Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

This is a RKBA issue. No matter how we feel about this piece of plastic; Feinstein's bill, and others like it, is an assault on our rights.
 
Feinstein's bill, and others like it, is an assault on our rights.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree, but some people aren't seeing the forest, only the particular tree the axe is being swung at, TODAY.

Feinstein, and those others supporting her believe that you and I do have a right to keep and bear arms. We have a right to a gun (one, single shot, muzzleloader, preferred) and as long as we can buy one of those, our rights are not infringed.

Therefore nothing they want to ban is an infringement of our rights.

I disagree.
 
If you listen to the discussion, it quickly turns into why we can't have the gun debate. The end state is not a debate but predetermined.

The debate would not recognize that owning firearms is legitimate except for some duck killers with O/U shotguns. The 2nd Amend. should be repealed. Australian confiscation is the model.

Thus, there is not a debate. A reasonable look at the stupid bump fire gadget is not possible - can't say put it under NFA regs as that won't allow you to propose legislation to ban everything.
 
I may regret entering this arena of debate, but...

The issue for me is not bump-fire stocks, the effectiveness of FA vs. SA fire, or how much we should give and take with the government concerning gun laws and regulations.

The Federal Government has NO BUSINESS regulating IN ANY WAY the very apparatus protecting the population from it!

It's like the fox having control of the type of fencing/door keeping it out of the chicken coup! "No one needs an 8' fence! "No one needs number nine wire!"

There is no compromising between predator and prey!

You may think I'm whacky, but I, as our founders, have no faith in human benevolence as a check against man's innate and insatiable desire for power.
 
You think that the government is is a predator and you are its prey? Seriously? That seems like very paranoid thinking to me. Most, if not all of us, have a healthy skepticism when it comes to government, but predator and prey?
 
More people throughout history have been killed by their own governments than by foreign powers.

Still, it's an analogy.

What terminology would you prefer to describe a select few with the power and eventually the will to destroy the defenseless?
 
JMHO, bump fire is an inaccurate waste of ammo. Better she wastes her time
legislating bump fire, than something that really matters.
 
Danoobie said:
JMHO, bump fire is an inaccurate waste of ammo. Better she wastes her time
legislating bump fire, than something that really matters.
Click to expand...

If that's all that gets banned it's because that's all they could get passed.

Don't you remember the debates, the bills, and the votes after previous high profile shootings..

Do you not remember after sandy hook? they wasn't targeting bump stocks then.

If they ban bump stocks and you don't care.. that's fine but don't be under any sort of impression that will insulate us from further action, if not now then after the next shooting in 4-6 months.

If it's bump stocks today next time we'll be back to AK this, AR that, and those pesky assault clips.
 
It's not that I don't care, Joe, it's that she's showing her ass, pushing for
bump stocks, now. Would you rather she plow full-on, into campaigning
against MSRs, instead, for example?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what she was after before this, and It's what she'll be after, after bump stocks are gone.. makes no difference.. thats my point.
Getting out of the way and feeding them bump stocks won't actually accomplish anything as a diversion or compromise, It doesn't buy you good faith, time, or a trade off.

It's like trying to feed a black hole hoping it will get full and stop.
The rest of the group want more then just bump stocks and if they're gonna risk any sort of back lash or if they think this is their best time to get something thru it appears they're gonna add more things to the menu so my gut is now telling me even if there is a vote the bill in it's final form will be so ugly it won't go anywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The anti-gun lobby is filled with liars and ignorant people that will stop at nothing to take away our rights. Here are a few truths I have found;Truth #1 You cannot legislate away murder. Truth #2 Mass murder happens with or without guns. 9/11, Boston, London, Paris, Spain, the Middle East, EVERYWHERE. Truth #3 No matter how many gun laws they pass, it will never be enough for the anti-gun lobby. Truth #4 Its not about guns, its about control and power over our citizens. Truth #5 Its already against the law to kill someone. What gun law can you pass that will make criminals or mentally ill people follow it? Answer; None. Truth #6 Each time some criminal commits murder with a gun, the anti-gun people want to take away gun rights from all law abiding citizens. Truth #7 The anti-gun people are illogical and misinformed. You can easily bump fire a semi-automatic without a bump fire stock.
 
