Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[armoredman]

Mr Pond, I value your input and outsider perspective, as always well written and articulate, but I have to agree that to allow the anti rights crowd to ban an item because someone misused it once, is a bad thing, when untold numbers of civilians use this item without issue. I personally have less than no use for a bump fire stock. I will never own one - I prefer to be sure of where very bullet I fire is going. Most military I talk to say full auto on a rifle is wasteful and uncertain at best, and tend to keep rifles on semi auto so they can get as much out of each round as possible. Automatic fire is best kept to light and heavy machineguns. Having said that - full auto in a rifle or sub machine gun for civilian use is fun. Practical usefulness is very limited, but it is a lot of fun for those who can afford the toys and I don't begrudge them that fun. Bump fire stocks have the same lack of practical usefulness, but neither does my kid's game console. The ONLY use I could see for a bump fire stock in a defensive situation is in a militia style response to turn a heavier caliber rifle, such as an FAL into an ersatz LMG. That's it, under the 2A. Other than that, as useless as my wife's 80th pair of shoes in the giveaway box in the garage. But I will defend the right of people to keep a lawful product, despite it's usefulness, ( Kult of Athena sells lots of functional swords - I don't think they have much modern usefulness?), because it is lawful, the actions of one lone nutjob notwithstanding. IF it was true that an item once misused to cause death and destruction should be banned, then all box cutters would have been tightly regulated after 9/11.
As for people here quite comfortable with banning semi auto rifles, banning normal capacity magazines, I'm sorry, fair weather friend and sunshine patriots is not what we need now. As stated above, these things are often rushed through as fast as possible so cooler heads will not prevail, the calm cool logic overwhelmed with heated emotion, "DO something NOW"...regardless of what good or harm it may do.
For those with the militia argument, Heller divorced the clearly stated right from service in the militia, so that holds no water, nor the assentation that the National Guard is the militia - it isn't. But it also doesn't matter.
However this goes, it is going to be fast, bumpy, loud and shrill on all sides, with much heat and smoke being cast about. I, for one, am glad Mrs Clinton is not in the White House, because the end of this would be far, far worse for everyone. The quote about riflescopes in Australia is spot on, when you remember that she openly admired the Australian style of unilateral personal disarmament.
I would be happy to avoid that. I may dislike your bump fire stock, but I will defend your right to legally own and operate it.

 

[shooterdownunder]

But earlier tonight I was speaking with a buddy I know that is from Australia. He was giving me the usual what-for about how we need to ban all guns, blah blah blah and so on, when he mentioned that rifle scopes are banned in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre. RIFLESCOPES.

Martin Bryant (I.Q. 66, couldn't read or write) managed to somehow hit two moving targets at over 1300 yards with a scoped rifle, and the Australian government decided the best course of action was to ban riflescopes along with every thing else.

What? I think your buddy has had a bit too much to drink. Scopes are in no way banned here.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Mr Pond, I value your input and outsider perspective, as always well written and articulate,

Thank you.

As stated above, these things are often rushed through as fast as possible so cooler heads will not prevail, the calm cool logic overwhelmed with heated emotion, "DO something NOW"...regardless of what good or harm it may do.

I have no problem with cool-headedness. I encourage it.

Way too much legislation is rushed through. But that need for cool-headedness extends to people's rejection of a motion as well as those advocating it.

I'm simply saying think carefully and principles aside, you (the pro RKBA community) do need to be pragmatic. I feel that what you (the pro RKBA community) see as a principled stance could morph to into looking like intransigence by the wider public.

Ultimately, you'll each have to decide if this is worth the potential fall out.

For what it's worth, I think the NRA should be proactive and pump money into some transparent, independent, peer-review research into common features in acts of mass-violence (not just guns). States-side and abroad. Perhaps also a review of the media culture that feeds the troll of mass-violence.

Otherwise it will only ever be a reactionary organisation, dancing to other people's tunes...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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

The NRA doesn't need to spend money here. Gun legislation doesn't even get a vote unless not just one; but two different people that the NRA declared were our nearest and most stalwart allies - people who stood by us through Newtown - allow it to get a vote. And for legislation to actually pass, the odds are much worse - and then it would have to be signed by our stalwart pro-Second Amendment President.

So you see, THERE WAS NO FIGHT TO LOSE. It was just the usual whiners doing the usual whining. Loudly whining, sure; but still whining. Now, we have a fight. Now, the other side correctly interpreted the NRA's actions as weakness and is going to attack full force, using the NRA's own idiot statement as their banner. Meanwhile, people are tossing their NRA memberships over this, so now the NRA is losing money as it opens up a fight it didn't even need to have.

 

[Pond James Pond]

The NRA doesn't need to spend money here. Gun legislation doesn't even get a vote unless not just one; but two different people that the NRA declared were our nearest and most stalwart allies - people who stood by us through Newtown - allow it to get a vote.

What happens when those two decide this is more than their re-election chances are worth and let it go to a vote?

What happens when they lose their election because they backed a policy that was frowned upon by the public, be it sound or not?

I mean, I hope you're right. I hope it is not going to snow-ball. I hope they find out this guy's motives and hope they realise that he could have just stolen an 18-wheeler and ploughed though the gates just as easily and killed just as many, if not more. That this is a question of motive and willingness on his part to do something hideous, rather than the means by which he did them.

But I have my reservations.... as pointed out earlier, the "find a solution" mentality of the public these days doesn't allow for the very real fact that sometimes there is nothing you can do and outlier events do happen, against the odds.

As for bailing on the NRA over this, I think that would be biting one's nose to spite one's face. Again, in the grand scheme of RKBA things, this is not a central issue. It is, however, a major issue in the court of public opinion, IMHO.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The court of public opinion is BS. If you lived through the pre-Internet era of gun rights, you long ago learned to ignore what you were being told was "public opinion" on gun issues. This is just straight up propaganda trying to shape public opinion at this stage.

 

[5whiskey]

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.

Your bolded text is precisely the purpose of this...

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

While it is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, I think the claim is quite dubious. Regardless of it's origin, it is somewhat true.

I will not advocate taking up arms against the government unless things are radically worse than they are now in the States. Currently, our SCOTUS decisions are still honored by the government, even when the government gets it's hand slapped by SCOTUS. SCOTUS decisions HAVE been ignored in the past. Abraham Lincoln ignored an order from the SCOTUS and suspended Habeas Corpus rights in 1861. That same president said this...

We think [the Court's] decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution.

He was spot on there. If we reach the point that SCOTUS decisions were ignored by the executive and legislative branch, IMO, that would signal the justification of an actual armed conflict against the government in our nation if there were no other means to redress our greviences. Until then, the Tyranny argument is in fact bravado. But armed conflict against an existing government has occurred many many times throughout history. To believe that it could not, or would not, happen again (even in a civilized nation) is a dangerous thought. When we begin to sincerely believe that, as a whole, then our governments already have the power to do whatever they want to us.


Even with all of this, the bump fire stock would not make physical resistance against the government any more effective. Not to mention the point is often made that citizens would have to fight against tanks and helicopters... but who honestly doesn't believe that the Military is comprised of citizens who very well may turn the government's own hardware against it. All of this is moot, conjecture, and speaks to a remote hypothetical future possibility that I pray we never see. None-the-less, a strong Second Amendment makes this possibility all the less likely, and that's why it is important to preserve it.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Your bolded text is precisely the purpose of this...

I understand this. It might be its purpose, but that doesn't mean it works in the way intended.

But don't think it is your guns stopping them...
It is the judiciary and their interpretation of the law.

 

[Pond James Pond]

This is just straight up propaganda trying to shape public opinion at this stage.

And that door swings both ways.

It just so happens, IMHO, only the anti-gun lobby uses it effectively these days.

From what I've seen (and it is limited, I'll grant you...) NRA spends way too much time preaching to the converted.

Also I'd wager that the public view on many things may have changed in the last 30 years...

