Printable View
I too see the NRA's move here as what the anti-gunners will see as a freebie to go along with everything else they're going to push to get. It's NOT going to be a single item getting pushed to be banned. For the anti-gunners it's always MORE that they're seeking. Giving them one thing is only helping them get down the road faster.
Exactly. The left is just giddy now that the NRA is on "their" side. "See? Even the NRA wants to ban these things."
Yeah. Great strategy.
Ok, so for you guys who think the nra is selling us out, lay out a strategy that will actually allow a win where bump stocks, etc aren't redefined as NFA.
You're adding context to what the NRA's statement actually said. They didn't state that extra regulations may be needed for bump-stocks. They said that anything that can make a semi-auto a full-auto may need regulation. Bump-stocks were not regulated as making a weapon operate like a full-auto in the first place. Your finger pulls the trigger and a single pull of the trigger fires a single shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by DireWolf
The actual (only relevant section included for brevity) statement from the NRA was:
"...The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations..."
Doesn't say "turn them into automatic rifles, just says "function like..." (I could care less about bump-stocks, but this is far larger than just that one specific type of accessory)
Ambiguous statement which gives the leftists a shit-ton of room to align with the "narrative du jour", concession of moral high ground perspective (e.g. - exactly why should there be additional regulation when all evidence seems to show the utter irrelevance/ineffectiveness of that approach?), and a clearly telegraphed lack of willingness to hold the line and fight to "Champion Second Amendment Rights" (part of their stated core mission).
Because of the NRA's (in both this instance and others) strategic shortcomings, they are destined to fail, and fail utterly, under the current approach - at least within the context of fighting to protect 2A rights. A review of progress over time is the best indicator of this trend towards failure & concession.
I believe a fundemental change of strategy is required for anything which even remotely resembles victory or a reversal of that trend - (one initial example out of many might be - work to fight the manipulation of language/narrative and avoid trying to work within a logical fallacy of the left's deliberate construction - I see zero chance of changing hearts & minds while operating within an artificial construct of lanuage designed specifically to preclude that.)
This type of strategic realignment doesn't always require a change in leaderhip personnel, but the fact that they don't seem to give a rats ass what we think is sure pointing in that direction...
ETA: lest there be any ambiguity - in 1 week we've gone from a high likelihood of an imminent deregulation of supressors, to a high likelihood of imminent RESTRICTION of currently legal over the counter accessories such as bump-stocks, binary FCGs, etc., (and likely criminalization of current owners who choose not to get rid of them).
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Does a semi-auto with a bump-fire stock "function like" an M-16? No. The definitions of how 'semi-auto' and 'full-auto' mechanisms function have been in-place for quite some time. Defining how fast a shooter can pull the trigger is a regulatory reach.
http://youtu.be/uFoM8S3JwZU
In this particular scenario, that's easy. My approach would be: Bump stocks are legal. They were approved under the Obama administration. Nothing has changed concerning bump stocks with the exception a madman used one in a murderous spree while already violating numerous laws. We are willing to discuss additional regulations on bump stocks once the Hearing Protection Act is passed (or pick a project).Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
As it is they are giving away the store while asking for nothing. I don't mind some compromise on occasion and I think this is a perfect time to get what we want while potentially giving up something that won't affect a lot of people.
If you want $18,000 for your car, ask for $20,000 knowing the offer will be $15,000. Compromise on the $18,000 you wanted.
NRA leadership must be learning their "strategy" from republican leadership in the house and senate. Which is basically asking the democrats exactly where they want their asses kissed.
NRA [fail]
Now you [panic]
Now I [ROFL3]
Nailed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns