• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

NRA backing ban of bumpstocks

That doesn't surprise me at all after I read the quote below. It will probably fly through if the NRA gives it a thumbs up. Congratulations to all that own a bump stock. The government is going to make you a lot of money with a ban...all you will have to do is register it so it can be sold as an NFA item down the road. Will a ban do anything but score political point for them?...No.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway spoke to Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Thursday, where she professed that the Second Amendment is a “bedrock” of the U.S. Constitution.
However, she raised eyebrows when she said later in the interview that the Trump administration has plans to engage in “thoughtful” conversations about gun control, leading many to conclude that the White House is open to negotiations on gun control measures.
 
That's exactly what I expected would happen.

Sadly, they pulled that same crap during the 1986 machinegun ban.

And why I cannot support them.

The NRA does NOT speak for me.

If you want a "no compromise" gun organization, look to the Gun Owners of America.

I have saved this for years. Nothing has changed at all.

The 2A isn't about hunting, it isn't about sports.

oldnrapropoganda001.jpg
 
On the NRA's history of gun control: http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.
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. By the late 1960s a shift in the NRA platform was on the horizon.
On Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot the president with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement. NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.
The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”
 
puke.gif

...NRA backing ban of bumpstocks
 
I've always had mixed feelings about the NRA. I think they stand up for our rights as Americans, but on the other hand I feel like they engage in fear-mongering.

Basically they use the same tactics as most politicians.
 
Well, I neither support the NRA position nor oppose it. Not really sure where I stand on this. The stock is an add-on not a weapon in and of itself. I don't think it violates the premise of the 2A. It is an accessory designed to get around the full-auto ban and it achieves its designed intent. So much so, that one club I belong to banned them from being used on the ranges because no one could tell a full-auto model (already banned on the range) from a bump stock model.

LE use our ranges for training and are required to notify every neighbor within a given radius that training would include full-auto weapons. It was limited in time and duration when they were approved to use them. Bump stocks came along and so did the reports of full-auto gunfire, more complaints and more visits from the Sheriff. Our ranges were close to being shutdown. So, bump stocks were banned for pure self preservation.

Are bump stock a neat add-on? Yep. Do they modify the weapons "one pull, one round fired" semi-auto design? Nope. But I was really surprised that the BATFE didn't regulate it when they first came out seeing that it was designed to circumvent the '86 ban. I dunno, but good or bad it sure looks like they will ban them now.
 
<facepalm>

Any aspect of our rights given up, although seemjngly insignificant in and of itself is an erosion of the rights guanranteed under the 2A and a victory for those that oppose freedom.

Bump stocks are about as insignificant as barrel shrouds in and of themselves but giving up that small piece of ground gives us less to stand on and makes it that much easier for them to take the next and so on.

The NRA is pickng its battels but every small loss is losing part of the bigger war for our 2A rights. The NRA knows the antis are engaged in a war of incrementalism yet they still keep caving on these types of things.
 
Last edited:
I am an NRA member and will remain one for 2 good reasons.
Both clubs I belong to require it for membership.

Do I own a Bump Stock....nope
Have I ever fired one......nope

Do I care if they are banned.....nope

Do I care if they are banned on the principal of more gun things we can't have.....YES!!!

Not taking the NRA side here, but to be fair, Chris Cox did make it clear on Tucker Carlson, their stance is not to ban them, but to ask the ATF to reevaluate their ruling on them.

The ATF ruled on them during the NOBAMA administration. Looks to me like they are more interested in letting people know it was another NOBAMA FAILURE.
Just my 2cents.
 
Yet the wording of the NRA press release was they thought that semiautos that can be made function like fully automatic weapons should be regulated. [paraphrasing]

Every news agency on earth is now saying that the NRA supports these being banned. Which is how I read into the press release too.
 
No doubt, they'll have a big fund drive asking for help to fight this before the month is out.
 
I guess I'm prejudiced about this whole business because our club does not allow bump fire devices or rapid fire on the shooting range.

Now I won't say that some rapid fire doesn't go on, because we have a range with 62 stations and it fills up!

On a good day when we're all there it can be like World War 3. It's hard for people to tell if automatic fire is going on.

Sometimes I'm there with the 1911 jacking .45s into a 7 yard silhouette like a madman. (Or a water monkey :) )

It's part of the catharsis of belonging to a gun club, and we all respect that but at the same time if you overdo it you will be called upon to cut down, and the official maximum rate of fire is one round per second on the target range.

Next time I get caught I'm going to tell him I was using some of those "automatic rounds" by mistake.
 
Every restaurant in California has a warning sign on the front that says you could get cancer if you eat here.

Or reproductive harm, it says.

I guess it depends on what you do with the food?
 
You're not even allowed to own black tape without a warning label so I'm not surprised.

Now back to our scheduled program of how much the NRA sucks.

What part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't the NRA understand?

All this will do is give the anti-gunners the post tragedy victory they have been working for since Columbine. It doesn't matter what it is or if it would even make a difference, they want the victory. That's why they would call for more background checks after a shooting even though the shooter passed a background check. A victory from a tragedy sets a precedent for them. They will double down after the next tragedy and weak, self serving politicians will cave again. The NRA needed to stay strong and they buckled. Look for the states to ban them outright if the feds make these stocks an NFA item.
 
They've been banned in California for 30 years you know. Feinstein of course is trooping to ban them Nationwide.

I've seen them here, and people have them here, but people don't use them.

They can get you busted of course, but also they are commonly thought of as just a curiosity or a toy more than anything else. No one here seems to think of them in terms of real firearms.

I think they are probably much less common here than guns which have been converted to full auto illegally.

I don't own any of those myself of course but I talked to Gun Shop owners a lot and I know what people are asking them for. Lots of people want to convert their ARs illegally.
 
What the states can do, and what the gov't can do really are different issues, though as I have found out with gay marriages being voted and amended our state constitution, apparently the fed gov't can over-rule that.

So a burning question that I have is why are states getting by with banning guns, or able to sell marijuana?

Looks like if it's going to be a blanket law, should apply to everyone equally.
 
It is a tenuous balance between States enjoying their necessary freedoms from federal overreach, and the states enjoying the protection of a large powerful Federal Union.

How do porcupines mate? Very carefully! And this is how the states should all approach these matters.

California is going to be grabbing for as much Federal money as it can get, to help support the DACA people (most of whom live here) but at the same time it wants to have its own regulations for things that are currently within federal purview in almost every state. Trump's DACA position is a big deal for the State of California. I'm sure we have at least 500,000 DACA recipients, in addition to the largest population of illegal aliens in any state.

Some people here are screaming to become an independent nation, While others are screaming for more of the federal money they probably won't be getting, since we are acting as a de-facto illegal sanctuary state.

The people in charge of our state government have been total criminals for so long that the public doesn't understand the difference anymore.
 
States have immense power to govern their own people. They also get immense amounts of money from the federal government for everything imaginable.

In the end the states can do anything they want as long as it does not disrupt the flow of money.
 
Back
Top