Feinstein Intros Bill to Ban "Bump-Stocks"

[RevolverRob]

Seriously peeps - Keep your shit under control. I'm just gonna proactive this and say, first person to lose their shit, I'm going to report and ask Mods to lock this thread. I know we're all going to be emotional about it, go count to 10

Contact your Congress people. Let them know you oppose such legislation.


Earlier Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a bill that would ban the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump fire stocks, as well as trigger cranks and other accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/politics/dianne-feinstein-gun-control-bump-stocks/index.html

Biggest issues - those who are in these states need to address -

Cornyn (Texas), Grassley (Iowa) want a hearing to "learn more" and are open to discussions of banning.

Wisconsin R Ron Johnson said he supports banning bump-stocks

South Carolina R Jeff Duncan said he is open to debating banning bump-stocks.


Contact your Congress people. Let them know you oppose such legislation.

I'll be writing to Cornyn first thing in the morning.

-R

[OnionsAndDragons]

Already done, though IN reps tend to be pretty firmly in our camp for this sort of stuff.

It's always odd when I feel compelled to argue for something I personally find dumb but see no legitimate reason for regulation of.

Oh yeah, for those that don't know: feel free to email these letters but always print out and sign a hard copy and either snail mail or fax it too. Many of these offices are still run under dinosaur standards and proper paper counts more under those rules.

ETA dinosaur stuff

[Josh Runkle]

I think that Republicans will likely vote in favor of banning bump stocks. The thinking being that they get the “we have to do SOMETHING” crowd off their back, without really affecting guns.

No, I’m not in favor of it. Just making a prediction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JHC]

If I contact them it will be to throw bump stocks under the bus. It would be an act of cleaning out some of our industry trash anyway. I don't think any legal challenge would work on Constitutional grounds. It's not a firearm. It's an exceptionally tacky accessory is all. Sure won't be any panacea though.

[Peally]

It's for the children

[GardoneVT]

"Automatic weapons are illegal," the Wisconsin Republican told reporters. "To me, that is part of that same type of process. So I have no problem banning those."


May the heavens save us from ignorant legislators.

In any event ,we should oppose this full stop . I have no love for gimmicky gun crap,but Feinstein never regulates just one item in her bills. Any "Bump Stock" legislation coming from her office will be a rebadged AWB 2.0. The bill then turns into a negotiation- one with the opposition having the advantage. Given the GOPs trumpeted failure to replace Obamacare they'll be feeling the heat to respond to this tragedy- or the party risks being viewed as a group of bumbling fools.

While there'd be some compromises made on the finer points, accepting this means kissing ARs and high cap mags goodbye along with the "Bump Stocks".

[Peally]

Welcome to Wisconsin. Blood red state with some blue nutjobs up top.

[Bigghoss]

The only thing stupider than bump stocks is banning them because someone did something bad with them instead of doing it with something else, which he could and would have done. We need to oppose any and all anti-2a bills because they never stop. They chip away at little at a time until there is nothing left and we have to do everything we can to resist, even if it means fighting for something we don't even want.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

The fact that republicans are even willing to have this conversation tells me their not on our side. People have completely forgotten what the second amendment is about. I’ll give a hint, it’s not about hunting or sport shooting.... At all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Sounds like a great deal. Tack on CHL reciprocity, and the Hearing Protection Act so gun owners get what they want , put a bow on it and call it done.

[Peally]

The fact that republicans are even willing to have this conversation tells me their not on our side. People have completely forgotten what the second amendment is about. I’ll give a hint, it’s not about hunting or sport shooting.... At all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most twits don't really get that or care, they just parrot whatever crap they hear from ____'s YouTube channel and make their beliefs up on the fly.

[RJ]

Sounds like a great deal. Tack on CHL reciprocity, and the Hearing Protection Act so gun owners get what they want , put a bow on it and call it done.

I would be in favor of trading making Bump stocks illegal in return for passing the Hearing Protection Act.

Disclosure: I'm a noob CCW holder, do not own any modern sporting rifle. Four days ago I'd never even heard of a 'bump stock.'

[mtnbkr]

I'm not in favor of banning anything, but if something's got to go, gimmicks like bumpstocks and binary triggers should be sacrificed to keep suppressors, ARs, and other useful tools safe.

A cynical part of me thinks the industry should keep developing trash like bumpstocks to act as sacrificial lambs when things like this happen. Kind of the same reason some companies keep marginal employees as "cannon fodder" to RIF when the Accountants say you have too many people.

"Sure, we'll go along with a ban on $TrashyAccessory, just don't touch our MSRs or Suppressors."

Chris

[RevolverRob]

When - in the history of our modern government - has anything that's been banned stop at the single object?

Bumpfire stocks will be banned, dual mode triggers, and eventually bumpfiring - because it'll be impossible to regulate bump-stocks.

This is the definition of "give an inch they will take a mile."

Write to your senators folks.

[warpedcamshaft]

The idea that "we give them this, and they will stay off our backs for a while" is not the way the modern Democrat party works.

[warpedcamshaft]

Ban belt loops as well... Bump firing has been a thing for decades.

M1 carbine + thumb in belt loop = basically same thing.

[mtnbkr]

When - in the history of our modern government - has anything that's been banned stop at the single object?

Bumpfire stocks will be banned, dual mode triggers, and eventually bumpfiring - because it'll be impossible to regulate bump-stocks.

This is the definition of "give an inch they will take a mile."

Write to your senators folks.


The idea that "we give them this, and they will stay off our backs for a while" is not the way the modern Democrat party works.


I know and don't disagree, but with the scale of this attack, we're not going to get away unscathed barring a miracle.

Chris

[warpedcamshaft]

I know and don't disagree, but with the scale of this attack, we're not going to get away unscathed barring a miracle.

Chris

People said the exact same thing after Sandy Hook.

[StraitR]

The way I and many of my friends (Left and Right) whom I've spoken to about gun issues for years see it, there's an extreme 2% on the Left that scream "We want all your guns!". Likewise, there's an extreme 2% on the Right that replies "YOU get NOTHING!". The other 96% of Americans seem to be stuck in the middle, being forced to choose "a side" or simply have no voice.

These stocks and similar devices are stupid, and IMO (long-standing conservative Republican), have no protection from the 2A. I don't know exactly what this purposed bill says, but if it doesn't specifically cover guns or their characteristics and only addresses bolt on aftermarket items that increase ROF, I could give AF. If forced to choose, I say ban them, they skirt NFA laws for the purpose of entertainment, that's it. You want full auto, stop buying Hi Points and Kimber's, save your pennies and buy one.

I realize that's probably an unpopular opinion here, amongst many of the right 2%, but as long as everything "gun" related is viewed and approached as "All of it! vs None of it!", this country will continue to divide itself and erode.

[warpedcamshaft]

The way I and many of my friends (Left and Right) whom I've spoken to about gun issues for years see it, there's an extreme 2% on the Left that scream "We want all your guns!". Likewise, there's an extreme 2% on the Right that replies "YOU get NOTHING!". The other 96% of Americans seem to be stuck in the middle, being forced to choose "a side" or simply have no voice.

These stocks and similar devices are stupid, and IMO (long-standing conservative Republican), have no protection from the 2A. I don't know exactly what this purposed bill says, but if it doesn't specifically cover guns or their characteristics and only addresses bolt on aftermarket items that increase ROF, I could give AF. If forced to choose, I say ban them, they skirt NFA laws for the purpose of entertainment, that's it. You want full auto, stop buying Hi Points and Kimber's, save your pennies and buy one.

I realize that's probably an unpopular opinion here, amongst many of the right 2%, but as long as everything "gun" related is viewed and approached as "All of it! vs None of it!", this country will continue to divide itself and erode.

The problem with your theory is... the 2% on the left you speak of above are in positions of influence and power. They lecture everyone from late night TV sets, concert stages, and media outlets all protected by people with guns.

[JHC]

The problem with your theory is... the 2% on the left you speak of above are in positions of influence and power. They lecture everyone from late night TV sets, concert stages, and media outlets all protected by people with guns.

But our side has been consistently winning for many years, across the expansion of CCW laws, the inglorious defeats of new Federal gun bans year after year; and then Heller.

We can't account for what some deep blue states do; not in our federalist system.

We've been winning because we are on the side of the angels (vastly higher public support than 30 years ago). We have a chance to screw that up here. We should not screw that up.

That said, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to change their mind. I'm just laying out some considerations and rationale for general review.

[Chance]

Whatever the case, it's definitely time to re-up to all your favorite 2nd Amendment organizations. I don't want to be inflammatory, but there hasn't been much in the present administration that has inspired confidence in their ability to take care of their pledged obligations, and the president has changed his stance on gun control before.

Honestly, regardless of who is in charge, it was a mistake on my part to relax and assume my rights were safe. I need to become proactive proponent again.

[warpedcamshaft]

But our side has been consistently winning for many years, across the expansion of CCW laws, the inglorious defeats of new Federal gun bans year after year; and then Heller. We've been winning because we are on the side of the angels (vastly higher public support than 30 years ago). We have a chance to screw that up here. We should not screw that up.

That said, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to change their mind. I'm just laying out some considerations and rationale for general review.

I agree with your point on winning for years. In this instance, do you think capitulation is the best choice if the ban was specifically written for the "bump stock" gizmo?

[Zincwarrior]

People said the exact same thing after Sandy Hook.

Las Vegas is ten times larger, related to item thats made purely to get around the existing law. Let it go but get something for it.

I won't support the NRA or any organization that goes to the wall for "bump stocks."
EDIT: Those that disagree, hey thats fine, I respect their opinions and beliefs on the matter too.

[Peally]

I find it comical that people are willing to "give up" anything as a 100% knee jerk reaction to please and comfort the average flailing internet commando/detective dipshit (and Feinswine). You're not getting an "exchange" of banning one thing to legalize another, it doesn't fucking work that way. But bump fire stocks are the only way you can shoot a rifle faster than one round a second, and they're kinda stupid so let the ban flags unfurl since that's what caused the guy to kill people.

Next we'll get rid of 50x scopes because they're borderline useless and some idiot with free time will start sniping people in DC again. Or cerakote because some kid goes on a highway rampage since the Hello Kitty AR-15 looked like fun. Fertilizer without a permit? Hell no, you could hurt people with that shit.

SMFH

[warpedcamshaft]

3d printable bump fire stocks also complicate the situation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

To me this points out the failure of supposed progun politicians and organizations to really get off the stick with progun legislation. Debatable reciprocity (devil in the details), the SAGA act to void state bans, HPA and the like should have been introduced and voted on immediately instead of the Obamacare, birthday cake, no death tax for the rich and famous horsecrap. There was not impetus to reward 2nd Amend. supporters. I feel that was deliberate as the progun politicians for the most part are lying about their real support of the issue and/or want to keep the issue around for the next election. Fear Hillary again.

The WaPo had a decent article on how new gun laws are stupid an expert that was surprising. They also had an op-ed by an MD demanding the ban of all semi guns - a guy who had NO expertise on the real issues of gun usage. It was a screed that they are dangerous but such a ban is so impossible as to boggle the mind for various reasons.

As far as the bump stock, if you had one before to play with - they are stupid. If you buy one now, you are a douche bag. Put them under the NFA rules if you want.

[WobblyPossum]

I’d be okay trading bump fire stocks for the passage of the SHARE Act with HPA included as it was proposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mtnbkr]

I find it comical that people are willing to "give up" anything as a 100% knee jerk reaction to please and comfort the average flailing internet commando/detective dipshit (and Feinswine). You're not getting an "exchange" of banning one thing to legalize another, it doesn't fucking work that way. But bump fire stocks are the only way you can shoot a rifle faster than one round a second, and they're kinda stupid so let the ban flags unfurl since that's what caused the guy to kill people.

Next we'll get rid of 50x scopes because they're borderline useless and some idiot with free time will start sniping people in DC again. Or cerakote because some kid goes on a highway rampage since the Hello Kitty AR-15 looked like fun. Fertilizer without a permit? Hell no, you could hurt people with that shit.

SMFH

I think you're missing the point. This is preparing for a no-win scenario where we don't have the option of saying "no", but are TOLD we WILL give up $SOMETHING. I'd rather that $SOMETHING be gimmicks like a bumpfire stock than useful items like 50x scopes, ARs, etc.

I agree it's not going to stop the push to ban guns outright, but it would give us a bit of breathing space to preserve the things that do matter. This amounts to a pawn in a chess game.

That said, if we don't have to give up anything, that's even better, but let's not burn our capital protecting gimmicks at the expense of the stuff that matters.

Chris

[RevolverRob]

As far as the bump stock, if you had one before to play with - they are stupid. If you buy one now, you are a douche bag. Put them under the NFA rules if you want.

That would require, by definition, that the NFA registry be re-opened.

If we want to "ban" them, by moving them under the NFA and allow folks to register them as legal machine guns, this should mean that we have additional legal machine guns that can be added to the list.

I'm all for re-opening the NFA registry, even for a relatively short period of time.


I’d be okay trading bump fire stocks for the passage of the SHARE Act with HPA included as it was proposed.

It won't happen if we don't tell our senators to make it happen.

Has everyone discussing "quid pro quo" here written to their representatives yet? If not, you're talking hot air. All that's going to happen is banning bump-fire and nothing will be gained in exchange. Folks on Capitol Hill aren't tallking quid pro quo, they're talking about just banning the things.

[Peally]

I think you're missing the point. This is preparing for a no-win scenario where we don't have the option of saying "no", but are TOLD we WILL give up $SOMETHING. I'd rather that $SOMETHING be gimmicks like a bumpfire stock than useful items like 50x scopes, ARs, etc.

I agree it's not going to stop the push to ban guns outright, but it would give us a bit of breathing space to preserve the things that do matter. This amounts to a pawn in a chess game.

That said, if we don't have to give up anything, that's even better, but let's not burn our capital protecting gimmicks at the expense of the stuff that matters.

Chris

I don't believe in no-win scenarios and never have, I fall into the Kirk camp. We elected Trump of all people to be our president after all. You're not going to be told you WILL give up SOMETHING; while it's fine on paper to play the exchange game that's not how it works.

There's simply people that would like to see you dead (Feinswine types), and they hate every damn thing about you. Their passive aggressive way of hurting you is banning shit and making your life closer to a nanny state one step at a time. Fortunately these asswipes aren't common enough to brute force their viewpoints.

[TheNewbie]

We are not dealing with liberals but with leftists. This means pure emotion, zero logic. Add to that cowardly and ignorant republicans who , though better than the left, are influenced by leftism via college, the media and their environment .

I think bump stocks are like the tricked out 2k dollar Glocks. Silly and an embarrassment to the shooting world. In theory if I thought it would end with bump stocks being banned, I almost wouldn't care. Though it would save ZERO lives. Since it won't end there, I'm against it and I'm surprised to see people not see the risk in supporting their ban.

[JHC]

I agree with your point on winning for years. In this instance, do you think capitulation is the best choice if the ban was specifically written for the "bump stock" gizmo?

I do. Specific language will be important. I would think it should come down to how fully automatic fire may be defined - mechanically.

If I may without being pedantic or argumentative, put "capitulation" in a different light.

What do "we" (2nd Amendment defenders of all kind) have to capitulate on? Why should we feel this POS accessory is something we are handcuffed to and suddenly obligated to defend?

It's like some loser 3rd cousin getting his third DUI and he comes to me looking for help paying his legal bill. "I don't know you." ;)

[Peally]

I think they're really retarded devices. I also think HiPoints and anything made by Tapco are in the exact same camp.

Any lawmaker looking to ban them for any reason can politely and carefully insert their idea into their rectal cavity and fuck off.

[hufnagel]

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

Page 2...

5 it shall be unlawful for any person to
6 import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or af-
7 fecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank,
8 a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts,
9 component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de-
10 signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-
11 automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
12 into a machinegun

Depending on how you read that, any an all drop-in triggers could be affected by this bill. Any and all replacement triggers are pretty much designed to make it so you can shoot faster if you want, over some undefined standard rate. Binary triggers would definitely be caught up in this, despite not being named explicitly. I could sit here and make a case for a whole host of accessories that make allow you to accelerate the rate of fire from a SAR.

Because we know no one would ever craft a bill that would ONLY ban one thing, and would prohibit feature-creep from said bill, I'd strongly oppose this bill.

[Peally]

"accelerate the fire" lol she always tops herself on the tard logic.

[hufnagel]

Yep, and it's what makes her so scary. Laws like that permeate NJ's books and it's maddening to deal with. They just LOVE to craft laws without specifics, so they can fuck you any time they want.

[RevolverRob]

I could sit here and make a case for a whole host of accessories that make allow you to accelerate the rate of fire from a SAR.

Like high capacity magazines that increase the speed at which you can fire, because you don't have to reload...


Because we know no one would ever craft a bill that would ONLY ban one thing, and would prohibit feature-creep from said bill, I'd strongly oppose this bill.

And everyone should write to their senators and state exactly this.

___

Give an inch they will take a mile - No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[hufnagel]

I was thinking optics (faster target acquisition means you can shoot quicker,) bipods, slings, hand guards, grips, pretty much anything you can bolt to an AR you could make an argument "accelerates" your ability to fire.

[Matt O]

Bump stocks are retarded and I would have no regrets if they went the way of the dodo. That said, as mentioned above, the current wording of the bill is unacceptable and should not be supported (imo).

[hufnagel]

semi auto rifles are retarded and I would have no regrets if they went the way of the dodo.

