Outdoors
Sponsored by

Trump memo: bump stock ban

10,000 Views | 129 Replies | Last: 8 yr ago by schmellba99
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
No on the last one, FA is not worth a gun registry. I think a reasonable compromise would be to add bump stocks to the AOW NFA in exchange for a repeal of the 86 ban (Allowing FA to be sold under an NFA tax stamp). That would make FA much more accessible to those with low to average incomes, but keep it out of the hands of those that have not passed the through background check associated with purchasing NFA weapons.

Prohibition does not work whether it's alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or weapons. It's better to give a path for law abiding adults to purchase a FA weapon than for them to have to find ways to legally circumvent the rules with no background check. The market for rapid fire hacks will dry up when there is a legitimate path to ownership of a FA weapon that doesn't cost as much as a late model car.
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not sure I totally believe that. But I do agree it would be difficult. But not absolute. I actually believe the gun lobby is more powerful than even the media gives it credit for.

But I still stand by my point, even if it is a reach. Compromise is not out of the question if both sides are serious.
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with that about a registery. I would never agree to a registery.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BenderRodriguez said:

schmellba99 said:

Honestly, I can't name a single shooter from Columbine. I may remember the dude in the theater's name, and only know the last name of the ****head on this one.

I make it a point to try not to know names of animals like this.


And you have to make a conscious effort to do so because the media blasts their name and picture for weeks afterwards.

In the same vein of thinking: Up until 1968, anybody with $50 and a stamp could get a M1 carbine delivered straight to their door.

The M1 carbine is very similar to the AR-15: semiautomatic, light, 20 and 30 round magazines available, easy to use. I don't think anyone would say that the 60s was a super peaceful time in American history. So why did we not see as many attacks of this type as we do now? The equipment was available. Cultural unrest was high. What's different now?

I'd argue that the big difference and what encourages losers to repeat attacks on schools in the last few decades is the 24 hours media cycle and the fame they get from a high body count. That needs to change.

I don't seriously expect us to use the force of govt to restrict 1st Amendment rights, but it would be nice if the media got the message that Americans didn't want them to help immortalize and glorify mass murderers anymore.
I agree completely, except the remembering the names part. I suck at names, helps a lot in these situations.

There are also a whole host of differences culturally between then and now that play into this really not that common, but highly politicized and covered phenomenon.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
Yes
No
DatTallArchitect
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
I would trade bump stocks for suppressors. However, I do not want universal background checks because the government does not need to know who has what.
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree. And that's my point. There is room for compromise.
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:

I agree. And that's my point. There is room for compromise.


The problem is that will not happen because libs never give, they only take, which has resulted in conservatives refusing to even acknowledge a conversation with the libs. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose by negotiating with them. **** them, cold dead hands.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmellba99 said:

agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
Yes
No
How the F--- did "SILENCERS" ever make it on a list? What the hell makes those so scary and deadly? I don't understand that. It seems like the most benign accessory ever.
OregonAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
they'll have to eliminate belt loops as well. That's been my bump stock for years.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have had more than a few ...ahem...discussions with my liberal friends on facebook. Most of these aren't "ban everything" types and they are interested in discussion...the kind where we ultimately disagree.

Anyway, to me, the issue here with gun control is pure disagreement/understanding on a very basic level about some pretty important things. A few things I Have noticed that my lib friends say:

1.) The 2nd Amendment was never intended for private ownership of guns for you to defend yourself against others or your own government. It was only intended for you to own them as a regulated militia to be a backup to the regular standing army.

2.) Universal background checks are a good idea and there is no reason to suspect or believe a government will use that information for future confiscation. Besides, they can already find all of the info they want about you as it is if they really wanted to.

3.) There is ZERO reason for a private citizen to need military grade firepower from AR15. You can't go buy a tank or full auto weapon like the military can, so what makes you think you need anything more than pop's bolt action?


Guys, we are battling solutions from people who's basic understanding and logic is flawed. You will not and can not debate, convince or beat that....

