[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 # 48. 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).
#33. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#23) 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. It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. By accepting the claim that any level of government can prohibitively tax or outright bann any type of weapon, supporters defy the principle that we all have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with the arms we can bear.. -- Clearly stated in the 2nd amendment. There is no denying that full auto guns are light enough to carry, just as are cans of gasoline, matches, and other types of explosives. -- Small, light weapons of mass destruction are a fact of life and prohibitions DO NOT WORK in reality.. Prohibitions enable socialism, and are a direct assault on our Constitutional Republic.
#34. To: tpaine (#33) It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Yes, it is. A constitutional right is not unlimited. Free speech does not extend to the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Yeah, I said it. So there. LOL Anyway, that's where these arguments always end up, along with sinister but oblique references to slippery slopes.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34) It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Yes, it is.
Carrying an arm is not a threat, it is a constitutional right not to be infringed.. Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is a criminal act Yep, you said it. Can't come up with anything but the old fire bull? -- LOL
#42. To: tpaine (#36) Carrying an arm is not a threat, it is a constitutional right not to be infringed.. Let's just save some keystrokes and declare that all as a "given". : ) I think we've both seen this show before. And more than once.
#46. To: Tooconservative (#42) Let's just save some keystrokes and declare that all as a "given". : )
Of course we've had these discussions before. -- But when are you going to admit:---- There is no denying that full auto guns are light enough to carry, just as are cans of gasoline, matches, and other types of explosives. -- Small, light weapons of mass destruction are a fact of life and prohibitions DO NOT WORK in reality.. Prohibitions enable socialism, and are a direct assault on our Constitutional Republic.
Thus:--- It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement.
#48. To: tpaine, *Bang List* (#46) Thus:--- It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Agreed, 100%
Replies to Comment # 48. There are no replies to Comment # 48.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 48. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|