TexasCHLforum.com

parabelum wrote:Wow, what a revolutionary and original idea. Let's ban "bump stocks". Yea, that'll work!


Idiot politician.

And, of course, if we ban bump stocks there will never be another mass killing, especially in a place like Oklahoma City.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10 ... oting.html

“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” the NRA said in a written statement.

Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

Extremely baffled especially when they were sending me emails pushing to have stuff stripped off the NFA just a little bit ago. Apparently only some limits are unconstitutional.

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

But hey we got FOPA in 1986... ATF has previously classified a rubber band and paperclip as a full auto conversion kit and washers as firearm silencers, so let's let 'em at plastic handles with springs aka bump fire stocks. Good move NRA...

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

I think the NRA is trying to get something (National Conceal Carry Reciprocity) in return for agreeing to regulations on bump stocks. We can, of course, debate whether that is the right course to take.

For the record, before it goes there on this board, I'm not bashing the NRA. I'm simply curious why in the world they would give up this ground so quickly. I'm actually confused.

dlh wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

I think the NRA is trying to get something (National Conceal Carry Reciprocity) in return for agreeing to regulations on bump stocks. We can, of course, debate whether that is the right course to take.

Makes sense, but we have a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Additionally, a slight majority on SCOTUS if needed. Why are we giving up any ground? Shouldn't have to.

Is there no one who can guess why his statement was made at this time?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Is there no one who can guess why his statement was made at this time?

Chas.

He's the Senate majority whip. It's not like we can just safely assume he's playing possum especially when many others around him are thinking of banning gun parts.

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

Not baffled at all. It is a smart move from the NRA to reduce the liberals momentum.



P.S.: Why would a normal person want a device to increase firing rate anyway? Using a loopholes is what Obama preferred to do, isn't it? My $.02 is that one wanting a full auto should man up and get it using the legal way with all the implied paperwork and taxes.

bmwrdr wrote:
P.S.: Why would a normal person want a device to increase firing rate anyway? Using a loopholes is what Obama preferred to do, isn't it? My $.02 is that one wanting a full auto should man up and get it using the legal way with all the implied paperwork and taxes.

I don't own any bump stocks, but regulating them makes no sense. A belt loop or a rubber band can do the same thing.

By the way..."man up"...it's not paperwork or a $200 tax that keep most people that want a full auto from purchasing one. It's the price tag. Go look at the price for a full auto HK MP5...try north of $25,000.

bmwrdr wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

Not baffled at all. It is a smart move from the NRA to reduce the liberals momentum.



P.S.: Why would a normal person want a device to increase firing rate anyway? Using a loopholes is what Obama preferred to do, isn't it? My $.02 is that one wanting a full auto should man up and get it using the legal way with all the implied paperwork and taxes.

Nothing says being a man like buying a pre-ban M16 lower receiver for $20,000, waiting a year for approval and tossing the government $200 extra.

So weird how quickly the tables have turned.

bmwrdr wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

Not baffled at all. It is a smart move from the NRA to reduce the liberals momentum.



P.S.: Why would a normal person want a device to increase firing rate anyway? Using a loopholes is what Obama preferred to do, isn't it? My $.02 is that one wanting a full auto should man up and get it using the legal way with all the implied paperwork and taxes.

I want a device to simulate full auto, because I don't have the $25,000 to buy a pre-86 registered M-16. I bought two legal full autos 15 years ago, but as designed the Hughes amendment to the FOPA of 1986 has reduced the supply to the point where only a rich retired real estate investor could afford a full-auto.

bmwrdr wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

Not baffled at all. It is a smart move from the NRA to reduce the liberals momentum.



P.S.: Why would a normal person want a device to increase firing rate anyway? Using a loopholes is what Obama preferred to do, isn't it? My $.02 is that one wanting a full auto should man up and get it using the legal way with all the implied paperwork and taxes.

So someone who wants to spend their own resources the way they decide and do what they have the freedom to do is not normal?