Same, and I understand where you're coming from. It a lose-lose to defend these stupid things, but I wonder why they didn't take some stance along the lines of reclassifying them under the NFA umbrella?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:10 pmUnderstood. And ... I want to be sure people understand that I’m NOT trying to slam the NRA. They have done some great work over the years, and if not for them, perhaps we’d have lost ALL of our gun rights years ago. I’m an endowment life member. I’ve donated money. I generally support the organization. I absolutely WOULD understand if they decided to remain neutral in this fight....it’s NOT one they can expect anything but loss of political capital or financial capital for getting involved one way or the other. But I am VERY perplexed about why they have chosen to take a proactive position for banning bumpstocks, instead of simply saying “not my monkeys, not my circus”, and declining to get involved. And that disappoints me. But I am NOT going to bash them. On the balance, NRA has done FAR more good for gun rights than many appreciate. I just wish they had not thrown their name behind this inane plan to ban the stocks.
Now, you've got "our guy", Trump, doing something administratively that even Obama didn't think he had the legal authority to do. It's going to set a horrible precedent if it stands.