I was interviewed about the use of bump fire stocks by CBS News yesterday. (Click here for the video, click here for Nick’s explanation of their function.) The newscasters ignored the bit where I said the device was only effective because Las Vegas spree killer Stephen Paddock was shooting indiscriminately at an enormous target. (We’re posting the raw video of the CBS interview later today.) Producer Mark Hooper didn’t ask me the question I dreaded . . .
“Should the bumpfire stocks be banned?”
As a Second Amendment absolutist, as a conservative who believes gay couples should be able to defend their [legal] marijuana crop with machine guns, my answer is “no.” And then I’d have to say . . . what?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Drops mic.
Here’s the problem – The majority of Americans are getting tired of that refrain. Decades of laws and legal precedents have pretty much set the fact that 2A is not an unrestricted right. Don’t believe me? Take a trip to CA, NY, etc.
Simply replying that the 2A is absolute is going to sound more and more like the justifications that neo-Nazis and other hate groups give when they march. Stay on this path and gun owners will one day be as reviled as other groups deemed bad by society.
I’m not suggesting that we cave, but we need to come up with a better strategy to convince our fellow Americans that guns and people can coexist and much of the problem is not because of guns but because of people.
As for the bump stock – let’s call it what it is. It’s a clever way to skirt the prohibition against free access to full auto weapons. Most people in this country including many gun owners are in favor of keeping machine guns restricted. That is very unlikely to change and as long as we have devices that violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the law, the loopholes will close. Just look at what CA did to deal with the bullet button loophole.
For the record, I’ve owned both a bump stock and a true full auto gun and I’m not opposed to civilian ownership of them. On the other hand, my main objections to the way things are done now (Form 4) is the astronomically long wait and the fact that I paid roughly 30 times more for the full auto gun than it’s semi-auto brother would have cost due to the fact that new ones cannot be bought.
Agreed. Good post.
Let’s be honest, some infringement is a good thing. How would we all feel right now if someone from Antifa got a hold of a nuclear weapon?
With that said, where is the line we maintain our ability to defend ourselves and keep the government in check, and being totally infringed upon?
^ I got news for you, if someone has the means and intent to acquire a nuclear device, hand-wringing and laws will not stop them. It is absurd to create a straw man using nukes. The reason we don’t see them being used is the cost, storage, transportation, and handling of such devices; not some pissant law. You can’t make one out of readily available materials, you can’t store it indefinitely, you can’t easily cart around a several thousand pound device (for reasonable yield), nor can you plop down millions of dollars to buy one on a whim.
Well, NG, here’s the thing, if you have the resources, expertise, and motivation to acquire the necessary materials to construct a nuclear weapon, then you’re going to do so regardless of U.S. law, international law, treaties, entreaties, local building codes, dees restrictions, homeowners association regulations, or any other form of prohibition.
The only options are to bomb the nuclear bomb builder (like Israel did with Iraq and later Syria), or make security promises in exchange for disarmament (like we did with Libya and Ukraine, only to attack Libya, anyway, and let Russia attack Ukraine), or play twenty years of games during which the bad guys build their bombs, regardless (like North Korea did and Iran is doing). So the nuke example is pretty lame on its face.
Nevertheless, there is an underlying principle. The Second Amendment indicates an individual right to bear arms in defense of his State. That implies an individual physically wielding a weapon, as in a carried weapon, not an ICBM. More importantly, the idea of defense presupposes an attack by a known assailant, which in turn only authorizes defensive action against that attacker.
A nuclear weapon does not fall within those parameters because you’re taking millions of innocent people’s lives, not just the attacker you had a right to.
“That implies an individual physically wielding a weapon, as in a carried weapon, not an ICBM.”
Uh, uuuhhmmm, NO. The militia in the days of the founding had weapons to match those of the standing army. Do you imagine the founders would have considered lack of parity in weaponry with the central government to be satisfactory? The militias were armed to be able to deal with threats from the frontier, other states, and especially the standing army of the central government. If the founders had intended that militias not have artillery, they were of sufficient mind to note that in the second amendment. Parity with the government the states were to control was imperative. As it should be today. As it happens, states are no longer independent of the central government. States will not fund militia with adequate armament to fend off the central government.
Sam, I said implied, not dictated. Yes, I’m aware that private individuals owned cannon and even ships armed with multiple cannon. The point remains that a nuclear weapon is not remotely comparable ti any of that, because you’re necessarily killing many thousands more people than can possibly be justified by any sense of individual proportionality.
Besides, it’s moot, anyway, because if you can manage to put together a nuke, then as a practical matter, all laws save “might makes right” fly right out the window. Just ask Rocket Man.
But, hey, if you insist on the asininity of running around arguing “Nukes for everyone, my good man!”, then go right ahead. You’ll offend everyone, convince no one, and through it all not even enjoy the moral satisfaction of having been correct. Good day, sir.
Where we disagree is you posit that there really is a reasonable limit on the arms the citizenry may possess and use to keep a tyrannical government in check. Once you agree that the framers intended to allow the standing army of the central government to out-gun the peoples’ militias, you agree that there are some reasonable restrictions permitted. Reasonable then be comes a matter of politics. Your definition of “reasonable” is no more reasonable than that proposed by the anti-gun mafia.
Yes, nukes create large killing zones. Do you imagine that should a third revolution arise, and be nearing success, that a central government that has sunk to the level requiring revolution will refrain from using said nukes on its own citizens? If so, you have a stunted understanding of the prime directive, “Survive at all costs”.
What, precisely, changed in the last 225 years, that you would imagine that the framers would agree that the states (“the people”) should be at military disadvantage to the central government? Do you imagine the founders wrote “shall not be infringed”, but really meant, “shall not be infringed unless it seems reasonable to the central government to do so.”? Do you imagine the framers understood and agreed that there would come a time in the life of the republic when it would be right and just for the central government to be able to disarm the militias, but they just didn’t write about that for fear of offending future generations?
Many here like to point to Vietnam and Afghanistan as examples of rag tag insurgents defeating a well armed and organized modern army. They are wrong. The Viet Cong were destroyed in the Tet Offensive of 1968. After that, the fighting was between the US Army, and North Vietnamese regulars….who had artillery or one type or another. In addition, the NVA was greatly assisted by the lack of will on the part of the American public to pursue a conquest of North Vietnam, favoring instead “sending a message”. In Afghanistan, the insurgents are again aided by an American public that is entirely divided over whether the cost is worth “sending a message”.
The leftists, liberals and Demoncrats are quite willing to wage total war on the proper enemy….anyone who they designate as not worthy of existence. I.E. POTG and other deplorables. The NVA and the Taliban present no threat to our leftists, liberals, statists and Demoncrats. POTG and other conservatives are an existential threat.
The founders wrote extensively about the power of an armed population to keep the central government in check. Human nature has changed not a whit since.
Sam and Jonathan, one thing that you are both missing is that the founders did not intend the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. If the state wanted to ban something that was “unreasonable” that the feds couldn’t, the states could. This includes speech, arms, etc.
This all ended with the 14A applying the Bill of Rights to the states. Now, you either have to have reasonable restrictions on the Bill of Rights, or it really is a “suicide pact.” While that particular phrase was first used in 1949 by Justice Jackson, the concept dated all the way back to Jefferson. He said a “strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
“Sam and Jonathan, one thing that you are both missing is that the founders did not intend the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.”
No. You are talking to the preacher about the constitution prior to 1868. The federal government was not to make laws regarding which weapons the people (and the states) could be armed. Yes, states could make certain rules about firearms, most importantly carry and use for non-militia purposes. The Congress has/has the power, under article 1, section 8:
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
(Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union. Rather contrary to the Posse Comitatus law, eh?)
One may argue Clause 16 permits Congress to restrict the weaponry allowed the militia, but the second amendment was inserted to resolve that possible line of reasoning.
Regarding devolvement of the 14th amendment (forcing the full text of the constitution onto the states), the implication of the language is that the state may not infringe on the right of the people of the state to keep and bear arms. Which results in a conclusion that the states (nor the central government) cannot prevent “the people”, through militias, to acquire sufficient armament to protect the state against enemies foreign and domestic (i.e. central government).
No matter how you wander through the language, “the people”, via the states, are not prohibited from acquiring, maintaining and using whatever weapons of war deemed sufficient to deter or defeat the standing army of the central government.
Any notion that somehow it would be unreasonable for “the people” to obtain nuclear weapons is not found in the constitution, but in the minds of people (lawmakers and courts) who believe there must be some sort of “reasonable” control of the armament of the people. That a member of the state militia would make the same argument does not make the notion valid.
No matter how you state it, you are advocating for “reasonable restrictions” in a human right. Being wrong does not mean you do not understand the reality of the situation of today (because it is as you wish; “reasonable” restrictions in fact exist). It means you are providing support for those whose idea of “reasonable” is elimination of rights that “feel” uncomfortable.
I’m saying four things: (1) under a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution pre-14A, the feds couldn’t ban Joe Citizen from having guns, nuclear weapons, etc., but the states could, (2) under a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution post-14A, the feds couldn’t ban Joe Citizen from having guns, nuclear weapons, etc., and neither could the states (i.e. “no reasonable restrictions” on individuals), (3) there has always been a less than strict literal interpretation in American thinking, and (4) we either have to have the strict literal interpretation or have “reasonable restrictions.”
And the point of saying these four things is that before the 14A we could have our cake and eat it too, with states making the reasonable restrictions (really on any right) and the constitution being sacrosanct. (Thing 3 is really just about how a “reasonable restrictions” view to rights isn’t some new fangled idea). My point isn’t to stake out a particular position.
