Guess What Percentage of Comments Opposed ATF Bump Fire Stock Ban

Columbia, SC bans use of bump fire stocks

“In December, the ATF announced that it would explore the possibility of regulating bump stocks by reclassifying them as machine guns,” The Trace reports. “The agency initiated a public comment period to solicit input from manufacturers, retailers, and consumers . . . All told, the ATF received more than 36,000 submissions, which are still being reviewed and posted online. Trace staffers Sean Campbell and Daniel Nass decided to download the available public comments and run an analysis.” The survey said! .  . .

Analysis of comments submitted to the ATF re- bump fire stock regluation (courtesy thetrace.org)

They found that a staggering 85 percent of commenters were opposed to the regulation of bump stocks.

A fact — a fact I tell you! — that elicited not unexpected [thinly veiled] criticism from anti-ballistic bully boy Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitators.

The results of our analysis showcase a paradox of the gun debate. While widespread public support exists for many gun regulations and policies — from bump stocks to background checks — pro-gun advocates are significantly more active than their counterparts when it comes to engaging politicians and government agencies.

The People of the Gun can take heart in their political activism/engagement, which, in this case, resulted in overwhelming official opposition to an ATF rule change on bump fire stocks. But . . .

The public comments collected by the ATF are intended to inform the agency’s decision of whether to reclassify bump stocks and subject them to regulation [emphasis added]. If the agency chooses to propose a new rule, it would be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for approval, before being published in the Federal Register.

In other words,the comments submitted to the ATF are a sop to the democratic process. Odds are the ATF will bend to political pressure and find some way to ban bump fire stocks. Especially as the NRA — representing five million American gun owners — suggested this exact course of events.

comments

  1. avatar PistolPete603 says:

    I was under the understanding the NRA just asked the ATF to review the legality of bumpstocks under the NFA, is that not the case? Did they in fact lobby them to ban these devices?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Generally, when you ask a govenment agency to “review” something under their purview, the first reaction is to defend what is present. The next, and most dangerous reaction, is to ask, “Is this something we can add to our ‘footprint’?” The latter question holds the potential for increasing regulation, increasing prestige (bragging rights), and budget.

      The “lesson”: do not ask the government a question where the answer can be rendered to your disadvantage (don’t give them any ideas).

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Yes, but hadn’t that second question been answered twice by SCOTUS? That was the argument at the time, as I recall. “Review the potential for regulation again, the potential that has been determined twice to be zero by a group you can’t overrule. “

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The federal courts have no difficulty defying SCOTUS. Wouldn’t expect anything different from a gun control agency.

    2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      ‘Twas a brilliant, nay ingenious strategy postulated to perfectly prevent public outrage from prodding petrified legislators to enact new legislation. This would completely obviate any ban on bump stocks by blatantly placing blame on the BATFEaRBF. Or so the intellectual elitists, amongst merely ignorant peasants, proclaimed as they proudly pontificated the brilliance of such a tactic.

      Soon it will be evident, however, as to who the real fools are.

      1. avatar Detroitee says:

        It was ingenious.

        It is very clear per the ATF’s various wordings and statutes that this ban is not applicable without reversing previous rulings. IE: they would have to redefine automatic rifle.

        Even if they do reverse those, POTG would be incredibly uptight about how that definition is worded. They are betting it falls in our favor.

        However it is worded, if they were to redefine a machine gun- they would have to either confiscate all the bump stocks (and other newly illegal guns/accessories) which will never happen (without bloodshed), or they will have to re-open the registry: which would be awesome 😎 and the government knows this and will have to pick the lesser of two evils.

        More than anything- this ploy gave time. Everyone shouting “do something!” After Vegas have now moved on to something shiny. The ATF can now rule that this can’t/won’t happen. The legislators have political cover, and the world moves on.

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Bedknobs and broomsticks, rubber bands and shoelaces, all mere semantics and potential machine guns to the ATF. Classification to them is less defined than spaghetti being cooked, i.e. it doesn’t even have to stick. Their mere dictum has the force of law, even if said law isn’t enforced, lawful businesses are affected and dire precedents may be set in the lower courts.

          Perhaps Detroitee may be correct, in that such a strategy may lead to either inaction and disinterest or magnificent gains in time. This remains to be seen, but Esoteric Inanity shall be counted among the dregs and skeptics of such a neoteric tactic (Neoteric in that handing one’s adversary a loaded gun and an invitation to use it, is a novel concept).

