Any kind of shooting is tragic....even when done by a psycho.
No doubt if there such a thing as a demon it was in this guys head.
When I first heard the gunshots on TV I knew the guy had bump fire stocks...in fact he had 12 AR type rifles with bump fire stocks and I noticed a 60 or 100 round magazine on the gun shown on TV.
While our so called Politicians were a sleep at the wheel a guy came out with a stock that once installed basically turned a semi auto into a simulated full auto with a slightly less rate of fire....
The bump fire stocks combined with the higher than standard issue magazines once the gun started roaring this guy lost all reality to the point of no return.
The fight over magazine capacity is simple....standard issue for the firearm (which for an AR is 30 rds).
The bump fire stock or any kind of trigger crank should have never been legal. With a standard issue semi auto one has to think for a second before he pulls the trigger.
The politicians that allowed this to happen should be in jail.
jOe, I totally agree with you on the bump stock and magazine capacity. The intent of the law is clear and the bump stock crawled through a crack. Would new laws have prevented this maniac from destroying so many lives? I doubt it but we could at least claim the high moral ground.
If anyone thinks the left will stop with banning the bump fire stocks, they haven't been listening. This clown had about 12 AR 15&10 type guns with the bump fire stocks. Why so many? They have the reputation of being unreliable, as do the greatly oversize magazines. As verification of this, the Sheriff reported that "several" of the rifles had jammed in only 10 minutes of shooting( I know he sent an awful lot of ammo into the crowd). I think he knew they were not reliable and had the extra rifles to make up for this. The typical shooter won't be able to spend $100,000.00 on extra rifles, so maybe we are better off if they use an unreliable rifle that jams. As for myself, I have no use for these things, but I don't want the left to have an opening to redefine semiautomatic rifles/shotguns/pistols as machine guns. We already know they habitually use the terms interchangeably and want to outlaw all simiautomatics. Mike
The shooter was supposed to be worth several million. He passed repeated back ground checks as he bought guns. He stayed under the radar in all respects so there was not warning of what might be coming. If true, he could have bought a fully automatic machine gun. They are out there, can be bought legally and transferred with the proper tax stamp from BATF. If he had a Browning 30 cal. instead of a cobbled up wannabe this death toll would have been much greater. How much carnage could a 30 cal., belt fed, Browning done? The death toll might be ten times as much. And a 50 cal. would be worse.
It is the motive that I can not understand. Was it related to side effects of his medication as some claim? Was he just insane because his father and other family members went off the rails? Did he just want fame at the end of his life? We may never know.
Only motive is the guy was sick in the head....a devil in his head.
Why speculate on his weapon choice it's already been brought out that the shooter was not that gun savvy....
I'd rather give up my right to own a bump fire stock and over standard capacity magazines than I would my right to own an AR 15 with standard issue magazines.
I really don't want to comment on this subject but am afraid where all this is headed. You can only look to Europe and the UK for the gun laws they have. Emotions are high and the Powers to Be will have to do something. I own an AR only because of the 2016 election and my fear of what would happen. I also own several high capacity magazines for the same reason. As of this time I have not even shot the gun. I am a shotgun guy like most of all of you. So the AR is only for home protection
In a country of 323,000,000 people, how do you control everyone, all the time? Answer: you don't. But somebody dropped the ball by not seeing this dude carrying all this gear into this hotel, and allowing him to set up all this without noticing SOMETHING.
And another thing: the sponsors and promoters of these outdoor events need to be acutely aware of the setting and whether it allows a high vantage point as this shooter had. No way for this to have happened without the position the shooter possessed.
No excuse for this to ever happen again in such a target-rich environment. JR
Does anyone really believe another law would stop this nonsense? It's already against the law to commit homicide with anything - a truck, bat, knife, or any kind of gun. You liberals can make bump stocks illegal but what's to stop someone from making one like he did. They don't respect the law now, why do you think they're going to just because bump stocks are illegal ? Take your anti gun bullsh## to some other board where it would be appreciated.
Here's a huge problem as I see it jOe. You want a handful of folks, who have feelings about something, take something away rather than going through the legislative process, or amend a 'right'? You've made many comments about the motives of the last administration, so now you want politicians with a motive regulating how you should feel. So, thirty round mags can help fix 'sick in the head', good luck jOe.
This may be radical. I think the shooting was caused by his gambling addiction. He was a highstakes gambler that always figured his odds and did everything to better them. To him, this was the ultimate gamble, shoot everyone up and escape( the sheriff believes he intended to escape). He did everything to better his odds, but didn't calculate that a security guard would arrive so quickly, trapping him inside. He lost the bet, so killed himself( as well as a lot of others). Instead of worrying about the tools, we should study the addiction and how to deal with it. Mike
In 2008 the Democrats had all three branches including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and they could have enacted any gun law they wanted subject to court challenges.
The post above by the anti-gunner Ed Good perfectly illustrates why nobody wished to discuss this shooting here until you brought it up jOe. Now you have opened the door for anti-gun trolls like Ed and King Brown to post utter nonsense and falsehoods such as King's oft-repeated claim (lie) that the U.S. has the highest homicide rate of any civilized country.
