I told you so…
… substitute ‘suppressors’ for bump-stocks this time when you go read it again. How about Short Barreled Rifles? How about pistol arm braces? How about a ‘shoulder thingy that goes up’? What about VFGs? What about muzzle breaks? The list could go on and on…
What exactly is the difference? Folding like a cheap tent to the anti-gun crowd’s petulant bemoaning to ban an accessory one time, and you forever will have no reasonable argument to stand on when its time to defend any and all other accessories that they will attack.
Lets also not forget that the murderer in Vegas used 100 round Surefire magazines to feed his ARs during that attack. Do we all think that the gun grabbers won’t pivot to that as their next talking point and the next thing that they will want to add to the NFA?
After the NRA has taken this stance with bump-stocks, how do we know that they will also not take the same stance with 100 round magazines? Or with any arbitrary capacity number. The same argument could be made that if the media and anti-gunners make a big deal out of 100 rd mags, then maybe we should throw them under the bus to save or 30 round mags.
GOA’s position is simple — an ATF powerful enough to arbitrarily redefine words so as to ban legal firearm accessories is an ATF that will not stop with bump stocks. When the next crisis arises, another redefinition could allow them to swoop in for magazines and aftermarket triggers too.
And not just triggers and magazines, but literally anything that aids in faster firing of a firearm… muzzle breaks, recoil pads, vertical grips, red dot sights, lasers, … how about something as simple as the revolving cylinder of a revolver??? How about the simple cycling of a semi-automatic handgun???
‘You don’t need to fire that handgun that rapidly! … You should have to manually cycle the action with a detached tool first before you can make a follow up shot!’