          Either way, where this one is from, one does not invite the wolf to his door. Let alone set a place for him at dinner and expect such a “guest” to mind his manners. The wolf will come and create havoc irrespective of an invitation.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Neoteric? Well that’s a neoteric word to me. (Who cares if it’s actually older than America)?

    3. avatar HP says:

      If you listen to what many commenters here suggest, the ATF takes it’s marching orders from the NRA. Bump stocks are a perfect example. So the NRA suggested that the ATF maybe take a look at bump stocks as something that could be regulated. The ATF decides to take a look at bump stocks as something that should be regulated. People cry foul. “This is all the NRA’s fault!”

      Imagine at the ATF headquarters: “Sir, we just got a memo in that the NRA is cool with us trying to regulate bump stocks.” “Excellent, now we finally do it!”

      How about: “Let’s do a sweep of FFL’s this week, we’ll really scrutinize them and make sure 4473’s are being properly filled out.” “Ok, but have we checked to see if it’s ok with the NRA?”

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        On that note, the NRA’s new theme song and spokespeople: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

    4. avatar Publius says:

      The NRA asked them to “reclassify” bump stocks. The only way to “reclassify” a legal product is to make it illegal (banned). Fuck the NRA.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        @ Publius

        The Negotiating Rights Away org is their own worst enemy,if there mission is to protect and represent the 2 nd. amendment they better do a self assessment because they are failing.

    5. Here is the NRA’s statement issued a couple of days after the Los Vegas shooting. It is still up on their website and I have included the link. Notice that they call for additional regulations to be applied to bump fire stocks.

      NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement

      (FAIRFAX, VA) – The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:
      “In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

      https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

    6. avatar Wzrd says:

      “Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in a joint statement.
      “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.”

      1. avatar binder says:

        That’s because the NRA is not stupid. Machine guns are the reason for the NFA. There is a point were people are no longer going to support the 2nd amendment. That happens when someone fires into a crowd with what is effectively a machine gun. And the guy in Vegas did not even come close to the full potential of what can be done with a slide fire. And let me explain something to you that most people here do not get. You do not have ANY rights. You only have opportunities in life, not rights. And if you think for one minute that your “rights” are protected by a piece of paper written 200 years ago, you are deluding yourself.

        And if you don’t believe me about giving up rights, try and clam first amendment when standing naked in front of a pre-school. We will see how far that gets. I would think you should be protected by the first amendment. But I’m not going to stop (nor convict him on a jury) the angry dad who comes out a beats you down with a baseball bat.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We have those rights we can personally exercise and enforce. As the founders taught us.

  2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    May one live in interesting times, for interesting times are occurring.

    NRA redemption, court cases pending, who knows?

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “The People of the Gun can take heart in their political activism/engagement,…”

    Not until we no longer see news reports about gun control, or anti-gun organizations.

  4. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    How is the POTG’s activity to save their hobby/lifestyle a paradox? Whoever has the most to lose is the one who will “fight” the hardest.

    There’s very little gain or loss in controlling someone else’s life, but there’s a huge amount to gain or lose if someone tries to do that to you.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Bloomberg and Monsanto Mom couldn’t find enough unemployed SJW’s to IP spoof and enter false credentials at a nickel per post to pump up the pro-ban numbers?

    I hope they really did try and inflate their pro-ban numbers and still failed this miserably. That would feel sooooo good.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Such “activists” are accustomed to copy/pasting uninformed, pre-written and pre-approved tripe, in between sips of overpriced lattes mind one. No doubt that this was the extent of such a response, and was so inane as to be filed under “other”.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      My question is: who are the “2% other” category and what was the point of their comments? They simply responded to the survey just to say “hi”?
      🤠

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Perhaps that is where the “missing” emails show up. Topics range from wedding arrangements to top secret intel.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        They were probably the only responsive comments. This was a notice of proposed rulemaking, not a notice of a proposed rule.

        First, an agency says “we’re gonna make a rule.” They have to ask “what will the economic impact of this be?” Then they make a rule. At that point, they have to ask “whatcha think, America?”

        This comment period was at the “how much is this going to cost?” stage.

        If I’m wrong about the process, I’d be pleased to be informed so, but only with sources.

  6. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    It’s funny, the leftists widely tout polls when they support their position but deride & discredit them when they show something unsavory to them. I did complete the ATF comments (of course against any further regulation) but the fact that you had to include your full name (as a matter of public record) I’m sure put off a lot of people from doing so.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Confiramation bias tends to be more prevalent amongst those that exhibit apophenic tendencies. Objectiveness is an excellent inoculant against this. Though it would seem that some are immune (To objectivity that is).

