We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, October 5. 2017
"The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people,” Ms. Feinstein said in a statement. “No one except the government should be able to easily and cheaply modify legal weapons into what are essentially machine guns.""
Sen. Diane Feinstein, via commenter at Zero Hedge's NRA Caves On "Bump Fire Stocks," Says They Should Be "Subject To Additional Regulations"
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The government is the last entity I want to be able to kill many people quickly.
She is right and so is the NRA. I am a strong second amendment supporter and I agree bumpfire devices must be banned
Here is the problem; The bump fire device did not, would not and likely could not help him kill more people in this attack. I hope and pray that if anyone ever fires a semi-automatic rifle at me from 200-400 yds away that they use a bump fire device and/or fire as many rounds as they can as fast as they can. Please don't take the time to aim, please!
Those who oppose this device are no different than those who oppose "assault" rifles because they are black or have funny looking stocks or can mount a flashlight on the rails or...
This is ALL about passing more laws that won't do diddly squat to make anyone safer but will from time to time ensnare some innocent and honest gun person into a legal trap that will cost them their home and savings to fight and likely result in years in prison. THIS IS the goal of gun grabbers. NOT to make America safe but to intimidate and persecute legal honest American gun owners. This is exactly what the left wants. They want to scare, intimidate and oppress anyone who uses their 2nd amendment rights. Their goal is to wear us down, force many of us to capitulate and sell or turn in our guns and give up. Their goal is NOT to stop murders, gun violence or even mass murders like this event in Las Vegas. They couldn't care less except that it gives them a crisis to use to further their left wing Marxist/communist gun grab. For what???
I fear the left/Democrats/liberals/Marxists in America exactly the same way that Germans should have feared the Nazis in the 1930's. They want to disarm the populace and for what??? Every oppressive dictatorship, and communist Marxist oligarchy first went for the guns in private hands and THEN took power. It can't happen the other way around if the citizens can own effective weapons.
I swear to god that the look on the Democrats face on TV demanding various forms of gun control/confiscation in the wake of the Las Vegas mass murder looked absolutely orgasmic. This is their Marxist Leninist lust surfacing, the mask was lifted, their joy was unanimous, they see confiscation just around the corner and they are having wet dreams.
If we allow them to nit pick and pile inane gun laws on top of inane gun laws they will win by making it impossible to legally own and use your guns because of the maze of laws no matter what you do you will be breaking some law. In my state I cannot sell or "transfer" any gun without doing it through a 3rd party FFL holder. Bad law BUT the way "transfer" is interpreted simply allowing a 2nd party to hold your gun is considered a "transfer". Even if I handed my wife my hunting rifle in my own house it is breaking the law and I could be convicted and sent to prison for years. Why? How does this make anyone "safe"? Understand the far left. This isn't about saving lives and making Americans safe it is pure anti-2nd amendment oppression; it is lawfare.
So give up a little here and a little there and compromise on your rights the next time a nutcase shoots someone but one day they will come for you.
I don't disagree with what you're saying; and yet, I'm toying with the idea of writing to my congresspeople to encourage them to vote for the bump-stock ban.
(Of course, I'll also be encouraging them to make their support of the ban conditional upon the bill repealing the Hughes Ammendment. Why can't legislative horse-trading work in our favor once in a while?)
The bump stock is a gimmick. I don't want one or need one. Maybe I'm just too cheap to fire off $50 worth of ammo in 6 seconds. And I've done it with the military paying for it so it's not on my bucket list. If they ban bump stocks I don't really care. You can do the same thing by hooking your thumb thru a belt loop on your pants and pulling the trigger and the recoil keeps "bumping" the gun causing the trigger to be pulled again until you run out of ammo.
The point is this isn't about bump stocks. Probably 1% of liberals have any clue what a bump stock is. To them this is about oppression and ending the 2nd amendment. Any law that punishes innocent gun owners meets their criteria. We must resist this endless effort to chip away at the 2nd amendment. Give a little here, a little there, compromise here, say I don't care there and pretty soon you get 10,000 gun laws that only the law abiding get caught up in. That is their goal. Not public safety.
