Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[RC20]

You are wrong there. BATF has ruled various issues in the past as the law is written and then regulation are put in placed and enforced (or not)

Take the case of the H&R Handi gun. It clearly is NOT a sawed off shotgun.

It is illegal. Put a spiral in the tube and its interpreted to be legal. That's not the law, that's the regs put in place by the BTAF.

BATF is wrong, but you have to have congress enact a specific law to repute it.

If it flies like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it has duck DNA, then its a duck.

All this Clinton attempt to slice the dice it is spurious.

The BATF could have ruled otherwise, they did not.

They should have.

Do you understand that the same standard would call into question the efficacy of "serious penalties" for owning a slide-fire stock

Bull. Like the other twisters you attempt to change the point.

The point is that the BATF does not have to come after you, by default, they will never be seen in public and they are a possible financial disaster waiting to happen to the owner if found during other exposures

Said owner usually has a SO, possibly kids, brothers, sites parent etc. None of who want that burdon on the family.

They will be kept hidden, buried etc. Few will escape into the wild. Fewer sill will escape into the wild and into the hands of the nut case.

He had the money but did not buy FA weapons because he knew that would get attention.

Don't try to BS me or twist this into some theoretic mumbo jumbo.

You want to keep your guns, you want to see the carnage continue, you don't care as long as you can, fine, the Constitution says you can.

I will disagree totally with your view, but I will defend to the death your right to have it.

I will also work my best to change what you can or can't do to the rest of the country with that view. I likely will fail, but I would rather have tried and failed than to take your view.

Wrong again, anything that make it more difficult is worth it.

Read the Maconda Report. Just a single one of the 6 mechanism to stop a blowout if it had not been compromised would have stopped it.

Here is the problem with any more gun laws: They don't stop ANYTHING! Before making SCHOOLS GUN FREE ZONES- a few school shootings. AFTER making schools GUN FREE ZONES- many more school shootings. Banning interstate gun sales to private citizens after JFK's assassination stopped nothing. Strict rules on guns in Chicago and many large cities- stopped nothing. Banning bump fire stocks will stop nothing- Why? its EASY to bump fire a semi auto without ANY new stock or alteration. The anti-gun lobby ALWAYS wants to pass more gun laws, pass more restrictions on gun owners each time a madman or criminal commits murder. You can't legislate away murder. You can't stop murder by banning guns. Bombs, aircraft, trucks, cars, pressure cookers, poison, machetes, and thousands of other things can murder people. Are they going to ban all of these things? They will try if we let them! Its all about control and power over our RIGHTS.

He fired at the crowd unimpeded for 19 minutes. A rate of fire of 30 rounds a minute could generate the same amount of casualties (1 round every 2 sec).

And you can prove this how?

I dont have a real problem with bump fire stocks being REGULATED but I do have a problem with FORCED surrender of the devices.

At least a point of discussion.

Surrender would be your choice, as noted with the H&R, the penalties are severe.

Reality wise, having followed it, they usually just take the gun and that's the end of it.

Here is the problem with any more gun laws: They don't stop ANYTHING

By your definition then we should have no laws of any type.

Well good for you.

It as just spray, that killed 58 people. Your point?

So maybe there things that can be done.

Register semi auto? Data base for owners? Sunset it in 10 years, see how it did.

Its gun valance that kills large amounts of people. You can slow it down. Kind of hard to knife 58 people.

I wrote the NRA and the ILA about how stupid requesting a new look at the legality of bump fire stocks was. I don't have one and I don't see me ever wanting one but there is nothing evil about the stock. One man used a bump fire stock to kill a lot of people while shooting from 320 feet in the air at a 5000 square yard area packed wall to wall with people. It is surprising that he didn't hit more but there was no accuracy involved in his act it was just spray and spray some more.
If the bump stock was the cause, what about the gun? or the ammo? or the 100 round magazines?
It's OK to let then take away bump stocks because I don't have one? NO! it's not OK! It is just one more piece of straw or one more small paper cut. Go after the real cause. If you deal with the violence then there won't be any gun violence. If you take away the guns then we will have more knife violence and more baseball bat violence and more physical violence. The violent use of a tool does not make the tool bad. Only the violence is bad.
I recommend that you all write, call, or email the NRA and ILA to tell them we don't want to feed the giant any more. We want to get rid of the giant and never have to feed it again, EVER.

