Trump orders bump stock ban

[Grey]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/?utm_term=.e3aa6fff4216

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Mitch]

No issues with me, as long as it’s packaged with CCW reciprocity and eliminating gun free zones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

I'm sure he, or one or more of his minions deputies was in direct contact with the NRA to try to find something they could use as a peace offering which wouldn't cause a huge upset among the 2A base. I imagine that other such announcements will follow.

[Casual Friday]

Bad idea.

[Casual Friday]

I'm sure he, or one or more of his minions deputies was in direct contact with the NRA to try to find something they could use as a peace offering which wouldn't cause a huge upset among the 2A base. I imagine that other such announcements will follow.

That's the problem. No ground should have been given.

[blues]

That's the problem. No ground should have been given.

Let him know. It wasn't me. There was no collusion. I'm totally vindicated.

[Stephanie B]

No issues with me, as long as it’s packaged with CCW reciprocity and eliminating gun free zones.

I keep asking my gun-control friends what are they willing to give me in exchange for my giving up what I can now do legally. So far, no answer.

[Stephanie B]

I'm sure he, or one or more of his minions deputies was in direct contact with the NRA to try to find something they could use as a peace offering which wouldn't cause a huge upset among the 2A base. I imagine that other such announcements will follow.

Mr. "World-Class Negotiator" at work! :rolleyes:

[Casual Friday]

Let him know. It wasn't me. There was no collusion. I'm totally vindicated.

I tagged him in a Facebook post. He'll probably see it later tonight after dinner.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Yet another case of say one thing and actually DO another.

[NEPAKevin]

I tagged him in a Facebook post. He'll probably see it later tonight after dinner.

Everyone knows that the SOP for contacting POTUS is Twitter at 0300 eastern standard.

[jrm]

No issues with me, as long as itÂ’s packaged with CCW reciprocity and eliminating gun free zones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No dice this is just going to be some good old fashioned executive action. If Obama were doing it the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how itÂ’s unconstitional would be coming from Donny T himself. Oh well I suspect most knew he wasnÂ’t really 2a or concerned about the constitution when he was the lesser of two evils.

[NEPAKevin]

Hey Donald, is Vlad. You know, Russian prostitutes are best in world but new mistress spends rubles like they grow on trees! I have in US under shell company warehouse filled with bump stocks. Please ban asap so price go up. Thanks buddy.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Trump is not really committed to the RKBA issues but cares mostly about his own image. Whatever appeals to him to make a 'deal' that looks good - he will do. Don't hold your breath that any trades will be made - as the HPA or reciprocity for a bump stock ban. Trump doesn't think that deeply, I'm afraid to say.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm sure the "at least he's not Hillary" crowd is already spinning this as a win and evidence of what a mastermind he his.

[Peally]

Trump is a flip flopping retard? You don't say...

[ranger]

Will be interested to see how this plays out over the next 4 years; meanwhile, yes, at least he is not Hillary or Obama.

[CCT125US]

No issues with me, as long as it’s packaged with CCW reciprocity and eliminating gun free zones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may be worthy of a thread split, but here goes. Not directed Mitch, but PF in general. What would be an acceptable tit for tat? For example, I am really tired of hearing we need to do something. I think my new response needs to be a question of what rights will be returned to lawful gun owners in exchange. Anti proposes "reasonable" gun control (whatever that means). Cool idea, what do you suggest be restored as far as rights to the law abiding? I doubt very few could even come up with one idea.


For starters:

National Reciprocity
Reduction of gun free zones
HPA
Removal of SBRs from NFA registry
Reduction / elimination of the ATF import point system
Reduction in FFL licensing fees

I realize this is simply a thought exercise...... but feel free to chime in.

[critter]

I'm sure the "at least he's not Hillary" crowd is already spinning this as a win and evidence of what a mastermind he his.

lol.. well, I'm still glad .. very glad... extremely glad... exceedingly glad he's not Hillary but I'll unspin this as the dumbass pandering move it actually appears to be.

[Joe in PNG]

Dumb move. There's nothing gained, but plenty lost by doing this.

[Peally]

Will be interested to see how this plays out over the next 4 years; meanwhile, yes, at least he is not Hillary or Obama.

"He's not Hillary or Obama" doesn't make me feel any less apprehensive about him whatsoever. He's also not Stalin but it doesn't make him any less of a village well of derp.

He will do plenty of damage before he's out, not just with guns.

[willie]

Who's surprised that he's throwing them a bone? I suspect that this incident has put more pressure on him than any other since the election. The pressure has just begun. Compromises will be unilateral with us getting the weenie.

[Peally]

I'm just glad we're banning those evil stocks that had literally nothing to do with the recent killing. We need a common sense approach to control and this is a good one sided compromise for the children.

Maybe the chemtrail conspiracy guys are right, it's hard to explain how much full retard derp exists out there any other way.

[Joe in PNG]

Maybe the chemtrail conspiracy guys are right, it's hard to explain how much full retard derp exists out there any other way.

You could also blame GMO gluten.

[JAD]

. What would be an acceptable tit for tat?

I want none of their tit and all of my tat. I see no reason to give up anything to get those things.

[ralph]

I think before I get too excited, I'll wait and see what happens, after all, this is from The Washington Post..not exactly a beacon of truth..

[Peally]

You could also blame GMO gluten.

Or both

My god...

[Ichiban]

23913

[Grey]

I think before I get too excited, I'll wait and see what happens, after this is from The Washington Post..not exactly a beacon of truth..It's a video of him at a news conference... not sure how You think that is falsified....

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[ralph]

It's a video of him at a news conference... not sure how You think that is falsified....

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

My bad..I did'nt watch it, when I saw the source was the post, I just figured It'd be some sort of lie, so, I did'nt bother..Still, I'll wait and see, rather than get all worked up about it.

Those that are on Trump about this, I have to ask, what would say, a Bush, or Rubio, Kasich, do had they won? Like it or not, we will be thrown under the bus, once the Republicans figure that there may be more votes in it for them if they go anti-gun..It's just a matter of time..

[PNWTO]

Firstly, it is just a memo at this point so that is essentially a cheap excuse to say that is being worked on before assigning blame elsewhere. The Trumps are getting roasted by teenagers at this point so offering a red herring should be expected.
(http://theweek.com/speedreads/756460/parkland-shooting-survivor-david-hogg-swats-down-donald-trump-jr-immature-rude-inhumane)

I don't see how this surprises anyone. Something had to happen and Trump can use it to see his name more and more. I'm sure he'll change his position on it withing two days and say he was forced into by the "liberuls" or whatever mythological entity is appropriate to monger on about. Shit like this happens when people ignore nuances and refuse to talk openly and maturely, instead screaming "no compromise" with one foot in the grave...

Trump would happily support an AWB if it meant he could feel the attention a little bit longer. Hell... at this point it would not surprise me to see GOP representatives support such a total ban in an effort to save face for reelection.

[-ad-]

This may be worthy of a thread split, but here goes.

How about removing schools from being gun free zones, and allowing teachers, and guards to be armed? Might actually help to reduce the amount of mass shootings that occur (or at least limit the amount of casualties).

I'm not saying all teachers should be armed, but I believe there should be an option for those who choose to have a chance to defend themselves and their class.

From what I've observed, it seems gun free zones are the main target for these cowards, so why not make it harder for them.

[Zincwarrior]

It's a video of him at a news conference... not sure how You think that is falsified....

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Fake news!:cool:

[BobLoblaw]

Fuck the bump stocks. The only thing that bothers me about this is the baboon folded under pressure.

[Sensei]

Dumb move. There's nothing gained, but plenty lost by doing this.

What is being lost? I’m asking because I don’t own a bump stock, never seen one fired, and I have never been a member of a range that allows them. In fact, the only time I’ve ever seen one is on a video at a gun show - chicks in bikinis firing them with their dirty pellows bouncing all over the place (the only benefit to bump stocks that I’ve seen so far)

From a legal perspective they seem to be a clear attempt to circumvent Section 2.1.6 of the NFA Handbook definition of machinegun as “weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.” Manual being bolded as they key word that could easily be interpreted as a voluntary actuation of the trigger. From a practical perspective, they seem retarded as they degrade the accuracy of lead going down range which means safety is also degraded; the reason why every range in my area bans them.

So, someone tell me what we are losing and why I should want to die on this political hill?

[BillSWPA]

Bump stocks were banned under generally pro-gun (with exceptions) George W Bush.

Bump stocks were unbanned under B. Hussein Obama, the same dude who gave us Fast & Furious, and who has done everything he could to try to ban guns.

Both Presidents did exactly the right thing for their own goals, as did Trump.

Why?

Because both Bush and Obama knew that if bump stocks were easily obtainable, someone was going to do what ultimately happened in Las Vegas.

Bush banned them because he know that if something like that ever happened, there would be loss of life and calls for more gun control. Obama - the guy who tried to drive up death statistics with Fast & Furious, unbanned them for exactly the same reason.

Do you know what else Obama was really good at?

Getting conservatives to overreact to something in a way that makes them look ridiculous.

Remember all his talk about regulating guns through regulations, the reactions it prompted, and the ultimate regulations which really were not that much?

Bump stocks are becoming the same thing.

We have discussed bump stocks before. NO ONE has ever put forth a legitimate reason fortheir existence. We all know that good marksmanship is accomplished by holding the gun as stationary as possible while shooting. We all also know that the Las Vegas shooter could likely have done more damage than he did with aimed semiautomatic fire, applying proper shooting techniques, than he did with a bump stock.

A good argumet that a bump stock is protected by the Second Amendment simply cannot be made. In fact, a far better argument could be made for true full auto weapons, or even belt-fed machine guns or artillery pieces, than could be made for a bump stock. Full auto weapons have a military purpose, while bump stocks do not. Yet, in order to get Heller through the Supreme Court, some way to get off the slippery slope leading to anything and everything being allowed had to be provided, and that way off the slippery slope led to certain things - like full auto - being thrown under the bus.

Despite all this, many are willing to die on the hill of bump stocks. I am not. I am generally opposed to all gun control, but if this bump stock ban can somehow be used to help us achieve far more important goals, I am all for it.

[Sensei]

Fuck the bump stocks. The only thing that bothers me about this is the baboon folded under pressure.

I’m not sure that is accurate. This seems more of a diversionary tactic. He is proposing something that has broad-based appeal across the country. Moreover, he is suggesting that it be done in a manner that will not require a single vote in Congress. It may turn out to be a reasonable diversion to get us past the midterms. I kinda doubt it will work, but we’ll see.

Had he proposed something meaningful, I’d agree.

[Joe in PNG]

So, someone tell me what we are losing and why I should want to die on this political hill?

Political capital. He's not going to win over the Left by doing this, and is going to lose a lot of pro-gun voters.

[critter]

Despite all this, many are willing to die on the hill of bump stocks. I am not. I am generally opposed to all gun control, but if this bump stock ban can somehow be used to help us achieve far more important goals, I am all for it.

I actually agree, but what can this help us to achieve? It appears as just giving the delusional dipshits something -- throwing chum to the wannabe sharks who just drive themselves into a more frenetic feeding frenzy whenever they sense a minor victory. It emboldens them where a good old fashioned "fuck you" (as campaign promised no less) would be in order. Admittedly, I'm not much of a diplomat. This gun control crap always looks just like a nail to me.

[41magfan]

When was the DOJ given lawful authority to ban anything?

[PNWTO]

... and is going to lose a lot of pro-gun voters.

And he'll further push away those legislators who hold actual conservative values instead of the GOP Uber Alles policy.

[LittleLebowski]

I’m not sure that is accurate. This seems more of a diversionary tactic. He is proposing something that has broad-based appeal across the country. Moreover, he is suggesting that it be done in a manner that will not require a single vote in Congress. It may turn out to be a reasonable diversion to get us past the midterms. I kinda doubt it will work, but we’ll see.

Had he proposed something meaningful, I’d agree.

Concur with this and your previous statement. We should hang out, I’ll bring my SR-30 :cool:

[Drang]

Think the ban will include string and belt lops?

[BillSWPA]

I actually agree, but what can this help us to achieve? It appears as just giving the delusional dipshits something -- throwing chum to the wannabe sharks who just drive themselves into a more frenetic feeding frenzy whenever they sense a minor victory. It emboldens them where a good old fashioned "fuck you" (as campaign promised no less) would be in order. Admittedly, I'm not much of a diplomat. This gun control crap always looks just like a nail to me.

With the vast majority of gun control proposals, I would be of the opinion that no ground should be given.

Modern semiauot rifles, standard capacity magazines, concealed carry, keeping obstacles out of the path of those purchasing guns, etc. all serve a valid purpose. We can all explain that purpose so that anyone willing to really listen can understand it, even if the anti-gun people cannot.

While many are trying to shift the issue to mental health, I am hesitant to go too far down that road. In NJ, you cannot get a Firearms Purchaser ID Card if you have ever taken an anti-anxiety medication, and I do not ever want to get to the point where people cannot seek help without risking their rights. So, I want to be very careful about the ground given here.

What is different about bump stocks is that people are defending something for which they are completely incapable of presenting a legitimate reason for its existence.

What is the problem with this?

When we argue so vehemently for something for which we cannot present a legitimate reason for its existence, then who is ever going to listen to what we have to say about standard capacity magazines, modern semiauto rifles, concealed carry, etc.?

By defending bump stocks, people are severely damaging their credibility when the defend stuff that genuinely needs defended.

Expressed differently, we have to admit when we are wrong in order to have credibility when we are right.

[Trukinjp13]

Okay I have a question about this. Is a straight bumpstock ban better then the back door bumpstock ban the Democrats/NRA were putting together? Theirs had a lot of openings for further bans on guns. Vs this to me is just bumpstocks.

Im just looking fir a glass half full here. Giving in is shit but maybe it is not as bad as what was coming from the NRA caving trying to get their shit passed.

