View Full Version : Trump moves on bump stocks.
Rooskibar03
02-20-2018, 16:45
Developing. Apparently telling sessions he wants justice dept to draw up regulations.
Trump urges ban on 'bump stocks,' other gun modifiers http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/20/trump-urges-ban-on-bump-stocks-other-gun-modifiers.html
And . . . here . . . we . . . go.
I always figured Trump would sell gun owners out on something (or a few things) as part of a grand bargain to get dems on board with something they didn't really like. Apparently, he's just going to hand them some gun control goodies on a silver platter for free.
Great-Kazoo
02-20-2018, 17:05
merge it with this one
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/165185-BOHICA-(federal-bump-stock-ban)
I think this deserves a little more attention than it will get in Legislation and Politics, I think general discussion is a good place for it. The "modifier" part should bother all of us.
KevDen2005
02-20-2018, 18:12
I wonder what the pressure on the White House was? If he just hands things over to the dems without a fight, then they will just go after something else on top of this. At least bargain with it (Not that it makes me happy at all).
I support impeachment now.
I wonder what the pressure on the White House was? If he just hands things over to the dems without a fight, then they will just go after something else on top of this. At least bargain with it (Not that it makes me happy at all).
That's what I was thinking. As much as I hate the idea of giving in on ANYTHING . . . at least get something for it that the dems will hate but that they can't take the chance of missing out on.
KevDen2005
02-20-2018, 18:31
That's what I was thinking. As much as I hate the idea of giving in on ANYTHING . . . at least get something for it that the dems will hate but that they can't take the chance of missing out on.
Put up a fight at the very least...
No surprise here. I know his personality type well; he holds no real foundation or views. (former registered D, btw). True Narcissist but a phenotype much akin to my ex brother-in-law. Trumps political position could shift an 180 if the other side started worshiping him for it. So the risk here, is if they stop criticism and start laying praise... or if his existing base starts attacking him, he's going to start shifting to center faster than a teenager can get their pants off in the back of a car.
If you don't understand, the only thing that matters is worship... if the worship changes to the other side (somewhat unlikely at this point) so does his views and actions...
I am surprised because I have watched Libs threaten to murder him and his family. I have watched elite Libs cheer this on. Even Ivanka has been shunned by former elite NYC friends. And don't even talk about the media!
The whole world is against Trump. Except those of us who voted for him and most of us are gun owners.
I am surprised he would even entertain the idea of taking us down a notch unless he thinks the risk isn't worth the reward.
He used the word "machine gun" in his letter several times. Bump stocks do not a machine gun make. Let's hope that language was purposeful.
Shooter45
02-20-2018, 20:09
I learn something new every day. Apparently "bump stocks" turn regular semi automatic rifles into machine guns. It's sad that the generic public (sheeple) will not understand this and only hear the word "machine gun."
I've always harbored a strong dislike for this president, and knew from the debates he was no 2A fan, but it's still disappointing.
I learn something new every day. Apparently "bump stocks" turn regular semi automatic rifles into machine guns. It's sad that the generic public (sheeple) will not understand this and only hear the word "machine gun."
This is the unfortunate part of the "I'm not touching you" style of modern non-NFA type items. The bumpstock is the obvious example (but this category includes the "braces" and things like the shockwave). If the product lets you hold down the trigger and have the rifle continue to fire that's going to be a machinegun to most people, regardless of the actual definition of a machinegun. Besides the obvious shitting on the 2A, we have to be really careful about what other shit gets thrown in with the ban, like how Denver tossed mags over 15rds in with their bumpstock ban.
StagLefty
02-21-2018, 08:52
I'm amazed Chuck and Nancy haven't come out against Trump banning something [Sarcasm2]
Trump is incapable of these three things:
Love
Hate
True loyalty.
Although he is incapable of actual hate; jealousy and vengeance are more primative, fleeting emotions they do heavily dabble in. So, in a nutshell, unlike you or I (if someone threatened our family) where we'd never let someone on our beach for life; Trump is a boat forever adrift, perpetually looking for whatever harbor celebrates him the most. As long as Trumpettes think he is the shit, he will wear his hat and make his goofy smiles there. But the second the liberals go "THANK YOU TRUMP" while the Trumpettes scorn him....
Well, then his boat parks in that other harbor. They don't have the emotional processing to really hold a (true) grudge. If his basic need is met (worship) nothing else matters. They are also very charismatic and cycle through friends like underwear. Everything is generally black and white, they either think someone is the SHIT or they are a piece of SHIT, there is little in between. (And nobody stays in either camp forever....)
If you know someone like this in your life, they will never *actually* have your back, no matter what they say. And you are always at risk of them spontaneously turning on you, and not with causation.
I'd have never accepted a job in the Trump white house for this reason..
Unstable and high propensity to do far more harm to your resume than good.
He isn't going to convert Libs (he has no issues) and his boat is sunk if he betrays gun owners. I have never seen so much hatred at one man in my life as I've seen with Libs and Trump. To call it "two minutes of hate" is understating it.
Look at how fragile the 2016 victory was. Look at how Dims have been winning local races/issues. If he breaks his base, and they don't come out for him in 2020, he is done.
I imagine being a one-termer would bruise the ego a bit. It's like being fired because the incumbent typically has the advantage.
He isn't going to convert Libs (he has no issues) and his boat is sunk if he betrays gun owners. I have never seen so much hatred at one man in my life as I've seen with Libs and Trump. To call it "two minutes of hate" is understating it.
Look at how fragile the 2016 victory was. Look at how Dims have been winning local races/issues. If he breaks his base, and they don't come out for him in 2020, WE are done.
I imagine being a one-termer would bruise the ego a bit. It's like being fired because the incumbent typically has the advantage.