I have no idea how to combat it except donate heavily to lobby groups and continue to vote people into office that share my belief, but even I understand that the effect of that will wane.
txyaloo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggieforester05 said:

agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
No on the last one, FA is not worth a gun registry. I think a reasonable compromise would be to add bump stocks to the AOW NFA in exchange for a repeal of the 86 ban (Allowing FA to be sold under an NFA tax stamp). That would make FA much more accessible to those with low to average incomes, but keep it out of the hands of those that have not passed the through background check associated with purchasing NFA weapons.

Prohibition does not work whether it's alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or weapons. It's better to give a path for law abiding adults to purchase a FA weapon than for them to have to find ways to legally circumvent the rules with no background check. The market for rapid fire hacks will dry up when there is a legitimate path to ownership of a FA weapon that doesn't cost as much as a late model car.
Trump could have opened up the NFA registry for new machine gun registrations on his inauguration day. The law allows him to create as many 90 day amnesty periods as he wishes. He hasn't done so. Since it's currently fully in his power, do you honestly think the Hughes Amendment is going to be repealed through 4D chess?
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggieforester05 said:

agsalaska said:

I agree. And that's my point. There is room for compromise.


The problem is that will not happen because libs never give, they only take, which has resulted in conservatives refusing to even acknowledge a conversation with the libs. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose by negotiating with them. **** them, cold dead hands.
That's not true at all. At least not historically. But it is a hell of a way to get nothing done.
TThom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BrazosDog02 said:

schmellba99 said:

agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
Yes
No
How the F--- did "SILENCERS" ever make it on a list? What the hell makes those so scary and deadly? I don't understand that. It seems like the most benign accessory ever.
Apparently you've never seen James Bond...
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BrazosDog02 said:

I have had more than a few ...ahem...discussions with my liberal friends on facebook. Most of these aren't "ban everything" types and they are interested in discussion...the kind where we ultimately disagree.

Anyway, to me, the issue here with gun control is pure disagreement/understanding on a very basic level about some pretty important things. A few things I Have noticed that my lib friends say:

1.) The 2nd Amendment was never intended for private ownership of guns for you to defend yourself against others or your own government. It was only intended for you to own them as a regulated militia to be a backup to the regular standing army.

2.) Universal background checks are a good idea and there is no reason to suspect or believe a government will use that information for future confiscation. Besides, they can already find all of the info they want about you as it is if they really wanted to.

3.) There is ZERO reason for a private citizen to need military grade firepower from AR15. You can't go buy a tank or full auto weapon like the military can, so what makes you think you need anything more than pop's bolt action?


Guys, we are battling solutions from people who's basic understanding and logic is flawed. You will not and can not debate, convince or beat that....

I have no idea how to combat it except donate heavily to lobby groups and continue to vote people into office that share my belief, but even I understand that the effect of that will wane.
For starters, drop the litmus test for people on the right side. That is the best way to lose in my opinion. Its terrible politics.


But we already do a pretty good job at combating it. I think the most misunderstood part of this 'debate' is how the issues are viewed by each side. There was a good article just in the last week about it but I cant find it. Anyway do not view the issues thru the same lens.

The left sees it, generally speaking, as a political question in need of a political solution. It is clear, like it or not, that the 2nd amendment is not absolute. Whether or not you agree with that doesn't matter. It is established. So the question is political. How much? who gets what? When and Where? who is watching out for the little guy? etc. etc.

The right doesn't see it that way. To people on the right it is not a political issue. It is a lifestyle. It is a core belief that transcends our own laws. It is a natural right. You see it on this board every day, especially on concealed carry threads when people mention they do not always carry. Or on threads about growing up with guns .For us it is natural instinct to teach my kids to shoot. Not a political decision.

On one hand the NRA is just another lobby. They are good at propaganda and misleading messaging and all of that. But where they struck gold was they harvested this energy created by millions of people who see 2A as a lifestyle and natural right. That's why they are so much more powerful than the gun control lobbies.

TheMemeGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was told the other day that the reason this happened was because of the NRA and Republicans...

How do you talk with someone with that kind of mindset
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BrazosDog02 said:

schmellba99 said:

agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
Yes
No
How the F--- did "SILENCERS" ever make it on a list? What the hell makes those so scary and deadly? I don't understand that. It seems like the most benign accessory ever.
Like most other .gov regulations - through sheer stupidity, special interest/selective bureacracy and power control.
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheVarian said:

I was told the other day that the reason this happened was because of the NRA and Republicans...

