Refuting Misinformation & Distortion of Facts on “Bump-Stocks”

Marion Hammer, NRA past president : Opinion

Slide Fire SSAK-47 HYB Bump Fire Stock
Slide Fire SSAK-47 HYB Bump Fire Stock
Marion P. Hammer
Marion P. Hammer

Florida – -(Ammoland.com)-  In 1934 the first federal gun control law in America was passed.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the law of the land. The NRA was asleep at the switch. Most of us hadn't even been born then. It is not of our making but like all good, honest, law-abiding Americans, the NRA obeys the law. The NFA regulates fully-automatic firearms and has done so for 83 years.

The “bump-stock” device, used by the killer in the Las Vegas shooting, converts a semi-auto rifle to a full-auto rifle. Anyone who has ever used a bump-stock or watched a video demonstrating its use, can only conclude that it is a converter.

If you listened to an audio recording of the shooting during that horrific massacre, you must have concluded that it was full-auto fire. You were not alone, many firearms experts and law enforcement professionals came to the same conclusion. It was not until later that information was released disclosing that bump-stocks had been used to convert semi-automatic firearms to perform like full-auto firearms.

In spite of the seemingly noble reason the manufacturer claims for developing it, the bump-stock circumvents federal law. Regardless of the quality and reliability or lack thereof of this device – it converts a semi-auto to full-auto when installed.

Do you have any idea how many people were shocked out of their minds when ATF decided bump-stocks were not subject to regulation and APPROVED them for sale and use? That was under the Obama administration for crying out loud. Your mind is forced to run wild wondering why.

Once the ruling was made, what would you expect NRA to do? Do you think NRA should have said, Oh! No, ATF is wrong, ATF made a mistake?

It doesn't matter what laws the NRA doesn't agree with or doesn't like, the NRA must abide by the law. For decades, over and over again when the enemies of the Second Amendment have tried to capitalize on tragedies by calling for more gun control, NRA has called for enforcing existing law. That is exactly what we are doing now.

Make no mistake, the NRA has NOT cleared the way for more regulation. If it were not for ATF's wink and nod to the manufacturer of the bump-stock, it would already be regulated under federal law. NRA has tossed it back into ATF's lap where it belongs. NRA has not agreed to any new legislation. NRA has not agreed to a ban. NRA has not agreed to anything. NRA simply insists upon enforcing existing law.

The enemies freedom and the Second Amendment are spewing hysteria from the podiums they have planted in the blood of innocent victims. These anti-Second Amendment heretics are using these victims as their stalking horse to get some new gun control legislation on the floor of the Congress.

These victims have fallen and are suffering because of the evil acts of a deranged madman who could have carried out his destruction even if bump-stocks were not available under ATF's approval. He would have found another way.

Don't blame bump-stocks, don't blame ATF, don't blame anybody but the evil people who perpetrated this crime. No law, no regulation stops those with evil in their hearts.

The frantic cries from antagonists who want to take your freedom are intended to stampede you and Congress into supporting more gun control.

But it doesn't stop there. Is it not clear to you that, just like the media, some members of the NRA Board are misinterpreting what the NRA has said?

Additionally, there are “Trojan horse members” who are deliberately misinterpreting what the NRA has said. Just like having an (R) after your name doesn't make you a conservative Republican, having an NRA membership card doesn't make you an honest member.

Be very careful of anti-NRA people claiming to have many supporters who are merely standing in a hall of mirrors and seeing their own reflections. Don't be fooled.

This fight is not about the personal financial interests of NRA Board members. This fight should not be used by any individual Board member to attack NRA as a means elevate their own popularity with dissidents and “Trojan horse members.”

This particular fight is about following existing law. If you don't believe that bump-stocks convert semi-autos to full-autos then you have not seen what I have seen. While the conversion may be reversible by removing and replacing the device, it none less makes a semi-auto perform like a full-auto when installed.

We do not need new legislation, we do not need new regulation, we simply need ATF to review it's previous approval and enforce existing law. That's what NRA said. That will render bump-stocks irrelevant. There is no need for Congress to be stampeded into doing anything else. No matter how you twist it, or what your own personal agenda may be, the NRA has not compromised.

If ATF won't do it on its own, President Trump should order ATF to review it's ruling made under the Obama administration.

