Quoted:
No.  The ATF already ruled on bump stocks under Obama. NRA should have used that ruling instead of asking them to look at it again. Leave it alone.

Quoted:
I just want to remind everyone here that if you're not a member of the NRA, you dont have the right to comment.

Quoted:
I just want to remind everyone here that if you're not a member of the NRA, you dont have the right to comment.

Quoted:

Correct. It was the only strategy that would both disarm the media and give Congress an out.

Quoted:
When is this coming out in paper back?

Quoted:
SNIP

There are far too many court cases where our side has going the second route only for the federal judiciary to tell us to "pound sand" for me to find that a preferable solution to the first.

That many people here don't know any better is understandable here.   NRA has no excuse.

Quoted:
So many people here were triggered by the NRA's comment and it is sad that people were not able to look past their own feelings to see political strategy for what it really was.  Anyone that posts TLDR just proves a later point I make.  Yes this is long but it is worth the read if you want to be informed.

Since many people here seem to think the NRA sold us down the river without a fight and are pissed at the NRA, I will explain that while it might seem that way on the surface it was actually a great political move.

First, before the NRA made their statement many Republicans were calling for a complete ban on bump stocks and Paul Ryan said he was open to passing a ban.  Things are pretty serious with the Speaker of the House is saying he will move legislation.  One Republican in the House drafted legislation and had 10 Republican co-sponsors and 10 Democrat co-sponsors sign on before he even filed the bill.  Anyone who follows the legislative process here knows that a submitted bill, with a lot of co-sponsors, and approval from the Speaker is a bill that has very strong potential of being passed.  That was reality before the NRA ever made a comment.  So the claim "the NRA created this" is nonsense.  The Republicans were in a rush to sell us down the river.

Then on the media front, I don't think it was even 12 hours after the shooting that Hillary Clinton said "We must fight the NRA and pass more gun control".  In typical liberal anti-gun fashion they blame the NRA and make them bad guy in order to rally their base.  Everyone should recognize that "let's ban bump stocks" does not elicit the same emotional response as "Fight the NRA".  Democrats work off emotion.  The MSM picked it up, Hollywood picked it up, and all the Democrats picked up that slogan to "fight the NRA and demand more gun control".

As soon as the NRA made their ambiguous statement several major changes happened.  The first was the constant news stories about another legislator drafting ban legislation or signing on to ban legislation practically stopped.  Paul Ryan never said another word about favoring any legislation.  I have never seen legislators immediately shut up on issue like that.  The abrupt stop told me that some political avenue was in the works, as is the case with every major issue.  What politicians talk about behind closed doors is not what politicians talk about to the media.  The media silence denoted a change in the agenda.

The second was the idiots in the MSM started running headlines "NRA calls for bump stock ban" which is 100% inaccurate was the MSM is known for.  Then some outlets started to correct their statement and ran headlines "NRA favors regulating bump stock" which again is not an accurate statement as the NRA never said the word "bump stock" in their statement.  The idiots in the media had no idea what bump stocks were or how they worked. They most certainly had no understanding of what the NRA statement meant.  But it was actually a good thing that the idiots in the media were running those headlines.  Why?  Because it helped bring about the third item, changes the idiot anti-gunners had to make

To see how dumb the media is look at this graphic that USA Today create and another one that someone in the AP created.

http://www.afterhourtechs.com/misc/gov/inaccurate_bumpstock_description_by_media.png

http://www.afterhourtechs.com/misc/gov/abcnews_bumpstock_inaccurate.jpg

The third item is the idiot anti-gunners.  Remember Hillary's rallying cry "Let's fight the NRA and demand more gun control".  The liberals always blame every shooting on the NRA and the NRA is the villian they all need to rally against and fight.  Just like every good story has a protagonist and antagonist.  Hillary is our antagonist.  Anything she stands for we rally together and fight.  To the anti-gunners the NRA is antagonist that they rally together for and fight.  But wait, the MSM is saying "the NRA favors more regulations for bump stocks".  Now the idiot anti-gunners are confused.  They can't say "Fight the NRA" because they think the NRA is now on their side.  The NRA's intentionally ambiguous statement disrupted the anti-gunners to the extent that news articles were written about it and the anti-gunners admitted they had to change tactics because they could no longer demonize the NRA.  Without an antagonist the anti-gunners movement lost steam and they had to redirect but where?  There are only two places to go ask Congress to pass legislation based on emotion and asking the ATF to review bump stocks.