Personally as I have said before I will not negotiate with terrorists. But I am still willing to try and see something useful or less fucked come our way.
(If that makes sense?) their is a reason I am not a politician after all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sensei]

Political capital. He's not going to win over the Left by doing this, and is going to lose a lot of pro-gun voters.

First, he is not losing political capital by doing something that 80% of the public wants (https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/12/poll-strong-majorities-republicans-support-various-gun-control-measures-including-banning-bump-stocks/). To put it in perspective, bump stocks’ popularity polls somewhere between genital herpes and personal injury lawyers.

Second, define “a lot.” 63 million people voted for Trump despite the affairs, shady business deals, policy flip flops, grab’em by the kitty cat, etc. Despite tolerating all that shit, people are going to jump off the MAGA Express in 2020 over bump stocks? That is the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Man, I really do not recognize the Republican Party.

[BehindBlueI's]

Dumb move. There's nothing gained, but plenty lost by doing this.

Not really. The number of people who actually care about bumpstocks are pretty small. Even on gun forums there's plenty of folks who are ok with banning them, or at best neutral. The people who really care are the same ones who believe Democrats are Satanic spawn eating our country and will always find some reason to hold their nose and vote for him again as the "Not Hillary" candidate, or whoever the Antichrist is the next election with a (D) behind their name. He actually loses nothing from his base and gets some atta-boys from the swing voter/moderates.

[Joe in PNG]

First, he is not losing political capital by doing something that 80% of the public wants (https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/12/poll-strong-majorities-republicans-support-various-gun-control-measures-including-banning-bump-stocks/). To put it in perspective, bump stocks’ popularity polls somewhere between genital herpes and personal injury lawyers.

Second, define “a lot.” 63 million people voted for Trump despite the affairs, shady business deals, policy flip flops, grab’em by the kitty cat, etc. Despite tolerating all that shit, people are going to jump off the MAGA Express in 2020 over bump stocks? That is the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Man, I really do not recognize the Republican Party.

Gun people tend to not forgive and forget any sort of political compromise- notice the two current threads about Optics Planet (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29932-OpticsPlanet-halts-sale-of-standard-capacity-magazines)and X-Products (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29936-X-Products-wants-you-to-register-their-shitty-magazines).
There's still people who haven't forgiven S&W for the Clinton compromise, and that's several owners ago. This will cost him votes from that group.
The No Compromise crowd doesn't care about the uselessness of the thing, but the principle.

However, what votes does he gain from the Antifa/pink hat brigade? Very few to none. Most want a full out gun ban, followed by Trump committing hair-kari.

[Joe in PNG]

Not really. The number of people who actually care about bumpstocks are pretty small. Even on gun forums there's plenty of folks who are ok with banning them, or at best neutral. The people who really care are the same ones who believe Democrats are Satanic spawn eating our country and will always find some reason to hold their nose and vote for him again as the "Not Hillary" candidate, or whoever the Antichrist is the next election with a (D) behind their name. He actually loses nothing from his base and gets some atta-boys from the swing voter/moderates.

See my other response.

[BillSWPA]

Question for everyone defending bump stocks: how many of you are comfortable on a shooting range with the guy next to you turning money into smoke with a bump stock?

Keep in mind that unlike true full auto, some movement of the gun is intentionally being permitted to allow the bump stock to function.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSparks909]

Well, at least I got one while they were cheap.

23920

[Joe in PNG]

Question for everyone defending bump stocks: how many of you are comfortable on a shooting range with the guy next to you turning money into smoke with a bump stock?


I'm hardly comfortable on a shooting range when the guy next to me is shooting a standard, unmodified handgun, so not really a good point. Should "makes you feel comfortable" be a legal standard for firearms ownership? Because there's a whole lot of people not comfortable with the idea of regular people owning any guns at all.

It's the principle of the matter- should the president be allowed to dictate what is and isn't allowed for firearms? And why stop at useless bump stocks- does the public really need to be allowed useless AR-15's? They're not that good for hunting, and you can use other guns for home defense. But does the public really need high capacity magazines for their pistols? Or arm braces? Or hollowpoint bullets?

[BehindBlueI's]

Gun people tend to not forgive and forget any sort of political compromise- notice the two current threads about Optics Planet (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29932-OpticsPlanet-halts-sale-of-standard-capacity-magazines)and X-Products (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29936-X-Products-wants-you-to-register-their-shitty-magazines).
There's still people who haven't forgiven S&W for the Clinton compromise, and that's several owners ago. This will cost him votes from that group.
The No Compromise crowd doesn't care about the uselessness of the thing, but the principle.

However, what votes does he gain from the Antifa/pink hat brigade? Very few to none. Most want a full out gun ban, followed by Trump committing hair-kari.

So what are the "gun people" going to do? Stay home and let that even more "gun-grabby Demoncrat" win? Sure. Boycotts aren't the same, there's eleventy-bajillion places to buy your magazines and bullets. Once primaries are over, you have two realistic choices, and not making a decision doesn't mean you don't have to live with one or the other.

[BehindBlueI's]

Question for everyone defending bump stocks: how many of you are comfortable on a shooting range with the guy next to you turning money into smoke with a bump stock?

Keep in mind that unlike true full auto, some movement of the gun is intentionally being permitted to allow the bump stock to function.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does if flip the muzzle up range? Because if not, what's the difference?

[Joe in PNG]

So what are the "gun people" going to do? Stay home and let that even more "gun-grabby Demoncrat" win? Sure. Boycotts aren't the same, there's eleventy-bajillion places to buy your magazines and bullets. Once primaries are over, you have two realistic choices, and not making a decision doesn't mean you don't have to live with one or the other.

Do remember that the majority of Trump's appeal is that he's supposedly not one of the usual, inevitable GOPe squish types that you were pretty much forced to vote for, lest some "gun-grabby Demoncrat" win. He's supposed to be standing up for the rejected deplorable types that the establishment ignores and wishes would just go away.
Many of these folks aren't going to forget this. They may vote for him again, but the fire will be gone.

[BehindBlueI's]

They may vote for him again, but the fire will be gone.

Do votes with fire count more? No. Trump loses nothing, and he still has his best asset....he's not Hillary.

[pangloss]

Hopefully the deal was NRA support for throwing bump stocks under the bus in exchange for vetoing any ban that slips through Congress after the mid-term elections.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[Holmes375]

Question for everyone defending bump stocks: how many of you are comfortable on a shooting range with the guy next to you turning money into smoke with a bump stock?

Keep in mind that unlike true full auto, some movement of the gun is intentionally being permitted to allow the bump stock to function.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That will depend upon the fellow himself, not what stock he happens to be using.

And most of my firearms move, too, when I shoot them ;) I know what you're saying but I'm concerned with the man, not the gun.

That said, I personally find bump-stocks one of the more asinine "inventions" of this brave new world.

[critter]

Not really. The number of people who actually care about bumpstocks are pretty small. Even on gun forums there's plenty of folks who are ok with banning them, or at best neutral. The people who really care are the same ones who believe Democrats are Satanic spawn eating our country and will always find some reason to hold their nose and vote for him again as the "Not Hillary" candidate, or whoever the Antichrist is the next election with a (D) behind their name. He actually loses nothing from his base and gets some atta-boys from the swing voter/moderates.

They're not Satanic Spawn -- they're Langoliers :cool:

What exactly is a Democrat these days? We had a full on socialist who perhaps would have actually won the nomination had the D primaries actually been a fair vote of the people. Most if not all of the Progressives are socialists. Lenin stated the goal of socialism is communism and socialist Europe is bearing this out with increasingly tyrannical speech laws. They're on the slippery slope already. Why in would anyone want to go that route? Those currently in office here - who appear on TV - seem absolutely batshit insane. Some of them make Trudeau look brilliant, and that is an incredibly difficult feat to accomplish. There's no doubt the Dem admin in Atlanta is batshit insane. I definitely don't want the nation to become anything remotely similar to California. It's going to happen though. We'll eventually die off and the inmates will take over the asylum. I do want to postpone that as long as possible. :D

[Cypher]

People are talking about compromise but I'm not seeing any. I would be willing to give up bump stocks in return for REAL national repricocity. That is, my permit is recognized in all 50 states under the full faith and credit clause. NOT that I have to meet which ever state has the most stringent requirements.

[Ed L]

I'm sure the "at least he's not Hillary" crowd is already spinning this as a win and evidence of what a mastermind he his.

It's a win compared to what Hillary would be doing if she were in the oval office.

If we wait for the candidate who is pure enough pro-gun wise, we are going to wind up with a succession of antigun elected officials who do way more damage.

People complain about George Bush's import ban in 1989 and how that made imported semiauto military-styled guns unavailable. That really did suck. But would you have rather have had Michael Dukakis as president? Do you think gun rights would have been better when Dukakis got out of office?

[TiroFijo]

Good riddance...

probably next "stabilizing braces" for pistols

[Hambo]

Do votes with fire count more? No. Trump loses nothing, and he still has his best asset....he's not Hillary.

That mattered during the election, but means fuck all now. He's in the second year of his administration and it's what he does or does not do that matters.

[JAD]

People are talking about compromise but I'm not seeing any. I would be willing to give up bump stocks in return for REAL national repricocity. That is, my permit is recognized in all 50 states under the full faith and credit clause. NOT that I have to meet which ever state has the most stringent requirements.

Do people have a right to national reciprocity? If yes, why should they give something up to access that right? Do people have a right to bump stocks? If not, why will people think that’s worth ‘trading?’

Our opponents in this issue are not rational. If they were they would agree with us. When you negotiate with irrational people you lose, because you offer in good faith and they don’t. This issue is not a negotiation.

[BillSWPA]

I'm hardly comfortable on a shooting range when the guy next to me is shooting a standard, unmodified handgun, so not really a good point. Should "makes you feel comfortable" be a legal standard for firearms ownership? Because there's a whole lot of people not comfortable with the idea of regular people owning any guns at all.

It's the principle of the matter- should the president be allowed to dictate what is and isn't allowed for firearms? And why stop at useless bump stocks- does the public really need to be allowed useless AR-15's? They're not that good for hunting, and you can use other guns for home defense. But does the public really need high capacity magazines for their pistols? Or arm braces? Or hollowpoint bullets?

The point is that you would be shooting next to an idiot who is shooting something they are not trying to fully control. If you have ever shot a true full auto you should understand the problem.

I do not understand why you are focusing on anti-gun arguments rather than our arguments. Can you give me a good reason why we should be able to own AR-15 rifles and standard capacity magazines? Of course you can. Now, give me a good reason for a bump stock.

If you can’t give me a good reason for a bump stock, then please tell me how much of OUR credibility you are willing to sacrifice on the altar of bump stocks.

We can talk about what should be all day, and that will never make what should be the reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Do people have a right to national reciprocity? If yes, why should they give something up to access that right? Do people have a right to bump stocks? If not, why will people think that’s worth ‘trading?’

Our opponents in this issue are not rational. If they were they would agree with us. When you negotiate with irrational people you lose, because you offer in good faith and they don’t. This issue is not a negotiation.

We can talk all day about what should be the case, but without a plan to get there, it does not matter.

There are ways to accomplish things in a negotiation that do not require good faith on the other side.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Does if flip the muzzle up range? Because if not, what's the difference?

The difference is that it is simulating full auto, but the shooter is not fully trying to control it. If you have ever shot a true full auto you should understand the problem - a much greater than average likelihood that it will recoil in your direction while continuing to fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobLoblaw]

I’m not sure that is accurate. This seems more of a diversionary tactic. He is proposing something that has broad-based appeal across the country. Moreover, he is suggesting that it be done in a manner that will not require a single vote in Congress. It may turn out to be a reasonable diversion to get us past the midterms. I kinda doubt it will work, but we’ll see.

Had he proposed something meaningful, I’d agree.

Sure, he could've had this one in the chamber for a while and it was a good opportunity. I hope you're right but it seems he's giving them a lollipop to shut them up and then some. From the Fox article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/21/bump-stock-prices-jump-after-trump-comments-report-says.html):


The president, a strong and vocal supporter of gun rights, has not endorsed more robust changes sought by gun control activists. But the White House cast the president in recent days as having been swayed by the school shooting in Florida and willing to listen to proposals.

In a tweet Tuesday night, Trump indicated he wants to strengthen the background check system, but offered no specifics. Trump said: "Whether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening Background Checks!"

Asked at a press briefing Tuesday if Trump was open to reinstating a ban on assault-type weapons, spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said White House officials "haven't closed the door on any front." She also said that the idea of raising the age limit to buy an AR-15 was "on the table for us to discuss."

Might be bullshit but that sounds like folding under pressure to at least some degree.

[JodyH]

"Too bad I can't see the forest because of all these trees." says the majority of people in this thread.

How about people wait and see what actually starts to develop on the legislative and administrative side of things instead of knee jerking all over themselves about fucking memos and platitudes in the middle of a full court left press immediately after an emotional tragedy?

Also, fuck you if you're in favor of bans on shit you don't like, like bump stocks and arm braces.
There's a whole group of trap shooters out there who think you drawing your semi-auto pistol and shooting faster than 1 shot every 5 seconds is dangerous and should be banned.
Hell the left is trotting out an Olympic biathlete who's saying anything more than a bolt action .22 is a weapon of war.
Hint... it's not all about you and what you like.

The pro-gun electorate gave the GOP the House, Senate and Presidency. The President then gave us a fighting chance in the Supreme Court.
ANY compromise on gun control right now is a LOSS and a stab in the back.
The Democrats had all three (four) after Sandy Hook and didn't do jack shit on gun control.
If the GOP caves we lose and it's game over.

[BillSWPA]

"Too bad I can't see the forest because of all these trees." says the majority of people in this thread.

How about people wait and see what actually starts to develop on the legislative and administrative side of things instead of knee jerking all over themselves about fucking memos and platitudes in the middle of a full court left press immediately after an emotional tragedy?

