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

Same shit the NRA spouted when they supported the NFA of 1934 under FDR - wholly unconstitutional.

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts."  —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

For the record, my family left the NRA for the GOA in the 90s.

NRA Caves On "Bump Fire Stocks," Says They Should Be "Subject To Additional Regulations"

NRA drops it's pants, bends over, and spreads it's cheeks every time CON-gress farts. Cancelled my membership over 20 years ago and wrote them a letter telling them why.

Regardless of the moral arguments, it is now quite difficult, politically, to take a stand supporting bump fire stocks. I expect they will be outlawed by Christmas. Likely they will be lumped with machine gun restrictions/prohibitions.

I agree. I have no great faith in the NRA anymore,but they are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.

Even I am on the border about this one. On one hand,I DO recognize that full-auto shoulder arms are THE very weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment,but this crap is neither fish nor fowl. They have to be even more inaccurate that traditional full-auto weapons,and that's several orders of magnitude too inaccurate for me.

Truth to tell I had never even heard of the damn things before this shooting,and I see them as useless for anything other than murder while shooting into crowds.

Now that they have gotten all this publicity,you can bet your bippy that thugs in ALL the welfare neighborhoods are trying to buy them for drive-by "spray and pray" shootings. The end result will be more innocents are shot to death or crippled for life that usual,and the usual number is too damn high. It ain't like gang-bangers and drug-dealers are known for hitting what they are shooting at to start with. It will only get worse with this.

Still,this piece of junk is right on the line. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting the freedom of the citizens to OWN AND POSSESS MILITARY-GRADE HAND AND SHOULDER ARMS,NOT self-defense,gun collecting,trap shooting,target shooting,etc,etc,etc. Those hobbies and activities only exist as off-shoots of the 2nd. Keeping this in mind,can ANY of you think of ANY military anywhere in the world that would accept these things? Hell,I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me.

As a Prediction for the future I foresee "Electronic Multi-Purpose" devices coming along that will be generic in stated purposes that can be fitted to various mechanical units for variable speed of activation".

The above is "Patent Speak" for small devices that can be used to attach in the Trigger guard of a semi-auto. Or Other Mechanical Devices............

As a Prediction for the future I foresee "Electronic Multi-Purpose" devices coming along that will be generic in stated purposes that can be fitted to various mechanical units for variable speed of activation".

The above is "Patent Speak" for small devices that can be used to attach in the Trigger guard of a semi-auto. Or Other Mechanical Devices............

I have no doubt you are right since a general law of nature states that "If something CAN be done,it WILL be done.",but I really don't have a personal dog in that fight. I still prefer bolt-action rifles. Other than a genuine WW-1,WW-2,or Korean War BAR,you couldn't give me a full-auto rifle even if there were no restrictions or expensive permits to obtain. I had free access to pretty much everything as a SF weapons man during the 70's,so there is nothing exotic or mysterious about them to me,thus no attraction.

When CWP became legal where I live,the local sheriff called me on the phone and demanded I come in and apply for a CCW permit "Because I know you have been carrying concealed for decades,and I want you to have a permit. Be here tomorrow (the 1st day) and I will personally fingerprint you and send your application in."

While I was there,he told his assistant to just give me a permit for anything I ever ask for without even bothering to ask him about it,including machine guns. I told him and his assistant right then I had no interest in owning machine guns,and couldn't afford to own or shoot one if I did,so that wouldn't be happening.

Now if you want to give me a bull-barrel bolt-action rifle built around something like a pre-64 Winchester action and based on the old Holland and Holland 30 caliber case,you have my undivided attention. I'm more than a little bit anal,and the impossible task of putting 5 bullets in a 1 inch circle at 1,000 yards really appeals to me.

On the other hand,spitting out bullets at a rate of 500 rpm or more leaves me wondering why you would want to do that. A monkey can figure out how to do that if you were to leave something like a Uzi just laying around loaded. What is the attraction of something like that? I just don't get it.

BTW,don't get me wrong. IMHO,THOSE are the firearms the 2ND Amendment was written to guarantee access by citizens. I am 100 percent in favor of them being both legal to own and affordable by the typical citizen. I just don't have any interest in personally owning and shooting one myself. Then again,if the (IMHO) long overdue 2nd American Revolution happens and it's success is dependent on old,fat,crippled men like me to be successful,the people starting it up need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan.

Sunshine Patriots and "Middle Ground" Gun Control - YouTube, 7 minutes

From the comments:

"there is no reasoning with our opponents on the opposite side of the aisle. They simply do not understand what 'Shall Not Be Infringed' means. To them the Constitution is just some archaic text and nothing more."

Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Roll Back Gun Laws - nbcnews.com | OCT 2 2017

WASHINGTON — The day House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot in June during a congressional baseball practice, his colleagues were supposed to hold a hearing on a bill to make it easier for Americans to buy gun silencers.

That hearing was postponed because of the shooting, and now Congress may push that legislation back yet again after another shooting. This time, it's the attack in Las Vegas, ... The Republican-controlled House has yet to schedule a vote on the Sportsmen Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act, ... The bill would, among other things, loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws. It would force courts to reimburse plaintiffs' legal fees if they are improperly detained.

A separate bill on concealed carry reciprocity has yet to be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee,

The Pro-Gun Bills Moving Forward In Congress Right Now That You Need To Know About - bustle.com | 4 days ago

upcoming bill co-sponsored by 165 Representatives heading to the House floor that will ease regulations on the purchase of gun silencers, called the Hearing Protection Act of 2017. ... The bill will eliminate a $200 government tax that is attached to the purchase of suppressors, as well as cut out some of the extensive paperwork that's necessary to purchase one. In addition to that, there is The Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (or the SHARE Act,) which also aims to deregulate the use of silencers, for hunting sake. ... "This legislation will ensure access and opportunity for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting now and for future generations," the NRA shared. For conservatives, this bill is meant to respect law-abiding gun owners and restrict the bureaucracy of big government, There is another measure moving through the House Judiciary Committee that will allow concealed carry permit holders to take their weapons across state borders, but only if that state also allows concealed carry weapons. "Your fundamental right to keep and bear arms should not end at the state line. This act would ensure that law-abiding citizens do not forfeit their ability to protect themselves as they travel from state to state," the NRA explained. Called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

[HR 367: Hearing Protection Act of 2017 + S. 59: Hearing Protection Act of 2017 - A bill to provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns.]

What to Know About the Pro-Gun Bills Before Congress - teenvogue.com | OCT 2, 2017

HR 3668, The Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act)

HR 38, or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

I also believe the NRA is against a wall on this one, but there are "Words" they can utilize to avoid full support for outright "Ban". I think they'll do that. Throw it into Congress for additional "restrictions".

Yes,and they are doing that. The problem is one we all anticipated. The Dims are orgasmic about this,and one Dim congresscritter from Florida has already been on tv saying it's a good and reasonable thing,and "this opens the door to further discussions on protecting the public".

You are damned if you do,and damned if you don't.

Sunshine Patriots and "Middle Ground" Gun Control - YouTube, 7 minutes

[Published on Oct 3, 2017 by Reid Henrichs

Gun control is the Fabian socialist method of disarming a populace. ...]

From the comments:

"there is no reasoning with our opponents on the opposite side of the aisle. They simply do not understand what 'Shall Not Be Infringed' means. To them the Constitution is just some archaic text and nothing more."

Archiving more comments from that source:

"First amendment Absolutist
Second amendment Absolutist
rise and repeat..."

"Well said sir. I live in Norway and i think it's scary that over here people willingly give away their rights to the state. Just a few weeks ago they put forth a new proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons. And the worst thing about it was that they said it was a EU regulation. Norway has said no to EU membership on two occasions, but we still implement the [v]ast majority of EU laws and regulations anyway."

"Don't look at the word gun in gun control. Look at the word control. That's what they want , total control."

"The left does not care about gun violence. Proven by all the gun violence they ignore."

"They're not anti-gun. They are selective with whom they want to have guns. THEY WANT THEMSELVES AND THE GOVERNMENT TO OWN GUNS TO CONTROL US, SO THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL THEM-- which is what the 2nd amendment is for!-- to keep the tyrants at bay."

"we have 20000 unconstitutional and unlawful gun restrictions in the [U.S.], no gun legislation after 1791 is constitutional"

"also the American people own over 1000 fully armed tanks 100% legal and constitutional. Artillary is covered as 90% of revolutionary [war] cannons were civilian"

"Semper Liberi (Always Free)"

Additional 2A source and comments:

YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT - YouTube, 5.25 minutes

Published on Oct 24, 2014 by TruthRevoltOriginals

Tired of listening to Progressives tell you that the Second Amendment only allows people in militias to keep and bear arms? Or that the Founders would have never intended the Second Amendment to apply to modern weapons? In his latest FIREWALL Bill [Whittle] recounts a remarkable conversation about the precise wording of the Second Amendment, and sums up why the document says what it means and means what it says.

From the comments:

"I'm tired of the lie that the founders 'could never have imagined' repeating firearms in the days when single-shot muskets were the most common firearm. They could not only imagine repeating firearms, but they were well aware of such weapons because they existed in their own time! The Continental Congress even evaluated some for military use!"

"These were not obscure weapons from an exotic land, these were arms demonstrated in America and England and adopted by major European armies. ... designed prior to the writing of the Second Amendment."

"And 'bear arms' has nothing to do with the military, it's clearly stipulated that the 'militia' is the entire citizenry. It would be kind of silly to make the second most important right in descending order be the right for a military (which has always had weapons and always will, this goes without saying) to own guns. It's included in the name, Armed Forces."

"here's a letter of marque and reprisal signed by President Madison.
https://www.1812privateers.org/United_States/PRINCE/usmarq.html
recognizing that a privately owned ship carrying cannons is coverd under the second amendment."

"Congress and the President wouldn't have NEEDED to give authorization if the Second Amendment secured the right. You've been watching Crowthers' silly video, haven't you."

"He didn’t ask for authorization. He asked congress for clarification. If you’d have actually watched the video you would have known this."