Posted on 10/02/2018 9:33:50 AM PDT by Simon Green
When questioned on the one-year anniversary of the Las Vegas Route 91 Harvest Festival Shooting, President Trump said his administration was looking to soon “eliminate” bump stocks.
Trump was speaking to reporters in the White House’s Rose Garden on Monday about the new trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, when he took a moment to pause and acknowledge the anniversary of the event that left 58 dead and some 850 wounded, saying the shooting as “a horrible, horrible time in the life of our country.”
Just over an hour into the conference, when asked about the subject of bump stocks and the anniversary of the Las Vegas shootings, Trump said he was nearing action on the devices which catapulted to national attention for their role in the event.
“In order to eliminate — terminate — bump stocks, we have to go through a procedure,” said Trump. “We are now at the final stages of that procedure — in fact, the lawyers were just telling me — and over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be able to write it out. But you can’t just write it out because rules and regulations in this nation are really tough, even for something like that.
“So we’re knocking out bump stocks,” said Trump. “I’ve told the NRA, I’ve told everyone. Bump stocks are gone. But to do it you have to go to public hearings — which we’ve had.
Saying his administration was working on both sides in Congress on the issue, Trump summed up that, “In a very short period of time, bump stocks will be ruled out.”
Since last December, regulators have been researching federal law to determine if certain bump stock devices fall within the definition of “machine gun,” which led to Trump in February ordering the Department of Justice to craft regulations to “write out” the devices himself. Since then, the primary maker of bump stocks in the country stopped taking orders for the controversial devices, although they are still readily available.
Although at least eight states have outlawed bump stocks in the past year, Americans could possess as many as 520,000 of the devices, according to estimates from federal regulators. Meanwhile, statewide bans on bump stocks have sparked lawsuits in Florida, Maryland, and Vermont.
Mississippi-based Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh said, should the federal government move to ban the devices, “I’m going to sue them day one.”
Agreed
You missed the point. Massive targets get massive fire. Ever fire a quad 50?
No, I’d say the two most notable weapons I’ve fired is a 300 Winmag and ar-15.
Blah blah blah - let’s eat some worms and die.
Trump has a way of letting the wolves get a sniff and then turning them away from their feeding grounds.
Same here - spent years competing with, and beside, my Dad...one well-aimed shot can literally be worth 100 sprayed....and maybe even more.....especially as the distance increases when it comes to actually hitting a specific target...
I have trouble picturing myself ever “shooting fish in a barrel” for any licit reason....what the Vegas POS did was about the only reason one would “need” a bump stock....not thrilled with making them illegal but can live with it if that’s as far as it goes....many will be pissed at Trump but he remains our best hope for setting things right and I won’t abandon him over bump stocks...if he allows the howlers anything else I will have to reconsider, but I’m not going to throw 99.9% away because I’m unhappy with 0.1%
IOW, I’m right, you know I’m right, but you’re a Trumpbot and can never admit that your God-hero can do wrong.
The Constitution limits what GOVERNMENT may do, now what your gun club may do.
You of course make a good point. They were banned at our gun club because people using them sent projectiles into areas outside of the range they were using that put others at risk.
The incident that brought these stocks to the publics attention was a terrorist attack. The sound of what seemed to be machine gun fire added to the terror of the public, which was the point. The “bump stock” was used more as a terror inducing device than as a tool to make the firearm more effective. Would you argue that a “bump stock” makes a semiautomatic weapon more effective? If not, then what does your argument have to do with the 2nd amendment?
2) A bump-stock, or any other gun part, falls into the general category of "arms". See tagline.
Conceding ANY ground to the gun-grabbers is ALWAYS a bad idea.
I would go even farther, he is the only hope we have right now. There is no one in or out of politics today, that could carry his torch.
Yes, I said that you made a “good point” that our gun club not allowing bump stocks because of safety issues was not the same as the government banning them. But you did not answer my question, do you believe that a bump stock makes a semiautomatic rifle any more effective?