I don’t think the point you are making about the states’ right to weapon systems equal to or superior to the feds is an argument anyone is having, but beware the feds treaty power when thinking on that one. The reason the feds have the power to regulate the hunting of migratory birds is the treaty power. They passed a similar statute before, but it was struct down by the Supreme Court. A few years later, The SC upheld a treaty doing the same thing.
Aaaahhh yes, the Treaty Power.
I have not studied that element closely. What I do know is that the entire Constitution can be voided by treaty. That is, no provision in the constitution is superior to a treaty (which is why the international treaty on small arms is so dangerous). I did learn that under a treaty with the UN, huge swaths of the land mass of the nation can be confiscated without compensation, in the name of husbandry, or environmental concern.
Without real knowledge of the founders’ intent, I just cannot believe they put that much power in treaties. The wide open door to tyranny via treaty is too horrible to conceive of a situation the founders would have considered dire enough to set aside everything they fought for.
“Reasonable” restrictions. Yes, we all want “reasonable” to align with our immediate benefit. Every conceived “reasonable restriction” is an opinion grounded in mere law. Law that seeks to circumvent the constitution without the inconvenience of mounting a drive for an amendment. This entire concept is at the bottom of our War between The States. Congress attempting to put reasonable restrictions on the rights of property owners’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. The idea was to avoid the “takings clause” through legislation.
“Reasonable restrictions” on gun possession completely subverts the purpose of the second amendment. If government can regulate the means by which it is disciplined by “the people”, “the people” have no power.
I’m in agreement with you on the reasonable restriction thing.
On the treaty thing, the federal government can often do something under a treaty that it cannot normally do. The treaty power is a power, much like the power to regulate commerce. The power to regulate commerce does not extend to regulating the taking of migratory birds, but the treaty power does. However, both powers are limited by other parts of the Constitution. While the commerce power, and perhaps treaty power, could be used to regulate the size, location, and content of billboards along highways, the 1A would prevent either power from being used to regulate the content of the billboards. (Under a strict literal interpretation, neither power could be used to regulate billboards at all, but that ins’t the world we live in).
In short, the Bill of Rights does limit the treaty power, but otherwise the scope of that power is quite broad.
As noted, my education is thin in the area of treaties, but federal acquisition law (taught by non-feds) courses were quite clear that treaties have precedence over all other law (other than the law of the jungle), and that no constitutional provision is superior; freedom of the Executive to negotiate with other nations who do not value our rights or laws. The matter at issue was whether or not a treaty could supersede the quaint American notion that bribery is a bad thing, not to be tolerated when contracting with companies in a country where paying to facilitate commerce was common, expected, and the lack of paid facilitation would mean no contract. We even discussed how the Commerce Clause of the constitution could be extended to override the rest of the Constitution. Specifically, the Commerce Clause has been used to coerce certain businesses to participate in “the marketplace” when they didn’t want to do so. Theory was that withholding goods and services distorted markets, and was a violation of the Commerce Clause and the authority of Congress to regulate commerce.
A simple statute can overturn any treaty. “The chapter explains that both federal statutes and treaties override conflicting state law, and if a treaty and a federal statute conflict, whichever is later in time prevails. Thus, Congress can, and often does, enact laws that override existing tax treaty obligations.” – from the abstract describing “Rhoades & Langer U.S. International Taxation and Tax Treaties.” It’s a legal resource in Lexis Nexus’s Matthew Bender line of books. I’m also pretty sure I’ve read SC cases about this principle. I found it surprising because of the super majority required in the Senate to pass a treaty, but on further reflection, a statute has to have support from two chambers of Congress, where a treaty only needs support from one.
The Constitution definitely reigns supreme over treaties. The Commerce Clause cannot be used to violate the Constitution. The courts may have an overbroad interpretation of the clause and an overly narrow interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean that the clause “overrides” the Constitution.
Now, I would say that the Commerce, and Tax and Spend clauses, or at least their current interpretations, grant the federal government much more power than one first looking at the Constitution would presume.
Is it really a right if it’s not absolute though? The other constitutional rights should also be absolute. We’re working on reclaiming those as well after years of abuse.
I’ve said the same thing on here many times, but the absolutists will just ignore you. Keep screaming “BECAUSE 2A” all you want, the people on the other side of the debate DON’T CARE. 2A is THE enemy to them… If you don’t offer any better reason than 2A, you’ll wake up to a nice constitutional amendment one day.
Agreed. I’m a “why?” person. I want to know the reasoning, the history, and the purpose. Just saying, “Because the 2A says so” is no different than the parent who has so little ability to reason with their 14 year old that they only know “Because I said so”. It doesn’t work with the teen, and it won’t win over the 2A opposition. Principled reasons, historical atrocities, and the need for national, community, and personal defense are far better starting points.
As for the bump stock, first, don’t blame the tool, blame the user. Second, it really is just a cynical–yet creative–loophole. Frankly, that Congress and the ATF have not squashed it already is surprising, no matter where you stand on its use.
So you believe the 3/4 of the states would allow a constitutional amendment to infringe upon gun rights? We all try to ‘interpret’ the Constitution just like people try to interpret what God wants: to no avail. ‘They could’t have meant that’ seems to be a resounding cry for a lot of people who cannot deal with absolutes. Is there ever justification for murder? I’m not talking taking a life, but murdering someone. That is an absolute. I believe that our Constitution is a wonderful thing, but we have turned it inside out to try and make it say what some want, and what others do not. Try canceling, or doing away with any of the inalienable rights we espouse to protect, and I’ll see a country going down in flames. I already see us as Rome in the declining years: rotting from within
“Most people in this country including many gun owners are in favor of keeping machine guns restricted. ”
Because there have been, uh, three incidents of crimes committed with legal machine guns since 1934? So are we thinking the ATF-claimed 274,000 “machine guns” legally possessed in America are “controlled” from crime because of a law? That without the law “controlling” machineguns we would see hundreds of murders every year committed by people wielding machine guns (read ‘fully automatic’ gun of any type”. Are we admitting that gun control laws work? That it is law, not the law-abiding owner, that has prevented untold carnage at the hands of machine gun owners? The law? Really?
You make a well reasoned argument.
Here is where I’d take this issue. The bump-stock – and every other work-around – is purely a consequence of the Hughes Amendment. No Hughes Amendment, we would have more taxed and registered machine guns, but no work-arounds that are regulated and registered NOT-AT-ALL.
The Hughes Amendment introduced Constitutional issues that Congress consciously tried to avoid in the NFA’34. Better to tax and register than to have a law struck-down as unconstitutional.
So, here is a solution. Repeal the Hughes Amendment and modify the NFA to encompass any device that accelerates a gun’s firing beyond that achievable by the natural pull of a human trigger-finger. We’ll pay the tax and register our standard machine guns, and any innovations we come up with.
Machine guns have not, since 1934, been a crime problem by everyone’s acknowledgement. Perhaps the NFA – as respects machine guns – is a “gun control” we can live with. At $200 in 2017 dollars, it is respectful of the Constitution. We will register THIS particular kind-of artifact. We will maintain the training of militiamen in the use of full-automatic guns that are registered. In the unlikely event of tyranny, we will make whatever additional machine guns may be necessary to secure the state in freedom.
In any case, there is nothing to prevent any teen with a basement workshop from creating a Sten gun from stock hardware. Don’t imagine that rapid-firing guns will “go away” by some legislative magic.
Wrong!!! Soooo, wrong! No-one can change the Second Amendment for any reason at any time no matter what!
The phrase “shall not be infringed” is law and no exceptions are permitted. It cannot be amended following the processes used to amend the Constitution. It cannot be changed by will of the President or the Congress.
The protections of the Second Amendment are cast in stone and inviolable.
Do you know why the Framers gave us the Second Amendment? From your comment it does not appear that you do. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with self-protection from thieves, crooks, rapist, would be murderers, or other form of miscreant. The Second Amendment is for protecting American citizens and naturalized citizens from tyranny by those comprising government who have run amok of the Constitution.
They have run amok in that they have become self-serving, greedy, individuals that have fallen to unguarded temptations (over time) that have no penalties for abuse. They have come to serve their ill-gotten personal gains instead of being responsible, honest, patriotic individuals whose main concerns are for the United States, her citizens, and the Constitution which makes all possible because it is the set of founding laws upon which our System of Laws is based. All of our laws are drafted around the protections guaranteed in the Constitution.
Amendment of the Constitution is a long and arduous process that most often fails. Two examples of how difficult the process is look at the history of women gaining the right to vote. Also consider the continuing fight by women for nearly 100 years, to be treated equally with men in all aspects of public life. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been introduced during nearly every Congress since the effort started and it has never gotten the legislatures of three-quarters of the states to agree to its ratification according to Article V. of the Constitution. Every amendment of the Constitution has been accomplished following the rules in Article V.
The Constitution also includes tools for the people to use to arrive at a peaceful correction of government that has run amok of the Constitution, lengths of terms served by the President, Members of the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Article I. Sections 2. and 3. specify, respectively, that Members of the House of Representatives shall be chose every second year. If you read correctly you will see that sentence means all of the Members shall be chosen every second year. Therein is the opportunity for voters to either reelect someone that is doing what he is supposed to do, or, elect someone else to replace a Member that has not performed as required and as expected. We the people decide who serves and who does not. GOT IT?
Article I. Section 3. requires that Senators shall serve six years. It does not provide for them to serve more than six years. It is up to voters to decide if they should be reelected because of their performance as required and expected, or, replaced by someone new that should do a much better job. Again, we the people decide who serves and who does not. GOT IT?
Article II. Section 1. creates the Office of the President of the United States of America. In the second sentence it specifically requires that a president be male and that he serve for four years only. “He shall hold his office for the term of four years, ….” “He shall hold his office” means male only. “for the term of four years, ….” means one term (the term) of four years in length. It is up to voters to decide if he should be reelected because of his performance as required and expected, or, replaced by someone new that should do a much better job. Again, we the people decide who serves and who does not. GOT IT?