JohnKSa said:
That's the problem, isn't it. The push is for change NOW, not after looking at the facts. Gun control doesn't get passed because of the facts, it gets passed when emotions are running high and logic/facts are put on the back burner.

I strongly agree that the best course of action is to go about this in a systematic fashion, but it's looking more and more like that's not an option.
Click to expand...
The facts are one guy shot up a concert venue using bumpfire stocks.
 
I've always felt the biggest obstruction to constructive gun control is gun control advocates. There are too many examples of compromise being abused.
 
The facts are one guy shot up a concert venue using bumpfire stocks.
Click to expand...

Are you the lead investigator, do you have ballistic evidence back from the lab, do we know that none of the rifles without bump fire stocks don't have modified trigger groups, do we know that any of the lethal rounds were fired via bump fire, do we know that an anti-2A agenda was not his motivation?

It certainly looks like slide fire stocks were widely used in the incident, but that is not a fact the we know with certainty. Its a reasonable assumption but not a proven fact. So, it looks like the facts WILL BE that he shoot up the concert with slide fire stocked rifles... But those facts have yet to be proven. That's why we wait for the investigation to be complete before deciding on a slide fire regulation.
 
Well I'll say this it turns out none of the guns with bump stocks was used it won't make any difference in the debate on whether to ban them.

The anti's apparently wasn't aware of them till now and now that they are it's on their radar so the drive to ban them won't go away no matter the outcome of the investigation.
 
The facts are one guy shot up a concert venue using bumpfire stocks.
Click to expand...
That's something of an oversimplification.

There are other facts that matter--assuming that people are interested in facts at all. This is not a complete list, just some that spring to mind.

*How did the use of bump-fire stocks affect the casualty rate compared to other alternatives? (It would provide insight to examine the shooting scenario circumstances to see how [or if] the use of bump-fire stocks changed things.)
*Would a law against bump-fire stocks be expected to have any effect on the frequency or casualty rate of future mass shootings? (It is important to look at the predicted effectiveness of a law/ban rather than just passing a law because it sounds good.)
*How many victims were even actually shot, vs. being trampled in the panic? (I've seen one source that suggests as many as 40% of the injuries were not from gunshots.)
 
The 2A doesn't read shall not be infringed except full auto rifles or rifles with bump stocks.

The nra could have and should have refused the freedom caucus request to take the stand it's taken.

Either a gun organization is pro rtkaba and pro 2a or they are not.
Compromise is how we got in this mess.
There is no middle ground on the 2a and there is no middle ground on this issue. Either one is pro 2a as written or they aren't.

Can't support the 2A while at the same time agreeing to the violation of it.
It is really in the end that simple.
 
This all or nothing mindset that some of you have is really troubling to me. Supporting the 2A doesn't mean I have to support anything and everything gun related. Y'all are going to keep demanding no regulation whatsoever until the powers that be finally get fed up with it and actually figure out a way to take all our guns away. You seem to forget that us gun owners are in the minority in this country, and people are weary of both the frequency of these mass shootings and the rigid resistance to anything that's suggested to help control it. I'm not worried about Feinstein's bill becoming law because there's little chance of it even making it to committee with Republicans in charge of the Senate. Even if the Democrats were in charge, there would still be little chance of it passing because of the filibuster and the fact that it goes beyond addressing bump stocks. I've said it before and I'll say it again--the whole purpose of bump stocks is to circumvent the strict regulation of automatic weapons. As such, I believe they should be banned. That doesn't mean I don't support the 2A. It just means I don't think accessories that are designed to make it easy to skirt existing regulations should be allowed. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. And I don't think it would lead to a slippery slope scenario either. I guess I just don't live my life in fear of the big bad government boogeyman coming to take my guns away, like some of you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top