Also, fuck you if you're in favor of bans on shit you don't like, like bump stocks and arm braces.
There's a whole group of trap shooters out there who think you drawing your semi-auto pistol and shooting faster than 1 shot every 5 seconds is dangerous and should be banned.
Hell the left is trotting out an Olympic biathlete who's saying anything more than a bolt action .22 is a weapon of war.
Hint... it's not all about you and what you like.

I still do not understand the focus on the way the left argues their position rather than how we argue our position.

Am I correct in assuming that you are capable of presenting a good argument in favor of concealed carry, large capacity magazines, etc.?

I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to even attempt to present a semi-rational argument for the usefulness of a bump stock.

If you are willing to sacrifice OUR credibility on the altar of bump stocks when YOU cannot even present an argument for their usefulness, then why should anyone listen to what you have to say about concealed carry, high capacity magazines, etc.?

Wouldn’t you rather use your credibility for the many important battles we face rather than destroying it fighting for bump stocks?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Josh Runkle]

Let’s be honest: what’s really going to determine whether or not trump bans anything is whether or not his daughter includes it in a PowerPoint with the right infographic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

I'm fighting for freedom and "shall not be infringed".
I don't have to justify jack shit, my argument is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.
If you want to ban or regulate something it's 100% on you to convince me that it's not a civil rights infringement.

Quislings will be the death of the 2nd amendment, not Absolutists.

[Zincwarrior]

I'm fighting for freedom and "shall not be infringed".
I don't have to justify jack shit, my argument is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.
If you want to ban or regulate something it's 100% on you to convince me that it's not a civil rights infringement.

Quislings will be the death of the 2nd amendment, not Absolutists.

No one has to convince you of anything actually. Politicians, that's a different story.

[Peally]

I still do not understand the focus on the way the left argues their position rather than how we argue our position.

Am I correct in assuming that you are capable of presenting a good argument in favor of concealed carry, large capacity magazines, etc.?

I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to even attempt to present a semi-rational argument for the usefulness of a bump stock.

If you are willing to sacrifice OUR credibility on the altar of bump stocks when YOU cannot even present an argument for their usefulness, then why should anyone listen to what you have to say about concealed carry, high capacity magazines, etc.?

Wouldn’t you rather use your credibility for the many important battles we face rather than destroying it fighting for bump stocks?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg

[BillSWPA]

I'm fighting for freedom and "shall not be infringed".
I don't have to justify jack shit, my argument is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.
If you want to ban or regulate something it's 100% on you to convince me that it's not a civil rights infringement.

Quislings will be the death of the 2nd amendment, not Absolutists.

Please show me where screaming “shall not be infringed” has ever, even once, successfully won a second amendment battle.

I don’t want to just fight second amendment battles. I want to win them.

To win, you absolutely do need to justify your position.

If you can’t justify your position, you are making yourself as well as the rest of us look like ridiculous extremists, playing right into the hands of the public relations machine on the other side, and doing far more damage than good to the rights that really matter.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cypher]

The one thing we can't lose sight of is that the other side's end goal is absolute civilian disarmament.

I used to believe that the media was stupid. I thought they didn't know anything about guns and how they actually worked and that they didn't care to learn. Then I realized that ABC and the rest of them can afford the best researchers available and it's not a case of ignorance but a deliberate misstatement of facts.

I now believe that they are deliberately conflating semiautomatic with fully automatic in order to make "Semiautomatic" the new scary buzzword. That's why the newsreaders make a point of STRESSING that the weapon used in whatever the latest crime is was a "semiautomatic assault rifle".

I believe that a full ban on evil "semiautomatic" weapons is going to be the next big push.

I'm typing this and watching GMA and the lead story is how the Fla. legislature just refused to hear a bill on banning all semiautomatic weapons and how devastated the survivors of Parkland are.

[BehindBlueI's]

"Too bad I can't see the forest because of all these trees." says the majority of people in this thread.

How about people wait and see what actually starts to develop on the legislative and administrative side of things instead of knee jerking all over themselves about fucking memos and platitudes in the middle of a full court left press immediately after an emotional tragedy?


Why platitude them with anything? Are the peasants going to revolt if he doesn't? There is no forest, because Trump doesn't actually give a shit about the 2nd amendment except for how it helps his image. He was against it before he was for it before he was against it. He took a survey at Mar-Lago to see how popular gun control is. The knee jerking is coming from the White House, not us, as this isn't surprising in the least to anyone but the apologists.


The difference is that it is simulating full auto, but the shooter is not fully trying to control it. If you have ever shot a true full auto you should understand the problem - a much greater than average likelihood that it will recoil in your direction while continuing to fire.


I've shot full auto up through the .50, and yeah, they walk around if you don't know what you're doing. The danger is usually muzzle rise, though, and the danger is mostly to the shooter themselves. Given that few ARs are short enough and powerful enough for you to walk a round into your own skull (as opposed to, say, an Uzi and a 10 year old), I think you're reaching for stuff to justify your position. I've seen zero injuries or deaths from bump stock related incidents. We get roughly 90-100 ADs causing injury or death a year in my county, mostly with regular ol' handguns.


I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to even attempt to present a semi-rational argument for the usefulness of a bump stock.


I can't come up with a semi-rational argument for the usefulness of my Camaro SS. That's the neat thing about freedom. YOU have to explain why I can't have it, I don't have to explain why I can. I've never had a bump stock and have no intention of getting one, but if someone thinks they are fun...who cares? So far the whole argument is you'll kill people slower...same argument as banning magazines that hold more than a certain number of rounds, semi-auto guns with evil features that make them more shooty, actually for banning guns in totality. You'll slow down the killer.

I get people can draw the line at different places, but the line between bump stocks, external magazines, and semi-auto is pretty damned thin.

[archangel]

Please show me where screaming “shall not be infringed” has ever, even once, successfully won a second amendment battle.

I don’t want to just fight second amendment battles. I want to win them.

To win, you absolutely do need to justify your position.

If you can’t justify your position, you are making yourself as well as the rest of us look like ridiculous extremists, playing right into the hands of the public relations machine on the other side, and doing far more damage than good to the rights that really matter.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While I personally have no use for a bump stock, and really wouldn't care one way or the other if they were banned, I am not in favor of a ban because:

1) I'm skeptical that a bump stock ban could be written in such a way that it would ban ONLY bump stocks, and not endanger things like match triggers and low-mass bolt carriers - ie, things made for competition that don't make the gun full-auto fast, but do still "increase the firing rate."

2) Banning bump stocks puts the companies that make them out of business. People's livelihoods are being affected.

3) Functionally, banning bump stocks accomplishes exactly nothing, because you don't need a bump stock to bump fire.

[Zincwarrior]

The one thing we can't lose sight of is that the other side's end goal is absolute civilian disarmament.
No. That is a portion of the spectrum. But it is a spectrum. If you resist everything and events continue then the weight of the viewpoints will continue to shift to that position.

On the other hand it doesn't matter. Congress will not pass anything this year (I mean anything-we have a structural dysfunction). A new Congress will bring the real fight.

But I would not rely on Trump for anything. He has a proven track record of throwing his allies under the bus, for no reason whatsoever.

[Zincwarrior]

While I personally have no use for a bump stock, and really wouldn't care one way or the other if they were banned, I am not in favor of a ban because:

1) I'm skeptical that a bump stock ban could be written in such a way that it would ban ONLY bump stocks, and not endanger things like match triggers and low-mass bolt carriers - ie, things made for competition that don't make the gun full-auto fast, but do still "increase the firing rate."

2) Banning bump stocks puts the companies that make them out of business. People's livelihoods are being affected.

3) Functionally, banning bump stocks accomplishes exactly nothing, because you don't need a bump stock to bump fire.

Inversely, these are companies that are attempting to end run existing law, which was used in one of the largest mass shootings in US history. I have no sympathy. Get rid of them.

[JRB]

Please show me where screaming “shall not be infringed” has ever, even once, successfully won a second amendment battle.

I don’t want to just fight second amendment battles. I want to win them.

To win, you absolutely do need to justify your position.

If you can’t justify your position, you are making yourself as well as the rest of us look like ridiculous extremists, playing right into the hands of the public relations machine on the other side, and doing far more damage than good to the rights that really matter.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The anti gun sorts got the 94 AWB and similar by simply screaming "ban them" they achieved similar wins in other areas not be being reasonable and articulating an effective, rational argument, but instead by simply refusing to give one more inch on anything. Thus, 2A supporters responded in kind and thus far it has been effective. Prior to the LV massacre there was a realistic chance of getting suppressors off the NFA and national reciprocity.


Why anyone is willing to give up on anything, even if they're as silly as bump stocks, completely mystifies me.

Our opponents are not acting rationally or negotiating in good faith. Why should we?

[Peally]

Lot of Bernie supporters in this forum lately.

[JodyH]

Why platitude them with anything? Are the peasants going to revolt if he doesn't? There is no forest, because Trump doesn't actually give a shit about the 2nd amendment except for how it helps his image. He was against it before he was for it before he was against it. He took a survey at Mar-Lago to see how popular gun control is. The knee jerking is coming from the White House, not us, as this isn't surprising in the least to anyone but the apologists.

Trump really fucked the Dems over DACA by playing semantics games.
In the end he exposed them as frauds who didn't really want amnesty, they just wanted credit for trying to get amnesty.
The Dems had to slink away from the Gov shutdown with their tail between their legs over DACA.

When you actually read and listen to what Trump is saying about guns it sounds to me like another trap to snare stupid Dems going into the mid-terms.
Get them to grandstand and put gun control front and center going into the mid-term elections.
NOTHING turns out the base like looming gun control and the R's really need the base to turn out in 2018.
Trump knows how to dance with who brought him.

[JodyH]

Our opponents are not acting rationally or negotiating in good faith. Why should we?

^^^ This x1000 ^^^

[Zincwarrior]

Lot of Bernie supporters in this forum lately.

In contrast to both Trump and Clinton, Bernie had a record of supporting gun rights actually. . .

[Casual Friday]

In contrast to both Trump and Clinton, Bernie had a record of supporting gun rights actually. . .

Your definition of supporting gun rights is vastly different than mine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-talks-gun-control-calls-assault-weapon-ban-n442351

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-guns_us_5a89ad60e4b004fc31934edb

[JodyH]

In contrast to both Trump and Clinton, Bernie had a record of supporting gun rights actually. . .
That's the cherry on top of every post you've made re: politics and gun control.

[Trukinjp13]

Bernie is a socialist piece of shit.

Now that I got that out of the way. I wonder if Trump Jr. being so close to the NRA now had anything to do with this. Guarantee the bumpstocks should be banned to help us with the left and getting our agendas passed came up. Maybe he told his old man the majority of gun guys and the NRA support dumping bumpstocks for the greater good.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

Now that I got that out of the way. I wonder if Trump Jr. being so close to the NRA now had anything to do with this. Guarantee the bumpstocks should be banned to help us with the left and getting our agendas passed came up. Maybe he told his old man the majority of gun guys and the NRA support dumping bumpstocks for the greater good.
Somebody is going to have to show me the "greater good" first.
I'm tired of our side making the first concession, that's stupid way to bargain when you have the upper hand.
I want our side to force the Dems to bring something we want to the table first.
Starting the compromise negotiations at giving them what they want is fucking stupid.

Loser: "We're open to banning bumpstocks."
Winner: "What will it take for us to pass national CCW reciprocity".

[Trukinjp13]

https://www.facebook.com/militaryarms/photos/a.202676953077445.55121.200640669947740/1844184522260005/

Some of you really don't get it. The ignorance by gun owners over this issue is staggering and it's this ignorance that will usher in Canadian style gun laws in the next 10 years. Trump just ordered it to begin. Here's what he said:

“Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”

Now read that carefully. All you NRA worshipers and Fudd's who think it's just about "bump stocks", it's not. It never has been. Trump just directed the BATF to do what the NRA has been pushing for which is to redefine what makes a machine gun by its rate of fire. That should take an act of Congress, not a alphabet agency. Hell, it shouldn't happen at all but it CERTAINLY shouldn't be an executive order from a faceless agency with zero oversight. You're handing your rights away without so much as a peep.

Here, just in case it didn't get through your skull the first time, read this very carefully.

“Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”

Machine guns and parts that make them were banned in 1986 (which was BS). Trump didn't say to the DOJ "ban bump stocks" he said "ban anything that makes a gun fire too fast and let's call it a machine gun".

WAKE UP. For the love of all things Holy, please stop being purposely ignorant about what's happening. You are about to lose your 3 gun triggers, 30 round magazines, muzzle brakes that allow for fast accurate fire, match grade triggers, and of course bump stocks, echo triggers and everything else. THIS IS OPEN ENDED. IT ALLOWS ANY ANTIGUN ADMINISTRATION TO BAN ANY ACCESSORY THEY DEEM TO BE RATE INCREASING, LIKE MAGAZINES, BECAUSE IT HELPS YOU SHOOT YOUR AR15 TOO QUICKLY.

Please stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution. Call your Congressmen. Blow up the White House inbox. Stop being sheep being led to the slaughter.

One more time, here's what Trump directed to the DOJ/ATF to do with the 100% backing of the NRA:

“Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”

Get in the fight to preserve our rights.


Mac on this issue. The more I read the more this is seriously messed up, it is not just bumpstocks. Once again we can not give a INCH! They will take whatever they can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TicTacticalTimmy]

Jody,

I hope you are right about this being a strategic decision on Trump's part, and though skeptical of that, I'm willing to wait until the elections this year to see what happens.

BillSWPA: I feel you are arguing with people who almost completely agree with you. Nearly 100% of PF thinks bump stocks are dumb and pointless. The issue is that banning them could open the door for more gun control without anything in exchange. Next binary triggers, then match triggers and low mass carriers, then an AWB through executive fiat next time we have a D in the white house.

Personally i would be ok with an extremely specifically worded bump stock ban in exchange for an honest correction of our rights in another area. Ideally this would be removing suppressors from NFA but I'd even take elimination of federal gun free zones.

