The NRA - with friends like these...

[Scorpion Equalizer]

He just needs the RINO's support for his bills to pass. He will probably make a deal with the RINO's.

[m16ty]

The only thing I hope with the NRA caving in is that they are going to try to get some other concessions in the "bump stock bill" that may help our rights in other areas. It's not like the NRA just to cave on something like this so fast, surely they have something going on behind the scenes. I'm thinking something like the HPA being amended to the bill. Not that any of this will make me happy but I have to think the NRA may have something up their sleeve where while everybody is paying attention to the bump stock ban, they slip some amendments in to offset and come out of this with a net gain. I could be all wrong but this does seem plausible. 

[Urse]

This move by the NRA is smart. They are asking the ATF to reclassify bump stocks which could circumvent the need for Congress to pass legislation. And even if Congress gets involved it makes it harder for the anti-gunners and media to paint the NRA and gun owners as completely unreasonable. You have the hardline left and the hardline right but most Americans are somewhere in the middle. That middle part of the population is truly where the power lies and in the aftermath of LV even a lot of moderate gun owners are saying something has to be changed. If we lose the middle we lose the fight completely. Sometimes you have to compromise. If Congress gets involved they will want to add binary/echo triggers(which either way are likely to be going away as well), high capacity magazines, ammunition restrictions or even just any replacement trigger (no Geissele!?...oh noes!). By supporting the possible regulations on bump stocks (which until Sunday I always considered a cheesy gimmick at best anyways) it allows the NRA and the Repubtards in Congress to support some "gun control" for a change and not completely alienate themselves from the moderate majority. Mid term elections are not that far away. While I do not think the SHARE act ever had a snowballs chance in hell of passing anyways if we compromise now it may still be an option later. I am not counting on that so I will just pay my Tax stamp, wait....and wait...and wait and hopefully my family and I will get to enjoy the suppressors for as long as we can. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Urse

[Sunfish]

When you give away pieces of something pretty soon you don't have anything left. I will also say the NRA is quick to bargain with things that really don't belong to them in the first place. People will just go full outlaw and jig drill them full auto. When a determined individual decides to end his life after a shooting spree or running a truck into a crowd there is not much that can be done about it.    

[mikegideon]

11 hours ago, btq96r said:

Okay, but why even give on this?  A Republican President, a Republican Congress...and all Democrats can do is hold press conferences until they realize it's almost time for the Thanksgiving recess.  Republicans and the NRA are caving on something they don't have to, and can wait out with no real consequences.

I just said why. Because it really did help that guy kill a lot more people. And, it really has no other practical function. Every time  this debate comes up, the grabbers ask "why do you need an assault weapon?". I have pretty good justifications. Can't answer about bump stocks with a straight face. Maybe I am being a little bit like the grabbers. I personally have no use for one.

When it comes down to it, I figure the ATF will kill them before Ryan and his singing RINOs has a chance.

[Erik88]

12 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

Garufa knows what's what. I totally figured that went without saying. I mean he was a liberal democrat until he decided to run for President. He supported the awb in his books and he WILL flip on the 2A. 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/story/730857001/#ampshare=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/04/timeline-how-president-trumps-positions-gun-control-have-evolved/730857001/

[JAB]

16 hours ago, DaveTN said:

You either have a right under the 2nd amendment to own a fully automatic weapon or you don’t; it’s that simple.

While bump fires may not violate the letter of the law; they violate the intent of the law.

The intent of the 2nd amendment was allow the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government should the need arise. You would need automatic weapons if that were to happen.

Do I think the SCOTUS will ever rule that, or ease restrictions? Not after 10/01/2017.

You are absolutely, 100% correct, IMO.  The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect private ownership of the types of arms needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government.  The Founders knew that weapons technology, just like any technology, would change and wrote the 2nd Amendment to cover those future changes.  Contrary to statements by antis trying to be clever, no, they weren't talking (specifically) about muskets.  They were talking about private weapons of war, whatever form those weapons would take from muzzleloaders to full auto rifles to phase plasma rifles in a 40 watt range.  The very weapons our government has illegally and unconstitutionally banned because 'no one needs them' are the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect.  Furthermore, banning bump stocks because 'no one needs them' is just another brick in the wall.  If it is about hunting and self defense, a person can deer hunt just fine with a bolt action rifle with a three round magazine or, for that matter, with a single shot, break action rifle or shotgun.  A person can defend their home just fine with a pump shotgun, pump or lever rifle or a revolver.  Personally, I prefer lever rifles and revolvers over AR style rifles and semiauto pistols anyhow but that doesn't mean I want to see semiautos and standard capacity (or larger) mags banned.  Likewise, just because I might not 'want' a bump stock or have any interest in owning a full auto that doesn't mean I believe they should be banned nor that I cannot understand the unconstitutional nature of doing so.

[JayC]

If you're an NRA member you need to call and complain that they are caving on the 2nd Amendment and their stance must change.  You will refuse to donate anymore money to the NRA until they reverse their stance.