We law abiding citizens really aren't interested in incrementally giving up our Constitutional Rights to extreme anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats. We know from history that giving up bump stocks or high capacity mags would only be another step to the total bans on firearms that politicians like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama want. Hillary and many of these Democrats are already calling for a total ban on semi-automatics. They have no intention of allowing you to keep your stock AR-15, or even your semi-auto pistol. Then, when you foolishly permit them to take those things, and some mad man uses a pump shotgun in a massacre, they will go after those. Hell, they still want bolt action sniper type rifles banned.
KY Jon was the only one so far who brought up what is likely the most important factor in these mass shootings... the use of anti-depressant prescription drugs that have the known side-effect of causing suicidal and homicidal tendencies. A Nevada Senator just confirmed that the Las Vegas shooter was on anti-depressants. A very large percentage of mass murderers have been on these drugs, or had been on them shortly before going on a homicidal spree where they often end up killing themselves too. Did you ever stop to consider that we never heard of these types of mass shootings before the late 1980's when SSRI (Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor)drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, etc. hit the market? You can Google "SSRI drugs mass shootings" for lots in information that the Liberal Left Media and the Pharmaceutical Industry won't talk about.
By the way, this would be a very good time to call, write, or e-mail your Congressmen and Senators to remind them that we are not interested in giving up our Constitutional freedom. If we are going to have a discussion of giving up our Civil Rights, consider what would save more lives: giving up bump stocks and high cap magazines, or deporting anyone with Gang affiliations and a criminal background?
And don't forget that the worst mass murder in the U.S. prior to 9-11 was the one where 87 people were killed in 1990 at the Happyland Dance Club in New York City. The murderer killed all of those people with less than $1.00 of gasoline in an intentional arson fire in the stairwell of an unlicensed social club. A determined killer will always find a way. Should we ban gasoline too?
This may be radical. I think the shooting was caused by his gambling addiction. He was a highstakes gambler that always figured his odds and did everything to better them. To him, this was the ultimate gamble, shoot everyone up and escape( the sheriff believes he intended to escape). He did everything to better his odds, but didn't calculate that a security guard would arrive so quickly, trapping him inside. He lost the bet, so killed himself( as well as a lot of others). Instead of worrying about the tools, we should study the addiction and how to deal with it. Mike
Was it an addiction, a side effect of his Rx or was he mentally ill? We can guess but may never know. He might have intended to "get away" for the short term but all those guns purchased under his own name and with proper paper work were never going to allow him to get away with this. The man hunt would have been extreme and with technology your chances of hiding above ground is near zero long term. Perhaps this was a sick game to him and that would point to mental illness.
well, how about amending the federal firearms act of 1934, to include bump stocks and center fire mags over 10 rounds?
or, do nothing at the federal level and let each state determine what level of gun control is best for them?
This is the first time I have ever agreed with Ed Good. Bump Stocks and any other parts that make a semi auto firearm simulate full auto should be considered NFA (National Firearms Act) items & require the same background check & tax stamp as full auto weapons.
It is clear to me that some changes are going to happen re. firearms laws given the political climate & or public opinion. Now is the time for the NRA & other organizations to be working to negotiate with support for reasonable changes such as NFA status for the bump stocks & extreme high capacity magazines in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity, removal of sound suppressors from NFA status & other items.
I agree that banning or putting bump stocks & extreme high capacity magazines under NFA classification won't make a major difference in mass shootings but it's most likely to happen anyway so we might as well try to get some useful legislation passed along with it. I would hope magazine capacity could be kept @ around 20 rounds as 10 rounds would outlaw lots of popular handguns.
Brittany Man, did you know that Johnathan Browning converted an 1873 Winchester lever action rifle to fire full auto at a cyclic rate of about 600 rounds per minute? He did it in the late 1800's with a very simple mechanism.
Do you seriously think that Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer will be willing to negotiate with us and give concealed carry reciprocity or silencers in exchange for bump stocks and magazines over 20 rounds capacity?
It is more frightening to me to see men offering to give up little pieces of their freedoms than it is to think I may be shot by a mass murderer. 80 times as many people died in Chicago during Obama's reign, and the Liberal Left Democrats did absolutely nothing to stop gangbangers. Obama actually granted pardons to drug dealers and put them back on the streets.
well, how about amending the federal firearms act of 1934, to include bump stocks and center fire mags over 10 rounds?
or, do nothing at the federal level and let each state determine what level of gun control is best for them?
This is the first time I have ever agreed with Ed Good. Bump Stocks and any other parts that make a semi auto firearm simulate full auto should be considered NFA (National Firearms Act) items & require the same background check & tax stamp as full auto weapons.
It is clear to me that some changes are going to happen re. firearms laws given the political climate & or public opinion. Now is the time for the NRA & other organizations to be working to negotiate with support for reasonable changes such as NFA status for the bump stocks & extreme high capacity magazines in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity, removal of sound suppressors from NFA status & other items.
