Bottom line is someone wants to cause mass destruction, they will always find the means.
Posted on 10/15/2017 6:54:51 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2020.washingtonexaminer.com ...
It wouldn’t be conceding. It would compromising but don’t even worry about it. Bump stocks will end up banned anyways and we won’t get one effing thing out of it as usual.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry
would
be Up in Arms!
No we don’t. Try again...
Except the bill is not written to just ban bump stocks. It puts all semi-autos in jeopardy.
Bottom line is someone wants to cause mass destruction, they will always find the means.
Agrees with the other bill
So you have posted 4 articles including this one but never responded to anyone? Really?
Bumpstocks don’t do anything to increase the rate of fire on a semi auto weapon that you can’t do by hooking your trigger finger through a belt loop or using a thick rubber band.
HR3999 currently working its way through committee is the legislation you always expect to see after a mass govt false flag shooting. On the surface it appears to mainly ban bumpstocks but its the fine print that is important. HR 3999 also bans any after market part that might (emphasis on might)increase the rate of fire on a semi auto weapon. The wording is so ambiguous that it leaves the interpretation completely open for the ATF. If passed this bill would ban everybody from changing out triggers springs, bolts etc to improve the quality of your weapon. HR3999 contains no grandfather clause so as soon as it is signed into law everybody with after market triggers is a felon. Maybe all those weapons need to be confiscated. See how this bullchit works?
The bumpstocks controversy is ridiculous on its face. Having or not having a bumpstocks weapon would have made zero difference in the Las Vegas shooting. Bumpstocks are notorious for breaking down and Jamming.
What you heard on those video tapes was full auto fire. IMO and Mr. GG2 s opinion it was likely a full auto Chinese AK. We listened to it a thousand times. You don’t get that clacking sound with an AR. We have an AK and an AR. They don’t sound the same. We were listening to an interview with a vet recently back from Afghanistan. He said there is no doubt it was an AK. We agree. Go to YouTube and watch a full auto AK and a full auto AR video. Then listen to the Vegas video.
This whole Las Vegas thing was likely a deep state sting operation gone bad. Everyday the explanations become more implausible. The whole point of it is try to advance the gun control so well meaning people like you who have little understanding of weapons will say “ban bumpstocks and get it over with. They make a legal gun illegal”. Actually they don’t. The trigger still has
to be pulled every single time the gun fires. So I’m not dissing you I’m just encouraging everyone to understand what’s at work here and pushback. Call your congressman or woman and tell them to vote no on HR3999 or anything similar.
Some of my cohorts seem to think such a ban would placate the gun grabbers. Hand them a small victory they can use at re-election time, as if that’s all they want and they’ll go away.
I disagree and believe it would embolden them, like chumming the waters for sharks.
It's the very definition of a "concession" -- exchanging USA-WIDE-CCW for bump stock banning.
Although I have no intention of ever buying a bump stock, because I think they waste ammo and trade accuracy and reliability for rate of fire. Nevertheless, they should not be banned -- this encourages the Federal Leviathon to act outside its Constitutional box.
To avoid legislation manufacturers and distributors will stop production and/or limit or stop distribution. However, the GOPe may try to convince the BATFE to change their regulations. And the only way to do that is to redefine what "full-auto" means. Redefinition is probably even a more dangerous slippery slope.
Don't feed the crocs.
You can call it whatever you want buddy. I would still make that trade all day long.
The constitution does not authorize the government to ban pieces of plastic or metal.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I call it "unwise."
I could easily say the same of you for you have no appreciation for guile or subtlety.
Are you really this naive? Pro-gunners will have been fooled, if they think they can deal in good faith with anti-gunners by giving them the opportunity to redefine "full-auto" to encompass bump stocks or similar mechanisms and make them destructive devices that fall within the scope of NFA 1933 (as amended by a "Quasi-full-auto Act" QFA 2017).
I can bump-fire my ARs and AKs without a stock addition. But the ATF won't care about such "subtle" distinctions. They can now classify any SA rifle as potentially quasi-full-auto weapon, because they can be held in such a way that they will fire repeatedly using the same operating concept as a bump-stock.
I wasn't born yesterday.
you’re moving the goal posts now. I never said anything about redefining anything.
You are naive. You fail to understand how these things work.
To ban (or control for compliance) a class of weapons through regulatory oversight the ATF will need to REDEFINE its working definition of "full-auto" to encompass a new class of enhanced semi-autos. Or, the Congress, if it passes a statute to do so, will then need to do the same.
If that proves too difficult, they might try to ban "firearm accessories which alter function". That would be a huge new classification that will no doubt permit excessive overreach.
Failure to comply in one small part, whether intentional or not, can result in a huge fine, a prison sentence, or both.
When you or anyone suggests making a "trade" with the state, you are permitting them to "move the goal posts". Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
No. Don't go there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.