NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
276 replies, posted
I'd personally like to see the NRA support increased mental health care, increased health care, and more dollars towards food stamps and such, and argue that the problem isn't gun control at all. That'd really show that they actually care about the solution and want to do something about it.
Guns don't make people kill. Being very sick, desperate, or hopeless, and finding a ready-made portable instrument of mass destruction easy to acquire [I]after[/I] being failed by society, is what makes people kill.
Leaving aside self-defense, terrorism, and police shooting a hostile threat for public safety reasons, because those have their own complicating factors, almost any case where someone intentionally pointed a gun at someone else and fired is because something in their life has gone so wrong that this is necessary. Be it gang violence, a mugger, a bullied school shooter, a domestic violence victim fighting back, a mentally disturbed person, or what -- the finger pulled the trigger because, in some way, at some point, the system and greater society failed them and abandoned them to cope with something terrible.
You won't stop gun crime in America by clawing the Second Amendment apart. You'll minimize (but not truly stop) gun crime by taking care of people and helping them live healthy, rewarding, productive lives with the proper physical, financial, and mental support they may need. And then nobody feels like the only thing they can do is take a gun and go postal.
In the same way, opioids, and before them meth and crack, aren't on the rise in poor communities because they're trendy party drugs that make everyone's night out of this world; it's a crisis because hopeless people turn to drugs to escape the crushing misery they face. The solution isn't to legislate harder against drugs (although tightening up loopholes and sloppy controls [I]is[/I] important), it's to pull these communities out of the dirt and give these people back the basic dignities of life. That's a lot harder to communicate and legislatively accomplish and it's not nearly as attractive a sound bite as being tough on drugs and the same's with guns, however, so don't hold your breath for a holistic solution to the poisons running through America's veins.
So does this ban possession too? That would fucking suck if it did, I don't see a reason why already responsible gun owners should have to give up their mods. These things are an engineering marvel, to see them completely banned would be a disappointment.
[editline]5th October 2017[/editline]
We're just applying painkillers to the problem when we need to actually stitch and heal the wound.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750327]Just to be clear, it is fully impossible to come up with any legislation capable of preventing [B]all[/B] mass shootings. Just because a piece of proposed gun control legislation may not have been effective for one shooting doesn't it wouldn't help reduce the frequency or severity of others. Better background checks, including criminal and mental health record searches, are a no-brainer. It's basically the single most simple and unobtrusive things we can possibly do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. It's not a [B]perfect[/B] solution, by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. We may not be able to permanently end mass shootings, but through effective legislation we can at least significantly reduce both their frequency and severity. That's worth some minor annoyances to gun owners.[/QUOTE]
How is banning/regulating bumpfire stocks feasible and effective in curbing the frequency and severity of mass shootings?
Hang on guys I just read the language of the proposed bill and it has no grandfathered clauses. This means they want to retroactively ban this item from people who already possess it. This is ex post facto legislation which is [B]illegal[/B]. If congress passes this measure, it will have far more serious consequences outside of just gun control!
[URL="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf"]Source[/URL]
I mean ban the average Joe from having one, but don't make the rest of the pop suffer.
"average joe" so.. pretty much everyone except millionaires?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750175]Are we really going to start legislating against shooting techniques now?[/QUOTE]
Wasn't that the case with shouldering brace stocks until not long ago?
[t]https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/files/2015/02/sig_arm_brace_sb15.jpg[/t]
Oh that's a nice stock just don-
[t]http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SIG_SAUER_SIGTac_SB15_Pistol_Stabilizing_Brace_on_SIG_MCX_Tactical_Piston_AR_Carbine_SBR_Nick_Leghorn_The_Truth_About_Guns_TTAG_at_SIG_SAUER_Headquarters_New_Media_Writers_Event_2014_David_Crane_DefenseReview.com_DR_2.jpg[/t]
[B][I]ATF OPEN UP[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=Talon 733;52750410]Define "better" background checks as the current ones already prevent anyone with felony convictions from buying a firearm or even possessing a firearm[/QUOTE]
For one: universal enforcement of background checks and paper trails for all transactions of all classes of firearms in all states. Currently, only nine states (all of which saw marked decreases in gun violence) enforce that.