We should stand united. We need to enforce existing law. We don't need any new gun control legislation. Any member of Congress who wants to sacrifice more of our freedom under the pretense of providing safety should know that we don't forgive the betrayal of freedom or the Second Amendment and we won't give a wink and a nod to political eye wash as a substitute for backbone.

The only legislation we need to see on the floor of Congress right now is carry reciprocity and elimination of suppressor regulations.

Marion Hammer

  • 64 thoughts on “Refuting Misinformation & Distortion of Facts on “Bump-Stocks”

      1. please elaborate: about that “bumping” Marion Hammer aledgedly “does”.

        Looks to me you’re just throwing rocks. Careful at that game.. I remember an old story about a couple boys throwing rocks at someone they oughtn’t have targetted. Seems a bear came out of the woods and killed the two boys. Last time they’ll ever do THAT….

        1. Also, hammerhead women who look like sow-bears, with IQs that are not much higher than a sow-bear’s, utterly lacking in conscience like a sow-bear, who prioritize the use of what limited cleverness they have to hide secrets that would disqualify them from their undeserved position of trust and honor and embarrass and expose the corrupt, treasonous organization on which they feed like vampires and which they betray to the enemy at the expense of its members, are annoying and loathsome, to be avoided like the plague, but not feared, at least not enough to self-censor. No fear is worth self-censorship.

    1. I agree that our most likely to be successful action is to call the NRA and state you will not send them $ for ANYTHING if they support ANY gun control restrictions at all. I also intend to reply the same in any mailing or phone call I receive from them. Enuff is enuff! Further, I intend to state not IMMEDIATELY pushing the SHARE Act to enaction will result in the same actions from me (i.e., no mo dough)

    2. Bump stocks do not convert a semi-auto to full-auto. It still fires one round for one pull of the trigger. It just allows the shooter to pull the trigger faster by using the recoil. That is why the ATF declared that the bump stock was not an NFA item. What was shocking is that the ATF actually came to the right conclusion.

    3. Apparently the heads of NRA have forgotten that the Democrats and anti gun people’s idea of compromise is we will take everything we can without giving up anything we already have and try for more as opportunity presents itself.

      Rep. Pelosi has already stated she is hoping they get their slippery slope and left unsaid that it gets the Democrats closer to the socialist dictatorship they dream of.

    4. these people dont want you to see the whole picture they want your guns so you cant fight back killing people is not legal regardeless of what you use to do it so they would not car anyway if the weapon they used was

    5. Look up the Akins accelerater. ATF said it was good to go then banned them later. Akin sued and lost.
      I just found this out. Many of you may already know.

    6. I TOTALLY AGREE, NO MORE GUN LAWS OR REGULATIONS and existing laws ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!
      HOWEVER, so many of you here write such nonsense! NO WAY IN HELL will existing gun laws be fully repealed!!! The constitutionality of them DOES NOT MATTER! The laws are in force and LITTLE WILL CHANGE!

    7. You know how arguing with a liberal troll is like wrestling with a pig in a mud hole ? After a while you figure out the pig just likes to wrestle in the mud .

    8. Marion
      The second amendment isn’t just about sport shooting /hunting,it also covers self defense and removal of tyrants,the average American was to be equally armed to members of the military,of which is why the founders did not want a standing army.
      Thankfully there is a alternative to the NRA and it’s group think for the purpose of civilian disarmament.
      https://gunowners.org/join.htm

    9. @WB,

      We should, we must, and I do, take note of such traitors as Marion Hammer, and what they write!

      The reason is clear, and upfront: such infamy cannot, and should never, be allowed to stand in the public forum, without a factual, empirical, response, because the average individual who is not part and parcel of our body of gun owners, are like that old dog that had run into one too many trees Chasing Cars, when it comes to guns: they don’t know the difference between come here and Sic ’em!

      What Marion Hammer wrote is seen by the average individual, and sadly, far too many gun owners, as being ‘ reasonable’, ‘ common sense’, ‘ logical’, and ‘ for the common good’.

      When we let such statements from someone who is a past president of the NRA, stand on their own, without any legitimate responses, then by default we validate such heresies.

      Mind you, we also provide fodder for people voting for gun control measures in the future, if we do not provide an objective, historical answer.

      I will be calling all of my congressional reps, including the two feckless Rino senators from Wyoming, to oppose any and all anti bump stock legislation! I have little doubt that Bloomberg’s Everyday People, The Brady Bunch, et al, are already circulating Marion Hammer’s article to members of Congress.

