Proposed Gun Legislation That Is Reasonable

No blogger is correct in every case. Regarding gun control, I am happily incorrect about something. In my blog post Las Vegas Shooting and Gun Control, I state the following:

“New gun legislation might be worthy of consideration as long as it meets two conditions:
1) It doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
2) It would actually do some significant good.

I don’t know of any proposed gun legislation that meets both of those conditions.”

As it turns out, there is proposed gun legislation that meets both of those conditions.

From The Hill: “Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) plans to introduce bipartisan legislation to ban a device used by the Las Vegas shooter that makes semi-automatic weapons fire more rapidly. Legislation to ban bump stocks has gathered bipartisan support rapidly over the past few days in the wake of the shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday.”

Regarding bump stocks, Politico quotes Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) as saying, “Automatic weapons are illegal. If that facilitates that, to me it would be subject to the same ban. If that actually gets on the Senate floor, I’d vote for it.”

From CBS News: “Senator James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, told CBSN anchor Elaine Quijano that he may be open to the possibility of regulating ‘bump stocks,’ which are devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to mimic the firing rate of automatic weapons.”

The Washington Examiner reports, “Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that it would be ‘common sense’ for Congress to consider gun control legislation that makes rapid-fire gun modifications illegal, allowing laws to ‘catch up’ with technology.”

Regarding bump stocks, USA Today reports, “Manufacturers tout the stocks, some of which sell for less than $200, as offering a simple and affordable alternative to automatic weapons without the hassle of a rigorous background check and other restrictions.”

Reasonable Conservatives and Republicans can see the the justification of banning bump stocks.

Granted, not all Conservatives and Republicans are reasonable. Then again, neither are all Liberals and Democrats.

Anyway, I am mistaken in my previous post, and I am glad to be mistaken. As I said before, no blogger is correct in every case. Show me a blogger who says that he is correct in every case, and I will show you a blogger who is delusional at best.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Las Vegas Shooting and Gun Control
  • Retired military


    You epitamize what is wrong with the media. You speak of things you have very little if any knowledge of. I admit I had never heard of the term bump stock prior to this incident. However, you ignore one basic rule of life. Criminals are called criminals because they don’t care about breaking the law. You could give a criminal a paper clip and he could probably find a way to break the law using it. You could give a lawabiding citizen a howitzer and a million shells or an M249 machine gun with thousands of rounds and no one would ever get hurt by that law abiding citizen.

    As for bump stocks. See below article. You should follow the link as the original article has several internal links which didn’t translate on the copy and paste job below.

    We must ban springs

    Remember way back in 2012 when David Gregory, clearly breaking DC law, held up an AR-15 magazine and showed it to the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre. He held it as though it had some magical killing power. It’s a box with a spring in it. Yup. All the righteous indignation over a box with a spring in it.

    Well, the story is the same now only replace box with tube. Bumpfiring is an effective way of turning money into noise. It’s ineffective at shooting accurately. These bumpfire gizmos are basically tubes that go over some part of the gun. And some have springs in them. They’re simple. The loon in Vegas had 12 bumpfire stocks.

    So, obviously we must ban them. That law was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about guns or gun laws. Are we going to ban rubber-bands too? How about shoestrings? A lot of folks can bumpfire without the assistance of a device. It’s not hard. Just takes some practice.

    Sounds silly. But ATF has already banned springs, to an extent. Conversion device rules are generally silly.

    Now, of all the proposed gun laws the democrats and press (but I repeat myself) are going on about out there, I think this one is most likely to pass due to the hysteria from those ignorant of how these things work. And if it does, the pro-gun side damn well better get something in return. Or the Republicans will lose a lot of voters.

    Regarding internal links. The word shoestring is linked to this article

    Can you spot the machine gun in this picture: (go to article to see the picture)

    Look close. It’s the shoe string. Notice the metal tab? It contains a serial number. That is a post 1986 dealer machine gun registered in the NFA’s NFRTR database as a machine gun. It was subject to significant paperwork and made by a special occupational taxpayer.

    Someone once asked the ATF if such a device was a machine gun. They said it was. So, some smart ass made and registered one. It works similarly to bump firing except it uses the charging handle of the Mini 14 (instead of the guns recoil) to which it is attached to reactivate the trigger once it has been reset. In short, pull the key ring for full-auto fire.

    Similarly, I’m pondering writing a letter to the ATF to ask them if I should have my finger registered because I know how to bump fire a semi-automatic rifle.

