https://instagr.am/p/BfeqIzggKCB

Hoss said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't think of a good reason for anyone to need to shoot full auto. Unless you're laying down cover fire or shooting into a large crowd of people or animals, it's wasteful, ineffective and in many cases even dangerous. I'm okay with the fact that you can't just go buy a full auto gun off the shelf.

---

I can't think of any good reason to buy a 6.5CM or .300 BLK and think it fills a niche and problem that doesn't exist. I also think that having my AR15 is largely a giant waste of money and resources that produces no useful advantage over any other weapon I own. I think bump stocks are ******ed and a great way to burn up a lot of ammo and do it without any accuracy. And I think YOU are completely wrong. I am NOT ok with not being able to own fully auto weapons. I am not OK with knowing my government has better weapons availability than I do. And I think that if you want to own AR15's and take out a second mortgage to do it AND have multiple weapons in the calibers I listed above, then you, by all means, should be able to do exactly that. I also think you should be able to waste your money and ammo with a bump stock.

My opinion of what YOU can do is of zero consequence to anyone else. You are missing the entire point here.

We should not, under any circumstances, support or generate legislation 'just to appease'. We are readily admitting we will give up rights for no other reason than to make someone else feel better.

Thats not cool.

---

Speaking of missing the point, you took a portion of what I said...quoted it out of context...and completely ignored the actual "point" of my post.

If you'll actually go read what I said, you'll see that I don't support this legistration either.

---

Oh my bad, I didn't think the last sentence needed a whole lot of context. It's pretty self contained. My apologies if I completely misread that.

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

We aren't on the same side.

AgLA06 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

Mature. Perfect example as to why we push those in the middle away that we should instead be influencing.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone say anything should be banned. We're discussing them on their merit. Name calling doesn't prove your point.

---

He started first by calling me and my ideas stupid. Did that push you away from his side? Read the thread. Dont pretend to be middle when you clearly articulate against one side. And if he doesnt like being called 'lib', then go check his posting history in the POL forum where most of his posts are like i did. You arent fooling anyone chastising me and proclaiming to be middle of the road, save maybe yourself.

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

You're obviously married

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

You still haven't answered my question.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

We aren't on the same side.

---

And there you have it. The reason we'll lose everything in the end. We can't articulate our stance intelligently, so we alienate everyone. People like you think you're the gold standard for pro 2nd amendment, but you really do more harm than good.

I've never voted anything other than conservative and oppose any anti 2nd amendment legislation. If we aren't on the same side, what side are you on?

AgLA06 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

We aren't on the same side.

---

And there you have it. The reason we'll lose everything in the end. We can't articulate our stance intelligently, so we alienate everyone. People like you think you're the gold standard for pro 2nd amendment, but you really do more harm than good.

I've never voted anything other than conservative and oppose any anti 2nd amendment legislation. If we aren't on the same side, what side are you on?

---

You are right. My post was ****ty and dicky. I realize that, and it's not even your fault, frankly. But this is exactly the point I have been trying to hammer home. The lines and side for this argument are now at a point where they are very black and white to me. You are either fully on one side or not. I hear people every day start out a conversation with "I own an AR, but...." And right there, it shows the fragmentation of our stance. YOU ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT...we will lose everything because of this stance. There are not enough people willing to dig in and say NO....to EVERYTHING.

I even had someone tell me that we will eventually lose the 2ns altogether because of this. And I think that is probably right as well. To that I say, great...then I have nothing to lose now. Im digging in, hard lining. I am not OK with NFA ****, I am not OK with me having to have a license for me to carry my own weapon, and I am not OK with ANY ..... A N Y....additional gun legislation.

When I say we aren't on the same side, I mean that in a very black and white way and that is because of my personal stance of "you either want gun control or you don't". I don't. At all.

My apologies again for being a dick. And yes, my post was in error...from the legislative standpoint you are on our side, but I do have to disagree with 'we've caused it ourself'. I don't think so. We've responded to the law and maintained liberty as best we can while pushing its limit to the max.

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

You still haven't answered my question.

---

Schmellba,

That's because I've stopped reading your long condescending rants. You are a wealth of knowledge on this board, but the second you step on the soap box, I check out.

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

I wasn't advocating for anything, just pointing out that your argument is not sound. You obviously don't agree with any form of gun regulation at all and that's fine, just state that instead of trying to pretend that the point of the device is not to increase the rate of fire.You may be the first person to ever call me a lib, I'm very far from it.

Quote:

---

There are not enough people willing to dig in and say NO....to EVERYTHING.

I even had someone tell me that we will eventually lose the 2ns altogether because of this. And I think that is probably right as well. To that I say, great...then I have nothing to lose now. Im digging in, hard lining.

