NRA releases statement on Bump Fire devices.

Here it is. Read it with care.

I mean it, read it with care. It is a masterful piece. (the parts in bold are original but enhanced by me for your reading pleasure)

(FAIRFAX, VA) – The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented.  Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control.  Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks.  This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world.  In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.  The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.  In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.  To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

Since any device that makes a semi auto rifle (one pull of the trigger, one shot) shoot full automatic (one pull of the trigger, two or more shots) are already illegal/restricted by NFA 34, the NRA is not sacrificing anything and just laying the “blame” on the ATF under Obama. And I say “blame” because the bump fire devices do not modify the rifle to full automatic fire.

And in the same breath pushing for National reciprocity? Lovely.

So, don’t lose your shit because you think you read something it was not there.

16 Replies to “NRA releases statement on Bump Fire devices.”

  1. A master stroke from our NRA. Well done!
    Let me remind our friends: when your acquaintances talk about NRA in the same manner as the disingenuous press—as if it’s a big corporation with a lot of money—interrupt them and say, “Excuse me? The NRA is 5 million members and their families, who band together to defend our constitution and our country—not a clique of demented millionaires who spend twenty times as much money to attack our freedom. And the so-called “impartial” press deliberately twists the truth to push the millionaire’s agenda. Remember that when you see the next anti-NRA headline!”

  2. Nicely stated. The message is that no new law is required. And pointing the finger of blame at Obama is clever; I noticed that Brett Baier did the same yesterday on Fox News.
    I’m not sure how well this will work, though. The ATF may well report the same answer as it did in the Obama era, that current law does not prohibit these devices. Which opens the door to “ban all rubber bands” proposals such as the Feinstein bill.

    1. The important thing from a politicians point of view is that the review delays any legislation. In Ninety Days, the crazy left will be chasing two or a dozen new issues. By that time, two thirds of the country will forget what bumpstocks are. Sadly, most of them have forgotten Fort Hood, Pulse Nightclub and San Bernadino already.

  3. “The NRA believes that (shall not be infringed) should be subject to additional regulations.”
    And this is why I will not join them.

    1. While I agree, there’s the incremental improvement argument. (Incidentally, that’s how the left operates, in the opposite direction.) Do you want to support an organization that goes almost always in the correct direction, even if in small steps? Or do you insist that you will only support those who will go all the way in one big step, but in advocating for that will never actually get to go at all?

  4. I am done with the NRA, they can pound sand before they get a dime from me. Sold out folded like cheap hookers dress on an even cheaper hotel floor.

  5. There is the world the way it should be, and then there’s the world the way it is. Seems a lot of angry gun owners are demanding the former while the NRA is trying to do it’s job in the latter.

  6. I read it carefully. I’m unconvinced that they aren’t trying to make a sacrifice for political points that will ultimately be nothing but our undoing. I understand the incremental approach, hell I even understand the kicking the ball backwards to get it up the field approach from playing soccer. But man I don’t think this is either but short sighted. A it is attempting to blame Obama which will gain them nothing. B it is daring and giving permission to the atf to do something it can’t do but probably will try and agreeing with that. C it is agreeing with those against us and folding to their demands before even negotiating.

    I also think national reciprocity is a non sequitur in this situation. If they want a trade they should have been blunt just mentioning it, it is too disconnected nor can anyone really say anyone in that crowd with a gun could have made a difference.

    And also lol to paraphrase “people want stuff regulated and banned after tragedies, that doesn’t work and is a terrible idea. So let’s ban and/or regulate something else instead.”

    They jumped the gun if they were trying to trade of negotiate for reciprocity or something else and sacrificed everyone in the process.

    1. Lemme see… you want the NRA to make a stand for the bumpfire stock because otherwise it would be caving, yet you are conceding National Reciprocity is dead and we shouldn’t waste our time.

      No contradiction there

      1. I’m really not sure how or where you determined I think national reciprocity is dead? I don’t. But Im not going to hold my breath either.

        I said it’s a non sequitur in this situation because they just plop it in there without much more explanation past the go to talking points and it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

        I want national reciprocity as much as the next gun guy, maybe more because I live and travel in New England and that would vastly simplify my life. But how can anyone say with a straight face that had national reciprocity been active someone in that crowd would have had a gun and been able to return fire and stop the situation? That’s ludicrous. That’s why it’s a non sequitur without additional context or explanation.

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.