Tweet
Bump fire devices were a range toy up until Sunday night. Now, they will be the sacrificial lamb. It was simply a matter of time.
-
"The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced." ~BG D. Ullman -
All the Patrick Henry rhetoric aside, the times may have to make us at least consider some small compromises. Make no mistake, my "line in the sand" is FAR to the right of most people, but if we can be honest enough to admit that the bump-stock was a bad idea which should NEVER have gotton past the 'doodling on a napkin' stage, our image would improve greatly.Comment
-
BATF could have shut this down at any time and yet didn't. What was it, 30 years ago the "drop in"sears for AR's? Can someone answer me this, since 1934 what compromises have the anti's made? In 1986 Ronnie helped stop the manufacture of all new auto weapons and "we" were thrown the bone that military surplus firearms could be imported. How long did this last? IMHO any compromise is a lose regardless of any promises on future actions. Want to talk about gun control, O.K. I have a CCW in Ohio make it a Federal Law that I can use my license in New York or Jersey and not be harassed. Supreme court says that driver's licenses are good in all state, marriage licenses, why not CCW as well. I will compromise and not drink beef for the rest of my life for this. {I don't drink anyway.}
SamComment
-
Why should we compromise on any right given to the people by the Bill of Rights!To Error Is Human To Forgive Is Not SAC PolicyComment
-
Who is willing to let a "government" tell you what your "rights" are? In grade school half a century ago I was taught that the Bill Of Rights was for what the government "couldn't" do against a citizen. Want to stop this high rise type of violence, easy enough. Require ALL buildings more then one story high to have bullet proof glass, no exceptions, no grandfathering. ALL luggage, packages coming into the building regardless of source be completely inspected. Everyone coming into the building, guests and employees must go thru a metal detector. The U.S. government will provide 3 armed guards at each exit regardless and all must to checked. These suggestions make as much sense as what the left wing in the U.S. wants. With my suggestions, who could be against it as it is for "Public Safety."
Comment
-
Just like Jarts (lawn darts) the Consumer Product Safety Commission can call for a ban on bump fire/crank fire devices. Those items have nothing to do with firearms in general nor do they compromise the efficiency of a firearm.
Are we suffering and are our rights in jeopardy due to the banning of certain targets? Gee...most of us here cannot legally discharge a firearm out the back door of our homes anymore. We can't hunt within a certain distance of buildings and structures. Are our rights threatened? No, because those things were bad ideas or became a nuisance in the interest of public safety. We still have our guns and thankfully some Draconian restrictions have been recently lifted.
Bump fire devices have only one purpose. Go fast so we can laugh. It's not so funny anymore. Defending these pieces of crap (always has been my opinion of them) will not make ourselves look good in the public eye. We're divided amongst ourselves on this already. Go ahead and defend them if you wish. You'll regret it later when our credibility is shot to hell over a toy and something truly "right threatening" comes up later...and you can bet your @$$ it most certainly will.2016 Chicago Cubs. MLB Champions!
**Never quite as old as the other old farts**Comment
-
I personally know enough serious conservatives who are very pro second amendment who after this shooting would support a "bump fire" device ban that I believe the anti's could get it passed. By the way...most of these folks didn't know there was such a thing as "bump fire." However....the libs can't help themselves. They always over reach so I suspect these things will stay legal. If the bump fire devices were banned though, the ban would hold up, they are nothing but a way to circumvent the National Firearms Act which none other than Justice Scalia said was sacrosanct.Last edited by Art; 10-04-2017, 10:34.Comment
-
With Art & JBW basically in agreement with my position on bump-fire , I feel in very good company!!! I'm as pro-2A as anyone, but 230+ years of "progress" have washed under the bridges. Would the founding fathers have said what they said, today? Or, would they have been more specific? NO ONE KNOWS, but thank God they (through ignorance or foresight, or a little of both) took a generic path - which drives the wacko lib word parsers stark raving nuts.
The immediate proposing of a draconian ban on bump-stocks (or placing them in the NFA category, perhaps more palatable to the firebrands here) coming from our side would be a tremendous PR benefit, which would effectively shut the mouths of a lot of the great unwashed, even if there is no reciprocation. But, the window is closing rapidly, let some Democrat get the credit, and the opportunity will be lost forever. An EO, today, would not be too soon for me.Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 10-04-2017, 10:55.Comment
-
I went online to see if bump-stocks were still on sale. I checked 3 sites including Cabelas and all of them listed these gadgets as "out of stock." I doubt if any legitimate businesses will sell these any more. I guess that many of these that were already made will end up on some underground market.Comment
-
No 'legitimate" business with even a small degree of morality, or good sense, would ever have handled them, right from the git-go. I cannot think of a more blatantly obvious attempt to circumvent a law. Whoever put them on the market, and sold them, was only looking for a quick buck, and did not care squat about the obvious potential for mis-use. I'll also go further (and some here will challenge me) and say that they were NOT a true friend of firearms owners - the item was/is an accident just looking for a place to happen, to the detriment of a whole lot of people.Comment
-
Remember the "street sweeper" 12 gauge of 30 years ago being declared a DD mainly because of the rotary magazine and being semi? Never could see the sense as they beat the heck out of you, but they looked "evil" and so they must go. I expect the same will happen to these devices. My question is why the BATF(E) allowed them in the first place for what they were designed to do. Do we allow semi's to go the same way because they "could" be converted to full auto fire. Do we now go back to the draconian "assault" magazine ban only now make it permeant. Do we really "need" semi auto fire weapons of mass destruction? Do we hang our head in "shame" and allow an Australian existence for the good of society? How about following England's lead that even speech can be prosecuted/persecuted if the government feels so. Golly, gee whiz no one needs that "stuff" sure I will side with you in getting rid of_______fill in the blanks.
SamComment
-
Giving up a piece of junk like a bump fire stock is more like catching that shark with an artificial lure.
I see it as a tremendous public relations positive opportunity. Still have not had anyone make a cogent argument in support of the things. All I am hearing is: "We must never give an inch...." but I have yet to hear from anyone who will admit to owning one.Comment
-
because if they get the bumpfire stocks, the next step is the magazines, then the next step is the semi autos, because after all who needs that kind of firepower... next your down to single shot break open rifles, and then they will take them too. we have been through this ban stuff before, and were damned lucky to get out from under it. the libs could care less about bump fire stocks, they want the guns in entirety!Comment
-
Sam - I agree with you in sentiment, and am in awe of your life experiences, but there is a limit.
Would I support making all semi-auto arms illegal? NO!
Would I even support making the entire family of "AR15 type" arms illegal? NO!
Would I support a ban, or even any limits, on reloading? NO!
Would I support some sort of magazine capacity ban? Yes, I would, but it would have to exempt .22s and be large enough (20-25) to exempt pistols.Comment
Comment