      1. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

        I learned a new word today! Cheers!

        Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Indeed, it’s like cognitive dissonance, except one sees things that aren’t there. Correlation always equals causation and an epiphany is the antithesis of an apophany. Then again, perhaps Esoteric Inanity is being apophenic in these conclusions…..

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Then again, perhaps Esoteric Inanity is being apophenic in these conclusions…..”

          I don’t know about all that. Personally I passionately eschew obfuscation.

    2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      It said on the form you could write in Anonymous on both the first and last name text. That is what I did.

  7. avatar Jim Bob George Bill John Jones says:

    I highly doubt that the NRA represents even close to 5 million gun owners now…

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Even less after their Bump Stock statement,that and the diatribe of Ms. Hammer to do with NRAe board elections.

      1. avatar SparkyInWI says:

        The NRA has not represented a lot of gun owners for some time now. They do however have their collective nose so far up the POTUS arse that I would guess they could tell us what color his crap is. I told my friends who voted for this guy there would be no gun rights renaissance here. Trump is nothing more than a liberal crook pretending to be a Rep and conning everyone along the way. And forget about the SCOTUS nomination as that only happened because it was what the folks who gave him money wanted. It had nothing to do with gun rights.

    2. avatar DO says:

      I would hope that the membership of Gun Owners of America goes up in proportion to the decrease of NRA Membership (if any).

      1. avatar HP says:

        If so many people were really disaffected with the NRA, then GOA would have long surpassed it in membership. GOA certainly says all the right things to people upset with the NRA.

        I think what it boils down to it people are cheap – memberships cost money, and people don’t want to spend money.

        1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          Except with the NRA you DON’T get what you pay for hence why many are switching to the GOA or dropping entirely.

          You don’t keep giving money to something that doesn’t fight for you or in their last instance actively pushed for a ban when they should have just STFU.

  8. avatar Docduracoat says:

    I made my comment
    After I commented, I browsed several pages of other people’s comments
    The great majority of the anti gunners comments were a cut and paste of the exact same form
    It must have appeared on some anti gun website and people just copied it and submitted it

    1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

      I noticed that also, a sea of ‘cut and paste’. I at least wrote a ‘custom comment’!!!

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      Note carefully the number ratios here. On the anti regulation side, more than three times more unique comments, compared to form letters. On the other side more form letters than actual comments. This is SOP for the anti gun crowd. They mostly get numbers through bots and shills, who find it much easier to cut and paste than to think. These are some quite telling numbers as the 6% are those who work for bloomberg and the .govs, and the 7% cut and pasters are their mindless shills.
      That is the 13% that the other 85% of us are up against. With six times their numbers, and all of the brain cells, one would think it should be an easy fight. Its not, because not only do mindless zombies cause a lot of fear, they never stop in their eternal shambling desire to destroy all that still possess a functional brain.

      1. avatar tmm says:

        I was pleased about the unique comment ratio as well, not to mention the overall numbers. Let’s hope liberty wins.

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    “While widespread public support exists for many gun regulations and policies” – Bloomberg

    = BS, made up sh_t, projection.

    Let me fix it fer ya:

    While most people want Bloomberg, everyone working with and for him, and his fans treated to a Kurdish anti-jihadi fighter slaughter (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/02/06/kurds-protest-video-free-syrian-army-mutilating-trampling-body-woman-fighter/) they haven’t yet been able to accomplish it in a timely manner.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      /sarc – if needed

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Negotiating Rights Away since 1934 and President Trump should study and contemplate what the report indicates .
    They should think and rethink before either utters another word,as the NRAe’s written statements would indicate anything other than complete support for the Constitution and 2 nd. amendment.

  11. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I grabbed the GOA form letter, but I rewrote most of it. Since bumpfire is easily accomplished using a belt loop, I wanted to point out that operating a simi-automatic rifle, while wearing pants, could be considered constructive posession of a machine gun under their proposed regulation. Even a government employee should be able to understand how idiotic that would be.

    1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

      I think you overestimate the level of governmental competence…….

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I think you overestimate the level of governmental competence…….”

        The real danger is underestimating the cunning and persistence.

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Tbat’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

      Write it sloppy they criminalize a bunch of people, n allow selective enforcement, both chilling what they don’t like, but can’t (yet) ban. For the children (who remain unprotected in the schools.)