Changed to represent what many FUDDs think. See how dangerous that line of thinking is? Much like out Bill of Rights, an attack on one is an attack on all of them.
I cannot think of a single sane person I know of that would think Tactical Nuts aren't stupid (go ahead, google that if you don't know what it is, and you dare) but if someone came up and said "BAN THEM!!" I'd tell them to go eat a tac-sac.

[Matt O]

Changed to represent what many FUDDs think. See how dangerous that line of thinking is? Much like out Bill of Rights, an attack on one is an attack on all of them.
I cannot think of a single sane person I know of that would think Tactical Nuts aren't stupid (go ahead, google that if you don't know what it is, and you dare) but if someone came up and said "BAN THEM!!" I'd tell them to go eat a tac-sac.

While I understand the point you're making, the way you changed the quote presents a false equivalence. There is a difference between trying to restrict a type of firearm versus restricting an accessory. I am not a lawyer and am happy to be corrected, but while the former is protected by statute, I don't believe the latter is.

ETA: And I stand by my original point that either way, the wording of the bill as it stands is entirely unacceptable.

[Bigghoss]

If we don't fight this bill they will just use that momentum to go after something else. We have to be like Negan and shut that shit down. Zero tolerance for any of it. Not because simulating FA is sacred, but because giving it up it will embolden them. If they seriously offered to pass SHARE in exchange for bumpfiring and binary triggers then fuck yeah, I'd go for that. But we all know it won't happen. They won't offer up a compromise. Best case scenario for a "compromise" is reinstatement of the AWB. That's where your middle ground is.

[Hambo]

This quote from Kellyanne Conway makes my head hurt.


"This is a device that Obama's ATF decided would not be regulated in 2010 and I think that's an important part of this conversation,"

http://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-bump-stocks-las-vegas-shooting-guns-control-2017-10

[Zincwarrior]

This quote from Kellyanne Conway makes my head hurt.



http://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-bump-stocks-las-vegas-shooting-guns-control-2017-10

This means the ATF will unilaterally change it and gun owners will have gained nothing in exchange.

[Peally]

Changed to represent what many FUDDs think.

Lies, dirty lies. The psychos in DC will stop at this stupid-specific part, honest.

I swear the government switched out their chemtrails for derp bombs this week. I feel like that WTF Jackie Chan meme every day from what I read.

[NEPAKevin]

I’d be okay trading bump fire stocks for the passage of the SHARE Act with HPA included as it was proposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would also want a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, funding of "That Wall" and tax reform in exchange for a ban on Bump-fires (that sunsets in five years).

[RevolverRob]

I would also want a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, funding of "That Wall" and tax reform in exchange for a ban on Bump-fires (that sunsets in five years).

We can start negotiations anywhere we want.

Since one side wants to negotiate and the other doesn't...there isn't much point.

[RoyGBiv]

It's like some loser 3rd cousin getting his third DUI and he comes to me looking for help paying his legal bill. "I don't know you." ;)

First they came for......

(too early for Godwin?)

[RoyGBiv]

This means the ATF will unilaterally change it and gun owners will have gained nothing in exchange.

If we avoid passing a new Bill (with who knows what embedded in it) to regulate bump stocks and instead let the Leftists "win" via an ATF reinterpretation of a regulation, that's a BIG win for our side in my book. OK, not a "win", but the smallest possible step backward.

[BillSWPA]

Sounds like a great deal. Tack on CHL reciprocity, and the Hearing Protection Act so gun owners get what they want , put a bow on it and call it done.

This is exactly what I was thinking as well, although I would prioritize CHL reciprocity over sound suppressors if a choice ends up being necessary.

A bump stock works by using the recoil of the gun to actuate the trigger. This is the inverse of good marksmanship, which is keeping the gun as stationary as possible during a trigger squeeze. Other than the evil purpose to which they were put in Las Vegas, their only other use is wasting a lot of ammo quickly for recreation. I cannot imagine a situation in which a legitimate gun owner would not be better served by a series of quick, accurate, individually fired semiauto shots.

I am well aware that the NRA testified in favor of banning small, concealable handguns prior to adopting a gun rights focus, and am also well aware that gun control is accomplished through a large series of small steps, so I certainly dislike the idea of giving up any such small step. However, if we can give up something that is generally ridiculous in favor of one or two much more useful things, that is to our advantage.

[Zincwarrior]

How is that a win?

[NEPAKevin]

We can start negotiations anywhere we want.

Since one side wants to negotiate and the other doesn't...there isn't much point.

Please let me clarify. I'm not saying it is a good idea to negotiate, only that those inclined to do so should think a little bigger and be smart about it.

[BillSWPA]

How is that a win?

Do you own a bump stock?

Would you like to be able to carry your concealed handgun in NJ, NY, MA, DC, and CA?

I know which I prefer.

[orionz06]

If we avoid passing a new Bill (with who knows what embedded in it) to regulate bump stocks and instead let the Leftists "win" via an ATF reinterpretation of a regulation, that's a BIG win for our side in my book. OK, not a "win", but the smallest possible step backward.

Without reading the text I'd imagine that's also the appropriate action.

[RevolverRob]

If we avoid passing a new Bill (with who knows what embedded in it) to regulate bump stocks and instead let the Leftists "win" via an ATF reinterpretation of a regulation, that's a BIG win for our side in my book. OK, not a "win", but the smallest possible step backward.


How is that a win?

Because the ATF already has power to regulate bump-stocks and other devices. Telling the ATF to "reconsider" their position - allows later reinterpretation to occur. A precedent has already been set that the ATF can (and will) reinterpret rulings, almost on a whim. By avoiding a law being passed, we are provided an out at a later date for reinterpretation. We also do not pass more laws, we also use existing regulation functions to do what they are supposed to do. And thus, does not allow the scope of the Federal Government to appreciably expand.


Please let me clarify. I'm not saying it is a good idea to negotiate, only that those inclined to do so should think a little bigger and be smart about it.

Sorry, I know you were being sarcastic, I forgot to add my smiley.

[warpedcamshaft]

5 it shall be unlawful for any person to
6 import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or af-
7 fecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank,
8 a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts,
9 component, device, attachment, or accessory that is de-
10 signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-
11 automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
12 into a machinegun


Bump SIG Braces incoming. "It's not a rifle"

[NEPAKevin]

Bump SIG Braces incoming. "It's not a rifle"

But if you install a SIG Brace on a P320, is it still a destructive device?

[hufnagel]

ETA: And I stand by my original point that either way, the wording of the bill as it stands is entirely unacceptable.

that we can agree with.

[Peally]

Do you own a bump stock?

Would you like to be able to carry your concealed handgun in NJ, NY, MA, DC, and CA?

I know which I prefer.

LOLZ yes Feinstein is going to come out with a bill that says "OK, we're gonna ban the goofy stock shoulder things that go up since they're hyper deadly and you can't be trusted with one, but I guess in return you can carry a gun in DC by my house".

I'm joining the other guys, this has all gone full retard here. Peace out, see you all in a week.

[BillSWPA]

Here is what I just sent my representatives:

In light of the recent tragedy in Las Vegas, we have seen the predictable calls for more gun control, based on the erroneous presumption that such laws will make us safer. Supporters of the second amendment are often told that we should “compromise” in a way that gives up something for nothing in return. Instead, I propose a true compromise, one that gives up something but gains something else.

“Bump stocks” and other devices for activating the trigger of a semiautomatic firearm in a way that simulates full automatic fire now appear to be in the crosshairs of the left. Since the device depends on the recoil of the gun to activate the trigger, it is the inverse of good marksmanship, which requires that the gun be held as motionless as possible while the trigger is squeezed. However, since I am all too well aware of the divide and conquer strategy of gun control supporters, I dislike the idea of accepting a ban on something gun-related without receiving something more valuable in return.

In return for a ban on bump stocks and other such trigger activation devices, I propose another measure that will certainly enhance safety: require all states to recognize concealed handgun licenses issued by any other state. Lawful concealed carry has already been proven to deter crime in about 40 states. Since not all states issue concealed handgun licenses on a nondiscriminatory basis, preferably both resident and nonresident licenses would be required to be honored.

Additionally, in return for the ban on bump stocks and other such trigger devices, we should repeal the current restrictions on sound suppressors. Contrary to misunderstandings created by the entertainment industry, sound suppressors do not “silence” firearms. Instead, they only reduce the sound to a more comfortable level that is less likely to damage the hearing of the shooter and those around the shooter.

Lastly, I propose removing the ability of the BATFE to restrict the importation of firearms based on “sporting purposes.”

While asking for 2-3 items in exchange for one may seem like a lot, given the current makeup of Congress as well as the fact that the President is a Republican, I believe we are in a good negotiating position. We have the opportunity to give the appearance of “doing something” by banning an accessory that has little legitimate use in exchange for taking action that will significantly enhance the second amendment rights of concealed handgun license holders, defensive gun owners, and recreational shooters.

As we consider such statutes, please keep in mind that most gun control legislation is drafted by those who do not like or understand guns, resulting in a high probability of unintended consequences. The specific language of such bills must be carefully considered to avoid such unintended consequences.

Thank you for your consideration of my proposal.

[JHC]

First they came for......

(too early for Godwin?)

:D Early? Late? It's inevitable.

Another twist? The way these things are selling out all over the place; what if they are banned and not grandfathered? If they get re-interpreted by the ATF as a NFA prohibited gizmo, grandfathering wouldn't mean squat would it?

[scjbash]

The NRA needs an enema.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/nra-endorses-more-regulation-on-bump-stocks-that-boost-guns-firing-rates.html

"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 [ATF] to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the NRA officials said. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

[BillSWPA]

The NRA is also calling for national concealed carry reciprocity. It looks like the White House is looking at both items.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/NRA-bump-stocks-additional-regulation/2017/10/05/id/817938/

[Clusterfrack]

I would trade useless bump fire stocks for CHL reciprocity.

[Mitch]

I would trade useless bump fire stocks for CHL reciprocity.

That's a definite win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hufnagel]

:D Early? Late? It's inevitable.

Another twist? The way these things are selling out all over the place; what if they are banned and not grandfathered? If they get re-interpreted by the ATF as a NFA prohibited gizmo, grandfathering wouldn't mean squat would it?

I will only state, look at how many "banned" firearms are still in private hands. You will never be able to find all of a thing that isn't tightly regulated or in limited supply. Even the machine gun registry is woefully inaccurate.

[Odin Bravo One]

No one wins with legislation enacted as a knee jerk reaction to any situation, let alone 2nd Ammendment related legislation.

[warpedcamshaft]

It's complete absurdity to assume you would get anything remotely close to national CHL in exchange for something like this... That's not how the political exchange works right now.

[hufnagel]

http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2017/10/05/nra-releases-statement-on-bump-fire-devices/

This is a very interesting reading/interpretation as to the NRA's statement. I think I am inclined to believe it is the one intended.
Guess I need to put away my NRA pitch fork.

[MistWolf]

While I understand the point you're making, the way you changed the quote presents a false equivalence. There is a difference between trying to restrict a type of firearm versus restricting an accessory.

Have you forgotten the so-called assault rifle ban where flash suppressors and stock that folded or were adjustable were banned on rifles of a certain configuration and detachable box magazines were limited to a ten round capacity? None of these items were firearms. Have you forgotten how certain states have banned certain features, limited magazine capacities and place restrictions on how firearms can be configured? All of the above are restrictions and bans on accessories.

It does not matter how stupid you think an accessory is. Banning them only hands a victory to tyrants. If Feinstein were to read this thread, she'd crow "even AR owners are calling for common sense gun laws!"

I think quadrails are stupid and unnecessary. I can mount what ever I want to my AR without them. Should I be willing to trade a ban on quadrails for national reciprocity? No. Should I trade other accessories I think are stupid for rights we should already have? No.

If we trade bump fire stocks for national reciprocity, what will we gain? Will our CHLs be honored in jurisdictions like DC, New Jersey, Maryland or California? No. Feinstein will argue for an exception for California, just like she did when NICS was put into law. She argued that an instant background check should not over ride California's waiting period. So, we'll get a national reciprocity law that will be gutted and a law banning, not only bump fire stocks, but ALL accessories and components that "accelerate the rate of fire" of a semi-automatic rifle without turning it into a machinegun. That language covers the Geissele 3 gun trigger. That language covers all triggers that shorten the reset. That means, we trade away more than we bargained for and get nothing we don't already have in return.

No, we won't trade. But what we want, is the law enforced. We want a real investigation into Fast & Furious and for those who approved this deplorable operation, to be held responsible and for those in charge who knew nothing about it to be investigated for incompetence. What we want is for those who have feathered their political nests by undermining the rule of law of our great nation to be ousted from office and their pensions cancelled.

No trades. We are done compromising. We have lost so many of our liberties and have gotten nothing back but stricter regulations, deeper corruption, increased crime, widespread unrest and more taxes. Enough is enough

[Odin Bravo One]

They've sold out enough over the years that every member should know that is how the organization works. They talk big. They constantly panhandle for change to protect your rights. They lie to anyone they think will listen. They sell out when it benefits them as an organization, politically or financially.

I've never been a big fan of the NRA.

But at the end of the day, they are the ONLY political action group that has any interest or influence in protecting my second amendment rights. For all of their faults, the NRA, sadly, is the about the only ally the Bill of Rights has.

[NEPAKevin]

It's complete absurdity to assume you would get anything remotely close to national CHL in exchange for something like this... That's not how the political exchange works right now.

"Those who would give up bumpstocks for a little CHL reciprocity will soon have neither."

[TheNewbie]

I am more worried about the fall out from the Republicans, who are in power, giving in to the left. People will not be happy with that, and we could end up 3rd party candidates screwing up the vote. Thus allowing the left to have more power. Hopefully I am wrong, and I hope I am way outside my lane.

[JV_]

"Those who would give up bumpstocks for a little CHL reciprocity will soon have neither."

With the way republicans navigate bipartisan bills, that's 100% accurate.

The bill will start out with both, reciprocity and a ban of the stocks, and by the time it reaches the POTUS, it'll just be the stock ban. They are constantly outwitted at every political turn.

[Hambo]

Today feels like the day hell froze over. The Republicans (or the POTUS' mouthpiece) and the NRA say the Democrats and Obama didn't do enough for gun control? WTF??? I don't care what kind of deal they think they're going to make, this smells weird.

[Zincwarrior]

Do you own a bump stock?

Would you like to be able to carry your concealed handgun in NJ, NY, MA, DC, and CA?

I know which I prefer.

If the ATF makes it illegal and there is no law change then you will not get that.

[LOKNLOD]

3d printable bump fire stocks also complicate the situation.

The fact I have an index finger and exist within the laws of physics makes the situation complicated.

[41magfan]

How does one argue the legitimacy of NFA stuff if you're willing to throw bump-stocks under the bus? If I was on the other side, that's the pitch I would make. How can a bump-stock be bad and registered full-auto OK? I can concede on some level regulating them I suppose, but how can a bump-stock be intrinsically unacceptable but Class III perfectly OK?

Also, I haven't heard anything thus far about Paddock's personal history that would have prevented him from obtaining NFA firearms if he'd been so disposed. Am I wrong about that assumption?

Just thinking out loud - feel free to correct me if I'm out in left field with those notions.

[LOKNLOD]

How does one argue the legitimacy of NFA stuff if you're willing to throw bump-stocks under the bus? If I was on the other side, that's the pitch I would make. How can a bump-stock be bad and registered full-auto OK? I can concede on some level regulating them I suppose, but how can a bump-stock be intrinsically unacceptable but Class III perfectly OK?

Also, I haven't heard anything thus far about Paddock's personal history that would have prevented him from obtaining NFA firearms if he'd been so disposed. Am I wrong about that assumption?

Just thinking out loud - feel free to correct me if I'm out in left field with those notions.

If bump stocks are next, then what about “assault weapons”? I can bump fire any AR or AK with no special stock.

If the antis were smart, they’d make the NFA process seamlessly efficient - not a burden - and then add everything they can to it. That would get them the registration they’ve always wanted, and places regulatory control in the hands of a bureaucratic agency instead of a legislative body. And then when the next incident happens anyway, bam, start cracking down on items.

[StraitR]

How does one argue the legitimacy of NFA stuff if you're willing to throw bump-stocks under the bus? If I was on the other side, that's the pitch I would make. How can a bump-stock be bad and registered full-auto OK? I can concede on some level regulating them I suppose, but how can a bump-stock be intrinsically unacceptable but Class III perfectly OK?

Also, I haven't heard anything thus far about Paddock's personal history that would have prevented him from obtaining NFA firearms if he'd been so disposed. Am I wrong about that assumption?

Just thinking out loud - feel free to correct me if I'm out in left field with those notions.

Not out in left field at all. NFA items are regulated, limited in number of eligible transferrable items, and subsequently extremely expensive. The process to buy one is long, and many would consider it comprehensive in terms of background checks. Compare that with bump-stocks which are unregulated, unlimited in availability, cheap, and readily accessible to literally anyone online. Put simply, unregulated bump-stocks (or similar) mimic the functionality of NFA items that are highly regulated due to their functionality.

ETA: How you choose to view the issue of regulation is up to you, but I believe that's the distinction between them..

[41magfan]

I'm thinking that I should have better articulated the concerns I have about the "necessity" argument being postulated by both sides. If a majority of gun owners and the NRA are willing to capitulate on the "need" aspect of bump-stocks so as to outlaw them, isn't the next logical step (for the anti-gunners) be to attack the "need" for NFA stuff?