Your reaction and comments show your lack of patriotism and civic responsibility. You do not know what the Constitution says and means and you have drunk the Kool-Aid of complacency and ignorance that is destroying our country. Wake up and learn how your government is to work and don’t let anyone change anything about the Constitution without following the rules it contains for doing so.
Your willingness to throw the Constitution into the wind and consider it old and out of tune with the times is appalling and disrespectful. Shame on you and the people that agree with your inaccurate and irresponsible assumptions and comments. WAKE UP! Its people like you that have allowed the Constitution to be mistreated and abused. You are responsible for preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic to the best of your ability at all times. Get with the program.
“We the people decide who serves and who does not. GOT IT?”
Yes, indeed. We the people have chosen, and there they are.
“Senators shall serve six years…..Again, we the people decide who serves and who does not. GOT IT?”
Yes, indeed. We the people have chosen, and there they are.
what is it we like to say around here “do you really think a criminal is going to care what laws he breaks to get a gun”? something along those lines anyway. Now, “do you really think people that vehemently oppose the 2nd amendment care about all that messy procedure”? if they get enough support (if the body count goes high enough), they will find a way to MAKE a constitutional change.
the point is, the other side does NOT see the constitution as an inviolate framework for our government. period. citing the constitution when arguing with them doesn’t accomplish anything. they’d scrap the whole damn thing if they had a chance. so you’d be better serveed justifying the 2nd amendment, rather than just saying “because 2nd amendment”.
or you can keep waving the constitution in the face of people that don’t care and then piss and moan when they find a way around it.
“No-one can change the Second Amendment for any reason at any time no matter what!
The phrase “shall not be infringed” is law and no exceptions are permitted. It cannot be amended following the processes used to amend the Constitution. It cannot be changed by will of the President or the Congress.”
You start off with a statement that is so fallacious that it renders your whole diatribe false.
You simply do not understand that a constitutional convention can rip up the entire constitution, throw it away, and start over.
You also do not understand that an amendment to negate the second is possible (though not probable) and, if passed legally, would be binding.
I beg you to learn what you’re talking about.
“You simply do not understand that a constitutional convention can rip up the entire constitution, throw it away, and start over.”
Not without a revolution. A “constitutional convention” has no authority under the constitution. A convention of the states is a whole ‘nuther matter. That conclave cannot tear-up anything; can only propose amendments that must then go directly to Congress (not the States), which must send the proposals to the States….but there is no statutory timeline for doing so.
Also agree. Good post. May not like where it is heading, but it’s reality.
Because there is no inherent difference in function between a “bump-fire stock” and Every semi-automatic firearm in the entire universe.
(literally it is semi-automatic firearms upon which the bump-fire stocks are being used. The stocks are only accessing an existing ability of the semi-automatics.)
To the Ban-Them-All zealots, both are just something that “fires bullets faster than a musket”.
Caving to the idea that anything “shoots too fast”, or “too much”, isn’t a meaningless giveaway to mollify the Banners .. for their zealotry Cannot be satisfied. — Rather .. it is the camel’s nose under the tent that things can “shoot too fast” or “too much”, and all of those properties are simply elements of All semi-automatic firearms, .. and their magazines, .. which are the Banner’s true and ultimate goal-line.
A dumb person parrots the line over and over.
A smart person has a good and compelling reason for it. I’m so glad you’re not part of the lobby that is pushing 2A rights in this country.
And 3D printers exist. It’s not hard to print out a bump fire stock.
I defend them by replying, “shall not be infringed”.
And then I will also demand the repeal of several other infringements…
Yeah, they tried this in places like CA, NY, NJ, MA, CT, etc. Time for a new strategy.
Actually, no they didn’t. It literally didn’t matter WHAT they said because the Dems control all those states.
But you are forgetting that the people of those states elected the Dems that passed those laws. While the POLs can ignore the people from time to time and sometimes even pay for it (Colorado recall elections), in states like CA, CT, MA, NY, and NJ, the Pols are actually rewarded by the people when they tighten gun laws. The simple fact is that there are too many people in these states who vote and don’t like guns. The tide will not shift in these states unless/until the pro gun people outnumber the anti-gun people.
Well, Jim, you’re right in saying that “the people” elected those pols.
However, those people are concentrated in a few heavily populated areas, and do not share the same concerns of the people in the vast majority of the state.
In other words, those people, who live in one set of circumstances, dictate to others how they must try to defend themselves while living in a different set of circumstances. This is not only unfair, but actually dangerous. The response time of law enforcement if much longer for those in a rural environment than for those living in a city.
The fact that the pols refuse to recognize this means they are violating their requirement to act in good faith for all of their constituents, not just the ones who elected them.
But we know that,and they (the pols and “the people”) don’t care. And why they don’t care is obvious: being “progressives,” they know better than everyone else.
Do you defend rubber bands? They can do the same thing, this country is on drugs, the chi.com’s will mine American corpses for calcium in the near future.
Edit, holy cow my post appeared when i posted it!
Thanks for making the argument that they should ban all semi-auto weapons. Geez, please don’t say that sort of thing in the real world.
Bump-fire stocks existed because they flew under the radar. Now they are in the harsh light of day.
No, bump fire stocks exist because of the NFA and Hughes Amendment. If it weren’t for stupid laws, we wouldn’t need to come up with these stupid inventions
Thanks for making the argument everyone from CT are on drugs!
Maybe, but those drugs aren’t making things any more pleasant.
Arguing the absolute nature of the Second Amendment is fine in Court or even in a law school class. It’s not a winning strategy in the court of public opinion. You can argue that the Second Amendment protects the arms needed to defend the Constitution, our freedom, our homes and our lives – that’s a potentially winning argument with Independents and folks in the mushy middle whom we need to keep on side.
Should dexterous people with fast reflexes, capable of rapidly pulling a trigger faster than an average person be banned from owning guns?
That’d ruin Jerry Miculeck’s day.
He’s grandfathered, so to speak.
Anon in CT wins the Intertubez today!
That a ban would be meaningless because there are so many ways to emulate rapid fire, home built bump stocks, illegal full auto mods, etc. It’s the same battle as large cap mags, nobody really needs them, but banning them won’t change anything. Decent shot with a dozen Henry lever actions (credit to hickok45 on u-tube) could have done about the same amount of damage probably.
I think Hickock45 was replicating something done on HBO’s West World show.
Don is on the right track.
An attacker with just ONE common lever-action rifle (chambered in .44 Magnum and loaded with 300 grain hardcast bullets) could easily kill 24 people without reloading. (Assuming an 8-round tube cylinder and those LARGE, HEAVY bullets easily passing through three adults.) All an attacker would have to do is casually stroll up to the edge of the crowed and let loose. And if the attacker had two such rifles (allowing for a “New York reload”), he/she could deliver fatal wounds to 48 people in about 16 seconds.
Bump stocks and “high” rates of fire were not the failure here. The failure was putting 20,000+ people in a confined space with ZERO security, ZERO cover, and ZERO controlled access.
You can’t ban being outdoors, and short of battlefield levels of air security or Soviet level acts against freedom of assembly, you’re going to have large groups outside. What’s a practical way (considering typical municipal man power and resources) to secure the air above in large cities with 32nd floors?
You can’t stop the first few shots; nor the first burst. However, whenever you have a large venue such as this, you need to plan on having counter-snipers on-duty.
In a “stadium” type of environment it can be made difficult to get a significant amount of firepower into a position that can shoot down into the crowd. Conversely, in an open-air environment it is impossible to prevent a prepared person from establishing a high position able to cover a large range of the crowd.
I imagine a steel octagonal tower with slits for shooting through. Couple of cops inside the tower waiting for the sound of gunfire. They return fire if it appears.
The hard problem is achieving effective surveillance over all the windows that have a view to the venue. Play cameras on various sections of windows monitored by a computer program that monitors for a change in the image. If a window is broken out – or a curtain opens/closes – the program sends an alert for a human to examine to see if there is a threat. Open/closing a curtain is not a threat; breaking out a window is suspicious.
This is a one-off incident; this guy won’t do this again. What we really have to worry about is repeat performances by jihadis.
Drones with guns?
Same way I defend the Maybach Zepplin: they are legal, and I want one.
As a practical matter, our 2A rights will be in jeopardy like never before unless we can cede that bump stocks should be covered under the NFA.
The federal income tax started at 1% for the top 1%.
The government does not know the menaing of “enough”.
This is proven by the fact that the day the Dems get some kind of gun control they will then try to take more ground.
The problem is they already have “some kind of gun control” and want more all the time. That they have shifted their battle arena to the local level only says they are adaptive.
As a certain mayor of Chicago said in a former job, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
The left has tipped its hand many times, that they want the complete banning of guns. The fact that they ignore the warnings that this will leave guns in the hands of criminals (with many, many examples in other countries that have tried this) doesn’t sway them because their goal is not public safety, but rather control of the public.
No argument will sway the true believers. Attempting to do so is fruitless, and a waste of time and money. The NRA is on point here, bringing the message to the public, who are, as a whole, uneducated on how to run anyone’s lives, even their own. (Sorry to have to say this, but it’s true. They are so easily swayed by emotion, they fall easy prey to anyone who appeals to their emotions.)
Shall not be infringed.
Besides that, he supposedly fired multiple 100 round magazines worth of ammo from an elevated position (possibly bipod/tripod) with a magnified optic against an (effectively non-moving) area target and only managed to kill 50 something people (In cases like this a large portion of the “Injured” comes from parts of the crowd that were trampled ect. by other parts in the panic and most injuries not remotely serious, so the injury rate doesn’t say much until we get a breakdown on cause of injury). That’s an abysmal hit rate and actually reafirms that full-auto is in-fact useless for mass killers.