I agree that banning or putting bump stocks & extreme high capacity magazines under NFA classification won't make a major difference in mass shootings but it's most likely to happen anyway so we might as well try to get some useful legislation passed along with it. I would hope magazine capacity could be kept @ around 20 rounds as 10 rounds would outlaw lots of popular handguns.
Bullshit. Plenty of gun laws already in place, most of them pretty worthless. Wackos are sneaky. JR
Also, the NFA of 1934 did not ban us from the possession of silencers or machine guns. It placed a $200 tax on them along with a background check.
The Las Vegas shooter was a multi-millionaire who easily passed numerous background checks, and could easily afford the NFA tax on restricted items. Ed Good's ideas are just as foolish as always.
Originally Posted By: ed good
guess no body here has the balls to answer my question:
disarm...seems to work for the rest of the civilized world...
Things have been a little constipated in those hallowed legislative halls recently. If something bipartisan makes it to anyone's desk for signing, I'd be curious if it was an opportune mechanism to attach a bunch of sorely missed pork. I wonder how loosely principals are bound to election cycles.
does the second amendment prohibit state and local governments from regulating the keeping of arms by the people?
i believe it does not...what say you?
Originally Posted By: ed good
as for the gun control issue...we are the only country in the world that seems to tolerate mass murder, in the name of an individual right...its about time that we as a society realize that we are over gunned with too many super dangerous weapons in the hands of too many super dangerous people... it is long past time to do as the rest of the civilized world has done and simply, disarm...
lets just ignore it an have an adult conversation...
What's a diskeet? Is it a juvenile attempt at humor? Personally, I make enough of it that I don't have to pay for crap, but adults could, if they wanted to, have a conversation about his facts.
Here's another little fact for you to remember when you are tempted to let the Liberal Left Democrats chip away at your Constitutional Gun Rights.
64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016, and the number keeps increasing. That's over 1230 people every damn week. Yet these Liberal Left anti-gunners absolutely don't want a border wall on the U.S.-Mexican Border that would stem the flow of illegal narcotics and save more lives every week than these random shooting sprees take every couple years.
It isn't about saving lives. It's all about chipping away at the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens until there is nothing left to give up. Wake up. And call your Congressmen and Senators. Join the NRA. Free men don't just give up the rights that tens of thousands died to preserve for us.
[quote=keith]"Also, the NFA of 1934 did not ban us from the possession of silencers or machine guns. It placed a $200 tax on them along with a background check.
The Las Vegas shooter was a multi-millionaire who easily passed numerous background checks, and could easily afford the NFA tax on restricted items. Ed Good's ideas are just as foolish as always."
Nowhere was it stated or implied that the NFA act of 1934 banned anything but if you do care about bump stocks & 60 round + magazines you had better hope that such items get put under NFA as opposed to being banned completely.
It's dammed hard to make the argument that modifications that (in the uninformed's mind), effectively turn a semi auto firearm into a full auto firearm shouldn't be be put into the same legal category as full auto firearms.
This "not give an inch" policy of the NRA & others is unrealistic & it is going to cost us all dearly in the long run.
I've been an NRA member since the early 60's & will continue to be a member but sometimes they fight the wrong battles & forget that winning the war is what is really important.
it also could be about living our lives, without fear of a maniac with the means to commit mass murder...
course there is the fertilizer bomb of the power of the one used to kill and maim hundreds of people in ok city a while ago...how does one guard against dat?
So should we ban any type of firearm that in the past been used for mass murder ? That would include more than a bump stock. What don't some morons understand - lay a gun on the table and see if it jumps up on it's own and starts shooting people. It's about personal responsibility , not an object. Over in Paris a truck was used. Where was Ed wanting trucks banned ?
Brittany Man, if you are concerned about what the Liberal Left is doing to persuade "uninformed minds", you might fight back by informing people that we already have thousands of firearms laws that are ineffective when people are being prescribed extremely dangerous psychiatric drugs that are known to have this suicidal/homicidal side effect.
You could inform them that there have been many other mass killings that killed as many, or more people, but didn't involve a firearm. Did you see the carnage in Belgium when a truck was ran into a crowded street. What would happen if a Semi-Truck had been ran into the same crowd in Las Vegas? Did you bother to look into the 1990 killing of 87 people at the Happyland Dance Club which used less than $1.00 of gasoline as the murder weapon? Many in the Liberal Media are lying to us and saying this is the worst mass murder in modern U.S. History when that simply isn't true. Do you recall the Beltway D.C. Sniper killings where the killers fired single rounds over a period of weeks? No bump stocks or large cap mags were needed.
And how about those drug overdose numbers and the Democrats staunch refusal to fund a border wall? Someone you know and love is much more likely to be affected by the illegal drugs coming from Mexico than they are to be shot by one of these psychopathic killers fueled by anti-depressant drugs. They are also much more likely to be murdered by someone let out of prison on parole by bleeding heart Liberals who think we incarcerate too many violent criminals.