FIFY
I am surprised because I have watched Libs threaten to murder him and his family. I have watched elite Libs cheer this on. Even Ivanka has been shunned by former elite NYC friends. And don't even talk about the media!
The whole world is against Trump. Except those of us who voted for him and most of us are gun owners.
I am surprised he would even entertain the idea of taking us down a notch unless he thinks the risk isn't worth the reward.
He used the word "machine gun" in his letter several times. Bump stocks do not a machine gun make. Let's hope that language was purposeful.
I learn something new every day. Apparently "bump stocks" turn regular semi automatic rifles into machine guns. It's sad that the generic public (sheeple) will not understand this and only hear the word "machine gun."
Thought I would add this post of mine from another thread:
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/167196-Boulder-AR-15-Ban
Even at the Federal level, the tide may be turning. When asked about an assault weapons ban today, the White House Press Secretary said, "We haven't closed the door on any front." Also Tuesday, President Trump pushed for a federal ban on bump stocks.
"Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns," said Trump.
text bolded by me
Is this a crafty Trump statement, or is this a caving? Because "devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns" are already regulated.
Hopefully, it's the former, and he's playing the dims for fools, and not a harbinger of policy shifts to come.
CoGirl303
02-21-2018, 20:21
banning bump stocks is completely stupid. One maniac "allegedly" uses one in Vegas (I have my doubts as to it actually being a bump stock that was used), and everyone loses their freaking minds.
The people that own them are responsible, law-abiding gun owners that just want to go to the range, and have a little fun with accelerated rate of fire.
Full auto is FUN. It's an excitement factor. And it's also expensive on ammo.
Sick of this ban this, ban that crap. [emoji1589] off and leave our gun rights alone. [emoji35]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hurley842002
02-22-2018, 09:10
.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180222/aff3ef2469aba8cb524b3233ed71b2a1.jpg
None of which will prevent a determined person, hell-bent on destruction of life.
Idiot.
I say if they want to raise the age to purchase a long gun to 21, then they should also raise the "adult" age of everything else to 21.
VOTING, unrestricted driver's license (or whatever they call a "regular", non-minor DL), cigarettes, alchohol (if it's not already), weed (where applicable), leases, contracts, etc. ... Hit them where it hurts... In their feels.
Practical? Not at all. Likely? Never, but maybe the proposal of it might open up the eyes of enough of them to make them think just a little bit.
How would the country respond to military at age 21? That's an "adult" thing as well.
How would the country respond to military at age 21? That's an "adult" thing as well.
And makes about as much sense as the rest of my list, but doesnt fit. Just how many of those sjw, snowflake teens do you think are planning on joing the military?
My list was not meant to be all-inclusive, but to throw out a few "perceived rights" and/or priveleges that the target audience would take notice of.
Right, but part of making a point is really making a point. All the people that WANT to go into the military would throw a fit, as well as the military, which in my eyes, would be an effective way to prevent such a silly change.
My wife was saying the same things about the military last night. Then we decided that you can join the military at 18 but then you're allowed to do all those other age restricted things too. Join up and now you can buy booze, guns, rent a car .... what ever.
Please feel free to compile a list of every other adult thing I may have missed, so the point can be as sharp as possible.
Sent from somewhere
I was really wondering how the nation would react to military service at 21 being on the table, than trying to bust your balls for your list of adulting. I guess since neither one is likely to happen, it doesn't really matter. But no sex until 21, no rated R movies, and Federally controlled child friendly internet access would get some attention. That's all just straight up fantasy land though. I'd say no work until 21 either, just to get parents attention of what it really means to treat people like kids until they are 21.
DenverGP
02-22-2018, 11:30
Military age change would make sense with this proposal, since the military will likely be handing these under-21 "children" an actual assault rifle, rather than just a scary looking ar-15.
The dems through the media trick the RNC into doing their dirty work for them. Every time the Dems have passed gun control they lose seats and power in government. So the Dems can get what they want and watch the Republicans lose their seats in the next election.
I read that bump stocks are selling like crazy and people are getting $1k for them. Wish I would have bought one to sell at a time like this. I would have made some good money. I have no need for one, but the profit potential would have been a good investment. Oh well.
hurley842002
02-22-2018, 15:53
I read that bump stocks are selling like crazy and people are getting $1k for them. Wish I would have bought one to sell at a time like this. I would have made some good money. I have no need for one, but the profit potential would have been a good investment. Oh well.First listing https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180222/5c1ce7c04f785f2d7c8fc3f3e21fddb6.jpg
I'm holding out for the price to go higher.
Great-Kazoo
02-22-2018, 16:44
I'm holding out for the price to go higher.
When the triggers hit $1500 i'm selling. Some modest offers, but i think they're hoping to buy now and reap $$ later.
Who needs a Shockwave? It makes you shoot faster. Promise.
I say if they want to raise the age to purchase a long gun to 21, then they should also raise the "adult" age of everything else to 21.
VOTING, unrestricted driver's license (or whatever they call a "regular", non-minor DL), cigarettes, alchohol (if it's not already), weed (where applicable), leases, contracts, etc. ... Hit them where it hurts... In their feels.
Practical? Not at all. Likely? Never, but maybe the proposal of it might open up the eyes of enough of them to make them think just a little bit.
I’m more in favor of restructuring what constitutes citizenship.Say you turn 16-18, you take a citizenship test, if you pass and have no criminal convictions, speak, and read English, presto! congrats your a citizen now!
You can vote, buy a gun, own a business, join the Military, enter public office, receive a lifetime passport, and everyone else GTFO, unless a citizen wants to vouch for you as well as feed, shelter, clothe, and employ you out of their own pocket. Anyone can retest at anytime up to 3 attempts in their life. Study, study, study!
Schools privatized, Mom and Dad won’t pay? Get a job loser!