He fired for ten minutes and killed more people than any other mass shooter in modern american history. Respectfully disagree.
But still second to a guy with a truck. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
The 59 death toll is a small fraction of the 2-3,000 deaths that happen every day by the abortion houses.
it could always be worse, but let’s not lessen the scope of the tragedy here. it was bad enough.
I guess my question is, why would you need to defend Bump Fire Stocks? I mean, ATF signed off on them, they don’t point the gun by themselves, they don’t fire by themselves, they don’t (to the best of my knowledge) possess some Svengali like power to force the owner to commit homicide, so again, why would you even suggest that a “defense” is necessary?
Along the same lines:
The fact that someone could misuse something to harm/kill hundreds of people does not justify banning it. Otherwise, we have to ban a LOT of stuff.
Another angle:
How many victims have to die in fires which arsonists started with tampons before we ban tampons? (Yes, tampons are an excellent resource for starting fires because they contain a large dry flammable cotton blob.)
I think bump fire stocks are ridiculous. If we’re banning things I think are ridiculous, the list starts way before that.
I propose a test, or a link to an existing test, or someone to just tell us: how fast can someone mag dump a 30rd AR in semi-auto…vs. that same someone mag dumping a 30rd AR using a bump stock?
Maybe the answer is already “almost twice as fast”, which would be VERY hard to defend to your average Joe on the street. But what’s “the truth”? Are bump stocks THAT much faster than finger-fired semi-auto?
Depends on who’s behind the trigger, the shooting group I’m with have already done this, one individual kept up with the bump fire and had a better hit on target ratio.. ..( he pisses me off)
We defend bump fire stocks because unconstitutional laws effectively prevent us from having actual full auto.
You may be able to dump a mag faster with a bump fire stock, but can you hit more targets with those rounds?
Here is your link to said test, which, like everything else, has already been done, over and over again:
World’s Fastest Shooter vs Bump Fire!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddPTyoV-Irc
SPOILER ALERT: its a tie. The finger does hit better.
They shouldn’t be banned, but they should not be required because we should be able to buy, make and own the real thing. They were made because of an ultimately stupid law.
What’s to defend? Bump fire stocks are legal. The problem arises with hi cap mags and semi auto firearm’s. That’s the next fight. ,
Banning bump fire is literally like banning gravity. The only appropriate response is to a)laugh in the fools face, then, upon realizing you are surrounded by fools, b)suicide.
There’s nothing quite like a statement of clear fact such as “Thanksgiving is on Thursday” being met with awkward gawks of disbelief from everyone around you to really drive home how miserably stupid 99% of people are.
“To really understand how stupid people are, just look around at the average ones around you. Then, realize that half of ’em are stupider than that!” -George Carlin
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This prefatory thought provides insight into one reason (though not limiting) the founders felt that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And from whom or what might the Militia be exercising that right? Certainly not against deer or rabbits. The preface to the 2nd Amendment warns us that the people must be equal to the task of fighting a modern army or even our own government. Devices such as this which could, however feebly, enhance the rate of fire for one of the most popular arms available must be protected. I agree that I don’t need a machine gun to hunt deer, but nothing says my deer gun shouldn’t be up to the task of defending this Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic should I task it so.
Does banning these even acomplish anything? Can you just pull the trigger real fast? What’s the percent increase in fire rate? What does it do to accuracy?
I garuntee you the banners have no idea.
It’d keep copy-cats from buying them.
You can pull the trigger really fast, but not fast enough as a bump-fire, and your finger would tire pretty quickly.
The percentage is enough to make everyone think it was an automatic weapon.
Accuracy with it sucks. But that doesn’t matter when your target is the size of several football fields.
I think I have a pretty good grasp of firearms and I’m leaning towards making them illegal. My only reservation is that it’s a slippery slope. So try some better arguments if you want to convince me, let alone someone who doesn’t have a clue.
So full honesty? I’m not sure I care if these are banned either. They are a stupid gimmick anyway. But as you said, slippery slope, and banning things just because “icky” is lousy policy anyway.
I’m not convinced it will stop copy-catters. Nothing has before.
I think you have a fair point, except people ALWAYS say it sounded like full auto fire even when it wasn’t.
I think the numbers are important. You can fight fire with fire and do emotional appeals, but right now you’ll lose every time unless you can show someone saving hundreds of people with bumpfire. Because of literal murder.
I appreciate your good response. Has given me much to ponder.
They essentially want to ban “something” because they think external factors cause crime, rather than the internal motivations and mindests of people. “If we get rid of [thing], no one will [do bad thing],” etc. It’s the mindset that thinks you can regulate or legislate away behavioral abnormality, because they really do believe that deep down, “everyone is equal.” While it’s a lovely utopian notion, it’s demonstrably false.
They simply cannot bring themselves to admit that there are bad people who do bad things, regardless of how much they wish that weren’t the case. Unable to do anything truly preventative, they choose to punish a law-abiding demographic they simply don’t like, regardless of the fact that the overwhelming majority of that group have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and aren’t particularly predatory in nature.
“Ban [thing] because we’re scared and it makes us feel better.” That’s basically it.
Once you buy into or accede to the notion that some particular “evil feature” makes a gun somehow more deadly, where do you draw the line? It’s already been proven definitively that “assault weapon” features – pistol grips, detachable mags, flash hiders, bayonet lugs – do not make a rifle more deadly, or more frequently selected for use in criminal activity. Why should a flimsy, loose stock that detracts from accuracy, a scope, or any other random feature be considered any differently?
Either you understand that a gun is a gun is a gun, and the intent of the user is the key determinant in its use, or you don’t. Whether you prefer a different color, shape, caliber, function, etc. is irrelevant to the discussion.
I would have demo’d the belt loop technique with an ordinary stock.
Really? In the current climate?
Do you want them to ban all semi-auto weapons?
Tear apart any common vibrator. Remove the motor and eccentric cam. Mount that inside your trigger guard and set your variable potentiometer for whatever rate of fire you desire. Take your bump stock and shovel it. I’m sure there are limitless methods of accomplishing the same thing. Can we move on now?
Sure. And someone with a machine shop could make a full-auto rifle. Neither a vibrator’s nor a metal lathe’s purpose is to increase the rate of fire. That is the bump-fire stocks sole purpose.
To me, that is really the best argument. If people want something, they will find a way to get it, no matter what you ban. Just look at the futile attempts of the California Legislature to ban “evil black rifles.” First, back in 2000, they required fixed mags (requiring top loading with the action open). Then someone invented the Bullet Button. So last year they banned the Bullet Button and required bullet button equipped rifles to be registered as “assault weapons,” the idea being that since such rifles cannot be transferred by any means in state, the stock of rifles would gradually decrease. So someone invented (actually there are several similar inventions) the Patriot Button whereby fractionally opening the action allows the (standard) mag release to operate. Moreover, since the mag is still “fixed” in accordance with the law, the rifle does not have to be registered as an assault weapon. And of course, there is featureless (which is where the manufacturers have headed); without a pistol grip, and adjustable stock, or a “flash hider,” the rifle is again not an “assault weapon” and does not have to be registered. For any of these reasons, the stock of legal AR/AK style rifles will not decrease.
And of course, there will always be people who will violate the law to get what they want, and are willing to take the risk of being caught.
I gotta say, I *still* don’t get the whole “bullet button” thing, but maybe that’s because I’m about as far away from the PRC and its nonsense made-up terminologies as I can get, so I’m fuzzy on the origin.
Are they talking about the magazine release?
If you replace the mag release with a recessed button that can’t be depressed with human fingers, it’s a fixed magazine that requires tools to remove. If that tool should happen to be a .223 cartridge, you can call the mag release a bullet button, until the gun grabbers get around to banning bullet buttons, then you’ll have to come up with yet another workaround…
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I hate to repeat…..But…….That’s how I defend them…..and that’s good enough.
Good enough for who? Certainly not those whom you’re trying to convince. I’ve been arguing on FB all morning with these folks.
That is an exercise in futility. These people are convinced that ARs are “only useful for killing people” and that therefore it is imperative that they be banned.The argument that a killer will find some other tool to effectuate his intent,like cars, truck,s gasoline, explosives, etc., make no impression.
I disagree. I was shocked to see WaPo correct politicians on the nature of suppressors, primarily because they went out to a range to learn about them.
It may take time, but we shouldn’t give up.
Tru dat.
Agree.
If RTKBA were “good enough”, there would be no restrictions, of any kind, on weapons in the hands of the public. RTKBA sounds wonderful in the echo chamber, but power determines everything, and government has the power to curtail anything is pleases so long as government has a “compelling reason” for curtailment. Court approved, voter approved.
Many people do not understand that just because a “right” exists in nature, effective elimination by ballot and police renders “rights” moot in reality. We effectively have only those “rights” government permits. Once the electorate determines there should be any restriction/curtailment/infringement on “rights”, the argument is no longer about “rights”, but about power.
Next they will try to ban firing shots in fast succession….ban fingers!….and fast motor skills!
Simply stated, you don’t defend bump fire stocks after a they are used in an illegal context anymore than you defend commercial vehicles which are used in a similar illegal manner by terrorists.
The truck, rifle stock, car, knife, blunt object, sharp object did not perpetrate the criminal act. The perpetrator is solely and exclusively responsible for his/her actions
The counterargument that will be raised is that this particular device, unlike planes trains and automobiles, has no useful purpose aside from killing, and therefore it is in the interest of the greater good to ban it. If, they believe, bump fire stocks were not available to the shooter, then the carnage would have been less.
You defend by demanding more than they are willing to give. They want bump fire stocks demand NFA removal for silencers, and SBRS, and National Reciprocity all in the same bill. Never give the anti-gunners anything on a promise for support of a different bill later.
