Breaking News: Political Organization Makes a Decision Based on Politics

 

Some of my friends are very, very upset at the NRA for this announcement, and I can see their point. What’s the use of giving money to an organization to help secure our right to keep and bear arms if said organization caves in quickly and throws a relatively innocuous rifle part under the bus?

I can understand that, but here are a few other points to consider:

  • After the horror in Newtown, the push from the gun control crowd was to ban “assault rifles” and standard capacity AR mags. Here, the push is to ban one rather silly, limited-use gadget.
  • There was no pro-rights legislation in Congress after Newtown. Today, however, we have the SHARE Act and national reciprocity winding their way through Congress. What was at stake after Newtown was the status quo. What’s at stake here are expanded gun rights.
  • The announcement came out unusually quickly after the tragedy in Las Vegas, and if I’m guessing, (and I have to) I think the NRA saw that there was little upside to digging in their heels on this one and lots of downside.

Things are different now. We’re winning. The NRA is no longer playing a defensive game, and that means it need to use different tactics. Think of this move by the NRA as, oh, the Battle for Caen, where the Allies held the Nazis fixed in one point while Patton went on his merry romp across Northern France. Things were hard for Brits, Poles, and Canadians at Oden and at Mont Ormel, but in the end, the battle for France had shifted decisively towards the Allies.

Look at it from the NRA’s perspective: What they have recommended isn’t that bump stocks be banned, they have recommended, and I’m quoting here, for “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.”

So what might happen next?

Best Case Scenario: The ATF looks at the regs they wrote up during the Obama era and says “Yep, we got it right the first time, people. Move along now,” and the NRA is free to lobby for reciprocity and the SHARE Act.

Worst Case Scenario: Bump fire stocks will be subject to NFA regulations, and the NRA is free to lobby for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity* and the SHARE Act.

Without this? The NRA burns up all its political capital for the foreseeable future fighting a really, really bad piece of legislation** and tries to defend a silly little toy that nobody really likes.

Yes, it’s lousy situation to be in. But it’s the situation we have, not the one we want.


* What, you think it was a coincidence that the NRA mentioned that issue by name in their press release? 

** How lousy? Feinstein’s bill would ban anything that would “drastically increase the rate of fire” of a gun, which could be defined as improving how the trigger feels or installing an aftermarket trigger or even lubing up the gun so it cycles faster. As I said, it’s a really, really bad law.

Published in Guns
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 17 comments.

  1. Coolidge

    It’s surrendering on the constitutionality and propriety of the NFA and Reagan ban. Once you do that, not even sharp sticks are safe.

    • #1
    • October 6, 2017 at 11:28 am
    • 3 likes
  2. Thatcher

    A ‘bump stock’ is essentially just a springy boot that causes the rifle to bounce back off the shoulder. I would think that the line between those and a soft boot to limit recoil or extend the stock for people with long arms is pretty fuzzy, so a lot of hardware could potentially be affected.

    And what would stop someone from simply selling a springy shoulder pad built into a jacket that would do the same thing? And I imagine that a ‘bump stock’ equivalent device could be made from common materials in an hour. I am sure plans to do so will appear within hours of such a ban.

    I don’t like devices that thwart the design of a gun and cause it to fire in ways it wasn’t designed for – especially if that device makes the gun less controllable or less predictable. Bump stocks are a stupid idea, but banning them will do precisely nothing.

    • #2
    • October 6, 2017 at 11:54 am
    • 6 likes
  3. Thatcher

    Dan Hanson (View Comment):
    A ‘bump stock’ is essentially just a springy boot that causes the rifle to bounce back off the shoulder. I would think that the line between those and a soft boot to limit recoil or extend the stock for people with long arms is pretty fuzzy, so a lot of hardware could potentially be affected.

    And what would stop someone from simply selling a springy shoulder pad built into a jacket that would do the same thing? And I imagine that a ‘bump stock’ equivalent device could be made from common materials in an hour. I am sure plans to do so will appear within hours of such a ban.

    I don’t like devices that thwart the design of a gun and cause it to fire in ways it wasn’t designed for – especially if that device makes the gun less controllable or less predictable. Bump stocks are a stupid idea, but banning them will do precisely nothing.

    If you think a bump stock is a stupid idea look up an Auto Glove. These gimmicks are slightly fun to play with but are mainly stupid to use.

    • #3
    • October 6, 2017 at 12:17 pm
    • 1 like
  4. Member

    ** How lousy? Feinstein’s bill would ban anything that would “drastically increase the rate of fire” of a gun, which could be defined as improving how the trigger feels or installing an aftermarket trigger or even lubing up the gun so it cycles faster. As I said, it’s a really, really bad law.