    10. In case anyone missed the fact that the NRA has gone (for a long time) off the deep end, Marion just gave you another excellent example of how the NRA has long supported “Gun Control” legislation. Few folks realize the National Revolver Association (a long defunct offshoot of the NRA) wrote the first “model handgun regulations” in the early 1920’s; eighteen States quickly adopted some version of it.

      Who says the NRA doesn’t support “Gun Control”? Here’s some of the more recent:
      1) National Firearms Act of 1934
      2) The Federal Firearms Act of 1938
      3) Gun Control Act of 1968
      4) Firearms Owners Protection Act (banned future Class III for civilians) of 1986
      5) Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (“cop killer” bullets) of 1986.

    11. Starting with the false premise that the laws of 1934 and 1968 were legal is where you wandered astray, Marion.
      I fear you are falling into the ‘I am old and now want things to just be nice’ trap. I am 63 and will not cast away the future of our country for that comfort.

    12. Technically a fully-auto is a fully-auto and a semi-auto is a semi-auto…….and a bump stock is a ‘fully-auto’ devise. IMHO, it is crystal clear a bump-stock is designed to simulate fully-auto and therefore subject to the fully-auto/machine-gun law/regulation. The bump-stock doesn’t re-manufacture, i.e., physically alter a semi-auto to a fully-auto, but the bump-stock IS a fully-auto devise, therefore, subject to the existing law. The bump-stock shouldn’t be banned just as a machine gun isn’t banned, but subject to the same law/regulation. Someone wanting a bump-stock should be required to follow the same procedures as to own a machine gun.

      1. Wow are you a contradiction in terms. Semi-auto is semi-auto MeMikeT. Sorry if you’re having a difficult time understanding the the definition. I believe the rest of us, with the exception of Marion Hammer and the NRA, have got it down pat.

          1. It doesn’t take a fast finger my friend. Bump firing with your finger was one of the original techniques. You keep your arm and finger rigid and let your other arm pull forward and use the recoil to “bump” it against your finger. The rifle is NOT shouldered but hip fired. With practice it’s as accurate as full auto which is….eh, you know….not that accurate.

            1. @Vann… I was meaning your reply . It wasn’t there when I started and was when I posted when I looked at the time you were with in a minute faster.

        1. Vanns40, so you agree with me. A semi-auto IS a semi-auto. Where is the contradiction? I don’t want to ban any firearm. The machine gun is not banned. It is regulated. Anyone can get a machine gun if they meet the requirements. All firearms are subject to requirements, even little six shooters. You can’t buy a gun without the requirement of a background check, even if you are a CCW holder. Do you and many others here believe there shouldn’t be background checks? The hoopla by us gun owners are making us look unreasonable fanatics…..giving the democrats a huge hook to latch on to gun control by using the bump stock issue. If we don’t entertain some small, little, reasonable regulation of the bump stock, the democrats will use us gun owner’s attitude to expand from bump stock to GUN CONTROL. Democrats don’t give a crap about the bump stock. Democrats want to use the issue to advance GUN CONTROL. Bump stock is NOT a gun. Don’t let the democrats familiarize a bump stock as a GUN.

          1. Sorry Mike, I don’t agree that we need any gun laws. I say repeal every single one of them. We have existing laws against rape, robbery, assault and murder using ANY weapon. Why do we need additional laws singling out guns? Suppose we had laws that singled out rental trucks like the one used in France to kill 89 and injure 200? Not in favor of that? So, it’s not the number of people killed that bothers you or other people just the object used! Hah, sort of the height of hypocrisy.

          2. Disingenuous, or just thick? A regulation prohibiting ownership isn’t a ban? Keep saying that and maybe even you will believe it. Anyway Marion Hammer is a hypocrite. What will she want to regulate next, edible rugs?

          3. no, I DO NOT believe we need to endure and pay for a background chck each time we buy a firearm from any source.

            What IS needed is that the laws prohibiting the types of harm done with firearms (and knives, cars, bricks, Home Cheap Claw Hammers, bare hands and feet) be stringently enforced EVERY TIME, including “firearm enhancement” laws that applu additional penalties for the use of a firearm in such crimes (I still oppose such “enhancements” where the firearm is not an element of the crime itself.. such as when a guy has in his possession some quantiy of a substance deemed “illegal” to possess, ANd a firearm.. the firearm is NOT material to that victimless “crime” and thus its simple presence is moot).