The "unlicensed seller" loophole needs to be plugged. All weapon sales must be made to go through federal channels, with background checks and a paper trail, because that shit [I]does[/I] work in most cases to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Weapons that are sold without such checks can and should be illegal to own, with confiscation and destruction of the weapon, fines and/or jail time for violations.
[QUOTE=zombini;52750354]As much fun as it would be to own a full auto gun, or at least simulate one, this is one thing I'm willing to give up. By letting the gun control reactionaries kill something that really doesn't have anything to do with day to day gun use, it should divert their attention away from bullshit like AWBs and ridiculous waiting periods.
Losing the ability to emulate a full auto machine gun isn't going to make me lose any sleep, especially since there's at least two big shooting festivals you can go to and rent a REAL machine gun to fire off for relatively cheap, or watch for even cheaper. Plus it's just not as fun to open up and burn all of your ammo at once on the range. It's cool to do once or twice, but then your wallet starts screaming at you for creating such a strong vacuum where your money used to be. Honestly, I'm only surprised that the ATF hasn't banned bumpfire stocks yet. They banned the practice of tying a string around the trigger and the bolt handle, so a purpose manufactured gun part specifically to bypass the NFA should've been banned long ago.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;52750388]This. Ammo isn't cheap and for most gun owners like myself, full-auto is a waste of money.[/QUOTE]
You're not going to find many gun owners who disagree with any of this. Full-auto and simulated full-auto are entertaining wastes of money that most people try once and then never do again.
But that said, I think you're about to see backlash against the NRA, because many gun owners are sick of this:
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750272]Frankly, I don't think banning such modifications goes [I]nearly[/I] far enough, but it's a step in the right direction at least.[/QUOTE]
It's really not about the bump-fire stocks themselves. When nothing short of mass confiscation is enough for many gun control activists and 'compromise' really means 'accept new bans and we won't throw you in prison', many gun owners aren't too thrilled to acquiesce to another infringement on their rights while getting nothing in return. They are being incentivized to fight tooth and nail against even reasonable restrictions, because those reasonable restrictions will inevitably be used as a stepping stone to less reasonable restrictions.
If you re-opened the machine gun registry while requiring that all bump-fire stocks be registered as machine guns and be subject to the ATF background investigation and $200 tax, those same gun owners would accept the regulation with open arms, because that would actually represent a compromise.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750429]Hang on guys I just read the language of the proposed bill and it has no grandfathered clauses. This means they want to retroactively ban this item from people who already possess it. This is ex post facto legislation which is [B]illegal[/B]. If congress passes this measure, it will have far more serious consequences outside of just gun control![/QUOTE]
I'm not a legal expert but I'm pretty sure ex post facto only applies to punitive laws, not regulations and bans? Unless the law means they can arrest you for having previously owned something that has been banned, it's not ex post facto, I don't think.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750429]Hang on guys I just read the language of the proposed bill and it has no grandfathered clauses. This means they want to retroactively ban this item from people who already possess it. This is ex post facto legislation which is [B]illegal[/B]. If congress passes this measure, it will have far more serious consequences outside of just gun control![/QUOTE]
I don't see why they couldn't ban something after it's been sold as legal.
DDT was banned after a zillion tons was produced and regulated as safe to sell and use in close proximity to people. Then we discovered just how many cancers it causes and banned that shit.
The government reserves the right of eminent domain, which is the process where it can take your property and compensate you for it if it needs it. This deals with land, not portable assets, but there is established precedent that, in a reasonable situation, the government can take your stuff when it needs it.
Now, that isn't to say that they could just do it now and be done with it. If existing owners will be forced to turn in their to-be-banned bump stocks, I expect that there would need to be an amnesty program with a financial reward -- essentially buying the equipment from citizens to take it out of the market. Anyone who insisted on holding onto [I]banned weapon accessories[/I] after a, say, two- or three-year amnesty period and was then later found to be in possession could expect to be charged, but there'd reasonably be a decent window for law-abiding citizens to turn over redesignated equipment, no questions asked, and receive compensation instead of criminal charges.
It's like any law that makes a sweeping change -- the law is future-dated with plenty of time for anyone who would fall out of compliance in their current state to adapt so they aren't outside of the law when it finally does go into effect. This is a common procedural move with nearly infinite precedent.
On the other hand, if the bill does in fact just demand a near-immediate sunset, that pretty much indicates the NRA isn't serious about this shit and just wants to derail the anti-gun movement's outrage before it can get organized.