If you have been an NRA member since the 1960's, you ought to remember what happened when the NRA gave in to the anti-gunners in 1968.
brittany: restricting certain classes of firearms is not a perfect solution to the problem of limiting access to certain firearms that can be used to commit mass murder...in the case of the vegas shooter, certainly he could easily have afforded the annual nfa tax...however, one does wonder if he could have repeatedly passed the annual nfa background check...
harm: the nfa of 1934 does not ban certain classes of firearms...it does discourage and restrict their possession by the general public...
one could conclude that since 1935, this effort to restrict and discourage the private possession of certain classed of firearms has been the reason why no nfa restricted firearms have been used to commit mass murder...
OK anti-gunner Ed, so how many people could he have killed in the same manner without bump stocks and large cap magazines that jammed? How many could he have killed by simply buying a Tractor Trailer and running that into a crowd of thousands?
Originally Posted By: ed good
if society, via our law makers, deem it necessary to restrict or prohibit our possession of certain classes of arms, then every good citizen should obey the law for the good of the majority.
and if some here wish to discuss further restriction and prohibition of certain classes of arms here, then why not?
You never told us why you haven't given up your guns Ed. Many people are afraid of all guns. Don't you think they have the right to not live in fear of an irrational clown like you?
"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns."
OK, THE ANSWER Become a God fearing, gun toting nation once again We kicked God out of schools, we kicked God out of government We kicked God out of the nation, when the Light leaves, darkness will enter
Ed, I didn't say any firearm was banned, I ask if that's what you wanted. I already know about the tax stamp for full autos and suppressers. Only you make some conclusions. I'm a NRA life member, served in the military during the Vietnam war, and didn't do it to see my 2 Amendment rights taken away piece by piece.
....is it as some have suggested: that tolerating mass murder with firearms, is the price we all pay, to protect our second amendment rights?....
....by now you should have figured out that personal attacks just weaken any argument you might advance...
try rational thought and discussion of alternative ideas....
I wonder if there can be civil discourse about why folks like you are susceptible to sensational ideological headlines? Shouldn't all violent crime be not only illegal, but unacceptable? You can quantify it if you want, the bigger the scoop of illegal, the more unacceptable? Can there be civil discourse about disclosing your true agenda, or does that require overlooking because of some claim to be on the high road?
Random question, would you be concerned if someone you knew had firearms and was suffering from depression ? I realise there are many different levels of depression and other related conditions so wondered if a line should be drawn where a person who may have problems with society or suicidal thoughts should have their permission or right to own guns revoked ? It's not uncommon on this side of the pond for shotgun or firearms cert holders to hand in their guns (maybe into storage by a firearms dealer) or in extreme cases, the police may confiscate them if mental health issues come to light. (There are many other reasons here too but going into all that would just muddy the water and go off topic) Are there any similar conditions in the States ?
Ed, is it a personal attack to call you an idiot when I have repeatedly posted information about the incontrovertible connection between SSRI anti-depressant drugs, and mass homicides... and you simply ignore it and continue to call for law abiding citizens to give up their rights?
Do you ever stop to consider how the Liberal Left Democrats you support continue to exploit these shootings while they totally ignore the carnage and deaths caused by their policies of Parole, Catch-and-Release of illegals, and refusal to build a border wall that would inhibit the flow of illegal narcotics and violent illegal aliens?
They don't care about saving lives, and you know it. They only wish to slowly eliminate the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens, and you are there to help them. I'm not sure why I should answer any more idiotic questions from you when you refuse to answer the questions I pose. And do you think referring to me as "keet" does anything to make you look less idiotic?
And what could be more foolish than rolling over and giving up our freedoms when doing so would be totally ineffective against these shooters and killers who have no criminal history to prevent them from buying guns, gasoline, or tractor trailers, or the box cutters they used to kill almost 3000 souls on 9-11?
nick: since 1968, federal law here prohibits possession of firearms by those who have documented mental issues...law enforcement here do confiscate firearms from those with documented mental issues...
There was something about if a senior citizen had his retirement check [ SS ] deposited in a bank account and the bank paid his bills he was considered mentally unfit and couldn't own a firearm. Someone will correct me if some of what I said was wrong, but you get the gist of it. So, we should allow the same government to decide who has mental health issue's. Oh yea, you bet. That would open up a whole new worm hole.
Yes Paul, the Obama administration took away the firearms ownership rights of senior citizens who gave power-of-attorney for children, etc. to handle their financial matters. The rules were finalized just before Christmas 2016. And they also wanted to strip away the rights of ex-soldiers who were diagnosed with PTSD after serving combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But we don't see either of those groups involved in mass shootings. Meanwhile, Liberal democrats do not wish to profile Muslim extremists or do anything about anti-depressant medications with deadly suicidal/homicidal side effects, and they don't wish to take the most common-sense measures to stem the flow of illegal narcotics and criminal illegal alien gangbangers into the U.S. from Mexico.
keet: are you now suggesting that those being treated with anti-depressant medication be denied their second amendment rights?
and what are the common-sense measures to stem the flow of illegal narcotics and criminal illegal alien gangbangers into the U.S. from Mexico that liberals oppose?
keet: are you now suggesting that those being treated with anti-depressant medication be denied their second amendment rights?
