React and Comment below. Click the image to visit our top gun shops list to find new AR-15’s.

By some magical and mystical method, Facebook knows better than you and decides what you see and what followers of your pages see. They also use your content to sell advertising space to advertisers at their multi billion dollar socialist network. Firearms Friendly solves those problems. And will NEVER use such despicable mysterious methods to drive an agenda.

By default, we all follow each other on the news feed here now. Whether they are friends, followers, in groups, etc. As the site grows, members have the ability to fine tune what they want to see. It IS NOT based on any algorithm and NEVER WILL BE.

At Firearms Friendly members have complete control of what appears on their news feed. If you want people to like your page and follow your feed, simply post. 🙂

GunOwnersAmerica.com – “The ATF is accepting comments from now until January 25th on pending regulations that could ban bump stocks HERE

1. BUMP STOCKS DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “MACHINE GUN” UNDER THE NFA.

The Obama administration was correct when, in 2010, it correctly determined that bump stocks did not convert semi-autos into fully automatic firearms.

Federal law says, in part, that a machine gun is a weapon that can fire “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.” (26 U.S.C. 5845(b))

According to this definition, a “bump stock” does not fall within this definition.

With a “bump stock,” each and every round is discharged as the result of an independent pull of the trigger. So it is simply untrue that the “bump stock” assists the discharge of more than one round “by a single function of the trigger” — no matter how fast the gun discharges rounds.

One pull, one discharge. This is the classic textbook definition of a SEMI-automatic firearm.

If the ATF were to illegitimately use a standard based on “increasing the rate of fire” to ban or regulate bump stocks, then what is to stop it from illegitimately holding that other rate-increasing devices — like belt loops, sticks or fingers — are “machineguns” as well? YouTube abounds with examples of people using these items to increase the rate of fire of their semi-autos.

2. ATF HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BAN OR REGULATE BUMP STOCKS.

The ATF’s statutory authority, contained at 6 U.S.C. 531, is very narrow. Nowhere does federal law give ATF the general authority to regulate the safety of firearms, accessories, or parts. This is important, because, if federal law did do this, then it could administratively ban semi-automatics, or handguns, or all guns.

Constitutionally, the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Our rights are not privileges from the government that can be revoked or regulated at will. And regulating or banning bump stocks would serve as unconstitutional infringements.”

CLICK HERE TO SPEAK UP NOW

FoxNews.com – “A Democrat-backed study meant to expose illicit online gun sales instead seemed to show the opposite — with hardly any sellers taking the bait when undercover investigators tried to set up dozens of illegal firearm transactions.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had commissioned the Government Accountability Office report to look into how online private dealers might be selling guns to people not allowed to have them.

Their efforts were based on a 2016 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which claimed that “anonymity of the internet makes it an ideal means for prohibited individuals to obtain illegal firearms.”

“Congressional requesters asked that GAO access the extent to which ATF is enforcing existing laws and investigate whether online private sellers sell firearms to people who are not allowed or eligible to possess a firearm,” the GAO report said.

Over the course of the two-and-a-half year investigation, agents tried to buy firearms illegally on the “Surface Web” and the “Dark Web,” generally by sharing their status as “prohibited individuals” or trying to buy across state lines.

But the GAO revealed that their 72 attempts outside of the dark web were all “unsuccessful.”

“Private sellers on Surface Web gun forums and in classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to our agents that self-identified as being prohibited from possessing a firearm,” the GAO reported, noting that in their “72 attempts … 56 sellers refused to complete a transaction once we revealed that either the shipping address was across state lines or that we were prohibited by law from owning firearms.” In the other cases, the investigators’ website was frozen or they encountered suspected scammers.

On the dark web, GAO agents successfully purchased two guns illegally, as the serial numbers on the weapons were “obliterated” and “shipped across state lines.” But in the attempt to purchase, the GAO agents “did not disclose any information indicating they were prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

Based on the findings of the study, the GAO said it is “not making recommendations in this report.”

Cummings, Warren and Schatz did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the GAO’s findings.

The National Rifle Association seized on the report to claim that online sales are in fact regulated, calling the study an “embarrassment” for the gun control lobby.

“GAO’s findings showed nothing so much as that private sellers advertising online are knowledgeable about the law, conscientious, and self-policing,” The National Rifle Association said, adding that online gun sales are “subject to the same federal laws that apply to any other commercial or private gun sales.”

The NRA described the study as an attempt to model the findings of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2015 report, titled “Point, Click, Fire: An investigation of illegal online gun sales,” which found that 62 percent of private sellers were willing to proceed with a sale, even if the prospective purchaser could not pass a background check.”