[blues]

I want our side to force the Dems to bring something we want to the table first.
Starting the compromise negotiations at giving them what they want is fucking stupid.

Can't disagree.

[WobblyPossum]

Somebody is going to have to show me the "greater good" first.
I'm tired of our side making the first concession, that's stupid way to bargain when you have the upper hand.
I want our side to force the Dems to bring something we want to the table first.
Starting the compromise negotiations at giving them what they want is fucking stupid.

Loser: "We're open to banning bumpstocks."
Winner: "What will it take for us to pass national CCW reciprocity".
This is what I've been telling people. I don't like bump stocks. People who buy them and giggle when they use them are probably the kind of people I'd never associate with voluntarily. However, I don't want to ban them just so politicians can say they "did something." The left wants to ban bump stocks? Okay, I want national reciprocity for CCWs, a reduction in the amount/types of legal NPEs (gun free zones), and the repeal of all assault weapons bans, magazine capacity restrictions, and bans of specific ammunition types at the municipal/state/federal levels. I'm open to the idea of trading bump stocks for something on that list. The left screams at us to "compromise," so I say let's actually get a "compromise" for once. We give something and they give something but I'm getting really sick of giving up something and getting nothing in return.

[Cypher]

No. That is a portion of the spectrum. But it is a spectrum. If you resist everything and events continue then the weight of the viewpoints will continue to shift to that position.

Yes.

I don't care if everyone that supports stricter gun con control doesn't intend total disarmament, the people running the show do.

I promise you Michael Bloomberg wants you disarmed. As does Soros, all three of the Clintons, Shannon Watts, Mark Kelly, The list goes on ad nauseum.

Why do you think they keep saying things like "The Australian Model is a good place to start?

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that total disarment isn't the end game and that's why we need to make them fight for every inch

[Trukinjp13]

Somebody is going to have to show me the "greater good" first.
I'm tired of our side making the first concession, that's stupid way to bargain when you have the upper hand.
I want our side to force the Dems to bring something we want to the table first.
Starting the compromise negotiations at giving them what they want is fucking stupid.

Loser: "We're open to banning bumpstocks."
Winner: "What will it take for us to pass national CCW reciprocity".

I agree 100% I was merely thinking that could be where Trump got this idea from. He has never really said much at all towards gun control. Then drops this, which is basically the bullshit NRA started spewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Not really. The number of people who actually care about bumpstocks are pretty small. Even on gun forums there's plenty of folks who are ok with banning them, or at best neutral. The people who really care are the same ones who believe Democrats are Satanic spawn eating our country and will always find some reason to hold their nose and vote for him again as the "Not Hillary" candidate, or whoever the Antichrist is the next election with a (D) behind their name. He actually loses nothing from his base and gets some atta-boys from the swing voter/moderates.

Muh chemtrails

[LittleLebowski]

Don Jr advises Trump not to go wobbly on guns (https://www.thedailybeast.com/don-jr-advises-president-trump-post-parkland-dont-go-wobbly-on-guns?ref=home)

[GardoneVT]

Is it too early to say “I told ya so?”

Trump never cared about gun rights. He simply did in the campaign what he’s done his whole life; sell a deal and then do what’s in his interest anyway..

[BillSWPA]

If we are going to throw Trump under the bus because he disagrees with some of us about a device that we all agree serves no useful purpose, we are going to unnecessarily alienate a friend. Ronald Reagan said that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend. So far, Trump far exceeds that standard.

Every time the left succeeds in getting gun control passed, they always push for more. We know that. However, that doesn't mean they get what they are pushing for. The idea that a bump stock ban somehow "opens the door" to more control lacks the logical connections from one thing to the other.

Out of the last 3 presidential administrations, two of the three thought bump stocks should be banned. Those were the ones that were generally supportive of our rights. The ONLY one that thought they should be legal was the most anti-gun of them all, and the one that gave us Fast & Furious. I spelled out exactly why in a post above. Does that not bother anyone?

[Peally]

Trump is a friend? Jesus...

You trusting him 80% of the time doesn't mean many others do. Frankly I have no idea why you would trust him nearly that much.

[Lex Luthier]

I have found the folks at PAGunblog.com to be accurate and sanguine about these things over the years.
Here's main blogger Sebastian's take for today: https://www.pagunblog.com/2018/02/21/the-bump-stock-issue-never-went-away/

[JRB]

BillSWPA, you're missing the overall point.
I think trap shooting and bird guns and that sort of stuff is absolutely stupid and pointless. I don't understand or really appreciate why someone would spend 20k on a Perazzi. Plus they're basically useless for defense or otherwise.
But my opinion doesn't matter as far as our *rights* to own it. If we start rationalizing the legality of a device based on our perceived 'usefulness or lack thereof, we then have to justify the 'usefulness of every firearm and related component or accessory.

Fuck that. Fuck that with a hydraulic chainsaw.

So I don't give a tenth inch of MRE cheese if a bump stock is useless to me. It's protected by the 2A just like those Perazzis.

[Zincwarrior]

Yes.

I don't care if everyone that supports stricter gun con control doesn't intend total disarmament, the people running the show do.

I promise you Michael Bloomberg wants you disarmed. As does Soros, all three of the Clintons, Shannon Watts, Mark Kelly, The list goes on ad nauseum.

Why do you think they keep saying things like "The Australian Model is a good place to start?

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that total disarment isn't the end game and that's why we need to make them fight for every inch

Then you have to get more people on our side. Just shouting "DEM LIBERALS TAKING OUR GUNS" makes you look crazy to the vast middle.

[Zincwarrior]

BillSWPA, you're missing the overall point.
I think trap shooting and bird guns and that sort of stuff is absolutely stupid and pointless. I don't understand or really appreciate why someone would spend 20k on a Perazzi. Plus they're basically useless for defense or otherwise.
But my opinion doesn't matter as far as our *rights* to own it. If we start rationalizing the legality of a device based on our perceived 'usefulness or lack thereof, we then have to justify the 'usefulness of every firearm and related component or accessory.

Fuck that. Fuck that with a hydraulic chainsaw.

So I don't give a tenth inch of MRE cheese if a bump stock is useless to me. It's protected by the 2A just like those Perazzis.

But its not. Its an end run around an existing law.

[Kyle Reese]

Can't disagree.National Concealed Carry and removal of suppressors, SBR and SBS from the National Firearms Act would be a compromise.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

I have found the folks at PAGunblog.com to be accurate and sanguine about these things over the years.
Here's main blogger Sebastian's take for today: https://www.pagunblog.com/2018/02/21/the-bump-stock-issue-never-went-away/

I think that more need to read the link in this post.

[BillSWPA]

BillSWPA, you're missing the overall point.
I think trap shooting and bird guns and that sort of stuff is absolutely stupid and pointless. I don't understand or really appreciate why someone would spend 20k on a Perazzi. Plus they're basically useless for defense or otherwise.
But my opinion doesn't matter as far as our *rights* to own it. If we start rationalizing the legality of a device based on our perceived 'usefulness or lack thereof, we then have to justify the 'usefulness of every firearm and related component or accessory.

Fuck that. Fuck that with a hydraulic chainsaw.

So I don't give a tenth inch of MRE cheese if a bump stock is useless to me. It's protected by the 2A just like those Perazzis.

No, you are missing the point.

I completely understand that an argument against anything we like can be made.

My point is that if we are going to support something, we should be able to make an argument for it.

[BehindBlueI's]

I think that more need to read the link in this post.

I read it. I'm not impressed. Its the lesser of two evils from the lesser of two evils? That's just losing slower.

How about, since you control the House, Senate, POTUS... you just let it die?

[blues]

I think that more need to read the link in this post.

I think that the stated POV is already being debated here. Its conclusion is not without a certain logic even if the taste it leaves is bitter to many.

[blues]

I read it. I'm not impressed. Its the lesser of two evils from the lesser of two evils? That's just losing slower.

How about, since you control the House, Senate, POTUS... you just let it die?

I think the answer to that is that the current occupiers of those seats are afraid they may not have their asses in the chairs next go round. And in the end, I think many or most of those "patriots" are more concerned with their own futures than the future of the 2A or the Constitution per se.

[JodyH]

My point is that if we are going to support something, we should be able to make an argument for it.
My point is the US Constitution says "shall not be infringed".
It's not incumbent upon me to make an argument for anything firearm related, that argument was settled in 1776.
The onus is 100% on those who want restrictions to make the arguments against.

[Sensei]

BillSWPA, you're missing the overall point.
I think trap shooting and bird guns and that sort of stuff is absolutely stupid and pointless. I don't understand or really appreciate why someone would spend 20k on a Perazzi. Plus they're basically useless for defense or otherwise.
But my opinion doesn't matter as far as our *rights* to own it. If we start rationalizing the legality of a device based on our perceived 'usefulness or lack thereof, we then have to justify the 'usefulness of every firearm and related component or accessory.

Fuck that. Fuck that with a hydraulic chainsaw.

So I don't give a tenth inch of MRE cheese if a bump stock is useless to me. It's protected by the 2A just like those Perazzis.

I doubt the Bill missed your point; I certainly didn’t. It’s not an issue of anything being missed; it’s a matter of disagreement.

For example, I largely agree with Bill’s perspective on bump stocks - I “got” him. However, I disagree with him on the notion that bump stocks didn’t increase the lethality of the Las Vegas shooter. From where I sit, the volume of inaccurate fire more than made up for his inability to deliver slower, accurate fire to the crowd of people.

Along those lines, I disagree with the concept of unrestricted civilian access to automatic weapons given the current state of our country. I’m confident in my mastery of the constitutional issues involved - I “get” those points too. We just disagree. Once we unfuck our intoxicated nanny state of a republic that churns our sociopaths like the FL and NV shooters (i.e. once we become more like what Jefferson described as a “well-regulated militia”), then I might join the unfettered access to whatever the fuck you want crowd. Until then, guys like me and the other 79.99999% of the country will completely get your point but disagree with it.

[Lex Luthier]

I think the answer to that is that the current occupiers of those seats are afraid they may not have their asses in the chairs next go round. And in the end, I think many or most of those "patriots" are more concerned with their own futures than the future of the 2A or the Constitution per se.

True. And I might add that we might be seeing a strategic move meant to forestall an actual political rebellion coming from the opposition.
We've already had the house whip nearly assassinated, and one of the more upstanding members on our side beaten severely (who was also shot at and missed in the assassination attempt)
within the last 9 months.

This may be a time-buying exercise on the part of the current administration.

[blues]

True. And I might add that we might be seeing a strategic move meant to forestall an actual political rebellion coming from the opposition.
We've already had the house whip nearly assassinated, and one of the more upstanding members on our side beaten severely (who was also shot at and missed in the assassination attempt)
within the last 9 months.

This may be a time-buying exercise on the part of the current administration.

So I think what you're saying, in effect, is that we need to propose legislation preventing Democrats from possessing firearms.

Hmmm....


/s

[JodyH]

I read it. I'm not impressed. Its the lesser of two evils from the lesser of two evils? That's just losing slower.

How about, since you control the House, Senate, POTUS... you just let it die?
Exctly.
NOTHING has to be done.

Gun control and abortion are still 100% losing propositions when it comes to national politics.
Each side of those two hot topics are deeply entrenched and there is no unwashed mass in the middle to sway.
Taking a stance opposite of your base on either one those two topics is how you get a big L stamped on your forehead.
Trying to force restrictions on either one of those two topics is a surefire way to bring out the opposition to the polls in mass numbers.
Being for gun control or against abortion is pretty neutral when it comes to getting people fired up to vote.
Telling people you're going to ban firearms or ban abortion is a bugle call to arms for voters.

[JodyH]

Once we unfuck our intoxicated nanny state
You don't unfuck a nanny state by giving it more things to regulate.

[archangel]

But its not. Its an end run around an existing law.

So was every "Post ban" AR made during the Clinton ban. Should those have been illegal too?

[Peally]

Just for reference for those of us in tight-leash-marriages:

com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

[LOKNLOD]

Just for reference for those of us in tight-leash-marriages:

com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Or:

2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial ; a compromise of principles

This is what they mean when asking for “compromise.”

[Peally]

Or:

2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial ; a compromise of principles

This is what they mean when asking for “compromise.”

That's your definition, not the opposing side's.

[blues]

Or:

2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial ; a compromise of principles

This is what they mean when asking for “compromise.”

A good compromise leaves both sides feeling dissatisfied. So if there is to be compromise, "they" will need to make a concession.

[Kyle Reese]

A good compromise leaves both sides feeling dissatisfied. So if there is to be compromise, "they" will need to make a concession.

That's never going to happen.

[NEPAKevin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKu_iVLIvr0

[BillSWPA]

My point is the US Constitution says "shall not be infringed".
It's not incumbent upon me to make an argument for anything firearm related, that argument was settled in 1776.
The onus is 100% on those who want restrictions to make the arguments against.

If only it was that simple . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Josh Runkle]

2A could be rewritten: “shall not be compromised”.

Supporting a compromising position is antithetical to supporting the second amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DallasBronco]

From a legal perspective they seem to be a clear attempt to circumvent Section 2.1.6 of the NFA Handbook definition of machinegun as “weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.” Manual being bolded as they key word that could easily be interpreted as a voluntary actuation of the trigger.

My biggest concern in this issue is that it is allowing the definition of "machine gun" to be redefined. A bumpstock does not fire more than 1 round with the single pull of the trigger. It allows the trigger to be pulled more rapidly. They don't circumvent any existing law. Changing what is defined as a machine gun could be used as a precedent to ban other things down the road. Binary triggers actually do circumvent the law by that definition, but they aren't being looked at.

I also would like to see bumpstocks divorced from 2A arguments, as they are not themselves firearms, and really shouldn't be protected under the 2A.

All that said, I don't like them, but would not favor them being banned. Others have already made great arguments about why that would be a bad move.

