Bump stock Bye Bye!

[BillSWPA]

@BillSWPA The issue then becomes determining the most effective tactic to avoid those cuts.

I completely agree. But the conversation has to be had and it has to start with 1. we will justly compensate you for what you paid for the item in question, 2. We can pass a law to prohibit ownership, sale, grandfather ownership of existing or not, or add them to the ATF racket and require blood money tax or not. All of the above is fine with me but issuing a decree is fucking bullshit and I am sick of our elect bypassing our constitution whenever they freaking feel like it suits them, and that goes for both of the shitty parties.

This definitely could have been done better through legislation rather than regulation. Legislation would have provided more opportunities to negotiate something in return, which, before or after the recent elections, we would still be doing from a position of strength.

Part of what concerns me about this thread is the apparent willingness of some posters to throw Trump, who has so far been our friend, under the bus for an action that, when the entire chess board is viewed properly, helps us more than it hurts us. The only recent president who thought bump stocks shoulb be legal was the one trying to drum up support for more gun control. Let's not alienate our friends.

[WobblyPossum]

I don’t like bump stocks. I like new regulations with attached criminal penalties passed by executive fiat and the “interpretations” of government agencies even less. I would have much preferred to have Congress pass a law adding bump stocks to the NFA with a grace period for anyone who had one and wanted to register it. If everyone hated bump stocks so much that they want them banned there are appropriate ways to do it that don’t circumvent common sense and the established constitutional channels for making things illegal.

[JRB]

Whether the opposition is interested in being reasonable or rational should not be of concern to us. The less reasonable and rational they are or they appear, the better off we are.

I disagree. The more unreasonable and baseless they become on all things the more validated that MO becomes. Whenever they achieve political victories with that thinking, we lose, because stupidity will always bring us down to that level and beat us with experience.

I am much more interested in making sure we appear rational and reasonable when we are talking to people who may or may not own a gun, don't have strong feelings on principle, the second amendment, etc., but do have strong feelings about their kids coming home safely at the end of the school day.

I don't think you're speaking to as big of a population with that approach as you think. Between media, social media, and pop culture what was 'centrist' 10 years ago is now right-leaning, and 'hard left' is getting further and further left. The only answer to make a centrist/neutral approach worthwhile at this point means pushing further right.
People vote on a hierarchy of what matters to them and it distills into fairly digital responses when all's said and done, and very few people can be swayed from a political bias with one or two concessions in policy whether it's bump stocks or whatever. I do not see a ban on bump stocks generating new pro-gun votes nor do I see allowing bump stocks generating new anti-gun votes.

Cars "kill" tens of thousands of people every year. We know better: bad/stupid/drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people every year, with cars as the instrument. Yet, we do not ban cars because they are useful. The same can be said of handguns, AR-15's etc. The same argument could even be made for true full auto. The same cannot be said of a bump stock.

The 'useful' argument is a non-starter and one we should avoid entirely in gun policy. Because once we validate ignorant (if not blindingly stupid) *opinions* on what is 'useful' then that opens the door against everything you just listed. Many antis think that *no* guns are useful. Then we have the fudds and Zumbos that are in denial about useful technological improvements on modern firearms, and then we have folks who want to home-build full auto 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons in their basement.
In matters of policy, the 'useful' argument shouldn't matter because it is an arbitrary opinion. That's how we ended up with all the 'sporting purpose' bullshit in the GCA of '68 and continue to deal with 'sporting purpose' issues in policy to include pistol grips, stocks, etc being banned on visual appearances based on pure fucking ignorance. Allowing your opinion to dictate your position on bumpstocks is one thing - conflating your opinion on the usefulness of a bumpstock as if it were scientific fact is where this goes pear-shaped and feeds the exact fire we're trying to put out.

The only answer we should have on this should be 'Rifle murders are very rare in the US and they are spectacularly rare compared to the number of legally owned modern rifles, nobody is made safer by this legislation and the suggestion that it does make people safer is blatantly false and politically motivated by opinion not established data-based facts. Furthermore, making policy based on emotional and ignorant understanding of a technical subject never leads to good policy regardless of the subject matter.'

The fact that *I* think bumpstocks are stupid and useless is irrelevant on this. It sets a terrible precedent to let ignorant fuckheads win a victory like this based on nothing more than biased appearances and perceptions that cannot be supported by fact. They will take this precedent and run with it against adjustable stocks (CAN BE EASILY CONVERTED TO A BUMPSTOCK!!!!) standard cap magazines, etc etc it goes downhill fast.

And again, it wins us exactly fucking nothing on furthering 2A rights in other areas, or generating pro-gun votes. Nobody is going to say 'I was going to vote anti gun, but since gun people were so reasonable about bumpstocks, I'll vote pro-gun instead' Everyone on that topic has already made up their mind and the tiny percentage that might just fall into that category are not worth the damaging precedent we leave from baseless emotional bullshit being made into law.

[GuanoLoco]

The master of the deal failed to make any deal at all and just did exactly what everybody complained about Obama doing with Executive Orders. Who is our friend again?

[BillSWPA]

I disagree. The more unreasonable and baseless they become on all things the more validated that MO becomes. Whenever they achieve political victories with that thinking, we lose, because stupidity will always bring us down to that level and beat us with experience.

Completely incorrect. I see this time and again in adversary proceedings before administrative agencies and courts. The way to win is to appear reasonable, and to point to the other side as being unreasonable. If you are not concerned with appearing to be the reasonable party, you have zero chance of winning.

