Contact the NRA

GunBroke(r) just reversed themselves yesterday.

I wonder if we'll see the NRA reverse after asking for a "review?"

I think part of the play here is to appear to be open to ideas to defuse "NRA kills children" screeching. On a personal level, I am open to ideas too, I just know after much research and life experience that banning pieces of plastic/metal will do jack shit to help and actually make things worse.

I have no desire to own a bump stock but I fully support the rights of others to own them.

Was thinking about it this morning and came up with an approach to the immediate issue at hand that I could support if the NRA would take, and is proportional enough to likely appear reasonable all around...



NRA (hypothetical) revised statement/position:

"After much reflection on this topic and input from our millions of constituents & law abiding gun owners, in the spirit of compromise we would be willing to entertain the idea of reclassifying bump-stock devices (explicitly) as NFA items as long as that change is simultaneously enacted alongside a full reversal of ATF 41p and immediate reinstatement of the Form-1 E-File system, with a review time not to exceed 90 days pending a 3 month "sunrise" period to allow for any required personnel/process updates."

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DireWolf

NRA (hypothetical) revised statement/position:

"After much reflection on this topic and input from our millions of constituents & law abiding gun owners, in the spirit of compromise we would be willing to entertain the idea of reclassifying bump-stock devices (explicitly) as NFA items as long as that change is simultaneously enacted alongside a full reversal of ATF 41p and immediate reinstatement of the Form-1 E-File system, with a review time not to exceed 90 days pending a 3 month "sunrise" period to allow for any required personnel/process updates."

---

...and the public would say, "WTF does that mean?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

...and the public would say, "WTF does that mean?"

---

Yeah, probably still needs a bit of work...But I think the general concept is sound.

You may have hit on one huge problem with compromise in general - much easier to scream "ban everything! Bump-stocks evil!", than is to propose a real compromise involving actual details...

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pickenup

NRA [fail]


Now you [panic]


Now I [ROFL3]

---

I don't see anyone in a panic. I see people concerned that, once again thru no fault of their own, they are likely to seeing another attack on a Constitutional right that has seen decades of attack by the stupid and uninformed. Attacks that do nothing to solve a problem that in all reality likely can't be solved.

It's been very enlightening seeing the "die-hard" believers come out of the woodwork. The NRA continues to erode our constitutional rights, slowly, and asks the people they claim to defend to pay for it.

The NRA is a multi-million dollar operation that ceases to have a purpose if gun control goes away... They aren't dumb, they are acutely aware that if they succeed, they get less money...

And many here want me to believe that they want to succeed???

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grant H.

Good luck.

---

If the police were successful eliminating crime we wouldn't need police, so therefore the police want crime, right? After all, they want a paycheck.

I wish you luck with success on your one man campaign to keep our rights.

The NRA is an organization with the strength of numbers but a severe dearth of leadership.

Fix the one to properly leverage the other, and the result may be remarkable.




ETA: Without a complete replacement/overhaul in both leadership and strategy, I agree with the sentiment that the NRA is worse than useless and we're far better off without them (nature abhors a vacuum, and something else can take their place if unwilling/unable to undertake the necessary changes)

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Your police department analogy is a very poor one. It is impossible to eliminate crime. Yet, it is possible to end the "gun control" fight.

A better analogy is the gov't. When a department of our gov't becomes redundant, too large, or unnecessary, surely all the people working within it will say "time to go guys" and join the unemployment line, right?

---

I disagree with your disagreement. It's also human nature to give up freedom for perceived safety. This is why we are where we are.

You can make the same arguments for anyone that gives to pretty much any 'non-profit' organization. Does Susan G. Komen want to eliminate the cause that profits so many? Does anyone really believe that we can eliminate poverty?

We are one man campaigns when we vote. Outside of that, our politicians don't listen to individuals. We don't like it, but that's how it is. If you can think of a better lobby for our interests, please share.