[DallasBronco]

“Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”
You are putting a lot of words in his mouth, in my opinion. What he is directing the DOJ to do is to review the laws and establish a position on these devices. That would, in turn, be open to discussion and debate by the congress. He is not directing the DOJ to make a law.

[Trukinjp13]

I took that whole section from military arms channels statement. But I do believe if they leave any sort of crack. It will get torn open and exploited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sensei]

Just for reference for those of us in tight-leash-marriages:

com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Compromise is something done when neither side has the upper hand. Why should the side with 80% support feel the need to compromise? To quote a line from Narcos, “Part of being an adult is accepting things that you wish weren’t true.”

Like it or not (and necessary or not) Trump just dropped the equivalent of Little Boy on the bump stock argument. Keep this shit up and either he or Congress will drop Fat Man...

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/21/trump-considering-age-limits-gun-purchases/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/trump-gun-control-house-republicans-419746

Trump will dump the bump and the RKBA whenever it suits him (or he has a random brain fart) as will most of the GOP leadership. They are falling all over themselves to do something in moral panic. Perhaps ditching bump stocks is a good idea (empirical question), maybe raising the age of purchase of a long arm to 21 is a good idea (immature brains - what about the Army and Marines - they have sergeants as cadmium rods for the cortex). However, the idea that these measures might be part of a bargain to support more important expansions of the RKBA - escape the great deal maker because he doesn't care about that deal. The GOP leadership cares only about taxes and Obama care as first priorities. Use the RKBA as a bait and switch for votes. WE are not HILLARY - Vote the lesser of two ...

[Joe in PNG]

Okay, so Trump dumps the bumps. What next?

Do you think the media is going to stop waving the bloody shirt? Is the gun control crowd going to stop with their emotional attacks?

Or are we going to see increased pressure- "you compromised here, why not compromise on arm braces/pseudo-SBR's/Mossberg Shockwaves/high cap clips"?

What are we going to get for this compromise?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How much money did you contribute to Trump and how much did you pay for those X-ray glasses from the comic book back cover to see through clothes?

You get an equivalent amount.

[jrm]

Okay, so Trump dumps the bumps. What next?

Do you think the media is going to stop waving the bloody shirt? Is the gun control crowd going to stop with their emotional attacks?

Or are we going to see increased pressure- "you compromised here, why not compromise on arm braces/pseudo-SBR's/Mossberg Shockwaves/high cap clips"?

What are we going to get for this compromise?

Well my seven year old second grader got in school suspension today for making a gun out of his fingers so I am sure we are on the right path to ensure there are no more mass shootings.

[Eastex]

He had his listening session today. I just saw a short clip where he brought up concealed carry by trained teachers and ending gun free zones.

If you’ve been paying close attention to him this fits into one of his patterns. He comes out putting something on the table that doesn’t make sense given where his base of support stands like bump stock bans and raising age limits. It gets a ton of attention and Democrats rub their hands thinking about what else they can add onto it. Then a day or two later he ties those things to something he knows the Democrats won’t go for like concealed carry for teachers and a end to gun free zones. It’s the same thing he did on the first go around on DACA. He mentioned he might see a path for citizenship and the opposition jumped all over it until he tied it to building the wall. He knew they couldn’t accept that and that their base would crucify them if they did. When they voted against it he was able to use that vote against them saying in effect that they don’t want to fix the problem, they just want to use it for votes.

He has his opponents set up for the same thing now. He can get a proposal to tie bump stocks and raising the age up in exchange for ending gun free zones and letting teachers carry concealed because he knows the Democrats would never vote for that. Their base would never allow it. Then when they vote no he can say that he tried and the other side wouldn’t work with him.

It’s pretty cynical but it’s the same tactics that have been used against Republicans for years. Also, it wouldn’t have worked in the past because previous Republicans couldn’t get out their version because of media bias. Trump has Twitter, he doesn’t need the traditional
Media. The chickens have finally come home to roost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobLoblaw]

Well my seven year old second grader got in school suspension today for making a gun out of his fingers so I am sure we are on the right path to ensure there are no more mass shootings.

Come on, dude. Everyone knows detention is the solution to mass murder.

[jrm]

Come on, dude. Everyone knows detention is the solution to mass murder.

Apparently but how to I explain to a 7 year old you can’t make a gun out of your finger because the adults in charge of you during the day are emotionally deranged and would rather see harm come to you in the name of security theater than actually taking any steps to actually make you safer.

[blues]

Trump has Twitter, he doesn’t need the traditional
Media. The chickens have finally come home to roost.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kBSd6rBn1N4/hqdefault.jpg

"Boy, I say, boy...pay attention now. Them ain't no chickens! It's what's for dinner!"

[Peally]

They need to bring those cartoons back. How else are you supposed to learn famous operas?

[critter]

Apparently but how to I explain to a 7 year old you can’t make a gun out of your finger because the adults in charge of you during the day are emotionally deranged and would rather see harm come to you in the name of security theater than actually taking any steps to actually make you safer.

Quiet please...

#securitytheaterinprogress (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=securitytheaterinprogress)

[Hambo]

It's not incumbent upon me to make an argument for anything firearm related, that argument was settled in 1776.

In my American history class the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1789.

[JodyH]

Full court press today by the progressives complete with crying children.
Trump says the solution is to arm teachers, talks about the fallacy of gun free zones and that our country has a mental health problem.
Nothing about banning jack-shit.

[JodyH]

In my American history class the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1789.
How pedantic of you.

[Hambo]

How pedantic of you.

Thanks. :D If you're going to argue, you should have the right information. Not that anyone cares these days, but it's another thing I was taught.

[ralph]

Full court press today by the progressives complete with crying children.
Trump says the solution is to arm teachers, talks about the fallacy of gun free zones and that our country has a mental health problem.
Nothing about banning jack-shit.

Caught the tail end of that this afternoon, was shocked that arming teachers was an idea being kicked around, I was fully expecting to see them discussing how broad the ban would be.. In the time I watched I only saw one kid get up and talk about a AWB, using Maryland as a shining example of how this can work... The President did'nt seem too interested, as in his comments, he mentioned tightening up backround checks, and getting serious about mental health..

[SiriusBlunder]

In my American history class the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1789.


Thanks. If you're going to argue, you should have the right information. Not that anyone cares these days, but it's another thing I was taught.

The Bill of Rights went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791 after Virginia ratified the document...

[Drang]

When you actually read and listen to what Trump is saying about guns it sounds to me like another trap to snare stupid Dems going into the mid-terms.
Get them to grandstand and put gun control front and center going into the mid-term elections.
NOTHING turns out the base like looming gun control and the R's really need the base to turn out in 2018.
Trump knows how to dance with who brought him.
This^^^^
Also:
Last I heard, this thread is wildly inaccurately named, because Trump ordered Sessions to look into banning bump fire stocks. Did I miss a news release?

EDIT: I confess I paid no attention to Trump's Townhall, whatever he called it. Partly because working graveyard shift makes trying to follow stuff like that awkward.

As for "arming teachers" that seems like it would ideally be a local option thing; enough school districts already have procedures allowing for waivers that I'm pretty sure it is allowed for in the Federal Regulations. (Federalist/Libertarian discussion of Federal Regulations controlling local schools deleted...)

OTOH, like National Carry Reciprocity, Federal Law may be the only way to force the issue. If it saves just one child's life...

I must say I am surprised at the reaction some here have to the idea of arming teachers and/or school staff and/or school volunteers; then again, we have had esteemed members of this very site start threads looking for ideas of "things" we in the gun rights community could offer up to be thrown off the troika in exchange for other, greater privileges.

[Kyle Reese]

Caught the tail end of that this afternoon, was shocked that arming teachers was an idea being kicked around, I was fully expecting to see them discussing how broad the ban would be.. In the time I watched I only saw one kid get up and talk about a AWB, using Maryland as a shining example of how this can work... The President did'nt seem too interested, as in his comments, he mentioned tightening up backround checks, and getting serious about mental health..Touting Maryland's AWB as a success???? I guess Baltimore's crime stats don't figure into that equation.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

This^^^^
Also:
Last I heard, this thread is wildly inaccurately named, because Trump ordered Sessions to look into banning bump fire stocks. Did I miss a news release?

EDIT: I confess I paid no attention to Trump's Townhall, whatever he called it. Partly because working graveyard shift makes trying to follow stuff like that awkward.

As for "arming teachers" that seems like it would ideally be a local option thing; enough school districts already have procedures allowing for waivers that I'm pretty sure it is allowed for in the Federal Regulations. (Federalist/Libertarian discussion of Federal Regulations controlling local schools deleted...)

OTOH, like National Carry Reciprocity, Federal Law may be the only way to force the issue. If it saves just one child's life...

I must say I am surprised at the reaction some here have to the idea of arming teachers and/or school staff and/or school volunteers; then again, we have had esteemed members of this very site start threads looking for ideas of "things" we in the gun rights community could offer up to be thrown off the troika in exchange for other, greater privileges.

Trump said he ordered Sessions to look into bumpfire stocks in December and just now banned them based on the data/recommendations Sessions and his staff produced.

[Drang]

Trump said he ordered Sessions to look into bumpfire stocks in December and just now banned them based on the data/recommendations Sessions and his staff produced.

I had not heard that.

As weak troika riders to be thrown to the wolves, I could hardly care less about bump fire stocks, but as a precedent, it stinks.

[TGS]

The Bill of Rights went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791 after Virginia ratified the document...

#:

"Check yourself before you wreck yourself"

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

"The pot calling the kettle black"

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"



Hambo, this should help (http://ameriburn.org/).

[blues]

^^^^ really no need for you or anyone else to stir the pot further...the point had already been made. fwiw, imho, etc.

[joshs]

Trump said he ordered Sessions to look into bumpfire stocks in December and just now banned them based on the data/recommendations Sessions and his staff produced.


That's not what he's actually doing with the memo though. It simply says he directed DoJ "to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns." Since parts/devices that convert firearms into a machinegun are already legally a machinegun, the order is simply a request to enforce current law. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/

[ralph]

Touting Maryland's AWB as a success???? I guess Baltimore's crime stats don't figure into that equation.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

I've been to Baltimore once, friend of mine and myself worked a job out at Sparrows Point, (I'm a retired pipefitter) this was back in the mid 90's.. I wasn't impressed with Baltimore or Sparrows Point, two places that looked good in my rearview mirror..

[LittleLebowski]

That's not what he's actually doing with the memo though. It simply says he directed DoJ "to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns." Since parts/devices that convert firearms into a machinegun are already legally a machinegun, the order is simply a request to enforce current law. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/

Cool, thanks for the correction (seriously).

[NEPAKevin]

I was dropping my truck off to get serviced and in their waiting room I hear "the View" going full retard over the proposal to arm teachers. :)

[Peally]

"The View" is full retard TV 24/7, I'm amazed the mech shop had the balls or laziness to have that shit on their TV.

[Sensei]

Cool, thanks for the correction (seriously).

Truth be told I’m not sure that we know Trump’s exact intentions with this statement. It could be interpreted in a lot of ways, and this issue is relatively complex with various firearms interest groups having different opinions. Like most things Trump, I think that we need to sit back, relax, smoke a Montecristo, drink some JW Blue Label, and see what happens. My only point in this thread was to suggest that bump stocks were not the hill to go charging up if the ATF takes action against them.

Cheers.

[Grey]

That's not what he's actually doing with the memo though. It simply says he directed DoJ "to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns." Since parts/devices that convert firearms into a machinegun are already legally a machinegun, the order is simply a request to enforce current law. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/Actually What he is Doing is allowing the DoJ and ATF to revisit What constitutes a machine gun And may redefine the language that would make a bump stock a machine gun part thus prohibiting the manufacture and sale of bump stocks which I doubt would be grandfathered in.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Josh Runkle]

“Earlier Thursday morning, before a tweet praising the NRA, Trump went the furthest he’s ever gone on gun control, saying he’d push for tougher background checks that screen for mental health, raising the minimum age of buyers to 21, and ending the sale of bump stocks.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/trump-hears-stories-from-shooting-victims-in-remarkable-meeting?utm_campaign=pol&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=applenews

18-20 year olds don’t have Constitutional rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sensei]

“Earlier Thursday morning, before a tweet praising the NRA, Trump went the furthest he’s ever gone on gun control, saying he’d push for tougher background checks that screen for mental health, raising the minimum age of buyers to 21, and ending the sale of bump stocks.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/trump-hears-stories-from-shooting-victims-in-remarkable-meeting?utm_campaign=pol&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=applenews

18-20 year olds don’t have Constitutional rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He also called for programs to train teachers for concealed carry. So, not all bad. Although I’m not completely sold on arming teachers. I guess you can say that I’m leaning in favor of that or something similar.

BTW, are you concerned about the civil rights of people less than 18 who are currently prohibited from possessing handguns and handgun ammunition?

[NEPAKevin]

Like most things Trump, I think that we need to sit back, relax, smoke a Montecristo, drink some JW Blue Label, and see what happens.


You mean decent single malt. Friends don't let friends drink blends. :)

[NEPAKevin]

FWIW, I thought of all the suggestions, the ones regarding hardening schools with monitored single points of entry/exit and training to identify and seek help for emotionally disturbed persons seemed the most likely to get support from the most sides.

[Josh Runkle]

BTW, are you concerned about the civil rights of people less than 18 who are currently prohibited from possessing handguns and handgun ammunition?

No. I hold my child’s rights. She has no rights independent of what I say.

I am concerned with adult citizens losing their rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

You mean decent single malt. Friends don't let friends drink blends. :)

I’ll send you my mailing address, I’ve been drinking blends :(

#PoorFag (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=PoorFag)

[LittleLebowski]

Trump is a friend? Jesus...

You trusting him 80% of the time doesn't mean many others do. Frankly I have no idea why you would trust him nearly that much.

“Don’t trust whitey, got it”:D

[blues]

You mean decent single malt. Friends don't let friends drink blends. :)

The first thing I thought when I saw the portion you had put in bold was how disappointed both my wife and myself were with the JW Blue.
I keep the bottle I was gifted by our niece on hand for guests.