Eliminate minimum wage laws.
Remove warning labels and speed limits.
When you buy a vehicle you pay a one time tax that is your contribution to the roads and upkeep thereof, no licensing requirements for anything. Period.
. Gov is restricted to Road upkeep, National Defense, Disaster recovery, Border and Shore Security, Investigations, and Law Enforcement.
Eliminate all taxes except certain sales taxes,(see above).
Untreatable diagnosed Sociopaths and convicted criminals are never allowed to become citizens, and are exiled, executed, or both. (Think penal labor colonies in Alaska or Pacific territories.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you haven’t already stop what your doing, and call your Representatives and Senators and tell them to vocally oppose any and all further infringements of the Second Amendment at the Local, State, and National levels.
*Rep. Ken Buck (R) at
(970) 702-2136
*Sen. Michael Bennet (D) at
(303) 455-7600
*Sen. Cory Gardner (R) at
(303) 391-5777
Call the Republican National Committee at
(202) 863-8500
Tell them enough is enough, we’re done “having the conversation” about “common sense gun control” and shall not be infringed means something last time you checked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grant H.
02-24-2018, 14:59
ATF is basically telling Trump that they can't ban them, and that it will have to be done through legislation.
ATF is basically telling Trump that they can't ban them, and that it will have to be done through legislation.Mission accomplished.
Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
02-24-2018, 17:19
Mission accomplished.
Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
Not till it's in writing. I don't believe anything I see or hear till the ink's dry. Been around the block a few times with weapon restrictions & bans.
Not till it's in writing. I don't believe anything I see or hear till the ink's dry. Been around the block a few times with weapon restrictions & bans.
I got it in writing inside the package with the bump stock. Even when it's in writing they can change their minds on even a whim.
hurley842002
02-24-2018, 21:04
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in, or if I should start a new one. Several of the other forums I'm on are talking about "money bombing" the NRA on 3/24, which is the same day that "March for our lives" ralley is taking place, the idea being the NRA gets such a large sum of money the same day as the ralley, that folks see an opposition from our side. Either way, I plan on at least $20 that day.
Grant H.
02-24-2018, 21:08
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in, or if I should start a new one. Several of the other forums I'm on are talking about "money bombing" the NRA on 3/24, which is the same day that "March for our lives" ralley is taking place, the idea being the NRA gets such a large sum of money the same day as the ralley, that folks see an opposition from our side. Either way, I plan on at least $20 that day.
I like that idea!
It's an easy way for the pro-2A community to publicly make a statement.
Great-Kazoo
02-24-2018, 21:10
It should go to the ILA part of the NRA. You know the ones who don't send you 2 doz letters a week
The True Source of the N.R.A.’s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-true-source-of-the-nra’s-clout-mobilization-not-donations/ar-BBJwRez)
WASHINGTON — Few places have seen the National Rifle Association wield its might more effectively than Florida, where it has advanced a sweeping agenda that has made it easier to carry concealed weapons, given gun owners greater leeway to shoot in self-defense and even briefly barred doctors from asking patients about their firearms.
To many of its opponents, that decades-long string of victories is proof that the N.R.A. has bought its political support. But the numbers tell a more complicated story: The organization’s political action committee over the last decade has not made a single direct contribution to any current member of the Florida House or Senate, according to campaign finance records.
In Florida and other states across the country, as well as on Capitol Hill, the N.R.A. derives its political influence instead from a muscular electioneering machine, fueled by tens of millions of dollars’ worth of campaign ads and voter-guide mailings, that scrutinizes candidates for their views on guns and propels members to the polls.
“It’s really not the contributions,” said Cleta Mitchell, a former N.R.A. board member. “It’s the ability of the N.R.A. to tell its members: Here’s who’s good on the Second Amendment.”
Far more than any check the N.R.A. could write, it is this mobilization operation that has made the organization such a challenging adversary for Democrats and gun control advocates — one that, after the massacre at a school in Parkland, Fla., is struggling to confront an emotional student-led push for new restrictions.
The N.R.A.’s impact comes, in large part, from the simplicity of the incentives it presents to political candidates: letter grades, based on their record on the Second Amendment, that guide the N.R.A.’s involvement in elections. Lawmakers who earn an “A” rating can count on the group not to oppose them when they run for re-election or higher office.
For candidates who earn lower grades, the group deploys a range of blunt-force methods against them. The N.R.A. mails the voter guides to its five million members, displaying images of favored candidates on the front, and some state chapters bombard supporters with emails about coming elections.
The organization’s calculation is that its money is better spent on maintaining a motivated base of gun rights supporters than on bankrolling candidates directly.
“Everyone wants a simplistic answer, which is they buy votes,” said Harry L. Wilson, a political scientist at Roanoke College and the author of “Guns, Gun Control, and Elections.” “But it is largely incorrect. The N.R.A.’s power is more complex than people think.”
Compared with the towering sums of money donated to House and Senate candidates in the last cycle — $1.7 billion — the N.R.A.’s direct contributions were almost a rounding error.
The N.R.A. directly donated a total of just $1.1 million to candidates for federal office in 2016, with 99 percent of that money going to Republicans, while giving a total of only $309,000 in direct contributions to state legislative candidates in 2016 and 2017, according to tallies by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal donations, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which tracks state-level donations.
Those amounts are dwarfed by the largess of other major contributors. Comcast, through its political action committee and its employees, directly donated $12.7 million in the 2016 campaign cycle to federal candidates or political parties, and the committee for Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, and its employees directly donated nearly $3 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics tallies.
Those numbers are tied to campaign finance reports filed by individual lawmakers. The N.R.A.’s spending on messages like its voter guides does not need to be disclosed, because it falls into the category of a membership-based group communicating with its members.
When candidates waver in their support for sweeping gun rights, the group does not hesitate to turn on them. After Ted Strickland, a Democrat who earned the N.R.A.’s endorsement as a candidate for governor of Ohio, backed a ban on assault weapons, the organization spent more than $1.5 million in so-called independent expenditures, like TV ads, to defeat him in a 2016 bid for the Senate.
Ms. Mitchell, a Republican election lawyer who sat on the group’s board for nearly a decade, said its record of loyalty to those who stand by it was a cornerstone of its influence. “They know that it’s not easy, sometimes, to stick with the N.R.A.,” she said of the group’s leadership. “At times like this, it’s very easy to get stampeded by the media and the left.”
While the N.R.A. cuts relatively few checks to individual lawmakers — a fact that has been noted by The Tampa Bay Times, among others — it does devote tens of millions of dollars to ads backing its preferred candidates or criticizing its opponents, often with vividly alarmist messages about crime and self-defense.
The N.R.A. spent $20 million in the 2016 election cycle on ads and other campaign tactics intended to persuade voters to reject Hillary Clinton and another $11 million to support Donald J. Trump — money that is not marked down as a direct contribution to Mr. Trump, because the N.R.A. spent the cash on its own.
At the state level, the N.R.A. also spends much more on these independent expenditures than on direct contributions to candidates.
Expenditures like these are the area of real growth for the N.R.A.: At the federal and state levels, overall independent spending by the group jumped from $9.3 million in the 2009 election cycle to at least $55 million in 2016, according to an analysis by the National Institute on Money in State Politics that was published on Friday.
“Its most precious resource is perhaps the passion and political engagement of its members and its fans,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
This type of spending also comes with risks, particularly when the group ventures into so-called purpler parts of the country, where the two parties have similar levels of support. The N.R.A.’s presence can draw in an increasingly well-funded collection of groups that support gun control, and can sometimes unnerve moderate voters.
Last fall in Virginia, where the N.R.A. is headquartered and once held commanding clout over the state government, Democrats swept all of the state’s major offices after campaigning loudly against the organization. The state’s attorney general, Mark Herring, a Democrat whom the N.R.A. had targeted for defeat, said the group had insisted on defending a platform that was “becoming more and more untenable” with voters in the political middle.
“There were parts of the state where they wouldn’t run their ads because they knew it would drive voters to supporting me,” Mr. Herring said, adding of the N.R.A.’s campaign spending: “It did elevate the conversation, the issue, but it was also one that I wanted to talk about.”
Still, in more rural areas where voters fiercely support gun rights, Democrats have routinely paid a price in recent years for crossing the N.R.A.
In Colorado, where a Democratic-held state government passed new gun regulations after the 2012 massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, the N.R.A. helped bankroll successful recall campaigns against two Democratic lawmakers, including the powerful president of the State Senate.
The former Senate leader, John P. Morse, who lost his seat in 2013 by a margin of 319 votes, said the N.R.A. had played a decisive role in motivating Second Amendment voters in a low-turnout race. After that, Mr. Morse said, Democrats have “run like scalded rats from the issue.”
“They turn out people that already agree with them,” Mr. Morse said of the N.R.A. “The reason why gun policy is where it is in this country, at this point, is that the rest of us are too lackadaisical.”
The organization has focused heavily in recent years on high-profile Senate elections in conservative-leaning states that are key to the balance of power in Congress, amassing an imposing record of victories, including that of Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas.
But it has had major losses, too, including in the Senate special election in Alabama late last year, in which it spent money to try to defeat Doug Jones, a Democrat who challenged Roy S. Moore.
Over all, the success rate of the N.R.A. ebbs and flows with political trends. With Mr. Trump on the ballot, candidates it supported directly at the federal level in 2016 won 73 percent of the time, while its preferred candidates won only 44 percent of the time in 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected president.
In almost all forms of spending — direct campaign contributions, independent expenditures and lobbying — gun rights groups have far outspent gun control groups in recent decades, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, spending that advocates gun control has picked up in recent years, fueled by groups backed by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was wounded in a 2011 shooting, and by Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York.
There have been hints in recent days, with the protests after the Parkland shooting and a string of businesses cutting ties with the N.R.A. — as well as a fiery and defensive speech delivered by its leader at a conservative conference — that the group is losing ground. Even some of its key political supporters, like Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican, and top lawmakers in the state, have proposed measures like raising the age limit for gun purchases to 21.
John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group backed by Mr. Bloomberg, said he saw signs that the N.R.A.’s influence was in decline, despite a surge in 2017 in federal lobbying spending by the organization. He pointed to its inability last year to get legislation through the Republican Congress that would give legal gun owners the right to carry concealed weapons outside their home states.
“What we are seeing right now is a reversal of fortune,” Mr. Feinblatt said. “The truth is, they are making bad bets. And they are out of sync. Their power is diminishing by the day.”
KevDen2005
02-25-2018, 00:38
There still in stock on couple sites for under $150
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in, or if I should start a new one. Several of the other forums I'm on are talking about "money bombing" the NRA on 3/24, which is the same day that "March for our lives" ralley is taking place, the idea being the NRA gets such a large sum of money the same day as the ralley, that folks see an opposition from our side. Either way, I plan on at least $20 that day.
I like that idea of kicking some money to the NRA-ILA on 3/24.
I like that idea of kicking some money to the NRA-ILA on 3/24.
NRA Blasts 'Cowardice' Of Corporate Partners Turning Away From Gun Group
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-blasts-apos-cowardice-apos-004815772.html
The law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school’s security preparedness, the failure of America’s mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement.
Ignore the headline, read the NRA statement. Sounds like they have reached down and found them.
If they can further articulate a strategy that protects 2A, I might join you. I think a lot of people are waiting for a concrete position. Like I said the locked thread, they have the same problem (advantage?) as Trump; the opposition has taken the middle ground nullifying any advantage of compromise.