    • Let’s see… howitzer and a million shells? I’m thinking I could sell off three quarters of the shells, buy a LOT of land, and set up a pretty decent public outdoor gun range and run a ‘Fire a Howitzer’ special. (Like those places that allow you to rent tanks.)

      And I don’t think I’d ever run out of shells.

      But then, I’m not a criminal.

      • Retired military

        DId you know that in Vegas that had a gun range that let you shoot a Browning M2.

        I went to a local range about a month ago. Shot a Barrett 50 cal. I was expecting a lot more kick than it had but the sound wave was what really threw me for a loop.

    • Par4Course

      While a bump stock affects a rifle’s accuracy, how important is good aim when you’re firing into a crowd? I don’t advocate banning something I know little about (unlike most of our Congress), but I understand the thinking behind banning fully automatic weapons or devices that a shooter can used to make a semi-auto into a full auto.

  • Retired military
    • With the same technology and a big enough potato, you can modify a gun with a potato for a bump stock.

  • Retired military

    Hey David for your next article can you please explain what automatic rounds are?

  • David,

    You really need to stop opining about that which you have no clue about.


    These events could happen everyday for a month and the appropriate answer to any change in gun laws is, zero.

    As noted below, paperclips are dangerous in the wrong hands. Imagine how many he could have thrown out the window of the Mandalay rather than firing off 500 rounds every few minutes.

    So again, if someone wants to purchase thirty weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition and a bump stock, nothing to see here. Perhaps the local deer population needs culling and you are a very poor shot.

    There will be no change to gun laws. Additionally, after every one of these events the GOP quickly says it is not the time to “politicize” such things. In other words, there is not time to speak about these issues.

    • Retired military

      Yep we need to outlaw butter knives, paperclips, string, etc.
      Did you know that more peole die every year from Hammers than from AK47s.
      How about outlawing cars. 3x as many people die from cars every year than guns.

      Meanwhile the press can keep pounding Melania for wearing boots and high heels and sneakers and whatever other kind of footwear that she wears.

    • Scalia

      Since you didn’t get it the first time, I repeat:

      Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence.

      Buster writes:

      Additionally, after every one of these events the GOP quickly says it is not the time to “politicize” such things.

      But Democrats never want to politicize it, right? I mean, if only Sayeed Farouk were Christopher Hayes, the Dems could have pushed for more gun control, right?

      The reason we accuse Democrats of politicizing the issue should be very obvious if you’ve been paying attention to the debate. Their “solutions” are empty and will only lead to gun confiscation. We offered a commonsense solution to school shootings when we suggested armed guards. The Left flipped out. They don’t want to protect children, they want to ban guns.

    • Hey busted. Fuck you.


        What a odd thing to say. None of this personal, it is merely a difference of opinion.

        • Scalia

          You’re not so much expressing a different opinion as you are insulting us for refusing to see things your way. We have a fundamental disagreement, and the only thing you and your side do is whine about our side not agreeing with you.

          As I stated previously, we support background checks, preventing the sale of weapons to felons, straw purchases, etc. We favor rigorous gun safety training in schools and severe penalties for those who break firearms laws.

          The Dems have a hard time enforcing the laws we already have. Why in the world do you think your side will enforce your new bans? You just want to feel good about doing “something.” When we tell you that your “solutions” will only hurt law-abiding citizens, it’s in one ear and out the other. You cannot see that if you ban this or that, the unstable will find other means to kill, and that will drive you to ban more and more items in the pursuit of “fixing” the problem. The only stopping point is a total gun ban. We’ve provided reams of evidence on these boards, but you ignore it all and keep whining that we’re not agreeing with you.

          When you get around to debating in good faith, I’ll be happy to engage you in respectful dialog.

          • Retired military

            Not to mention that bump stocks were made legal when Obama was president. The left wants to blame Trump for this shooting but the fact is that Obama is much more to blame at least for the legality of selling them.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            The problem is that I am correct, this could happen everyday for a month and no gun rights supporter would accept any change of any kind.

            As these events have happened numerous times, how about a little common sense?

            When one individual is purchasing numerous weapons of this type, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, there needs to be an explanation as to what their intentions may be.

            Why do I mention culling the herd? Because these weapons and accessories are not made for any sport hunting, unless your suburban home is under attack by wild boars and feral pigs.

            Defending the homestead? If you need thousands of rounds of ammunition you are obviously dealing meth or are engaged in some nefarious activity. Yes, one of my closest friends has 16 guns, lives in a rural area and loves shooting an AK at, well, whatever, and is not willing to agree to any limits on anything. I get it, but perhaps there could be a round that is more akin to a paintball that would not inflict bodily harm. He can still shoot signs and cans and trees to his heart’s content, but not accidentally blow the head off of a hiker.

            Other countries offer their condolences, but at the same time are shaking their collective heads. You mean anyone can simply walk into a store every few days and purchase these types of weapons?

            The whole, “Well we need to outlaw knives and axes and, oh yeah, paperclips” is absurd.

            The recent attacks in France and Germany were examples of the difference between episodes with those weapons as opposed to what transpired here.

            As for driving through crowds? That can easily be fixed by making the software mandatory that is already on some luxury cars. When a car is speeding towards a human the car simply stops on its own.

            I understand the whole, “I haven’t done anything wrong, why do I have to give up my rights?” Well, things have changed and for the greater good you will only be able to have enough guns and ammo to stave off an attack by a small group of Huns. Oh, and as for defending against tyranny? Get back in your bunker. If a tyrannical government wants to take you down, you are going down. Additionally, if you are one of those that are continually spouting off about the “tyrannical” government and are stockpiling semi-automatics and thousands of rounds, perhaps you bear watching.

            Bump stocks? How on Earth is this still a good idea?

            Lastly, what is the point of these discussions? I remember the first time I posted on these pages we discussed the changes to laws in Australia. I linked to studies and you linked to others. Your conclusion? Mine were meaningless and yours were, apparently, the gold standard. I read a more recent examination of their statistics yesterday as the first studies were from several years ago. I could go look up the link, but am well aware there is no point.

            So what will happen in the wake of this episode? Nothing, just like all the rest, so I don’t understand all the hand wringing. Gun rights in my lifetime have rarely been limited. The Brady laws were probably the most significant (and they weren’t that dramatic) change and those expired. Neither side of the aisle will do anything and all of you can continue to collect any weapons you desire, yet gun rights activists are always angry about anything that even resembles a discussion. “How dare you?”

            So again, what is the point of debating this matter? Your side is easily in control and nothing will change, but if I hold a different opinion, shame on me?

            As for gun grabbers? There are more guns than people in this country, so that ship has sailed.

            Here is something I am sure none of you will find amusing.

          • Hey busted, FOAD.

          • Scalia

            When one individual is purchasing numerous weapons of this type, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, there needs to be an explanation as to what their intentions may be.

            And where is the list of acceptable reasons?

            Why do I mention culling the herd?

            Up to this point, you never mentioned “culling the herd.” Perhaps you’re thinking of another conversation.

            Because these weapons and accessories are not made for any sport hunting, unless your suburban home is under attack by wild boars and feral pigs.

            The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. I get it that you’d like it to be, but the fact that you keep bringing up hunting shows you’re not focused. Given that you’ve been here a couple of years, it’s a waste of time to even bring it up.

            Defending the homestead? If you need thousands of rounds of ammunition you are obviously dealing meth or are engaged in some nefarious activity.

            False dichotomy (look it up).

            The whole, “Well we need to outlaw knives and axes and, oh yeah, paperclips” is absurd.

            Bald assertion (look it up). You keep uttering logical fallacies because you don’t understand the debate. Those items were brought up to illustrate the absurdity of liberal “logic.” Liberals like you think that you’re accomplishing something by banning things that are very easily replicated by common objects. “If we just ban bump stocks, kooks won’t be able to convert semi-autos to automatic ones.” Well, even though they’re kooks, they’re smart enough to easily make replacements, and even if they don’t know how, the information is easily available on the internet.

            Oh, and as for defending against tyranny? Get back in your bunker. If a tyrannical government wants to take you down, you are going down.

            You’ve brought that up before, but it appears you don’t recall the answer. Why do you keep doing that? If you can’t even pay attention to what we’re saying, then why are you wasting everybody’s time by repeating yourself?

            One more time: Nobody argues that one person can stave off the United States Army. Are you really that thick??

            Noah Webster:

            Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

            George Mason:

            …to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

            (The American Colonies were) all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defense of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.

            Elbridge Gerry

            What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

            Alexander Hamilton:

            If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

            Tench Coxe:

            As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

            Buster, your inability to remember that tyrannical governments have been overthrown by the People is astounding. And your inability to appreciate the fact that tyrannical governments always want the People to be disarmed is equally astounding.

            The government can easily take down one man, but it will have a far more difficult time suppressing millions of citizens who are capable of defending themselves with modern weapons.

            The Founders envisioned an America where the federal government would always be held in check by the militias of the several states. In no measure would they assent to this supposition that the federal army should disarm the public or limit firearms ownership to duck hunting.

            Your view, Buster, of firearms is un-American.

          • Busted views are those of a totalitarian.

          • Scalia

            Lastly, what is the point of these discussions? I remember the first time I posted on these pages we discussed the changes to laws in Australia. I linked to studies and you linked to others. Your conclusion? Mine were meaningless and yours were, apparently, the gold standard.

            That’s typical of your kind of “analysis.” I showed why your stats were flawed. You’ve apparently forgotten again.

          • Scalia

            Buster, no reply? I told you I’d be respectful when you’re willing to go head-to-head in a rational manner. I’ve given you a lot of well-known information. Care to rebut?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I will get back to you in a few days.

            In Traverse City enjoying the best October weather I can remember in years.

            36 holes a day, a little boating, casino time and euchre with friends (sorry everybody, a local reference), while drinking regional wine. On my list of priorities, commenting on a political blog is somewhat far down the list. More concerned about choosing which incredibly great course to play tomorrow, because it really is an embarrassment of riches in this part of the country, while also being affordable. Might even take a quick trip to the Upper Peninsula as there is a relatively new course cut from granite outside of Marquette (where I used to live for a number of years). Colors already changing up here, spectacular.

          • Scalia

            Nobody said commenting was high on your list. Moreover, you’ve often disappeared without ever replying to the many substantive posts in response to yours, so I was merely asking whether you planned on getting back.

            Take your time; I’ll not be holding my breath.

          • Take all the time in the world, please.

          • Scalia

            Still waiting for your reply, Buster. The manly thing to do is say something like, “I let my partisanship get the best of me, so I fudged the exchange I had with Bruce. That was patently dishonest, and I apologize without qualification.

            A man of integrity would approach it that way. You really should man up and face the music.

          • Retired military
        • We warned you that you would not like the new rules.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I still have no idea what you mean.

          • And did I mention Fuck you?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            What an incredibly odd comment.

            Perhaps you are taking this a little too seriously?

            Just a thought.

          • Sky__Captain

            I believe you misunderstand what Rodney is saying.
            It is that you are not to be taken seriously.
            Just a thought.

          • You rather understate the case and border on the verbose…

          • Scalia

            Again, it was explained, but you’ve forgotten.

            Here goes: Neo-liberals substitute name-calling and violence for reasoned debate. It is enough for them to roll their eyes and mock us for having the temerity to disagree with them. If they perceive that we’re wielding influence, they attack us with all the venom of which they’re capable in order to destroy us.

            Rodney is, of course, referring to the new rules of engagement. If you mock us, we mock you in return. If you attack us, we will follow suit. That’s what you’ve done on these boards. When you disagree with something, you’re apparently incapable of constructing a persuasive argument. You reflexively resort to name-calling, questioning our intelligence, or misrepresenting our arguments.

            With respect to firearms, you assert that we’re either paranoid kooks or criminals. Do you really think you’ll persuade anybody with that kind of approach? Most of us will rationally engage any poster who shows respect and attempts to craft a reasonable argument. As I’ve told you before, it’s almost jaw-dropping to see you act surprised when you’re attacked for insulting us.

            I respond measure-for-measure, and my history on these boards demonstrates that.

            Now, let’s have no more of this, “I still have no idea what you mean.”

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Name one instance, ever, when I have engaged in name calling? Don’t bother, I have done anything of the kind.

            I have never been anything but civil, even when called names, had obscenities hurled my way or been faced bans.

            I wondered why Bruce Henry left these pages, because he was willing to engage in long (sometimes hundreds of back and forth comments) debates. I saw a comment on another board from him and I asked his reasons. It only took him one sentence.

            Of course I was surprised he lasted as long as he did because every debate resulted in him being called names, Bruce Hemorrhoid was the least of them, labeled a liar, while being generally chastised. Despite that, he would often carry on regardless of subject. I always found the discussions he engaged in to be entertaining and marveled at his patience and resilience.