My gut says the only compromise that should be entertained is to regulate them ..... not that it would have mattered in the least in this case.

Thanks for the replies.

[Suvorov]

Went to write my senator to urge her to vote against this bill..... Looks up my senator's name.......... Oh........ Nevermind...... But wait, I have two!..... Oh................ She is the bills' sponsor :(

So with me effectively out of any sort of power to affect the vote all I am left with is donating to the current 2A organizations..... Oops - looks like they are throwing bump fire's under the bus.

I agree with the general sentiment that the bump-fires are silly and perpetuate all the negative stereotypes of gun owners. That said, nearly every comment I hear on this forum in favor of them going away are the exact same comments I hear Fudd's at the local range saying about 11+ round magazines, scary looking rifles, CHLs or the ideal of carrying a loaded firearm, and just about everything else that doesn't involve a side by side shotgun and a duck blind. Thus in principle I oppose this law and urge my fellow gunnies who actually have some political voice not to support the bill as well. The anti's are not going to see this as "good faith." The dragon of statism is not going to be satiated by this tavern wench posing as a virgin and if bump fire stocks are NFA "workarounds" that deserve to be banned then how about AR pistols and stabilizing braces? Are they not just as much of a "workaround"?

I don't understand the comments saying I'll trade bumpfire stocks for the HPA? There are no such offers being given. What a statist views as compromise is simply just eating as much of your cake as you are willing to give them until you have no cake left.

Lastly, anyone who thinks we have been winning certainly is not living on the West Coast. Yeah, things may be just Peachy in Georgia but don't forget, the statists work a lot like the old Warsaw Pact land forces. They don't reinforce defeat and they flow like water wherever they get a victory. Many a NATO tank commander at the NTC or CMTC thought that they were kicking ass and taking names until their whoopee light went off and they looked behind them and saw a motorized rifle company.

We can't afford to give an inch.

[RoyGBiv]

This is a time of 3D Chess, not checkers.
After 8 years of steady successes under siege, I'm inclined to trust that the NRA is still on my side.

Nobody likes to give up ground. Trust has been earned, however.

[BillSWPA]

The difference is that there are intelligent arguments for the usefulness of large magazines, NFA stuff, concealed handguns, etc. There is no good argument for the usefulness of a bump stock.

Like it or not, bump stocks are on their way out. The questions now are whether we can negotiate something more valuable in return, and whether we want a say in how the statute is worded to avoid any impact beyond bump stocks and similar devices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Suvorov]

I'm inclined to trust that the NRA is still on my side.


As am I, but it is hard for me to see how this is anything more than a "knee-jerk" appeasement ploy. Hopefully there is a lot of maneuvering that I don't see.

Also forgive me my pessimism but given my geographical location - it is hard for me to see all the success that is being touted.

[Joe in PNG]

As many have said, there will be no real negotiations. Should we offer something up, should the Republicans go squish, we will lose it and gain nothing at all.
Kind of like making a deal with Darth Vader. He will alter the deal, and pray he doesn't alter it further.

[WDR]

When - in the history of our modern government - has anything that's been banned stop at the single object?

Bumpfire stocks will be banned, dual mode triggers, and eventually bumpfiring - because it'll be impossible to regulate bump-stocks.

This is the definition of "give an inch they will take a mile."

Write to your senators folks.

They are pushing us to put one foot in the slippery slope. It's time to push back, HARD, not give up and give in.

I don't give a damn about bumpstocks... if I wanted FA I'd get it, not buy a toy to simulate it. But I think it's obvious the "we have to do SOMETHING!" crowd is now in charge of both parties. :(

[UNK]

Like high capacity magazines that increase the speed at which you can fire, because you don't have to reload...



And everyone should write to their senators and state exactly this.

___

Give an inch they will take a mile - No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Post your draft minus personnel info in a PDF? Can you do that here? Easier to just fill in the blanks and send in.

[BillSWPA]

As many have said, there will be no real negotiations. Should we offer something up, should the Republicans go squish, we will lose it and gain nothing at all.
Kind of like making a deal with Darth Vader. He will alter the deal, and pray he doesn't alter it further.

While I will never underestimate the ability of Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, last time I checked our side is the one in power. If the Democrats want something, they really have no choice but to negotiate.

[Joe in PNG]

While I will never underestimate the ability of Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, last time I checked our side is the one in power. If the Democrats want something, they really have no choice but to negotiate.

Why give up anything at all?
The idea that we HAVE to give up something is wrongheaded to begin with. Just good old fashion panic mode "Something has to be DONE!!!!" nonsense that leads to bad laws.

[Inkwell 41]

Why give up anything at all?
The idea that we HAVE to give up something is wrongheaded to begin with. Just good old fashion panic mode "Something has to be DONE!!!!" nonsense that leads to bad laws.

I stand with Joe in PNG.
Well, not actually IN PNG as that would be a horrible commute to my job.
In principle, I stand with him in principle.

[willie]

Among gun owners there will be little fervor to protect bump stocks. My concern is establishing a precedent where 2A folks default to rabid anti gunners. The big problem is that doing so will adversesly affect our future strategy for winning legal battles. Trump will go along with this ban. Rather than saying shit like such devices have no hunting or sporting value, I hope that the rhetoric claims that these items have no value when attached to self defense weapons.

[BillSWPA]

Why give up anything at all?
The idea that we HAVE to give up something is wrongheaded to begin with. Just good old fashion panic mode "Something has to be DONE!!!!" nonsense that leads to bad laws.

In this case there are two very good reasons to give up something.

1) In return for something of far greater value. A bump stock adds absolutely nothing to my ability to protect my family. The last thing I want is something that depends on movement of the gun to activate the trigger, which is the inverse of the stationary gun that is required for accurate shooting. National reciprocity adds significantly to the ability of all of us to protect our families. Done properly, a California resident would be able to carry in California on a Florida license. Tell the Democrats - who the last time I checked are the minority party - that if they want to ban bump stocks, they agree not to filibuster national reciprocity.

2) Gun control is almost always a losing proposition at national election time, but I strongly suspect that bump stocks are going to prove to be the exception to that rule. I have yet to see a single argument, good or bad, for their usefulness for anything other than aimlessly spreading ammo downrange. It was just put to use to hose down a crowded concert and kill a lot of people. Supporting them is simply so ridiculously extreme that it simply makes it too easy for the other side to paint us as irrational zealots. The longer we can keep control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, the more Supreme Court justices we can appoint, the less chance the other side has to do more damage, and the more chances we have to improve our situation. Bump stocks are simply not a hill I am willing to die on.

[olstyn]

Frankly, it would be difficult for me to care any less whether or not bump stocks are legal. However, as others have already mentioned, just about any accessory could be construed to increase the rate of fire of a rifle, and thus the proposed legislation, as it currently stands, is absurdly vague and vastly over-broad in scope. Also, it seems impractical; how many are in circulation already? As a consumer, it's reasonable to think that something which is legal to purchase and own today will still be legal to own tomorrow, and creating a significant number of overnight federal felons is poor form. Grandfathering would seem difficult; I doubt most bump stocks have serial numbers, so tracking which ones are legally registered would be quite difficult. I'm sure the problems with the idea go even farther; that's just stuff that occurred to me in the last few minutes.

[Joe in PNG]

In this case there are two very good reasons to give up something.

1) In return for something of far greater value.
Problem is, they aren't offering anything, nor will they. If there is any attempt at negotiation, they can turn it into "how DARE you try to push your NRA backed agenda at a time like this!!!". If the Republicans are squishy enough to sacrifice bump fire stocks, they'll be more than squishy enough vote against without concessions in return.
May I ask just where the anti-gun people are offering anything in exchange?


2) Gun control is almost always a losing proposition at national election time, but I strongly suspect that bump stocks are going to prove to be the exception to that rule. They say the same thing about standard capacity mags, about semi-auto rifles, semi-auto pistols, and the rest. Why do you need a Glock AK-15 assault rifle with a 100 round clip and a shoulder thing that goes up for anything but killing people? They shoot bullets that are too high powered to be any good for hunting anyway?
They are constantly working from feelings and outrage.

[BillSWPA]

Problem is, they aren't offering anything, nor will they. If there is any attempt at negotiation, they can turn it into "how DARE you try to push your NRA backed agenda at a time like this!!!". If the Republicans are squishy enough to sacrifice bump fire stocks, they'll be more than squishy enough vote against without concessions in return.
May I ask just where the anti-gun people are offering anything in exchange?

Where does it say in the rules of negotiation that we cannot propose something just because the other side has not offered it?


They say the same thing about standard capacity mags, about semi-auto rifles, semi-auto pistols, and the rest. Why do you need a Glock AK-15 assault rifle with a 100 round clip and a shoulder thing that goes up for anything but killing people? They shoot bullets that are too high powered to be any good for hunting anyway?
They are constantly working from feelings and outrage.

The difference is the existence of good arguments in favor of all of the other examples.

Standard capacity magazines: if I have one hand to control two young children, keeping them out of the line of fire and out of traffic, and one hand to run my gun, more ammo in the gun = more time in the fight.

Semiauto rifles: guarding against looting after most major disasters, riots after unpopular court decisions, etc.

AR-15: semiauto version of the current military issue rifle - clearly useful.

Bump stock: still waiting for a good argument

[Lost River]

Why give up anything at all?
The idea that we HAVE to give up something is wrongheaded to begin with. Just good old fashion panic mode "Something has to be DONE!!!!" nonsense that leads to bad laws.

I am 100% with this:

People are emotional and thinking that we need to "compromise" and "give a little". The problem is that the enemies of our personal freedoms are offering absolutely nothing.

They are not offering national concealed carry in exchange.
They are not offering to make suppressors an over the counter item.


They are only taking.


They are saying we need to be "reasonable" and compromise, and give a little.

They take, take, take.

Personally I am disgusted with the NRA.
I am a lifetime member, and I have no doubt that they are the best game in town, but they talk out of both sides of their mouth, and to be honest I gave up on trusting them a long time ago. Their primary interest is themselves.

Not to mention this bit of Jackassery. Perhaps it has changed in the last couple of days but it appears that they are offering up a sacrificial lamb, but asking for absolutely nothing in return. As if they are saying "Maybe if we go along with the ban of these stupid "bump stocks" the liberals will be our friends and play nicely/more reasonable on other matters.

As if Hillary/Feinstein is suddenly going to say "You know Wayne L, you guys were so cool on the whole bump stock thing, I think I will just drop the whole high capacity magazine ban.". :rolleyes:

Normally I stay WAY the F out of these type of discussions (or political discussion in general) but this one has sheer ignorance from the NRA written all over it.

In the end, all of this is another reason to end up with a goal of essentially living in the middle of nowhere...

[Joe in PNG]

BillSWPA - you are using logic against a group that is based entirely on emotion. While we can clearly delineate the different features and usefulness thereof, they don't. To them, it is all one part of a scary whole. Witness USA Today's little infographic. They don't just focus on the bumpfire stock as being the one sooper deadly features on the AR-47. They also list things like the pistol grip, the flash hider, the scope, the detachable mag, et al.
The same group calling for the ban also wants to make stand your ground a criminal act.

You're thinking short term, an honest quid pro quo which everyone compromises, and moves on. They're moving towards a total ban of everything but what's carefully regulated and registered. And that means waving the bloody shirt every time something like this happens. Why- to paint those in favor of gun rights as those evil people who want to give free assault rifles to mass shooters.

They aren't giving up anything, least of all a 50 state CC reciprocity. Any attempt to say "okay, we'll compromise, bumpfire stocks for national reciprocity" would be immediately met with howls of media outrage. How insensitive to do something at a time like this!

Better to negotiate from a position of strength, and not of weakness. This Something Must Be Done Now! is not a good negotiating position.

[Joe in PNG]

I stand with Joe in PNG.
Well, not actually IN PNG as that would be a horrible commute to my job.
In principle, I stand with him in principle.

For one, there's no gun rights here. (http://www.thenational.com.pg/minister-stops-new-gun-licences/)

[GardoneVT]

Interesting that Feinstein didn't attach other conditions to her bill proposal.

Returning to subject, national reciprocity isn't something worth trading for. While I realize on paper it'll be a net benefit for gun owners, the reality on the ground is it won't mean squat. May as well can that dream of carrying a 1911 down Times Square, because the same jurisdictions which ignore the US Constitution and existing federal law on guns will not suddenly rush to comply with a national reciprocity statute.

They'd treat it like NYC does the FOPA; you go to jail first, then cite it at the subsequent court visit as a reason why you shouldn't remain there.

[BillSWPA]

BillSWPA - you are using logic against a group that is based entirely on emotion. While we can clearly delineate the different features and usefulness thereof, they don't. To them, it is all one part of a scary whole. Witness USA Today's little infographic. They don't just focus on the bumpfire stock as being the one sooper deadly features on the AR-47. They also list things like the pistol grip, the flash hider, the scope, the detachable mag, et al.
The same group calling for the ban also wants to make stand your ground a criminal act.

You're thinking short term, an honest quid pro quo which everyone compromises, and moves on. They're moving towards a total ban of everything but what's carefully regulated and registered. And that means waving the bloody shirt every time something like this happens. Why- to paint those in favor of gun rights as those evil people who want to give free assault rifles to mass shooters.

They aren't giving up anything, least of all a 50 state CC reciprocity. Any attempt to say "okay, we'll compromise, bumpfire stocks for national reciprocity" would be immediately met with howls of media outrage. How insensitive to do something at a time like this!

Better to negotiate from a position of strength, and not of weakness. This Something Must Be Done Now! is not a good negotiating position.

We ARE in a position of strength! We have the House. We have the Senate. We have a President who actually does things rather than talk about them, and knows how to make a deal.

I understand full well what the anti-gun people want and how they plan to get there - divide and conquer, one small step at a time. That is how we got tens of thousands of gun laws. They are not going to demonize you any less regardless of whether you stand firm, give in, or negotiate. I do not assume that they will ever stop pursuing this goal.

I do not care one bit what the anti-gun people think. What I do care about is that group of voters who might be persuaded to vote one way or another in the next election. These are the voters who will decide whether we get to keep the House and Senate next year, and the Presidency in the election after that.

My intention IS to focus on the long term. My intention is to throw more stumbling blocks in the way of the anti-gun people.

Let them scream all they want. They don't have the votes to do anything without Republican cooperation. Calling us unreasonable doesn't change that fact - unless it persuades those voters I do care about to change their votes in 2018. We can just as easily portray them as unreasonable for caring more about the criminal than the victim by leaving the victim defenseless. It is them, not us, that wants to do something NOW. That is why they would have to consider giving us something in return.

Pass national concealed carry, and now they can't argue that small, concealable handguns are evil, which they have for most of the time I have been alive. Get rid of the sporting purposes test, and now the conversation has now shifted more towards the real purpose of the second amendment. Avoid giving them an issue to hammer in 2018, and we keep them out of power longer. During that time, we appoint more Supreme Court Justices, get more second amendment rulings, perhaps one that rules on the standard of review, and then when they get back in power, they have a lot more to overcome.

Normally I would totally agree with giving nothing, but this is one of those times when thinking long term requires deciding which hill you are willing to die on. If we are playing chess, I will happily trade my pawn for your rook, and we may have the opportunity to do just that if we play our cards right.

Unfortunately, by pushing for BATFE regulation of bump stocks rather than Congress, the NRA has already made one bad initial move.

[Joe in PNG]

The thing is, those who are offended enough by bumpfire stocks to change their vote are also offended by the existence of legally owned assault weapons.
The Republicans won't gain a single vote by giving those up, and will likely lose more votes by getting squishy.

As for the idea of trading bumpfire stocks for reciprocity, it is not happening. That's the very last thing they want to happen. What do gun banners gain by giving in- when have gun banners ever given in during legislation?

[BillSWPA]

The thing is, those who are offended enough by bumpfire stocks to change their vote are also offended by the existence of legally owned assault weapons.
The Republicans won't gain a single vote by giving those up, and will likely lose more votes by getting squishy.

As for the idea of trading bumpfire stocks for reciprocity, it is not happening. That's the very last thing they want to happen. What do gun banners gain by giving in- when have gun banners ever given in during legislation?

When have they ever been asked to give anything? Maybe this has something to do with why they haven't done so - they have never been put in a position where it was necessary to accomplish one of their goals.

You will find absolutely no shortage of people who own guns, who carry them daily, and who own "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines", but don't want to see nutcases hosing people down with bump stocks. I would hesitate to share a shooting range with someone who thinks using a device that requires permitting at least some movement of the gun while simulating full auto fire is a good idea. Anyone who has ever shot a true full auto will understand why. I am almost an entire country away from Las Vegas, and I personally know people who were affected by what happened there. I cannot be the only one.

[MistWolf]

Why do we have to justify a right in order to defend it?

[Hot Sauce]

Silly device that I don't care to own, but fuck Feinstein's hoplophobic bullshit. I'm not sure where people start talking about the idea of a trade, giving this away for getting something else. There is no exchange. This is not a transaction. It's encroachment, and it goes one way. The CHL reciprocity fight is a different story, as are suppressors.

[RoyGBiv]

Interesting that Feinstein didn't attach other conditions to her bill proposal.

Returning to subject, national reciprocity isn't something worth trading for. While I realize on paper it'll be a net benefit for gun owners, the reality on the ground is it won't mean squat. May as well can that dream of carrying a 1911 down Times Square, because the same jurisdictions which ignore the US Constitution and existing federal law on guns will not suddenly rush to comply with a national reciprocity statute.