Ironic the NRA calling their former corporate partners cowards, seeing as the NRA is an anti gun organization.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ironic the NRA calling their former corporate partners cowards, seeing as the NRA is an anti gun organization.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
For the next 30 years, the NRA continued to support gun control.”
Taken from here: http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or how about the time the NRA supported the GCA of 1968?
For three decades, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) has formed the legal core of national gun policy in the United States. The congressional deliberations leading to the passage of the GCA and companion legislation extended over five years and involved the Departments of Justice and Treasury, the White House, firearms interest groups, and both houses of Congress. At no time before or since has Congress addressed gun control policy with as much breadth or depth.[1] Although the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 imposed strict federal regulation on machine guns and other "gangster" firearms [2] using taxation legislation, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act (FFA) had proven ineffectual in asserting even minimal federal controls over interstate commerce in ordinary handguns, shotguns and rifles.[3] The structure of the GCA emerged largely from observed weaknesses in the existing FFA.[4]
“The Dodd Hearings
In early 1958, Senator John Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to control the importation of surplus military firearms.[5] Clearly protectionist, the legislation targeted the increase in imported firearms, the great majority of which were military surplus.[6] Congress acted only to ban the importation of previously exported U.S. military firearms.[7] The flood of imports continued, fueled by surplus World War II firearms and inexpensive pistols and revolvers.[8] [Page 80]
Upon assuming the chairmanship of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1961, Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) directed the staff to conduct a study of mail order sales of firearms.[9] After two years of staff study, Senator Dodd introduced his first gun bill, Senate Bill 1975 and opened hearings to generate public interest in the gun issue.[10] The bill required mail-order purchasers of handguns to provide the seller a notarized affidavit stating they were over eighteen years of age and legally entitled to purchase the firearm and restricted the importation of surplus military firearms.[11] The bill had input from the Treasury Department and received support from both the firearms industry and the NRA.”
Taken from here: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/gca68-nra4.htm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or when they supported the 1986 Machine Gun Ban?
“When President Obama laid out his proposals Wednesday to reduce gun violence, he included a call for Congress to ban "military-style assault weapons."
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have tried banning certain guns before. Nearly two decades ago, they barred the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons, only to let that law lapse 10 years later. But one gun ban has stayed on the books: a measure Congress passed a quarter-century ago making it illegal for civilians to buy or sell any machine gun made from that date forward. That legislation passed with the blessing of the National Rifle Association, which now opposes gun control measures.”
Taken from here: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/01/18/169526687/the-decades-old-gun-ban-thats-still-on-the-books
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And now the NRA is seeking to support the National Rate Increasing Device Ban Of 2018.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And now the NRA is seeking to support the National Rate Increasing Device Ban Of 2018.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is what they need to clarify for me.
1934 and 1968 won some concessions back when people thought we could negotiate. It should clear to all we no longer can.
Those willing to give up bump stocks need to ask where in the ban/law semi-autos will be protected. I have yet to see any grabber law draw a box around what they won’t take. And we all know why... The limit is total disarmament.
Zundfolge
02-25-2018, 17:55
Or when they supported the 1986 Machine Gun Ban?
They didn't support the '86 machine gun ban, they supported the Firearms Owners Protection Act which did a TON of good things (like outlaw a national registry, force anti gun states to leave travelers alone and stop registering ammo sales). The Hughes Amendment (that banned post 86 full autos) was snuck in at the 11th hour by Democrats.
As for the 34 NFA or 68 GCA, the NRA wasn't really a political lobbying organization until after the 68 debacle, so they created the NRA-ILA in 1975 as a response.
Also if you take the 68GCA as an example, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans. It was truly a bi-partisan vote. (totals here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/h398 ). So based on that are you going to tell me that the Democrat party is the defenders of the Second Amendment?
Our country has changed a lot since 68 (and a WHOLE lot since 34) hell its changed a lot since 86. I think its silly to claim that the Democrat Party, Republican Party or NRA are somehow exactly the same as they were back in the day.
SamuraiCO
02-25-2018, 20:20
Well said Zund. We don't even know what will happen if the legislation is debated on. I would love to see amendments added for hearing protection act and reciprocity. I know the Dems will scream for a clean bill but F them. Bump stocks are a gimmick but if they were sacrificed for reciprocity, hearing protection act and reaffirming our rights to carry what we want in all states, no restrictions. Something similar to the civil rights to affirm what the constitution lays out and to undo state laws.
Just my 0.02 cents.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180226/8cd1e94ff3d90bbe44f449992b821361.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180226/99482cd6b0ecd7cb4bf83415b107839d.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180226/bded20f1a45c16ebd70a3c17bf669425.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SamuraiCO
02-26-2018, 08:39
I hear ya Molon you been in the debate longer than me and I am tired of taking steps backwards.
Well said Zund. We don't even know what will happen if the legislation is debated on. I would love to see amendments added for hearing protection act and reciprocity. I know the Dems will scream for a clean bill but F them. Bump stocks are a gimmick but if they were sacrificed for reciprocity, hearing protection act and reaffirming our rights to carry what we want in all states, no restrictions. Something similar to the civil rights to affirm what the constitution lays out and to undo state laws.
Just my 0.02 cents.
I would love to even see it suggested that this is possible. Thus far we haven't. Again, I have yet to see a true compromise gun law in my lifetime. I think the last one on record was 1968 where we got something for giving something. One could argue that opening up the registry in '86 was a compromise but that was temporary.
When you understand the actual goals of those involved you understand more about how this game is being played. Gun safety isn't an actual goal. Taking all guns out of your hands is.
So how does compromise fit in with that goal?