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      From youtube, I learned that bumpfire is possible with only the use of a finger. Would that be considered “constructive possession” of a machine gun if you have a semi-auto firearm in proximity? (one violation, or ten?)

      1. avatar Binder says:

        Nope, you can use a zip tie in the trigger, all that is required is forward pressure on the gun itself. The slide fire sleds use a bar to actuate the trigger.

        1. avatar Steve Day says:

          There you go again … spouting out that nonsense. NO, a bumpstock does not actuate anything – the shooters finger is the ONLY connection to the trigger/firing mechanism. A bumpstock is just a stock+grip combo that allows the receiver to slide backwards & forwards. It’s up to the user to hold their finger rigid and push against the recoil as the rifle slides in the stock.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          All you have to do is run a zip tie around the grip into the trigger guard.

        3. avatar Binder says:

          To be honest with you, I could care less if people have machine guns. But I know that people are already running the MCR uppers with slide fires and bipods. The day someone takes one of them to a crowd, it’s going to be 1934 all over again. And slide fires work really well with bipods.

  12. avatar Hank says:

    “Odds are the ATF will bend to political pressure and find some way to ban bump fire stocks.”

    Do you have some kind of evidence to back that statement up? The ATF folded in our favor while the politics at the time pressured them the other way under the Obama administration. Also, I honestly don’t see any political pressure here. At least not publicly. The GOP, NRA, and Trump haven’t even spoken of the issue in months. Seems to me your just riding the fear train. My prediction? The ATF gives up on the issue.

    Want a real political threat? The midterms. We need to keep congress red and keep making America great again.

  13. avatar Felix says:

    The ratio between unique comment and form comment is interesting. Gunnie comments were 25% form; hoplophobe comments were half form. That’s far more telling than the overall ratio, since anyone can just click on a web page.

  14. avatar Geoff PR says:

    From ‘The Trace’ article :

    “An additional round of analysis of our sample group revealed certain characteristics among unique commenters. For example, commenters who opposed the regulation were more verbose, writing messages that were on average 45 percent longer than those supporting the regulation of bump stocks.”

    Huh. So much for POTG being knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing Neanderthals incapable of communicating clearly.

    Isn’t communicating clearly in a verbose fashion a sign of intelligence?

    Looks like we’re 45 percent brighter than they are…

    More :

    “Anti-regulation commenters were also more likely to mention the technical aspects of a gun, the ATF’s rule-making process, and the Constitution, while those favoring the regulation were much more likely to mention the Las Vegas massacre, as well as other mass shootings like the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which left 20 children and six educators dead.”

    We argue facts and logic, they argue ‘feelings’.

    *snicker* 😉

    This, POTG, is *winning*…

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Damn right we are 45 % more intelligent. That’s a soul stealing amount of intelligence.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Concise writing is good writing.

  15. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    ATF “gatekeepers” and “stakeholders”. The bureaucrats make a pretense of paying attention to the suggestions of “the folks” when they are actually determined to claim that their resulting policy changes—determined by political expediency—are “best practices” which have to be imposed for the national good. Nonetheless, bureaucratic policy changes are easier to challenge than actual laws passed by congress. Laws are institutionalized while policies are not. This is why the NRA—in the midst of the moral panic caused by the Vegas killings—successfully kicked the whole bump-fire issue out of congress and over to the ATF. Policy changes that violate the 2nd amendment are much easier to challenge in court than actual laws. This is something the NRA understands quite well. It’s why they continue to get my money and support.

  16. avatar Defens says:

    Where’s DoomGuy? I figured he’d be along by now to assure us we were only seconds away from a ban and confiscation of all semi-auto arms?

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      He’d post but they’re gathering outside his house right now and he’s busy fortifying the doors and windows. 😀

    2. avatar DoomGuy says:

      I’m actually surprised at these results, but how do you know the .gov isn’t just gonna give us all the finger and do it anyway?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…but how do you know the .gov isn’t just gonna give us all the finger and do it anyway?”

        It’s the beauty of the game. With government, you can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t quit.

