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

[ExFlyinguy]

I thought about doing a Poll that simply asked "are you willing to sacrifice bumpfire stocks", because we ain't gettin shit out of it.

* Problem is - I ain't smart enough to figure out how to do said poll.

[farmplinker]

Glad to see that even today, when it's not only clear that we won't be "trading" for anything but rather just losing something... people are still willing to vote "YES".

Not sure why I'm even bothering to reply, but voting "yes" in the poll means getting national reciprocity in return for banning bump stocks. It's right there in the thread title and poll question. Not sure why some are reading extra and erroneous stuff into the poll question.

Perhaps you should start a different poll "would you be willing to ban bump fire stocks and get nothing in return". I bet the voting is a tad different.

Note, as I said before, that I don't begrudge your "don't give an inch" viewpoint, but that is explicitly not what the poll question is asking.

[tacticalreload]

Not sure why I'm even bothering to reply, but voting "yes" in the poll means getting national reciprocity in return for banning bump stocks. It's right there in the thread title and poll question. Not sure why some are reading extra and erroneous stuff into the poll question.

Perhaps you should start a different poll "would you be willing to ban bump fire stocks and get nothing in return". I bet the voting is a tad different.

Note, as I said before, that I don't begrudge your "don't give an inch" viewpoint, but that is explicitly not what the poll question is asking.

I get what you're saying. However, if we are speaking in never-gonna-happen hypotheticals, perhaps we should start a poll that says "would you be willing to give up bump fire stocks in exchange for a bajillion dollars and the map to the fountain of youth". At the end of the day, it's a poll about being willing to sacrifice our principles by giving up some gun rights that we already have (but generally don't use) for something else that we don't yet have (but will probably use more).

Any government that is capable of taking away bump fire stocks and giving us national reciprocity is just as capable of taking away national reciprocity in exchange for nothing a day later.

[internet troll]

I threw the question out there because you often hear pro 2nd people who are fed up with giving up rights say something along the lines of "compromise always means we give something, they take and give nothing". At the time I started this poll it sounded like there was going to be a serious push for a bump fire stock ban. There was also a national reciprocity bill in the Senate that had been stalling.

My thoughts were what if our Congressmen really came together and went for a compromise where both sides gain something they want, and both sides lose something they currently have...... an actual compromise in my eyes. Would people trade one right for another. Basically a mental exercise into a hypothetical.

There is still a place for never compromisers in the scenario. I fit that profile. I would much rather have national reciprocity than bump stocks. But at the same time I am against giving up a right I don't care about, for a right I do. Politicians trade rights away to easily and the end result is we all have a lot less rights, both rights we care about and don't. I'm not in favor of giving rights away that we have ......to procure other rights I think we should have. But I do understand where others are coming from.

I'm a keep it simple stupid type of guy. I realize that we need some rules and laws for society to exist. But the less rights given up, the better off we are imo. That means less rules and laws vs. more rules and laws. That also means realizing people have the rights to some things that I do not agree with. That is the only way to truly preserve rights I do agree with.

[SWIGIN]

Where is the ''Ban bump stocks in exchange for making silencers an over the counter purchase'' option?

[Hodgie]

Where is the ''Ban bump stocks in exchange for making silencers an over the counter purchase'' option?

It's in your fucking dreams.

Here's whats coming down the reality pipe in the next week or so.

Enjoy

[dkf]

It's in your fucking dreams.

Here's whats coming down the reality pipe in the next week or so.

Enjoy

So many people seem to be living in a space far far away from reality. Or they just don't know or can't comprehend recent history. It is not that hard to research gun control in the US over the last 100 years to see how things went down.

[tacticalreload]

Well, on the upside, at least James Yeager is still a clueless douche so not everything has changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWHfkFOHJK4

[Hodgie]

Well, on the upside, at least James Yeager is still a clueless douche so not everything has changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWHfkFOHJK4

More ignorant douche bag's in one thing we need less of in the firearms community especially ones that call themselves trainers.

[tacticalreload]

More ignorant douche bag's in one thing we need less of in the firearms community especially ones that call themselves trainers.

There are a lot of people who love him for some reason. I just don't get it. There are plenty of people I can't stand that have a following, but I can at least understand why some of the clueless idiots follow them. With Yeager, I can't understand it one bit. He's demonstrated himself to an asshole, unsafe, of questionable moral makeup, and arguably someone who hits the bricks when the range goes two-way. Why anyone would sit through his videos online for free, let alone actually pay him hard-earned money for "training" when so many better options exist... it's beyond me. However, at the end of the day, he has 325,000 subscribers so maybe I'm just out of touch. I guess if you have a loud mouth, shaved head, tattoos, and a long goatee, that's enough street cred for some people to part with their money. Call me crazy, but I have higher standards.