Send message to ATF to not ban bump fire stocks

[Celt]

Federal Register :: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices


It only takes about 1 minute or less to fill this out. All gun owners should be sending a message to not ban bump fire stocks. Even though I personally have no use for it and would never buy one, we don't need any further restrictions on our Second Amendment freedoms.

To be complacent is to be a fudd.

 

[Jsmegs77]

Done. Gotta get some more coverage for this, so far from my reading the commentary it's being cross posted and spammed up with FUDDS and anti-gunners pasting the same content.

 

[Darth]

To be complacent is to be a fudd

And to be complicit in this particular endeavor is to be the NRA.

Thanks guys.

 

[Podmonkey]

Did it last week

 

[Jem45472]

Did it several weeks ago.

 

[timboy]

Just did it,not that I believe in will make one microscopic bit of difference however.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Done. This is what I put in the comment section.

"I am a gun owner. I don't own a bump fire stock. I have no interest in owning one. With that said, I am asking them not to be banned based on the following analogy:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.



Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.


Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.


There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."


I say, "No, it's my cake."


You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.


So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.


And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.


You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?


So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.



I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.


You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.


Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)


I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".



I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

 

[Shadow2]

My comment would be very simple. Last time i looked congress was tasked with passing laws and definitions, not the ATF.

 

[Podmonkey]

Just did it,not that I believe in will make one microscopic bit of difference however.

Public comment and outcry did stop the M855 ban. In my comment I asked the ATF why should they should allow themsevles to be the instrument of a legislative endrun on the part of congress.