Trump voters open to bump stock ban after Las Vegas shooting

Washington Examiner ^ | 10/14/17 | Daniel Allott

[leaymane]

As night follows day, mass shootings in America are followed by a succession of Democratic politicians and liberal activists pushing for tighter gun restrictions. Almost as reliably, those efforts fail. But in the wake of the massacre in Las Vegas, in which Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured hundreds more at an outdoor concert, there is reason to believe this time might be different. Paddock used “bump stock” devices that effectively turn semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic weapons, causing a higher death toll. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have shown some support for a ban of bump stocks. House Speaker Paul Ryan has echoed the National Rifle Association’s preference for a regulatory ban, while a bipartisan group of 20 House members has introduced legislation that would make it illegal to manufacture, own, or transfer bump stocks. There is also an openness to banning bump stocks among voters and officeholders in the battleground counties featured in The Race To 2020. All of these counties have strong gun cultures.

[Scrambler Bob]

Just exactly would one define a bump stock, and not include any other currently legal device (firearm, or otherwise).

DiFi would just ban all semi-automatics. That would make bump stocks useless.

etc.

[TLI]

OK, this is a bit strange...

http://2020.washingtonexaminer.com/meet-the-authors/

.

[Vendome]

Nope.

Besides, you can use an industrial rubber band to do the same thing

[going hot]

ought to ban paper clips as well, and all short thin wire, for the same reason.

[arthurus]

No, they don't. Automatic refers to specific structure of the weapon. There a number of legal devices that mimic auto fire. Some of them are more controllable and thus more accurate than bump-firing, either with a bump-stock or firing from the belt loop. 3D printing makes it inevitable that all the bans in the world will only make the devices proliferate as people realize they are necessary if your ownership of guns is predicated in part on a potential necessity of defense against the Government.

The peril of the proposed legislation is that the wording will be vague enough to derive a total ban on semiautomatic rifles and will set up a real arms crisis if the USSC doesn't knock it down quickly.

[dragnet2]

Fake news...No one in media has ever asked me what I thought. They’ve threatened me, but that’s about it.

[arthurus]

There are unconstitutional laws that make some guns illegally illegal. 2Amd has absolute wording. The only possible limit is the involuntary servitude wording in Section 1 of the thirteenth Amendment which could take away the right to possess firearms while incarcerated legally.

[arthurus]

The problem is a problem of camels and noses.

[arthurus]

The problem is the absolute wording of the Second Amendment.

[Theophilus]

The grabbers want to build on the precedent of punishing a technology for a man’s evil.

[Godebert]

The Washington Examiner has mad a definite shift to the left of late. They recently ran an editorial defending that commie punk Spenser Rapone of West Point.

The Army shouldn't overreact in punishing Lt. Spenser Rapone

[Drew68]

Trump voters open to bump stock ban after Las Vegas shooting

The question we need to ask is what do we get in return?

Take something, give something. You know, "quid pro quo" and all that.

I'd say, give up bump stocks if we get to repeal 1934's NFA and the 1986 machine gun ban. Sounds like a deal to me.

Since I know this will never happen, I guess I'd just be happy if the GOP acted like winners and gave up nothing for a change.

[Redwood71]

If a man uses a table fork to harm a person at lunch, should you ban forks or dull the tines? There are two types of guns. There are illegally procured guns. And there are legally procured guns. But they are the same gun. The classification is based upon the procurer, not the gun.

So limiting the gun won’t change the result. The procurer will still shoot someone if he is illegal. New gun laws won’t change the illegal people, just hinder the legal from protecting themselves. Remember, triggers don’t pull fingers.

rwood

[proust]

Do we get to vote on it?

[tomkat]

Bullshit

(and welcome to FR anyway ;-)

[Blue Jays]

"...Trump supporters open to bump stock bans..."

---

Incorrect. We do not support any slippery-slope bans.

[higgmeister]

Didn't anyone else see that a belt loop works just as good as a bump stock? Also a rubber band wrapped behind the trigger and fastened to the magazine does the same thing. I've found videos with a wooden dowel fastened to a wooden board at a ninety degree angle and held against the trigger will bump fire the rifle. I've found with a quick Google search that some guns with a practiced trigger pull can go into a bump fire mode with nothing but a trigger movement timed with the normal recoil.

This bump stock witch hunt cannot end well. The fact is the Second Amendment isn't to be negotiated.

[myerson]

I never heard of a “bump-stock” until Obama legalized them. This bump-stock hubbub is a ruse to attack all semi-autos!!! I can bump fire without a special stock, but it’s inaccurate, dangerous, and eats up a lot of ammo fast.

[tumblindice]

“Why does anyone need to fire that many rounds in such a short period of time?”

Why do you need a `high capacity’ magazine?
Why do you need a caliber larger than .22 LR?
Why do you need anything besides a shotgun?
Why do you need a shotgun?

See how this works?

[TigersEye]

I added ‘banglist’ to the keywords. You should have.

And, no, I do not support banning bumpstocks and the bill Congress is considering goes far beyond that.