Where did you ever see me say such a thing Ed? I am saying that these drugs cause obvious and deadly side effects, and it may be time to remove them from the marketplace. We sure don't seem to be any better off with them as compared to the time before they were introduced and over-prescribed in the late 1980's.
But I can understand how a mental defective such as you could easily misinterpret what I post here. I repeated the common sense measure of a border wall to stem the flow of illegal narcotics and dangerous illegal alien gangbangers several times. Just how thick is your skull Ed? If there is anyone in this country that is too mentally deficient to own guns, it is you Ed. Now how about answering my other questions about the non-gun methods used by mass murderers, and how giving up our gun rights would stop them?
If you have been an NRA member since the 1960's, you ought to remember what happened when the NRA gave in to the anti-gunners in 1968.
I was a NRA member in 1968 & I think the NRA prevented the the GCA 1968 from being worse than it was & to their credit they worked hard for years to get some of the more onerous provisions of the GCA of 1968 overturned.
A repeat of the 1968 GCA or something worse is what I'm concerned about. Most time you have to give something to get something & I don't think we would be giving up much by putting "bump stocks" & similar devices & magazines with capacity close to those of belt fed weapons under NFA rules in exchange for National concealed carry reciprocity, removing sound suppressors from NFA status & gaining a little credibility with the non shooting voters.
National concealed carry reciprocity is going to be a tough one but you have to start somewhere.
Also, you are "preaching to the choir" on the drug issue (legal & otherwise). That & prohibition are good examples of why making things illegal doesn't solve the problem but you also have to remember that to many people "perception is reality" so sometimes you have to give up some things that don't really matter to keep them happy & get the important things done.
....once again, i ax, tell us your solutions to our growing problem of mass murder via firearms?
Crunch the numbers ed. More people more problems, nothing a little planned parenthood couldn't fix, eh? My proactive solution would be a minimum, skin in the game, income tax that fluctuates based on unforeseen circumstances. Maybe then, neighbors and communities would get back in the business of cleaning up their own garbage, because they don't want to pay for terrible results and lip service.
brittany: the stars are aligning now as they did in the sixties, when leaders such as the kennedy brothers, ml king and george wallace were all shot because of their political agendas...the gun control act of 1968 was the federal governments knee jerk reaction...
good news is, that so long as pro gun politicians control congress and the white house, we will not see another draconian federal gun control law...
Brittany Man, the NRA essentially rolled over and did next to nothing to stop the onerous restrictions placed upon law abiding gun owners in 1968. Their almost complete inaction is what led to the 1977 Cincinnatti Reforms led by Harlon Carter that transformed the NRA into the staunch defender of Gun Rights that it is today.
It took many years and many millions of dollars in donations and dues for the NRA to roll back some of what happened when gun owners allowed anti-gunners to take away our rights. If you think I'm preaching to the choir here, it is because the choir hasn't paid attention to how the anti-gun lobby led by Liberal Left Democrats operates. I was about 9 years old when the GCA of 1968 passed, and first joined the NRA in the early 1970's as a freshman in my high school rifle club. You should know more about what actually happened in 1968 (and 1977) than me.
Do you still seriously think the likes of Chuck Schumer, and Barbara Boxer will give us silencers or suppressors and C.C. national reciprocity in exchange for us giving up bump stocks, large-cap mags, semi-auto assault style rifles, or the national registration scheme they call Universal Background Checks?
If you are seriously concerned about another GCA of 1968 getting shoved down our throats, don't you think you should let your Congressmen and Senators know that you won't tolerate any vote from them that takes away the rights of law abiding citizens? A couple e-mails to them will take no more time than your posts here. I hope anyone who ever thought about joining NRA will do it now. Or you could buy a gift membership for a young shooter in your family. A big jump in NRA membership sent a strong message in 2013. This is not the time to wring your hands and roll over. It is most definitely not the time to suggest incrementally giving up our Constitutional Rights... especially when those measures are agenda driven, and unlikely to save a fraction of the number of lives as some of the things that the Liberal Left totally ignores.
1934, pass a law due to mass killing. (St. Valentine's Day Massacre)
1968 pass a law due to assassinations.
1986 pass a pretty good law but let Charlie Rangel include a poison pill.
2017 pass a bill to ban a plastic buttstock due to mass killing.
Fed.god creates a registry Fed.god closes registry. Entrepreneurs find a legal method to imitate what Fed.god has taken away w/ consultation and input from Fed.god.
Fed.god then says 'That has to go.' Fudds say, 'Well done!"
I was a junior in college in 1968 & well aware of the politics & public mood at the time. Neither the NRA nor anyone else could stop the GCA of 1968. It could have been much worse w/New Jersey type firearms laws for the entire country.
If you are smart you don't fight battles you can't win & you regroup, try to gain public support & prepare for those that you can win.
We will come off very badly in supporting devices that the public perceives as allowing semi auto firearms to mimic full auto firearms just because we won't give an inch.
If you feel that strongly about having something full auto then go through the NFA process. I've got several neighbors that did that.
