Solomonson
Member
It's pretty amusing to see that some here actually feel the bump fire stocks could be used to "barter" with the BATFE.
possible legislation to ban bump stocks
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bump stocks
- Status
It is imperative to GET something in return to REDEFINE the gun-grabbers idea of "compromise" (which right now, to them, means slowly chip chip chipping away).
It almost doesn't matter what we get - we have to point out what a real compromise looks like.
It almost doesn't matter what we get - we have to point out what a real compromise looks like.
Rocketmedic
Member
We call them speed limits and school zones...
Yes! Absolutely! Debate alllllll you want and send out for Chinese carry-out too
. Fienstein, 
Chuck E, etc. ARE NOT MAKING A PROPOSAL FOR YOUR BENEFIT. It is for political agenda, and that agenda is spelled out over and over over again. They have said as much (agreement with Aussie Ban etc.), their language is clear and it's meaning plain and has absolutely ''zero'' ambiguity; NO GUNS FOR ANY REGULAR PEOPLE. POLICE AND MILITARY ONLY. . You can wrap it up in pretty paper & tie a pink bow on it, label it ''Truffles'', yet a doggie turd is still, well, there it is. I couldn't get thru to the NRA today 
to tell them that. Rest assured, I will tomorrow.
. Fienstein, Chuck E, etc. ARE NOT MAKING A PROPOSAL FOR YOUR BENEFIT. It is for political agenda, and that agenda is spelled out over and over over again. They have said as much (agreement with Aussie Ban etc.), their language is clear and it's meaning plain and has absolutely ''zero'' ambiguity; NO GUNS FOR ANY REGULAR PEOPLE. POLICE AND MILITARY ONLY. . You can wrap it up in pretty paper & tie a pink bow on it, label it ''Truffles'', yet a doggie turd is still, well, there it is. I couldn't get thru to the NRA today to tell them that. Rest assured, I will tomorrow.Rocketmedic
Member
This is a really good idea.
Elkins45
Member
Not with the BATFE. With Feinstein.
Rocketmedic
Member
You know, ironclad and unyielding insistence on things is not a great way to foster compromise.
You mean like Pelosi and Chuck? Maybe the founders should have said “Shall not be....compromised”.
So in reference to the speed limits and school zones....You do realize you just made my point right? Maybe you don’t. If you think about it, you’re saying that it’s ok to go 65, just not in a school zone. Well, that’s true. But I can kill children other places than in a school zone. It’s ok to have a car that goes 150mph I just can’t drive it faster than the posted speed limit. Great. But you’re saying I CAN’T own a gun that, with a simple modification, can shoot 300rpm because it might kill lots of people. The reason my car doesn’t kill lots of people (or kids), is because I (the person operating it) choose to follow the law. Should I choose to break the law, I can kill lots of people. Which goes back to, it’s the shooter, not the weapon, not the bump fire stock.
Should we limit the amount of ammunition I can own next? Because I can’t kill 59 people and injure over 500 if I am only legally allowed to possess 100 rounds of ammunition.....unless I break the law and possess more. But even if I had 1,000,000,000 rounds, they won’t kill a single person unless I pull that trigger, and send them down the barrel.
This is nothing more than a golden opportunity for the Dems to do what they always do. Ignore the facts, and play on people’s emotion. Claim to be for saving lives while Chicago loses hundreds every year. While Planned Parenthood destroys millions of truly innocent viable (fetuses) that don’t even have a voice or choice. It’s not about saving lives. It never has been. It’s about control of the populace.
I honestly, truly, believe that your heart is in the right place. If your handle is true, you’re a medic. Guess what, so am I. And currently I’m in nursing school. I want to save lives. But I’m not willing to give up my freedom and my rights, so those who don’t care, can try and brainwash me into believing I’m doing the right thing. The liberals are Silver tongued and severely dehydrated. Our rights are a bag of saline. You’re holding the needle.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
This is dumb because dude just as easily could've legally procured any NFA regulated items in preparation for the slaughter. Including actual machineguns.
1KPerDay
Member
I can't see the purpose of a bump stock. Sure, go ahead and ban them.
I can't see the point of a binary trigger and I think they're stupid. Sure, go ahead and ban them.
I think plastic guns are silly and AR-15s are for wimps. I don't care if you ban those. Gotta throw the libs a bone.
Military style semi autos? Yeah, I mostly shoot bolt guns and revolvers now so, you can have those also.
I guess I don't actually need a REPEATING rifle, right? A true marksman hits with his first shot.
.......
I can't see the point of a binary trigger and I think they're stupid. Sure, go ahead and ban them.
I think plastic guns are silly and AR-15s are for wimps. I don't care if you ban those. Gotta throw the libs a bone.
Military style semi autos? Yeah, I mostly shoot bolt guns and revolvers now so, you can have those also.
I guess I don't actually need a REPEATING rifle, right? A true marksman hits with his first shot.
.......