Then turn around and donate $20 to the GOA who doesn't compromise on gun rights no matter what.

And yes I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, and this is exactly what I did this morning.

[monkeylizard]

18 hours ago, DaveTN said:

The intent of the 2nd amendment was allow the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government should the need arise. You would need automatic weapons if that were to happen.

I agree with that first sentence, but I don't think the second one is true. The disparity between civilian-grade weapons and military-grade weapons today is simply too great for we mere civilians to overcome. The thought of going up against that with small arms, automatic or otherwise, is a fantasy.

If we're ever forced to fight on our own soil against our own government, we'll have to use tactics that make SA vs FA irrelevant until we can scavenge enough of their equipment.

Still, it's not the government's place to tell us what we can and can't have. That's supposed to go the other way around.

[MacGyver]

If it ever comes to standing up to a truly tyrannical government, a single shot handi-rifle would be every bit as dangerous as your AR.  

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

If it ever comes to standing up to a truly tyrannical government, a single shot handi-rifle would be every bit as dangerous as your AR.  

Even the tank driver has to pee. 

[monkeylizard]

Yep, and you won't need FA to pop him while he waters the grass. Mac's handi-rifle will do just fine.

Edited October 6, 2017 by monkeylizard

[Omega]

29 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

If it ever comes to standing up to a truly tyrannical government, a single shot handi-rifle would be every bit as dangerous as your AR.  

Right, like they would patrol alone.  

[mootw]

[MacGyver]

8 minutes ago, Omega said:

Right, like they would patrol alone.  

That’s not really my point.  

To a tyrannical government, a single bullet represents just as big a threat as thousands. 

A single .380ACP round fired from an FN M1910 is credited with starting WWI.  

The political class will always be as fearful of the single bullet as they are of many.  

[Chucktshoes]

17 minutes ago, Omega said:

Right, like they would patrol alone.  

While I half-jokingly talk about the tank driver, the truly high value targets are the government bureaucrats, perfunctories, and officials who carry the will of the government against the people. All it takes is a revolver, opportunity and the will to get the job done. As Mac mentioned, WWI was started with a couple of shots from a single pistol. 

[mikegideon]

9 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

While I half-jokingly talk about the tank driver, the truly high value targets are the government bureaucrats, perfunctories, and officials who carry the will of the government against the people. All it takes is a revolver, opportunity and the will to get the job done. As Mac mentioned, WWI was started with a couple of shots from a single pistol. 

Yeah... a tank ain't worth a damn in an "every blade of grass" scenario. They're not really efficient at killing one guy at a time. If it ever turns into an all out shooting war with American citizens, it could wind up making Iraq look like a training exercise.

[monkeylizard]

Some of the tin-foil hat brigade think that's exactly what Iraq was for.

[mikegideon]

Now I'm skeered.  

 

[Chucktshoes]

Of course, it's a hypothetical conversation as it honestly doesn't matter if the government figures out how to revoke the 2A and go full on Bolshevik. As long as the internet still works, power still comes on, and the grocery store shelves still have food, things will carry on as they always have been. Freedom isn't important to the masses as long as life is still comfortable. 

[Bubba Fett]

24 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Freedom isn't important to the masses as long as life is still comfortable. 

That's the saddest truth I've read all day. 

[btq96r]

8 hours ago, mikegideon said:

Because it really did help that guy kill a lot more people. And, it really has no other practical function.

The gun and the rounds helped him kill people.  Everything else he had (location, magazines, bump fire stocks) and everything else he could have had (training, scopes, match grade triggers) are just accessories to the gun and the rounds.

But we'd never think of banning the gun and the rounds.  And I have a good feeling you'd not be in favor of some of the other items on the accessory list being up for a ban.

[tnhawk]

Once the government takes something, if won't be given back.

 

[Omega]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

That’s not really my point.  

To a tyrannical government, a single bullet represents just as big a threat as thousands. 

A single .380ACP round fired from an FN M1910 is credited with starting WWI.  

The political class will always be as fearful of the single bullet as they are of many.  

That was then, try getting to someone seriously in charge with only a popper.

2 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

While I half-jokingly talk about the tank driver, the truly high value targets are the government bureaucrats, perfunctories, and officials who carry the will of the government against the people. All it takes is a revolver, opportunity and the will to get the job done. As Mac mentioned, WWI was started with a couple of shots from a single pistol. 

Again, try getting to some of these guys calling the shots.  You think Pelosi has lasted this long because of her good personality?  Hell, nowadays try getting to just about any high profile Hollywood individual,  most have security up the wazzoo, but still calling for us to be disarmed. 

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

Of course, it's a hypothetical conversation as it honestly doesn't matter if the government figures out how to revoke the 2A and go full on Bolshevik. As long as the internet still works, power still comes on, and the grocery store shelves still have food, things will carry on as they always have been. Freedom isn't important to the masses as long as life is still comfortable. 

I hope you're wrong