As far as negotiations, no chance if you don't make the attempt & we have nothing to loose at this point. "Bump stocks" & such just slipped under the rug & should have been under NFA from the get go. They appeal to the spray & pray want to be Rambo mentality that give us all a bad name & the fewer out there the better.
"Bump stocks" & such just slipped under the rug & should have been under NFA from the get go. They appeal to the spray & pray want to be Rambo mentality that give us all a bad name & the fewer out there the better.
OK, THE ANSWER Become a God fearing, gun toting nation once again We kicked God out of schools, we kicked God out of government We kicked God out of the nation, when the Light leaves, darkness will enter
I am an atheist and agree with this. No forcing of religion on anyone, but additionally no forcing religion away from anyone.
A semiautomatic rifle is one that fires one cartridge with one function of the trigger, and extracts/ejects and feeds another cartridge automatically. A fully automatic rifle fires more than one cartridge with a single function of the trigger. If you add a bumpstock to a semiautomatic rifle, it still only fires one cartridge with a single function of the trigger. It moves the rifle forward after the recoil of the previous shot moves it backward. This pushes the trigger into the finger, causing another function of the trigger. It does this much quicker than you can do it yourself. It does not make a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic one. If we don't resist, the left will have prohibited semiautomatic rifles for the first time , since the 90s. The left will no doubt add a provision prohibiting any rifle( or shotgun or pistol) that can be adapted to a "bumpstock". They will sneak it in right before the vote, to keep it out of the debate. If you don't believe it, you haven't been listening to them. Also, they want to expand background checks to include all private sales and gifts. The refuse to enforce the background check laws now. I have witnessed potential customers in a friend's shop, being turned down. I went back in a month later and asked if anyone picked up the 4473, to prosecute the person. He told me not only no, but they never do. Under the 68 GCA, just trying to buy a gun, as a felon, is another felony. Lying on the 4473 is yet another felony, but 2 felonys is not worth the FBI/ATFE's time. When the left claims background checks kept 3,000,000 people from getting a gun, that is not true. They just stole one or bought one from someone that stole it. Mike
....As far as negotiations, no chance if you don't make the attempt & we have nothing to loose at this point. "Bump stocks" & such just slipped under the rug & should have been under NFA from the get go. They appeal to the spray & pray want to be Rambo mentality that give us all a bad name & the fewer out there the better.
You do know that you are referring to a gadget, not a classification of firearm, don't you? Same question as for ed, what would make a 'friend' of sporting arms so susceptible to ideological talking points? As far as the use of such device in this particular crime, are we sure that it was used? Have investigators ruled out some other illegal conversion of a legal firearm. Or, does the 'voice of reason' dictate the those who are against the 2nd always get to choose the conversation? Again, what would make law abiding citizens scramble to help blame the inanimate object, when lefties don't really need the help.
I was a junior in college in 1968 & well aware of the politics & public mood at the time. Neither the NRA nor anyone else could stop the GCA of 1968. It could have been much worse w/New Jersey type firearms laws for the entire country.
I wish I could allow this statement to stand, but it is absolutely incorrect. It is true that there was a tidal wave of support for gun legislation in 1968, after the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, but there was very little opposition from the NRA or the majority of gun owners for that matter. For that reason, and that reason alone, a majority of Congressmen and Senators went along with the most onerous and sweeping anti-gun law since the NFA of 1934. Liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson was only too happy to sign. We didn't begin to gain any of our losses back until well after the NRA transformed itself from a mostly Marksmanship Organization into the world's most powerful Gun Rights Organization. Some of it may never be rolled back.
There were extremely strong headwinds against us again back in 2013 after the Left exploited images of dead children after the Newtown Massacre. Many, such as the anti-gun Liberal Left King Brown said it was a battle we couldn't win, and shouldn't fight. King counseled us to give in to Obama and the anti-gunners on high cap mags and Universal Background Checks, and to attempt to claw back some of what we lost after the nation was done grieving.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
I'd feel better about 2nd protection if our side stopped shooting itself in the foot with the makes-no-difference between 10 and larger magazines, cross-messaging of the worst kind. The antis are saying if the difference is 6-8 seconds what's the problem of excluding the 10-plus?
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind.
That advice was wrong then, and it is just as wrong now. King Brown also attempted on numerous occasions, to LULL us into complacency, saying we would never lose our 2nd Amendment Rights even when he knew a majority had voted to hold hearings on Obama's proposals on the floor of the Senate. Here, and in developed nations all over the world, there is ample evidence that the Liberal Left will never be satisfied with anything you give up... short of total confiscation. While you are suggesting what you consider modest compromise, the Liberal Democrats are openly demanding much more than you would simply give up.
I have provided several ways to both put them on the defensive, and meaningful legislation they could work on that would save many more lives. Do you remember that number of Americans who die each month from drug overdoses? 1230 per week... and they don't give a crap about stopping the flow of drugs from Mexico. If you wish to roll over like a whipped puppy when there are so many ways to fight and retain our freedoms... I guess there is no amount of proof or reason that will change your mind.
