SHARE act vs bumpskis

So, repubs are buckling on bumpfire stocks. I am normally a "not an inch" 2a guy, but bumpfire are pretty useless unless you just want to waste ammunition or shoot a blob of 20k.

If we are going to yield the stocks anyway, should we remind the asshole grabbers what a "compromise" is? We already have the right to bumpfire. If you want to take them, give us unregulated suppressors in return.

No evidence of people being killed with suppressors in us history other than 2 homicides, and one was home made.

I know... Shall. But if we are going to lose these dumbass stocks, should we fight for something we actually want?

If so, talk to your politicians. Don't let them just take something and call it a compromise.

Other urls found in this thread:

thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html?m=1),
washingtonexaminer.com/nra-calls-for-federal-review-of-bump-stock-devices-like-those-used-in-las-vegas-shooting/article/2636652
washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nra-back-bump-stock-ban-trump-open-restrictions/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Do not under any circumstances tell anyone to ban anything, only that they should support legeslation that allows for no-hassle suppressors even if it bans bumpfire stocks.

I'm afraid (sort of, personally I'd never own one but I don't like degradation of our rights) that the stocks are already gone.

But I refuse to have something taken away and have that called a compromise.

From the NYT so there's that...

"“I own a lot of guns, and as a hunter and sportsman, I think that’s our right as Americans, but I don’t understand the use of this bump stock,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said, adding, “It seems like it’s an obvious area we ought to explore and see if it’s something Congress needs to act on."

I agree it ain't over til it's over. But to sit and watch them walk away without anything in return seems... Petulant. Especially since we keep hearing about it being a "compromise"

They're not gone until its signed into law, and as far as I know the ATF hasn't reclassified them even if all the manufacturers are pulling them just in case, and also so that the press doesn't harass them. Quit being so defeatist and just focus on making what you want to happen happen.

You say things like that, and you let them know they already won, and don't owe you shit.

Well the Feinstien bill the support is ANYTHING construed as making semi auto fire faster. Don't be a fucking fudd and don't budge an inch

Just thought it was worth kicking around especially since the cans seem to be what they are really worried about (scalise and now this)

I'll keep standing firm.

I have not seen a single gun control bill that actually gave gun owners something in return in my entire life. Don't fall for the "compromise" BS. Its RINOs and Democrats working together to give us a raw deal

This man is right. Its no longer left side right side, each fighting for their respective sides. Its all communists fighting to mangle and destroy our country and to stop any freedom in any country.

Are you that dense? You really think they are willing to compromise? Did you just wake up in the last decade? Don't give them an inch.

I get the don't give and inch thing, I really do, every last "compromise" has been one infringement after another; slippery slope, yada yada yada, I get it, believe me, I've preached it myself.

Focusing SPECIFICALLY on what's in front of us: it's a range toy. That's ALL it is. It's too unreliable for HD, too inaccurate for hunting, too inaccurate to defend against people who'd take all your guns and shoot your dog if Hillary got elected. It's only use is seeing how quickly you can burn ammo. So, fuck it.

If they can staple it to the SHARE Act or national reciprocity, great. But I'm not gonna fight any libs over this one. Aside from being sick and fucking tired of the shit they've been pulling and lies they've been telling for decades (thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html?m=1), there's no reason to keep these (aside from shits and giggles).

Sick of seeing these threads find another topic you narrow minded tit.

It's just not worth giving the Dems anything they can use to unseat Republicans in swing districts.

>what is FOPA

FOPA only made it so you can drive from one state where you're legal to another state where you're legal without getting fucked by some ridiculous commie state in between (which they still do anyway!). Protecting people from inappropriate and overzealous enforcement of ridiculous laws doesn't really count when those laws shouldn't exist in the first place!

Spotted the noguns

OP here. That was my thought.

The normie crowd believes bumpstocks make machine guns. I fully believe we are going to lose them no matter what. The question is, do we try to gain from the "compromise" or just give up another thing and scream that it's the last time?

Know what? Either way, fuck it. If we get SHARE or National Reciprocity, sweet. If they don't pass restrictions on these stupid fucking range toys, then that's something that will be used against vulnerable Republicans who squeaked into office on the Trump wave, and we can kiss having Republican majorities in both chambers goodbye.

>what is the Hughes Amendment

>"“I own a lot of guns...but I don’t understand the [concept of having fun],”

Did he just buy the guns so he could run as a Republican and say to people that he owns guns???

No. Don’t negotiate with people trying to oppress you. You say no. If they get belligerent you say no in more forceful terms.