    I saw a clip of her the other day where she said that when criminals see that nobody is armed, “They will lay down their weapons.” I could tell she actually believes this. After I stopped laughing my butt off, I had to wait another 15 minutes till I was able to pick my jaw up from the floor. I wonder what color the sky is on her planet.

    • #4
    • October 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm
    • 5 likes
  5. Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    ** How lousy? Feinstein’s bill would ban anything that would “drastically increase the rate of fire” of a gun, which could be defined as improving how the trigger feels or installing an aftermarket trigger or even lubing up the gun so it cycles faster. As I said, it’s a really, really bad law.

    I saw a clip of her the other day where she said that when criminals see that nobody is armed, “They will lay down their weapons.” I could tell she actually believes this. After I stopped laughing my butt off, I had to wait another 15 minutes till I was able to pick my jaw up from the floor. I wonder what color the sky is on her planet.

    Whatever the color of the sky is on her planet we do know that there is not enough oxygen there.

    • #5
    • October 6, 2017 at 1:51 pm
    • 9 likes
  6. Member

    Ask her if Dan White dropped his gun when he discovered George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk were unarmed. That was in 1978 and she was there. She also had the windows of her beach house shot out. So she wants every one to be unarmed except her.

    On November 27, 1978, Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by a rival politician, Dan White, who had resigned from the Board of Supervisors two weeks earlier. Feinstein was in City Hall at the time of the shootings and discovered Milk’s body after hearing the shots. Later that day Feinstein announced the assassinations to the public.[10]

    • #6
    • October 6, 2017 at 3:03 pm
    • 2 likes
  7. Member

    The Feinstein “quote” is fake, originally on a satire site.http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/feinstein.asp

    • #7
    • October 6, 2017 at 4:38 pm
    • 1 like
  8. Member

    kylez (View Comment):
    The Feinstein “quote” is fake, originally on a satire site.http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/feinstein.asp

    Sorry, I watched her and heard her say it on the news. She said that when they realize nobody else is armed, word for word, “They will lay down their weapons.” She was holding a giant firearm when she said it. She said it.

    • #8
    • October 6, 2017 at 8:35 pm
    • 1 like
  9. Member

    Snopes is run by two Democrats and has lost all credibility. And it looks like that video clip has been purged from the internet because I can’t find it. I’ll keep looking though. I saw it and heard it. It happened.

    • #9
    • October 6, 2017 at 8:39 pm
    • 2 likes
  10. Member

    And never try to make me look like an idiot again. I do that quite well with no help.

    • #10
    • October 6, 2017 at 9:07 pm
    • 1 like
  11. Member

    Snopes has really gone around the bend, I never look for truth from them anymore.

    • #11
    • October 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
    • 2 likes
  12. Member

    It’s not about guns and it’s not about bump stocks it’s about power. In the course of trying to get some focus on gun violence, which means urban gang warfare, drugs, and suicide interventions, not terrorism or crazy people, we can choose to agree to review what weapons and weapon modifications should be readily available, and what efforts might help keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Unless the anti gun crusaders are willing to address the real problems, with real solutions they need to be ridiculed and challenged. The legislation being considered now does not address any of these things, nor should it but if the left wont discuss urban violence, they’re not being serious and we should insist that they be serious. They won’t because their not serious, but they should be on the defensive.

    • #12
    • October 7, 2017 at 4:16 am
    • 2 likes
  13. Member

    This was the only video i found saying it, and it doesn’t show her saying it:

    • #13
    • October 7, 2017 at 11:41 am
    • Like
  14. Member

    I’ve debunked lefty nonsense on FB using Snopes.

    • #14
    • October 7, 2017 at 11:42 am
    • Like
  15. Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    And never try to make me look like an idiot again. I do that quite well with no help.

    I assume this was a joke and you didn’t think I was.

    • #15
    • October 7, 2017 at 11:43 am
    • Like
  16. Member

    kylez (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    And never try to make me look like an idiot again. I do that quite well with no help.

    I assume this was a joke and you didn’t think I was.

    I did think you were.

    • #16
    • October 8, 2017 at 8:31 am
    • Like
  17. Member

    kylez (View Comment):
    This was the only video i found saying it, and it doesn’t show her saying it:

    What I saw was different. She was standing up and holding a big firearm while she spoke. I don’t recall her saying anything about human nature, but she did say that when the criminals see that everyone else is unarmed, they will lay down their weapons. I can’t believe Snopes thinks they can get away with their disinformation campaigns in the digital age.

    • #17
    • October 8, 2017 at 8:35 am
    • Like