Do you believe that giving your opinion on this is “conceding ANY ground to the gun-grabbers”? If you are afraid to have a discussion on this even with a long time member of the NRA and a long time gun club member… then how do you think that you will do discussing this with actual “gun grabbers”. How can you expect the politicians representing you to give rational arguments if you are unwilling to share your actual knowledge and reasoning?
I noticed that in post 5 you said, “TREASON!!! If We the People had wanted a gun-control freak, we would have voted for the Hildebeeste.”
In post 10 you said, “ Trump is DEAD WRONG on this.”
In post 12 you said, “Who cares? If Trump gets them banned:
1) Leftists will still hate him.
2) He will have shown pusillanimous conduct in the face of the enemy.
3) He will have enacted more “gun control” than the Kenyan Usurper.
4) He will have betrayed his oath of office.
5) He will have betrayed We the People who put him in office.”
In post 48 you said, “IOW, I’m right, you know I’m right, but you’re a Trumpbot and can never admit that your God-hero can do wrong.”
To actual firearm enthusiasts and organizations such as the NRA this is almost a non-issue because “bump stocks” are not conducive to firearm safety or effectiveness. Yet you obviously have a great deal of emotional energy invested in them. Why? If you cannot explain that here to people who are sympathetic to your cause then all your jumping up and down, insulting our president, and calling other people here names is just a giant waste of energy. All you are accomplishing is giving a bad name to rational 2nd amendment advocates. You are doing nothing that will educate or influence even politicians who are on our side.
Got it? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble comprehending? They're all simple words. Which one is beyond you? Point it out, so I can explain it.
We already have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books: federal, state and local. ALL of them violate the Constitution. NONE of them reduce crime or increase safety. You want to add one more? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Thank you. Which of those statements do you believe to be incorrect? Point it out, so I can explain it to you.
Well then, it ought to be a simple chore for a brilliant legal mind such as yourself to take it before the Supreme Court and get all 80 years of them reversed. But genius may I remind you that the man who gets to send nominees to the Senate to get confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court is none other than President Donald Trump. That is right, the man you think it is such a good idea to insult in so many posts.
If you really want to preserve the 2nd amendment... Pipe down and support the President and the GOP. The last thing we need right before the midterms are idiots trying to demoralize the base with pointless nonsense. If the Democrats somehow take the Senate there will be no more Supreme Court Justices named by Donald Trump and if they take the house his administration will be so bogged down with crap that nothing more good will be accomplished.
STFU.
The President is wrong on this, and all your attempts at turd-polishing just reveal that his suggestion to pile one more useless unconstitutional gun law on an already huge, stinking manure heap of useless unconstitutional gun laws is stupid and wrong.
Wrong is wrong no matter who does it.
Good evening to you as well. Where I live we have real problems with gun grabbing Democrats. We have a State Supreme Court that is completely populated by leftists. You are obsessing over something that is less than nothing when compared to the real challenges we face in this upcoming election.
The damn things aren't even safe enough to use at our gun club... there use by unqualified individuals resulted in projectiles escaping the bounds of the range they were being used at.
I have dozens of rifles, shotguns and handguns. I reload cartridges for every one of them. I have been a member of the NRA and a gun enthusiast for many years. People like you who are unable to carry on a civilized conversation about something like this with someone like me are an embarrassment and a liability to those who actually do try to work with the public to maintain our 2nd amendment rights.
If you don't like the way things have been going (and few of us do) try to do something constructive instead of being a headache to those like President Trump who actually are working to protect our rights. If Hillary had been elected we already would have a left leaning Supreme Court that would be well on the way to gutting our constitution. Wake up and smell the roses you foul mouthed baby.
Don’t be an idiot - I’ll not throw 99.9% away because of a 0.1% flaw....if you want to toss the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps you should reconsider saying others have ideological problems...you may want to get checked by one of Sheldon Cooper’s doctors.
Yep - but I have already gotten some slams from folks that seem willing to dump Trump over bump-stocks...they’re even more stupid than Dems - the 0.1% outweighs the 99.9%.
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.