On the topic of bump stocks... Even if it were to be sacrificed for preserving semi-autos (in a parallel universe where this is possible) how would that look? To be effective they would need to prohibit "increasing the rate of fire" not just ban a single device. Which as we know is nuts because a semi-auto doesn't have a fixed rate of fire. Would they need to establish one?
Once established would it apply to pistols too?
The spirit of this is to decrease the speed/amount of rounds of bad person can fire in a mass murder event. If we legitimatize that, do mag bans now get more legitimacy? Hey, we only need two or three rounds to hunt, right?
ATF is basically telling Trump that they can't ban them, and that it will have to be done through legislation.
Mission accomplished.
Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
Not till it's in writing. I don't believe anything I see or hear till the ink's dry. Been around the block a few times with weapon restrictions & bans.
Trump says bump stocks are 'gone' even if Congress doesn't act
ABC News Article (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-bump-stocks-congress-act/story?id=53362605)
President Donald Trump said he will ban bump stocks himself if Congress doesn't take action in a meeting with governors at the White House today.
"By the way, bump stocks, we're writing that out. I'm writing that out myself. I don't care if Congress does it or not, I'm writing it out myself. You put it into the machine gun category, which is what it is. It becomes essentially a machine gun and nobody's going to be able, it's going to be very hard to get them, so we're writing out bump stocks," he said.
Rucker61
02-26-2018, 12:38
Trump says bump stocks are 'gone' even if Congress doesn't act
ABC News Article (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-bump-stocks-congress-act/story?id=53362605)
Who the hell does he think he is that he can do this? The man needs some training in basic civics.
Who the hell does he think he is that he can do this? The man needs some training in basic civics.
He probably believes he can do what he wants, kind of like another president of late, except with that one we bought ALL the ammo and Guns we could.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd been a fan of his using EOs to REMOVE EOs as they were an overreach of the Executive branch, but this is just the same thing.
I'd been a fan of his using EOs to REMOVE EOs as they were an overreach of the Executive branch, but this is just the same thing.
Judge just said Trump can't remove DACA. DACA was an Obama EO.
Apparently EOs are now as binding as Constitutional amendments.
Dangerous precedent.
Sent from somewhere
Dangerous precedent.
Sent from somewhere
Yes it is.
Judge just said Trump can't remove DACA. DACA was an Obama EO.
Apparently EOs are now as binding as Constitutional amendments.
Yep. It's unconstitutional as hell, but SCOTUS wouldn't take it up. I'm very disappointed. I think Trump should 'resist' and keep pushing the issue. I'm tired of the selective enforcement of law.
Judge just said Trump can't remove DACA. DACA was an Obama EO.
Apparently EOs are now as binding as Constitutional amendments.
I believe the "judgement" by SCOTUS was that the case would need to come up through the appeals court- not jump straight to the SCOTUS. Nothing has been ruled on yet.
Yep. It's unconstitutional as hell, but SCOTUS wouldn't take it up. I'm very disappointed. I think Trump should 'resist' and keep pushing the issue. I'm tired of the selective enforcement of law.
They didn't want to skip an appellate court, apparently.
Which means that fighting an unConstitutional EO isn't as simple as going to court. You really need a lot $$$ to square off with taxpayer funded lawyers working for the gov (infinite resources).
Not to sidetrack, but this is funny how the lies are told... Remember when the Feds told AZ immigration was a matter for FedGov? Now judges say the Feds can't enforce the law either. So we have laws that no one can enforce because Dims need to win elections.
Lawless!
SamuraiCO
02-27-2018, 12:07
The Dems will scream for a clean bill just like they did about DACA but when push comes to shove they will pull out because of what is asked in return. This is just the first salvo. Everything that is happening was foretold by history and our founders. Hence the reason the Constitution was written and set up.
kidicarus13
03-10-2018, 10:45
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/10/doj-moves-outlaw-bump-stocks-making-them-illegal-own-sell/413237002/
Rucker61
03-10-2018, 11:04
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/10/doj-moves-outlaw-bump-stocks-making-them-illegal-own-sell/413237002/
How do they even think this is a legal move?
How do they even think this is a legal move?
Commerce Clause.
But they can ban it just like they can ban drugs.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180311/278cfa63a100e5b4c8a09d882b12f30c.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180311/64d1ba1d37ff5e6b7bc61e96c160c0ee.jpg7380673807
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What part about bump stocks do not make semi-autos function like automatic weapons does the NRA not understand (or anyone for that matter)?
Is our culture so far gone that one trigger pull = one bullet somehow does not equal that?
What next, has-been Olympic male athletes dressing like women and society going along with their mental illness? A thing is a thing is a thing. Water is wet, rocks are hard, and a fast-firing semi-auto is a semi-auto that functions like a semi-auto.
DavieD55
03-10-2018, 22:47
It is a culture problem. All the people who want another law passed in search of a quick and simple fix will only result in more freedoms being lost. There are no simple quick fixes to the deep seated problems in our society today. Our society has been dumbed down to the point that they expect a bunch of crony and corrupt politicians to fix the problems that they've been instrumental in helping to create in the first place. As for the NRA they will never get another dime of my money.
This guy makes some very solid points here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTgZVcUmo_M
Will1776
03-10-2018, 23:32
Sooo no grandfather clause? No ability to register? Just banned like that with a stroke of a pen?
The only way to stop Government, is to take away their money.
Unfortunately, we have a populace that is willing to let the Federal Government go Twenty Trillian Dollars in Debt, expanding the Government and Government Authority.
It's close to a lost cause, quite honestly.
-John
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-John
As a single issue voter, the single issue I voted on isn't proving to be Trumps strong point. Not that voting for the she-satan would have been any better but this still isn't the bill of goods I was sold.
.. shall not be infringed sure is being infringed for the past 100 years or so....
mahabali
03-11-2018, 17:57
might not be a bad move to buy everything you could conceivably want before 2020. Still salad days despite this recent panic.