And good lucky convincing the 70% of the people in the US that do not own guns that AR is not an assault rifle!

Really, 500 rpm is not an AR? No mam, that's an MSA. right mell

As for the actual rate of fire . He never came close to firing at 600rpm . That would have been 6000rds . My bet is he did not shoot more then 1000rds . Yes he had the capability to fire 600rpm but that's not how many he shot

He shot for 10 minutes, pretty continuous. 5000 rounds?

We will know more in a week or so.

 

[mehavey]

He hit 600 people. HIT them,
You can figure 15-20% hit rate, max.
Do the math.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I don't know how many total rounds was fired, the 600rpm rate was based on teh news count of 10 seconds of video.

Im not sure what the hit rate will turn out to be, he was spraying but it was also a large target even at 4-500 yards.. at least in the beginning.

I'd imagine the hit rate at the start was probably extremely high.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And you can prove this how?

It is this fancy technology called "math". According to the latest timeline from LVMPD, he fired on the crowd from 10:05 to 10:15. So ten minutes instead of nineeen. There were about 538 casualties total (58 dead and over 480 injured). That's 53.8 casualties per minute. So a round every second with a 90% hit rate will yield the same number of casualties. That's 1/4 the firing rate of any semi-auto.

Using your estimate of 5000 rounds fired in ten minutes, the bump stock is so effective that with 20,000 people crammed into a two-acre area at between 300m and 400m and plunging fire, a little over 10% of the rounds fired struck a target.

 

[sfwusc]

5000 rounds and only 58 killed. I would say we are lucky he was so unsuccessful.

Millions of dollars and willing to die — we are lucky the damage was what it was.

A lot less funding and box cutters killed thousands and did millions in damages along with changing life styles of millions.

 

[JohnKSa]

Folks this is what is called a PIVOT.

You should read Al Franken book "Lion of the Senate" to understand it...

Is that where you learned to do the Gish Gallop?

 

[mehavey]

...90% hit rate....

He'd be lucky to get 10% after first 30-60 sec with even that target set at that range.

But I'll wait to hear how many casing they finally pick up ... both inside any under the room location.
https://i.redd.it/a7bbn2ye4lry.png
(memento from the Greatest Generation)

 

[5whiskey]

You guys need to chill. Seriously. We haven't even buried the dead yet and there's internet fighting over something, in the grand scheme of things, will affect about .01% of the population. I get the slippery slope argument, which is why I'm not passing judgement on the issue yet.

I would like for investigators to uncover the motive and reveal more about the means before I personally pass judgement on how I feel about any new law. For all we know, the shooter was anti-2A and believed he was saving lives in the future by taking some that day. If that comes out that will take the wind out of any gun grabbers sails. That's pure speculation but the point is this should be investigated and reasoned out. Until then its poor form to bicker over it IMO.

 

[JohnKSa]

I would like for investigators to uncover the motive and reveal more about the means before I personally pass judgement on how I feel about any new law.

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.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

Good opinion piece

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/05/whos-actually-to-blame-las-vegas-massacre/
This from the Denver Post which leans left most of the time.

 

[raimius]

I see a lot of people arguing that "we" should take a reasonable compromise...but I see no compromise here. The antis demand we ban more gun accessories. We don't get anything from that. It is not a compromise!

MetalGod, to answer your question from earlier, Miller was charged with possession of a SBS. SCOTUS ruled that the law could stand because they saw no evidence of such a firearm having utility in a militia (likely because the defense did not present a case, as Miller had vanished!)

 

[Metal god]

I get the slippery slope argument

Here is Nancy Pallozzi's slippery slope comments today . Saying how she hopes it goes that way . She also goes on to say how she'll compromise by asking for back ground checks . The lol compromise is with others that want even more gun control . HOLY COW I actually can't believe she said that .

