadn't passed. Just think, affordable legal full auto but with a lot of hoops...probably would have been a better situation than what we have now...dedicated collectors and shooters would still be able to get MGs and they remain legal and rare simply because they are available and have less of the "banned" allure that Denny mentioned in another thread. Similarly, the '94 AWB did more to popularize ARs than anything else ever could have done.

 

[Alpo]

Well, if the gun functions just as designed with a 10rnd mag, then there is no reason for the 30rnd mag. Is what they'll say.

How about sticking with the initial argument. Mission creep isn't necessary.

 

[Alpo]

So you are admitting their is a problem with the rate of fire that bump-stocks provide?

You have a point?

 

[courier6]

You have a point?

So there is a problem with firing to fast? Good way to give credence to argument that semi-auto fires to fast as well. Better ban those as well. Stop buying into anti-gunner logic.

 

[Liberty1916]

How about sticking with the initial argument. Mission creep isn't necessary.

That's the point. I don't believe the initial argument is what you think it is. It's not about bump stocks.

 

[Alpo]

The issue is what you make it out to be.

I'm sticking to bump stocks. I'm not part of the "negotiating team". I'm just a citizen. My vote is to ban bump stocks for all the reasons I noted.

You can vote differently. America, ya know?

 

[Denny347]

​

 

[2A_Tom]

I am 100% 2A. The right of thr people to keep and bear arms.

Is a bump stock an arm?

 

[Liberty1916]

The issue is what you make it out to be.

I'm sticking to bump stocks. I'm not part of the "negotiating team". I'm just a citizen. My vote is to ban bump stocks for all the reasons I noted.

You can vote differently. America, ya know?

The only point I (and I think others) are making, is that your reasons will be the exact same reasons used to ban other things. If you're ok with that, then carry on.

 

[actaeon277]

So, we are OK with outlawing accessories?

No more holsters would essentially outlaw concealed carry, without needing to outlaw the guns themselves.

Yeah, yeah... "no one would do that". Unless, of course, there is precedent:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-9

This is not about Bump Stocks (for me, at least). It is about the slow and sure erosion. The Left is boiling the frog, and far too many frogs are perfectly OK with it.

I agree. This is not about Bump Stocks.
And saying it is okay because it is an "accessory" means it is okay for them to ban holsters, any stock (not just bumpfire), sights, etc.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I agree. This is not about Bump Stocks.
And saying it is okay because it is an "accessory" means it is okay for them to ban holsters, any stock (not just bumpfire), sights, etc.

It really isn't. These things aren't alike.

 

[T.Lex]

I agree. This is not about Bump Stocks.
And saying it is okay because it is an "accessory" means it is okay for them to ban holsters, any stock (not just bumpfire), sights, etc.

I don't see this as valid, other than alarmist slippery slope-ness. (Actaeon - yours was just the most recent articulation of this, I don't mean to pick on you.)

Even the AWB didn't lead to that.

I think we all need to take a deep breath. If Newtown didn't see any gun control measures passed, there's a very good chance this won't either. Let's not the other side's alarmist approach infect our approach.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If Newton didn't see any gun control measures passed, there's a very good chance this won't either.

 

[lonehoosier]

I am 100% 2A. The right of thr people to keep and bear arms.

Is a bump stock an arm?

I keep hearing this word accessory throwing around. Red dots, scopes and biopods are not arms either but they all helped that lunatic kill innocent people. This is a slippery slope that I will not go down.