[media]https://twitter.com/GunOwners/status/916002772973002752[/media]
At least the GOA isn't giving ground, but of course the NRA sticks by their name. No Rights Anymore.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750175]Trying to legislate against this is a pointless feel good measure. People can still bumpfire without special stocks.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c[/media]
Are we really going to start legislating against shooting techniques now? This does nothing to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns.[/QUOTE]
A lot harder to do that through a window at a crowd from 300+ yards away than it is with a Bump stock, though
You can still modify some weapons to shoot full auto anyway, the only issue with that is once you pull the trigger, every round is going to be fired until empty
I think getting rid of bump-stocks is perfectly reasonable, bump-stocks have always been one of them legal technicalities.
[QUOTE=Talon 733;52750442]"average joe" so.. pretty much everyone except millionaires?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much everyone except intelligent liberals, the only people I trust with firearms.
[editline]5th October 2017[/editline]
Meaning of liberal up to debate.
[QUOTE=MR-X;52750470]I think getting rid of bump-stocks is perfectly reasonable, bump-stocks have always been one of them legal technicalities.[/QUOTE]
The bills language says it bans the combination of any parts which can be used to accelerate the rate of fire of semi automatic weapons. This could be used against lighter triggers and unintended things now. It's no longer just about bumpfire stocks.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750490]The bills language says it bans the combination of any parts which can be used to accelerate the rate of fire of semi automatic weapons. This could be used against lighter triggers and unintended things now. It's no longer just about bumpfire stocks.[/QUOTE]
If they didn't include those other means, then you'd have the same people who scream about knife violence, explosives, and trucks say "that won't do any good because you can just X therefor this is pointless".
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52750412]I'd personally like to see the NRA support increased mental health care, increased health care, and more dollars towards food stamps and such, and argue that the problem isn't gun control at all. That'd really show that they actually care about the solution and want to do something about it.
Guns don't make people kill. Being very sick, desperate, or hopeless, and finding a ready-made portable instrument of mass destruction easy to acquire [I]after[/I] being failed by society, is what makes people kill.
Leaving aside self-defense, terrorism, and police shooting a hostile threat for public safety reasons, because those have their own complicating factors, almost any case where someone intentionally pointed a gun at someone else and fired is because something in their life has gone so wrong that this is necessary. Be it gang violence, a mugger, a bullied school shooter, a domestic violence victim fighting back, a mentally disturbed person, or what -- the finger pulled the trigger because, in some way, at some point, the system and greater society failed them and abandoned them to cope with something terrible.
You won't stop gun crime in America by clawing the Second Amendment apart. You'll minimize (but not truly stop) gun crime by taking care of people and helping them live healthy, rewarding, productive lives with the proper physical, financial, and mental support they may need. And then nobody feels like the only thing they can do is take a gun and go postal.
In the same way, opioids, and before them meth and crack, aren't on the rise in poor communities because they're trendy party drugs that make everyone's night out of this world; it's a crisis because hopeless people turn to drugs to escape the crushing misery they face. The solution isn't to legislate harder against drugs (although tightening up loopholes and sloppy controls [I]is[/I] important), it's to pull these communities out of the dirt and give these people back the basic dignities of life. That's a lot harder to communicate and legislatively accomplish and it's not nearly as attractive a sound bite as being tough on drugs and the same's with guns, however, so don't hold your breath for a holistic solution to the poisons running through America's veins.[/QUOTE]
They know this, but it's easier to blame something like weapons instead of focusing on what really matters. It would cut into their lives because they'd have to sacrifice some of their brownie points/funding among their constituents (oh the horror) who believe "if you aren't supporting x or y then you're not a real Democrat/Republican", which I guess is so much more important (it isn't).
Spineless cowards, most of them. Could use with a whole new fresh batch of young people in the offices instead of these clapped out, old geezers who are well past their time and only care about political capital.
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;52750520]They know this, but it's easier to blame something like weapons instead of focusing on what really matters. It would cut into their lives because they'd have to sacrifice some of their brownie points/funding among their constituents (oh the horror) who believe "if you aren't supporting x or y then you're not a real Democrat/Republican", which I guess is so much more important (it isn't).