            I find it to be generally pointless. Why? Because as I stated earlier, if Las Vegas happened everyday for a month, any discussion that access to these weapons should be curtailed would be met with disdain. A change in laws? Nope, merely having the temerity to suggest that it may have a role and some restrictions might be considered.

            New rules? Fuck you?

            Again, perhaps a little too seriously?

          • Scalia

            Name one instance, ever, when I have engaged in name calling? Don’t bother, I have done anything of the kind.

            When you question our sanity, all but state we are paranoid, and accuse us of criminality, that satisfies every criterion for name-calling. I don’t even have to go beyond this thread:

            If you need thousands of rounds of ammunition you are obviously dealing meth or are engaged in some nefarious activity.

            Moreover, you have accused us of selective outrage even when it was pointed out that you never criticize Democrats on these boards. Whenever you run out of arguments, you simply disappear only to return at a later point to repeat yourself and show the world that you’ve forgotten what was previously discussed.

            I’ve told you this before, but you typically don’t pay attention. It appears that you’re only interested in watching yourself type. If you act like an adult, you’ll be treated like one.

            As to Bruce Henry, he is a demonstrable liar. I have proved that on these boards. He even apologized (privately, of course) for one of his lies. I still have his email. When caught in a logical vice, he often tried to lie his way out of the dilemma of his making. I hold such persons in utter contempt, and if he didn’t like it—tough!

            Liberals like pennywit are not nearly treated as roughly as you are. Not only is he smart, but he’s objective enough to call out his side. I always treat him with respect. Incidentally, I used to treat Bruce with complete respect until he showed me his dishonesty.

            Now, whenever you decide to get off this “you guys have something to hide if you store thousands of rounds of ammunition” train and debate honestly, I’ll be happy to reply in kind. If not, you know where you can shove it.

          • Sky__Captain

            Bruce appears to have memory issues.
            I could always tell when he was losing an argument, he resorted to profanity.
            Long ago, Bruce also accused me of supporting an armed insurrection against the US government when I did no such thing.
            I lost count of the times Bruce personally insulted me as soon as I posted in a thread.

            I am simply glad he is gone.

          • Scalia

            …if Las Vegas happened everyday for a month, any discussion that access to these weapons should be curtailed would be met with disdain.

            If you initiated the discussion, it would be met with disdain because we have previously address why it’s irrational.

            One more time (because I’m a nice guy): As I’ve shown, the weapon of choice for most mass murders is the 9mm. Once we ban AR-15s, AK-47s, etc., etc., liberals will bemoan the fact that nuts are shooting up people with the 9mm and similar firearms. They will then argue that since we’ve banned “assault rifles,” to be logically consistent, we have to ban the weapons that are most often used in mass killings. So, we’ll get another round of ad hominems about blood being on our hands and why we need to ban the 9mm. There is no logical stopping point.

            There are measures we can take at large public gatherings like increased police activity both onsite and around high-rise buildings. That makes more sense than to take people’s rights away.

          • And the whore who bore you.

          • Scalia

            I saw a comment on another board from him and I asked his reasons. It only took him one sentence.

            Why are you being cryptic about his reply? You’re not being deliberately dishonest, are you? It only took him one sentence? And you imply he got miffed because of the way he was treated? Is playing fast and loose with the truth a genetic flaw that most liberals have? Is the reason you’re sympathetic to Bruce due to your being as much as liar as he is?

            HERE is Bruce’s reply to you:

            It’s just no fun in the age of Trump dealing with those irredeemable deplorables. But thanks. I may return sometime but I doubt it.

            So, rather than being disgusted at how he was treated, he, slithers into the night because it’s no longer “fun” to goad conservatives now that Trump is in office.

            Bruce Henry leaves Wizbang because it’s no longer fun interacting with “irredeemable deplorables…in the age of Trump,” and Buster repackages that to fit his narrative that we’re just too mean to baldfaced liars like Bruce.

            Honest liberals are getting as rare as the Tasmanian wolf. I’m thankful that one of them, pennywit, is on our boards. I guess your kind have to massage the truth because you can’t handle looking at chinks in your gods’ images. True disciples you are.

          • Indeed. Another lying sack of shit.

          • Scalia

            Oh, and while you’re taking your time formulating a cogent reply to my posts relating to guns, and while you’re also putting together a response on why you misled us as to Bruce’s reasons for leaving, you might enjoy reading this:

            No, Most U.S. Gun Owners Don’t Stockpile 17 Or More Guns

            It shows the typical liberal penchant for playing fast and loose with facts. You’re quite familiar with that, I’m sure.

