TexasCHLforum.com

parabelum wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

With a caveat that our legislation gets passed and enacted first and foremost, which I fear will not be the case.

This is my fear as well.

RoyGBiv wrote:After the past 8 years of success under siege, I'm gobsmacked to read all this dissing on the NRA.

GOBSMACKED.


The NRA is playing



And all you can see is

Yeah because the NRA has zero history of compromising the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
You want to defend their actions go right ahead.
Compromising with the left has never resulted in us have more liberty and freedom.

ajwakeboarder wrote: It's never going to work that way. Diane Feinstein is working on a proposal to ban any part or component that will increase the rate of fire of a gun. This can be interpreted to include triggers, light bolt carrier groups, buffers, and adjustable gas blocks to name a few. If we cave on anything, it will not end well.

The way this should work is that anything she puts forth is ignored in favor of a better written amendment to the Share act or national reciprocity written by a republican. We shall see.

RoyGBiv wrote:After the past 8 years of success under siege, I'm gobsmacked to read all this dissing on the NRA.

GOBSMACKED.


The NRA is playing



And all you can see is

That's an interesting explanation why the hungry hippos keep eating our gun rights at the national level.

I hope the TSRA can keep focused on the game being played instead of the game they would prefer to play.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

parabelum wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

With a caveat that our legislation gets passed and enacted first and foremost, which I fear will not be the case.

This is my fear as well.

Doing it all with one piece of legislation is the way around the "give me what I want today and I'll give you what you want tomorrow" game we've seen played all too often.

Something is likely to happen on bumpfire stocks no matter what.

Would you rather have Congress enact additional laws that may have expanded and far reaching intended or unintended consequences, like they almost always do, or have the ATF re-examine the issue under existing law??

If the atf has already examined bump stocks and found them to be legal (twice), what's the harm in letting them do a 3rd review? The worst thing that could happen is that bump stocks are reclassified. They're stupid gimmicks anyway. So if the NRA can gain some advantage on suppressors & national reciprocity by appearing reasonable on bump stocks, we will have gained ground without sacrificing much.

RoyGBiv wrote:After the past 8 years of success under siege, I'm gobsmacked to read all this dissing on the NRA.

GOBSMACKED.


The NRA is playing



And all you can see is

So you may be thinking something like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/ ... index.html

But here is my take on it:
And the thought that the NRA made its statement so that the ATF would look at bump fire stocks instead of legislators proposing new legislation, that is stupid. Congress was already going to propose new legislation regardless, but now they can say the NRA is also in support of their gun control bill. Stupid. Anti-gunners are laughing at us now.

In the meantime, none of these so called "common sense" gun laws will deter next murderer from finding ways to kill. This is just another stupid gun grab move and I'm sorry to say but NRA folded a bit too quick on this.
I say that as a supporter and due paying member.

I can't believe that some people would "compromise " away bump stocks for silencers. What other Constitutional rights are you willing to compromise away?

Oh no no. I do not support adding more restrictions. when will people realize its the evil in hearts of men not inanimate objects that kill people? We need to raise our children better thats the real problem!

Excaliber wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

parabelum wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

With a caveat that our legislation gets passed and enacted first and foremost, which I fear will not be the case.

This is my fear as well.

Doing it all with one piece of legislation is the way around the "give me what I want today and I'll give you what you want tomorrow" game we've seen played all too often.

While I love the concept, it would appear that it is, at best, a long shot. In the give-to-get exchange, the Feinstein and her ilk are gaining a restriction on a feature that has very little market penetration today. But they are giving up gun control in States like NY, NJ, MD and CA and doing that will be a huge blow to their supporters. I would feel better if I heard someone on Schimer's side of the isle indicate any willingness to address such a compromise. As your words suggest, they are lousy at compromises

I'll cheerfully donate a nice chunk of money if they get that compromise passed, but they're not getting another penny from me until then. The NRA and GOP both.

I 'm against gun control, To ban bump stocks won't do any good. I can see why the NRA is leaning
toward a ban on bump stocks. NRA is trying to avoid a total ban on All semi auto. They are
giving the left something to shoot at, to avoid something worse like confiscation