  17. avatar ironicatbest says:

    First bumpstock, then magazines over ten, then semi-autos. The more we talk of strings, and things that can make my semi automatic run fast the more reason the BATFE has to ban . And I’ve often wondered how guns and explosives,got throwed in with BAT

  18. avatar George from Alaska says:

    I think the NRA did the only and quickest thing possible to prevent Diane Feinstein’s proposed bumpfire ban from going to a highly charged emotional vote in the Congress. Hell we don’t even have enough Republican support to get rid of Obamacare! The NRA simply asked the ATF/NFA to re-review the six or eight letters they have already sent out over more than 10 years to at least three manufactures of the bumpfires…. ATF/NFA will look pretty stupid and unbelievable if they go back on all those permission and interpretation letters signed by the heads of the department, backed up by intense scrutiny by the technical branch.
    I own several registered machine guns and a couple of bumpfire stocks on nicely tuned platforms and have gotten very proficient at using the bumpfires. At 10 or so yards, or in a home defense situation there really is no difference in the amount of lead that you can fire downrange. If you really think about it, the NFA has been awfully generous with their final decision on braces, binary triggers, bump stocks, that short shotgun that is simply a firearm and that disastrous overpriced pos – the “UnReformation” by Franklin Armory I think it was. Four MOA at 50 yards… bite me.
    If the ATF/NFA has the balls to stand by their many decisions and letters then the things will remain untouched. And the NRA did not call for these things to be banned, you idiots that keep saying that, they called for them to be re-review and reclassified if necessary…. a big problem in itself to open up the NFA registry again?? And even if they are classified as machine guns, because frankly the end result is that they kind of sort of really do look and smell like machine guns when fired…. at least you will still be able to get them via a tax of some sort…. So please stop your pissing and moaning about the NRA… and I know a whole bunch of you probably can’t pass the requirements to own Class 3 type weapons and are mad that you have already lost your stupid ass solvent traps and now possibly a way to shoot fast with a gun you probably can’t legally own anyway….

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “…and I know a whole bunch of you probably can’t pass the requirements to own Class 3 type weapons…”

      Oh, *really*?

      Just how exactly does a sanctimonious ass-wipe like yourself know that, anyway?

      Last I checked, the ‘requirements’ to own NFA devices (besides money) was the same requirement to lawfully own pretty much most guns, that being, not a criminal.

      You’re certainly full of yourself, George…

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        We’ve got a Dick Metcalf wannabe here. I didn’t even know there were people like that.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Thank you George. The snark doesn’t help your argument and frankly it is offensive. With that out of the way though, the rest of what you say bears repeating especially, and counter intuitively, in this place. The maneuver employed by the NRA is brilliant. There is no advantage in appearing to be a radical hardline organization to the uninformed and undecided. This gives the NRA cover from those who are already hearing they are a terrorist organization, while at the same time giving our friends in congress cover from having to vote down a proposed ban. The BATFE has already ruled, repetitively and without reservation, over an extended period of time, that bump fire stocks are not machineguns or machinegun parts. Further, alteration of that position is politically inexpedient for the BATFE, certainly at this time, but truly for all time, given that they already face the perception that they promulgate policy in an (unconstitutionally) arbitrary fashion. Even the specter of reopening the registry is more than enough to prevent any major changes to regulation of these devices. This was a truly brilliant move by the NRA to avoid exposing pro-gun congress members while simultaneously virtually ensuring that no ban would be effected.

      On the attitude George expresses. . . I get that too. I can think of only a few reasons to denigrate the NRA over this, and virtually none of them speak well of those who engage in such behaviors.

      Least damning would be that those who speak out against the NRA on this are simply uninformed or of insufficient sophistication to understand just how well the NRA played this.

      Somewhat less charitably, there may be those who lack the real-politik necessary to understand why appearing less radical while in fact accomplishing ones goals is desirable.

      Then there are double agents who are themselves anti-freedom types or in the employ of anti-freedom masters, attempting to weaken and discredit the NRA by misleading those around them into believing that the NRA isn’t the oldest, most effective, prolific and stalwart pro-gun organization in the nation.

      I’m sure there are some categories I missed, but I’ll say this; while imperfect, the NRA is still a vital organization for the defense of the 2nd Amendment, and anyone who say otherwise is either or some combination of confused, wrong, lying (possibly with an agenda) or just a nihilistic, foolish person.