        • Here then is the longer form:

          What you are doing is virtue signaling. You are sending that virtue signal from the top of a pile of still warm corpses. You are waving the bloody shirt to advance an agenda which would deprive your fellow citizens of their rights without improving their security against a repeat in any realistic way.

          I find you and your position vile beyond your comprehension.


    • Retired military

      Hey buster

      Do you think we should outlaw bolts, nuts, and strips of metal being sold in stores? Same with strings. You can use these things to make bump stocks

      But hey after all it is for the children. You know the ones that made it past the abortion doctors that the dems keep so busy.

    • Jwb10001

      You don’t speak about the issue, you just spew snark (perhaps the local deer population needs culling) is that your idea of a gun control conversation? As has been mentioned,most 2ond amendment supporters already support background checks, safety training, etc. Your side just wants to blame republicans for the shootings. What’s you’re grand solution to the issue? What law prevents a lunatic from killing people?

    • Retired military

      “Additionally, after every one of these events the GOP quickly says it is not the time to “politicize” such things.”
      Yeah look at the MSM reaction to the Weinstein scandal. Funny how neither Obama nor Hillary has been asked about Weinstein’s donations to them. If this had been the Koch brothers the press would be hounding every republican from Bush senior on down about donations. But hey the left doesn’t do politics right buster?

  • jim_m

    The correct solution is not to ban inanimate objects but to deal with the root cause of violence, which is the erosion of civil society.

    Unfortunately, the left is predicated on eroding civil society. Thus, actually taking measures that would positively affect the situation are impossible. We are left with taking measures that will only lead toward an authoritarian government that has total control over a helpless populace.

    • Well, since all leftards are mad, and crazy leftards are the source of almost all of these miseries, let’s just ban leftards.

  • EricSteel

    I have been an active gun owner for over 30 years. While I believe the NFA needs to be updated, I have a great deal of trepidation about the various modifications that have come out in the last few years as loopholes that violate the spirit of the NFA.

    Bump stocks are a prime example. Admit it, when you heard the sound of the gunfire the other night, you thought about full auto not bump stock. You can’t just go on eBay and buy a kit to make an AR-15 full auto now. In my opinion, bump stocks should fall into the same category.

    While they may be easy to make, and criminals are going to commit crimes. It shouldn’t be as simple as buying a $75 item off of eBay.

    • Retired military

      Eric. I have been around weapons for most of my adult life. A lot of them were automatic. If I had a dollar for every time I heard automatic fire I could buy an expensive new card. Had never heard of a bump stock before. I havent heard nor watched the news stuff about this so I cant judge what the sound is. I do know that you can find all kinds of things on the net made out of household items. Hell I even owned a copy of the anarchist cookbook back in the early 80s just because I wanted to see how the stuff was made. Never had a thought of actually using the information.
      As I stated above. Criminals gonna be criminals. No matter what.

      • EricSteel

        I hear you. And it is already very illegal to make some of those household mods. But the point, the bump stock is an inexpensive factory made item that can be easily obtained and easily installed that allows a semi-auto rifle to behave similarly to a full auto rifle. Even the NRA came out today and said these things are a problem and need to be better regulated.

  • The reason this guy was so well armed is that he was wealthy. The obvious solution to stem this kind of tragedy is to ban all forms of personal wealth. If we start electing more liberals that will just happen through the natural course of events, even without a ban.

    • jim_m

      Bernie Sanders advocates a wealth tax that would tax all forms of wealth annually until they no longer existed. That is until they no longer existed outside of his political circles.

      So the dems already have that covered.

  • For what it’s worth, the bumpfire stocks reduce accuracy like nobody’s business. Which if you’re firing down into a LARGE packed target may not be an issue, but if not you’re gonna have rounds going into the dirt and into the sky as well as down-range.

    (That was a reason why the military dropped fully auto M-16s in favor of 3-round bursts – the accuracy was terrible, and you wasted ammo.)

  • Retired military

    I got. Lets mandate a timer on every weapon in the US so it can only be fired 1 time in a 24 hour period.
    Of course when someone gets clubbed to death by a hand gun which cant fire then the liberals will want to mandate that all guns be made out of nerf ball foam and not weigh more than 2 ounces so that no one can be clubbed to death by them.


  • Retired military
    • Off Topic.

      • Retired military

        I know Rodney Sorry


        It doesn’t matter, if you notice there are numerous off topic things addressed on this thread, who cares?

