TexasCHLforum.com

bmwrdr wrote:
P.S.: Why would a normal person want a device to increase firing rate anyway? Using a loopholes is what Obama preferred to do, isn't it? My $.02 is that one wanting a full auto should man up and get it using the legal way with all the implied paperwork and taxes.

I don't own any bump stocks, but regulating them makes no sense. A belt loop or a rubber band can do the same thing.

By the way..."man up"...it's not paperwork or a $200 tax that keep most people that want a full auto from purchasing one. It's the price tag. Go look at the price for a full auto HK MP5...try north of $25,000.

dlh wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

I think the NRA is trying to get something (National Conceal Carry Reciprocity) in return for agreeing to regulations on bump stocks. We can, of course, debate whether that is the right course to take.

Makes sense, but we have a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Additionally, a slight majority on SCOTUS if needed. Why are we giving up any ground? Shouldn't have to.

For the record, before it goes there on this board, I'm not bashing the NRA. I'm simply curious why in the world they would give up this ground so quickly. I'm actually confused.

Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

I'm baffled by these legislators that in one breath admit they know nothing about something and then in the next breath say they would vote one way or the other on that exact subject. Not even a hint of trying to understand the topic.

As mentioned in a post above, might as well add belt loops to the same ban.