Spineless cowards, most of them. Could use with a whole new fresh batch of young people in the offices instead of these clapped out, old geezers who are well past their time and only care about political capital.[/QUOTE]
I don't think age is a factor in this
I know lots of young people who are idiots or tools, and there are plenty of old politicians like Bernie Sanders.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52750525]I don't think age is a factor in this
I know lots of young people who are idiots or tools[/QUOTE]Yeah. A lot of younger people get dragged into this mess too.
You're right, it's not about age; it's about integrity.
The twisted thing is, I think a lot of Republican gun-owners who oppose gun control would agree with the following:
[QUOTE]Just as gun ownership is the right of every mentally-fit American adult, proper mental and medical health care and a well-fed home is the right of every American[/QUOTE]
Where everyone will argue is over the definition of an American, the definition of mentally-fit, the definition of "proper", and how this all gets paid for, and that's where everything goes to hell because nobody wants to give up their sacred cows to feed the hungry.
And that's not even addressing the elephant in the room, the ratfuck regressive behaviours of the entities whose profits/budget will be hurt by a reduction in convictions for violent crime, a reduction in collective fear and paranoia, and a general shift upwards in the standard of living across the country.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750490]The bills language says it bans the combination of any parts which can be used to accelerate the rate of fire of semi automatic weapons. This could be used against lighter triggers and unintended things now. It's no longer just about bumpfire stocks.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, Semi-Auto weapons' rate of fire is how fast you can pull the trigger. A bump stock does not accelerate the weapon's rate of fire, it modifies your ability to pull the trigger faster. It seems like the language is written by someone who doesn't know firearms, and in court, could be argued that nothing this bill makes illegal is illegal
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52750566]The thing is, Semi-Auto weapons' rate of fire is how fast you can pull the trigger. A bump stock does not accelerate the weapon's rate of fire, it modifies your ability to pull the trigger faster. It seems like the language is written by someone who doesn't know firearms, and in court, could be argued that nothing this bill makes illegal is illegal[/QUOTE]
The language is most certainly written by someone who deosn't understand the basic functions of firearms it's being proposed by Diane Feinstein my 10 year old niece could give you a more succinct explanation of a semi automatic firearm
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750452]For one: universal enforcement of background checks and paper trails for all transactions of all classes of firearms in all states. Currently, only nine states (all of which saw marked decreases in gun violence) enforce that.
The "unlicensed seller" loophole needs to be plugged. All weapon sales must be made to go through federal channels, with background checks and a paper trail, because that shit [I]does[/I] work in most cases to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Weapons that are sold without such checks can and should be illegal to own, with confiscation and destruction of the weapon, fines and/or jail time for violations.[/QUOTE]
Unlicensed sellers will never go away, unless the NSA dedicates a satellite to me 24/7 with a live person watching it theres nothing thats going to stop me from walking to my neighbors house and selling him a gun, as for the universal enforcement i dont quite understand what you mean there as ANYONE buying a gun through an FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and pass a background check
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52750466][media]https://twitter.com/GunOwners/status/916002772973002752[/media]
At least the GOA isn't giving ground, but of course the NRA sticks by their name. No Rights Anymore.[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking serious right now? The NRA makes one tiny concession, not even endorsing a ban on bump stocks but merely suggesting additional regulation, more for the sake of PR than anything, and suddenly they're a gaggle of sunshine patriots abandoning the Second Amendment? The same NRA that's kept a stranglehold on gun control legislation for decades by pumping millions of dollars into politicians' campaign funds? The same NRA that churns out [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE]literal propaganda[/url] to whip gun owners into a panic? That NRA?
Amazing. Someone so much as breathes a whisper of banning bump stocks, and you're whining about how you have no rights anymore. You have a seriously warped view of your own rights my man.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52750659]Are you fucking serious right now? The NRA makes one tiny concession, not even endorsing a ban on bump stocks but merely suggesting additional regulation, more for the sake of PR than anything, and suddenly they're a gaggle of sunshine patriots abandoning the Second Amendment? The same NRA that's kept a stranglehold on gun control legislation for decades by pumping millions of dollars into politicians' campaign funds? The same NRA that churns out [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE]literal propaganda[/url] to whip gun owners into a panic? That NRA?