Hey Nancy ,
You compromise with the group that wants to do less or nothing in order to get there votes and that will allow something to pass . Not your own party which you already have there votes .

It's unbelievable how these people think . Well that made up my mind . I'm for NO new legislation or BATF regulations at this time .

Sorry could not find a quick Youtube video so you need to see the video here
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...ock-ban-beginning-slippery-slope-gun-control/

 

[JoeSixpack]

Why can't you believe it? People are ready to roll over for them on the bump stocks why not see what else you can get.

Feinstein after the 94 AWB said on camera she'd have taken them all (turn them all in mr, mrs America) but couldn't get the votes for that.

Nancy and Dianne are old time gun grabbers.. If her words today shocked you in the least you haven't been paying attention since like forever.

They've been gun grabbin since I was a wee tot.. And I ain't joking.. They are lifers.

 

[Rangerrich99]

First, not that it really matters, but I listened to three pieces of raw footage and found that on average is took Paddock about 10 seconds (sometimes about 9.7 sec. longest about 11.5) to unload a magazine. The six firing events I was able to listen to were pretty consistent about that; they were all right around 10 seconds. I believe the magazines pictured stacked neatly against that pillar are 50-rders, but I'm not sure. In the videos I was able to use, the shortest time between firing events was about 17 seconds. The longest time, which happened at least twice, was around 44 seconds. The shorter long interval was 37 seconds.

Second, just a little thought: I don't care about the bump stock; always thought it was a toy. And before tonight, I would've been just fine if the government decided to ban them.

(I had a paragraph here about Australia banning riflescopes, but after doing some research it seems my Australian buddy was incorrect, and therefore my post was in error. I've deleted it, so as not to misinform anyone else.)

However, after listening to a buddy that's from Australia and hearing about the extremely restrictive laws governing firearms, I really believe we should be careful about just rolling over and giving the gun control people whatever they want on this one. We should try to get something in exchange, IMO.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I see a lot of people arguing that "we" should take a reasonable compromise...but I see no compromise here. The antis demand we ban more gun accessories. We don't get anything from that. It is not a compromise!

You don't?!

You don't see ditching a "grown-up's toy" to make shooting a few hundred people harder to achieve as worthwhile, particularly if it means the focus is not on the semi-autos?

On a more general note:
Recognising that a handful of accessories can potentially do way more harm than they do good in giving some owners a few grins at the range is not a compromise, it's socially responsible and ultimately has nothing to do with RKBA.

RKBA is about buying and owning guns, and doing so unhindered.
It's not about gimmicks that may or may not go on such guns.

Put another way, would America's RKBA and enjoyment of firearms have been ruined if slide-fire stocks had never been invented...? I doubt it...

 

[jughead2]

feinstein

as far as this old man is concerned NO MORE COMPROMISE. when we compromise we always lose something we already have. several years ago some anti-gun nut said we will not be able to ban guns all at once we will have to nibble at it a little at a time. that will probably get it done

 

[JoeSixpack]

@James

Surely even if the bump stock is nothing but a "grown ups" toy and who cares so just throw them a bone.

Do you not remember when the focus was on semi auto's? Do you honestly believe givin in and not putting up any sort of fight on bump stocks will end it all? do you think semi auto's wont again be the focus the next time someone uses one without a bump stock to commit a mass shooting?

Please tell you don't honestly believe this.

Does no one with that sort of mind set remember when they banned guns based on bayont lugs, pistol grips, vertical foregrips, flash suppressors, etc?

Is memory so short we don't remember the outcry of assault clips and rapid fire weapons of war ar15's after sandy hook and pretty much every other high profile shooting.

Says you been here since 2011, please tell me I got you figured wrong.
Please tell me, you don't think rolling over on bump stocks will take semi auto's off the ban menu.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Says you been here since 2011, please tell me I got you figured wrong.
Please tell me, you don't think rolling over on bump stocks will take semi auto's off the ban menu.

No I don't.