---

Somebody earlier jokingly mentioned marriage in response to something a poster said. Marriage popped into my head when I read what you wrote above. An analogy of sorts. I was in one God awful marriage and one where I am as lucky and blessed as a man can be.

If one or both people in a marriage dig in and take a hard line on issues that confront them...........the marriage is doomed.

A great marriage always works because of compromise. I want to do "anything" that makes my second wife happy because she does the same for me.

I'll be the first to agree that it is not a great analogy, but it does warrant a moment of thought. Not the issue of compromising with the anti-gun left, but trying to placate the moderates or the parents of these kids who were killed. If we alienate the middle with our digging in..............yes...................I think we will eventually lose the war. Just my opinion..........nothing more.

1939 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

I wasn't advocating for anything, just pointing out that your argument is not sound. You obviously don't agree with any form of gun regulation at all and that's fine, just state that instead of trying to pretend that the point of the device is not to increase the rate of fire.You may be the first person to ever call me a lib, I'm very far from it.

---

My argument is sound. I do agree with some forms of gun control- many of which are in place now (where did I say I didn't agree with any gun control?). Why are you switching to "device is not to increase the rate of fire" when that is exactly the point of my argument against calling something a 'full auto immitator'. Full auto is one trigger pull, one action, results in multiple projectiles down the barrel. If you wish to limit rate of fire, which is my point, you must maintain what is a maximum rate of fire acceptible. When someone breaks into your house and you empty your mag in under 1 second fearing for your life, that is apparently full auto for you... when someone like Jerry Miculek can pull his trigger just as fast as full auto, that is to be banned according to you. It allows PERCEPTION OF SPEED, not actual mechanics of the gun itself to become outlawed/illegal- which will be abused against good and legal gun owners- and opens the door to other possibilities like mag limits which has nothing to do with crime prevention, rather increased govt control over citizens. It is definitely a "feels bad" argument rather than a logical argument- thus the lib moniker...

Edit: I appreciate your reply.

It's actually a GREAT analogy. But that's not what happens with gun control. In compromise, you get something in return for giving up something. What we end up with is a promise for not having further regulations...and that ends up being a lie.

I don't want to placate them. I want them to understand that they are stupid and not understanding that what they want will not solve their problem. They will gain NOTHING and I will pay the price for it.

I agree with you, this should be run like a marriage, but its not, and it won't be as long as we have the other side screaming at the NRA spokeswoman and telling her she is a murderer.

BreNayPop said:

---

1939 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

I wasn't advocating for anything, just pointing out that your argument is not sound. You obviously don't agree with any form of gun regulation at all and that's fine, just state that instead of trying to pretend that the point of the device is not to increase the rate of fire.You may be the first person to ever call me a lib, I'm very far from it.

---

My argument is sound. I do agree with some forms of gun control- many of which are in place now (where did I say I didn't agree with any gun control?). Why are you switching to "device is not to increase the rate of fire" when that is exactly the point of my argument against calling something a 'full auto immitator'. Full auto is one trigger pull, one action, results in multiple projectiles down the barrel. If you wish to limit rate of fire, which is my point, you must maintain what is a maximum rate of fire acceptible. When someone breaks into your house and you empty your mag in under 1 second fearing for your life, that is apparently full auto for you... when someone like Jerry Miculek can pull his trigger just as fast as full auto, that is to be banned according to you. It allows PERCEPTION OF SPEED, not actual mechanics of the gun itself to become outlawed/illegal- which will be abused against good and legal gun owners- and opens the door to other possibilities like mag limits which has nothing to do with crime prevention, rather increased govt control over citizens. It is definitely a "feels bad" argument rather than a logical argument- thus the lib moniker...

Edit: I appreciate your reply.

---

I'm not that clueless, I know that having a bump stock does not make it the same as a full auto, but it is closer than if you didn't have one. I would say that the maximum rate of fire is how fast you can pull the trigger with your finger without using a device that helps you do that. I also understand that people are worried about a slippery slope, but if they move toward more restrictive laws those can always be debated, banning a bump stock or similar device is not going to cover magazine sizes unless that is included in the law, at which point I would be against it.

AgLA06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

You still haven't answered my question.

---

Schmellba,

That's because I've stopped reading your long condescending rants. You are a wealth of knowledge on this board, but the second you step on the soap box, I check out.

---

I take that as nothing more than you can't answer the question. I don't know why, I think it's a simple question and want to understand something. But alas, not going to happen apparently.

1939 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

1939 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

I wasn't advocating for anything, just pointing out that your argument is not sound. You obviously don't agree with any form of gun regulation at all and that's fine, just state that instead of trying to pretend that the point of the device is not to increase the rate of fire.You may be the first person to ever call me a lib, I'm very far from it.