      For the POTG, publicly vilifying and attacking the NRA is counter-productive, disingenuous and foolhardy. Don’t allow perfect to become the enemy of good. The way we, the POTG, celebrate when the left eat their own is how they celebrate when we attack the NRA. The NRA is a political organization engaged in politics. The reality on the ground sometimes dictates the response, and the NRA expects to receive the benefit of the doubt from the POTG, for us to think about the totality of the situation and to allow that they might know something we do not, or may have a perfectly good reason to pursue the issue the way they are, in much the way a politician expects their base supporters to understand the difference between their actual position and their publicly stated, politically expedient speech during a campaign. It’s frustrating, it galls, it pains to hear anything but a strict, hardline position stated by the NRA, but they are a political animal, and ought to be able to rely on the POTG to understand that fact, and to seek to understand why they may have taken the position they have, and to have faith that they are on our side.

      TL:DR: YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! Next time, shut up, think and learn before you weigh in on something you don’t clearly understand, and aren’t willing to put forth the effort to understand. In the meantime, you sound like either an anti-gun troll or just a real dumbass when you trash your biggest, oldest and best friend in the fight we all share.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Note to pro-gun organizations that think they can play cute politics with anti-gun cabal: Absolute 2A rights, or get lost.

    3. You may not realize it but since a Class 3 device transfer must be approved by the “chief law enforcement officer” of the domicile of the proposed transferee, there are a number of jurisdictions where the chief law enforcement officer takes the position that they will not sign off on any Class 3 transfers. None. A person could be a circuit judge (I’m retired now)and don’t have a parking ticket on record and be friends with the Chief of Police and their policy is no approval. Fortunately, I live in a very gun friendly jurisdiction.

      Below is the definition of “chief law enforcement officer” from ATF
      E-Form 4 (5320.4) Revised September 2017

      Law Enforcement Notification.
      The transferee must provide a copy of the
      Form 4 to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) who has jurisdiction
      over the area of the transferee’s address shown in item 2a of the Form 4. In
      addition, if the transferee is other than an individual, a copy of the Form
      5320.23, National Firearms
      Act (NFA) Responsible Person Question
      naire, completed by each responsible person must be provided to their
      respective chief law enforcement officer
      The chief law enforcement officer is considered to be the Chief of Police; the Sheriff; the Head of the State Police, or a State or local district attorney or prosecutor
      .

      1. avatar Binder says:

        It’s been revised “completed by each responsible person must be PROVIDED to their respective chief law enforcement officer”. Illinois you can get a SBR (bit of a pain as you also need your Curios and Relics) and the local cops can’t stop you.

  19. avatar JMR says:

    No thanks to the NRA, rat bastards.

  20. avatar harold says:

    done with the nra

  21. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

    The phenomenon pointed out by the Bloomberg spokesman that “pro-gun advocates are significantly more active than their counterparts when it comes to engaging politicians and government agencies” is just a manifestation of the democratic process. Public support for a position depends not only upon numbers but also upon intensity. The First Amendment to the Constitution recognizes this by guaranteeing not just freedom of speech but also the right to assemble and the right to petition the government. We have just as much right to use our First Amendment freedoms as force multipliers for our position as Bloomberg does for his!

    1. avatar SAM I Am says:

      “The phenomenon pointed out by the Bloomberg spokesman that “pro-gun advocates are significantly more active than their counterparts when it comes to engaging politicians and government agencies” is just a manifestation of the democratic process.”

      Bloomberg’s statement is bogus. Anti-gunners have a more concerted effort at gun control than pro-gunners have at protecting the second amendment. The bulk of ant-gunism seems to have moved to the states. I call that serious political engagement.

  22. avatar #2aAFALLDAY says:

    Even with NRA Bloomberg/Klinton/DNC/Soros/UN and others paying for a full out right BAN on everything GUN…..

    A few gun owners spoke up loudly for the other 130 million lazy ass useless retard gun owners and fudds who could not be bothered to write a 4 word sentence out of their busy day of scratching their arse.

    Personally if you own a gun and are not a active activist for #2a rights and not supporting all the gun rights groups u can afford …u should have ur guns taken from you.

  23. avatar #2a says:

    The NRA pulled a D#ck move on bump stocks because they cannot exist without scare tactics to boost donations and membership! Yes ..their first press statement was plastic useless junk bump stocks should be regulated.

    They also love the Anti-gun crowd screaming ban all semi-autos 11+rd mags universal background cks introduced as legislation and alarming all gun owners a ban is coming to boost membership and Donations!

    Of what use would they be for most gun owners if we had true #2a with no gun control?? NONE!

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “Of what use would they be for most gun owners if we had true #2a with no gun control?” – Actually, they would probably be a pretty good education and marksmanship organization, but much less profitable for the people at the top.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email