How do you talk with someone with that kind of mindset
I think you just explain your position and move forward.

The thing you CANNOT do is belittle and talk down. That's one of the many problems inside the liberal party right now. They just cant help themselves and it is a huge turnoff.

Don't forget, the pro 2a movement has gained quite a bit over the last 20 years.
1939
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not a big gun guy so forgive me, but aren't suppressors legal? I know that there is something about setting up a trust for one because a friend of mine did it. Would like an explanation.
BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:


Don't forget, the pro 2a movement has gained quite a bit over the last 20 years.

At the state level, yes. In some states. Others have lost quite a bit.

The only thing we've really "gained" at the federal level as far as I can recall is the congress critters deciding not to repeat the electoral bloodbath of 1994 by not renewing the pointless AWB in 2004.
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BenderRodriguez said:

agsalaska said:


Don't forget, the pro 2a movement has gained quite a bit over the last 20 years.

At the state level, yes. In some states. Others have lost quite a bit.

The only thing we've really "gained" at the federal level as far as I can recall is the congress critters deciding not to repeat the electoral bloodbath of 1994 by not renewing the pointless AWB in 2004.
Yea I was going to expand on that but I am at work and my phone keeps ringing. But that's seems pretty narrow. You sound like Lou Holts before the Navy game.


BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:

BenderRodriguez said:

agsalaska said:


Don't forget, the pro 2a movement has gained quite a bit over the last 20 years.

At the state level, yes. In some states. Others have lost quite a bit.

The only thing we've really "gained" at the federal level as far as I can recall is the congress critters deciding not to repeat the electoral bloodbath of 1994 by not renewing the pointless AWB in 2004.
Yea I was going to expand on that but I am at work and my phone keeps ringing. But that's seems pretty narrow. You sound like Lou Holts before the Navy game.

Concealed carry rights and people's opinions towards pistols in general and carry rights specifically have come a long way in 20 years in most states. They've still gone the other direction in several states, along with mag capacity limits, "assault weapons" bans, etc.

I suppose you can add the Heller decision to the "gained" column at the federal level, though that required a 5-4 decision and DC immediately did everything in its power to not comply with it.

But I'm sure you'll be able to provide a huge list of federal level gains for the 2A in the last 20 years that I'm not thinking of right now.

If we're using football analogies to make fun of each other, you sound like a typical Aggie sunshine pumper around August of every season.
1939
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can't think of any losses in that time frame, especially in Texas. Wins would be the non renewal of the assault weapons ban and open carry in Texas. That's actually pretty remarkable considering the rise of mass shootings during that time frame.
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. Fair enough
1939
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmellba99 said:

BrazosDog02 said:

schmellba99 said:

agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
Yes
No
How the F--- did "SILENCERS" ever make it on a list? What the hell makes those so scary and deadly? I don't understand that. It seems like the most benign accessory ever.
Like most other .gov regulations - through sheer stupidity, special interest/selective bureacracy and power control.


Suppressors are not illegal. Supposedly the waiting period is really long and the background check is intense.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1939 said:

schmellba99 said:

BrazosDog02 said:

schmellba99 said:

agsalaska said:

Meh, I disagree to a certain extent. Like some other posters have said, there are certainly some things I would give up in order to gain some things. Trump is a lot smarter than most give him credit for. He always gets something in return.

Ask yorself this, would you trade the bump stocks for silencers? I would in a nanosecond. Would you trade universal background checks for a repeal of 1986? That last one may sound far fetched, but you never know.
Yes
No
How the F--- did "SILENCERS" ever make it on a list? What the hell makes those so scary and deadly? I don't understand that. It seems like the most benign accessory ever.
Like most other .gov regulations - through sheer stupidity, special interest/selective bureacracy and power control.


Suppressors are not illegal. Supposedly the waiting period is really long and the background check is intense.


Yeah...i did a Form 1 a while back, along with an SBR. About a 9 month wait back then. Pretty familiar with the process.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.