I believe in preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, so help me God! The same oath that every member of Congress, the President, every member of the military, and so on, have to take before attaining the position involved.
The Second Amendment was included for a purpose: to enable the American people, citizens of the United States of America, formed and established following the laws of the U.S. Constitution, to defend the United States and its
citizens and naturalized citizens from tyranny at the hands of the people comprising government with the sole purpose of managing the United States of America in accordance with guidance from those that elected them to serve in their stead.
The Framers of our Constitution provided definite term lengths for president, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate for a specific purpose: to provide a tool for the use of citizens to use for choosing their representatives to work for them in the above positions, and, to either reelect them or remove them from office if they do not perform their duties according to the Constitution, their Oaths-of-Office, and promises made to those having elected them, their constituents.
Its high time citizens did their duty and pay attention to what is happening and compare that to the requirements demanded by the Constitution and stop voting blindly for someone because they belong to the same political party. Time to stop pulling a party lever, the dumbest thing any person can do. Pulling a party lever allows hangers on to slip into office where they could do great harm.
Political parties are not mentioned or provided for in the Constitution, nor forbidden to the States or to the people. That means if the States want to tolerate a formal group comprised of people with similar ideas, and the people support such a group, fine. No political parties involved in our central governing system.
Political parties, PACs, and other organizations are formed and run for the purpose of advancing their objectives, most frequently in response to the voices of the people who, in case you have forgotten, control government of the United States.
Time to take America back, people. Do your civic duty and get involved before you lose this precious gem, our Constitution and all that it provides us.
I know a public range owned by a state that bans “Fast shooting” True story
The public range I go to occasionally in Kansas, run by the KDWP, has a no more than “one shot per 4 seconds” rule.
…me too. Went to it last week to warm the pistol a bit. Signs say “3 seconds between shots).
True story.
My range is pretty enlightened. “No mag dumps.” They prefer those with giggle switches or bump stocks stick to three to five round bursts. Semi-auto fire is limited to how fast you can pull the trigger.
I’ve read that the only gun range in San Francisco (actually South San Francisco out by the airport) also has a “delay” rule that is at least one second between shoots. Maybe they don’t want you shooting the ceiling?
The range at my sportsman’s club has a rule stating “No uncontrolled rapid fire.” So I interpret that to mean that as long as all my shots are landing well within the backstop, speed isn’t an issue. (Of course, this is a small range in the country, where I’m nearly always the only person there.)
“How Do You Defend Bump Fire Stocks?”
WITH A HEARTY HI-HO AND STFU ! ! !
If that doesn’t work, then with a chest rig replete with 6 full AR mags and 7 M9 mags.
R E M E M B E R :
ANY TALK OF BANNING
A N Y T H I N G
AFTER THE LV INCIDENT
Means that an ISIS claimed, likely POS (D), told your representatives that YOU shouldn’t have _________ (fill in the blank)
AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TOOK HIS SIDE !
I think this is the ticket right here.
If somebody kills a bunch of innocents, that in no way convinces me to give up my rights and freedoms nor does it increase my inclination to demand that others give up their rights and freedoms.
Respond with: “Enacting gun control – restricting the rights and freedoms of normal Americans – was what the terrorist was trying to achieve. Why are you on the side of the terrorists?” and then, “Bans never work anyway. Is that the best idea you have? An idea that you know in advance will not work?”
Why do people buy dirt bikes? To have fun doing what many consider dangerous things…jumping dunes, riding fast, etc etc. Should dirt bikes be banned? No. Why do people skydive? It’s fun and somewhat dangerous. Should skydiving being banned? No. How are bump stock defensible? It’s an expensive way for rednecks to simulate inaccurate automatic gun fire in a legally acceptable way in a safe place to make silly videos about how cool they are. Rubber bands, trigger fingers, belt loops, hand crank devices, binary triggers, normal triggers, handguards, pistol grips, and everything else would have to be banned to properly prohibit bump firing guns, arrrggghhhhh…….somebody please think of the children!!! How do you defend gun control? Remind people that it is really about government control over a witless and defenseless population is what they are incrementally seeking.
I’m not sure, but I’d recommend *against* doing it by pointing out just how easy it is to bump fire with a thumb and a belt loop.
That way is fraught with harpy screeches calling for a ban on all semiautos.
Like the harpies haven’t been frantically screeching that for decades already.
Haters, hate. Harpies screech. Unpleasant, to be sure, but just a fact of life.
Banning in principal is a leftist philosophy. It proved itself useless throughout history. I see no reason to play the game by their rules.
Legalize recreational nukes
For all intents and purposes, consecutive US governments did. DeFacto is more realistic then DeJure. The North Korean despot and the Iranian regime are playing with them as we speak. The world is a small place, and their recreational needs will have quite an impact on every one else.
You guys that keep quoting the 2nd Amendment should beware of what you are emphasizing. I’m with you on it, but many others are not. I had to place some orders with suppliers today and I heard from one lady taking my order that maybe it’s time to consider modifying or eliminating the 2nd Amendment. I had heard the same thing the day before from someone else. And both of these people would be classified as “conservatives”, not bleeding heart liberals. Both voted for Trump. I’ve never heard people voice this sentiment before, outside of grandstanding politicians and city liberals. The scary part is, there are now more non-gun owners than gun owners, more city people than non-city people, and more liberals than conservatives. Remember Hillary actually won the popular vote. A few more idiots like this killer in Las Vegas will ruin it for the rest of us. And I do expect some copy cat incidents to follow this one. A sad day for all gun owners.
And now you know the direction the country is headed. I have good news for you: when the United States is an unrecognizable nation, you won’t be around. Young folk like me still will be, probably purged and and living as immigrants from America somewhere in Eastern Europe.
With this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gjmASo0byU
I’ll give up bump fire stocks when we address the problem that necessitated their invention in their first place. If we can get rid of the Hughes Amendment and the NFA, then bump fire stocks would go away on their own. Getting rid of the NFA will also make arm braces and those goofy pistol grip only “shotguns” go away on their own.
I’m very pro gun, but one thing I don’t like is mods or rifles that aren’t accurate or cause decreased accuracy.
If all a bump fire stock is is a toy to play with and waste ammo, but it’s only seemingly useful use is to spray a large crowd of people with bullets… I have to say I’d prefer bump stocks get put on the NFA in the same class as SBS and SBR’s. No Hughes amendment BS.
And if bump stocks get put on the NFA, then let’s have the Great Dealmaker Donald Trump negotiate removing suppressors.
I’d gladly trade bumpfire stocks for suppressors.
I would trade them for suppressors and reciprocity. Gladly.
I don’t defend them.And I don’t condemn them. But bump fire didn’t kill and wound. A single guy(MAYBE!) did it. The whole thing stinks…especially the Filipino $ transfers. Do we BAN Jerry Miculek because he has repeatedly shown he can simulate a machine gun?!? Seriously the end-game is banning all guns. Keep your powder dry!
According to his brother, the shooter was very generous with his money. And his girlfriend was an Australian citizen who was born in the Philippines and has a lot of family there. A multi-millionaire professional gambler sending $100,000 to her and her family does not raise my eyebrows. Had he been giving money to the Muslim rebels down there, it would have been much much more, given that his plan to go out with a bang included his own suicide. Whatever money he had left will go to judgments for all of the people injured and the heirs of those killed.
were not even sure he used those yet they could have been planted there to have this effect just like the 90 round surefire mag
remember the movie jack reacher where he figured out it was a set up because there was just a bit too much incriminating evidence left at the scene
multiple stories are coming out now of multiple shooters from multiple windows room service for two people ex military guys saying the video sounded exactly like an m249 saw and on and on and on
dont forget in the early 90s dianne feinstein said she would have taken EVERYBODYS guns if she had the votes
THATS THEIR AGENDA
ITS NOT ABOUT COMMON SENSE GUN CONTROL
if they really cared one iota about human life they would consider this:
guns kill people in A YEAR in america what abortion does in about TWO WEEKS
ill move on my legitimate 2nd amendment stance when they move on their illegitimate 14th amendment stance
until then everything should be legal for law abiding citizens
You defend them by not going on tv and explaining how they work to people who dont care either way and want all look alike assult rifles banned anyways. It just makes there case stronger
“…gun owners will one day be as reviled as other groups deemed bad by society.” Too late Jim.
On a practical level one could point out that bump stocks are very simple devices that can be made with a 3D printer. This means that a ban on such things would just be pointless feel-good legislation, and that is always a bad thing.
How does the ATF ban a plastic stock? Each new ATF ruling closes a door and opens a window.
There’s a lot of attention focused on the bumpfire stock now that we know the LV a*hole had 12 guns equipped with them. It’s important to note that bumpfire stocks have been around since 2010, and bumpfire by itself (or with the help of a rubber band) has been around probably since the inception of semi-auto firearms, yet we have seen no crimes committed with bumpfire stocks (or rubber bands) until now. If indeed these are such effective lethal tools, you would think that they’d be used more often. They have not, because as Nick & RF have said, they’re novelties and gimmicky toys, they don’t have much practical use.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the shooter had 12 minutes between the time of the first shot and when the cops ran upstairs. While I don’t have an accurate count from authorities of how many rounds were fired, I will guarantee that any regular semi-auto rifle could have done just about as much damage given 12 unfettered minutes. Hell, even noobs can do a 30 round mag dump in about 30 seconds on a stock AR15, and a 3 second mag change later continue on. With 12 minutes, a noob can probably unleash at least 700 rounds, and probably much more if they decided to press the trigger faster. Yes, a bumpfire stock can sure fire more rounds than a stock AR in about 10 seconds — but given 12 minutes, I don’t see much of a difference. That’s why even in the case of Orlando, when only a semi-auto was used, you had nearly as high of a death count as you did in LV.
