I've read some people complaining that bump fire stocks circumvent the intent of the law (presumably the NFA). I'd expect that from anti-gunowners but I'm also seeing it from allegedly pro-gun folk.
I wonder, did these allegedly pro-gunowner peeps chastise their friends back in '98 or '02 when they saw their friends' brand new shiny post-ban AR? Clearly the existence of such items went against the intent of the "assault weapons" ban (to keep people form having firearms that looked scary). Do they also go into a sanctimonious rant when they find out someone has marked a deduction their kids on their tax forms? Clearly that goes against the intent of the law (to take as much money from you as possible).
There's another way to describe when someone circumvents the law. Just substitute one word, and that substitute word even starts with a "C". Instead of saying it circumvents the law, try saying it complies with the law. Unless of course you think that by stopping at a stop sign you're circumventing the law that makes it illegal to not stop at stop signs. (Then again, don't get me started on "structuring". The bastards.)
Also, the NRA asking the ATFeieiouch to review a regulatory ruling? They want the guys who after 45+ years as a Bureau don't have a standardized test to determine if a firearm is an automatic weapon or not to decide if something is still legal a few years after their initial ruling? If those infernal revenuers with delusions of relevance could have claimed regulatory power over it, they'd have done it right off the bat. But giving them another bite at that apple? Not even giving them a bite, but asking them to?
Makes as much sense as a coal company asking the EPA to double check to make sure their corporate perfume guidelines are okey dokey, or the NAACP querying the klan to see if the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade floats are in order, or any southerner asking the FDA to double check to make sure their hushpuppy recipe doesn't have any prohibited ingredients, or their tea doesn't have too much sugar (hint: for any yankees or other foreigners, if it ever comes up, the answer is always "no; that's not too much sugar in my tea").
Yes; I've heard the theories about this being a strategic move on the NRA's part to buy time. If buying time is the goal might I recommend purchasing a Timex instead of giving concessions however slight or implied to our enemies?
Speaking of our enemies, in this post I mentioned the hazards of giving interviews to the mainstream media. A fellow named Chris Michel owns Dixie Gun Worx and decided to give NPR an interview because he sold the punk that murdered all those folks in Las Vegas a firearm. At least that's why I think he gave an interview, but I admit it's just guesswork. The firearm in question was a shotgun, which as far as I can tell wasn't used during the mass murder.
He actually did fairly well, except for a few slip ups. One was this quote:
"If I have somebody that comes in and they could care less for everything else in the store, they're just looking for one specific firearm and they're looking for that one specific ammo — those are red flags. Those tell me, 'OK, what is he what is he looking for this for?' ..."
The majority of the time when I go into a gun store to buy something, I know exactly what it is that I want, down to the MSRP. I'll want a specific firearm make and model, or a specific brand of ammunition, or a specific brand of ammunition components. I don't rely on suggestions too often and unless I'm just browsing around the used rifle rack I don't pay too much attention to things other than what I stepped in to buy. But to Mr. Michel my behavior would be a "red flag". That wouldn't make me feel all warm and cuddly about giving that fellow my cash. I'm guessing he meant he's looking out for "straw purchasers" but considering I'm opposed to the very idea of the prohibited persons list that doesn't give him a pass.
"I am also somebody that doesn't believe the average everyday citizen should own a machine gun"
But it's okay for the average everyday citizen to own a gun shop? That definitely lost him any business I would have ever thrown his way.
He also told an anecdote about refusing a sale to a guy that was mad at his wife, and that later he was arrested for domestic violence. That's yet another talking point in favor of expanding the Lautenberg amendment.
He explained how there's an informal system of alerting other gun dealers in his area of any customer that he rejects because he suspects the person has ill intent (though see the quote above about shoppers wanting something specific). That opened the
Those few slip ups though, not only cost him my business, but made it seem the reporter had a better answer than he did, and of course the National Progressive Radio's reporter's answer is always, always more gunowner control.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by talking to the mainstream media. Nothing.
But do remember, appeasement is for chumps.