But, please tell me you don't honestly think bump-stocks are a RKBA issue. Think about what they are designed to do and when you might use them in a way that wouldn't end in jail time and tell me that.

All the examples you give are solid RKBA issues and were worthy of defence.

That is my point. People are getting all "2nd A/No compromise" over something that brings little, if anything, to the table in terms of what the RKBA is all about...

Just because something is connected with guns, doesn't make it a 2nd A issue. It may, but not by default.

I think you guys should save your lobby dollars for the issues that actually count and actually threaten your right to buy and keep guns, first and foremost. IMHO, where the voting public is concerned, fighting bump-stock restrictions given what has just happened would only weaken and sour the public opinion vis-a-vis the firearms community....

Who was it?
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

 

[Metal god]

Pond James , You are mixing arguments in my mind . First the RKBA was originally to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government . If you think those days are past . Just ask all these ANTIFA , BLM etc groups what's there problem , they got nothing to worry about just relax . It's my understanding anti gun people recently have bought more guns then ever before because of who's president and what they fear he could do . The RKBA is not just about being able to buy guns and go plink and I welcome them to the party .

Second , I've always considered the framers to be pretty smart . Do you think when writing the 2nd amendment they were thinking that technology would not improve the firearm ? The Militia or better said the ordinary citizen had in there homes the most powerful and modern weapons of the times . Yet some would try to make you believe the framers wanted firearms to stop evolving at some point and the citizens would have to make do with old technology .

Why do you think they excepted any citizen to own and or posses any weapon of the times but felt firearms in the future should be heavily regulated ? Citizens had canons for goodness sake . So why can't I have a little plastic thing on my firearm that helps me fire it faster . Last I checked ( in CA at least ) I can't have a canon , RPG , tank , jet fighter , full auto weapon , explosives , flash hider , center fire semi automatic rifle with both pistol grip and detachable magazine , I could go on . We seem pretty restricted/regulated here to me and that sure sounds like a lot of compromise by us and what did we get for all are compromising ? Oh that's right a slippery slope .

Have you ever read the cake analogy about the 2nd amendment ? It really fits here especially after what Nancy said yesterday .
https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/16bcuc/a_gun_control_analogy_that_i_found_on_facebook/

As far as me being surprised at what she said . It was not that she want's to get the guns that shocked me . It was her idea of compromise was compromising with the anti gunners and not with us pro gun folks . It just showed how backwards her thinking actually is .

 

[Pond James Pond]

Do you think when writing the 2nd amendment they were thinking that technology would not improve the firearm ?

Does a bump stock improve the gun it is fitted to?

Would you use it in a HD situation?

Does anyone ever advocate spray and pray for SD?

Is a bump-stock primarily recreational?

I think all of those, bar the last, are a "no". Feel free to correct me.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: The RKBA is a great thing. It was written in to protect the citizenry from tyranny and guns achieved that.

They no longer do. People think they do but they don't.

The courts are your defence against tyranny now because it is the courts who will decide if guns are taken away or not.

No one is actually going to take up arms against the government and no one on here would advocate that, despite all the "defence against tyranny" rhetoric. And any government that turned to tyranny would not do so before the public was disarmed and this would happen through the courts.

So you need to keep that system on side.

What the 2nd A still does is allow citizens to have the most effective self-defence at their disposal to protect their right to a peaceful life for themselves and their loved ones, free of unwarranted aggression. That, for me is as important, if not more so than the tyranny argument. Because it is more relevant on a day-today basis.

You guys have a number of resources at your disposal to do that in order to protect the 2nd A.

First the 2nd A itself. Robust, but not infallible. The FA ban proves that as do all the restrictions now in place in many states.

Then there is your vote. Having 2nd A friendly representatives in Congress etc will help you but as the old guard is replaced by the next generation who may be more removed from the types of values of existing Republicans (mostly) will they still be such stalwarts?

Then you have two more things that are in surprisingly limited supply: money for lobbying education and there is public opinion. Both those have their limits.

My view is you guys need to pick your fights very wisely...
And I don't think this is one of them.