Have you given any thought to what other Constitutional Rights you will be willing to give up whenever mentally deranged criminals and terrorists abuse our freedoms? How 'bout free speech, freedom of assembly, illegal search and seizure...? All have come under assault in the name of public safety and saving "just one life."
If we don't resist, the left will have prohibited semiautomatic rifles for the first time , since the 90s. The left will no doubt add a provision prohibiting any rifle( or shotgun or pistol) that can be adapted to a "bumpstock". They will sneak it in right before the vote, to keep it out of the debate. If you don't believe it, you haven't been listening to them.
They have been down this road before. Why was there even a need for the bump stock to be invented?
Is there any reason that a "gadget" the makes a semi auto firearm perform in a similar manner to a full auto firearm can't be placed under the NFA regs & license requirements? Maybe you would prefer they were banned outright?
From the evening news it looks like the NRA is thinking along the same lines & that is a good thing for all of us.
I wish you Rambo types would go off & read your Soldier of Fortune Magazine or better yet enlist in one of the services & then you can play with real full auto stuff!
I wish you Rambo types would go off & read your Soldier of Fortune Magazine or better yet enlist in one of the services & then you can play with real full auto stuff!
I do the majority of my rifle shooting with a flintlock, bolt actions, and lever actions, and do not own any semi-autos with bump stocks. I seldom use my semi-autos, and much prefer single accurate shots to spray and pray. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, and are posting inaccurate information about what actually led to the GCA of 1968.
Now you get all pissed and advise us so-called Rambo types to join the military so we could play with full auto stuff. Why would anyone wish to join the military to preserve our Constitution when people like you are willing to roll over like a whipped puppy and give up those hard-won rights when they come under assault by Liberal Left Democrats?
Brittany Man, I don't read Soldier of Fortune, I read the American Rifleman, Rifle, Handloader, Workshop Machinist, and Machinist Workshop, The American Legion, and DAV magazines. I spent 7years 10 months on active duty( 4 years overseas, incl. 1 in Viet Nam)and enough reserve time to give me over 10 years. Now maybe you can inform us about your service. If all they did was put bump stocks under the NFA; but that is not all, they are already talking about other things. Mike
Let's put pressure on the Feds to start prosecuting the 4473 frauds. It is a crime to lie on your 4473. The evidence is right there. A conviction is a slam dunk. What is going on here? The truth is that the Feds don't care who gets a gun and who doesn't. The FFL dealers must think they are dealing with idiots. They are dealing with idiots. The criminals are right in front of them and the 4473 checkers in West Virginia don't give a damn. Why would they? They are working for eight bucks an hour and probably couldn't pass instantcheck themselves. They have to deal drugs to get up to minimum wage. Why do you think the 4473 center is in the panhandle of West Virginia?
Is there any reason that a "gadget" the makes a semi auto firearm perform in a similar manner to a full auto firearm can't be placed under the NFA regs & license requirements?....
...I wish you Rambo types would go off & read your Soldier of Fortune Magazine....
Ouch Brittany Man, nothing like being prejudged, eh. Hurts my feelings.
Of course there's a reason, and it's a very good one. The gadget was vetted by the regulatory agency that oversees such things, and that advice was given to the policy makers in the last administration who acted on it. Please note, the gadget would be arbitrarily placed in a category by an opinionator, not based on fact. You yourself have now down graded the gadget to having similarities.
I'll always choose following a Brittany in the uplands over reading soldier of fortune, and I have absolutely no interest in or desire to possess such gadgets, but allow me to try a different twist on prejudice. You rich and comfortable elites with your fancy high end wing shooting might consider not infringing on Joe averages lawful pursuit of happiness by commingling it with criminal behavior.
You do know what's going to happen don't you. It's not going to be a one gadget and done bill. I hope none of the 'loopholes' or other 'common sense' that they try to grace us with, affect you.
Well Craig a silencer it not a firearm & could be considered a "gadget" & it is considered an NFA device so how is a bump stock different?
DerAmi thank you for your service but re. what you support & what you don't support should be selected on individual basis. If it walks & quacks like a duck most people will consider it a duck & most people will not differentiate between a semi auto w/a bump stock & a full auto (most nongun people don't differentiate between semi & full auto either) so if a full auto is NFA so should be a bump stock. As gun owners we are in war for survival of basic rights, we are in the minority & image is everything so choose what you want to support & oppose very carefully.
And to the rest, if you sound like a Rambo want to be that is what I'll consider you until you prove differently. As far as I know there is no sporting or competition purpose for a "bump stock" & it's a poor substitute for a full auto weapon for putting rounds on target so other than use in mass fire into a crowd or making noise playing Rambo why would you want one.
If the anti's have other issues oppose them on an individual basis.
I wish you Rambo types would go off & read your Soldier of Fortune Magazine or better yet enlist in one of the services & then you can play with real full auto stuff!
I wish you folks wouldn't take a dump on other gunowners to preserve your little corner of gun ownership for a bit longer.
Judging from some of the replies it's apparent that some here agree with Obamas justice department when they let the bump stock slip through a loop hole in the 1934 law...