They'd treat it like NYC does the FOPA; you go to jail first, then cite it at the subsequent court visit as a reason why you shouldn't remain there.

Disagree.

Just because some folks won't roll over or play nice in the wake of national reciprocity doesn't make it not worth pursuing.

I look forward to carrying my gun in Times Square, even with the risk of becoming a test case.

[BillSWPA]

Why do we have to justify a right in order to defend it?

How is banning a bump stock infringing on the second amendment? I am still waiting for someone to explain how these devices are useful for any legitimate purpose, such as self defense.

I am also still waiting for someone to explain why bump stocks are a hill worth dying on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NH Shooter]

Returning to subject, national reciprocity isn't something worth trading for. While I realize on paper it'll be a net benefit for gun owners, the reality on the ground is it won't mean squat. May as well can that dream of carrying a 1911 down Times Square, because the same jurisdictions which ignore the US Constitution and existing federal law on guns will not suddenly rush to comply with a national reciprocity statute.

I have to agree with this assessment. Having lived on Long Island (a geographical and political extension of NYC) there is no way in hell ShitHead Cuomo and his band of Merry Libtards will go along with anything like this. Ditto the Massholes on my current state border. At best we might get a national carry license program that some states (but certainly not all) will participate in.

I wish this wasn't true.

[LOKNLOD]

How is banning a bump stock infringing on the second amendment? I am still waiting for someone to explain how these devices are useful for any legitimate purpose, such as self defense.

I am also still waiting for someone to explain why bump stocks are a hill worth dying on.



I’ve always wondered how long it would be before someone used a bumpfire stock in a crime/shooting and they became an issue. They’re a dumb fun toy for a specific crowd, at the risk of sounding elitist. I certainly wouldn’t care if they just had never been invented. Much like Pistol braces they were always a “oh, haha, we got you on your own dumb technicality!” kind of middle finger (which I can somewhat appreciate the spirit but it’s not meaningful).

The frustration i feel is that we have a determine, aggressively-ignorant opponent in the anti gun lobby, demanding these things’ heads on a platter, completely oblivious to the lack of meaningful impact they have in the greater scheme. It made the attack louder and scarier and upped the round count but he could have mag dumped into that crowd manually or even made some more effort to aim rapidly and done as much - or perhaps more - damage. The impact of bump fire stuff is largely all appearances and public optics.

If our opponent was acting in good faith, I think it would perhaps be reasonable for us to go “okay yeah, let’s let the ATF change their interpretation” (honestly I think it’s best if we don’t allow the antis a legislative victory, and i think that’s the NRA’s game, that as well as avoiding making pro-gun Congress critters pick a side...)

The problem is we know that burning “bump stocks” on the alter of political expediency won’t have any impact whatsoever on potential future shootings, so we can keep tossing our virgins over the city walls but the barbarian herds will be there waiting to scoop up the next one, and not be appeased by flinging this one homely lass over to them.

Here’s how I would propose to deal with “bump stocks”:
Repeal the Hughes Amendment, reopening the NFA for new machine guns, and bump fire stocks become a conversion a similar way an RDIAS is. We get something related and comparable (better) in what is actually a compromise in the true sense of the word.

There are potential draw backs to that, as well, I know, and every route has potential unforeseen circumstances (including doing nothing).

[JHC]

I’ve always wondered how long it would be before someone used a bumpfire stock in a crime/shooting and they became an issue. They’re a dumb fun toy for a specific crowd, at the risk of sounding elitist. I certainly wouldn’t care if they just had never been invented.



It would have been better all around if they hadn't. Or if they'd been ruled to be an improper workaround to FA and prohibited from the get go. Maybe the NRA should have taken that position with the same foresight you had that they would come back to bite.

I see bump fire type accessories and in town open carry as peas in a pod.

Somebody here from Texas recently posted (on Pfestivus I think it was) that the open carry law in Texas caused numerous establishments to avail themselves of the force of law firearms prohibited signage that didn't when it was all CCW. And their change is understandable for the vast majority I bet, because of the same class of bump stock idiots that sling arms to a coffee shop.

That's not much of an advancement of the 2nd Amendment. Or doesn't seem so to me.

But the open carry enthusiasts and everyone else that campaigned for that in Texas were flying their 2nd Amendment flags high through that fight. Being against that was all about having your "chains rest lightly". You were a wannabe slave.

We may not be our worst enemy but we can run a close second.

I think the bump stock and similiar, is an ugly wart on us that we feel obligated to defend vs cut off. Our opponents want our stonewall opposition more than they need bump stocks banned, I'm pretty sure about that.

I saw one or two anti-gun spox on TV last night on their heels when asked about the new NRA statement. "But but but . . . "

[Sensei]

It would have been better all around if they hadn't. Or if they'd been ruled to be an improper workaround to FA and prohibited from the get go. Maybe the NRA should have taken that position with the same foresight you had that they would come back to bite.

I see bump fire type accessories and in town open carry as peas in a pod.

Somebody here from Texas recently posted (on Pfestivus I think it was) that the open carry law in Texas caused numerous establishments to avail themselves of the force of law firearms prohibited signage that didn't when it was all CCW. And their change is understandable for the vast majority I bet, because of the same class of bump stock idiots that sling arms to a coffee shop.

That's not much of an advancement of the 2nd Amendment. Or doesn't seem so to me.

But the open carry enthusiasts and everyone else that campaigned for that in Texas were flying their 2nd Amendment flags high through that fight. Being against that was all about having your "chains rest lightly". You were a wannabe slave.

We may not be our worst enemy but we can run a close second.

I think the bump stock and similiar, is a ugly wart on us that we feel obligated to defend vs cut off. Our opponents want our stonewall opposition more than they need bump stocks banned, I'm pretty sure about that.

I saw one or two anti-gun spox on TV last night on their heels when asked about the new NRA statement. "But but but . . . "

This is very well written. Bump fire stocks are bait for the ridiculous, and a sizable portion of internet gun enthusiasts are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

They are going the way of the dinosaur. We can either accept that and contain the loss, or pitch a fit “on principle” and further alienate ourselves from our elected officials.

[Grey]

Honestly the smart move is to let bump stocks get regulated And push for What the 2a community really wants, reciprocity And SHARE. If we fight for bump fire we Just look like giant assholes And burn a lot of political capital on derp devices.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[MistWolf]

How is banning a bump stock infringing on the second amendment?

How is it NOT an infringement? While this thread is about bump fire stocks, keep in mind that by wording, binary, Echo and TacCon 3MR Triggers are also on the chopping block. It makes handcranked Gatling guns illegal. The wording creates a grey area that would put muzzle brakes and suppressors in question. It says ANYTHING that can accelerate rate of fire. In other words, anything that helps you shoot an semiautomatic rifle faster.

Asking the BATF to look at and regulate the bump fire stock sets a dangerous precedence. It's giving a bureaucracy the power to regulate without law. There is no law that makes a bump fire stock or a press and release trigger a machinegun. There is no law that limits how fast anyone is allowed to fire a semiautomatic firearm. But we are supposed to approve the NRA asking a federal bureaucracy to regulate something without first passing a regulatory law? This opens the door to the enemies of liberty to have the BATF to visit whether or not self loading firearms are assault weapons and should be regulated as machineguns. This opens the door to other agencies getting involved with restricting firearms (and other rights) by bureaucratic reclassification.

If we decide whether or not to fight back about an accessory based on it's legitimacy as a self defense tool, we are making the same mistake as letting a firearm be banned because it has no legitimate sporting purpose. Worse, because now we open up two avenues of approach to encroachment. Is it useful for self defense? No. Ban it. Does it have a legitimate sporting purpose? No. Ban it.

We either hand together, or we shall certainly hang separately

[Gray222]

Any regulation is an infringement.

Any.

There was no "common sense" or "if something really bad happens" clause built into 2A or any other Amendment or "right."

[Trukinjp13]

I know this has been touched on. I hate bump fire stocks. I think they are a joke. But I do not agree with banning them. Voodoo said it perfectly.

If this gets passed. We are opening the door for them. We can not allow that. Every time a mass shooting happens, they will find something in it to go after. You create past practice. So now you looks like assholes because in the past you were in support of banning dangerous things but not now. They will be trying to get rid of every trigger system or stock that helps you shoot better. Then just move on from there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

It would have been better all around if they hadn't. Or if they'd been ruled to be an improper workaround to FA and prohibited from the get go. Maybe the NRA should have taken that position with the same foresight you had that they would come back to bite.

I see bump fire type accessories and in town open carry as peas in a pod.

Somebody here from Texas recently posted (on Pfestivus I think it was) that the open carry law in Texas caused numerous establishments to avail themselves of the force of law firearms prohibited signage that didn't when it was all CCW. And their change is understandable for the vast majority I bet, because of the same class of bump stock idiots that sling arms to a coffee shop.

That's not much of an advancement of the 2nd Amendment. Or doesn't seem so to me.

But the open carry enthusiasts and everyone else that campaigned for that in Texas were flying their 2nd Amendment flags high through that fight. Being against that was all about having your "chains rest lightly". You were a wannabe slave.

We may not be our worst enemy but we can run a close second.

I think the bump stock and similiar, is an ugly wart on us that we feel obligated to defend vs cut off. Our opponents want our stonewall opposition more than they need bump stocks banned, I'm pretty sure about that.

I saw one or two anti-gun spox on TV last night on their heels when asked about the new NRA statement. "But but but . . . "

Exactly! We do more harm than good to the second amendment by defending this ridiculousness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Any regulation is an infringement.

Any.

There was no "common sense" or "if something really bad happens" clause built into 2A or any other Amendment or "right."

So is it an infringement to say we can't buy a nuclear submarine? Bill Gates could afford to buy one.

The standard I have asked defenders of bump stocks to meet - explain its usefulness - is less stringent than the one actually set forth in the Heller case. NO ONE has even attempted to meet it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

How is it NOT an infringement? While this thread is about bump fire stocks, keep in mind that by wording, binary, Echo and TacCon 3MR Triggers are also on the chopping block. It makes handcranked Gatling guns illegal. The wording creates a grey area that would put muzzle brakes and suppressors in question. It says ANYTHING that can accelerate rate of fire. In other words, anything that helps you shoot an semiautomatic rifle faster.

Asking the BATF to look at and regulate the bump fire stock sets a dangerous precedence. It's giving a bureaucracy the power to regulate without law. There is no law that makes a bump fire stock or a press and release trigger a machinegun. There is no law that limits how fast anyone is allowed to fire a semiautomatic firearm. But we are supposed to approve the NRA asking a federal bureaucracy to regulate something without first passing a regulatory law? This opens the door to the enemies of liberty to have the BATF to visit whether or not self loading firearms are assault weapons and should be regulated as machineguns. This opens the door to other agencies getting involved with restricting firearms (and other rights) by bureaucratic reclassification.

If we decide whether or not to fight back about an accessory based on it's legitimacy as a self defense tool, we are making the same mistake as letting a firearm be banned because it has no legitimate sporting purpose. Worse, because now we open up two avenues of approach to encroachment. Is it useful for self defense? No. Ban it. Does it have a legitimate sporting purpose? No. Ban it.

We either hand together, or we shall certainly hang separately

Exactly why we need to go about this intelligently and make sure we get a say in the wording. If we lose the next election by defending this ridiculous nonsense, then we don't get that say in this or anything else.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

The fact that republicans are even willing to have this conversation tells me their not on our side. People have completely forgotten what the second amendment is about. I’ll give a hint, it’s not about hunting or sport shooting.... At all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And therein lies the problem with the NRA.... they only argue from the standpoint of sporting purpose... hence now we can only have 'sporting' weapons.

[BillSWPA]

This is very well written. Bump fire stocks are bait for the ridiculous, and a sizable portion of internet gun enthusiasts are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

They are going the way of the dinosaur. We can either accept that and contain the loss, or pitch a fit “on principle” and further alienate ourselves from our elected officials.

While I do not see us going the way of the dinosaur, every other point you made is exactly right, and defending this ridiculousness will send us the way of the dinosaur.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willie]

We must choose our words carefully, or as Grey said in post #113 we will be looking like giant assholes. The other side would take great pleasure in this outcome, and may in fact select it as an objective. Personally, I have difficulty explaining to non shooters why I object to banning this stuff. Now that more incompetents and other idiots(especially gang bangers) know that they exist, I fear copycat use of bump devices--hence more bad publicity.

[Gray222]

So is it an infringement to say we can't buy a nuclear submarine? Bill Gates could afford to buy one.

The standard I have asked defenders of bump stocks to meet - explain its usefulness - is less stringent than the one actually set forth in the Heller case. NO ONE has even attempted to meet it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You made an appeal to extremes logical fallacy.

I am not defending bumpfire stocks. I have never owned, will never own and have never and will never endorse them. I am talking about restrictions on 2A based on illogical non-facts and knee-jerk emotional responses to statistically low probability events (mass shootings).

Less emotion, more facts and understanding the reason 2A exists.

[StraitR]

I don't think anybody is saying we should accept this bill as it's currently worded. Frankly, I'm sure if we really searched, there's probably current legislative wording on the books that could be construed to include bump-stocks as is. It's no different than any other "interpretation" we ask for or get from the BATFE.

IMO, Feinstein is not after bump-stocks, she wants gun owners to take up swords for an issue that's currently hot n' heavy in the news. She wants to swing moderate Americans, gaining political capital and future votes. It's the same thing that happens after every mass-shooting event.

Unfortunately, she may have found the perfect trap this time in bump-stocks. It's no coincidence she's targeting bump-stocks, and not pounding the same old assault weapon ban drum this time. Take the bait, gun owner division, or get something regulated, either way she's getting something to further her agenda. It's up to us to figure out the least costly outcome, and I imagine that's exactly what the NRA is working through right now.

[OlongJohnson]

Past example of compromise: What we all remember about FOPA '86 is the lockdown on new FA arms. What we tend to forget is that apart from that amendment, the bill really did do what it was intended to do, and what its title described - put an end to a whole lot of jack-booted thuggery that was going on at the time. It was very much Round 1 of the PLCAA.

If a reasonably and precisely-worded (not Feinstein's language, duh) version of a bumpfire ban could be bundled with SHARE and reciprocity, that would likely be better than stonewalling and Democrats getting to be in charge for six to ten years. If there was a good reciprocity law, local jurisdictions could be forced to comply through the courts over time, much as DC has recently been ordered to comply with Heller, etc.

[StraitR]

You made an appeal to extremes logical fallacy.

I am not defending bumpfire stocks. I have never owned, will never own and have never and will never endorse them. I am talking about restrictions on 2A based on illogical non-facts and knee-jerk emotional responses to statistically low probability events (mass shootings).

Less emotion, more facts and understanding the reason 2A exists.

Staunchly opposing anything we perceive as a threat to our personal beliefs, regardless of detail, fact or reality, is also a form of knee-jerk emotional reaction. Just saying, people should probably stop trying to leverage that against "common sense" on this issue.

[Gray222]

If a reasonably and precisely-worded (not Feinstein's language, duh) version of a bumpfire ban could be bundled with SHARE and reciprocity, that would likely be better than stonewalling and Democrats getting to be in charge for six to ten years. If there was a good reciprocity law, local jurisdictions could be forced to comply through the courts over time, much as DC has recently been ordered to comply with Heller, etc.

This may be the best case scenario here, even though trading infringements to be granted what we should be able to do in the first place is BS, it is better than our current situation.

[TiroFijo]

I think that bump stocks are a done deal already... like it or not.

[BillSWPA]

You made an appeal to extremes logical fallacy.

I am not defending bumpfire stocks. I have never owned, will never own and have never and will never endorse them. I am talking about restrictions on 2A based on illogical non-facts and knee-jerk emotional responses to statistically low probability events (mass shootings).

Less emotion, more facts and understanding the reason 2A exists.

My point is that there is a limit to what is protected by the second amendment. Please explain the logical fallacy in that point, and how you would persuade a court to accept that explanation.

The only emotion and knee jerk reactions I see here is from those saying we cannot allow a ban on bump stocks (which for all practical purposes is equivalent to defending them). Saying that we cannot give any ground, even in trade for something better, and even when the device in question has no legitimate use, is a knee-jerk reaction based on emotion. Not only is it an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, but it plays right into the hands of our opponents by making us look like uncaring, irrational zealots, which will do us no good in the next election.

If we are going to avoid going the way of the dinosaur, we need to take a lesson from the other side. Take public perception into account. Push for a series of achievable victories rather than going all out. National concealed carry reciprocity is an achievable victory. A Supreme Court ruling holding that a ban on concealed carry is a violation of the Second Amendment is an achievable victory. A Supreme Court ruling holding that the standard of review in second amendment cases is strict scrutiny is an achievable victory. Arguing in favor of a device that was just used to mow down hundreds of people, and has been conceded here even buy it's defenders to have no legitimate use, is not only not an achievable victory, but jeopardizes all of our other achievable victories.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gray222]

My point is that there is a limit to what is protected by the second amendment. Please explain the logical fallacy in that point, and how you would persuade a court to accept that explanation.

The only emotion and knee jerk reactions I see here is from those saying we cannot allow a ban on bump stocks (which for all practical purposes is equivalent to defending them). Saying that we cannot give any ground, even in trade for something better, and even when the device in question has no legitimate use, is a knee-jerk reaction based on emotion. Not only is it an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, but it plays right into the hands of our opponents by making us look like uncaring, irrational zealots, which will do us no good in the next election.

