TexasCHLforum.com

BBYC wrote:

K9Texas wrote:If you want to have a serious, intelligent conversation/debate, we can do that, but this ban the finger stuff is just ridiculous talk.

It may seem that way to people who don't understand how firearms function mechanically, but gun owners were bump firing long before slide fire existed. We did it with no mechanical aids or modifications to the firearm. Using the trigger finger and support hand that God gave us.

If you want to ban anything that makes "bump firing" possible, then you need to ban fingers. That is not "ridiculous talk". It is a fact. The only "ridiculous talk" is coming from people who don't understand how "bump firing" works.

Now if you want to ban a stock that includes certain very specific features that allow for a limited range of movement of a weapon within that stock, that is at least not "ridiculous talk". It will be completely ineffective at preventing "bump firing", and will at best just be another useless feel good measure that does nothing other than trample on our 2A rights for no real reason. But it would at least allow for a serious, intelligent conversation / debate.

parabelum wrote:So I guess they’ll ban belts etc. those can be used to increase the rate of fire...oh, we need to ban fingers too. Yes, like human fingers! They definitely increase the rate of fire. Sweet!

Belts, rubber bands, wood/plastic/metal rods, enhanced trigger components, sand paper and other abrasives that can be used to smooth up trigger components, bipods help you get back on target quicker, thus increasing your rate of fire, as do scopes of all types, after market iron sights, and of course hi-capacity magazines (anything over 1 round capacity) which dramatically increase the rate of fire for these evil killing machines by requiring less frequent reloads.

If you possess any of the above, whether you own an AR or not, you go to jail. Yep, sounds like "common sense gun control" to me. I guess it's just too bad that my 70 year old mom will be facing prison time for the wooden spoon she has in her kitchen.....

The retroactive application part is a HUGE problem and sets a very dangerous precedent.

SewTexas wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I'm entirely too libertarian, I don't want anything regulated, not bump-stocks, not sudafed. I don't want the Feds telling the states they have to recognize other states gun licenses. I don't want the feds doing anything.
Personally, I'd love it if the Feds worked more like Texas....3 months every other year, they tire me....

I agree in general. But I draw the line at allowing other states to interfere with the constitutional rights of US citizens who are visiting their state. I should have the right to keep and bear arms when I visit NYC, or LA, or our nation's capitol. Just like I maintain my right to free speech, and my right against self-incrimination when visiting those places. If a privately owned business wants to infringe on my rights, that's between them and me. But a state should not say that a U.S. citizen cannot carry a handgun on city streets or publicly owned buildings.

I just really don't think that's how nat. rec. is going to ultimately end up working.

I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately.

After all, my above statement isn't even true for Texas.

SewTexas wrote:I'm entirely too libertarian, I don't want anything regulated, not bump-stocks, not sudafed. I don't want the Feds telling the states they have to recognize other states gun licenses. I don't want the feds doing anything.
Personally, I'd love it if the Feds worked more like Texas....3 months every other year, they tire me....

I agree in general. But I draw the line at allowing other states to interfere with the constitutional rights of US citizens who are visiting their state. I should have the right to keep and bear arms when I visit NYC, or LA, or our nation's capitol. Just like I maintain my right to free speech, and my right against self-incrimination when visiting those places. If a privately owned business wants to infringe on my rights, that's between them and me. But a state should not say that a U.S. citizen cannot carry a handgun on city streets or publicly owned buildings.

bmwrdr wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Anybody else baffled by the NRA's call for additional regulations on bump fire stocks?

Not baffled at all. It is a smart move from the NRA to reduce the liberals momentum.

I am not a politician. But I am a decent negotiator. And immediately giving in on a key term in the hopes that your opponents won't then ask for anything else seems like a pretty weak negotiating ploy. Appeasement didn't work too well for Chamberlain. And I fear that this concession will only feed the anti-gunners fervor when they smell blood in the water.

I never thought I would see a Republican Texas Senator leading the push for gun control. I guess Texas really is becoming more like Kalifornia every day.