Doesn't compare to the low end single malts imho. Bax, you're welcome to stop by and drink as much as you care to.

[blues]

double tap...

[Sensei]

No. I hold my child’s rights. She has no rights independent of what I say.

I am concerned with adult citizens losing their rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is an excellent answer, Josh. I wish that more parents had that perspective. Have a good weekend. ;)

[nalesq]

Why are teachers being allowed to carry concealed handguns such a big deal? Haven’t some states, like Utah, already allowed such a thing for years without incident?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Drang]

Why are teachers being allowed to carry concealed handguns such a big deal? Haven’t some states, like Utah, already allowed such a thing for years without incident?

Your first day on the Gunternet?:p

Or, if you mean in the general populace, remember that there are many portions of America in which a very vocal (albeit small) subset would disarm the police, as well as "civilians." After all, the debate is driven largely by the Main Stream Media and Democratic National Committee, but I repeat myself, to quote the trope from Instapundit. The good news is that they seem to have less and less traction on this topic every time they start screaming.

EDIT TO ADD: Individuals can answer for themselves, I am amazed by how many people seem to think "arming teachers" means "arming ALL teachers", which is absurd, and I believe POTUS45 has himself said no more than 10% need be armed to suffice as a deterrent.

Mind you, there are plenty of jurisdictions where even that will be highly controversial, to say the least, and it sucks to be a student (or parent) in NYC or LA, or example.

But that's no change, is it?

[elsquid]

While I’m not very happy with some of President Trump’s recent comments, I am trying to keep my eye on the ball.

The reality is that Trump can support AWBs, mag bans, etc all day as long as he gets a second term(1) and replaces some of the liberal members of SCOTUS with predictable pro 2nd votes. Because once that happens, the floodgates will be opened, and undoubtedly a lot of the issues that we care about will gain constitutional protection, full stop.

Kolbe was up this term...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/

...and there is no doubt that the LV shooting derailed it. My personal opinion was that the reason why the NRA was so vocal about bumpstocks was to make the LV shooting a “bumpstock issue” and not a “semi auto rifle and magazine issue.” SCOTUS passed on Kolbe, but honestly that was a much better result than them taking up the case and ruling that neither were constitutionally protected. ( As usual, it would have come down to what Kennedy felt on the issue. )

Anyways, enough of my rambling...

— Michael

(1) well, probably not really, since he’d be pissing off the gun owner vote. But I’m being dramatic here.

[Peally]

POTUS45

Heheh.

[Zincwarrior]

“Earlier Thursday morning, before a tweet praising the NRA, Trump went the furthest he’s ever gone on gun control, saying he’d push for tougher background checks that screen for mental health, raising the minimum age of buyers to 21, and ending the sale of bump stocks.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/trump-hears-stories-from-shooting-victims-in-remarkable-meeting?utm_campaign=pol&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=applenews

18-20 year olds don’t have Constitutional rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only if they are GoodRights.

[Zincwarrior]

Why are teachers being allowed to carry concealed handguns such a big deal? Haven’t some states, like Utah, already allowed such a thing for years without incident?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Several states, including Texas (a bit of a surprise, I thought it was being considered, not passed) do. Thats a State issue, not Federal issue. Trump and the Federales should keep their noses out of it.

[Josh Runkle]

Only if they are GoodRights.

I don’t understand what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

No. I hold my child’s rights. She has no rights independent of what I say.

I am concerned with adult citizens losing their rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not actually true. Your child has rights independent of you or your wishes. They aren't chattle.

[Josh Runkle]

That's not actually true. Your child has rights independent of you or your wishes. They aren't chattle.

From who? God? Nature? The government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peally]

OK now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that your child doesn't have human rights (on the nature/God/whatever level) without your permission or am I being a tard that isn't following?

I mean with that logic cutting your kid's hand off because your right to ownership trumps their right to keeping their hand is good to go, but I know that's not what you're saying.

Even legally they have some rights (arguably not nearly enough) in the US.



Finally this thread gets a little interesting.

[Peally]

My body is ready

24018

[BehindBlueI's]

From who? God? Nature? The government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.

[Josh Runkle]

OK now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that your child doesn't have human rights (on the nature/God/whatever level) without your permission or am I being a tard that isn't following?

I mean with that logic cutting your kid's hand off because your right to ownership trumps their right to keeping their hand is good to go, but I know that's not what you're saying.

Even legally they have some rights (arguably not nearly enough) in the US.



Finally this thread gets a little interesting.

My child has no rights. Adults could decide to cut their own thumb off, and as long as they are mentally stable (though we would all suspect they are not), there is nothing that prevents them from cutting off their own thumb. However, a child cannot make a choice to do that. On the other hand, the government making a decision on behalf of my child would prevent me the parent (not that I would ever harm my kid, I love her) from having the right to mutilate my child. The government might “say” that my child has innate human rights, but she really doesn’t. She has the rights that are bestowed upon her by beneficent masters.

Consider this: if my child is thirsty does she have a right to have water? Am I able to say, “Nope, you already had enough water, go back to bed, you can have some in the morning.”? Or, does my child’s inherent thirst display a human need, and does she have a human right to have her needs met in the way she determines, in the way nature determines or in the way that a parent/guardian/provider determines?

She might have needs and rights, but those needs and rights are forever married to my belief as a parent in how those needs are met and when those needs exist. I determine her rights. She cannot determines her own. Someone could overrule me, lock me away and determine her rights for her, but she still does not have her own rights.

Regardless: I have no issue with someone under 18 having restrictions on free speech, freedoms of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, rkba, etc... I am, however, upset about all adults 18-20 years old losing a right due to their age. If all persons of that age display a lack of immaturity inconsistent with adult-hood, then we should call them children, and they should not have the right to vote, smoke, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NEPAKevin]

Curious how the same people who say firearms need to be banned because they allow murderers to kill their victims say that firearms would not work in the opposite direction to allow victims to kill their murders and yet firearms would work to for those victims to commit suicide.

[Peally]

My child has no rights. Adults could decide to cut their own thumb off, and as long as they are mentally stable (though we would all suspect they are not), there is nothing that prevents them from cutting off their own thumb. However, a child cannot make a choice to do that. On the other hand, the government making a decision on behalf of my child would prevent me the parent (not that I would ever harm my kid, I love her) from having the right to mutilate my child. The government might “say” that my child has innate human rights, but she really doesn’t. She has the rights that are bestowed upon her by beneficent masters.

Hoooooooly shit, I was giving the benefit of the doubt there but I may have been wrong. I think I need off the internet for a while, I'm starting to feel like I'm on some rural Afghan forum all of a sudden.

Be back in a few, gonna go roast my kid's leg for the family dinner tonight (goes great with a little parsley).

[BehindBlueI's]

My child has no rights. Adults could decide to cut their own thumb off, and as long as they are mentally stable (though we would all suspect they are not), there is nothing that prevents them from cutting off their own thumb. However, a child cannot make a choice to do that. On the other hand, the government making a decision on behalf of my child would prevent me the parent (not that I would ever harm my kid, I love her) from having the right to mutilate my child. The government might “say” that my child has innate human rights, but she really doesn’t. She has the rights that are bestowed upon her by beneficent masters

You have no right to mutilate a child, and children don't magically become human at 18 years of age.

You are not welcome at any training class I instruct or host.

[PNWTO]

I really hope there was the usual dose of internet argument hyperbole in that declaration.

[critter]

Perhaps a minor has limited rights, limited liberties, and limited responsibility until the age of majority? (though some are put on trial as adults -- I guess it depends on how outraged the DA is).

[Zincwarrior]

I don’t understand what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In 2018, some rights are good, some aren't.

[WobblyPossum]

I request that we get back on topic before Tom closes this thread. I was enjoying the original subject matter and felt I was learning some things, however we may have jumped the shark with the recent ridiculousness. I’ve got the Forrest Whittaker eye going on after reading some of the recent posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

Perhaps a minor has limited rights, limited liberties, and limited responsibility until the age of majority? (though some are put on trial as adults -- I guess it depends on how outraged the DA is).

Yes. Children have rights, just not as expansive as adults.

Children being tried as adults occurs on two ways, at least in my state:
1) "Direct file", which means no hearing is required. This is reserved for 16 and 17 year olds who commit certain felonies, such as murder, robbery with a deadly weapon (but not strong arm robbery), etc.
2) "Waiver hearing", which (obviously) requires a hearing. The prosecutor requests it, evidence is presented as to both the seriousness of the crime as well as the mental status of the child, etc. The judge then determines if the child stays in the juvenile justice system or is tried as an adult. There is no strict cut off in age. I do not know the details of how the psych eval, etc. are weighted in the decision, as that's not my end of it.

[Peally]

I request that we get back on topic before Tom closes this thread. I was enjoying the original subject matter and felt I was learning some things, however we may have jumped the shark with the recent ridiculousness. I’ve got the Forrest Whittaker eye going on after reading some of the recent posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man I've had Forrest Whittaker eye the last whole week here :D

Gonna have to see a doctor soon about it.

[blues]

Reading the past few pages makes me want to buy a bumpstock. Thanks, Internet. [emoji4]

"He always seemed like such a nice quiet man..."

[NEPAKevin]

... makes me want to buy a bumpstock.


Friends don't let friends bumpstock. Forum: NFA
(https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?69-NFA)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12YzarXHB2Q

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Thanks for that video, somehow my eyes were not focused on the guns...

[blues]

Thanks for that video, somehow my eyes were not focused on the guns...

ladybumpstock...

[Josh Runkle]

Be back in a few, gonna go roast my kid's leg for the family dinner tonight (goes great with a little parsley).

That’s effed up, twisted, and in no way similar to what I am trying to represent.

I am either horribly explaining myself, or you are trying to believe something horrific that I am not saying.

New example: your kid goes to the doctor. Your doctor says the kid can take medication a or medication b. The doctor slightly recommends medication a over medication b. Your kid wants to take medication a. You, as the parent decide after reading that you think medication b is better for some reason (yes, of course in any circumstance I would personally go with whatever the doctor thought was best! Yes, of course I would attempt to come to agreement with my child about the course of treatment). In the end, the competent child cannot choose, and the competent parent can, presuming no one is harming anyone.

Also: I’ll be done now, so that I don’t derail the thread anymore. I’m only attempting to make a philosophical argument that children are given rights, but generate no rights of there own, and that since they are given, rather than generating rights, the society/parent/God/nature involved in giving the right is a stakeholder in the right, rather than the child owning it on their own. Please know that I love my daughter more than anything in the world and would never do anything to let harm come to her. Please do not insinuate otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peally]

After pondering it I think I get your point of view but yes the internet is probably a shitty place for this debate ;)

I don't doubt your daughter is in great hands.

[Sigfan26]

Please know that I love my daughter more than anything in the world and would never do anything to let harm come to her. Please do not insinuate otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should probably pick better examples and not insinuate your child has no rights other than the ones you allow them..,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peally]

Alriiiiiiiight, we jumped the shark but now we jumped back and the Fonz is back on topic arguing if Trump is a genius or mentally insane.

[Drang]

Only if they are GoodRights.


I don’t understand what you mean.

https://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell-ebook/dp/B06ZYFD3XG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519462308&sr=8-1&keywords=1984


It seems to me this thread is getting a little bit like 1977-09-20. (That’s when Fonzie jumped the shark. :))

Well, as soon as someone sent up the Wookie Call and invited people to debate the nature of human rights...

[TheNewbie]

Friends don't let friends bumpstock. Forum: NFA
(https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?69-NFA)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12YzarXHB2Q


Is it sad that I learned what AUG stands for from that video?


On a side note, I had amazing horchata last night.

[GardoneVT]

If we are going to throw Trump under the bus because he disagrees with some of us about a device that we all agree serves no useful purpose

Thanks to the Constitution,it doesn’t have to.

[mtnbkr]

I've been mulling this over in my head for a few days now and can't seem to come up with a good answer other than "just because".

The 2nd Amendment covers weapons and presumably the ammo, parts, and accessories required to make this weapons function. However, does the mere fact that an item can be attached to a weapon suddenly "taint" it with the 2nd Amendment? Bump stocks are an accessory, obviously not a factory original part or one required for the gun to function. By the logic that says they're protected, we can attach all manner of items to a gun and suddenly grant constitutional protections to those items.

It strikes me very much as a firearms "one drop" rule.

Chris

[BillSWPA]

Thanks to the Constitution,it doesn’t have to.

As I have repeatedly explained, it is not that simple.

We can argue all day about what the authors of the second amendment really meant, but the practical reality is that it covers what the courts say it covers. If the attorneys who won the Heller decision had not provided some framework for defining the scope and limitations to the right to bear arms, we would still be operating under the completely worthless “collective right” theory under which there was no real second amendment.

Under the current and foreseeable future caselaw, bump stocks are not protected by the second amendment. Screaming “constitution” all day will not change that reality.

Let my try a different analogy: suppose someone thinks they are helping our cause by open-carrying their AR-15 into Walmart, whatever restaurant they choose to dine at, their church, etc.? In a perfect world, they should have a “right” to do so, right?

How many people here would support their ability to do so? In fact, how many people here would draw their own gun and perhaps shoot them as soon as they walked into that church?

But don’t they have a right to bring that gun into that church? Aren’t they keeping everyone in that church safe while “normalizing” gums?

Those who are willing to sacrifice our credibility on the altar of bump stocks are doing far more damage to our rights than the open carry derps. They are playing right into the hands of B. Hussein Obama, who probably legalized bump stocks hoping that one would be used in a mass shooting, so that people would call for more gun control.

Rights have limits. The first amendment does not allow me to defame you, or to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre unless there really is a fire.

