NRA supports bump-stock regulations...........

[Sandpebble]

What a complete idiot. He claims the Iraqi war happened so Halliburton stock holders would get rich. He pisses on the flag, the anthem, and every veteran that gave his life to defend this country. He kneels with the NFL and is a fan of Ashley Judd.

He doesn't know (or care) for example, these laws were passed years ago for emergency actions in case of hurricanes, riots, disasters, etc. If the Governor, Mayor, or etc. invokes those laws they must invoke the entire law and cannot pick and choose which part to enforce and ignore the others. So Democrats in 1936, passed a emergency law in respect to natural disasters, riots, rebellion, and etc. Selling alcohol was one of the things they banned.

NEWS FLASH... NEWS FLASH... Sam Boggs was not responsible for it!!!!

This is not a new law, Sam Boggs didn't pass it and it matters not a whit if he agrees with it or not. It doesn't matter whether or not the Governor agrees with it... it was a serious disaster and he invoked the laws that were already on the books. If you missed your daily six pack, I am very sorry but it is over now and you can go back to your safe room and cry.

BTW.. As I understand it you are a Florida resident... How come it is only now you are offended??? Why weren't you out there campaigning against these laws 15 years ago????

Hey... ahole.... shouldn't I be on your ignore list ?

learn some reading comprehension... then come on back

[clintonhater]

They are inaccurate, unsafe, and serve no practical purpose other than to show off, ruin barrels, and lay down suppressing fire..

You left out the very most important purpose: MAKE YOU-TUBE VIDEOS!!! if YT bans such videos (as they probably will now) the market for this gadget will probably collapse.

[leftyo]

They are inaccurate, unsafe, and serve no practical purpose other than to show off, ruin barrels, and lay down suppressing fire.. I know of no ranges in my area that will even allow you to use one at their facility, so whats the point? I don't see the need, never did, don't care that they ban them.

inaccurate, how so? ive seen people use them and can put rounds on targets over 100yds very effectively. unsafe? how are they, just like any other gun part they dont fire on their own. if you set one on the table it wont just start firing. as for supressive fire, the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is to enable the people to defend themseves against an out of control gvmnt. now that large portions of the police drive around with machine guns in their vehicle, is it unreasonable for some to want to be able to lay down suppressive fire? the same exact reasons you've given are what the anti's believe about guns with pistol grips, magazines that hold more than a few rounds, etc, etc. dont be so fast to give up your RIGHTS just because you dont personally feel the need for something. the next thing they come for might be something you think is necessary. dont forget what reagan and the NRA gave up in the 80's, and what clinton did in the 90's with his ban. i dont think the next ban will have a sunset clause in it, nor will they grandfather stuff in, and i dont believe you'll see 10rnds as the limit next time. it is not about NEED, it is about RIGHTS!

[Marty T.]

Hang in there lefty.

[p246]

inaccurate, how so? ive seen people use them and can put rounds on targets over 100yds very effectively. unsafe? how are they, just like any other gun part they dont fire on their own. if you set one on the table it wont just start firing. as for supressive fire, the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is to enable the people to defend themseves against an out of control gvmnt. now that large portions of the police drive around with machine guns in their vehicle, is it unreasonable for some to want to be able to lay down suppressive fire? the same exact reasons you've given are what the anti's believe about guns with pistol grips, magazines that hold more than a few rounds, etc, etc. dont be so fast to give up your RIGHTS just because you dont personally feel the need for something. the next thing they come for might be something you think is necessary. dont forget what reagan and the NRA gave up in the 80's, and what clinton did in the 90's with his ban. i dont think the next ban will have a sunset clause in it, nor will they grandfather stuff in, and i dont believe you'll see 10rnds as the limit next time. it is not about NEED, it is about RIGHTS!

On accuracy I found them lacking myself. Any decent cheekweld led to me at least getting single or doubles. Any long stream was directed/suppressive fire at best. I never praticed it but a friend can do the belt loop trick with his AK. Looks impressive if you don't pay attention to where the bullets are going. Once again maybe I'm jaded because I shot plenty of 3 round burst and full auto pin it till bolt lock guns. I think bump fires are usueless. The only way to get them to somewhat works was to put single stag lighttriggers in them. Just my opinion.

[clintonhater]

now that large portions of the police drive around with machine guns in their vehicle, is it unreasonable for some to want to be able to lay down suppressive fire?

Unreasonable? Crazy is more like it.

[leftyo]

Hang in there lefty.

thanks for the encouragement!

[dobek]

They are inaccurate, unsafe, and serve no practical purpose other than to show off, ruin barrels, and lay down suppressing fire.. I know of no ranges in my area that will even allow you to use one at their facility, so whats the point? I don't see the need, never did, don't care that they ban them.

You guys are killing me -

You are so willing to give in and legislate a "part" ----- Couldn't the above statement be said about semi-auto shotguns? I don't see a need for one - therefore ban them

You guys do realize that once you give in, your goose is cooked. It may take a while - - - - but what the heck, I don't have "insert evil feature here" therefore - give it away.

I am extremely disappointed in the attitude here - you guys are part of the problem - divide & conquer.

Ohhh the government will save us ---- 1 nut and 350 million people get legislated ---- just wait until the next one - then what is going to be deemed "no practical purpose"

Steve

[togor]

Unreasonable? Crazy is more like it.

Bingo.

[togor]

You guys are killing me -

You are so willing to give in and legislate a "part" ----- Couldn't the above statement be said about semi-auto shotguns? I don't see a need for one - therefore ban them

You guys do realize that once you give in, your goose is cooked. It may take a while - - - - but what the heck, I don't have "insert evil feature here" therefore - give it away.

I am extremely disappointed in the attitude here - you guys are part of the problem - divide & conquer.

Ohhh the government will save us ---- 1 nut and 350 million people get legislated ---- just wait until the next one - then what is going to be deemed "no practical purpose"

Steve

Why make anything illegal, is that the argument? Why can't a guy have as much firepower as he wants? Surely you agree that a line gets drawn somewhere, for the good of civilization, yes?