NRA supports bump-stock regulations...........

[Dan Shapiro]

Smart move on their part. Earlier Nancy Pelosi was pushing for a ban on them, even admitting it was 'hopefully a slippery slope to more gun control regulations'.
Why would she say that? To put Republicans off of supporting the ban. Then the Democrats could scream and yell that the NRA and Republicans want everyone to have a machine gun. Now the NRA has called her bluff, tying a bump-stock ban WITH recognition of a national CCW reciprocity.

Looks like the ball is now back in Pelosi's court. Will Democrats refuse to support such a bill?

https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/916004277025366016

[S.A. Boggs]

The national CCW will most likely be dropped, "For the safety of society" the new catch phrase replacing, "For the sake of the children!"
Sam

[Sandpebble]

The national CCW will most likely be dropped, "For the safety of society" the new catch phrase replacing, "For the sake of the children!"
Sam

Well Sam.... you agreed with the banning of beer in a hurricane zone "for the safety of society" ... didn't you ?

If you feel I'm a threat to society for buying a six pack .... why wouldn't others feel you are a threat with your guns ?

[Dan Shapiro]

The national CCW will most likely be dropped

Then it would be time to drop Ryan and McConnell.

[S.A. Boggs]

Well Sam.... you agreed with the banning of beer in a hurricane zone "for the safety of society" ... didn't you ?

If you feel I'm a threat to society for buying a six pack .... why wouldn't others feel you are a threat with your guns ?

By the way, did you ever fulfil your need for ethanol? One is too many and 10,000 is not enough. With your constant remarks on my opinion you continue a pattern that I have seen too often.
Sam

[Sandpebble]

By the way, did you ever fulfil your need for ethanol? One is too many and 10,000 is not enough. With your constant remarks on my opinion you continue a pattern that I have seen too often.
Sam

LOL.... a pattern you've seen too often ..... and as usual like a smart man you deftly swerve from the real point of the discussion .... man with a six pack is bad.... man with a gun is OK in your book ?

[S.A. Boggs]

LOL.... a pattern you've seen too often ..... and as usual like a smart man you deftly swerve from the real point of the discussion .... man with a six pack is bad.... man with a gun is OK in your book ?

An inebriated person in control of ANY object that can be lethal is never good. Swerve from the point of discussion, apparently at times this is not within your limited conscious context...
Sam

[blackhawknj]

Get invited to the table, have a big say in the wording of the regulations...what do you think Wall Street has done all these years ?

[Sandpebble]

An inebriated person in control of ANY object that can be lethal is never good. Swerve from the point of discussion, apparently at times this is not within your limited conscious context...
Sam

OK there ya go again Sam.... now I gotta call you out Bro.

You, as did some of the others here seemed quite fine with the Government stepping in to ban alcohol sales in a hurricane zone for the safety of the general public...

You did, right?... yes... or no ? .... be carefull now as what you wrote is still on the forum.

Have you explained why you think that particular Government intrusion is OK, yet any infringement on buffoons obtaining bumpstocks and the like are not. Permit me to remind you we are talking about the shooting of 520 Americans in a ten minute period. Thats explanation is what I'm looking for.... an explanation that you seem incapable of delivering. .....

It's simple.... man with a six pack is dangerous to the general public.... man with a bump stocked AR and multiple 30 round mags is within his constitutional rights .... there fore no threat.
Just looking to see how you discern the difference.... though it seems you can't

Sorry Sam, but you put here on a public forum an analysis of me based on a 15 sentence mini diatribe and tried to back it up with a claim of higher education {with honors}. And you've been slick enough to keep using that to get around questions you can't answer....

.... I'm coming to the conclusion that your analytical experience comes from being on the "other side " of the couch ..... know what I mean?

[S.A. Boggs]

OK there ya go again Sam.... now I gotta call you out Bro.

You, as did some of the others here seemed quite fine with the Government stepping in to ban alcohol sales in a hurricane zone for the safety of the general public...

You did, right?... yes... or no ? .... be carefull now as what you wrote is still on the forum.

Have you explained why you think that particular Government intrusion is OK, yet any infringement on buffoons obtaining bumpstocks and the like are not. Permit me to remind you we are talking about the shooting of 520 Americans in a ten minute period. Thats explanation is what I'm looking for.... an explanation that you seem incapable of delivering. .....

It's simple.... man with a six pack is dangerous to the general public.... man with a bump stocked AR and multiple 30 round mags is within his constitutional rights .... there fore no threat.
Just looking to see how you discern the difference.... though it seems you can't

Sorry Sam, but you put here on a public forum an analysis of me based on a 15 sentence mini diatribe and tried to back it up with a claim of higher education {with honors}. And you've been slick enough to keep using that to get around questions you can't answer....

.... I'm coming to the conclusion that your analytical experience comes from being on the "other side " of the couch ..... know what I mean?

Sam

[PaFrank]

They are inaccurate, unsafe, and serve no practical purpose other than to show off, ruin barrels, and lay down suppressing fire.. I know of no ranges in my area that will even allow you to use one at their facility, so whats the point? I don't see the need, never did, don't care that they ban them.

[JB White]

Smart move on their part. Earlier Nancy Pelosi was pushing for a ban on them, even admitting it was 'hopefully a slippery slope to more gun control regulations'.
Why would she say that? To put Republicans off of supporting the ban. Then the Democrats could scream and yell that the NRA and Republicans want everyone to have a machine gun. Now the NRA has called her bluff, tying a bump-stock ban WITH recognition of a national CCW reciprocity.

Looks like the ball is now back in Pelosi's court. Will Democrats refuse to support such a bill?

https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/stat...04277025366016

I think the NRA overstepped. The national CCW reciprocity should have waited for another day as it should not have been attached to the LV tragedy. Emotions are running high on both ends and the initial "call to review" should have stood alone. Adding those lines in that release only added more fuel and blame to the left's knee-jerk hatred.

[S.A. Boggs]

They are inaccurate, unsafe, and serve no practical purpose other than to show off, ruin barrels, and lay down suppressing fire.. I know of no ranges in my area that will even allow you to use one at their facility, so whats the point? I don't see the need, never did, don't care that they ban them.

Have you read the California Senator's bill, as written it could imply other restrictions. How about a 25lb trigger pull for instance? Remember, Congress writes the bill, BATF{E} writes the regulations. We need to be careful of what we ask for...we might get something else!
Sam

[S.A. Boggs]

I think the NRA overstepped. The national CCW reciprocity should have waited for another day as it should not have been attached to the LV tragedy. Emotions are running high on both ends and the initial "call to review" should have stood alone. Adding those lines in that release only added more fuel and blame to the left's knee-jerk hatred.

Sometimes the best thing to have is silence.
Sam

[Dan Shapiro]

JB
Democrats will never let a national reciprocity agreement pass as a stand-alone. The suppressor bill might pass on it's own. The Democrats would be hard-pressed to bring forward a "victim" of a suppressor.......and these are the same people who think a "flasher hider" hides the flash from the victim.