If we are not willing to be a part of the conversation defining the limits on the second amendment, we will find those limits defined for us. If we are willing to defend something for which we all agree serves no legitimate purpose, we sacrifice our ability to defend what really is important, like the rights of 18-20 year olds, or the right of teachers to protect their students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

Let my try a different analogy: suppose someone thinks they are helping our cause by open-carrying their AR-15 into Walmart, whatever restaurant they choose to dine at, their church, etc.? In a perfect world, they should have a “right” to do so, right?

How many people here would support their ability to do so? In fact, how many people here would draw their own gun and perhaps shoot them as soon as they walked into that church?

But don’t they have a right to bring that gun into that church? Aren’t they keeping everyone in that church safe while “normalizing” gums?


It is their right to do so, and completely legal in my state. The owner of the establishment can trespass them if they wish (private property rights don't vanish because 2nd amendment), but there is nothing illegal about openly carrying a long gun. I 100% support that right, foolish as I think it is to do so.

I've dealt with protesters with open carry pistols and long guns. I didn't draw mine or shoot them. Simply possessing a gun isn't reason to draw on someone or shoot them. So, no, someone walking in with a slung long gun is going to get my attention but isn't going to result in me drawing or shooting them absent some threat.

Should churches be gun free zones because it's too scary someone walks in with a long gun? If they mean harm, sure as fuck a law prohibiting guns on the property isn't going to stop them.

[Josh Runkle]

By the logic that says they're protected, we can attach all manner of items to a gun and suddenly grant constitutional protections to those items.


There’s no Constitutional protection for items. 2A is a Constitutional protection from Congressional interference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

The 2nd Amendment covers weapons and presumably the ammo, parts, and accessories required to make this weapons function. However, does the mere fact that an item can be attached to a weapon suddenly "taint" it with the 2nd Amendment? Bump stocks are an accessory, obviously not a factory original part or one required for the gun to function. By the logic that says they're protected, we can attach all manner of items to a gun and suddenly grant constitutional protections to those items.


See how thin that line is between bump stocks and external magazines?

The entirety of the 10 year Clinton AWB was about "evil features" and cosmetics. Attachments or designs that made the gun more shooty or too scary looking.

[Shellback]

Bumpstock 3D printing files are already out there...

[OlongJohnson]

I'm soooo tired of this 3D printing boosterism. It's almost never going to actually be the answer for inexpensively making one or a few functional, durable parts at a consumer, need-to-use-it level. It is absolutely not the criteria for the cat being out of the bag on any technology.

[Peally]

It's a young technology hyped up a lot. Eventually it will be more common and easily done for durable parts.

[Holmes375]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=eYQBgi0TRGU

[Sensei]

Thanks to the Constitution,it doesn’t have to.

Tell that to the Gun Control Act of 1968...

Bump stocks are going bye bye and I’m not talking about the prospective purchase of new stocks. The mere possession will be illegal. Just today Trump has said that he will direct the ATF to ban them if Congress does not act (yeah, I know, he’s still not Hilary).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hotair.com/archives/2018/02/26/trump-ill-ban-bump-stocks-congress-doesnt/amp/

I suggest that you clear your calendar for at least 5 years if you plan to test the Executive Branch’s Constitutional authority on this matter.

[Peally]

I expect everyone to turn in their bump stocks post haste, the dear leader has commanded it.




lel

[NEPAKevin]

I generally do not like going down the road of hypothetical questions, but.... What if Nikolas Cruz would have had a bump stock on his boom stick?

[PNWTO]

I generally do not like going down the road of hypothetical questions, but.... What if Nikolas Cruz would have had a bump stock on his boom stick?

I imagine they'd be gone, or in the process or going. Current issues are already proving to be a semi-Pyrrhic battle so I think with so convenient an excuse as a bumpstock they'd be gone.

[Peally]

What if he had tannerite and a nice 3gun shotgun? What if he had a Browning M2?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You, of course, know that Australia strictly controls shotguns and rifles. Lever action shotguns were to be controlled or maybe are. Anyway, that brings up the point that if you show a super fast lever action gun and/or shotgun demo - you just generate a call for banning them.

[Kyle Reese]

You, of course, know that Australia strictly controls shotguns and rifles. Lever action shotguns were to be controlled or maybe are. Anyway, that brings up the point that if you show a super fast lever action gun and/or shotgun demo - you just generate a call for banning them.Yup. If the powers that be enacted a total ban on all semi auto firearms, including handguns, the anti gun crowd would be calling for a ban on manually operated arms next.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[LOKNLOD]

So what will the penalty be if I bump fire with just my finger?


I still say if we make bump stocks be machine guns, the trade off needs to be reopening the NFA for registering of new machine guns. To support that, you’d need to streamline and modernize the NFA process.

Ironically if the left would go for this, they’d get the registry they want. If the NFA wasn’t a hassle, a lot of people would probably forget why they don’t want registered guns. And it would be a lot easier for them to push for adding other things, like “assault weapons”.

I don’t see the first part happening, though.

[blues]

I wonder where the sanctuary cities will turn up...


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/53/96/4d/53964d101923e40023189a856efe2c06--molon-labe-gun-rights.jpg

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Making bump stocks NFA items and opening the registry for new guns is a 'compromise'. That makes zealots of both sides go nuts! Thus, it makes sense.

[mtnbkr]

See how thin that line is between bump stocks and external magazines?

The entirety of the 10 year Clinton AWB was about "evil features" and cosmetics. Attachments or designs that made the gun more shooty or too scary looking.

Yes, that was in mind when I wrote the post above. One could argue the features targeted in the original AWB were at least original design features and not aftermarket add-ons that weren't considered "in spec" for the gun. Yes, I know the original AR spec for magazines was 20rnd, but by the time the AWB was passed, the de facto standard was 30...

I'm not supporting a ban, I'm simply trying to understand where it stops being "random widget" and enters into a protected class. If it's simply because it can be attached to a gun, then we potentially open up the floodgates for all sorts of ridiculous "accessories" to be protected under the 2nd Amendment. IMO, that's not a positive trend (other than telling Govt to eff off). It could ultimately make us look foolish as a community if we, in the interest of consistency, make this argument for anything that can be attached to a gun.

Chris

[scw2]

Yup. If the powers that be enacted a total ban on all semi auto firearms, including handguns, the anti gun crowd would be calling for a ban on manually operated arms next.

The use of arms is correct, since it won't just be manually operated firearms. Once they reach that milestone, the next target of increased regulations and laws will be stuff like knives.

[BehindBlueI's]

One could argue the features targeted in the original AWB were at least original design features and not aftermarket add-ons that weren't considered "in spec" for the gun.

Then that same one would have to argue against aftermarket triggers, weapon mounted lights, optics, quad-rails, etc.

[mtnbkr]

Then that same one would have to argue against aftermarket triggers, weapon mounted lights, optics, quad-rails, etc.

I agree. I'm not supporting that action, merely exploring the extreme to which this could take us. You're thinking too legitimately. I'm concerned that this could oblige us to support the unsupportable once it becomes attached to a gun.

No, I don't have examples. It's a thought exercise. I'm interested in exploring how the relationship with firearms could taint something and force us to support it because of the fear that "slippery slope" could affect legitimate items. Is that necessarily a sound strategy or should we draw a line somewhere?

Chris

[joshs]

Then that same one would have to argue against aftermarket triggers, weapon mounted lights, optics, quad-rails, etc.

Those features/accessories all advance the use of a firearm for purposes protected by the Second Amendment (defense of self and country). Simply making a 1913, keymod, or m-lok adapter for literally anything doesn't confer 2A protection to that object.

All of this is currently theoretical anyways since we cannot get federal courts to agree that the firearms that most of those accessories would be attached to are protected by the Second Amendment.

[BehindBlueI's]

How many people here would support their ability to do so? In fact, how many people here would draw their own gun and perhaps shoot them as soon as they walked into that church?

But don’t they have a right to bring that gun into that church? Aren’t they keeping everyone in that church safe while “normalizing” gums?

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-02-28/pennsylvania-based-church-to-host-ceremony-featuring-ar-15s

[Peally]

You know, considering they shoot bullets a small rocket seems redundant.

Regardless, everything can have a 1913 rail glued to it.

[Eastex]

If we lose our rights to this bunch we don’t deserve them https://youtu.be/Hi2rp8DwiUs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peally]

If we lose our rights to this bunch we don’t deserve them https://youtu.be/Hi2rp8DwiUs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's interesting how effeminate the guy they chose to shoot was.

[blues]

The recently proposed AWB of 2018 includes a prohibition against guns that can have a rocket launcher attached to them. While I haven’t read the entire 200 or so pages of the proposed bill, I’m surprised that chainsaw bayonets weren’t specifically listed as well. :)

Quiet, Tom, or you'll ruin it for everyone!

[BehindBlueI's]

Those features/accessories all advance the use of a firearm for purposes protected by the Second Amendment (defense of self and country).

I don't recall the "for the following purposes" footnote to the 2nd, but I'll play along. Automatic fire is widely accepted as useful in various "defense of country" actions, which is why the military had me lug a SAW around. Bump stocks simulate automatic fire because real automatic fire weapons are so expensive and unwieldy to acquire due to the 1986 requirements.

[Robinson]

It's interesting how effeminate the guy they chose to shoot was.

... but not at all surprising just how poorly he represented the use of an AR15.

[BillSWPA]

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-02-28/pennsylvania-based-church-to-host-ceremony-featuring-ar-15s

There is a big difference between bringing a rifle to a church when everyone knows in advance that people will be bringing rifles, and bringing a rifle when no one expects it, and no one knows whether the individual with the rifle is an open-carry derp or a mass shooter. There is also a big difference between an openly-carried rifle and a concealed handgun.

Regarding church policies, I am leaving the church where I have been a member for about 10 years, mostly because some supposedly "nonpartisan" religion and politics classes were very partisan and very left-leading, but the last straw was when they announced a no-guns policy. I am free to ignore the policy, and the worst they can do in my state is to ban me from the premises, but I can no longer continue to support them. I am considering two new churches. The pastor of one of them already knows I carry concealed, and why I am leaving the former church, and has voiced no objections.

My whole point of my previous post comparing the open carry supporters to bump stock supporters is that they both support something that, under ideal circumstances, "should" be a right, there are very real problems with pursuing those "rights" which results in more harm than good being done.

[BehindBlueI's]

There is a big difference between bringing a rifle to a church when everyone knows in advance that people will be bringing rifles, and bringing a rifle when no one expects it, and no one knows whether the individual with the rifle is an open-carry derp or a mass shooter.

In the context of "legal" and "it's their right", how is it different?

You really have no way to tell if someone is a threat or not other than they are carrying a weapon? You can't differentiate between the goof at Starbucks doing the "my rights" thing and someone with murderous intent? But you can somehow make those decisions with someone carrying a handgun, or since it's concealed it's just you don't have to? You just trust them to not be mass shooters? Or are rifles the only weapon used in mass shootings?

[BillSWPA]

In the context of "legal" and "it's their right", how is it different?

You really have no way to tell if someone is a threat or not other than they are carrying a weapon? You can't differentiate between the goof at Starbucks doing the "my rights" thing and someone with murderous intent? But you can somehow make those decisions with someone carrying a handgun, or since it's concealed it's just you don't have to? You just trust them to not be mass shooters? Or are rifles the only weapon used in mass shootings?

I have not yet discussed how I would handle the situation, but many on this forum have, and dropping them as soon as they walked in the door was thought to be reasonable by some.

Re: differences between an openly carried rifle and concealed handgun: people carry concealed handguns when they do not expect to need a gun, and in this part of Southwest Pennsylvania, it is not uncommon. People carry rifles when they either 1) are extreme open-carry derps (which we do not see many of around here - typically just open carried pistols) or 2) they plan to use it.

Of course there are other tools for telling an open-carry derp from someone with evil intent, but if they have evil intent, the time you have to make that determination is short. A lot of this is going to depend on how he is acting, clues such as a white face (meaning the blood vessels have constricted due to stress in preparation for potentially receiving an injury), attitude, location of his hands, any pre-assault indicators (weight shifting, target glancing, grooming gestures, checking his back, etc.), etc. Depending on how the rifle is being carried, we are already behind the curve. Since my family is often near the entrance/exit, if I wait until bullets start flying before I act, they may be the ones who die.

At the same time, I do not want to start a fight that was otherwise never going to happen.

So what would I do?

I am going to get as ready as I can to quickly draw and shoot, perhaps even drawing discreetly. If circumstances permit, I am evacuating my family. Again depending on circumstances (his actions, my available cover, etc.), I may verbally challenge him. If he does anything to even make me think he is making preaprations to shoot, he is going down.

Does that leave some possibility that an open-carry derp rather than an active shooter gets shot? Yes. Do I have the least bit of sympathy for the derp who created the situation in the first place? No.

There are certain things we don't do in an armed society if we don't want to create a perceived risk of danger to others, to which we can expect others to react in a predictable manner. We don't do these things even though it might be our "right." They may work in a place like Israel, but they don't work in this time, place, and culture.

Even so, open carriers do have a rational argument (even if not a good argument) that they can articulate for their position. An openly carried gun will deter some criminals (even though we know it will make them the target of others). It will get people used to seeing guns (even though we know it will make a lot of people hate gun owners in general and will prompt businesses to put up "no guns" signs). They may not be good arguments, but the whole reason I brought up open carry is that, despite the fact that we generally regard them as derps here, they are far more capable of articulating an argument for their position than I have seen from ANYONE supporting the right to own a bump stock.

If we are going to protect the rights that really do matter and that right now are under fierce attack, we need to do so not only vigorously but also intelligently.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have not yet discussed how I would handle the situation, but many on this forum have, and dropping them as soon as they walked in the door was thought to be reasonable by some.

Re: differences between an openly carried rifle and concealed handgun: people carry concealed handguns when they do not expect to need a gun, and in this part of Southwest Pennsylvania, it is not uncommon. People carry rifles when they either 1) are extreme open-carry derps (which we do not see many of around here - typically just open carried pistols) or 2) they plan to use it.