I don't think you're speaking to as big of a population with that approach as you think. Between media, social media, and pop culture what was 'centrist' 10 years ago is now right-leaning, and 'hard left' is getting further and further left. The only answer to make a centrist/neutral approach worthwhile at this point means pushing further right.
People vote on a hierarchy of what matters to them and it distills into fairly digital responses when all's said and done, and very few people can be swayed from a political bias with one or two concessions in policy whether it's bump stocks or whatever. I do not see a ban on bump stocks generating new pro-gun votes nor do I see allowing bump stocks generating new anti-gun votes.

I don't need to be speaking to a big part of the population. The last several elections were won by a small percentage of votes.

I talk to a lot of people on this issue, and have persuaded some to come to our side. There are a lot of persuadable anti-gun people out there - at least until you start defending bump stocks.

The 'useful' argument is a non-starter and one we should avoid entirely in gun policy.

If you do not learn what is important to the decision makers, and address those issues, you will lose. Arguing only the issues you think is important, without studying and addressing what matters to the decision makers, is a sure way to lose.

The attorney who won Heller spoke at the NRA CLE years ago. He studied Justice Kennedy in particular - the swing vote - and tailored his arguments accordingly.

Because once we validate ignorant (if not blindingly stupid) *opinions* on what is 'useful' then that opens the door against everything you just listed. Many antis think that *no* guns are useful. Then we have the fudds and Zumbos that are in denial about useful technological improvements on modern firearms, and then we have folks who want to home-build full auto 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons in their basement.
In matters of policy, the 'useful' argument shouldn't matter because it is an arbitrary opinion. That's how we ended up with all the 'sporting purpose' bullshit in the GCA of '68 and continue to deal with 'sporting purpose' issues in policy to include pistol grips, stocks, etc being banned on visual appearances based on pure fucking ignorance. Allowing your opinion to dictate your position on bumpstocks is one thing - conflating your opinion on the usefulness of a bumpstock as if it were scientific fact is where this goes pear-shaped and feeds the exact fire we're trying to put out.

Re-read my original post in this thread.

EVERY SINGLE concern you mention here is one that you can counter with your won rational argument. That is not the case with bump stocks.

The only answer we should have on this should be 'Rifle murders are very rare in the US and they are spectacularly rare compared to the number of legally owned modern rifles, nobody is made safer by this legislation and the suggestion that it does make people safer is blatantly false and politically motivated by opinion not established data-based facts. Furthermore, making policy based on emotional and ignorant understanding of a technical subject never leads to good policy regardless of the subject matter.'

Again, you are proposing to win an argument by completely ignoring what is important to those you are trying to persuade.

The fact that *I* think bumpstocks are stupid and useless is irrelevant on this. It sets a terrible precedent to let ignorant fuckheads win a victory like this based on nothing more than biased appearances and perceptions that cannot be supported by fact. They will take this precedent and run with it against adjustable stocks (CAN BE EASILY CONVERTED TO A BUMPSTOCK!!!!) standard cap magazines, etc etc it goes downhill fast.

And again, it wins us exactly fucking nothing on furthering 2A rights in other areas, or generating pro-gun votes. Nobody is going to say 'I was going to vote anti gun, but since gun people were so reasonable about bumpstocks, I'll vote pro-gun instead' Everyone on that topic has already made up their mind and the tiny percentage that might just fall into that category are not worth the damaging precedent we leave from baseless emotional bullshit being made into law.

The whole point of my original post was that we lose credibility when we argue for positions we cannot support with rational argument. When we lose credibility, we lose the ability to win the many winnable fights.

We are not going to lose our second amendment rights as a result of anything the anti-gunners do. We will lose them by failing to carefully consider our positions and being our own worse enemy.

[GyroF-16]

I have no interest in owning a bump stock. But I’m deeply concerned that the president thinks that he has the authority to direct an executive agency to BAN an item that was previously legal.
If he can direct the ATF to ban bump stocks, could he (or some future president) do other things... like direct the FCC to ban cell phones, or short-wave radios?
This strikes me as gross executive overreach, and something that needs to be promptly and vigorously challenged.

[BillSWPA]

I have no interest in owning a bump stock. But I’m deeply concerned that the president thinks that he has the authority to direct an executive agency to BAN an item that was previously legal.
If he can direct the ATF to ban bump stocks, could he (or some future president) do other things... like direct the FCC to ban cell phones, or short-wave radios?
This strikes me as gross executive overreach, and something that needs to be promptly and vigorously challenged.

Administrative law is not that simple.

It requires a grant of authority from Congress, defining the scope of that authority. Proper procedures must be followed. Although courts defer to agencies operating within their area of expertise (using that term very loosely in the case of BATFE), regulations are subject to review by the courts.

[Mike C]

@BillSWPA, I’m with @GuanoLoco on this. Trump sure as hell isn’t our friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willie]

On MSN I saw mention of a soon to be released regulation banning bump stocks. I cast a critical eye on the part that said that existing bump stocks would have to be surrendered or destroyed. Note that the regulation's narrative has not been released so my statement may not be accurate. But, we will have a precedent for surrendering or destroying possessions like high capacity magazines.

[BillSWPA]

@BillSWPA, I’m with @GuanoLoco on this. Trump sure as hell isn’t our friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Trump, who resisted all kinds of calls for all kinds of gun control after multiple mass shootings, but banned something EVERYONE ADMITS IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS, isn't our friend?

Does this make Obama our friend since it was his administration that made bump stocks legal?

What, then, is the standard for being our friend? Complete agreement on every single issue? Good luck.

Ronald Reagan's standard was agreeing 80% of the time. Trump has exceeded that by a significant amount.