You also have to think of this in terms of legalese. Currently the reason why bumpfire stocks are legal is that they don’t alter the mechanism for firing the gun — it doesn’t change a semi-auto because technically you still need to pull the trigger each time to fire a bullet. Yes, there are some “additional aids” such as that motorized glove, and adding a spring in your bumpstock which would raise the ire of the ATF, but the bumpfire stock is just a piece of plastic that with no other moving components. As others have shown, you can bump fire with a rubber band, or hell, just by holding the gun in a precise way. A bumpfire stock ban wouldn’t get rid of several other ways to simulate fast fire.
What I fear is that the language of any proposals to ban bumpfire stocks would be so broad and encompassing (because, they usually ARE) that it would ban any mechanism that would “increase the rate of fire” — and this would include legitimate tools for gun folks like drop-in triggers, reduced power springs, etc. Because anyone who thinks this is just about bumpfire stocks hasn’t been paying attention to the gun-grabber’s for these last 30 years.
That’s why bumpfire stock is a red herring. Antis want to focus on it now since that is what was used in LV. But what the antis really want are bans and confiscations of as many types of guns as possible. The bumpfire stock is just an excuse. All you have to do is look at California, New Jersey, and Massachussetts to see what giving one inch will lead to.
Good on you guys for recording the entire interview. Way to beat these jokers at their own game. Now if we could just get Fox News or even James Okeefe for some undercover exposure! Way to go guys!
I can’t, really…
Pistol grips, muzzle brakes, flash suppressors, vertical foregrips, noise suppressors, “high capacity” magazines, adjustable stocks, etc… they all serve for someone to acquire a target more quickly, get an initial accurate shot onto that target, and any additional accurate shots necessary on that target or any subsequent targets to happen more quickly and accurately to achieve the necessary purpose. Those I will defend until I’m blue in the face, since the most dangerous bullet is the one that’s headed at an other-than-intended target.
I can’t get up the energy to defend something that costs $2.00/second to act as a shoulder massager.
That said, I’m not in favor of banning them, but mostly for political/pragmatic reasons in how that might affect useful weapons.
“…How Do You Defend Bump Fire Stocks?”
The same way I defend the rest of my Rights: I tell them it is immoral and unjust to try and limit the liberties and freedoms of Citizens because of the actions of a criminal. To tell me I can have something because someone else did something bad with it is wrong. It goes against the entire spirit of this Country, it goes against the entire idea of what it means to live in a free country.
Bump fire stocks only exist because of gun control laws. As do cranks, binary triggers, Mossberg Shockwaves (wait till one gets used in a major crime) etc. And every California AR-15 workaround ever devised were responses to gun control.
In fact, all criminal incidents of gun use are a big “EFF you” to gun control.
Wait till they find out that semi-autos can be bump fired with any additional devices with some practice.
At best the could ban any device capable of pulling a trigger faster than the speed of a human finger.
We then trot out Jerry Miculek.
The best defense is that gun laws don’t work. And there is no reason for anyone to give up anything for some meaningless, ineffective ban of one thing or another.
I personally don’t care about bumpfire stocks. To me they are just a way to waste ammunition and wear out a barrel faster. I don’t really see them as an essential 2A freedom, my biggest fear is they will draw attention and bring more pressure to bear for magazine capacity restrictions which I do see as an infringement on RKBA.
bumpfire stocks:
“I don’t really see them as an essential 2A freedom,”
Then your understanding of 2A is very simplistic. Consider: government has automatic weapons galore, and uses those to eradicate opposition to complete government control of every aspect of life (or the revolt against tyranny envisioned by the founders). Citizens are armed only with semi-automatic weapons. Do you want that mismatch?
They are a poor substitute for a full auto weapon. Better off devoting your energies toward actual NFA, FOPA repeal to restore that protection.
I don’t care about bump fire stocks, but I’m not willing to give up anymore territory. So my position is basically that of Captain Picard’s in Star Trek: First Contact. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jln3mi0vfJU). This argument is that we have compromised our rights too far already and, therefore, cannot afford to give up any ground, no matter how trivial or even beneficial.
There is the argument that rights need no justification. It’s an inarguable premise. An axiom. One can deny it, but cannot argue with it.
There is the argument that the other side is arguing for violating the Constitution. At that point, they have to prove their position.
There is the argument that a bump fire stock is less of a threat than stupid, harmful, useless speech. Bump fire stocks don’t convince anyone to kill. As recently demonstrated, speech does.
There is the argument that the ban would be useless as there are many methods of bump firing a semi-automatic gun.
There is the argument that the ban would push shooters to move to modify their weapons to actual full auto/select fire weapons, which is more effective than bump firing. (I don’t know what the difficulty level of a conversion is because, as long as doing so is a felony, I’m not doing it).
There is the argument that a bump fire stock would make most mass shooters less effective. Only in a Las Vegas situation is the bump fire stock useful. Most other situations would cause the shooter to waste ammo.
If you wanted the most dead was a bumpfire really better than aiming? With something like 40 minutes of AIMED shooting into a confused pool of 20K people I would contend that aimed shooting would have brought a higher death tool.
The terror (and that was probably part of the motivation) and shock would not have been the same with aimed fire. Rapid fire reinforces the feelings of shock and helplessness/hopelessness.
The Genie is out of the bottle, now.
“as a conservative who believes gay couples should be able to defend their [legal] marijuana crop with machine guns, my answer is “no.” ”
Hate to break it to you but if you’re for gay marriage and drug legalization you are not a conservative. Welcome to the Libertarian party though.
You can’t, so what I do is turn it back on them. I point out that the reason we can’t agree on so-called reasonable or common sense gun control is because the left always implements it in an unreasonable way. A background check may sound reasonable, but in liberal counties around NYC it can take 6-9 months to process. It can cost hundreds in fees and multiple trips to some agency during working hours. A background check in FL takes 15 mins and costs $5. Basically, the left has shown time and again that they will abuse whatever reasonable comprise we agree to, and we’ve learned to say no.
The real issue is that too many 2nd Amendment proponents assume that gun control advocates are acting in good faith and honestly believe banning things will help. Some of them might be under this delusion, but I’d wager that the vast majority are not. They want you nothing less than enslaved and/or dead. Just look at the vitriol that is spewed on any noteworthy 2nd Amendment defender’s social media. You can’t argue or reason with these people because safety is just the respectable facade they use to cover their true intentions.
After careful consideration, I agree with the “shall not be infringed” response.
Any argument that we make for or against BLANK becomes a useful argument against individual rights in general. It seems to me that this is a trap that we should avoid completely. Its more productive to argue in support of individual rights than to dissect portions of those rights.
It seems that mass murder is a fact of life. People are dead. We ask “why” and “how” as though the answers will somehow make it easier to accept the fact or prevent their repetition.
Why? For Allah? Revenge? Depression? No reason at all?
How? With a gun or a knife? A truck, or bomb or airplane? With poison or sickness?
Man is violent and unpredictable and this is certainly a tragedy. I risk diminishing the human element by supposing that “this too will pass.” But history does not remember 50 or 100 dead. History remembers 6 million and 10 million dead. Those were not the victims of a single man, but victims of a government that dehumanized man by removal of the rights of the individual.
Therefore I choose to avoid the trap of arguing the finer points of individual liberty, and instead opt for the “all or nothing” approach.
Because we had a much of greedy Morons (Founding Fathers) running the Government we had an unnecessary war which resulted in us missing out on a Parliamentary Government which gave us a Representative Corrupt sham democracy and a ridiculous Constitution written in stone that for all practical purposes is almost impossible to change especially in these divisive times. As a consequence of all this we now have a Government run by corruption and often times heavily influenced by popular opinion not by common sense. The Supreme Court is a dictatorship pure and simple and beholding to no one except an angry public. The Courts have become the only way any Constitutional changes can be made due to our ridiculous two party system of extremes so most of the time its done by simply ignoring the Constitution as though it does not exist.
The Second Amendment was made during a time when we only had 3 million people not over 300 million people as we have today. In those times if there had been full auto weapons or even semi-auto’s with bump fire stocks do you really think the Assholes that were in power then would have given the people the right to own such weapons? The answer is no because that of course would have threatened their power because with such weapons they would have realized that only a few hundred people could have threatened their power over everyone.
Today we have the added problem of more mentally ill people than we have ever had it the country’s history. We have a declining way of life with less and less high paying jobs for the common worker. We have high divorce rates that cause many young men to go off the deep end. We have both culture clashes and ethnic hatreds between the far left and far right. We have a health care system that gives people next to nothing in affordable coverage which results in many people having no money for both health care and mental health care. Our health care is the most expensive in the world and gives us the least service from it. Its become so shameful that some 3rd world African countries have less child mortality than we do.
When all these factors are taken into consideration the Second Amendment is on very fragile ground. Most Americans today do not own guns (70 per cent of the population at last count this week). More and more non gun owners view the Second Amendment and those that support it as Right Wing Nut Cases that are 10 times the danger to them in their everyday lives than any attack by a foreign army or a foreign group of terrorists and one can hardly blame them as out of all the multitudes of mass murders in the last couple of decades only two were connected to foreign people or ideology and the rest were by and large by you guessed it done by Right Wing Nut Cases with guys like Dillon Roof their hero and star poster boy waving a Confederate flag.