If we are going to avoid going the way of the dinosaur, we need to take a lesson from the other side. Take public perception into account. Push for a series of achievable victories rather than going all out. National concealed carry reciprocity is an achievable victory. A Supreme Court ruling holding that a ban on concealed carry is a violation of the Second Amendment is an achievable victory. A Supreme Court ruling holding that the standard of review in second amendment cases is strict scrutiny is an achievable victory. Arguing in favor of a device that was just used to mow down hundreds of people, and has been conceded here even buy it's defenders to have no legitimate use, is not only not an achievable victory, but jeopardizes all of our other achievable victories.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, not arguing in favor of the bumpstock, not remotely. Does it effect anyone here if it gets banned? No.

The issue is not about banning an item we do not like, it is about restricting an item because some murderous POS used it for evil purposes. The left wants to ban all guns that is their agenda. Giving them anything at all is absolutely the wrong way to go about "fixing" anything or "common sense" anything.

You think a person could have done this without a bumpstock? Absolutely. I'd even say they'd have been more effective as bumpfire stocks and accurate fire are often mutually exclusive. What happens when the next crazy POS decides that he wants to get up on another 32nd floor and shoot a bunch of people with a semi-auto 308? "BAN ALL 308's!!! It's only common sense, right? It does not stop for the left, it never stops for the left. Short of the left effectively removing all the firearms from private possession, they will not stop. This is just another hill to fight them off at, giving it up shows them their rhetoric is working, shows them that if they make light of the emotional aspect of the aftermath they can continue to restrict a fundamental right. That is wrong and we should not allow an inch.

In this particular case, the NRA has undercut this attempt completely and gone against the grain. That means we already gave up the hill the night before the battle for it, we can only hope that there will be some sort of back room deal to push SHUSH or something of the like through with this legislation, a win for both, more for us though.

As for the logical fallacy vs court argument, those are both two completely different things. We can be intellectually honest here and not mix the two as they have nothing to do with each other. You made a fallacy based statement, own it and move on. I've never argued 2A in court as some members here have (like joshs) and I cannot speak to the methods of argument.

[scw2]

It does not stop for the left, it never stops for the left. Short of the left effectively removing all the firearms from private possession, they will not stop.

I believe even if all firearms were banned for private citizens, then they would want to criminalize the moral and ethical use of self defense, or ban something else like OC or knives. My understanding is that kind of stuff is happening in Europe/UK, not sure about Australia, but would be interested to know if that's not the case.

[YVK]

Less emotion, more facts and understanding the reason 2A exists.

I thought that 2A existed so the free citizens of the state had arms to maintain checks and balances against the government and its agents. How does an optional entertainment accessory, absence of presence thereof, changes that balance? Nobody said anything before bump stocks were invented. Are we saying that as soon as a doohickey that can bolted down to a gun is made, it automatically gets the same level of 2A protection as the gun itself?

Point is, as much as the idea of "them" regulating things is obnoxious, accessories are not firearms and can be regulated, or attempted to. And there is nothing in 2A that prevents that.

[RoyGBiv]

In this particular case, the NRA has undercut this attempt completely and gone against the grain. That means we already gave up the hill the night before the battle for it, we can only hope that there will be some sort of back room deal to push SHUSH or something of the like through with this legislation, a win for both, more for us though.
A good chance you're correct here, but I do see that NRA has left themselves some wiggle room.. They came out in favor of having the ATF review these stocks under existing regulatory authority. The NRA essentially said "you already have the authority to review the legality of these stocks", which is little more than stating the obvious. They also poked back at detractors by reminding everyone that it was Obamas ATF that green lighted these stocks most recently. Rope-a-Dope. The NRA did not say "we support new legislation".

What that got them (us) was some time for the dust to settle... and effectively squelched the "pitchfork the NRA" BS (except maybe from our side). The far-lefties don't need an excuse to blame the NRA for everything, but not taking an expected stand in support of bump stocks has given cover to those that would have been cowed by the political pressure had the NRA not taken some action to release some steam. IMO.

[Gray222]

I believe even if all firearms were banned for private citizens, then they would want to criminalize the moral and ethical use of self defense, or ban something else like OC or knives. My understanding is that kind of stuff is happening in Europe/UK, not sure about Australia, but would be interested to know if that's not the case.

The left is against the concept of self reliance and defense. These are the pillars of communism/socialism and should be disregarded and ridiculed as they have no possible place in American life.


I thought that 2A existed so the free citizens of the state had arms to maintain checks and balances against the government and its agents. How does an optional entertainment accessory, absence of presence thereof, changes that balance? Nobody said anything before bump stocks were invented. Are we saying that as soon as a doohickey that can bolted down to a gun is made, it automatically gets the same level of 2A protection as the gun itself?

Point is, as much as the idea of "them" regulating things is obnoxious, accessories are not firearms and can be regulated, or attempted to. And there is nothing in 2A that prevents that.

Again, again, again - I am not arguing for keep bumpstocks legal. I do not care about them even remotely.

The issue is not about bumpstocks, it is about not allowing the left and any anti-gun/2A groups even the smallest victory.

Today it's bumpstocks, tomorrow it's semiautomatic rifles (which some have openly stated (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/03/dem-sen-murphy-im-for-a-ban-on-semi-automatic-rifles/) they want banned). This is unacceptable but they will keep going if they are allowed. So that means they have to be fought at every single inch.

They want to mislead as much as possible, use the emotion in the country for their anti-2A agendas, which is unacceptable.

[Gray222]

A good chance you're correct here, but I do see that NRA has left themselves some wiggle room.. They came out in favor of having the ATF review these stocks under existing regulatory authority. The NRA essentially said "you already have the authority to review the legality of these stocks", which is little more than stating the obvious. They also poked back at detractors by reminding everyone that it was Obamas ATF that green lighted these stocks most recently. Rope-a-Dope. The NRA did not say "we support new legislation".

What that got them (us) was some time for the dust to settle... and effectively squelched the "pitchfork the NRA" BS (except maybe from our side). The far-lefties don't need an excuse to blame the NRA for everything, but not taking an expected stand in support of bump stocks has given cover to those that would have been cowed by the political pressure had the NRA not taken some action to release some steam. IMO.

I have no doubt that the NRA knows exactly what it is doing and there was a meeting about "getting ahead of this thing." To a lot of NRA supporters and pro-2A people it seems as though the NRA is giving up on the fundamental mission, which at face value, appears to unacceptable.

Like I said, we can only hope there is something in the works in the background.

[BillSWPA]

Again, not arguing in favor of the bumpstock, not remotely. Does it effect anyone here if it gets banned? No.

The issue is not about banning an item we do not like, it is about restricting an item because some murderous POS used it for evil purposes. The left wants to ban all guns that is their agenda. Giving them anything at all is absolutely the wrong way to go about "fixing" anything or "common sense" anything.

You think a person could have done this without a bumpstock? Absolutely. I'd even say they'd have been more effective as bumpfire stocks and accurate fire are often mutually exclusive. What happens when the next crazy POS decides that he wants to get up on another 32nd floor and shoot a bunch of people with a semi-auto 308? "BAN ALL 308's!!! It's only common sense, right? It does not stop for the left, it never stops for the left. Short of the left effectively removing all the firearms from private possession, they will not stop. This is just another hill to fight them off at, giving it up shows them their rhetoric is working, shows them that if they make light of the emotional aspect of the aftermath they can continue to restrict a fundamental right. That is wrong and we should not allow an inch.

In this particular case, the NRA has undercut this attempt completely and gone against the grain. That means we already gave up the hill the night before the battle for it, we can only hope that there will be some sort of back room deal to push SHUSH or something of the like through with this legislation, a win for both, more for us though.

As for the logical fallacy vs court argument, those are both two completely different things. We can be intellectually honest here and not mix the two as they have nothing to do with each other. You made a fallacy based statement, own it and move on. I've never argued 2A in court as some members here have (like joshs) and I cannot speak to the methods of argument.

You are still arguing that bump stocks are protected by the Second Amendment. My point is that there are limits to what the second amendment protects. Don't like my analogy? Fine. How about a howitzer? A tank? An RPG? Maybe less extreme, but the point is the same.

I do get paid to argue in court. Courts are very concerned about not only the case before them, but the effect of their case on the next case. Expressed differently, they want to stay off any slippery slopes towards a terrible result in the next case. Part of winning is providing a way off the slippery slope, which in this case is articulating a limit to what the second amendment protects.

Like it or not, what we can persuade a court to accept is going to be what the second amendment protects. The limit set in the Heller case is those weapons that are in common use. A bump stock does not meet that standard. The Standard I asked bump stock supporters to meet is to just make a rational argument that it is useful, which is a lower standard then the one set by Heller, and tthat standard has not even been met. You are not going to succeed in court with an argument get a bump stock is protected by the Second Amendment.

Whether the other side succeeds or fails in getting a bump stock ban by tapping into public emotion after a tragedy is irrelevant to their quite correct perception that the strategy works. Fortunately it didn't work after Sandyhook, because that shooter choose a weapon that is popular, and that has very legitimate uses. That battle was very well worth fighting and not giving up any ground. That is why we will achieve the same success when some idiot uses a 308 rifle.

I still do not understand what anyone hopes to achieve by making us all look like itratipnal morons by defending something that has no legitimate use. The only thing this achieves is improving the other side's ability to win the next election and dictate the terms of the debate. We are much better off dealing with this now, when our side gets to dictate how it is dealt with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SamAdams]

Again, not arguing in favor of the bumpstock, not remotely. Does it effect anyone here if it gets banned? No.

The issue is not about banning an item we do not like, it is about restricting an item because some murderous POS used it for evil purposes. The left wants to ban all guns that is their agenda. Giving them anything at all is absolutely the wrong way to go about "fixing" anything or "common sense" anything.

You think a person could have done this without a bumpstock? Absolutely. I'd even say they'd have been more effective as bumpfire stocks and accurate fire are often mutually exclusive. What happens when the next crazy POS decides that he wants to get up on another 32nd floor and shoot a bunch of people with a semi-auto 308? "BAN ALL 308's!!! It's only common sense, right? It does not stop for the left, it never stops for the left. Short of the left effectively removing all the firearms from private possession, they will not stop. This is just another hill to fight them off at, giving it up shows them their rhetoric is working, shows them that if they make light of the emotional aspect of the aftermath they can continue to restrict a fundamental right. That is wrong and we should not allow an inch.

In this particular case, the NRA has undercut this attempt completely and gone against the grain. That means we already gave up the hill the night before the battle for it, we can only hope that there will be some sort of back room deal to push SHUSH or something of the like through with this legislation, a win for both, more for us though.

As for the logical fallacy vs court argument, those are both two completely different things. We can be intellectually honest here and not mix the two as they have nothing to do with each other. You made a fallacy based statement, own it and move on. I've never argued 2A in court as some members here have (like joshs) and I cannot speak to the methods of argument.

IMO, at minimum someone in the NRA is a lousy negotiator. They came out with the bump fire stock statement mere days after the attack. The investigation is still ongoing. It would seem prudent to get all the facts before taking rash actions. They should have said that.

After Sandy Hook there were proposals out there regarding massive expansion of police in schools & even favoring universal gun registration. This was coming from some supposedly pro-2A people. Thankfully the fiscal & common sense realities later ditched those ideas.

BTW - I have zero personal interest in such stocks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Gray222]

You are still arguing that bump stocks are protected by the Second Amendment. My point is that there are limits to what the second amendment protects. Don't like my analogy? Fine. How about a howitzer? A tank? An RPG? Maybe less extreme, but the point is the same.

I do get paid to argue in court. Courts are very concerned about not only the case before them, but the effect of their case on the next case. Expressed differently, they want to stay off any slippery slopes towards a terrible result in the next case. Part of winning is providing a way off the slippery slope, which in this case is articulating a limit to what the second amendment protects.

Like it or not, what we can persuade a court to accept is going to be what the second amendment protects. The limit set in the Heller case is those weapons that are in common use. A bump stock does not meet that standard. The Standard I asked bump stock supporters to meet is to just make a rational argument that it is useful, which is a lower standard then the one set by Heller, and tthat standard has not even been met. You are not going to succeed in court with an argument get a bump stock is protected by the Second Amendment.

Whether the other side succeeds or fails in getting a bump stock ban by tapping into public emotion after a tragedy is irrelevant to their quite correct perception that the strategy works. Fortunately it didn't work after Sandyhook, because that shooter choose a weapon that is popular, and that has very legitimate uses. That battle was very well worth fighting and not giving up any ground. That is why we will achieve the same success when some idiot uses a 308 rifle.

I still do not understand what anyone hopes to achieve by making us all look like itratipnal morons by defending something that has no legitimate use. The only thing this achieves is improving the other side's ability to win the next election and dictate the terms of the debate. We are much better off dealing with this now, when our side gets to dictate how it is dealt with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please cite where I said bumpstocks are protected by 2A?

It does not matter what example you use, when you mention something which we are not talking about you are making a fallacy, an intellectually dishonest one. Own it and we can continue this conversation, otherwise I do not care to continue.

For the last time, I am not defending bumpstocks, I have made my point on this topic. I will not continue to rephrase it.

[Eric_L]

Bill that is a very articulate explanation of the issue. Thank you. I was thinking I am not going to support the bump stock issue, and you solidified my position for me.

[BillSWPA]

For anyone wondering why SME's leave in the other thread, a simple review of this one will answer some questions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lost River]

How is banning a bump stock infringing on the second amendment? I am still waiting for someone to explain how these devices are useful for any legitimate purpose, such as self defense.

I am also still waiting for someone to explain why bump stocks are a hill worth dying on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Right now the left is loving this.

They are watching all this infighting and laughing their asses off.

Consider this.

Who determines "legitimacy"?

Who do you want to determine what is "legitimate"?

Is "fun" a legitimate reason to own an item?

I don't give a shit about these stocks. The fact that the stocks are not the point seem to be lost on a great many gun owners.



Another consideration.

As soon as the right capitulates on "bump stocks", then the gun grabbers will say:

"See, you agreed, there was no legitimate use for those stocks. They just made it easier to shoot guns faster, and you agreed, we were right.

Now what legitimate use is there for this muzzle brake? I think all muzzle brakes, and flash suppressors should be banned. There honestly is no legitimate use for one outside of military and law enforcement."

Be reasonable, the NRA was...


"See, you agreed, there was no legitimate use for those stocks or muzzle brakes. They just made it easier to shoot guns faster, and you agreed. Now what legitimate use is there for this pistol grip? I think all pistol grips should be banned. There honestly is no legitimate use for one outside of military and law enforcement."

Be reasonable, the NRA was...


"See, you agreed. there was no real legitimate use for those items outside of war. Now what legitimate purpose is there for a person to have more than 6 rounds in a gun?"







Be reasonable.

[Gray222]

For anyone wondering why SME's leave in the other thread, a simple review of this one will answer some questions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the personal attack I was waiting for.

Thanks for that.

[Matt O]

Despite the fact that some of us disagree, this has been a pretty civil and reasonable discussion. Might we, at the OP's request and for the sake of Tom's sanity, continue to keep it that way?

[Suvorov]

You are still arguing that bump stocks are protected by the Second Amendment. My point is that there are limits to what the second amendment protects. Don't like my analogy? Fine. How about a howitzer? A tank? An RPG? Maybe less extreme, but the point is the same.

This is the EXACT same strawman argument that the statists have used to great affect in Kalifornia to ban ARs, 11+ round magazines, shall issue permits. That is the problem with deciding on "reasonable" limits - it is a sliding scale depending on point of view. You may argue the legitimacy of 11+ round magazines but others will state that very seldom to self defense shootings involve more that more than 10 rounds so the risk of allowing the general population to be running around with 100 round magazines outweighs the almost non-existent benefit of allowing someone to defend their home with a 17 round Glock magazine.. Once we start using the statists own arguments, we legitimize them. Obviously no one here is arguing for a 155mm howitzer but all of a sudden bumpfire stocks are in the same camp.

I will wake up tomorrow completely unaffected by the bumpfire being regulated to the dust bin of gun-hickery, but I really fear that we are setting a dangerous precedent here.

Hopefully there are some backroom deals being made and I realize that defending the bumpfire is a political hot potato, but keep this in mind: My Senator Dianne Palpatine (oh I mean Feinstein) may be an ignorant ass when it comes to firearms, but she is a masterful politician.

20630

[NEPAKevin]

Lets say for the sake of arrangement that some how bump-fire devices and their like do not get reclassified or banned. The sheer number of law suits will almost certainly bankrupt at least the manufacturer(s) of the devices used in the LV shooting. However, a massacre such as this is a two edge sword. Much of America is afraid, almost half already own guns and of those that do not, many now wish they did. We can defend the second amendment as the right and will of the people and that is what we should do.

[BillSWPA]

This is the EXACT same strawman argument that the statists have used to great affect in Kalifornia to ban ARs, 11+ round magazines, shall issue permits. That is the problem with deciding on "reasonable" limits - it is a sliding scale depending on point of view. You may argue the legitimacy of 11+ round magazines but others will state that very seldom to self defense shootings involve more that more than 10 rounds so the risk of allowing the general population to be running around with 100 round magazines outweighs the almost non-existent benefit of allowing someone to defend their home with a 17 round Glock magazine.. Once we start using the statists own arguments, we legitimize them. Obviously no one here is arguing for a 155mm howitzer but all of a sudden bumpfire stocks are in the same camp.