If I wanted to accomplish what this nut case was trying I would not have had 19 guns and would not have used a bump stock. Both of these things were unnecessary and probably hindered him. Simply pick two identical guns, use one, aim, fire one shot at a time keep doing it until malfunction and then change guns and repeat.
My gut at this time tells me he was an anti-Trump lefty who had delusions of grandeur and wanted to go out with a bang pushing an agenda. Probably not sane (but I did say he was a lefty) and not every decision he made makes sense. But I think he had the bump stock to hit "that" nerve in the anti-gun debate and the massive number of guns to make sure he had all the "scary" guns. And he picked a target that the left didn't care about. I think he was a one man anti-Trump hitman.
Again, I pretty much agree with everything you're saying - especially the part about bump-stocks being a gimmick.
That's why, if I were some congresscritter's legislative strategist, I'd be inclined to go for the bump stock ban, but only if I could get something useful out of it. (If repealing the Hughes ammendment is too big a reach, then I'd settle for passing the bump stock ban as an ammendment to the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.)
It would be wasteful to spend time, effort, or political capital on stopping such a stupid and hollow achievement, but if - by going along with their stupid, useless, pandering legislation - I could get them to give up a real improvement in the law somewhere else, then that seems like a smart move. I'm not going to miss bump stocks one bit, but being able to buy a suppressor without a tax stamp is a definite step forward.
Let the progressive hive mind warm itself by the fire of their meaningless symbolic victory, see if I care.
I pretty much agree with everything you have written. I shoot for fun, don't hunt and want to have some protection if the government and evil come to our house.
How would banning such devices be of use? We already have laws against murder ... how did that work out? Such a device is not difficult to make with the right machining skills; and if you have the money, it would not be hard to find someone who would do it for you.
Timothy McVeigh killed almost three times as many people - and injured nearly 600 - with fertilizer, diesel oil, and a truck. Are we to ban fertilizer? Diesel? Trucks?
After multiple acid attacks (mostly, if not entirely, by members of the Religion of Peace) Britain is planning to limit sales of acid and banning the carrying of acid in public without a "good reason". You will need a license to buy it. Really? To make that work they'll have to confiscate every automobile battery in the country.
The real problem is that evil people are going to do evil; change the rules and they'll just change the tools. The only people substantially affected are those who obey the law, and they are not the problem in the first place.
You can do this with some rubber bands. That's where the idea came from that was developed into these stocks as a commercial product.
So a bump-fire stock ban would achieve nothing while greatly inconveniencing law-abiding people.
Like pretty much every existing gun control regulation.
No, you are not. You don't get thing #1 about Amendment #2.
"Shall not be infringed...."
The "bumpfire" devices are quite simple. We live in the age of 3D printing when metal and 3D objects can be printed by computer programs. It will be very soon when guns can be printed that are as effective as the machined models we use now.
Had Paddock, or the people who committed the atrocity if not him, used a car bomb the toll would have been much greater.
I would not attend a crowd event that is over looked by a tall building. He may have scouted the Chicago
"Lollapallooza" event which members of my family attend.
Don't even need a bomb in the car.
The guy in Nice, France killed more people with just a large truck than this guy did with a 'bump-fire stock'.
So Feinstein's opinion is that no one but the government should be able to kill that many people at once.
Makes sense to me. And confirms the reason I'll keep my guns.
I agree that there is no reason that any American should ever have a reason to buy or need a bump stock.
Because all Americans, as members by law of their state militia and the federal militia should be able to purchase the same fully automatic weapon issued to a standard Mark 1 Mod 0 infantry soldier.
In fact, we should become a little more like Switzerland and REQUIRE all militia members to maintain one in their home in good working order, unless they have religious objections to doing so. In which case, as in the early days of our republic, they should be required to pat a tax equal to the amount required to equip a member of the militia.