Amazing. Someone so much as breathes a whisper of banning bump stocks, and you're whining about how you have no rights anymore. You have a seriously warped view of your own rights my man.[/QUOTE]
My Parents are Trump Supporters and Pro Gun owners and even they want Bump Stocks Banned and and actual assult rifles.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52750659]Are you fucking serious right now? The NRA makes one tiny concession, not even endorsing a ban on bump stocks but merely suggesting additional regulation, more for the sake of PR than anything, and suddenly they're a gaggle of sunshine patriots abandoning the Second Amendment? The same NRA that's kept a stranglehold on gun control legislation for decades by pumping millions of dollars into politicians' campaign funds? The same NRA that churns out [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE"]literal propaganda[/URL] to whip gun owners into a panic? That NRA?
Amazing. Someone so much as breathes a whisper of banning bump stocks, and you're whining about how you have no rights anymore. You have a seriously warped view of your own rights my man.[/QUOTE]
The NRA betrayed us before on the Hughes amendment saying they would get it repealed later. The one piece of legislation that was supposed to be good for gun owners and they let the Hughes Amendment through saying they would repeal it later. Well I still can't register an automatic. We come up with a solution and they oppose that now too. We're fucking pissed because the NRA are incompetent idiots who are giving up our rights and making us look like a bunch of retarded rednecks by trying to incite violence against anyone against us.
We can't trust the NRA to make concessions because we never get anything out of their compromises. Since the National Firearms Act we've slowly been losing our rights to more and more things while the NRA is sitting around with their thumb up their nose telling us its all okay that we'll get it back later. We don't even get a actual compromise because for some reason all these compromises end up with gun owners getting nothing while gun control somehow keeps getting closer and closer to their goal.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750289]Never really understood this argument, tbh. Forcing people to figure out how to machine their own parts, and make them reliable enough to actually function similarly and conveniently enough to compare to what they could have just bought at the store for a couple of bucks is better than not doing anything at all. It's an extra barrier, an extra chance for homemade jury-rigged components to fail, an extra chance for those components to never even be utilized in the first place because the shooter didn't even consider them as a possibility, or because any given shooting had little or no advanced planning.
It's not an impassable obstacle for somebody who was clearly as prepared as Paddock was, but it's a barrier nontheless, and one that many mass shooters may not be able or willing to deal with. It's also a barrier that has essentially no impact on law abiding gun owners who are all quick to admit that it's not practical enough for any actual self defense needs. So, how's that a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
You can achieve full auto on most rifles with a shoe string. Its not a tough work around. No machining, no drilling, nothing to build; as long as youre smart enough to tie a pair of loops.
Filing a sear or even changing a trigger pack isn't any harder.
Banning stocks like this is completely arbitrary.
[editline]5th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=mcharest;52750659]Are you fucking serious right now? The NRA makes one tiny concession, not even endorsing a ban on bump stocks but merely suggesting additional regulation, more for the sake of PR than anything, and suddenly they're a gaggle of sunshine patriots abandoning the Second Amendment? The same NRA that's kept a stranglehold on gun control legislation for decades by pumping millions of dollars into politicians' campaign funds? The same NRA that churns out [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE]literal propaganda[/url] to whip gun owners into a panic? That NRA?
Amazing. Someone so much as breathes a whisper of banning bump stocks, and you're whining about how you have no rights anymore. You have a seriously warped view of your own rights my man.[/QUOTE]
Naw dood, people have been hating the NRA since the 94 ban. Hating the NRA is nothing new, at least not around here.
[editline]5th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52750701]My Parents are Trump Supporters and Pro Gun owners and even they want Bump Stocks Banned and and actual assult rifles.[/QUOTE]
Just because youre on one side of the fence on an issue doesn't mean you know anything about the issue.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52750466][media]https://twitter.com/GunOwners/status/916002772973002752[/media]
At least the GOA isn't giving ground, but of course the NRA sticks by their name. No Rights Anymore.[/QUOTE]
They're mistaking arm braces for bumpfire stocks... welp we're screwed. 90% of firearm accessories are going to be banned now. GG
There was no reason bump-stocks should have been legal in the first place. They have no practical application bar mass homicide. In a hunting or gun-range environment all they do is completely throw off your aim and make recentering your rifle impossible. They are a huge safety hazard to anyone who uses them and exist only to circumvent automatic weapon bans in the most braindead way possible.
The NRA is fucked in the head, but they aren't stupid enough to make this the sword they fall on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.