---

My argument is sound. I do agree with some forms of gun control- many of which are in place now (where did I say I didn't agree with any gun control?). Why are you switching to "device is not to increase the rate of fire" when that is exactly the point of my argument against calling something a 'full auto immitator'. Full auto is one trigger pull, one action, results in multiple projectiles down the barrel. If you wish to limit rate of fire, which is my point, you must maintain what is a maximum rate of fire acceptible. When someone breaks into your house and you empty your mag in under 1 second fearing for your life, that is apparently full auto for you... when someone like Jerry Miculek can pull his trigger just as fast as full auto, that is to be banned according to you. It allows PERCEPTION OF SPEED, not actual mechanics of the gun itself to become outlawed/illegal- which will be abused against good and legal gun owners- and opens the door to other possibilities like mag limits which has nothing to do with crime prevention, rather increased govt control over citizens. It is definitely a "feels bad" argument rather than a logical argument- thus the lib moniker...

Edit: I appreciate your reply.

---

I'm not that clueless, I know that having a bump stock does not make it the same as a full auto, but it is closer than if you didn't have one. I would say that the maximum rate of fire is how fast you can pull the trigger with your finger without using a device that helps you do that. I also understand that people are worried about a slippery slope, but if they move toward more restrictive laws those can always be debated, banning a bump stock or similar device is not going to cover magazine sizes unless that is included in the law, at which point I would be against it.

---

It always leads to this though. The debate is predictable as sunrise and sunset - let's start with banning something "stupid" and "pointless". Then what is defined as "stupid" and "pointless" seems to always have mission creep - it expands from bump stocks to flash hiders to having to have bullet buttons to those shoulder things that go up. It never stops. It's always "just one more thing". And it only applies to guns, which are among the bottom of things that we should be worrying about if saving lives is the real objective.

Nope, no giving in. We've collectively given in enough. At some point we either need to say "nope!" or just throw in the towel.

texrover91 said:

---

Some good points here:


What Conservatives Get Right About Guns

https://www.gq.com/story/what-conservatives-get-right-about-guns/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Quote:
When I actually dug into the data, I was shocked by how little evidence there was behind some of the most prominent gun control policies. Here are some basic facts that gun rights advocates already knowand that liberals who want to reduce gun violence need to understand.

---

That is a great article.

1939 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

I wasn't advocating for anything, just pointing out that your argument is not sound. You obviously don't agree with any form of gun regulation at all and that's fine, just state that instead of trying to pretend that the point of the device is not to increase the rate of fire.You may be the first person to ever call me a lib, I'm very far from it.

---

There is a big difference between increasing rate of fire and being full automatic. Your ignorance on the matter does not make him wrong.

Look at my posts a few after that. I know that a bump stock does not make a semi-auto a full auto, you are jumping to conclusions.

Rexter said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

But if at the end of the day, both vehicles did the same job, did it really matter?

---

So if you go out and pick up a dude cause you wanna explore the other side and you get donked, only it turns out to be a chick with a strap-on, it doesn't matter, right? She got the job done.

---

Classy post. Doesn't make sense, but I can see where your mind is.

I wonder if they will outlaw belt loops too, cause that all you need.

Off topic, but didn't want to start another thread here.

Possible private sector led gun control - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

Personally doubt it'll happen, but who knows with the way things are going.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Off topic, but didn't want to start another thread here.

Possible private sector led gun control - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

Personally doubt it'll happen, but who knows with the way things are going.

---

If those financial institutions decide to go that route, they will undoubtedly lose business from gun rights supporters as they should. That will impact their investors who should be up in arms about such ignorant business decisions. If they do so, I hope the gun grabbers invest in their stock and lose their ass. You have to be unbelievably stupid and completely ignorant of facts, not to mention a disgusting human being to think that gun control is a good idea.


Cash will be king and most gun broker sales are via cashier's check/money order made out to the individual with no reference to the item purchased.

Quote:

---

At least two executives said a reason that they haven't been more outspoken yet is that they fear reprisals from the N.R.A. and other gun supporters

---

DULY NOTED.

I'm sure they wouldn't go into such a business decision blind. If they did, it'd be a calculated decision and likely they'd band together. Because at the end of the day, if you want to boycott Visa/MC/AMEX, you're not left with any other credit option, right? Remember, the gun market is a small portion of total sales, and the percentage of the population willing to boycott over this is much smaller than the population that either doesn't care, or would celebrate something like this.

Of course there'd be work arounds. Create a spinoff company that accepted only cash/check, for example, and leave your original business to sell everything else. Scary to think what these institutions could do if they caved to public pressure.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

---

We aren't on the same side.