Very true. He passed the background checks and could have very easily afforded the tax stamp and the actual weapons. But, he didn’t. Even if he had, it would still go back to shooter. Not the weapon.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,212
I haven't seen that suggested. They have already made a decision on that years ago. They are legal, takes something in addition to a single trigger pull for every round fired.
BATFE looks at the laws that are on the books and would need more restrictive law(s) passed in order to go after the slide fire. The only ones they could get with existing laws were the ones that used springs like the AW-sim and Akins accelerator.
What should worry folks is new laws on "bump" firing, in and of itself. Bump firing existed long before stocks that made it easier. Only way you can get rid of the ability to bump fire a firearm is to make it not self loading. AKA making any self loading firearm illegal.
Watched Wayne LaPierre say he was willing to "review the legality" and Nancy Pelosi hoping a ban on them would lead to the "slippery slope".
It would be rather quickly one when anyone can make a self loading rifle cycle at a high rate with little more than their own energy.
An example that's not mine.
You can ban all the stuff you want, people will still find a way. I am tired of giving in. The facts are 1) he was in a highly elevated position, 2) he had a clear line of sight and 3) he was shooting into an extremely populated area. He had enough monetary backing to use almost any means necessary, unfortunately for us, he chose a bump fire stock and an AR15.
What's really unfortunate is the fact he chose to do it at all.
What's really unfortunate is the fact he chose to do it at all.
Rocketmedic
Member
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/us/mo...ing-daughters-vegas-shooting-cnntv/index.html
Every time we try and justify bringing automatic fire into the normal, gun control advocates can pull this out. How is Tina Frost's eye and brain function in comparison to the right to own a machine gun?
Every time we try and justify bringing automatic fire into the normal, gun control advocates can pull this out. How is Tina Frost's eye and brain function in comparison to the right to own a machine gun?
Yes, you can make a rifle bump-fire with a belt loop and a thumb. But does that parlor trick deliver accurate, reliable, sustained fully-automatic fire into a crowd of people several hundred yards away like a modern factory bump-fire stock can do? I doubt it.
We all know there's a line somewhere or else we'd be pounding the table for RPG-7s on the racks at Cabelas. For a lot of us, full-auto is over that line, and these modern bump-fire stocks are achieving a result much, much closer to a true factory machine gun than any rubber band or thumb-and-belt-loop trick is going to deliver.
alexander45
Member
Not sure which is more ludicrous or hilarious.
AlexanderA
Member
Let's not overstate the difficulty. You can buy a transferable M16 (say, a Sendra conversion) for less than $20,000, and a belt-fed Browning for even less. For many people, the main hindrance to purchase is not the price, but the year-long wait for ATF clearance. And here's the puzzling thing: the Las Vegas shooter evidently had the financial means, he had the time and patience, and he could have passed any conceivable background check. Imagine if he had set up a belt-fed Browning in that hotel window. Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky.
''You know, ironclad and unyielding insistence on things is not a great way to foster compromise.''
I didn't hear what the unyielding insistent Left was offering for compromise. Could anyone list those item(s) , please. I hear speculation from members here and other sites, but, nothing ''0'' from the Left.
Normally I would insist on something of substance, but I will accept just the slightest evidence of anything remotely postulated by the Left even including cap guns, rubber band guns.
IT AIN'T THERE, never was, and will never be. Great
to imagine though!
I didn't hear what the unyielding insistent Left was offering for compromise. Could anyone list those item(s) , please. I hear speculation from members here and other sites, but, nothing ''0'' from the Left.
Normally I would insist on something of substance, but I will accept just the slightest evidence of anything remotely postulated by the Left even including cap guns, rubber band guns.
IT AIN'T THERE, never was, and will never be. Great
to imagine though!AlexanderA
Member
You can't barter with the BATFE. You barter with certain legislators in Congress.
The NRA tactic of going to the BATFE, instead of Congress, means that there is only a downside. Either bump-fire stocks get banned at the ATF level (unlikely, given that the ATF has already considered the technical issue), or else it goes over to Congress anyway. This issue is not going to simply be swept under the rug.
Crawdad1
Member
Why do we need another law? As I understand it this was a decision by the ATF to allow these modifications under the disability requirements in the regulation. All the ATF has to do is reverse their decision based on their interpretation of the regulation not their interpretation of the law.
TomJ
Contributing Member
There are two separate but related issues here. The first is under what conditions we can own a bump stock or a similar product. People have different opinions regarding that, and while I have my own opinions I'll respect those who disagree with me. The second are the consequences of having it banned or regulated. Based on their stated goal of doing away with private gun ownership and past actions, we can expect the anti's to write language into a bill that is as broad as possible when describing a bump stock. Once they get that passed, they're then going to apply that language to as many guns and gun related products as possible. As I've said before, whatever then can't do legislatively, they'll do through activist judges. They know they can't do away with the 2nd Amendment, but they can restrict our rights as much as possible. If they can write language that can then be applied to all semi-automatic guns, they will. That's the danger of allowing such a bill to be passed.
8 pages seems like more than enough for this round of should we give up our rights. We are just talking past each other at this point.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