I have a perfect compromise for them:
>the machine gun definition in the NFA gets modified to include slidefire stocks/trigger cranks/similar
>in return the machine gun registry gets reopened
Someone tell me how this is a bad idea, considering the NFA red tape has a history of driving away people intent on committing crimes with legal NFA items.

>Focusing SPECIFICALLY on what's in front of us: it's a range toy. That's ALL it is. It's too unreliable for HD, too inaccurate for hunting, too inaccurate to defend against people who'd take all your guns and shoot your dog if Hillary got elected. It's only use is seeing how quickly you can burn ammo. So, fuck it.

I'm thinking about selling mine and I don't really care if I can never buy another one again. The only use I had for it was when I took friends out shooting to let them experience squeezing off a few shots rapidly, but because most people can't just pick up a slidefire stock and use it right away (it requires the user to "get the hang of it"), most people aren't able to use it the first time, so it doesn't work for that.

Another thing I've noticed is that often when I've used mine, I've had an issue where the hammer followed the bolt and I somehow got a dead trigger on a loaded chamber. Kind of a weird malfunction - but I assume it comes from pulling the trigger while slightly out of battery? anyway, it's annoying to even have fun with the thing. I have about the same luck bumpfiring freehand.

That'd never fly b/c of all the people who bought FA funs as investments. They'd raise hell, and probably pull a Bill Ruger; testify against it, and throw the rest of the 2A community under the bus.

I mean, I really don't give a shit if they wanna ban the bumpfire stocks, besides it may take some heat off of the republicans up for reelection in blue/swing districts. We need them for the long haul and if bump stocks have to go in order to keep dems from getting too worked up, then so be it.

>Another thing I've noticed is that often when I've used mine, I've had an issue where the hammer followed the bolt and I somehow got a dead trigger on a loaded chamber.
The gun was running too fast. The internals can only support so high a cyclic rate with a semiauto trigger.

Fuddimus maximus

No, don’t embolden your enemies

Makes sense. Why do you think the Vegas shooter didn't seem to have these malfunctions?

He bought quality funs with quality triggers

FA guns used and walked out in the 60 minutes the police were "posted right outside his door"

I still can't figure out if FA guns were actually used. Can you link to a report with this information definitively?

I've experienced the issue with a Geissele SD3G trigger with FA profile bcg, carbine length gas system and standard A2 flash hider. Just saying.

Nope. But I'm full on "deep state gun ban martyr" at this point.

FOPA is too vague and anyone along the way can decide to fuck with you and you have no redress.

Initial reports said that FA guns were used, but that was before journalists discovered what a bump fire stock was. Later reports said that police were still investigating whether any guns were FA. I don't believe the info has been definitively released yet.

>carbine length gas system
install a heavier buffer. carbine gas will cycle too fast creating the dead trigger condition.

H or H2 will fix it, as will a mid gas barrel (probably)

Good to know, thanks. I will still probably sell the stock. They are going for like $400 on Gunbroker right now and the prices are going up. I could buy a whole gun with that kind of money.

>I will still probably sell the stock

I'd probably do the same. I can't imagine that they'll do a buyback or any amnesty for current owners. They're "evil" now, and dems are salivating a a change to v& anything they can.

One of the guns with a slidefire stock had a lot of smoke settled on the barrel. I would say it had about one 100 round magazine run through it.

Is is possible that you can cram a spring of some kind into one of these things to make using it easier, and does anyone know if the hotel room door had its deadbolt locked?

Do NOT give them any momentum, especially right now with Trump as president. The last thing we need is "Look what we did with a republican ruled everything!" and next thing you know we have welded in 10 round magazines.

That's not a compromise. So include these items into the NFA, and then allow more machine guns to be made for civilian use?

They're never going to agree to that.

A REAL Compromise is:

Ban bump stocks and PASS THE SHARE ACT. You could even take out the suppressor legalization but as long as the sporting clause is destroyed as well as import rules, that would be amazing. Most people don't even understand that part of it.

Stop making threads about this for fuck's sake

You're already compromising on your compromise. Do you have ANY vertebrae?

You're a damn idiot.

No, you fucker. This is how you make a deal. You make the other side "have to" do something.

Same thing with the DACA deal getting peppered with massive security for the border and wall deal (E-verify, harsh penalties, deportation).

The SHARE act is NEVER going to pass this Senate. Unless you ban bump stocks. (and only bump stocks). And in return, that stupid sporting clause and the 922r requirements and the import rules that have fucked everyone for a decades can disappear.

>Smoke settled on the barrel
>Roughly 1 100 round

Hi New York times.

Close. But don't give up the suppressors just because shillary tweeted about it.

This actually makes sense in a way.