All of this effects the decisions of both the lower courts and the Supreme Court who view gun ownership as a threat to their power both personally and through the bad public publicity they get if they vote pro Second Amendment on anything. It took them decades and decades to even consider hearing a meaningful case on the Second Amendment and then if it had not been for only 1 tie breaking vote by the most hated man on the court Scalia today the Second Amendment for all practical purposes would be only an illusion. Remember that it was only one vote that basically saved it then but that was then not now and Scalia is dead and gone and forgotten by the Court. If the Dems do regain power and appoint more Liberals to the Court then the Second Amendment really will not anymore have a snowballs chance in hell of being anything more than symbolic. And of course even if this does not happen the lower courts are just as much a threat to the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court is. Letting the lower Courts take the heat and then refusing to hear Second Amendment cases is something the corrupt Supreme Court has done for decades and decades and that is certainly not going to change especially with all the mass murders that have become almost a Macomb weekly form of entertainment with the News Media and a dumb founded, horrified and mesmerized public glued daily to their Social Media pages now too terrorized to go to any gathering with large crowds and they are getting more and more fed up with all the mayhem.
With the declining gun ownership in this country even the Gun Lobby is becoming more and more impotent and the voting pro gun people less and less effective at the ballet box as well. East and West Coast States have placed so many restrictions on modern firearms that many now are illegal to own and never will be again. A Nationwide Ban is becoming more and more of a reality and if this last mass shooting had been done under a Democratic Majority several millions semi auto hand guns and rifles would already have been on their way to the smelter. Australia’s horrific pictures of thousands of guns being melted down would pale in comparison to Americas arsenal of guns as American own 40 percent of all privately owned weapons in the world while being only 30 per cent of the American population. I think any clear thinking political scientist can see where this is all going as far a future gun ownership is concerned.
Lets face cold hard facts even the Republicans will eventually reach a point where they will no longer be able to pander to the NRA as the mass murders have become so horrific and so common no civilized society is going to put up with the mayhem much longer and their solution will be more and more bans on more and more types of weapons and the ones left for legal ownership will be so difficult and expensive to get that the common man will not be able to afford it or want to jump through all the hoops to even get one. But technically they will say you still have Second Amendment rights because after all the Founding Fathers weapons (flint lock muzzle loaders) are still legal (at least for now).
Declining gun ownership, you fascist twit? You’re either a liar, and a bad one at that, or you need court appointed supervision.
Go be a British subject then. Nobody is stopping you from leaving. I volunteer to pack your bags and pay for your plane ticket. Goodbye.
crisco, I think you are uniquely qualified to tackle the mental health issue. Apparently you have been committed and are “off your meds”.
OMG Billy the Frisco Kid. I so wanna believe in what you say. Why do you always screw yourself with “fake news”? Really, some of the stuff you say would make an ANTIFA blush. You started off so well. “We have a declining way of life with less and less high paying jobs for the common worker.” Yes. I agree. But then you bring up the declining gun ownership rate. “With the declining gun ownership in this country even the Gun Lobby is becoming more and more impotent and the voting pro gun people less and less effective at the ballet box as well.”
I used to have hope for you Billy. But now I realize you’re more mentally deranged than these nut cases with “machine guns”. Please do us a favor and start taking harder drugs. You really need them.
Harder drugs aren’t the only thing he needs. He badly needs to learn the meaning of the words: “excessive verbosity”. I seldom feed the trolls, but in this case I figure it will take him many days just to figure out what “verbosity” means, assuming he ever does!
There is no reason to defend the bump stock. It turns a semi-automatic weapon into an effectively automatic weapon.
we should not have to defend them . this was not a gun issue, this was an issue with stupidity and a total lack of security that made it easy for anyone to do something to. remember large crowds draw terrorist? any one with a bomb could have attacked or even a home made bomb rocket launcher which is quite easy to make. and would have worked well from that floor. and ammonia used to make gas could have been part of the mix. if you are going to be stupid and have things where they are easy targets then you are going to be an easy target and someone is going to take advantage of that. we need to stop being stupid and think more about security, because even in a country with no guns this will still happen. and the as####e left dems (communist) need to understand that. but no they probably make this stuff happen so they can push their communist agenga on us.
We shouldn’t ban bump fire stocks for the same reason that France shouldn’t ban trucks.
1. Bump fire stocks use the recoil of a semi automatic to fire rapidly, but the speed is not dependent upon the aftermarket stock. A semi auto can be bump fired with the aid of a belt loop, a board, or even free handed.
A semi-automatic can even be converted to full auto by the simple addition of a 15 cent shoe lace. The argument then is more about the nature of the semi-auto action, which can be easily defended by its necessity.
2. If we were to outlaw the stock what would become of the current owners.?Would they become criminals overnight.? Will Congress also follow with a ban on binary triggers, cranks, or even modified triggers? Perhaps most importantly, what will happen to an individual if they accidentally bump fired, or simply fired too quickly at the range?
How do you Defend B̶u̶m̶p̶ ̶F̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶S̶t̶o̶c̶k̶s̶ Technological Advancements?
There fixed it for you. It’s all about framing the argment 🙂
It’s really quite simple: We oppose the banning of anything that will have no effect on gun violence. If we “concede” a ban on bump stocks, even though such a ban will have absolutely no possible way to prevent someone determined to commit murder, what reason do we have to oppose the next ban? And the next ban after that? If we accept this ban which has no actual way to reduce crime, how can we oppose ANY ban that also has no actual way to reduce crime?
Any concession to gun rights with no actual benefit to reduce crime is a direct attack on the Second Amendment.
Personally i won’t use and don’t need a bump fire stock. I consider them a waste of ammo. One Shot One Kill has always worked for me. I do support their availability and legality. The door to gun control was opened back in the 1930’s and has been a constant fight to close ever since. Rights are always taken away a little at a time and supposedly for a good reason. The real question is who gets to decide the reason. Keep Your Powder Dry…
I see some commenters saying give an inch. Then they will take a mile.
If you’re for giving that inch then you are NOT a true defender of the 2A. Just bring me your guns if you feel we should give an inch.
Freaking Idiots.
Correct.
The federal income tax started at something like 1% for the top 1% of earners.
Now look where we are at.
The government doesn’t know the concept of “enough”.
The Left will never stop trying to increase the coverage of bans.
How do we defend the free speech right of bigots? Just because we don’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s any less protected.
These areas are difficult. Look how just about everyone on the progun side has pretty much written off ever getting machine guns back. It is something that drives me a little crazy, we should try to protect all of the parts truly protected on the 2nd amendment.
So, in that end we should do like the democrats do and not address things to make the facts clear and talk about now hard it is to get a machine gun or how machine guns are illegal and such. Instead dodge or ignore.
Feelings are also going to need to be used. Need to come up with the emotion based arguments that will stick to people.
So, maybe follow along in the lines of something like “Not all Muslims” and such. Really, we need to turn an SJW who can think like this to our side to come up with good arguments. Like most logical thinking people with reason trying to think in these terms gives me an awful headache.
You’re going to lock me up for owning a piece of plastic? At tax payer expense? How sick is that?
You’re going to lock me up for exercising my rights to life, liberty, and property as well as my right to bear arms? Also, if this guy wanted to own real full autos, he could have. He was eligible and could afford to buy them legally or illegally. He chose not to.
Assuming what we’re being told is true.
I would defend them thusly:
“Whatever gadgets you desire to ban must be defined in writing by their function, otherwise the “bumpfire” stock will just come back under a new name, like “firebump”.
But bumping fire can be done with no gadgets down against the hip, or by a crank type device, or by a spring, or by an electric vibrator attached to a glove, like the ill-conceived “Autoglove”.
Unless and until you stand willing to ban human hips and fingers, springs, and vibrators, all such efforts are doomed to failure, and all such efforts are not only useless, but a distraction from other things that WILL work, but will remain undone because of this kind of foolishness.
Did the bump-fire stock really help him? It produced an impressive rate of fire, but he was quite a distance away and it certainly didn’t help with accuracy. I saw a picture from his room of a rifle with a rather large scope. Why bother?
It seems to me the point of the bump-fire was to produce terror in his victims. I am pretty sure that an average shooter with a scoped semi-auto could easily notch a higher death toll. Thank God he was going for sheer terror – I am convinced it reduced the death toll.
Now the question is what the motivation was, and was it political?
I was thinking the same thing.
Bumpfire was only effective here because he had 100 round mags and a stadium sized target.
They’re ridiculously easy to make if you don’t want to pay 200+ dollars for one. There are videos all over youtube that show you how to make your own with a few parts from Lowes or Home Depot.
Making them illegal won’t stop criminals from making them.
Get over it the Bump fire stock is a political scapegoat and it soon is to be gone with Republicans and Democrats agreeing they have to do something to calm all the rightful anger of an outraged public about neither side ever doing anything in Congress as the dead body count gets higher and higher. Soon Congress will have to climb over piles dead bodies from mass murders just to get to work.
Tonight as I type these words Nancy Pelosi said she is working behind the scenes with Republicans for a universal background check that may legally be extended to a 72 hour wait and judging the emotions of the hour its not inconceivable that the Republicans may go along with it. I personally think the current Brady Bill works well in its instant check form and see no need for a 72 hour wait unless the person being vetted has some problems with his prior records which is the way the current Brady Bill works. Extending the Brady Bill to cover all gun purchases is way long overdue. It takes no ones guns and would prevent 10 times the number of felons and nut cases from getting guns as opposed just to checking only new gun sales. Only a nut case would argue against this.
No law is fool proof but the bulk of gun owners would obey such a new law and to argue that it would not stop tens of thousands of illegal sales is again to be the ranting’s of a nut case.
Yes there will be illegal guns for sale but again its the fault of Congress for letting people keep guns and not have a bill requiring the use of a safe and a security alarm system. When criminals can simply walk in a home or even a gun store and load up their vehicle to the ceiling in a few minutes with stolen guns then its Congress’s fault for not correcting the situation by requiring such measures. Again only nut cases would argue this also would not keep tens of thousands of guns from being stolen.
Going another step mandatory mental health examinations for the issue of a gun owners purchase card would probably have prevented the last big massacre at Los Angles as anyone as wacked out as Paddock was would not have been difficult to diagnose even by a Psychiatrist who was only in his first year of study at school and a slam dunk for a trained professional.
Of Couse all this is way over the head of Jethro Bodine who screams “do nothing” and to do nothing will result in a public so outraged Jethro will end up having all of his guns confiscated and melted down but Jethro can never see the forest for the trees and believes that doing nothing will not result in him losing everything. Darwinism will then take its course resulting in the complete extinction of gun ownership by the working man. An Australian style melt down is not as improbable as the far right seems to believe.
“Extending the Brady Bill to cover all gun purchases is way long overdue. It takes no ones guns and would prevent 10 times the number of felons and nut cases from getting guns as opposed just to checking only new gun sales. Only a nut case would argue against this.”
Well, class me as a nut case, because the notion that “extending the Brady Bill” would prevent “ten times the number of felons from getting guns” is utter bullshit. Study after study have shown that felons DO NOT get their guns from legal gun shops or gun shows. They get them from fellow felons who stole them or bought them from gun smugglers. There are illegal gun manufacturers in Southeast Asia who export cheap copy guns to the US and these make their way into the hands of US felons, as well.
“No law is fool proof but the bulk of gun owners would obey such a new law and to argue that it would not stop tens of thousands of illegal sales is again to be the ranting’s of a nut case.”
There ARE NO “thousands of illegal sales.” I quote from gunlaws.com:
According to a study conducted in 1997, which admittedly could be out of date but is one of the most recently conducted studies of this comprehensive nature , only 15% of firearms possessed by Federal inmates were obtained through a retail store. The largest portion of illegal weapons were given to the inmates by a family member or a friend, with the next largest portion having been given to the inmates by a drug dealer.
“letting people keep guns and not have a bill requiring the use of a safe and a security alarm system.”
Apparently you aren’t familiar with the Defcon lockpicking events held in Las Vegas every year. Just about every gun safe (other than perhaps the largest and most expensive) have been picked at one point or another. Safe security is mostly laughable to professional criminals. Security alarm systems even more so.
While passing such a bill might weed out some of the more opportunistic criminal riff-raff who aren’t professional at breaking and entering and bypassing alarm systems, professional burglars would continue to have little problem bypassing them. As most home defense firearms are likely to be pistols, stealing the entire safe with its contents wouldn’t be that hard, either. Once you have time to crack a safe, doing so is nearly a certainty.
This is not to say people shouldn’t have these systems. But requiring them prior to a gun purchase would not effectively address the issues of stolen guns to a significant degree.
“Going another step mandatory mental health examinations for the issue of a gun owners purchase card”
This is just plain ridiculous. A mental health exam cannot be conducted in the space of an hour. In addition, the cost would be prohibitive. The cost-benefit would be non-existent since ninety-five percent or higher of applicants would be found sane enough to purchase.
I could see requiring someone to go through a safety course, as some states do, as a Federal measure. But a mental health exam? You need a mental health exam for suggesting it. If someone uses a car to kill someone, do we require mental health exams to get a driver’s license? Lunacy.
What is needed is better overall social mental health care so that hundreds of thousands of people don’t fall through the cracks. I’m not suggesting we go back to the pre-Reagan days of committing people for any reason, but neither should we ignore people with serious mental issues where they can be detected and treated early. And more restrictions on the prescription of “mental health” drugs that aggravate paranoia should be considered.
Finally, NONE of the measures you suggest would do anything whatsoever about the number of firearms already in criminal hands. They would merely penalize the usual law-abiding purchaser and raise the cost of owning a firearm possibly to prohibitive levels for many lower income people who need them for protection.
Which I suspect is your actual goal for suggesting them.
You do not live in the real world. The average home break in is done by street punks who can barely read or write not by professionals at all. Arrest records prove it. Also too many irresponsible gun stores do not even have mere security alarm systems or even bars on the windows. Our own readers here have given us examples from their own home towns. Even a small town gun store often has large quantities of guns there just for the taking. You kick in a window and fill our truck up to the ceiling with guns and drive away.
Yes I do agree with you when you stated “I am a nut case”. Your real reasoning is “I do not want to be a responsible citizen because I cannot be inconvenienced by acting like one”. No law is fool proof but security alarms and safes would result in deigning tens of thousands of guns from getting into the wrong hands and vetting of second hand sales would result in the same. Stats prove the average moron who shouldn’t have a gun was denied purchasing a new one in gun stores because of the Brady Bill and the numbers are absolutely staggering. Now think how many more would be deigned through the vetting of second hand sales. No one in the right mind could argue with this. Every civilized industrial nation on the entire planet has such laws and they work that’s a fact.
Your ranting, pulling your hair out and foaming at the mouth over mental health care tests to get a firearms i.d. card cannot refute the simple fact that Paddock would never have passed one and never been allowed to buy the legal arms he bought. He did not buy hot guns or second had guns but new ones. Judged mentally incompetent he would have been locked up but hey is not that what you are afraid of if you had to go through such a test. Ahh Haa now we get at the real truth of your post don’t we.
People need to be reminded that this is a one-off event. It’s likely that bump-fire devices have never been used before in ANY crime, let alone a mass attack. I’ve read several articles today where police in several cities were asked if they had ever seen a bump-fire device used in a crime and the response has always been no.
These devices are TOYS. They are intended to enable people who just like to shoot fast to do so. They are intended to SIMULATE full-auto fire for people who have never fired and can not obtain or fire full auto weapons.
In fact, for MOST collectors of full auto weapons, full auto weapons are also TOYS. Shooting them is FUN. A few people may feel they are better protected in self-defense terms with a full auto weapon, but that is probably a small percentage.
Full auto weapons are not terribly more useful in combat than semi-auto weapons. You just MISS FASTER! They are only useful for suppressive fire which is sometimes necessary in combat and for putting a LIMITED number of bullets faster on target than can be achieved with multiple trigger pulls, i.e. the “three-round burst” which is the way most soldiers are trained to fire.
The fact that VERY few crimes (by criminals as opposed to terrorists) are committed with full auto weapons is a testament to how these weapons are almost always used by civilians for legal purposes, i.e., entertainment and collecting.
A number of people are suggesting that the argument is that because of this ONE OFF incident, that such devices should be banned because “no one needs them.” The “no one needs them” argument has been used against semi-auto pistols and semi-auto rifles and is of course the main argument against high-capacity magazines.
Well, people don’t “need” cars that go faster than 55 miles per hour. People don’t “need” millions of things. Freedom means that people can obtain stuff they don’t need but merely want for whatever legal reason they want it.
What happens when the next mass attacker commandeers a dump truck, a city bus, or a tractor-trailer and drives into another mass concert and runs over fifty, a hundred, two hundred people before he can be stopped? Do we ban those vehicles because of a one-off incident? Or even multiple incidents? So far, vehicle attackers have merely attacked pedestrians on the street or small crowds. A vehicle attack on a mass event would be FAR more destructive.
We don’t ban an object which exists because of people’s desire for it because it is used in a one-off criminal application.
People also need to be reminded that bump fire devices do not change a semi-auto weapon into a full=auto weapon. The definition of full-auto is where multiple bullets are fired from one trigger pull; semi-auto is one bullet per trigger pull. Bump fire equipped guns are STILL semi-auto – they just fire faster than the human finger can usually pull the trigger, or with less fatigue.
As someone above noted, it won’t be long before 3D printers can produce the components for bump fire devices which can then be easily assembled. Banning them will be useless. That ship has sailed. They are not rocket science to re-invent or build by anyone with the skills.
There is no doubt in my mind that this incident will be repeated at some point in the future, possibly with more preparation than the current shooter. In my considered opinion, there will be no way to prevent it no matter what regulations or security precautions are taken. Even the approach some police departments are now considering to place snipers as part of security at mass entertainment events will not be completely effective.
As a meme I developed for computer security goes: “You can haz better security, you can haz worse security. But you cannot haz ‘security’. There is no security. Deal.”
Bump fire is just a trick to make the recoil of the semi auto weapon do the work. This is much different than full auto and takes practice. The belt loop on your pants and even a shoestring can so the same
Honestly bumpfire stocks are kind of stupid and impractical. But they are fun the first few times out. Other than that they don’t have many uses for home defense, or even hunting. It’s just a toy for the range and nothing more imo.
Honestly they might be banned. But it won’t work, prohibition is general is flawed.
Bump fire stocks can be home made or even 3d printed. I say give them nothing. Feinstein has a habit of throwing a bunch of crap at a wall to see what sticks. It won’t be only bumpfire stocks.
Not another inch.
Superchargers and turbochargers don’t need defending for cars. Should’nt have to defend bump stocks either.
Why does that lower receiver have an “auto” (“pew, pew, pew”) setting / AND a bump-fire?
How do you ban something you can 3d print, make from scrap metal in your garage or just use your finger to do. you can’t.
A ban is not designed to stop something, but to provide a mechanism to ruthlessly punish the offenders. If a device is “banned”, and you cannot use that device without being detected, jailed and punished, then a ban might be considered preventative. If you cannot make public use of a device clearly intended to be used in places where you can be observed, what good is the device? Is everyone who has a bump device capable of using or transporting that device without public detection? If not, the device is effectively useless. Which would be the point of a “ban”.
Now use “The Time Tunnel” and fast forward to the year 2021.
Amazing how so many, so called “defenders of the 2A”, really don’t support rapid fire gun ownership for poor people. But the government can and does aim machine guns in the direction of the voters now. In the year 2021.
Why is there a “Standing Army” in the nations a capitol now??? In the year 2021.
“Ken Cuccinelli Claims Pelosi Asked For ‘Crew-Manned Machine Guns’ In Washington”
https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/19/ken-cuccinelli-nancy-pelosi-crew-manned-machine-guns/
Comments are closed.