Great-Kazoo
03-11-2018, 23:45
might not be a bad move to buy everything you could conceivably want before 2020. Still salad days despite this recent panic.
Curious......Exactly what would one need to buy before 2020, that they didn't pick up in 16 fearing HRC was elected?
Curious......Exactly what would one need to buy before 2020, that they didn't pick up in 16 fearing HRC was elected?
ToldYouSo noise cancelling headphones?
Bailey Guns
03-12-2018, 06:59
***DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT support Trump's position on bump-stocks nor do I support the NRA's position on bump-stocks. I DO NOT support Trump's misguided and ignorant comments on due process. Let's be clear on that.***
Having said that, I also don't agree this signals a shift in Trump's general attitude towards governing. I don't think this proves in any way that he's really a closet liberal, despite his background. To believe that you have to ignore everything he's done since being elected. Despite his comments and position on bump-stocks, he is night and day different than what Obama was or what HRC would've been. It's not a matter of "there's no difference between them". There's a great deal of difference.
Right or wrong, Trump's comments and position are in response to another in a long list of national tragedies. It's not his position in general. If we weren't in the midst of trying to deal with how to effectively stop mass shootings we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Again...I'm not saying it's right and I'm not defending him. I'm just trying to keep things in context.
Your average progressive/democrat/liberal wants your guns regardless of what's happened...it's just everyday business for them. I honestly don't think that's Trump's position.
I bought a SlideFire stock and still have it. I paid good money for it and I have a copy of a letter from the government telling me it's OK to have it. I'll be damned if I'm gonna just hand it in because some bureaucrat tells me I have to. It's not that I care about the piece of plastic...I care about the principle. I care about what's right and wrong with government. I also care that the left won't be happy with conning Trump into taking just that piece of plastic from me. The left is the enemy. Make no mistake. This sort of thing is gonna happen until the enemy has been defeated.
But this is a real dilemma for me. I still believe that Trump is probably the best thing to happen to the presidency during my lifetime, despite his stance on bump-stocks and due process (which needs also to be taken in context of trying to prevent something which most likely can't really be prevented...regardless of how misguided it is). On balance Trump will do far more good for the gun cause than bad. So I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water...yet. I feel the same towards the NRA. Their position on "further regulations" on bump stocks is pretty indefensible. But that doesn't mean they don't do good for the cause elsewhere. Purity and perfection are pretty difficult to achieve.
bellavite1
03-12-2018, 07:35
***DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT support Trump's position on bump-stocks nor do I support the NRA's position on bump-stocks. I DO NOT support Trump's misguided and ignorant comments on due process. Let's be clear on that.***
Having said that, I also don't agree this signals a shift in Trump's general attitude towards governing. I don't think this proves in any way that he's really a closet liberal, despite his background. To believe that you have to ignore everything he's done since being elected. Despite his comments and position on bump-stocks, he is night and day different than what Obama was or what HRC would've been. It's not a matter of "there's no difference between them". There's a great deal of difference.
Right or wrong, Trump's comments and position are in response to another in a long list of national tragedies. It's not his position in general. If we weren't in the midst of trying to deal with how to effectively stop mass shootings we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Again...I'm not saying it's right and I'm not defending him. I'm just trying to keep things in context.
Your average progressive/democrat/liberal wants your guns regardless of what's happened...it's just everyday business for them. I honestly don't think that's Trump's position.
I bought a SlideFire stock and still have it. I paid good money for it and I have a copy of a letter from the government telling me it's OK to have it. I'll be damned if I'm gonna just hand it in because some bureaucrat tells me I have to. It's not that I care about the piece of plastic...I care about the principle. I care about what's right and wrong with government. I also care that the left won't be happy with conning Trump into taking just that piece of plastic from me. The left is the enemy. Make no mistake. This sort of thing is gonna happen until the enemy has been defeated.
But this is a real dilemma for me. I still believe that Trump is probably the best thing to happen to the presidency during my lifetime, despite his stance on bump-stocks and due process (which needs also to be taken in context of trying to prevent something which most likely can't really be prevented...regardless of how misguided it is). On balance Trump will do far more good for the gun cause than bad. So I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water...yet. I feel the same towards the NRA. Their position on "further regulations" on bump stocks is pretty indefensible. But that doesn't mean they don't do good for the cause elsewhere. Purity and perfection are pretty difficult to achieve.
Ditto.
Believe it or not there are other things on the table besides guns:
Repeal Obamacare, military resolve, economy, immigration, etc etc.
I believe he was forced in this tight spot either by good timing or deliberate strategy to alienate his base, and we are falling for it...
Great-Kazoo
03-12-2018, 08:43
AND I BELIEVE Pressure from all sides is going to put more things in jeopardy. I've said it to other forum members. One possibly 2 serious shootings and Trump will sign almost anything that hits his desk.
But.............he's still better than HRC, who would have done something regardless of a shooting or not.
All the news this morning is about the White House backing off the stance of changing the legal age to purchase, and doubling down on arming teachers.
Bailey Guns
03-12-2018, 10:19
Just heard that. The news I heard was the age thing was due to lack of support and pending lawsuits.
CoGirl303
03-12-2018, 14:59
***DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT support Trump's position on bump-stocks nor do I support the NRA's position on bump-stocks. I DO NOT support Trump's misguided and ignorant comments on due process. Let's be clear on that.***
Having said that, I also don't agree this signals a shift in Trump's general attitude towards governing. I don't think this proves in any way that he's really a closet liberal, despite his background. To believe that you have to ignore everything he's done since being elected. Despite his comments and position on bump-stocks, he is night and day different than what Obama was or what HRC would've been. It's not a matter of "there's no difference between them". There's a great deal of difference.
Right or wrong, Trump's comments and position are in response to another in a long list of national tragedies. It's not his position in general. If we weren't in the midst of trying to deal with how to effectively stop mass shootings we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Again...I'm not saying it's right and I'm not defending him. I'm just trying to keep things in context.
Your average progressive/democrat/liberal wants your guns regardless of what's happened...it's just everyday business for them. I honestly don't think that's Trump's position.
I bought a SlideFire stock and still have it. I paid good money for it and I have a copy of a letter from the government telling me it's OK to have it. I'll be damned if I'm gonna just hand it in because some bureaucrat tells me I have to. It's not that I care about the piece of plastic...I care about the principle. I care about what's right and wrong with government. I also care that the left won't be happy with conning Trump into taking just that piece of plastic from me. The left is the enemy. Make no mistake. This sort of thing is gonna happen until the enemy has been defeated.
But this is a real dilemma for me. I still believe that Trump is probably the best thing to happen to the presidency during my lifetime, despite his stance on bump-stocks and due process (which needs also to be taken in context of trying to prevent something which most likely can't really be prevented...regardless of how misguided it is). On balance Trump will do far more good for the gun cause than bad. So I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water...yet. I feel the same towards the NRA. Their position on "further regulations" on bump stocks is pretty indefensible. But that doesn't mean they don't do good for the cause elsewhere. Purity and perfection are pretty difficult to achieve.
well said and I conccur with your sentiments entirely.
Trump has accomplished more in a year than any of the last 10 presidents accomplished in their entire 4 or 8 years in office.
Just heard that. The news I heard was the age thing was due to lack of support and pending lawsuits.
It is good to know they are still afraid of lawsuits.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bailey Guns
03-12-2018, 17:13
To be clear, it was to see how lawsuits in progress turned out. I don't know specifically which one's they're talking about.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180312/04a84c6463dcc8b2a56c2dafc8eaa7c6.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bailey Guns
03-12-2018, 17:51
The only people who think utopia is possible more than democrats are libertarians. That's why the Libertarian party is so powerful today.
Shooter45
03-23-2018, 18:09
Announced today- Trump administration to ban bump stocks, all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/23/trump-administration-bans-bump-stocks-all-devices-that-turn-legal-weapons-into-machine-guns.html
These friggin morons don't even know what they're trying to ban.
On Friday, Sessions announced that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machine gun” under federal law, as the devices allow a semiautomatic firearms to achieve a continuous firing cycle with the single pull of the trigger.
NO THEY DO NOT, otherwise they wouldn't have ever been approved by the ATF.
These friggin morons don't even know what they're trying to ban.
NO THEY DO NOT, otherwise they wouldn't have ever been approved by the ATF.
But if they define them that way in the law does that not create a "loophole" and keep binaries legal?
I hate the semantics of "one round per single operation of the trigger" defining our rights, but that was the deal we struck in 1934 and 1986.
But if they define them that way in the law does that not create a "loophole" and keep binaries legal?
I hate the semantics of "one round per single operation of the trigger" defining our rights, but that was the deal we struck in 1934 and 1986.
If they define it as multiple rounds from a single trigger pull, then all they are doing is reiterating NFA and bump stocks remain legal -- unless they intend to redefine "machine gun" under NFA.
Here is a link for the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Bump-Fire-Type Devices.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download
16.1 MB, 55 pages PDF
I haven't read it yet so I have no idea what it says. And I already have a headache.
Stable Genius rewarded with newfound respect from Libs for capitulating on gun control...
https://imgur.com/UGHIanv.jpg
I can totally see how these voters are going to replace all the votes he just lost!
[ROFL2]
Rubio gets rewarded for his usefulness as well, with a little bit of anti-Christian bigotry sprinkled in (love it when non Christians tell Christians about their faith!)
https://imgur.com/T7SKskJ.jpg
CoGirl303
03-25-2018, 07:06
Announced today- Trump administration to ban bump stocks, all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/23/trump-administration-bans-bump-stocks-all-devices-that-turn-legal-weapons-into-machine-guns.html
ummmm how can they ban them without legislation from Congress? [emoji19]
Can't just make up laws as they see fit.
Moln Labe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ummmm how can they ban them without legislation from Congress? [emoji19]
Can't just make up laws as they see fit.
You mean like how the "Dreamers" are allowed to stay here against our immigration laws due to an Obama Executive Order that the courts won't allow Trump to rescind?
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
03-25-2018, 08:06
You mean like how the "Dreamers" are allowed to stay here against our immigration laws due to an Obama Executive Order that the courts won't allow Trump to rescind?
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
If you browse the current budget he signed, you'll see there's less incentive to pursue dreamers, then before.
Has anyone read the entire omnibus spending bill, or did we have to pass it to find out what's in it?
I've also read that 'Fix NICS' is in there as well.
ETA: Any time one of these huge bloated bills gets passed, the people get screwed and our government is made worse.
CoGirl303
04-01-2018, 02:38
Has anyone read the entire omnibus spending bill, or did we have to pass it to find out what's in it?
I've also read that 'Fix NICS' is in there as well.
ETA: Any time one of these huge bloated bills gets passed, the people get screwed and our government is made worse.
Rand Paul barely got through 695 pages of it before voting no. It's absurd that there's not a requirement that the entire thing isn't required to be delivered at least 120 days before voting on it so it can be fully read and understood.
Instead these assbages unload it just hours before the vote to ensure they can slip whatever they want into it and it will go unnoticed.
Our rights are being stripped away right under our noses and we don't even know it.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180401/7d91a4b08c6fc7a8aa43e8f9a278929d.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To put the page count into something most people can understand, the average Bible is 1200 pages.
Our government is so broken.
One page,single issue bills, written in size 12 font double spaced. This should be a law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.