 

[zipspyder]

The NRA threw them a bone with something that is gimmicky anyway. Bigger things to worry about.

 

[5whiskey]

But don't think it is your guns stopping them...
It is the judiciary and their interpretation of the law.

Oh you are spot on... kind of. So long as the judiciary is respected and upheld, guns will never serve any type of place in settling political differences IMO. But the threat of violence and bloodshed should the government overstep it's boundaries is not something to be taken lightly. The very reason why straight up confiscation passed overnight, with government agents serving search warrants to come and take what is not voluntarily turned in, would never ever be contemplated is this; the ensuing violence would not be good for any party involved, and every president and congressman knows this. People would resist with force, and people (both citizens and government agents) would die. The more death that could be blamed on the government's actions, the more emboldened the anti-government actors would become. Look at the outcry after Ruby Ridge. The private militia movement got a huge boost from that. Granted, few if any ever acted on the outrage, but if you had Ruby Ridge incidents occurring every day that story would change in a hurry. Do not get sucked into believing that the 2A has no deterrent value for an overbearing and oppressive government in modern society. It does in fact. Especially for us fickle Americans. Other societies may allow for dictatorship, but our country was born out of a distrust of government. That has not gone away.

And this is not to say that we should focus on "playing gun" to resist an overbearing government. We should focus on political solutions, because our political system still works and abides by it's own laws despite it's fractures. But the underlying deterrence value of the 2A still exists and isn't taken lightly. Fienstien's famous comment "If I could, I would tell America to turn them all in" is an example. The Democratic congress at the time may have been able to pass a bill to ban all semi-autos. But they knew it would go over like a lead ballon, and it would be a bad thing.

 

[Pond James Pond]

It does in fact. Especially for us fickle Americans. Other societies may allow for dictatorship, but our country was born out of a distrust of government. That has not gone away.

I hear that. All of it. Nonetheless, if guns are the ultimate protection where bloodshed is unavoidable, the then judiciary is the ultimate protection where bloodshed is still avoidable.
And we all know that is where the battle will be fought.
Whoever wins there, gets their way further down the line. There may be a rise in militia groups but they will still be a massive minority.

But just be warned, from my outsider's perspective, I see danger signs.
I need only look east 300km to see what overbearing government looks like.
And what the lack of a free press and independent judiciary looks like.

So, back on your side of the Pond () make damn sure that any distrust of a free press is for good reason not because of someone else's say so and any distrust of the judiciary is or good reason not because of someone else's say so.

Once you lose them, you will not get them back. Just like gun rights.

And they are essential to a people-based democracy. Just like gun rights.

 

[zukiphile]

I understand this. It might be its purpose, but that doesn't mean it works in the way intended.

But don't think it is your guns stopping them...
It is the judiciary and their interpretation of the law.

I am not an advocate for insurrectionist theory, however I would suggest that we don't perfectly anticipate how yet to occur problems will unfold.

In Iraq, after Hussein's government had fallen, a fellow walked up behind a US soldier, stuck a 9mm Mauser pistol up under the back of his helmet and shot, then blended back into the crowd. Certainly that little pistol isn't a match for laser guided bombs and Abrams tanks. Turns out that it didn't need to be.

The ridicule for insurrectionist theory that envisions a conventional pitched battle of angry individuals with rifles squaring up against tanks, planes and helicopters so the mob can be decisively defeated is not apt.


I would note that arguing whether a pre-existing, non granted right has the kind of utility you want misses the point. If it's a pre-existing right, whether you think it is helpful isn't relevant to whether it is to be enforced.

 

[5whiskey]

So, back on your side of the Pond () make damn sure that any distrust of a free press is for good reason not because of someone else's say so and any distrust of the judiciary is or good reason not because of someone else's say so.

Oh I hear that . As it stands, the RKBA is not the most important individual right enumerated in our constitution IMO. I couldn't pick the most important one, but Freedom of the Press, Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, Right to Counsel, the RKBA, and numerous others would all be near the top. Oh, and the 10th amendment... the one that has all but been abandoned even by our "independent" judiciary (which honestly is independent, but it is not by any means above politics).

And I hear the rest of your statement too, and I only disagree with you on the small point we've debated. As it stands I've already discussed a scary and unlikely future that I hope we never see enough. Currently we are no where near that point, so we need to focus on political and social solutions. I agree with you and others on political pragmatism. We may have to swallow a bump fire ban. I would only think about supporting it if the investigation was concluded and the motive and means were released to the public so we could form an educated opinion on the matter. If it looks like the bump fire stock played a significant role, I don't think it would be pragmatic to expend resources fighting against a ban personally. It's akin to soldiers having limbs amputated for gunshot wounds before modern antibiotics came to be. They certainly didn't want to lose a foot or a hand, but it was better than dying a slow and painful death brought on by gangrene.

 

[Pond James Pond]

The ridicule for insurrectionist theory that envisions a conventional pitched battle of angry individuals with rifles squaring up against tanks, planes and helicopters so the mob can be decisively defeated is not apt.

Maybe not, but nor is the assumption that enough of the population would rise up so as to make any significant difference. If push comes to shove, many who think they wouldn't probably would, but many more who tink they would, would not.

That is my guess, anyhow.

I would note that arguing whether a pre-existing, non granted right has the kind of utility you want misses the point. If it's a pre-existing right, whether you think it is helpful isn't relevant to whether it is to be enforced.

Fine, but there remains the question of whether an aspect being disputed falls under the protection of that right or not.

They certainly didn't want to lose a foot or a hand, but it was better than dying a slow and painful death brought on by gangrene.

The mental imagery certainly makes a fine analogy!!

Likewise, I hope no nasty, second WoI comes about...

 

[zukiphile]

Maybe not, but nor is the assumption that enough of the population would rise up so as to make any significant difference. If push comes to shove, many who think they wouldn't probably would, but many more who tink they would, would not.

That is my guess, anyhow.

The right doesn't rest on an assumption of mass uprising.

Our experience in Iraq indicates fairly small asymmetric violence wore us down.

I imagine your guess about people is right.

 

[JoeSixpack]

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.

Yes.. I DO.
Let me bottom line it for you so it's perfectly clear.

I believe there should be NO restrictions for a free adult man/woman to own arms except if mentally ill.

I could go down the list of what that means. Spell it out for you word for word but don't bother asking me if is misspoke I did not just now, You understand it perfectly as written.

2a is not dependent on "need" you only play into their hands when you talk about need, I guarantee you we can cut some fat off and tighten restrictions you wanna go down this line of logic.

I really only "NEED" 1 good handgun, and 1 good longgun. Imagine what they could do with that statement?

2a is there so we have the means to overthrow a tyrant, It's not there "just" for home defense, self defense, or hunting.
You probably disagree with that, think im a nut, will disregard further statements from me.. that's fine.

I think the cake analogy that was posted from reddit is spot on, I don't own a bump stock, But I support a lot of things I don't own, or do.

I support smokers right to smoke and without being taxed to death.. I have cast votes to this effect.. I can't stand cigarettes, I hate them, But I support your right to smoke if you want.

I support your right to drink alcohol, I don't drink, I've tried beer twice and never got past 3 swallows.. That might come as a shock given my name but if it is I'd tell you my name is also not Joe.

The desire to impair my judgement even slightly has absolutely no appeal.
I will still back you up to have the drink of your choice.
Even if that means some people will then get in a car and have a wreck and possibly kill the other driver. (I don't support drunk driving just to be clear, Just like I don't support murder or mass shootings)

I support your right to hunt, I don't hunt, I have never hunted, I wouldn't mind trying hog hunted however, but I support YOUR right to hunt, I support less restrictions and greater opportunities for hunters.

Very often That support is not reciprocated by the hardcore hunters who see no need for my evil black weapons.

I don't own a bump stock but I support your right to own a bump stock.
Pick and choose what you care about and you may one day find you fight alone.

I fight for Liberty.

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

Anything gun related they want to ban makes it a 2a issue.. at least to me it does.

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 wouldn't use any rifle for HD.

Spray and Pray it would depend in most situations no.
But bump firing does not = mag dump it can be stopped in between.
Why do swat carry select fire weapons if they have no use?

Improve is pretty subjective.. If you want a bump fire stock then obviously you would say yes.
I suppose we could start applying some sort of benchmark.. maybe I dunno we'll call it "sporting purpose" or something to decide if somethings legit.. I mean im just thinking off the top of my head here. /Sarcasm

Is it recreational, Surely the answer to this is yes

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 2a was written after not before.
Just because there hasn't been a need to overthrow a tyrant in our short history as a country does not mean it won't be in the future, We long ago lost parity with the government so the 2a has already been greatly diminished.

We still have 1a, we still have what appears to be an honest vote.. although there is at least one time I know of when the vote was rigged:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

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.

They are until they aren't.. What happens if tomorrow they decide it's ok to go collect all the guns in America? Highly unlikely but what if they don't do it at once but piecemeal.. at what point do you not comply?

So you need to keep that system on side.

Other way around, System needs to stay on the side of the people.

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're to concerned with today, by the time you reach your limit you'll be half cooked, I prefer to just fight for every inch that's left.. don't bring the wooden horse thru the gate.

Some fights will be lost im sure.. why make it easier?

What happens when those two decide this is more than their re-election chances are worth and let it go to a vote?

What happens when they lose their election because they backed a policy that was frowned upon by the public, be it sound or not?

Our greatest strength is our fervor.

Many of us at times can be 1 issue voters.. the general public has a shorter memory and won't make 2a a litmus test.

At least that's what I'd have said a week ago.
Now I ain't sure after seeing so many willing to just give in often with illusions of trade offs. I don't care about bump stocks let's trade them for suppressors.. I almost busted my head on the desk falling out of my chair laughing at that.

As for the ones that think they can win reelections by voting for gun control..
Ask them if they want another 1994

I mean, I hope you're right. I hope it is not going to snow-ball.

It only snowballs if we do nothing, if we can't provide a united front they will erode until they find a common line just hope the common line arrives before they ban something you do care about.

As for bailing on the NRA over this, I think that would be biting one's nose to spite one's face. Again, in the grand scheme of RKBA things, this is not a central issue. It is, however, a major issue in the court of public opinion, IMHO.

I was already sour on the NRA years ago.. they supported the 34 and 68 law, Think im BS'ing you? They said so in a 1968 issue of American Riflemen, I believe march issue.

I think GOA actually has some scans of it on their website but I"ll go hunt it down if you doubt me.

When ever I bought that up in the past people would tell me NRA was not a political org back then and it was a different time, and blah blah blah.. well they tried to squash Heller vs DC They was afraid of a loss.. only after it was too late to stop they decided to get behind it.. After the win NRA started the "stand and fight" moto and I thought Ok maybe it's a new leaf.

NRA is dead to me now Im planing on contacting them today about it and I won't be cashing in the 4 years coming to me from Taurus for buying their guns recently.

I don't need the NRA, My state org's do more then the NRA even though one has gotten super chummy with them in the last few years.

After I finish with the NRA im gonna compose a email and call my rep's just to tell them I don't support a ban before they think no one cares and they try to cash in publicly on the momentum..

 

[RC20]

I fight for Liberty.

No, you in fact fight for what your twisted view of liberty is.

Liberty is not owning a gun, free speech is, a free press is (and despite the denigrations, they do a fair job and one you do not).

If fact your so called right to smoke has an impact on the rest of society, if you want to kill yourself I am ok with that (informed suicide as opposed to depressed)

But a smoker is a lower educated individual proportionally , they are a greater drain and far less contributor to society in all ways and they impact the health and well being of those who have to be in their vicinity. You can't smoke in a vacuum.

And the rest of us have to pay for your cancer costs, the cost of illness and cancer to your kids and SO as well as second hand smoke you inflict on me.

In short, there is no logic to your statement. Its selective and self serving.

James P has great points, he lives what a truly authoritarian giant not only looks like, his country lived with that giants fist on his country.

I have not lived his life, but I have read in depth the history.

Go live in NK for a while, come back and report.

And that folks is how a minority feels when they are about to have to give up something for the benefit of society.

Entitlement are always so hard to let go of aren't they?

What he is really saying is we control the levers of power despite being a minority and we hope we can hold this down to where the levers can snuff it like they have for a long time.

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.

 

[JoeSixpack]

No, you in fact fight for what your twisted view of liberty is.

Liberty is not owning a gun, free speech is, a free press is (and despite the denigrations, they do a fair job and one you do not).

If fact your so called right to smoke has an impact on the rest of society, if you want to kill yourself I am ok with that (informed suicide as opposed to depressed)

But a smoker is a lower educated individual proportionally , they are a greater drain and far less contributor to society in all ways and they impact the health and well being of those who have to be in their vicinity. You can't smoke in a vacuum.

And the rest of us have to pay for your cancer costs, the cost of illness and cancer to your kids and SO as well as second hand smoke you inflict on me.

In short, there is no logic to your statement. Its selective and self serving.

James P has great points, he lives what a truly authoritarian giant not only looks like, his country lived with that giants fist on his country.

I have not lived his life, but I have read in depth the history.

Go live in NK for a while, come back and report.

Point was I fight for a whole host of things I have no interest in personally.

So you just trashed smokers.. wanna take a stab at the drinkers? Or would that include you and there for aokay?

Wait you're saying Jame pond came from North Korea? Im confused.. maybe the 2nd hand smoke lowered my IQ.

 

[Pond James Pond]

That was indeed a passionate post.
Just for the record don't assume I'm not equally passionate about firearms and firearms ownership. Trust me when I say that I live in an environment that is way more hostile to private firearms ownership than the States, even if Estonia is relatively generous with its firearm legislation.

Now onto the meat of your post!

If you consider it a 2A issue, then be my guest. Ultimately, your opinion and mine have little bearing as the courts will decide. But for me the 2A is way more important and above such gimmick recreational add-ons. Doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be banned it just means I don't see a bump-fire stock that is made for faeces and giggles as something that comes under the umbrella of protection from tyranny. And yes, I know that the 2A came in after the WoI....

You and I can just agree to disagree on that.

As for liberty, absolute liberty... there's no such thing.

Unless you live on an island alone, what you do and can do is tempered by the affect on those around you. It's called living in a society with laws.

RC20's point is valid. Your health insurance is doubtless higher than it would be if you were the only risk it had to cover, but it's not because part of your premium will go to cover some of the many co-morbidities associated with smoking and a host of other illnesses.

I don't suppose you'd support lifting all speed restrictions, would you?
I mean some people want to go fast, right?

Anyway, I digress...

By the way, I never said the 2A was about "NEED". I said it was about guns. Guns that afford the holder an effective defence against an abuse of their right to "life and liberty" whether by the authorities or a local ne'erdowell.

What happens if tomorrow they decide it's ok to go collect all the guns in America? Highly unlikely but what if they don't do it at once but piecemeal.. at what point do you not comply?

That is for the people to decide, each for themselves.
But as I said to Zukiphile, I think most would simply comply.

Those who don't would probably be slowly caught or killed in confrontations and in any case the firearms use that most gun owners on here enjoy such as range time etc would have been out-lawed long before.

And anyway, you make my point: the courts are the line separating a society that can be disarmed by government and one that has not been.
Whichever way you look at it, whichever outcome we end up with, they are the gate-keepers.

Our greatest strength is our fervor.

Agreed, but...

....it can also be your own worst enemy. Why do you think some anti-gun types are so fearful and weary of gun-owners: the zealots...

Sort of hard to convince the other side of your point of view when they're too scared to come to the table...

Here's my take which you can agree with or not. It is purely based on my gut feeling and worth as much in the grand scheme:

I think that if you fight a bump-stock ban (and especially if you win) I think you make the chances of bans on semi autos further down the line more likely, not less... Take that prediction or leave it...