TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Not caring if they regulate bump stocks, binary triggers or rubber bands just gets you sliding down a slippery slope. There are many so-called pro gunners who don't care if they ban military style sporting rifles. Your idea of "fun stuff" is someone else's idea of freedom.

"At first they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist...."

Are you certain that nothing you own can be considered "just for fun" by anyone else?

I'm quite certain I own a few things that others consider "just for fun". I am also certain others own things that I don't that I consider "just for fun".

The question is why would someone welcome regulation for something because they consider the object as something "just for fun", especially when the object is an item related to firearms and freedom, which is why we are all on this forum?

IMHO, we as a group should resist any attempt to regulate anything firearm related.

My question was intended for the poster that you had quoted. You and I are in agreement on the underlying question, I believe.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
My question was intended for the poster that you had quoted. You and I are in agreement on the underlying question, I believe.

Make no mistake, I'm not going to advocate for regulation on guns or accessories. However, as I said, this seems like it was designed to waste ammo and warp barrels. I don't want them to regulate it, I just don't care if they do or not. It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason to us one, so why should I care? I would much rather spend my energy fighting anti-gun measures that carry heavier consequences for failing to defeat them.

SewTexas - you said bump stocks are a help to handicapped shooters. Can you elaborate? I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics of such a thing.

imkopaka wrote:I don't want them to regulate it, I just don't care if they do or not.

Well pard, I hope that when something you own is fixing to get regulated, the owners of the bump stocks might be the ones who support you. That's why.

imkopaka wrote: It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason to use one, so why should I care?

Again, even though you see no use for one, you should support those who do. Is it really such a huge effort to do so?

imkopaka wrote:Make no mistake, I'm not going to advocate for regulation on guns or accessories. However, as I said, this seems like it was designed to waste ammo and warp barrels. I don't want them to regulate it, I just don't care if they do or not. It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason to us one, so why should I care? I would much rather spend my energy fighting anti-gun measures that carry heavier consequences for failing to defeat them.

SewTexas - you said bump stocks are a help to handicapped shooters. Can you elaborate? I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics of such a thing.

I honestly don't know, one of the FOX "experts" said that that was one of the reasons that the Obama admin approved it.
I have heard in the last few days that it makes shooting these guns a little bit easier for women as it focuses the recoil, I don't know, I've never shot one even though my husband has a couple of the guns, he doesn't have the stock.

anygunanywhere wrote:

imkopaka wrote:I don't want them to regulate it, I just don't care if they do or not.

Well pard, I hope that when something you own is fixing to get regulated, the owners of the bump stocks might be the ones who support you. That's why.

imkopaka wrote: It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason to use one, so why should I care?

Again, even though you see no use for one, you should support those who do. Is it really such a huge effort to do so?

I'm not going to support something just because someone expects me to. How is that any different from Hillary expecting women to vote for her or Obama expecting black people to vote for him solely because of a group expectation? I'm intelligent enough to make my own decisions, thank you very much - I don't need groupthink to tell me what I should support or oppose. I've already explained that I do not believe this is defensible as a 2A issue, not do I think there is any practical use for such a thing in any circumstance. Apparently the NRA agrees with me, because they are actually pursuing greater regulation of bump stocks and the like. Just because I support gun freedom doesn't mean that I must automatically support everything bearing any relation to it without any research or consideration. That sort of rabid, thoughtless devotion is exactly the kind of right-wing lunacy the left wants so desperately to be true.

imkopaka wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

imkopaka wrote:I don't want them to regulate it, I just don't care if they do or not.

Well pard, I hope that when something you own is fixing to get regulated, the owners of the bump stocks might be the ones who support you. That's why.

imkopaka wrote: It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason to use one, so why should I care?

Again, even though you see no use for one, you should support those who do. Is it really such a huge effort to do so?

I'm not going to support something just because someone expects me to. How is that any different from Hillary expecting women to vote for her or Obama expecting black people to vote for him solely because of a group expectation? I'm intelligent enough to make my own decisions, thank you very much - I don't need groupthink to tell me what I should support or oppose. I've already explained that I do not believe this is defensible as a 2A issue, not do I think there is any practical use for such a thing in any circumstance. Apparently the NRA agrees with me, because they are actually pursuing greater regulation of bump stocks and the like. Just because I support gun freedom doesn't mean that I must automatically support everything bearing any relation to it without any research or consideration. That sort of rabid, thoughtless devotion is exactly the kind of right-wing lunacy the left wants so desperately to be true.

Well, I guess I'm a lunatic then.

imkopaka wrote:Make no mistake, I'm not going to advocate for regulation on guns or accessories. However, as I said, this seems like it was designed to waste ammo and warp barrels. I don't want them to regulate it, I just don't care if they do or not. It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason to us one, so why should I care? I would much rather spend my energy fighting anti-gun measures that carry heavier consequences for failing to defeat them.

SewTexas - you said bump stocks are a help to handicapped shooters. Can you elaborate? I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics of such a thing.

Some might not see the point or utility in a derringer, or a double barreled shotgun, or a revolver. There clearly are more effective self defense alternatives than each of these. Should we stand idly by while they are banned? A bolt action rifle may not be the most effective hunting weapon, same for a level action. Should we say nothing while those are banned?

The problem with standing idly by while god given inalienable rights are taken away from others is that sooner or later some people may decide that your rights aren't worth the effort of protecting. That your chosen weapon is not all that useful, or relevant, or worth the effort to defend.

The item in question is not a weapon - it is modification of a weapon. A modification that the NRA is questioning the legality of. Further, I suspect an outright ban, as Feinstein is proposing, would be less likely than regulation, as the NRA is proposing. For example, make them an NFA item along with full autos. As long as automatic weapons are on that list, it seems logical that this would be too. If machine guns are ever deregulated (unlikely) so would these. Since they serve the same basic function of cranking out rounds very quickly, it fits that they be regulated the same.

imkopaka wrote:The item in question is not a weapon - it is modification of a weapon. A modification that the NRA is questioning the legality of. Further, I suspect an outright ban, as Feinstein is proposing, would be less likely than regulation, as the NRA is proposing. For example, make them an NFA item along with full autos. As long as automatic weapons are on that list, it seems logical that this would be too. If machine guns are ever deregulated (unlikely) so would these. Since they serve the same basic function of cranking out rounds very quickly, it fits that they be regulated the same.

The item is a part of a weapon. It replaces a different part. Or an AR can be built using the bump stock from the get go. It is much like a magazine in that respect. Just curious - do you see utility in a 100 round AR magazine, or is that something else you are fine with regulating and/or banning? What about 60 round mags, or 40, or 30, or 20, or 10???

imkopaka wrote:The item in question is not a weapon - it is modification of a weapon. A modification that the NRA is questioning the legality of. Further, I suspect an outright ban, as Feinstein is proposing, would be less likely than regulation, as the NRA is proposing. For example, make them an NFA item along with full autos. As long as automatic weapons are on that list, it seems logical that this would be too. If machine guns are ever deregulated (unlikely) so would these. Since they serve the same basic function of cranking out rounds very quickly, it fits that they be regulated the same.

The BATFE will have to change their rulings on multiple items if they change the ruling on the bump stock.

This country would be much better if we just banned liberals.

John Galt wrote:This country would be much better if we just banned liberals.

Or we could just ban ignorance in general.

When they try to ban them, it's time to use them.

Maybe it's time for citizens to start throwing politicians to the wolves, rather than the other way around.