  • yetanotherjohn

    I hold no special brief for bump stocks, but shouldn’t we look at the banning of scissors first?

  • Paul Hooson

    The problem with David’s premise is that if some weapons were illegal, some determined persons could still easily build homemade versions of these weapons from hardware store or scrap parts. The bump stock can be easily fashioned at home, while in Israel many homemade submachine guns have been seized from Palestinian terrorists. No law against bump stocks is going to prevent using bits of scrap metal to harness the recoil so an assault rifle fires similar to an automatic weapon. The principle to harness the recoil is just too simple to ban the simple technology.

    • jim_m

      We need to outlaw springs. It’s for the children!!!!

    • EricSteel

      “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”

      Paul, your argument here is specious. No law is 100% effective and we don’t do away with a law just because it can be broken by someone. For example, we still have speeding laws despite the fact that people speed on the highway at any given second.

      We already have laws and regulations covering full auto guns and modifying a semi auto gun into a full auto gun. There is a way to own one legally but doing it illegally results in the ATF coming down like a ton of bricks.

      The existing regulations prevented Paddock from acquiring a full auto gun. Instead, he used a loophole in the law to modify semi auto guns to simulate full auto performance.

      In my opinion, I like the idea of making a deal to treat bump stocks the same way in exchange for national reciprocity.

      • Scalia

        In my opinion, I like the idea of making a deal to treat bump stocks the same way in exchange for national reciprocity.

        Eric, although I disagree with you over the wisdom of banning bump stocks, I would definitely trade them for national reciprocity.

        • EricSteel

          I didn’t say bump stocks should be banned. I said they should be regulated just like machine guns are today which can be purchased legally by law abiding citizens.

          • Scalia

            Acknowledged, but they’re very expensive which makes them beyond the reach of the average Joe.

            Nonetheless, if the Dems want us to trade bump stocks for national reciprocity, I’d trade in a heartbeat.

        • Promises and deals such as this are never upheld by the progtards.

      • Retired military

        “a deal to treat bump stocks the same way in exchange for national reciprocity.”

        Only trouble is that dems will never go for anything that expands even a portion of gun rights.

      • I’ll gladly consider such a compromise if and when (and only when) all of the current immigration laws as written are enforced by every “blue” city, county, and state within these United States.

    • Scalia

      David has also forgotten that the weapon of choice for mass-murderers is the 9mm. If liberals are successful in banning weapons like the AR-15, they’ll eventually go after the 9mm. One does not have to be a prophet to see that.

      • Retired military

        David doesnt let facts get in his way.

  • Sky__Captain

    David’s justification of the banning of bump stocks violates his second point:
    “2) It would actually do some significant good.”
    Therefore, David is mistaken once again. It does seem to be a pattern with him.

    • Retired military

      More like a way of life.

  • Retired military
  • Par4Course

    The left believes (1) the police are racists looking for the chance to gun down unarmed minorities; (2) Trump is Hitler with worse manners; and (3) guns should be outlawed so only the government has legal weapons. It’s amazing how so many leftists can hold all three of these three beliefs at one time.

    • Scalia

      Yeah, they want to “resist” the government and give the government all of our guns. Impeccable wisdom!

      • jim_m

        They want to “resist” which means they want to overthrow. Once in power they will, like their role models in Venezuela, confiscate guns and then give them to their supporters to suppress the opposition.

        The left believes that the state should be restricted in its actions only to the point where they control the state.

        I recall a communist once saying that they would use our freedoms to tear down our government and once this took power that they would then ablish them. That is the perfect picture of the left.

        • Scalia

          No doubt that’s true; it’s just that they still have to be a little more circumspect about it. The Left wants a leftist dictatorship, but for the present, they’re calling for bans which locks them into the inconsistent argument that the government must be resisted, but we need to give the government our guns.

  • Par4Course

    Gun dealers must love the lefties. Mass shootings lead to talk of gun control that leads to a big jump in gun sales. I’ll bet bump stocks are flying off the shelves.

  • Not a suicide note.

    Ballistic information.

    Drop (how far below the line of sight aim point a round would strike).
    Elevation (at his location)

    No calculations (there are cell phone applications and online applications for that).

    Folks should be glad he was using a bump stock, as that decreased accuracy a LOT.

    More would be dead or seriously wounded if he’d been firing single aimed shots with support.

  • Retired military