Feinstein Intros Bill to Ban "Bump-Stocks"

[walker2713]

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

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

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

40 dead instead of 59?

30 dead instead of 59?

20 dead instead of 59?

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

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

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

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

George

[SamAdams]

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

[StraitR]

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

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

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

[SamAdams]

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

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

Bureaucratic agencies have been called the fourth branch of government.

[RevolverRob]

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

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

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

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

[Morbidbattlecry]

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

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

[Sensei]

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



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

[BillSWPA]

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

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

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

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

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

[TiroFijo]

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

[SamAdams]

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

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

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



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro