[TerminalSigness]

I do agree with Skyviking that we need to quit shooting ourselves in the foot, but I (certainly in the minority here) do understand why the NFA and the Gun Control Act of 1968 were passed and I think it's important to remember that neither had anything to do with pissing off law abiding gun owners.

The NFA was passed in response to the general lawlessness of the gangster era. You had gangster's, in some cases armed with fully automatic weapons, in other cases with sawed off shotguns, in very many cases the individuals were already convicted felons...shooting up each other, LEO's and generally making a mess of things. So, people asked for help and politicians passed the NFA. I'm not saying it helped or hurt or was a good idea....I'm saying that's why it happened. It wasn't that the congress woke up one morning and said...."The second amendment scares us...let's go take it away'.

Same thing happened in 1968 during LBJ's 9-month lame duck period between when he went on TV and said "I will not seek my party's nomination to be reelected and will not accept the nomination if chosen." and when his term ended. He, and congress, were responding to demands that they do something (anything) after the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and Robert Kennedy. All killed by guns. So they did something. Was it good? Was it bad? Was it needed? Did it help? Debatable at every question, but again the impetus was never to jack the second, it was because the people wanted government to do something.

Bump stocks weren't an issue until the mass shooting in Vegas.

So, I am in the small minority of gun owners that believe in the entire bill of rights but also believe that certain restrictions to gun ownership make sense. For instance prohibitions to violent felons owning guns. Mag restrictions? Makes no sense to me. SBR restrictions? I don't know...probably horseshit. Restrictions on people with mental problems owning firearms? That makes sense to me. Background checks at gunshows? Yup. That makes sense.

When we (or the NRA) takes ever step to push back on every possible rule, some of which 75 to 80% of the public agree with...we are shooting ourselves in the foot in my opinion.

I understand that a lot of you will disagree with me and I respect your opinions greatly. This is just how I see it. I"m not asinine enough to think my ideas and opinons matter anymore than anyone else's do though.

Oh....and thing I do take issue with is politicians or groups ginning up outrage just as a method to increase donations to their cause. Whether it's those ASPCA ads showing injured puppies in cages or the NRA trying to make villains out of everyone on the other side....it just totally turns me off.

Phil

law·break·er | \ ˈlȯ-ˌbrā-kər \
Definition of lawbreaker

: a person who violates the law

So, your theory is that we take Constitutionally protected Rights from honest Citizens, by passing Laws that only the honest Citizen will follow. That is the equivalent of putting the patch on the three good tires, because the bad tire leaks air. SMH

 

[Biggy]

Everyone should have been aware a long, long time ago of what the extreme Democrat Communist Party will do if they ever gets total control. They want to ban *ALL * firearms, in a step, by step, by step plan. You are a naive fool if you think you can appease them and they will stop with pistol braces, AR's and other semi-auto long guns and hi-cap mags. That's just a start and the tip of the iceberg. Ammo tax and a license to buy any, and only in smaller quants, no internet sales. It's also really sad and pathetic there were literally thousands of deceived, brain dead, hypocrite gun owners who voted for this extreme, gun grabbing, evil, Democrat party. Don't ever register anything and don't ever turn anything in.
Do you know where you are going to draw the line, or are you going to be a sheep, bend over and comply.

 

[Twister]

Hank had a good discussion about this,

 

[Steve Shannon]

Pistol braces have not been ruled illegal.
Two years ago ATF warned SB Tactical about stating that their products had been approved by the ATF, when only two of their products actually had been approved. That is the letter on AmmoLand.
I’ve seen no evidence that SBT had done such a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Twister]

He has a interesting take on the situation,

 

[Networkguru]

How do you make a brace illegal?
Is it a bumpstock? Does it shoot boooolits faster now? That was rhetorical.

Either the ATF classifies it as a NON STOCK stabilizer or its a stock.
Dont really care since I have both AR rifles and pistols.
Maybe I should put a SBA3 on a registered SBR.
Is that like crossing the streams?

FATF.

 

[harleydeuce]

I’m sure there will be a lot of interesting “ illegal “
Gun related stuff coming down the road

 

[Hammer]

True confession:

I may have used a pistol brace yesterday. 😲

 

[JamesPettigrew]

I am not sure any number of videos posted is going to change the fact that there is several people who jumped the gun thinking they had the EXCLUSIVE story only to have to make retractions.

The point is these are NOT outlawed (at the moment) and throwing up 6 videos does not make it so.