If you guys know anyone from the NRA, tell them this, tell them to tell their lobbyists this, so when the inevitable "ban the bumpstock" bill comes out, the fucking GOP isn't just going to roll over and vote for the damn thing with nothing in exchange for it.

Dumbest dealmakers in town ffs.

>That's not a compromise. So include these items into the NFA, and then allow more machine guns to be made for civilian use?
That is a compromise though and I explained the reasoning behind it in my post:
>the NFA red tape has a history of driving away people intent on committing crimes with legal NFA items.
Almost no one goes through those hoops currently so they can commit a crime with an NFA item, therefore the '86 machine guns ban is excess and unneeded regulation that the anti side could easily part with. In return they get items that allow you to imitate the effective rate of fire of a full auto gun with a semi auto gun added to the NFA and regulated the same as actual machine guns. I don't see how that isn't a win win situation for both sides while staying on the same subject and not bringing about the problem of sides trying to weigh what the equivalent trade of less regulation in one area vs more regulation in a completely different area (you almost certainly wouldn't get the full SHARE act). Furthermore, bringing in a different item that the other side is currently convinced would have made the shooting worse is a non starter as they would likely view the situation as them getting nothing.

>inb4 posters say they would rather have over the counter shitty options where you can outrun the gun and become less effective when firing from a supported position than actually being able to purchase full auto guns without being filthy stinkin rich at the expense of having to deal with NFA red tape

That isn't what's going to happen though. The RINO Party doesn't do deals. They do accommodation.

That's no compromise. People already buy suppressors willy-nilly even though they're NFA. The same would happen with machine guns if the registry is open.
That's why they would never accept that as compromise. Fucking THINK before you post bullshit. My plan has a better chance of passing.

You're an idiot.

>offer deal
>dems agree, bump stocks get banned
>SHARE Act comes up
>dems all vote no, it fails

>this idiot is an idiot
You don't understand how bill amendments work, huh?

Both are a compromise and good ones at that user. The argument that legal full auto is never really used in crimes because of the red tape (they'll like that) it would be a good compromise if they reopened the registry to include it. Suppressor may not be cool enough for me to pay 200$ + the huge cost for a nice one for every gun but I'd pay 200$ and for a cheap fcg to have a full auto.

Id like to see both the share act and opening the full auto registry as a compromise for the bump fires. The arguement makes sense.

If you include the bumpstock ban in the SHARE act, then it's no problem.

Opening the registry is a non-starter politically. Not going to happen right now, unfortunately. Suppressors could work though, in conjunction with 922 and sporting. Plus, it give repubs political capital.
>we tried to compromise, dems wouldn't do it, boo hoo.

that's not how bills work.

You get bullet number 1 buddy.

>The argument that legal full auto is never really used in crimes because of the red tape (they'll like that)
Will not fly. All you have to do with NFA is submit forms, then it gets to you after months. This killer had 20 years of planning and waited for months to complete his arsenal. That's why they won't accept that deal.
The sporting clause, 922r, import bans are all so benign and the public doesn't understand them, their passage is almost secure.

forgot pic

they can just amend it to SHARE Act so it all gets voted on at the same time.

>Implying republicans are competent enough to do this. And notjust ban it for feels

That's not how legislation works.

>we tried to compromise, dems wouldn't do it, boo hoo.
Democrats aren't going to see them as any more reasonable. They aren't going to win over any democrat votes. They ARE, however, going to lose republican votes because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

>If you want to take them, give us unregulated suppressors in return.
Why should we give you that? legit question.
>Ok, we'll take away this one mass murder device and in its place allow you to have an assassination device
I don't see the logic behind it

Reasonable point, but (((moderate))) repubs don't have that same belief. They're still in the "compromise is good" mindset. So if we can throw them bumpstocks for cans, etc, I think that's a good trade.

You want no more bumpstocks, here's what we want. Take it or leave it. R controlled house, senate, exec and judiciary, that's the best they're going to get. Assuming Ryan doesn't cuck out, which he will.

Unfortunately, this.

>That's no compromise. People already buy suppressors willy-nilly even though they're NFA.
Except they don't. The red tape scares a lot of people away.

>The same would happen with machine guns if the registry is open.
And how many people are going through all the red tape to buy a legal suppressor in order to commit a crime with it currently?

>Will not fly. All you have to do with NFA is submit forms, then it gets to you after months.
Except we already have decades of precedent with all other NFA items for how we wouldn't see an increase in crime committed with legal machine guns should the '86 machine gun ban be lifted. Meanwhile, the anti side is already going on about how this shooting would be worse if the shooter had used a suppressor which makes a compromise involving that a non starter even if the shooting wouldn't have been worse had the shooter been using a suppressor. No one is going to "compromise" by trading one thing they don't like for another thing they consider just as bad if not worse.