Of course there are other tools for telling an open-carry derp from someone with evil intent, but if they have evil intent, the time you have to make that determination is short. A lot of this is going to depend on how he is acting, clues such as a white face (meaning the blood vessels have constricted due to stress in preparation for potentially receiving an injury), attitude, location of his hands, any pre-assault indicators (weight shifting, target glancing, grooming gestures, checking his back, etc.), etc. Depending on how the rifle is being carried, we are already behind the curve. Since my family is often near the entrance/exit, if I wait until bullets start flying before I act, they may be the ones who die.

At the same time, I do not want to start a fight that was otherwise never going to happen.

So what would I do?

I am going to get as ready as I can to quickly draw and shoot, perhaps even drawing discreetly. If circumstances permit, I am evacuating my family. Again depending on circumstances (his actions, my available cover, etc.), I may verbally challenge him. If he does anything to even make me think he is making preaprations to shoot, he is going down.

Does that leave some possibility that an open-carry derp rather than an active shooter gets shot? Yes. Do I have the least bit of sympathy for the derp who created the situation in the first place? No.

There are certain things we don't do in an armed society if we don't want to create a perceived risk of danger to others, to which we can expect others to react in a predictable manner. We don't do these things even though it might be our "right." They may work in a place like Israel, but they don't work in this time, place, and culture.

Even so, open carriers do have a rational argument (even if not a good argument) that they can articulate for their position. An openly carried gun will deter some criminals (even though we know it will make them the target of others). It will get people used to seeing guns (even though we know it will make a lot of people hate gun owners in general and will prompt businesses to put up "no guns" signs). They may not be good arguments, but the whole reason I brought up open carry is that, despite the fact that we generally regard them as derps here, they are far more capable of articulating an argument for their position than I have seen from ANYONE supporting the right to own a bump stock.

If we are going to protect the rights that really do matter and that right now are under fierce attack, we need to do so not only vigorously but also intelligently.

To be perfectly frank, this seems to be the same argument as "blood will run in the streets" that always precedes passage of handgun carry laws in every state and never comes to fruition. As stated, my state is an open carry state and we've yet to see all of these dire issues even when people carried into a Starbucks, walked around the circle downtown, etc.

Protecting the rights that "really do matter" is simply code for the ones you like, what looks good to you, what you find inoffensive. What you're arguing for is losing slower. That's still losing.

[BillSWPA]

To be perfectly frank, this seems to be the same argument as "blood will run in the streets" that always precedes passage of handgun carry laws in every state and never comes to fruition. As stated, my state is an open carry state and we've yet to see all of these dire issues even when people carried into a Starbucks, walked around the circle downtown, etc.

Protecting the rights that "really do matter" is simply code for the ones you like, what looks good to you, what you find inoffensive. What you're arguing for is losing slower. That's still losing.

The argument I keep hearing is that we need to die defending the hill of bump stocks because if we do not, we automatically lose the other rights we have (but I still don't see how one automatically leads to the other). I also keep hearing the argument that just because I don't like bump stocks, and just because NO ONE here can make a rational argumetn why they do any good, the possibility that someone might like them means we need to sacrifice our collective credibility defending them.

Have you ever persuaded anyone of anything without presenting a rational explanation for your position? If not, then how do you expect to successfully persuade anyone to support our position when you are insisting that we support something we cannot rationally explain? How much credibility does anyone have in defending concealed carry, standard carry magazines, etc. when they are insisting on bump stocks, but cannot explain why a bump stock is a good thing?

So far, open carriers have succeeded in 1) getting open carry banned in some places, and 2) getting "no guns" signs put up in establishments that never had them previously, in places where those signs have the force of law, and 3) exactly zero positive outcomes. It is an example of what happens when we are more enthusiastic than intelligent in defending our rights.

So, defending bump stocks does not prevent erosion of our rights, but accelerates that erosion.

[BehindBlueI's]

I've yet to see a rational argument for not defending them, either, other than "it doesn't affect me" and hoping that if you throw that bone, that'll satiate the other side.

What gun control measure has passed and satiated those who want to ban firearms? Why is it up to us to prove something good comes from owning bump stocks? Isn't the onus on those who want to ban them?


So, defending bump stocks does not prevent erosion of our rights, but accelerates that erosion.

= let's lose slower.

[Joe in PNG]

I've yet to see a rational argument for not defending them, either, other than "it doesn't affect me" and hoping that if you throw that bone, that'll satiate the other side.

What gun control measure has passed and satiated those who want to ban firearms? Why is it up to us to prove something good comes from owning bump stocks? Isn't the onus on those who want to ban them?

= let's lose slower.

Recall the heady days between the 1994 AWB and the 2004 sunset. There were continuous calls for ever further bans and restrictions.

[critter]

...

Protecting the rights that "really do matter" is simply code for the ones you like, what looks good to you, what you find inoffensive. What you're arguing for is losing slower. That's still losing.

I realize that I'm an idealist, but when all actual capitulation compromise comes from one side that's *always* losing -- by forfeit. You have one side demanding infringement upon that which "shall not be infringed"-- then demanding slightly less infringement and that's somehow massaged into the definition of compromise when they're actually giving up the same nothing they started with.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Watching Donald today, I wonder if Wayne LaP. is so happy with his butt kissing editorials of recent past. The balance of his statements were strongly negative. The dismissal of reciprocity (I know some folks don't like it) without being a great deal maker in his rush to moral panic is telling. His slap down of folks as being scared of the NRA - what more do you want?

The chickens are coming home to roost on the NRA's strategy or lack of or deliberate strategy just to get funds from the choir by riling them up. I know this may offend some good people there who work for gun rights (I've met them) but it's time for a more focused and strategic leadership. The standard scare tactics will not defend against a clever attack trying to generate a social change among the middle of the road of gun owners and the young people. I've said this all before so no need to repeat myself.

[BehindBlueI's]

I realize that I'm an idealist, but when all actual capitulation compromise comes from one side that's *always* losing -- by forfeit. You have one side demanding infringement upon that which "shall not be infringed"-- then demanding slightly less infringement and that's somehow massaged into the definition of compromise when they're actually giving up the same nothing they started with.

That's what I just don't get. Why are we placating anyone? Is there actually some contingent that is saying "give us bump stocks and we'll stop there, don't give us bump stocks and we'll take everything!!!" If so, who?

[Drang]

So what will the penalty be if I bump fire with just my finger?
I've been saying all along that they'll have to ban belt loops and pieces of string.

[Drang]

That's what I just don't get. Why are we placating anyone? Is there actually some contingent that is saying "give us bump stocks and we'll stop there, don't give us bump stocks and we'll take everything!!!" If so, who?

"What you mean 'we', paleface?"

I don't see anyone here placating anyone. No one here seems all that enamored of bump stocks, most of us want some form of national reciprocity, but no one here is talking like they're enthusiastic about for throwing another passenger off the troika...


We're not compromising our rights.

Our so-called congressional representatives are being pressured to do so. By a president no one really believed was all that hot on our gun rights.

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't see anyone here placating anyone....We're not compromising our rights.



Then I can only assume you aren't reading the thread, because there has been plenty of "just placate them" and even support for a ban.


Fuck the bump stocks. The only thing that bothers me about this is the baboon folded under pressure.


What is being lost? I’m asking because I don’t own a bump stock, never seen one fired, and I have never been a member of a range that allows them. In fact, the only time I’ve ever seen one is on a video at a gun show - chicks in bikinis firing them with their dirty pellows bouncing all over the place (the only benefit to bump stocks that I’ve seen so far)

From a legal perspective they seem to be a clear attempt to circumvent Section 2.1.6 of the NFA Handbook definition of machinegun as “weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.” Manual being bolded as they key word that could easily be interpreted as a voluntary actuation of the trigger. From a practical perspective, they seem retarded as they degrade the accuracy of lead going down range which means safety is also degraded; the reason why every range in my area bans them.

So, someone tell me what we are losing and why I should want to die on this political hill?


Bump stocks were banned under generally pro-gun (with exceptions) George W Bush.

Bump stocks were unbanned under B. Hussein Obama, the same dude who gave us Fast & Furious, and who has done everything he could to try to ban guns.

Both Presidents did exactly the right thing for their own goals, as did Trump.

Why?

Because both Bush and Obama knew that if bump stocks were easily obtainable, someone was going to do what ultimately happened in Las Vegas.

Bush banned them because he know that if something like that ever happened, there would be loss of life and calls for more gun control. Obama - the guy who tried to drive up death statistics with Fast & Furious, unbanned them for exactly the same reason.

Do you know what else Obama was really good at?

Getting conservatives to overreact to something in a way that makes them look ridiculous.

Remember all his talk about regulating guns through regulations, the reactions it prompted, and the ultimate regulations which really were not that much?

Bump stocks are becoming the same thing.

We have discussed bump stocks before. NO ONE has ever put forth a legitimate reason fortheir existence. We all know that good marksmanship is accomplished by holding the gun as stationary as possible while shooting. We all also know that the Las Vegas shooter could likely have done more damage than he did with aimed semiautomatic fire, applying proper shooting techniques, than he did with a bump stock.

A good argumet that a bump stock is protected by the Second Amendment simply cannot be made. In fact, a far better argument could be made for true full auto weapons, or even belt-fed machine guns or artillery pieces, than could be made for a bump stock. Full auto weapons have a military purpose, while bump stocks do not. Yet, in order to get Heller through the Supreme Court, some way to get off the slippery slope leading to anything and everything being allowed had to be provided, and that way off the slippery slope led to certain things - like full auto - being thrown under the bus.

Despite all this, many are willing to die on the hill of bump stocks. I am not. I am generally opposed to all gun control, but if this bump stock ban can somehow be used to help us achieve far more important goals, I am all for it.


With the vast majority of gun control proposals, I would be of the opinion that no ground should be given.

Modern semiauot rifles, standard capacity magazines, concealed carry, keeping obstacles out of the path of those purchasing guns, etc. all serve a valid purpose. We can all explain that purpose so that anyone willing to really listen can understand it, even if the anti-gun people cannot.

While many are trying to shift the issue to mental health, I am hesitant to go too far down that road. In NJ, you cannot get a Firearms Purchaser ID Card if you have ever taken an anti-anxiety medication, and I do not ever want to get to the point where people cannot seek help without risking their rights. So, I want to be very careful about the ground given here.

What is different about bump stocks is that people are defending something for which they are completely incapable of presenting a legitimate reason for its existence.

What is the problem with this?

When we argue so vehemently for something for which we cannot present a legitimate reason for its existence, then who is ever going to listen to what we have to say about standard capacity magazines, modern semiauto rifles, concealed carry, etc.?

By defending bump stocks, people are severely damaging their credibility when the defend stuff that genuinely needs defended.

Expressed differently, we have to admit when we are wrong in order to have credibility when we are right.


Question for everyone defending bump stocks: how many of you are comfortable on a shooting range with the guy next to you turning money into smoke with a bump stock?

Keep in mind that unlike true full auto, some movement of the gun is intentionally being permitted to allow the bump stock to function.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hopefully the deal was NRA support for throwing bump stocks under the bus in exchange for vetoing any ban that slips through Congress after the mid-term elections.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk


Good riddance...

probably next "stabilizing braces" for pistols


I still do not understand the focus on the way the left argues their position rather than how we argue our position.

Am I correct in assuming that you are capable of presenting a good argument in favor of concealed carry, large capacity magazines, etc.?

I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to even attempt to present a semi-rational argument for the usefulness of a bump stock.

If you are willing to sacrifice OUR credibility on the altar of bump stocks when YOU cannot even present an argument for their usefulness, then why should anyone listen to what you have to say about concealed carry, high capacity magazines, etc.?

Wouldn’t you rather use your credibility for the many important battles we face rather than destroying it fighting for bump stocks?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If we are going to throw Trump under the bus because he disagrees with some of us about a device that we all agree serves no useful purpose, we are going to unnecessarily alienate a friend. Ronald Reagan said that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend. So far, Trump far exceeds that standard.

Every time the left succeeds in getting gun control passed, they always push for more. We know that. However, that doesn't mean they get what they are pushing for. The idea that a bump stock ban somehow "opens the door" to more control lacks the logical connections from one thing to the other.

Out of the last 3 presidential administrations, two of the three thought bump stocks should be banned. Those were the ones that were generally supportive of our rights. The ONLY one that thought they should be legal was the most anti-gun of them all, and the one that gave us Fast & Furious. I spelled out exactly why in a post above. Does that not bother anyone?

[BillSWPA]

I've yet to see a rational argument for not defending them, either, other than "it doesn't affect me" and hoping that if you throw that bone, that'll satiate the other side.

What gun control measure has passed and satiated those who want to ban firearms? Why is it up to us to prove something good comes from owning bump stocks? Isn't the onus on those who want to ban them?



= let's lose slower.

Please explain to me what is irrational about making sure we can articulate why we defend what we defend in order to establish and preserve our credibility?

It seems to me that defending something that we all agree is useless is less rational.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Then I can only assume you aren't reading the thread, because there has been plenty of "just placate them" and even support for a ban.

If you read anything I wrote as “just placate them, than you have completely failed to read.

I have explained my reasoning ad nauseum. Please show me where “just placate them formed ANY part of that reasoning.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

I think we need two separate threads: one for idealists and one for pragmatists.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[blues]

I think we need two separate threads: one for idealists and one for pragmatists.



I think we'd better learn to pull together so we don't have to have one for winners and one for losers.

[BehindBlueI's]

If you read anything I wrote as “just placate them, than you have completely failed to read.

I have explained my reasoning ad nauseum. Please show me where “just placate them formed ANY part of that reasoning.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Definition of placate
placated; placating
transitive verb
: to soothe or mollify especially by concessions

Allowing the ban of bump stocks is a concession. One apparently you are willing to make because you somehow believe it makes us more able to defend other things. I'm not sure what's not to understand, nor do I understand why simply saying "no, we're not giving you ANYTHING" isn't an option with a supposedly friendly Republican majority.