            We sort of have that distinctioni between “robbery” and “armed robbery”, where the weapon enhances greatly the crime itself, and thus brings stiffer penalties.

            Felons in possession of firearms, firearm theft including possession of stolen guns, all need to be vigourously prosecuted to the fullest extent, as must the crime of supplying a “prohibited person” a weapon that is subesquently used in a crime. These are rarely charged, except as original laundry llists, most of which are “dropped” as part of the “reward” for a plea bargain. End that practice.

            Oh, and how about restoring the death penalty for murder? If someone is facing a real probability of being put to death for his killing another, he WILL reconsider…..

            1. Either punish the attempt, the intent, the act and the result, and stop the primitive superstitious punishing based the particular tool used, or punish all tools equally including fists, feet, head, and teeth.

              Double punishing “felons” is wrong and should be unconstitutional for many reasons. E.g

              1. All punishments should be clearly and explicitly stated in the sentence, provided specifically in law for that crime, and should be relevant to the crime. Not a blanket or even ex post facto punishment.

              2. Felon is arbitrary. Whatever legislatures say it is. Not all are equal. Increasingly many felonies are nonviolent or even victimless, no mens rea. It is abhorrent to deny the right self defense to a nonviolent victimless felon.

              3. As to violent felons, they should never be let out of custody if they are still a danger in proximity to firearms, which they will be in a free society. To let them out unreformed as “prohibited persons” is the kind of idiocy only gun grabbers should promote, since it’s based on idiotic gun grabber false assumptions and agendas.

            2. There’s a great story in Susanna Clarke’s “The Ladies of Grace Adieu” short story book, about irrational, ‘barely sane’ fairies imprisoning the firearm used in a crime for several hundred years, which I like to take as a subtle swipe at anti-gun ‘Liberals’, Democrats, et ilk.

          4. MMT, says, “The machine gun is not banned. It is regulated.” I say that is an infringement.
            Then he says, “You can’t buy a gun without the requirement of a background check, even if you are a CCW holder.” I say that, too, is an unconstitutional infringement. (And please note: Here in Texas, If one has a license to carry, you do not need a background check).

            1. I had a license to carry in Michigan and now have one in Iowa. In BOTH states when purchasing or taking delivery of a firearm I had to show my card and the gun store person called in the purchase to the authorities. I only had to pay the $20 or $25 fee to the store.

      2. @MEMikeT… The trigger still has to be reset after each cartridge is fired therefore a semi-auto is a semi-auto as the BATFE ruled .

        1. oldvet, of cause a semi-auto is a semi-auto. No one is saying otherwise. The bump stock manipulates a semi-auto to perform as a fully auto.

          1. @MMT…Typical liberal leftist definition twisting to mean what you want it to mean ! Just as the left always wants to twist the 2A !! You Wouldn’t be the old xx troll would you?

          2. @MMT, If a definition gets in the way of an agenda, that definition must be changed or just use lots more words until you work around it. Nor should facts get in the way of your agenda. For instance the Bump Fire mechanism was never intended to perform as a fully automatic weapon. The Bump Fire was designed to help disabled persons participate in the shooting sports. You may as well just make up you own logic, too. Just because someone misuses a device to hurt others, does not mean that it should “banned”. If everything that could be misused were “banned”, do you realize how little would be left in our world? No, don’t let definitions, demonstrable facts, and logic get in the way of an agenda.

          3. IF you do not pull forward on the fore grip with the off hand a rifle with a bump stock will fire one round at a time . The rifle was not modified. A full auto can be fired full auto with one hand by pulling and holding the trigger back. There is no spring involved as one LAPD officer stated either.

          4. no it does not Listen to the audio again of the shooters (yes, I said SHOOTERS, plural) in the Las Vegas massacre. I’ve heard full auto M 4’s and BMG 50’s…… the rate of fire is FAR faster than even the two or more shooters firing bursts at the same time as heard on those cell phone videos. Also, since the gun is shifting with each new trigger press, there is no way accuracy is anywhere near what it is on a properly slung M 4 on burst or fill auto mode Sort of a rough guesstimate in effectiveness comparing a full auto M4 with the things used in Las Vegas (that is, total rounds out the muzzle times miss rate due to less stable rifle positioning) of both types, I’d wager the M4 properly handled is four to six times as effective as the AR 15’s with the stupid stock he alledgedly used. I’ve also heard VERY skilled riflemen with AR 15’s at a range firing at a much faster rate than the audio from the phone videos in Las VEgas present, and I’d also wager more accurately.