>here's what we want. Take it or leave it.
libs will simply leave it
why would they ever give back a gun right that they've taken away?
it's not in their interest to do that

When shit goes down every politician becomes a (((hunter))) and (((sportsman)) who just doesn't see a need for these weapons of death and destruction. Every one of them fears an armed populace and merely puts on a show for votes.

Hunter/sportsman is a poor execuse for not seeing a use for shit like this. I mean even for fully auto guns if they were legal with no bullshit they'd be range tools to shoot rounds then be put back in the case. It's like having a sports car but we dont hear people banning them because of how fast they can go

>>libs will simply leave it
I hope they do. We can at least bludgeon them with their refusal to negotiate while we bumpfire off into the sunset. Until some faggot smokes another group of civies, at least.

>make tannerite illegal too and we'll give you suppressors

>(((hunter))) and (((sportsman))
TIL the rural town I grew up in full of Christians of Norwegians decent with multiple churches despite having under 500 people was actually full of crypto-Jews. Is (((lutefisk))) also a Jewish dish?

Because he had 12 fucking rifles with these unreliable ass stocks, 90 round snail mags, 100 round Surefires, and probably a beta mag, too. If he had a jam, he'd just grab the next gun.

Look to the Firearm Owners Protection Act to see how well compromise works out. "Safe passage" doesn't mean shit if you drive through New York. The prohibition of registries sounds good on paper, but if you buy a gun from an FFL, you better believe it's traceable. And as soon as private sales are outlawed, the federal government will have a de facto registry for every gun sold in America. The machine gun registry is never ever coming back.
If we give up bump fire or anything else today in exchange for suppressors, tomorrow we will lose suppressors and then have neither. Gun rights, or any other rights, are a one-way street. Give them up and you are never getting them back.

Well britian is looking inti banning assault trucks atleast

The echo parenthesis are used merely for memery. They are the new >meme arrows, in that their original purpose is a moot point.

Stop being a defeatist pussy.

it's just NH3 and AL shavings, right? I'll take that deal if that's the case.

Fuck your "plan"

I think typically prilled ammonium nitrate and aluminum. Sometimes other metals, like magnesium, mixed in.

it's happening, the NRA has offered up bump stocks to the sacrificial altar of gun control

look, we did something...

>Why should we give you that? legit question.
Why should republicans yield anything when they have majorities in the House and Senate?

Because republicans can't govern worth shit.

>shooting with suppressor happens
>THIS IS WHY SUPPRESSORS WERE ILLEGAL
>BAN THEM AGAIN

>The echo parenthesis are used merely for memery
All they do is make most people stop reading your post because they expect it to be some Sup Forumstard shit.

>the NRA has offered up bump stocks to the sacrificial altar of gun control
No they haven't.

We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They regulate and tax full autos, and we fall back. They ban manufacturer of any new full autos, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!

GOP proposing a bill to outlaw bumpfire stocks
NRA just released a statement that basically says, go ahead, we won't fuck with you over it.

no, no word on a suppressor compromise
just the GOP throwing bumpfire under the bus with the tacit approval of the NRA

But Trump is super duper pro-gun! He said so himself.

SHALL

Source?

>GOP proposing a bill to outlaw bumpfire stocks
Where? Only one I've seen so far is Feinstein's.

Expect it in coming days with the nra giving tacit approval

>nra giving tacit approva
source

CNN maybe 15 minuets ago, i'll go search the NRA to look for the statement

>nothing has actually happened yet, but I think it will
Fuck off.

washingtonexaminer.com/nra-calls-for-federal-review-of-bump-stock-devices-like-those-used-in-las-vegas-shooting/article/2636652

Nra threw the ATF under the bus and just said regulate them you tap dancing faggot

I think what OP is saying is that a little "art of the deal" might actually be good here. We could agree to get a useless novelty range toy taken away in exchange for getting existing restrictions on something that was actually useful dropped or lessened. Personally, I'd be more than willing to trade away bump stocks in exchange for getting SBRs dropped off the NFA list. Hell, I'd even trade them for getting 922r done away with.

Look, compromise isn't bad when it's actual compromise. Actual compromise isn't "give me half your stuff, and for now I won't take *all* of your stuff", which is what the left always tries to sell it as. Actual compromise is "give a little, get a little". This is, again, actually a pretty good opportunity to give away something useless and get something useful in return. If played right, we could actually kind of come out ahead on this. But we'll only manage it if we get smart on how to negotiate.

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

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nra-back-bump-stock-ban-trump-open-restrictions/