Poll: would you trade bump fire stocks for national reciprocity?

[cdi]

Bump stocks because he was an untrained individual.
He could have done far more damage with training and conventional rifles.
He was a lone psychotic (inherited psychosis from his bank robbing father).

And you fudds ought to get it together.
We all 'hang together or we all hang separately' kind of thing.

[RobW]

No, it's terrible that we are split down the middle because it means that half of the supposedly pro-gun people on this forum are too apathetic to things that they don't specifically care about to understand that giving up anything at any time is just one less thing that we have. There is no "compromise" because we get nothing. And appeasement will work about as well as it did in the late 1930s

I had to pick this one out for a reply because yes, he went there. Now we are all appeasing Hitler because we answered a rather simple hypothetical in a way he disagrees with. Fu**ing Hitler.

If we could actually support legislation (FU**ING HYPOTHETICAL LEGISLATION) that would trade bump stocks for national reciprocity, full stop, I would support that 100% in a New York minute and so should you!

Not because I am "supposedly" pro gun, but because we would be turning the tables and using the Dem playbook against them FOR ONCE - trading a nothing-burger for a HUGE win.

Not because I am "apathetic to things I don't care about". What the f***, over? Are you reading what the people on the other side of the argument ON THIS BOARD are saying, or are you responding to Nancy Pelosi?

Now for the redundant disclaimer, YES I KNOW THIS IS NOT A VERY LIKELY SCENARIO. Wasn't the bloody question, was it!!!!

[jakebrake]

^^^^you're a fudd.


(please note total sarcasm)

[truecrimson]

Thanks for taking the time. I agree with everything you said for the most part. Not sure I completely feel your slippery slope example is the most logical to follow but gun grabbers certainly aren't informed or logical. I get it. Heck, I've had the same conversation about 50 times over the past couple days.

I guess my question is more along the lines of (don't give an inch arguments aside) does everyone really think a magazine and a surefire stock are the exact same category? Once again, as I stated, regardless I'm not suggesting throwing anyone a bone or that anything needs banned or would have prevented that lunatic. I'm just asking an honest question amongst like minded folk who suggest grips, cranks, lights, mags, barrel shrouds, etc are all the same. They just aren't to me (once again, don't read me suggesting they should be banned).

It's just hard for me to think a better trigger, different optic or bigger mag alters the function or is designed to alter the function in the same way as some of the range toys that are in the news.

It appears I am alone in that regard.

I think the '94 AWB pretty well demonstrated that, to the anti gun people at least, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, barrel shrouds, and shoulder things that go up are all fully equivalent evil features. And now we can add bump fire stocks to the list.

It doesn't really matter what I think of them. My enemies have already defined them as the same.

[Bang]

If cities and towns can ignore INS laws, they can ignore reciprocity too.

And... even if reciprocity were "granted" by federal law, it can be repealed. There goes reciprocity and the trade-in.

[Hodgie]

If cities and towns can ignore INS laws, they can ignore reciprocity too.

And... even if reciprocity were "granted" by federal law, it can be repealed. There goes reciprocity and the trade-in.

^^ This....

Your guy's and your hypothetical pipe dreams.

Trading one right for another is completely counterproductive, and being a willing participant in bargaining your rights away is just plain unintelligent.

[gummy jones]

If cities and towns can ignore INS laws, they can ignore reciprocity too.

And... even if reciprocity were "granted" by federal law, it can be repealed. There goes reciprocity and the trade-in.

If it's lip service then why fight for reciprocity at all? Why even worry about national politics? Focus on our individual little towns and bubbles and forget about the supreme court, etc.

Your argument can be applied to almost anything.

[Hodgie]

The the SHARE act was a written bill which was shelved before the bodies had time to cool and before it even came up as an actual "bargaining" chip our Republican friends said there will be NO discussion of any national reciprocity. So without the conversation there cannot be a bill and without a bill there is nothing to push with anyone anywhere.

So yes it can all be considered pure bull shit and lip service when they need a vote. Lets see what happens during reelection time and the tune they are singing.

Wasting time believing in a broken system is just crazy no different then supporting a 2A org that's is apart of the problem just because that is what we have always done.

Maybe it's time to do something different?

[DucatiRon]

The the SHARE act was a written bill which was shelved before the bodies has time to cool and before it even came up as an actual "bargaining" chip our Republican friends said there will be NO discussion of any national reciprocity. So without the conversation there cannot be a bill and without a bill there is nothing to push with anyone anywhere.

So yes it can all be considered pure bull shit and lip service when they need a vote. Lets see what happens during reelection time and the tune they are singing.

Wasting time believing is a broken system is just crazy no different then supporting a 2A org that's is apart of the problem just because that is what we have always done.

Maybe it's time to do something different?

So the soap box is officially out. Time for the ballot box. And the ammo box dosent look so far away anymore.

[tacticalreload]

Politicians are just that -- politicians. They spend 99% of their energy making sure that they keep their jobs because, as jobs go, they are pretty damn cushy. And the 1% of the time that they aren't just trying to keep their jobs, their actions are still tainted by the background thoughts of how they can keep their jobs. Hell, House reps have to be reelected every 2 years. One of my best buds used to work for a congressman. Basically, getting reelected every two years means that you perpetually campaigning.

The point is that these people, Republicans and Democrats alike, have no desire to take on divisive issues. Healthcare is a divisive issue. Taxes / entitlements are a divisive issue. Guns are a seriously divisive issue. Elections are won and lost by grabbing those middle-of-the-road voters. Those are the ones that politicians play to all the time, and those people swing in the breeze. They might want gun control now, but come election day maybe they won't any more. Unless these happen to be the usual players who have built a living attacking guns, most would prefer to not go on the record either way. If FORCED to vote, they will usually toe the party line unless they are in a jurisdiction that is an anomaly. This goes double for senators that represent an entire state and therefore a much more diverse constituency. But the best way to deal with this sort of thing is to pretend that you care when it's convenient, put up a dog and pony show when needed, and then try to make yourself small when it's actually time to put up or shut up.

Everyone knows that the SHARE act wasn't going to pass the Senate. It was meaningless anyway. The House is probably relieved that they didn't have to bother with it because no good could have come of it anyway.