I will wake up tomorrow completely unaffected by the bumpfire being regulated to the dust bin of gun-hickery, but I really fear that we are setting a dangerous precedent here.

Hopefully there are some backroom deals being made and I realize that defending the bumpfire is a political hot potato, but keep this in mind: My Senator Dianne Palpatine (oh I mean Feinstein) may be an ignorant ass when it comes to firearms, but she is a masterful politician.

20630

This is also exactly what the courts want to avoid when they rule on a second amendment issue. You need a way off the slippery slope before you reach that point. Heller articulated a way off that slope. That way excludes bump stocks,but includes everything else we want. Fail to provide a way off the slippery slope, and you fail the argument in court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Right now the left is loving this.

They are watching all this infighting and laughing their asses off.

Consider this.

Who determines "legitimacy"?

Who do you want to determine what is "legitimate"?

Is "fun" a legitimate reason to own an item?

I don't give a shit about these stocks. The fact that the stocks are not the point seem to be lost on a great many gun owners.



Another consideration.

As soon as the right capitulates on "bump stocks", then the gun grabbers will say:

"See, you agreed, there was no legitimate use for those stocks. They just made it easier to shoot guns faster, and you agreed, we were right.

Now what legitimate use is there for this muzzle brake? I think all muzzle brakes, and flash suppressors should be banned. There honestly is no legitimate use for one outside of military and law enforcement."

Be reasonable, the NRA was...


"See, you agreed, there was no legitimate use for those stocks or muzzle brakes. They just made it easier to shoot guns faster, and you agreed. Now what legitimate use is there for this pistol grip? I think all pistol grips should be banned. There honestly is no legitimate use for one outside of military and law enforcement."

Be reasonable, the NRA was...


"See, you agreed. there was no real legitimate use for those items outside of war. Now what legitimate purpose is there for a person to have more than 6 rounds in a gun?"







Be reasonable.

I have explained repeatedly why giving in on one point does not necessitate giving in on any others.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YVK]

The left is against the concept of self reliance and defense. These are the pillars of communism/socialism and should be disregarded and ridiculed as they have no possible place in American life.



Again, again, again - I am not arguing for keep bumpstocks legal. I do not care about them even remotely.

The issue is not about bumpstocks, it is about not allowing the left and any anti-gun/2A groups even the smallest victory.



I understand and I agree with that. The point that I and others are making is that some items are indefensible. If they are not protected by the word and spirit of the 2nd, if they have a negative public image, if they have toxic political luggage attached, then trying to protect them against a concerted effort is futile. Even if protecting them for the sake of "not giving an inch" is somehow successful, the political capital expenditure and alienation of public would amount to a Pyrrhic victory.

[SamAdams]

Agencies are supposed to enforce existing legislated law. There have been conflicts over agency over reach and creation of administrative law beyond the intent of legislation. But in the area of bump stocks the ATF found them compliant with the existing legislation. And this was under the less than 2A friendly Obama administration.
It would seem that any change in bump stock status would require a change in the laws by the legislature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[StraitR]

Agencies are supposed to enforce existing legislated law. There have been conflicts over agency over reach and creation of administrative law beyond the intent of legislation. But in the area of bump stocks the ATF found them compliant with the existing legislation. And this was under the less than 2A friendly Obama administration.
It would seem that any change in bump stock status would require a change in the laws by the legislature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't any change in legislature when the Sig arm brace went from initially "ok", to "bad", then back to "ok".

[walker2713]

I don't own a buttstock, never have and likely never will....I don't think I've actually seen one in what passes for real life in my world.

But, I believe it would be a foolish mistake to "trade" the bumpstock for some other bauble, because for our liberal opponents, enough is never enough!

IF the Las Vegas POS had conventional AR's in place of his "modified" rifles.....how much better would the result have been?

40 dead instead of 59?

30 dead instead of 59?

20 dead instead of 59?

Would that have prevented the howling mob from attacking the 2nd Amendment and its supporters?

My point, no one in their right minds believes that giving in on bumpstocks is going to be "enough" for Feinstein and the rest of the grabbers. Ever.

The next step will be to actually make fully automatic weapons illegal...now they're difficult and expensive to acquire but after we've disposed on bumpstocks, they'll be next to be outlawed.

This may put me in the category of the 2% dinosaurs who oppose any concessions, but so be it.

George

[SamAdams]

The bump fire stocks may already be a goner. I really don't know. - But one would hope the pro gun negotiators would get something from the other side. They seem to have a very bad habit of laying down early, sometimes before negotiations have even started.

[StraitR]

@walker2713 (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=9774) George, I don't think anyone enjoys the premise, or is even entertaining, the idea of "giving in" on anything to Feinstein or gun grabbers. But, it doesn't seem clear to many that bump-stocks would be covered by the constitutional protection of the 2A. If that's the case, and I believe it is, fighting for them will give the Left exactly what they're after, a big "hearts and minds" victory. If they went after the AR-15, the caliber, the specific bullet design, or any characteristic thereof, I'm all for telling her to blow it out her ass.

But, this particular piece of legislation, on this particular bolt on accessory, may require more critical thinking in terms of what our response should be. It seems we're set to lose something, whether that's political capital, our strength in unity, or a piece of bolt on plastic that all here would run from if Leroy "bump-stock" Jenkins picked the lane next to ours at the range. It's up to us to decide which.

ETA: IMO, that's the only debate here. Nobody disagree's that Feinstein and the Left will ever stop wanting more, nor does anyone here want to give her anything if we don't feel we have to. This seems lose-lose to me, I'm just hoping we pick the least painful loss.

[SamAdams]

To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't any change in legislature when the Sig arm brace went from initially "ok", to "bad", then back to "ok".

I didn't follow that situation . Did the brace meet requirements of existing legislation, then later be deemed 'illegal' by ATF, and afterwards they were challenged and lost ?

Bureaucratic agencies have been called the fourth branch of government.

[RevolverRob]

So is it an infringement to say we can't buy a nuclear submarine? Bill Gates could afford to buy one

Actually, that has been my argument for years. Given that the US .Gov has access to nuclear weapons, submarines, multi-billion dollar fighter aircraft, etc. We - the people - in theory should have unfettered access to such things, protected by the Constitution. Lest we forget, some of the incidents during the Revolutionary War were driven by the British attempting to remove cannon from local militia.

Small arms are really the tip of the 2A iceberg. If necessary, I should be allowed to have a howitzer, without any regulatory hoops to jump through. Until then, .Gov actually has a monopoly on armament and is actually in violation of the 2A.

But all of that is aside. Because we aren't talking about howitzers, we're talking about accessories that attach to common "sporting" guns. And while they appear to serve no "legitimate" purpose, there is no definitional need for "legitimacy" in the Constitution. If "I own a bump-fire stock, because I like turning money into noise" is the reason, it's all the reason you (don't) need to own such a device.

[Morbidbattlecry]

The bump fire stocks may already be a goner. I really don't know. - But one would hope the pro gun negotiators would get something from the other side. They seem to have a very bad habit of laying down early, sometimes before negotiations have even started.

I agree. We need to get something out of it too. Too many gun owners are quick to call "not one step back". Wanna ban bump stocks? Ok well i want suppressors de-NFAed. Want background checks for private sales at gun shows? Sure thing, but i want sporting uses clause and importation laws relaxed. Whatever happened to Trumps for every regulation introduced two are eliminated. I'll give the anti gunners feel good legislation for actual gains by us.

[Sensei]

While I do not see us going the way of the dinosaur, every other point you made is exactly right, and defending this ridiculousness will send us the way of the dinosaur.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry if I was unclear, but I was referring to bump fire stocks going the way of the dinosaur. I did not mean to suggest that gun enthusiasts are going anywhere.

Truth be told, something far less than half the population wants unfettered access to automatic weapons or devices that allow semiautomatic weapons to approximate automatic fire. The only reason why bump fire stocks have survived this long is due to ignorance on the part of the average American. Moreover, SCOTUS has already interperated the Second Amendment to be a limited right, and virtually every member of this forum has accepted that interpretation by obeying the existing gun laws. The notion that we are going to re-litigate that interpretation or sway public opinion in the favor of quasi-automatic weapons in the wake of this tragedy is laughable.

[BillSWPA]

Actually, that has been my argument for years. Given that the US .Gov has access to nuclear weapons, submarines, multi-billion dollar fighter aircraft, etc. We - the people - in theory should have unfettered access to such things, protected by the Constitution. Lest we forget, some of the incidents during the Revolutionary War were driven by the British attempting to remove cannon from local militia.

Small arms are really the tip of the 2A iceberg. If necessary, I should be allowed to have a howitzer, without any regulatory hoops to jump through. Until then, .Gov actually has a monopoly on armament and is actually in violation of the 2A.

But all of that is aside. Because we aren't talking about howitzers, we're talking about accessories that attach to common "sporting" guns. And while they appear to serve no "legitimate" purpose, there is no definitional need for "legitimacy" in the Constitution. If "I own a bump-fire stock, because I like turning money into noise" is the reason, it's all the reason you (don't) need to own such a device.

In theory you are exactly right, and I agree completely.

For better or worse we are a long way from achieving that.

[TiroFijo]

I'm afraid you guys are arguing about a done deal...

[SamAdams]

I agree. We need to get something out of it too. Too many gun owners are quick to call "not one step back". Wanna ban bump stocks? Ok well i want suppressors de-NFAed. Want background checks for private sales at gun shows? Sure thing, but i want sporting uses clause and importation laws relaxed. Whatever happened to Trumps for every regulation introduced two are eliminated. I'll give the anti gunners feel good legislation for actual gains by us.

2A supporters tend to be conservatives and libertarians. They present (in general) arguments which are reasonable. IMO more people on the right need to read Saul Alinsky's book 'Rules for Radicals'. Many leaders on the left have done so, including the Clintons. It is one of their operating manuals. Emotionalism is cynically used. They have no room for reasonableness or compromise. It's all about doing whatever they can get away with to forward their agenda. They never give up and no concessions surrendered are ever enough.

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. " - Saul Alinsky



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JHC]

I guess it can't hurt the thread to have a video representation of the subject at hand.

Full auto vs "slidefire" in this case.

For the pols, you know it's going to be: game, set, match.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV2u_rdYBkE

[NH Shooter]

FWIW, the word "bear" in the 2A means "to be able to carry." The people could have their muskets, but cannon is not something the average person can pick up and carry.

In other words, any small arms in use today are technically covered, but tanks, submarines, etc. are not.

[Joe in PNG]

Then again, the Constitution also give Congress the ability to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal- which argues for privately owned warships and artillery.
Just saying.

[NH Shooter]

Then again, the Constitution also give Congress the ability to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal- which argues for privately owned warships and artillery.
Just saying.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the allocation of war powers.

[StraitR]

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the allocation of war powers.

Maybe it should? Then again, I can't afford warships and artillery anyway.

[XXXsilverXXX]

Maybe it should? Then again, I can't afford warships and artillery anyway.

I hate to say it but I would chip in on a go fund me for a battleship....

[NEPAKevin]

And while they appear to serve no "legitimate" purpose, there is no definitional need for "legitimacy" in the Constitution. If "I own a bump-fire stock, because I like turning money into noise" is the reason, it's all the reason you (don't) need to own such a device.

On the one hand, I have a hard time justifying expending political capitol and going all ride or die for what I perceive as a derpy toy. OTOH, I just listened to a clip of Nancy Pelosi saying that this is just the beginning of what they have in mind. Part of me is hoping that someone puts up a youtube video proclaiming themselves to be the poster child for responsible gun ownership burning, shooting, blowing up, whatever a bumpfire to preempt the banners by voluntarily declaring them uncool or unpatriotic or just plain stupid. Before you know it, bumpfires being torched from coast to coast. Everyone trying to out do each other. Never mind, this won't end well.

[LOKNLOD]

The fact they are going after bump stocks instead of the usual “high capacity magazines” shows how easy pickings they think these are.

[Suvorov]

The fact they are going after bump stocks instead of the usual “high capacity magazines” shows how easy pickings they think these are.

Yep, and I noticed the Surefire magazine in the pictures before I noticed the bumpfire stock. How is the NRA going to defend the "usefulness" of 60 round magazines? I can hear it now - "these bumpfires would have been a whole lot less effective had the Las Vegas Turd (LVT) had to reload every 10 rounds......"

[BillSWPA]

One thing I think we all agree on is that banning bump stocks is absolutely intended as nothing more than a "first step." Every form of gun control that has ever been presented has always started out being presented as the solution to all our problems. Once it is signed into law, before the ink is even dry, it is then revealed to be nothing more than one step in the direction the anti-gunners want to go, with the next steps being pushed. I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with that point. The only point of contention is how to best stop them in their tracks, get the political process going our way, and keep it going our way long term.

I think we also all agree that slowing down the process to carefully consider the ramifications of all proposals decreases their ability to capitalize on the immediate emotions following the tragedy. At least I don't recall seeing anything contrary in this thread.

Hopefully we can also all agree that we need to be the ones framing the debate, carefully considering how to get and keep public perception on our side. If we work within the framework that the other side sets, we have already lost. My intention with this statement is not necessarily to push for a specific solution, but to take a step back and look at the framework in which that solution should be determined.

Lastly, hopefully we can agree that we gain nothing by just continuing to play defense to the other side's offense, but that we must develop our own offensive strategy. That strategy should take into account where we went to end up, and what sequence of achievable steps gets us there. We probably don't agree on specifics at this point, but by taking a step back and looking at the framework under which specifics should be considered, we may get closer.

[LOKNLOD]

Yep, and I noticed the Surefire magazine in the pictures before I noticed the bumpfire stock. How is the NRA going to defend the "usefulness" of 60 round magazines? I can hear it now - "these bumpfires would have been a whole lot less effective had the Las Vegas Turd (LVT) had to reload every 10 rounds......"

I think the presence of 20-some-odd guns made reloading time and effort somewhat moot from a practical standpoint .

[StraitR]

Yep, and I noticed the Surefire magazine in the pictures before I noticed the bumpfire stock. How is the NRA going to defend the "usefulness" of 60 round magazines? I can hear it now - "these bumpfires would have been a whole lot less effective had the Las Vegas Turd (LVT) had to reload every 10 rounds......"

For the record, those were all Surefire 100 round magazines.


I think the presence of 20-some-odd guns made reloading time and effort somewhat moot from a practical standpoint .

I agree with both of you. I'm actually shocked that magazine capacity hasn't even been mentioned, but that further cements the Left's choice to go after bump-stocks while the iron is hot to be intentional and strategic. We all agree, it won't end there, it will never end, regardless of the fate of bump-stocks. Magazine capacity will be the next step, IMO, and one certainly worth fighting for (again).

[SamAdams]

The ultimate aim of the antis is to outlaw gun ownership by the American people. Some of them have admitted that, including Feinstein. IMO this is a battle for hearts and minds. We on the pro 2A side and the hardcore antis will not change our respective positions. We need to get as many new good, average Americans involved with guns as possible. Build the numbers.
We need to challenge the antis when they push proposals which limit gun ownership among law abiding citizens IMO.
On the basis of states rights, I was lukewarm on the proposed federal reciprocity law for concealed carry recognition nationwide. But my opinion has changed on this; anything which may increase legal concealed carry and gun ownership is a good thing for the 2A.
If bump stocks are eliminated/further regulated - push reciprocity & confront the antis on their opposition to already background checked citizens being able to protect themselves wherever they may travel in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LOKNLOD]

The ultimate aim of the antis is to outlaw gun ownership by the American people. Some of them have admitted that, including Feinstein. IMO this is a battle for hearts and minds. We on the pro 2A side and the hardcore antis will not change our respective positions. We need to get as many new good, average Americans involved with guns as possible. Build the numbers.


Agreed.

Ultimately I see it not about guns specifically but a cultural battle about the very nature of the relationship of individual to society to government and the deepest roots of the very concept of “freedom”.

It’s a damn shame the Ben Franklin quote has become cliché because it is so on point in the current environment.

[SamAdams]

Make the antis admit out in the open their underlying objective. In today's environment they would lose on that. Enough of the younger generation must be brought on our side to protect the 2A to the US Constitution in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WobblyPossum]

I sent an email to Sen. Bernie Sanders asking him to vote against any upcoming gun control legislation. Here is the response I received:

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence in this country, and the horrific massacre in Las Vegas. I agree with you that it is long past time for Congress to take action on gun safety to save innocent lives, and to stop guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them.

Not only was the Las Vegas attack the deadliest mass shooting in our country’s modern history, but this year there have been more mass shootings than days in the year. We have seen shooting after shooting over the years, which have taken thousands of loved ones from their families and friends in incomprehensible acts of violence.

To my mind, common sense gun control begins with a ban on military-style assault weapons that have used in many of these heinous crimes. These are weapons of war, plain and simple. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to own them. I proudly voted for an assault weapons ban in 1994 and again in 2004, and was very disappointed when Congress let the ban lapse that year. I will continue to support efforts to reinstate an assault weapons ban.

As we saw in Las Vegas, high-capacity ammunition magazines are often used in these mass shootings, making these assault weapons even deadlier by allowing the shooter to fire up to 100 rounds before having to reload. That is why I am cosponsoring the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would ban these extended magazines.

Moreover, the Las Vegas shooter was able to fire as many as 90 rounds in less than ten seconds because he used a simple device that allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire at nearly the same rate as a fully automatic weapon. In 1986, Congress, for very obvious reasons, banned the sale of automatic weapons, which are designed to kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time. Unfortunately, “bump stocks” are an inexpensive and effective way around that law, which is why I am cosponsoring the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, which would ban civilian possession of bump stocks and other rapid-fire modifications.