        2. oldvet, no kidding. A semi-auto is a semi-auto. Brilliant. What an argument. We are talking about ‘what is a bump stock. Which simulates a semi-auto as a fully auto.

      3. I would strongly suggest to you sir, that you bother taking the time to read the writings of the founding fathers, especially the Federalist Papers, and those of General George Washington on this issue.

        General George Washington, the first president of these United States, clearly stated that the average, everyday, American citizen, constitutionally needs to be able to arm commensurate with the average American Soldier!

        So, what you are faced with, if you are an honest individual, is either believing Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Marion Hammer, Rinos, and the Democrats, on these issues, or, believing the founding fathers who actually wrote the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence.

        The same gentlemen, that is the founders, also wrote the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should consider rereading those!

        The NFA of 1934, is unconstitutional. This is not my subjective, personal opinion, that is the clear fact based upon the writings of the founders.

        Should you disagree with the founders, on the issue of what the Second Amendment actually means, by all means, reject all the other original nine amendments, and then we can get down to brass tacks of completely destroying what’s left, little that there is, of the rule of law in this country.

        Your version is that might makes right!

        1. Absolutely right. And said Mr. Washington lived through a time of typical colonist using whatever arms he could come up with to go up against the largest, best equipped, best trained army on the planet….. “stupid farmers with their squirrelguns” against the King’s Best. Many times the Brits had far superior weapons than did the colonials, and that includes his own soliders serving under him as General. How often he WISHED his men had the equal of George King’s men.

      4. @MMT, The Bump Fire stock was invented so that disable persons could participate in the shooting sports. Using the device to mimic fully automatic never was the designer’s intent. So your conclusion is not crystal clear or even correct. Your statement that bump-stocks should be subject to the same procedures as owning a machine gun implies that the National Firearms Act is constitutional. It is not. The taxing of a pre political, civil right is not constitutional. Using the federal authority to tax, for the purpose of preventing Americans from exercising their civil rights is clearly unconstitutional and also fails the substantive due process test.

        1. Wild Bill, the designer’s intent has been circumvented to perform as a fully auto. Also, Wild Bill, if you are going to comment about the constitution as if you are an expert, please provide credentials or text to support you claim.

          1. @MMT, I earned my JD at UVA. How about you? The notion of taxing a civil right, like a poll tax to keep the poor from voting, has been pretty well repudiated by the S. CT. Please see poll tax cases.
            The legislative ruse of controlling one thing or activity, but really intending to stop some other thing or activity is called violating substantive due process. please see Lockner v New York. Happy now MMT? But now fair is fair, and your credibility is now in question on everything that you write here.

          2. MMT you reveal yourself to be rather ignorant of the content and meaning of the Constitution on a number of matters. Further, your ignorance of legal cases refining and defining the Constitution is also found wanting. Bear in mind, those nine legislators in black nighties do NOT “create law” or “make things legal’illegal”. they have NO legislative authority. Nor do two bit alphabet soup federal agencies pontificating on issues never assigned FedGov to deal with have any legislative authority.. which would INCLUDE BATF passing “rulings” to “ban”, “register”, “tax”, “regulate” or otherwise burden the free possession and use of anything relating the the three letters of the agency that alledgedy define their raisón d’etre…. READ your copy of the Constitution, (you DO have one, don’t you? If not, double shame on you as your revealed ignorance is wilful) and come back and tell us from whence comes any authority for FedGov to regulate, control, tax, or otherwise deal with alcohol, tobacco, OR firearms.

            Your turn to prove your ignorance… WHERE do BATF get any authority, constitutionally based, to deal with any of those three classes of goods comprising their name? For that matter, from whence does COngress derive their assumed authority to regulate any of these classes of goods? Come on, now…. from WHERE in the Constitutioin comes any authority for any part of FedGov over alcohol, tobacco, OR firearms? The very existence of this agency is unconstitutional.

      5. @MemikeT,

        How very disappointing that you only believe in PARTS of the US Constitution!

        You don’t mind ‘small’ gun control bills and laws that go against the Constitution?

