This is why the NRA sucks

[John A.]

They issued a statement today asking ATF to look into the legality of bumpfire stocks and things.

While having the gall to ask Congress to look into passing other laws that they've been trying to get passed for years.

Just FWIW, NRA rolled over back in '86 over the exact same thing too.

This is why I am not an NRA member, and never will be.

Gun Owners of America is a much better organization to belong to.

[BoomerVF14]

I quit the NRA back around 2011 or so over just such a "compromise" that escapes me at the moment. Joined back up in the face of what we all thought was going to be a landslide for Felonia Smirnoff von Pantsuit.

Now this.

I'm just gobsmacked by NRA's lack of integrity. If bumpfire stocks are a problem now, they should have been a problem back in the Obama reign of error. I'd like to hear their rationale for retracting their silent endorsement. They certainly didn't provide one in their press release.

The obvious problem here is the NRA's assumption underlying the phrase "In an increasingly dangerous world..."

BS.

The world is as dangerous as it's always been, because it's inhabited by human beings incapable of living up to the standard set by our creator.

[plant.one]

i'm just glad they did this before i paid out the balance on my EPL - i plan to have a conversation with them over the weekend as to why i should continue paying my dues.


and i dont even own a bumpfire stock.

[hardcase]

I wished the bump-fire stock would have stayed in the inventor's imagination. It its a spray and pray apparatus that only enriches the ammo manufacturers. I thankfully had a friend that has one before I invested the money in this useless POS, at least for any sporting purpose I know of. It is next to impossible to accurately aim. There are trigger modules that can do the same thing that attaches to a factory trigger. With practice, a person can hook his thumb into his pocket while pulling the trigger to get a bump fire.

The only negative in outlawing bump fire stocks would be giving in a bit to the anti-gun folks. Such people tend to incrimentally take away your rights.

[ARHuman]

The 2nd amendment is about levelling the playing field when a Hessian is billeted in your house and he's the only one with the gun and gets his choice of everything(one) at the table or when you're hiding behind trees watching a column of red coats coming to burn your town. Keep talking about what isn't necessary for hunting while the true evil is taking away your fighting chance when there isn't an American flag to salute.

Yes it is bad that there are bad people and that innocent people died because of evil. No connection should be made to the 2nd amendment at all. They didn't take away the pioneer's rifles when attackers were circling the wagons because 'something should be done!', and Bowie was only limited to the knife when he had nothing else to use.

Seems like we don't have a real NRA anymore, but we had better keep the 2nd amendment even more.

[John A.]

i'm just glad they did this before i paid out the balance on my EPL - i plan to have a conversation with them over the weekend as to why i should continue paying my dues.


and i dont even own a bumpfire stock.

You mean that you're going to give them a chance to change your mind?

What I read in that press release was straightforward.

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

[John A.]

If you're going to give them the time of day, at least, please know more of the background of where you spend your money. I urge you to read the full link, not just some of the excerpts below.

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.”

[wildfowler]

The bottom line is that if we don’t initiate collectively the process of term limits through the act of voting in primary challengers of incumbents we will continue to see our rights continue to be eroded.

In the mean time I would implore everyone who reads this to please contact your representative office and tell them you are tired of always having to give up your gun rights without getting ANYTHING in return. Let them know that you are willing to vote against them in the next election.

I would tell them it’s high time for sensible EXPANSION of law abiding citizens gun rights rights. For example, the HPA, nation wide concealed carry reciprocity.

Please make contact. It will literally take less than five minutes to look up your reps name and make a call or draft an email.

[gds]

If you're going to give them the time of day, at least, please know more of the background of where you spend your money. I urge you to read the full link, not just some of the excerpts below.

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.”

While all those are true. Let us deal with people who are actually alive and in charge of the NRA.

I for one have been a huge supporter of the NRA for over 20 years, I have not always done what I liked, and I can honestly say I have not always agreed with their stance. But up until this week, I have been mostly happy with the direction. I will agree that their stance on this subject is dead flat out wrong. I am so pissed off right now I had to wait a couple of days before contacting the NRA. What Lapierre and Cox have done is sold us down the river.

I have heard it reference that they did this in order to get a deal going where we get National reciprocity. While I like the idea of national reciprocity, I am not so sure I am willing to give up a piece of equipment, in order to attain it. People have also speculated that either the HPA or the share Act would be a trade-off, again as one who is a huge supporter of the HPA and or the share Act I am not so sure I am willing to give up a piece of equipment in order to attain that.

And this is coming from a guy who has no interest in bump fire stocks. But at the same time I am totally opposed to any restriction, or ban on the items.

Right now at a minimum Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox deserve every bit of hate they're getting. I am not sure the NRA has a whole does, but definitely those two.

[rebel]

If you guys don't mind, I will play the Devil's advocate this morning. I am no where near up on my political history as some here so give me a bit of leeway. As gun owners that have been portrayed by senators, congressmen, presidents and the mainstream media as ignorant, rabid, less-educated and blindly religious cretons for the past quarter century or more, We tend to oppose absolutely anything legislation that regulates us.

We know it's the slippery slope. First bump - fire stocks, then muzzle devices, then ......... it goes on. I can not truly blame anyone for thinking this way. Then you have the casual gun owner, who hunts, shoots skeet or benchrest, or CMP that says, 'Why would anyone need a bump fire stock? Banning them won't effect me." So you see, in that, we are already a divided camp.

There have been 3 major GC acts in our nations history, 1934, 1968 and 1986. All of these arguably were "anti" gun. Felons can still buy guns, people still use guns illegally and irresponsibly companies still push the envelope of what is legal or ask the question - Yeah I can manufacture it, but should I? Knowing are current political climate you'd think a company such as this wouldn't want to hurt the entire industry. Oil can solvent traps are a good example.
You notice no one seems to be fussing at Chrysler for manufacturing an 850 HP street legal car do you? If a guy has that much power, he will use it somewhere, most likely on a public road. But cars don't kill folks right? Irresponsible people do.

I have stated here that I am a member, but don't always agree with them. I also don't own a bump fire stock. Yet by design the trigger is pulled once for each shot. I shudder when I think of the definition that the ATF apples to this device and how it will effect gun design in the future.
I am for any legislation that is pro gun. What is coming down the pike is not pro - gun, it is called pro public safety which we all know is a joke.

The next time someone has an idea to manufacture something that is fringe, legal by definition, maybe this will give someone a bit of pause.
In this age where mass shootings seem so prevalent, remember the only reason that they seem that way is the Mainstream left media cramming it down everyone's throat.
I hate the NRA has cowed to public pressure, Paul Ryan can go to Hell, and so can the rest of them for all I care.
All this leaves us with is dealing with a tragedy that was unpreventable.
Not much sleep last night and I am rambling, my thoughts are jumbled and I am at work now. I'll shut up.