Of course, the issue is bigger than just these weapons of war. The fact is, too many people own guns who clearly should not have them – including violent felons, domestic abusers, and people with severe mental illness. That is why I support universal background checks and am a cosponsor of a bill to close the “Charleston loophole” that currently allows a gun purchase to go forward if a background check takes more than 72 hours to complete.

We must also close the “gun show loophole,” prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing a gun, and increase penalties for so-called straw purchases. These are all common sense approaches to keep guns away from people who should not own them, and I am astounded that the gun lobby has so far convinced a majority of Senators to oppose each and every one of them.

In the past, Congress has been able to pass legislation to help state and federal law enforcement agencies share information to prevent people with mental illness, and who pose a threat to the public, from purchasing a gun. We have strengthened penalties for gun trafficking, and for using armor piercing ammunition when committing a crime. We passed the Undetectable Firearms Act and the Child Safety Lock Act, and we defeated a bill to allow people with concealed weapons permits in one state to carry a concealed weapon in any state, irrespective of local laws. But today, too many Senators are beholden to the gun lobby.

It is not too late to prevent innocent Americans from becoming victims. And those harmed by gun violence must have access to the courts, which is why I am co-sponsoring the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act. This bill would repeal a provision in existing law that gives legal immunity to gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from most civil liability suits.

We must also deal with the fact that America is facing a mental health crisis. Congress must greatly expand access to mental health services, so Americans who need treatment receive it in a timely manner. Sadly, that is not the case today. Throughout our country, there are thousands of Americans who harbor suicidal or homicidal thoughts – but are unable to find affordable and quality treatment. How can it be that people who are suicidal or homicidal have access to assault weapons, but not mental health services?

I should also say that there is a proud tradition of hunting, target shooting and gun collecting here in Vermont. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who are extremely careful with their weapons. Common sense gun laws are in no way an attack on their lifestyle. In fact, many gun owners, and a strong majority of Americans agree these common sense measures. Poll after poll shows that over 85 percent of Americans support universal background checks.

It’s time to get this done. Congress must enact legislation to keep our communities safe and keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please feel free to stay in touch about this or any other subject of interest to you. For up-to-date information on what I am working on, please sign-up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/.
Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RoyGBiv]

The term "common sense" triggers me.

<heavy sigh>

[BillSWPA]

There was a time when we could count on a politician, or at least their staff, to actually read correspondence before responding to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NEPAKevin]

Thank you again for contacting me, and please feel free to stay in touch about this or any other subject of interest to you. For up-to-date information on what I am working on, please sign-up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/.
Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No solicitation to donate to the cause?

[WobblyPossum]

No solicitation to donate to the cause?

Can you tell me if the message I posted is ridiculously long? When I look at it in tapatalk, only the last two paragraphs come up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[olstyn]

Can you tell me if the message I posted is ridiculously long? When I look at it in tapatalk, only the last two paragraphs come up.

In a "real" web browser, it's quite long (it appears to be all there, as it starts with "Thank you for contacting me," ends with "Sincerely...") and the degree to which Bernie's staffers ignored what you said when replying to you is truly impressive.

[NGP]

To my mind, common sense gun control begins with a ban on military-style assault weapons that have used in many of these heinous crimes. These are weapons of war, plain and simple. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to own them.

This, to me, was the essence of the whole reply. He might as well just said subjects.

[WobblyPossum]

In a "real" web browser, it's quite long (it appears to be all there, as it starts with "Thank you for contacting me," ends with "Sincerely...") and the degree to which Bernie's staffers ignored what you said when replying to you is truly impressive.

I know some members here are quite eloquent and articulate when they draft letters to politicians regarding proposed laws. I’m not one of those people. My email to Sanders was approximately ten sentences long. The first sentence was basically “I ask that you vote against any gun control legislation that will inevitably be proposed in the weeks following the most recent mass murder.” It’s pretty sad that someone obviously didn’t even pretend they read my email.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Suvorov]

To my mind, common sense gun control begins with a ban on military-style assault weapons that have used in many of these heinous crimes. These are weapons of war, plain and simple. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to own them. I proudly voted for an assault weapons ban in 1994 and again in 2004, and was very disappointed when Congress let the ban lapse that year. I will continue to support efforts to reinstate an assault weapons ban.


Because Browning, Berdan, Mauser, and Sharps were all making their inventions for the deer hunting crowd...... [emoji57]

[WobblyPossum]

Sen. Sanders’ response shows that going after bump stocks won’t be the end of this. We should prepare for another run on ammo and evil black rifles. This email was what actually pushed me over the edge to pick up one of the Colt Troopers. I’ll probably grab another couple of cases of 9mm over the next few pay periods too. (The money refunded from the Federal American Eagle rebate will help offset the cost of the rifle. At least that’s how I’m rationalizing it to myself lol)

For anyone who hasn’t contacted their representatives yet, you guys need to write them and let them know to vote against every single bill Sen. Sanders mentioned in his office’s email. Let them know that votes in support of this nonsense will come back to bite them in the ass come election time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hufnagel]

If this all blows over and BFS are still legal in a couple months, I'm buying one just because. As VDM said, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED doesn't have a "common sense" caveat. Hell I might buy two, since they seem to be different for left or right handed people.

[Drang]

JOINT STATEMENT FROM SAF, CCRKBA ON ‘BUMP STOCKS’ (https://www.saf.org/joint-statement-from-saf-ccrkba-on-bump-stocks/)

BELLEVUE, WA – In response to the senseless attack in Las Vegas, the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have issued the following statement:

“The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms support a productive dialogue concerning “bump stocks,” National Concealed Carry Reciprocity and the proposed Hearing Protection Act.

“We recognize that banning firearms accessories is not a solution to violent crime.”

[RevolverRob]

Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator


By contrast the response I received from John Cornyn - I pointed out to Mr. Cornyn that knee-jerk reactions that ban firearms or firearms accessories, results in nothing positive. And in fact that it continues to set a precedent that we can appear to solve fundamental problems through superficial actions; and that we cannot actually do so. I noted that prior to Las Vegas, bump stocks on firearms were not frequently used to commit violent crimes. That this should reinforce the need to invest in mental health care infrastructure. And finally, that if any legislative response to Las Vegas would occur, it must happen once we understand the motivations of the attacker. To ban bump-fire stocks, when other motivations are at play, is self-defeating.

Senator Cornyn's response below:

Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting me with your suggestions for federal firearms policy. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments and am encouraged that you and other concerned citizens are committed to reducing gun violence in America.

Like every Texan, I want to prevent gun violence, and I believe this begins with fully enforcing existing gun laws. Under the Obama Administration, gun crime prosecutions have dropped significantly. This is a starting point: going after the criminals and those who lie on their background checks.

The federal government has also not adequately enforced the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act, a law that is supported by organizations ranging from the National Rifle Association to the Brady Campaign. Passed unanimously by Congress following the Virginia Tech shootings, this law requires states to submit the mental health records of individuals who are adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others in order to prevent them from legally purchasing firearms. It is worth noting that Texas has received high marks from the Government Accountability Office for its compliance with the law. Texas has shown how to make the necessary reforms while also protecting Second Amendment rights.

I also believe addressing mental illness is another way to prevent gun violence. On August 5, 2015, I introduced the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 (S. 2002), parts of which were later included in the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, which was signed into law last year (P.L. 114-255). This legislation will enhance the ability of local communities to identify and treat potentially dangerous, mentally-ill individuals. The law also includes reforms to increase the use of treatment-based alternatives for mentally-ill offenders, and improve crisis response and prevention by state and local law enforcement officials. The bill was endorsed by a diverse group of organizations, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Association of Police Organizations.

This is the debate we should be having—a debate that focuses on the real root causes of mass violence, and a debate that addresses the perilous intersection of guns and mental illness. We can tackle these problems without curtailing Second Amendment rights, and I will continue to push for effective solutions that protect communities while preserving our constitutional liberties.

I am always appreciative when Texans reach out and share their concerns. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

____

So, still kind of a bullshit response, but at least one that was slightly more in line with the letter I sent to Cornyn.

[BillSWPA]

While I agree that mental health needs to be part of the solution, we need to be very careful about where that conversation goes. In NJ, a simple prescription for anti-anxiety medicine will disqualify one from holding a firearm purchaser ID card. We are going to cause more problems than we solve if people cannot approach their doctors and have an open, honest conversation about their issues without lasting repercussions. Most, if not all, mental health prescriptions should never, ever appear in any database where they would ever turn up in a background check.

Although the level of planning that went into the Las Vegas attack leads me to question whether mental illness was the cause, I will add that we could solve some problems by improving the way psychiatric medicine is prescribed. There is a higher likelihood that the proper dosage of the proper mess will be prescribed if they are prescribed by a psychiatrist rather than a general practitioner. Those prescriptions cannot be based on a blood test and a few minutes with the patient, but need to be determined based on multiple, extensive conversations about the patient's symptoms.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

While I agree that mental health needs to be part of the solution, we need to be very careful about where that conversation goes. In NJ, a simple prescription for anti-anxiety medicine will disqualify one from holding a firearm purchaser ID card. We are going to cause more problems than we solve if people cannot approach their doctors and have an open, honest conversation about their issues without lasting repercussions. Most, if not all, mental health prescriptions should never, ever appear in any database where they would ever turn up in a background check.

ABSOLUTELY AGREED. We do not need to make mental health more stigmatized in our society. Concerns about the potential legal repercussions of owning guns and an anti-anxiety prescription simultaneously, kept me from seeking treatment for a long time. I finally resolved to serve as a test case if necessary, because I could no longer live sans therapy and medication.



Although the level of planning that went into the Las Vegas attack leads me to question whether mental illness was the cause.

Well...I'm just gonna say, I don't think most normal or even "weird" people would do the type of thing the asshole in Vegas did. This is where my pragmatism comes into play, no matter how good our mental health care, our prevention, our "insert potential solution here" is. Some folks just ain't right and never will be, and may never show signs of it, until they start shooting up a concert...or serially murdering prostitutes. There are some truly fucked, evil, people, beyond help in our society. And psychologically deranged people are quite capable of extensive planning, they aren't unhinged in the bouncing off the padded walls kind of way; they simply lack empathy or emotion for what they intend to do.

I would say, for the sake of folks struggling with the Vegas shooter. Think about his mindset as something akin to a serial killer who just killed his victims in one swath, instead of several events (and for all we know, he may have done that too).



I will add that we could solve some problems by improving the way psychiatric medicine is prescribed. There is a higher likelihood that the proper dosage of the proper mess will be prescribed if they are prescribed by a psychiatrist rather than a general practitioner. Those prescriptions cannot be based on a blood test and a few minutes with the patient, but need to be determined based on multiple, extensive conversations about the patient's symptoms.

Also concur, that meds should be administered by a psychiatrist and not GP. Although, there are a few tests they can run to investigate brain chemistry and potential medication. But most folks won't sit through a spinal tap if they don't have to.

[Trukinjp13]

If bumpstocks got moved to nfa status no one would buy them. They are garbage as far as I am concerned. So I agree with NRA stance of letting atf further investigate bumpstocks.

NRA tries to work with antis. They can not say the NRA are assholes. Bumpstocks get moved to nfa status. No one buys them anymore. What harm is that? At least they will not be banning anything. No bullshit backdoor legislation mixed in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSparks909]

This right here is why we cannot give an inch. We need to stand strong against ANY ban. Give them an inch and they WILL try to take a mile.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-more-gun-control

[SamAdams]

This right here is why we cannot give an inch. We need to stand strong against ANY ban. Give them an inch and they WILL try to take a mile.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-more-gun-control

I'd bet money that the antis wouldn't support a bill banning (or putting under the nfa) bumpstocks which also reaffirmed the right of citizens to own semi auto rifles. IMO the NRA and other pro 2A groups haven't put enough pressure on antis to openly voice their agenda.
It's also important that they don't allow new laws to be enacted in the heat of the moment. Let's say, entirely for the sake of argument, it later turns out that the shooter was somehow tied to jihadis. That would put a completely different spin on things. Americans would likely be even less inclined to support laws making it more difficult for them to have the means to defend themselves.

And, of course, there's the whole news cycle. If the N. Koreans do another nuke test soon and the U.S. attacks, most people won't be focused on Vegas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JV_]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354440-feinstein-no-law-would-have-stopped-las-vegas-gunman


Feinstein: No law would have stopped Las Vegas gunman

[RevolverRob]

This right here is why we cannot give an inch. We need to stand strong against ANY ban. Give them an inch and they WILL try to take a mile.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-more-gun-control

Everybody still ready to "negotiate" and trade bump-stocks for national reciprocity?

Write to your senators folks.


I'd bet money that the antis wouldn't support a bill banning (or putting under the nfa) bumpstocks which also reaffirmed the right of citizens to own semi auto rifles. IMO the NRA and other pro 2A groups haven't put enough pressure on antis to openly voice their agenda.
It's also important that they don't allow new laws to be enacted in the heat of the moment. Let's say, entirely for the sake of argument, it later turns out that the shooter was somehow tied to jihadis. That would put a completely different spin on things. Americans would likely be even less inclined to support laws making it more difficult for them to have the means to defend themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Precisely why I urged Senator Cornyn to 1) Not support the current bill. 2) Not rush to pass legislation to do "something".


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354440-feinstein-no-law-would-have-stopped-las-vegas-gunman

But banning bump-stocks will save the childrens!!!

[SamAdams]

- delete-




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[walker2713]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/08/steve-scalise-gun-control-bump-stocks-slippery-slope/

Never give an inch.....

[MSparks909]

I'd bet money that the antis wouldn't support a bill banning (or putting under the nfa) bumpstocks which also reaffirmed the right of citizens to own semi auto rifles. IMO the NRA and other pro 2A groups haven't put enough pressure on antis to openly voice their agenda.
It's also important that they don't allow new laws to be enacted in the heat of the moment. Let's say, entirely for the sake of argument, it later turns out that the shooter was somehow tied to jihadis. That would put a completely different spin on things. Americans would likely be even less inclined to support laws making it more difficult for them to have the means to defend themselves.

And, of course, there's the whole news cycle. If the N. Koreans do another nuke test soon and the U.S. attacks, most people won't be focused on Vegas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The ultimate agenda of anti's is civilian disarmament. There is no compromising with that mentality.

Sidebar, leaving bumpstocks and other rate of fire enhancements up to the ATF is also a terrible choice...that opens a very dangerous door to interpretation and arbitrary bans. No thanks.

[BillSWPA]

Not prepared to give an inch at all. However, I will trade inches for feet. We need a strategy that forces the other side to give something up. Just playing defense without an offensive strategy is a losing proposition.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kyle Reese]

We need a strategy that forces the other side to give something up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see the Democrats being open to ceding any portion of their civilian-disarmament agenda. They'll demand that our side give up a mile in exchange for nothing.

[critter]

If bumpstocks got moved to nfa status no one would buy them. They are garbage as far as I am concerned. So I agree with NRA stance of letting atf further investigate bumpstocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NFA status is a no go for me. I think they're pretty much a novelty (or shit) as well, however, that 'creating law through interpretation' by an unelected, unaccountable body is yet another precedent for an unconstitutional navigation around the 2A. But, I'm of the opinion that We the People should have select fire weapons, Apaches, Abrams, Drones and whatever else the government has... ;-)

[Trukinjp13]

NFA status is a no go for me. I think they're pretty much a novelty (or shit) as well, however, that 'creating law through interpretation' by an unelected, unaccountable body is yet another precedent for an unconstitutional navigation around the 2A. But, I'm of the opinion that We the People should have select fire weapons, Apaches, Abrams, Drones and whatever else the government has... ;-)

I do not think the antis want anything to do with a nfa bumpstock. But if the nra tries to agree with the nfa list. At least they tried to negotiate. I also want nothing banned. But I never see a world with automatic weapons being legalized. So maybe that is why I am okay with putting junk on a list.


Maybe I am just pissed that bumpstocks are causing this much grief. Maybe I am just pissed that this pos loser has opened the door for legal law abiding gun owners. That this guy was not a legal gun owner. That he was a murderous mouth breather.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

I don't see the Democrats being open to ceding any portion of their civilian-disarmament agenda. They'll demand that our side give up a mile in exchange for nothing.

I do not understand why we need to care what the other side is willing to do. Last time I checked, Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency. We are the ones who get to dictate the terms. The only decision they have is whether to accept those terms and get something, or reject those terms and still face a (lowered) potential of losing ground.

[Kyle Reese]

I do not understand why we need to care what the other side is willing to do. Last time I checked, Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency. We are the ones who get to dictate the terms. The only decision they have is whether to accept those terms and get something, or reject those terms and still face a (lowered) potential of losing ground.

I agree with you. I just hope that the Republicans don’t fold like a cheap suit and give the Democrats a win at our expense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

I agree with you. I just hope that the Republicans don’t fold like a cheap suit and give the Democrats a win at our expense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Given the typical defeatist attitude of the Republican party, that is a very, very valid concern.

I do not like the idea of having the BATFE regulate bump stocks out of existence for two reasons:

1) It allows an administrative agency that could at some point in the future be controlled by the other side to make such decisions with little or no accountability.

2) It risks giving the other side what they want in a way that does not force a concession in return. Anything we do has to be done in a way that does not depend on trusting the other side.