So with one short sentence the NRA was able to get Congress to hit the pause button on any legislation, disrupted the MSM and anti-gunner narrative, had the MSM running interference by causing confusion as to the meaning of the NRA's statement, it disrupted the anti-gunners movement, and it stopped the constant public attacks on the NRA (at least by those who favor gun control).  The only people attacking the NRA and complaining that point some of the gun owners.  A single sentence by the NRA caused all of those major changes.  That is pretty impressive.

Let us look at the NRA's official statement.  It is an ambiguous statement to be sure, made that way intentionally for political reasons.
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

Did the NRA say any of the following "bump stock devices", "new devices", "rapid fire devices", "these devices", "recently used devices", "devices from a mass shooting", or any other phrase that would suggest they were referencing a specific item?  NOPE.  They simple said "devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to FUNCTION like".  The word FUNCTION is very important and it was not used by mistake.

The NFA 26 U.S.C 5845(b) defines machinegun as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

The one and only technical requirement for an item to be a machinegun is does it fire more than one shot by a single FUNCTION of the trigger.  That is the only definition.  Does a bump stock change how the trigger FUNCTIONS on a semi-auto?  NO. That is why the NRA used that very specific word in their ambiguous statement.  If the NRA wanted bump stocks to be regulated under the NFA, the NRA would have directly said "bump stocks should be regulated under the NFA".  They did not say that but many here had a knee jerk emotional reaction and decided on their own that the NRA's comment is exactly what the MSM was saying.  Suddenly the MSM was 100% trust worthy.

The anti's appealed to Congress, which for some reason stopped pushing a ban, so they moved on the ATF as the last resort to push gun control.  The Democrats in Congress also pressured the ATF to review bump stocks and urged them to categorized them as machine guns.  The NRA also said it is on the ATF to review the device...knowing full well exactly what I described about that the bump stocks do not change function and the ATF could do nothing about it.  Since Congress was demanding a formal review by the ATF the ATF started a review of bump stocks by announcing their intent to create a proposed rule change.

Let me break that last sentence down as reading every single word is important, those who don't read every word tend to post stuff like TLDR and look like idiots, it tells everyone they actually are not an informed voter, and they do not contribute anything of value to any thread.  But back to the sentence.  The ATF is required to make a formal review by request of Congress.  That review has 4 parts, which all are required for any type of change to happen.  The review can be stopped at any of the steps.  The ATF "announced their intent", meaning someday they might do the next thing which is "create a proposed rule".  Meaning no rule has been created yet.  No policy change or reclassification has been written up.  That's right.  There is no re-classification going on at the moment, there is no ban, there is no rule change, there is absolutely NOTHING of substance happening at this time.  The ATF is simply notifying people that they are looking into a possible change.  The first step of that change is gathering input from those who would be affected by the change.  That is where we are at now with the Open For Public Comments.

Step 2 is they have to go through all of the comments and created a very detailed proposed rulemaking document.  That will take time.  It also has to be very specific to the scenario, the goal, the expected outcome of the goal, the cost of implementing the regulation, the cost the regulation would have on the community, manufactures, and the public, a write up of how they justify all the costs to implement the goal as well as showing that it is a cost effective approach, they have describe the authority which they are using to make the ruling...etc.  It is political red tape that stretches on for miles.  Failing to do so results in the rule getting rejected by the courts or Congress smacking it down.

Step 3 is another public comment period.  This is when organization like the NRA gets their members involved, once the actual rule and tactic has been finalized by the ATF.  Until then you really can't fight the process because the ATF is required to complete the process.  All that people can do is leave comments answer technical questions that the ATF is seeking or challenging the ATF to justify the action before it starts.  At Step 3 is when a very long and detailed ruled will be released.  Then we tear into it and fight back on specifics.  My believe is that at Step 2 the ATF decides they do not have the authority to regulate bump stocks as machinesguns and that their hands are tied due to the wording of the NFA law.

Step 4 is where they publish the new rule, there is a minimum 30 day period during which multiple lawsuits will be filed against the ATF and the rule; if the action some how makes it to this step.

So to Summarize/In Conclusion/TLDR
When it looked very possible that the Republicans had the votes to push a complete ban on bump stocks, when the anti's were using the NRA as the antagonist to motivate their base, and when the MSM was attacking the NRA daily, the NRA issued a single sentence that brought about a pause in the legislation, disrupted the anti-gunners movement, cause confusion as to the actual meaning, forced the anti-gunners to stop attacking them and change their tactics, and stopped the MSM attacks.  It also pissed off a bunch of people here.  The defining word in that sentence was FUNCTION which is the same word and only technical requirement for something to be a machinegun, more than one shot per trigger FUNCTION.  Knowing the ATF could could not regulate bump stocks as a machinegun without completely ignoring a very specific law and the ATFs own prior approval; the NRA asked the ATF to review it as well.  The ATF would have reviewed it anyway because the public and Congress demanded they do so.  Currently is there no proposed rule that would classify bump stocks as a machinegun.  There is just a notice that the ATF is looking into starting the process of creating a rule, which again they are required to do because Congress asked and that is part of the official government process.

That is why the NRA's statement does not bother me and I see it as a great political move.  Stop legislation, confuse the opponent, redirect it to an agency whose hands are tied and can't do anything about it.  That is 100% what I believe the NRA's strategy was when they issued their ambiguous statement.  The ATF cannot regulate bump stocks without over stepping their authority.

Quoted:

If Congress passes a shitty law, you have recourse.

Quoted:

Sure the ATF can over step their authority.  There would be a big fight going on if that happened.  Why are you freaking out before the ATF has even drafted what they want to do?  I wouldn't say I'm nonchalant but I'm not freaking out because there is no rule even drafted at this point.

Why be scared by something that doesn't exist yet?  Obviously I'm still paying attention to it, taking action, engaging people on it, and posting threads on it.  Check back once the actual proposed rule is drafted, if one is even drafted.

Quoted:

The NRA actually blamed the Obama administration for giving citizens too much freedom.

Quoted:

That is where I stopped taking you seriously.

Quoted:
tldr

so you want to continue to support the organization who's leaders continue to sell out advancing gun rights, in favor of their own agenda? and you want others to do so too?

right.

Quoted:
fuck the nra and fuck sympathisers

I cannot look past irresponsible and retarded leadership

Quoted:
I just want to remind everyone here that if you're not a member of the NRA, you dont have the right to comment.

Quoted:

(SNIP)

That is why the NRA's statement does not bother me and I see it as a great political move.  Stop legislation, confuse the opponent, redirect it to an agency whose hands are tied and can't do anything about it.  That is 100% what I believe the NRA's strategy was when they issued their ambiguous statement.  The ATF cannot regulate bump stocks without over stepping their authority.

... will you all apologize to the NRA?

Quoted:
No.  The ATF already ruled on bump stocks under Obama. NRA should have used that ruling instead of asking them to look at it again. Leave it alone.

Quoted:
I just want to remind everyone here that if you're not a member of the NRA, you dont have the right to comment.

Quoted:
... those who don't read every word tend to post stuff like TLDR and look like idiots, it tells everyone they actually are not an informed voter, and they do not contribute anything of value to any thread.  ...