Let’s make a deal

According to NBC news, some Republican Senators might be interested in gun control on bump fire stocks.

I couldn’t care less about bump fire stocks.  They are novelty items that turn money into noise and cause AR’s to jam.

I’m not going to die on the hill fighting for those.

So how about you make a deal. 

The GOP will ban bump fire stocks but we get the SHARE Act and nation CCW reciprocity in return.

In fact, because I don’t really trust the dickless shit weasels like Ryan and Graham not to waffle on this, get SHARE and CCW reciprocity FIRST, then give up bump fire stocks.


Now do it.

14 Replies to “Let’s make a deal”

  1. Best would be to merge the three subjects into one bill, in the “great” tradition of piggybacking random legislation onto “must pass” bills.

  2. I would imagine that our crop of rino representatives will be more than happy to give up the bump fire stocks and other such items that really do skirt the letter of the law and do not help the 2A cause at all. Not sorry to see them go, but, it’s always a concern to give in to anything knowing it’s a slippery slope leading to more and more concessions for the lefts agenda of firearm confiscation. I’m sure at the minimum, those dumb things will be gone. And I wouldn’t hold your breath hoping for suppressors or national reciprocity. Not after this. Ryan won’t want to be within 100 yards of those bills. Guy is next to useless.

    1. I know, and that is what pisses me off so much. I’d be willing to sacrifice a pawn to take their queen (give up bump fire for national CCW), but the career republicans who live by the poll and want to play nice with the media are going to fold. It is sickening.

  3. Oh if it were only that simple. I read Feinstein’s bill today, it not only bans bump stocks, but “any device or accessory that increases the rate of fire”. Do drop in 3.5lb triggers and reduced weight springs count? Yeah, if it were just bump stocks, I could live with that, but anti-gunners lover overreach.

  4. A while back, my work partner turned to me and asked the question:
    “Assuming they were actually willing to deal in good faith, what would the antigun side have to do to make itself look trustworthy to the pro-gun side?”

    (note that this begs the question: that the antigunners actually WANTED to make an honest deal with folks like us…)

    My response was, given that the antigun side publicly prides itself on NOT dealing in good faith, I’d require two things:

    First, an offer worth thinking about. Vice Lawdog, the gungrabbers love to frame things in terms of what they’ll let you keep…this time, and only as long as they haven’t decided to take them yet. Any offer that works out as, ‘You guys give up all kinds of detachable-magazine-fed weapons, and we won’t come after your revolvers and target rifles THIS election cycle (we’ll declare them “in violation of a loophole” and get them banned next year)’ is a no starter. Compromise means both sides put something on the table. If they want to ban bump-fire stocks, they’d better have a positive offer to put on the table (say, ending the various Blue Hell State AWB’s) or no deal.

    Second, as a descendant of the Romans I believe strongly that sacrifice proves sincerity. As a proof of their honesty and intention of dealing honorably with their fellow citizens, and in expiation of several generations of violations of rights and incitement to violence directed against the gun community, I demand expiation. No mooks, either- I want Chuckie Schumer, or DiFi, or someone on their level who has spent as much time as they have in enmity to my rights. Let the anitgunners prove their sincerity by destroying one of their own. I’ don’t mean actual violence- I’m more than willing to see a nonmessy result, as long as it’s a real sacrifice. Watching Andrew Cuomo being perpwalked out of his now-foreclosed mansion, his family left too impoverished by IRS fines and legal fees to be able to afford tonight’s dinner much less bus fare to visit the Federal prison where he will spend the rest of his unnatural life, would be perfectly satisfactory.

    Absent both elements- a real, positive offer and a sacrifice of one of their own to prove sincerity- I say no deal. Ever. On anything. Because they’re a lying pack of shitweasels and will take any compromise offered as another opportunity to gouge away again.

  5. Dear Miguel and J.Kb,

    Yes, a Bump Fire stock is a novelty item.

    Yes, they turn good ammunition into useless noise.

    Yes, ‘we’ could probably get a “Two for One” deal from the Democrats.

    But, …

    No!, … Because banning a novelty item will lead to no good, lowlife, egg sucking Democrats and Republicans into thinking they can negotiate away our rights. ‘We’ have to teach them that attacking all of our rights, just not the Second Amendment, will get them thrown out of power.

    No!!!, … Because the Bump Fire stock just increases the cyclic rate of a semiautomatic rifle. Next, the Democrate Antigunners will be saying, ‘Why do you need a cyclic rate of 5 rounds a minutes? Are you a terrorist?

    No!!!, … Because ‘we’ are winning. The number of firearms owners has increased dramatically in the last ten years. The public is seeing the lies of the gun-control and Anti-Freedom groups. These groups are reeling from the expansion of open carry, concealed carry, and constitutional carry.

    NO!!!!, … Because these Democrats and Republicans politicians that you want to deal with will take that deal and stab each and everyone of us in the back with it.

    Sincerely, Someone You Know

  6. “any device or accessory that increases the rate of fire”.

    You can bump fire using a rubber band.
    Are rubber bands going to be outlawed?

    You can bump fire hooking the thumb of your trigger finger hand through a belt loop or over a belt…
    Same question.

    Youtube Geissele triggers for 3 gun competition
    Hear the Echo.

    Schumer, Feinstein and all of them are stupid. And Ron White’s dictum about stupid is true.

  7. If you want to stop all gun control legislation in the future tie it to a national Voter ID law and the Instant background check system. No national ID no Vote in the election. i do not think the democrats would vote for that

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.