[SamAdams]

One thing that seems very odd. The shooter was a multi millionaire. He was a high roller gambler who was in a very expensive suite. His brother said the $100,000 the shooter wired to his girlfriend was no big deal, because they are a wealthy family. That's not a lot of money for them. He had a clean record. It is alleged that he built up a considerable arms collection over many years. Why would such a man bring bump stock equipped rifles instead of just reliable full auto nfa rifles for such as task ? It appears that he could easily afford nfa weapons. Most of us here agree that bump stocks are a novelty item. Why would this guy bother with them ? This is puzzling & I haven't found any explanations offered for this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[NEPAKevin]

I do not understand why we need to care what the other side is willing to do. Last time I checked, Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency. We are the ones who get to dictate the terms. The only decision they have is whether to accept those terms and get something, or reject those terms and still face a (lowered) potential of losing ground.

There are more than fifty percent registered Republicans holding seats in the Senate and House. That they have control of the Senate and the House seems to be contradicted by their inability to pass any major legislation which required a unified party.

[orionz06]

One thing that seems very odd. The shooter was a multi millionaire. He was a high roller gambler who was in a very expensive suite. His brother said the $100,000 the shooter wired to his girlfriend was no big deal, because they are a wealthy family. That's not a lot of money for them. He had a clean record. It is alleged that he built up a considerable arms collection over many years. Why would such a man bring bump stock equipped rifles instead of just reliable full auto nfa rifles for such as task ? It appears that he could easily afford nfa weapons. Most of us here agree that bump stocks are a novelty item. Why would this guy bother with them ? This is puzzling & I haven't found any explanations offered for this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Hassle. The reality is the bump stocks fill the full auto void just fine for the owners of them. Having a lotta cash doesn't mean he's gonna spend it on what we'd view as the right way to do things. Lots of people with money buy lots of dumb shit.

[SamAdams]

And from police reports the guy wrote out ballistics info on the piece of paper found ?
All the shots I heard on videos were full auto, not single shots.
The whole thing is puzzling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Trukinjp13]

And from police reports the guy wrote out ballistics info on the piece of paper found ?
All the shots I heard on videos were full auto, not single shots.
The whole thing is puzzling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

My take is the security guard spoiled his party. His plan got porked when they showed up in ten minutes. Bitched out and splattered his brains on the floor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sensei]

There are more than fifty percent registered Republicans holding seats in the Senate and House. That they have control of the Senate and the House seems to be contradicted by their inability to pass any major legislation which required a unified party.

The GOP disarray is not limited to Congress. The entire party is in shambles with name calling and finger pointing emanating from the Executive and Legislative Branches. It is nearly impossible to defend against progressive advance (much less push an agenda) with this level of dysfunction.

[critter]

The GOP disarray is not limited to Congress. The entire party is in shambles with name calling and finger pointing emanating from the Executive and Legislative Branches. It is nearly impossible to defend against progressive advance (much less push an agenda) with this level of dysfunction.

I assert that the dysfunction is caused by majority of them being self serving sociopaths and traitors deserving of exactly what that label entails. Ballots or bullets. The choice becomes tougher with each passing year.

[BillSWPA]

There are more than fifty percent registered Republicans holding seats in the Senate and House. That they have control of the Senate and the House seems to be contradicted by their inability to pass any major legislation which required a unified party.

Does the other side have any better ability to push an agenda? They cane vary close to failing to enact Obamacare with what was almost a filibuster proof majority in the Sanate.

Unfortunately Republican spintering and general dysfunction is a reality, and that is one reason I think a combined bill bannunb bump stocks (with our language, not their language so we avoid unintended consequences) and providing at least national reciprocity and possibly other benefits for us is a likely way to get something accomplished. If we can draw a few red state Dem0ocrats to support it, we make up for the few Republicans who refuse to do so.

[RoyGBiv]

A guy running against Paul Ryan in the primary....

“Congress shouldn’t let people who misunderstood the latest James Bond movie write our gun laws”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLcRQCIET5A

[SamAdams]

The GOP disarray is not limited to Congress. The entire party is in shambles with name calling and finger pointing emanating from the Executive and Legislative Branches. It is nearly impossible to defend against progressive advance (much less push an agenda) with this level of dysfunction.

Some assume there are two parties in D.C. On the other hand, the case can be made that there is only one demorepublicrap party, despite the rhetoric. Their agenda is robbing the public and continuously expanding the size and scope of government. The Swamp is made up of all of them. Little wonder that they don't intend to drain it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Trukinjp13]

This guy is great. Wisconsin people are ignorant. Ryan is a quack. This dude is pretty solid if you listen to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For Sam's post - there was a recent book, whose name escapes me, that documented the ties between the upper level of elites of both parties in Washington. They are financially tied, give each other and their kids and relatives posh jobs, support businesses that donate to them, etc. Pretty good read.

[ralph]

Some assume there are two parties in D.C. On the other hand, the case can be made that there is only one demorepublicrap party, despite the rhetoric. Their agenda is robbing the public and continuously expanding the size and scope of government. The Swamp is made up of all of them. Little wonder that they don't intend to drain it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

That sums it up very nicely..Anybody who believes that there is a actual difference between the two partys, Well, I got a bridge in NYC for sale..cheap.. The truth is, there is very little difference between the two, Really what we, as a country need is to throw ALL of them out,(by force if nessesary) and start over....

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

That sums it up very nicely..Anybody who believes that there is a actual difference between the two partys, Well, I got a bridge in NYC for sale..cheap.. The truth is, there is very little difference between the two, Really what we, as a country need is to throw ALL of them out,(by force if nessesary) and start over....

This is called the illusion of choice...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_wjQtfhZQ

[MSparks909]

This is important. Watch this video and contact your representatives. This is a *VERY* slippery slope.


https://youtu.be/sCLoIorYguU

[BillSWPA]

Senator Pat Toomey's response to my recent email:

"Thank you for contacting me about national firearms policy in the wake of the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. As someone who has been a leader in sensible, bipartisan efforts to expand background checks for gun purchases and stop terrorists from purchasing firearms, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
On October 1, 2017, America suffered the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. The shooter, Stephen Paddock, opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on thousands of concertgoers at an outdoor music festival. He killed 58 people and wounded over 500.
Like all Americans, I was horrified to learn about the mass murder of innocent civilians. The heinous attack in Las Vegas was a tragedy and the work of a madman. I am grateful for the brave first responders and good Samaritans who acted swiftly and selflessly, charging towards danger to protect others, as well as the medical professionals who continue to care for the wounded.
Since the massacre, there have been renewed calls for legislation to confront gun violence. Sadly, this attack is not the only mass shooting we have seen in recent years, and my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones. I believe that Congress can and should take steps to address this issue.
In the days following the Orlando massacre, I was one of the few Republican Senators who spoke on the Senate floor about the need to stop terrorists from buying guns and I voted for bipartisan legislation to bar those on the terrorist "No-Fly List" from purchasing firearms. I also introduced my own legislation, the Fighting Terrorism and Upholding Due Process Act (S. 3069), which would give the Attorney General the flexibility to stop any terrorist from purchasing a firearm, as well as the authority to establish a court-reviewed list of suspected terrorists, such as individuals on the terrorist "No-Fly List," who would be barred from lawfully buying a gun. My proposal would provide two layers of due process: (1) meaningful judicial review to help ensure that innocent Americans are not wrongfully placed on a suspected terrorist list; and (2) for those who are still mistakenly barred from buying a gun, the ability to challenge such a decision in court (including receiving compensation for attorney's fees if the challenge is successful).
Further, in 2013, I introduced a bipartisan amendment, along with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649). Our amendment had three parts. The first two parts were designed to make it more difficult for criminals and dangerously mentally ill persons to acquire firearms. Specifically, the first part would have improved state compliance with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The second part would have expanded background checks for gun sales to include commercial sales at gun shows or through the Internet. The third part of our amendment would have provided law abiding citizens with expanded opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.
I share your concerns regarding the role of firearms in the tragedy in Las Vegas. We must work together to forge a bipartisan consensus on gun safety, rather than talk past one another with partisan rhetoric. In my view, keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, convicted criminals, and the dangerously mentally ill is not gun control, but a common sense public safety measure that is fully consistent with my strong support of Second Amendment rights. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues to find sensible, bipartisan solutions to address gun safety.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance."

I had high hopes for Toomey when he was first elected, but this is not the first time he has been a disappointment.

It looks like concerns expressed in this thread about Republicans being willing to agree to much more than they should are being validated.

[Mike C]

Senator Pat Toomey's response to my recent email:

"Thank you for contacting me about national firearms policy in the wake of the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. As someone who has been a leader in sensible, bipartisan efforts to expand background checks for gun purchases and stop terrorists from purchasing firearms, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
On October 1, 2017, America suffered the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. The shooter, Stephen Paddock, opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on thousands of concertgoers at an outdoor music festival. He killed 58 people and wounded over 500.
Like all Americans, I was horrified to learn about the mass murder of innocent civilians. The heinous attack in Las Vegas was a tragedy and the work of a madman. I am grateful for the brave first responders and good Samaritans who acted swiftly and selflessly, charging towards danger to protect others, as well as the medical professionals who continue to care for the wounded.
Since the massacre, there have been renewed calls for legislation to confront gun violence. Sadly, this attack is not the only mass shooting we have seen in recent years, and my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones. I believe that Congress can and should take steps to address this issue.
In the days following the Orlando massacre, I was one of the few Republican Senators who spoke on the Senate floor about the need to stop terrorists from buying guns and I voted for bipartisan legislation to bar those on the terrorist "No-Fly List" from purchasing firearms. I also introduced my own legislation, the Fighting Terrorism and Upholding Due Process Act (S. 3069), which would give the Attorney General the flexibility to stop any terrorist from purchasing a firearm, as well as the authority to establish a court-reviewed list of suspected terrorists, such as individuals on the terrorist "No-Fly List," who would be barred from lawfully buying a gun. My proposal would provide two layers of due process: (1) meaningful judicial review to help ensure that innocent Americans are not wrongfully placed on a suspected terrorist list; and (2) for those who are still mistakenly barred from buying a gun, the ability to challenge such a decision in court (including receiving compensation for attorney's fees if the challenge is successful).
Further, in 2013, I introduced a bipartisan amendment, along with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649). Our amendment had three parts. The first two parts were designed to make it more difficult for criminals and dangerously mentally ill persons to acquire firearms. Specifically, the first part would have improved state compliance with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The second part would have expanded background checks for gun sales to include commercial sales at gun shows or through the Internet. The third part of our amendment would have provided law abiding citizens with expanded opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.
I share your concerns regarding the role of firearms in the tragedy in Las Vegas. We must work together to forge a bipartisan consensus on gun safety, rather than talk past one another with partisan rhetoric. In my view, keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, convicted criminals, and the dangerously mentally ill is not gun control, but a common sense public safety measure that is fully consistent with my strong support of Second Amendment rights. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues to find sensible, bipartisan solutions to address gun safety.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance."

I had high hopes for Toomey when he was first elected, but this is not the first time he has been a disappointment.

It looks like concerns expressed in this thread about Republicans being willing to agree to much more than they should are being validated.

I keep seeing and hearing the phrase, "common sense" thrown around but I've yet to find any. It looks like this year is going to suck ass after all.

[JV_]

MA is set to pass a "bump stock" ban, it just passed their House.

[critter]

I keep seeing and hearing the phrase, "common sense" thrown around but I've yet to find any. It looks like this year is going to suck ass after all.

"common sense" is the neolegalese for "citizens should have no means of defense against our tyranny."

[Mike C]

"common sense" is the neolegalese for "citizens should have no means of defense against our tyranny."

Dude, I am starting to feel this way. I wish I could find some news to give me some comfort but I guess my cold Guinness will have to do because everything I am seeing is negative as hell. The stupidity is really mind blowing.

[Grey]

This is important. Watch this video and contact your representatives. This is a *VERY* slippery slope.


https://youtu.be/sCLoIorYguU

All my reps are Dems... FML.

[SamAdams]

Call, especially Repubs and let them know you'll vote them out for helping to rush through new gun regulations before all the Vegas facts are in. These same bums said they couldn't do anything about dumping obummer'care' .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JV_]

If you call the right offices, they may not even remember that you called by the evening:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/11/pharmacist-congress-drug-delivery/


“At first it’s cool, and then you realize, I’m filling some drugs that are for some pretty serious health problems as well. And these are the people that are running the country,” Kim said, listing treatments for conditions like diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

[Cory]

I emailed my Florida rep about the proposal in the MAC video. I'm not in the same district as the clown who presented the bill, but I told my rep that I would put in large amounts of effort to ensure any of my representatives that support gun control bills will not re-elected. I also gave some reasons that I fill the bill will be ineffective, and only harm legal gun owners.

-Cory

[MistWolf]

I would like to point out that the rate of fire for a semi-automatic AR is the same as it would be if it were full automatic

[TiroFijo]

NSSF/SAAMI Call for ATF Review of Bump Fire Stocks

https://www.nssf.org/nssfsaami-joint-statement-las-vegas-tragedy/

...I would assume it's a done deal

[SamAdams]

NSSF/SAAMI Call for ATF Review of Bump Fire Stocks

https://www.nssf.org/nssfsaami-joint-statement-las-vegas-tragedy/

...I would assume it's a done deal

What's a 'done deal' ? NRA has also asked that ATF evaluates whether bump stocks are legal under existing law (they are).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TiroFijo]

ATF rebranding the bump fire stocks as illegal...

[SamAdams]

That'll take some creativity as they found them 'legal', then 'illegal', and then 'legal' again.
Guess we're a nation of royal decrees rather than law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[critter]

That'll take some creativity as they found them 'legal', then 'illegal', and then 'legal' again.
Guess we're a nation of royal decrees rather than law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

"With this stamp, I thee wed." -- Mockery Master Patrick Henry.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

WaPo op-ed on gun control - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2017/10/11/what-virginias-candidates-for-governor-are-getting-wrong-about-gun-control/?utm_term=.622f560de256

Surprising for them but they have had some reasonable pieces lately.


We also need to be honest about the purpose of the Second Amendment. More precisely, that it does not exist for “hunting” or “recreation” but as a sort of insurance policy against tyrannical government; the ultimate fail-safe, if you will, for the people to defend their natural rights. On that note, we should ask our left-leaning friends — who habitually decry the government’s past slaughter of Native Americans, protest state brutality against people of color and swear Donald Trump is instituting a Fourth Reich — why they would be willing to let Trump’s government diminish their only means of self-defense.

Now how about that Chuck, Nancy, etc.? There have been similar 'progressive' and African-American/Civil Rights analysis of the 2nd Amend. They don't usually penetrate to the gun banner hierarchy.

[Cory]

The response I received from representative. He is also a Florida Republican. My email to him gave a few reasons why he should not support the bill, and stated I would put in large amounts of effort to see that any of my elected officials who support the bill are not be re-elected.

I am satisfied with his reply.


October 12, 2017
Mr. Uxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for contacting me regarding our Second Amendment.*
The right to safe and responsible firearms ownership is part of America's Constitution, and continues to contribute to individual and public safety.* Every year, women and men use firearms to defend themselves against attackers.* I adamantly oppose any additional regulations or laws that that would limit the ability of Americans to defend their families, or that would make firearms more difficult to obtain by law-abiding citizens.*
During the time I have been privileged to serve in elected office, I have voted and will continue to vote to defend the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.*
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.* I am honored to serve the people of Florida's 11th Congressional District as your U.S. Representative.

Your servant,

Daniel Webster
Member of Congress

-Cory

EDIT: The asterisk (*) isn't in the email, its something from copy/paste.

[Grey]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-pass-hr3999

Sign.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[joshs]

This interview with Cox addresses many of the questions people raised in this thread regarding NRA strategy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW5_kZLjsJE

Full Disclosure: I work for NRA-ILA.

[hufnagel]

could you TL;DR the vid for me? Any time yeager's face comes on I have the urge to look at hillary. In other words, I don't like him that much.

[MrCollector]

" I have no love for gimmicky gun crap,but Feinstein never regulates just one item in her bills. Any "Bump Stock" legislation coming from her office will be a rebadged AWB 2.0. The bill then turns into a negotiation- one with the opposition having the advantage. Given the GOPs trumpeted failure to replace Obamacare they'll be feeling the heat to respond to this tragedy- or the party risks being viewed as a group of bumbling fools.

While there'd be some compromises made on the finer points, accepting this means kissing ARs and high cap mags goodbye along with the "Bump Stocks".

This. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that gun control legislation is never limited to just one specific item. It's always a broad attack on our gun rights.

[45dotACP]

IL attempted to intro a broadly worded ban that applied to "anything that can increase the rate of fire".

House put the kibosh on it thank God.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Sal Picante]

IL attempted to intro a broadly worded ban that applied to "anything that can increase the rate of fire".

House put the kibosh on it thank God.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I was just coming here to say that... Local-level politics is super important here...

[ralph]

NSSF/SAAMI Call for ATF Review of Bump Fire Stocks

https://www.nssf.org/nssfsaami-joint-statement-las-vegas-tragedy/

...I would assume it's a done deal

Hardly... in a memo from GOA, they noted that the ATF has already told congress that it's not their job to write,and pass new laws.. That's congress's job..and right now with the whole Russia unrainum thing blowing up in the dems face,about who knew what, HRC,and the DNC pointing fingers at each other, the whole Russia thing collasping on the dems heads good luck getting this passed..it's not going anywhere..