---

And there you have it. The reason we'll lose everything in the end. We can't articulate our stance intelligently, so we alienate everyone. People like you think you're the gold standard for pro 2nd amendment, but you really do more harm than good.

I've never voted anything other than conservative and oppose any anti 2nd amendment legislation. If we aren't on the same side, what side are you on?

---

You are right. My post was ****ty and dicky. I realize that, and it's not even your fault, frankly. But this is exactly the point I have been trying to hammer home. The lines and side for this argument are now at a point where they are very black and white to me. You are either fully on one side or not. I hear people every day start out a conversation with "I own an AR, but...." And right there, it shows the fragmentation of our stance. YOU ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT...we will lose everything because of this stance. There are not enough people willing to dig in and say NO....to EVERYTHING.

I even had someone tell me that we will eventually lose the 2ns altogether because of this. And I think that is probably right as well. To that I say, great...then I have nothing to lose now. Im digging in, hard lining. I am not OK with NFA ****, I am not OK with me having to have a license for me to carry my own weapon, and I am not OK with ANY ..... A N Y....additional gun legislation.

When I say we aren't on the same side, I mean that in a very black and white way and that is because of my personal stance of "you either want gun control or you don't". I don't. At all.

My apologies again for being a dick. And yes, my post was in error...from the legislative standpoint you are on our side, but I do have to disagree with 'we've caused it ourself'. I don't think so. We've responded to the law and maintained liberty as best we can while pushing its limit to the max.

---

That's what they call a litmus test in politics, and it generally works against movements in the long run. It has been a self induced skull crusher to a lot of democrats in the last 4 elections in the Midwest.

The people that are willing to forfeit the 2nd amendment because it isnt important to them..... will be the same people that demand action from me when the governement comes to take an amendment that is impotant to them

Alvarado Times said:

---

The people that are willing to forfeit the 2nd amendment because it isnt important to them..... will be the same people that demand action from me when the governement comes to take an amendment that is impotant to them

---

The irony in this is that they might REALLY regret giving up 2nd Am. rights when it comes time to defend ANY of the others.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Alvarado Times said:

---

The people that are willing to forfeit the 2nd amendment because it isnt important to them..... will be the same people that demand action from me when the governement comes to take an amendment that is impotant to them

---

The irony in this is that they might REALLY regret giving up 2nd Am. rights when it comes time to defend ANY of the others.

---

The real irony is how little has to happen for some people to be okay with giving up the rights of all Americans.

Bumpstocks have been used once in a crime.

Rifles of all types are used in under 300 homocides a year (and ARs used even less), despite there being tens of millions of rifles in the US.

If we insist on restricting constitutional rights of all Americans based on crimes of a few, I have a different suggestion that will never gain any traction that stomps on the 1st Amendment instead: Without exception, these school shooters are losers. They're not well liked, popular kids who are doing well in life. They decide to shoot up a school because it will make them famous, give them immortality and makes the world that is otherwise ignoring them talk about them and obsess about every detail of their lives. How many people in the US can't name one of the pathetic losers who shot up Columbine? I bet it's a slim number.

The reason losers keep shooting up schools is because it gives them fame and notoriety. So if we want to stomp on everyone's rights every time some sicko murders people, let's do it in a way that might actually help reduce these school shootings. Make it illegal to mention the name or publish the picture of anyone who shoots up a school for attention. Make it law that any mass murderer gets referred to in the media reports only as a "Deranged Loser". Don't give them the fame they crave, bury them in anonymity...the exact fate they're trying to escape by becoming famous murderers.

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 honestly I'd go so far as to deny them or the family burial rights - they get a couple of .22's to the back of the head and what is left is tossed in a ravine or swamp or marsh to let nature do what it does. Eff them.

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.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

I'm kinda pissed that a republican president has suggested this ***** This is not ok.

---

I know this is not the politics board, but it should be pretty obvious the everyone at this point that Donald Trump isn't a Republican.

Trinity Ag said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

I'm kinda pissed that a republican president has suggested this ***** This is not ok.

---

I know this is not the politics board, but it should be pretty obvious the everyone at this point that Donald Trump isn't a Republican.

---

I'm aware. But he seems to do more of what I like that most republicans so I kinda lost sight of the fact.

No worries about politics...we were squarely into politics on post #1. This might not be the official board, but its absolutely in our best interest to discuss it as far as we feel we should!

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.

You're living in fantasy land if you think any of those trades will take place as a result of this current political momentum. Restrictions on NFA items are not going anywhere...there's no backbone or political capital in this climate to liberalize gun laws. Why do people keep repeating this inane idea?