        Did you, or did you not, happen to take note of Nancy Pelosi’s comments that the ‘slippery slope’ is not only okay with her, it’s exactly what Democrats want?

        She wants to start with the ‘small’ bump stock ban, and move on to other bans, such as standard cap 20, or 30 round mags, and then on to the true High cap mags 60 rounds or more!

        What you are refusing to address are both the goals of the Democrats and the Rinos, and of course the Contra constitutionality of all these requirements, with which you seem to have no problem!

        I must ask again, have you never bothered to read the writings of the founders, on these issues we’re speaking about here on this forum and across the country? Never read The Federalist Papers?

        Are you one of those fair-weather constitutional people, or do you actually believe in the document, in the rights given to us by God?

        1. JR, reality needs to set in. Nancy Pelosi IS the slippery slop. She and all her democrat/liberal partners don’t need a bump stock issue to compromise OUR constitution. There is a sincere, honest, reasonable argument of both sides of the bump stock that sincere, honest and reasonable conservatives can and should debate. The problem with conservatives/republicans, they tend to eat their own. I’m a 2nd amendment supporter in a HUGE way. My concerns about the bump stock doesn’t change that. I am starting to believe there are many trolls here to instigate division.

          1. No bud, you are the troll or you are incredibly ignorant. With all that’s been said I choose the former. Most of us can spot you guys a mile away. You’re a running contradiction.

          2. once more.. WHERE in the Constitution, which IS the Supreme Law of the Land, do any part of FedGov have ANY authority to limit, license, tax, regulate, restrict, place conditions or requirements upon, mandate prior restraints, ir in any other way deal with firearms? Now, considering the Tenth and FOurteenth Articles of Ammendment, WHERE do the states even have any authority to act similarly in any actioins against firearms and their owning and using? READ the Tenth Article of Ammendment, it clearly declares that states ONLY have authority when such authority is not prohibited by the Constitution to the states… and that ruling document plainly states that our right to arms “shall not be” infringed…. including by any state or lesser level government. States don’t even have any authority to act against our free and unfettered right to arms.

    13. You madam, are a traitor to both the Constitution and every Bonafide NRA member, and every law-abiding gun owner in America!

      You lied through your teeth concerning bump stocks, and you know you lied! One pull of a trigger with many bullets fired equals automatic. More than one pull for shots fired equal semi-automatic!

      Further, the 2A in the Constitution is not about sport shooting, it’s about the ability of average everyday Americans, to fight their own government, should the federal government, or for that matter state governments, turn into tyrannies: IE, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Etc.

      The founding fathers would have already started revolts in all of those states to overthrow those state governments!

      Mind you, they would have also rebelled against the federal government for passing the NFA!

      You know as well as I do, the founding fathers made clear in their writings, especially Washington, the Commanding General of the Revolutionary Army, and our very first president, that the average American needed to be equally armed to members of the military!

      This is why the NFA is soundly, and completely unconstitutional.

      However, you don’t care about the Constitution, you don’t care about facts, you don’t care about history, and you certainly do not care about the 2nd Amendment rights of everyday, average Americans

      This is why I am no longer a member of the NRA: you and your fellow like-minded NRA members, are all for gutting the Second Amendment, and stripping Americans of their rights to defend against tyranny, and even against criminals!

      You have proven yourself to be a person without ethics, without integrity, without honor.

      Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox both need to go the way of the dodo, to be ousted from their positions in the NRA, along with so many board members.

      Shame on you madam, shame!

      1. @JRB, She probably did not even write the article. Some minion ghost writer produced it for her signature, then she gets a paycheck. Anyway she is not a spokes person for the NRA, and we care not what the betrayers say, do, and write. Right?

    14. This political clap trap and obfuscation is so typical of the NRA (Wayne LaPierre’s personal fiefdom) and one of the main reasons I haven’t and won’t renew my membership. The antis preface their statements with, “I am a gun owner and hunter and wouldn’t do anything to prevent anyone from owning and using hunting guns”, and so does the NRA. Their focus is not on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, but on selling memberships and soliciting contributions to pay for LaPierre’s limos and mansion, not unlike some 2-bit preachers.

    15. Marion you are wrong! The one thing you said that is correct is that you cannot stop an evil lunatic from doing this. He could have loaded his plane with the explosives he already had along with the bombs and simply crashed into the crowd with a full load of fuel and created even more carnage.

