[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: Trump pushes ban on 'bump stocks' — devices that turn weapons into 'machine guns' (Executive Memorandum to AG Sessions)
Trump recommends bump stocks should be illegal from CNBC. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has recommended that "bump stocks" — devices that let semi-automatic weapons fire hundreds of rounds per minute — be banned. Trump signed a memorandum recommending that Attorney General Jeff Sessions propose regulations that would declare that bump stocks are illegal because they effectively turn legal semi-automatic weapons into outlawed machine guns. Stephen Paddock, the gunman who killed 58 people and wounded hundreds of others in Las Vegas in October had at least 12 rifles fitted with bump stocks, authorities have said. Trump's announcement came six days after a gunman killed 17 people, 14 of them students, at a high school in Parkland, Florida, while armed with an AR-15 assault rifle. "We cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make a difference," Trump said at a White House event honoring first responders. "After the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, I directed [Sessions] to clarify whether certain bump stock devices like the one used in Las Vegas are illegal under current law," Trump said. "That process began in December, and just a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns," Trump said. "I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized, Jeff, very soon." The proposed regulators would first have to be published in the Federal Register and be subject to public comment before they could be adopted. Semi-automatic weapons require a shooter to pull the trigger each time to fire a single round. But when those weapons are outfitted with a bump stock, the gun's recoil energy is used to "bump" the trigger into the shooter's finger, making it fire much faster. That makes the weapon more akin to machine guns, which are largely banned in the United States. Read Trump's memo:
Poster Comment: Getting a head start on Congressional 2a infringements. Trump has beaten Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinswine to the punch! MAGA till ya puke.Subscribe to *Bang List* Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41. I'm fine with this. It's not banning firearms,it's banning a buttstock. I honestly have no idea why anybody would want one to start with. They destroy accuracy. Why use 10 shots to do something you should be able to do with one shot? Then again,I HATE inaccurate firearms of all types,and ain't real crazy about legitimate full-auto guns. I see no real practical use for them unless you are facing a mass attack like the Chinese and Koreans did during the Korean War,or sometimes when firing from ambush. A round you send down range that falls to the dirt or ends up in a tree might as well be left at home. It's foolishness.
#2. To: sneakypete (#1) Anyone who understands how these things work can actually fake the same firing effect without a bump stock. Here's a guy showing two popular scary guns with standard stocks, autofiring just by careful positioning. Clearly, one works much better. There are dozens of these DIY bumpfire vids on YouBoob.
Most gunowners don't care about these accessories. Trump is going to lose very little support if he goes for a ban. He might even pick up some votes.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#2) Or you can use your belt loop. But liberals are not banning bumpfire stocks per se -- they're banning the concept of turning a semi-auto rifle into a full auto. Once we buy into that, they'll use videos like yours to demonstrate that more needs to be done. Perhaps a bolt-action AR-15 is not that far away.
#12. To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#11) But liberals are not banning bumpfire stocks per se -- they're banning the concept of turning a semi-auto rifle into a full auto. Once we buy into that, they'll use videos like yours to demonstrate that more needs to be done. Perhaps a bolt-action AR-15 is not that far away. I think the bumpstock is so marginal in appeal overall that a lot of pro-gun people would put up with a ban on it. LF, for instance, is highly pro-gun but none of us own or want to own one. I think this may be a political tradeoff. The GOP and NRA will sacrifice bumpstocks to satisfy some gungrabbing craving by the public after the Vegas shooting, the Florida school shooting and the Florida gay nightclub Muslim massacre. Florida does have two massacres in the last few years. We'll have "done something" even if it doesn't make the public safer. And even some gunfolk will consider sacrificing bumpstocks (a marginal product for good shooters) to be worth it. It may also be that the GOP is drawing into this debate just to kill it again. The proposed solutions like banning bumpstocks don't address any of the major recent massacres. And it could provide a debate forum for all the failures of the FBI, the school, the local cops, the state's child services. All were notified repeatedly about this kid, including specific warnings that he was going to shoot up a school. And all that See-Something-Say-Something still resulted in no action from any agency and 17 dead kids as a result. You start to wonder if anyone who knew this kid did not consider him a danger to massacre a school. That's not such a bad political debate to have.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#12) "I think the bumpstock is so marginal in appeal overall that a lot of pro-gun people would put up with a ban on it." Logically, that makes sense. But I oppose it because, as I said, the gun grabbers are not banning bumpstocks -- they're banning rapid-fire weapons. How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)? Your justification for banning bumpstocks will be used against you.
#23. To: misterwhite (#22) How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)? The actual effect of preventing or diminishing mass shootings is marginal if you're talking about a person who is expert in weapons. The largest gains you can make are in reducing the death toll in a massacre, not in preventing it.
How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)? Bumpstocks are intended to skirt the accepted laws on fully automatic guns. That's how. I understand your position and you're welcome to defend it. I think you'll find that a lonely perch except among the most radical gun rights folk. And I do consider myself pretty pro-gun. But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. The only appeal of the bumpstock is as a lawful automatic weapon that allows buyers to evade the requirement for the federal full-auto gun license and tracking requirements. No one bought any bumpstocks with anything but the intent to skirt the ban on full-auto weapons (except for those who acquire the full-auto tax stamp, ~$300).
#24. To: Tooconservative (#23) But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. By accident, you made my point. Gun-grabbers will claim that the AR-15 -- a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine -- is "clearly intended to skirt longstanding law" because of the simplicity in "converting" it to full auto as shown in your video.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24) Gun-grabbers will claim that the AR-15 -- a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine -- is "clearly intended to skirt longstanding law" because of the simplicity in "converting" it to full auto as shown in your video. You're picking the wrong hill to die on. But we both have our own views on the stategery of preserving broader gun rights. The law already correctly distinguishes between full-auto and semi-auto. We should rely on that distinction in law that has prevailed since the Thirties. The bumpstock clearly tries to blur that line to the point of erasing it, at least in the minds of the general public who doesn't know much about guns.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#25) (Edited) The law already correctly distinguishes between full-auto and se semi-auto. Yes it does. Correctly and clearly. The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part. YOU are the one now blurring that line. If the government can ban a firearm part that allows rapid-fire, why can't they ban the firearm which can be rapid-fired without that part? If you're a victim on the receiving end, can you tell the difference?
#28. To: misterwhite (#26) The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part. And clearly they were wrong. Surprising how incompetent the 0bama regime actually was. It was an instance where they could have taken anti-gun action and didn't, either due to incompetence or an irrational fear of repercussions against Dems similar to those in the Xlinton years. Trump has issued an executive memorandum to Jeff Sessions. This is an order to clearly state the president's intent toward policy. It is not an executive order - a different beast - that directly orders the A.G. to perform a particular action on the authority of the president as the highest executive authority. I'm distinguishing between these types of executive documents to an agency to demonstrate the lines along which Trump is acting lawfully as president. Some people would say the difference is negligible. But it isn't.
#30. To: Tooconservative (#28) The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part. Okay, you can feel free to say what the law actually stated. It is clear that bump stocks, in and of themselves, are not a weapon.
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#30) It is clear that bump stocks, in and of themselves, are not a weapon. Neither is a full-auto shear kit. But they're still illegal. Is this the best argument you can muster?
#35. To: Tooconservative (#31) Neither is a full-auto shear kit. But they're still illegal. Geez, a knowledgeable person could do that in their garage. Do you want also outlaw knowdledge and information?
#38. To: no gnu taxes (#35) Geez, a knowledgeable person could do that in their garage. There are other full-auto trick trigger devices as well. You can't erase the knowledge of them. And in an era of computer-machined parts and 3d printing, you can't rid yourself of the knowledge or basic ability to construct such parts. But selling such parts commercially does greatly increase their availability. I don't, for instance, think the Vegas shooter was nearly so likely to get a shear kit to convert his gun(s) to full-auto. The bumpstock was his shortcut obviously. Of course, the Vegas shooting was an exceptional event, given the nearby crowd concentrated in a small area next to a tower. But there was already another scare for a similar event that frightened people into thinking it was a copycat attempt.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#38) But selling such parts commercially does greatly increase their availability You underestimate those who wish to construct such devices. It will make them less available for the good guys and more available for the bad guys. The Florida boy was recognized as a bad guy for a long time.
#41. To: no gnu taxes (#39) You underestimate those who wish to construct such devices. Wishing for something is not the same thing as being capable of producing such devices. One of the things in common with many of these mass shooters is a general incompetence and a helplessness in many areas of their lives. At least some of them would be too disorganized to produce auto-fire devices or shear kits on their own. It's the simple truth. Most spree killers are fundamentally disorganized failures in life, mentally speaking.
Replies to Comment # 41. #43. To: Tooconservative (#41) If they can't, they can certainly find those who can. Don't confuse mental illness with incompetence.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#41) Most spree killers are fundamentally disorganized failures in life, mentally speaking. This is not a reason not to protect others from their actions.The truth is you never know when any person has reached a point where their frustrations give way to a violent act. It is undesirable that they should have access to rapid fire weapons. This debate is all about ego
End Trace Mode for Comment # 41. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|