    16. Complete bald faced lies intended to mislead and betray.
      A fully automatic rifle fires more than one bullet per trigger pull. A bump stock equipped rifle only fires a single bullet per trigger pull. It is by no means a full-auto rifle and the ATF has already agreed with this based on legal review. A semi-auto without a bump stock can fire just as fast with a bump stock, it’s all a matter of finger control.
      Marion Hammer argues against semi-auto rifles simply because they can have a high rate of fire. Short of a muzzle loader, any semi-auto, bolt action, or even lever/revlover weapon can achieve a high rate of fire. In objecting to a high rate of fire, Marrion basically endorses the anti-rights talking point that anything developed after muskets is just too much gun for an American to own. She and those in the NRA who agree with her have indeed cleared the way for more regulation. It is betrayal of the principles of the 2nd amendment and anyone who stands for them.

      1. Finally someone who knows the difference between full auto and semi auto. To bad the snowflakes in the media don’t know the difference.

      2. Exactly If memory serves Lee Harvey O aimed and fired 3 shots at JFK in 5 seconds using a old military bolt action , with out a bipod or a bumpfire stock .

        1. that’s the government narrative… but that includes the rounds fired from the grassy knoll and from the other position toward the right of the book depository. But, don’t discount that many of those “old military rifles’ were VERY accurate at distance… easily capable of the alledged prowess of that shooter. An OLD (85 or so) friend of mine uses a military issue (but restocked) Carl Gustav 6.5 x 55 Swede military rifle and regulary drops his deer each year right in their tracks with one round.. from a typical distance of 400 yards. His scope is a 4×32 fixed Nikon. Rifle as carried weighs in at about 7 lbs with the mag well filled.

      3. I had the pleasure of watching a young man using a Remington 700 bolt action rifle to shoot the old Army Qualification Test…. possible 300 points, his score 245, within the specified time limits for each stage and with the position changes and unloaded ready to firing requirements. He had a handicap, too… the rounds he was using were hand loaded, and were spitzer boat tailed target loads, tooo long to fit into the magazine of his rifle. So he had th hand feed each round. That means from offhand position to seated transition, load and fire ten rounds at two different targets in fifty five seconds, starting with unloaded rifle at standing., two hundred yards effective range. Next, ten rounds traisition standing to prone, ten rounds,. hand fed in the bolt action, unloaded at standing, three different targets at 300 yeard effective range.

        Ten rounds anywhere in less than a minute with accuracy at those ranges with semi automatic action is impressive. complicate that with the two factors, bolt action, and hand feeding each round and this man is a VERY skilled rifleman. And he’s not THAT unsual.

    17. Almost three decades ago, if the NRA Board Of Directors had followed through on their proposed vote of no confidence in Wayne, and plans to oust Ackerman-McQween, which you were aware of Marion, NRA wouldn’t be in this mess today. Now they’ve made it virtually impossible for another Cincinnati Revolt unless there are enough Board members with spines to stand up and say “Wayne and Chris you’re out”. Of course that includes not letting the mini-Wayne in-line take over too. This will require a clean sweep. Is the Board up to it? Doubtful.

      1. @TennX, I propose another way to get the NRA’s attention. We all call the NRA and tell them that if the NRA supports any gun control no matter how small, we will no longer send contributions to them. Price: one phone call.
        Then we followup with a one sentence letter, placed in their own donation request envelope, stating that if the NRA supports any gun control, no matter how small, we will no longer send contributions. Price: 49 cents.
        Satisfaction: priceless!

    18. Incorrect, Mrs. Hammer.

      Fully-automatic fire and rapid semi-automatic fire are not the same thing, just as a firearm that looks like a battle carbine isn’t a battle carbine.

      Selling out items NOT DETERMINED TO BE CONTROLLED OR CONTRABAND is still selling out.

    19. “Regardless of the quality and reliability or lack thereof of this device – it converts a semi-auto to full-auto when installed.”

      No, it does not. It “simulates” automatic fire, however, the operation of the firearms is still semi-automatic: the hammer is dropped once per pull of the trigger.

      Additionally, a bump-stock is NOT required to bump-fire a semi-automatic rifle. Belt loops, strings, and other innocuous items can be used to bump-fire. Should the NRA look into regulating belt loops and strings?

      I am sorry, Marion. This is a reporting fail.

    Leave a Comment 64 Comments

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