Only motive is the guy was sick in the head....a devil in his head.
Why speculate on his weapon choice it's already been brought out that the shooter was not that gun savvy....
I'd rather give up my right to own a bump fire stock and over standard capacity magazines than I would my right to own an AR 15 with standard issue magazines.
Speculation isn't helpful. You do not understand what goes on in the mind of a sociopath. Eliminating bump fire stocks isn't going to solve anything.
Only motive is the guy was sick in the head....a devil in his head.
Why speculate on his weapon choice it's already been brought out that the shooter was not that gun savvy....
I'd rather give up my right to own a bump fire stock and over standard capacity magazines than I would my right to own an AR 15 with standard issue magazines.
Speculation isn't helpful. You do not understand what goes on in the mind of a sociopath. Eliminating bump fire stocks isn't going to solve anything.
Judging from some of the replies it's apparent that some here agree with Obamas justice department when they let the bump stock slip through a loop hole in the 1934 law...
History of firearms innovation and law isn't your strong suit.
There is no loophole. ATF definition of a MG is per the NFA of '34. Ie., the federal government owns the legal definition.
The Akins Accelerator was ruled a MG b/c it incorporated a spring. The spring was determined to be the "automatic action" feature (Perlmutter letter). The Slide-Fire stock and Hell-Fire trigger devices do not incorporate a spring, so are not MGs per ATF. This information, and the ATF letters, are searchable.
You can bump fire about any semiauto by matching the elastic characteristics of the trigger mechanism to........a shoestring.....a rubber band......or some practiced hand position. ATF are well aware of this fact. Type "ATF shoestring letter" into your search engine if you think I'm kidding. Certain devices make the process simpler to execute in quasi-seamless fashion.
You can’t regulate what goes on between someone’s ears. Many governments have tried. Our constitution does just the opposite.
No law will provide absolute assurance a mass murder won’t happen. Any person of average intelligence can come up with more ways to kill than the government can come up with laws. A person bent on killing, without regard to his own life, is more than likely to succeed.
NFA didn’t stop those two in North Hollywood from buying the parts and modifying their SKS rifles to full auto.
Bump stocks just replicate what happens when you hold a semiautomatic rifle loosely. Wait til someone demonstrates that On national tv.
jOe's suggestion (and the NRA's position) is actually pretty reasonable.
Until you consider that it's just a way-station on the way to a total removal of guns from private hands. No accommodation is enough. If it were, I'd be all for it. But those people will never give up until all guns are in the hands of the government. Not a happy thought.
I don't know what the problem is, the ATF granted these stocks under Obama because of the disability guidelines in the regulation, so they can simply reverse their decision on that regulation, interpretation of the regulation and NOT interpretation of the law, and say no.
I don't know what the problem is, the ATF granted these stocks under Obama because of the disability guidelines in the regulation, so they can simply reverse their decision on that regulation, interpretation of the regulation and NOT interpretation of the law, and say no.
Where was this thought last week. There are some reports that the violent criminal attempted to purchase tracer rounds and book a hotel room overlooking Fenway ball park. Since a ban would've prevented this, now's the time to call for a ban on tracer ammo and staying at some hotels in Boston. Isn't it?
The clarity is so obvious, the killer's motive was the bump stock. Knee jerk is not always a virtue. If we take a moment to think this through and be proactive, maybe some plywood on all windows overlooking venues or a ban on all guns will prevent the next shooting.
I guess the hardest thing for me to understand whenever we have one of these Gun Rights discussions is the idea that any man would willingly and knowingly negotiate or give up his rights and freedoms. The very idea of giving up a little bit here or there is absolutely ignorant, irresponsible, and borne of cowardice and fear.
I say this because there is ample evidence that giving up on any of our Gun Rights only leads to the anti-gunners coming back for more and more. When dealing with people like that, RIGIDITY is the only logical path. To read the posts by you Brittany Man, one would think that the only thing they're (the Anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats) really coming after is the bump stocks that neither you or I own. Nothing could be further from the truth. As noted, bump stocks could be regulated by the ATF without any legislation. Blaming Republicans and gun owners for that is just grandstanding. Perhaps the biggest prize they want once again is their so-called Universal Background Checks... even though this shooter sailed through literally dozens of them. This is because Universal Background Checks are nothing more than the National Gun Registry that will make confiscation of entire classes of arms much easier.
And yes, they are calling for absolute bans on large cap mags and semi-automatics too. That may seem reasonable to you too Brittany Man... until they come back later for handguns, pumps, and then your precious doubles. I know you think it won't ever happen, but in many circles, they are already openly calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you think that a few concessions now will keep them at bay at least for your lifetime. That is just so selfish and cowardly, knowing that you are helping them on the path to take it all away from generations to come.
That behavior is understandable coming from Ed. Everyone knows Ed is a low I.Q. anti-gun idiot. What's your excuse?
Who needs an anti gunner when friends of sporting guns are so eager to help. What's always interesting to me, is that the sentiments rise and fall based on the anti's schedule and agenda. During slow 'news' cycles, apathy. How can you tell if a conviction is being turned on and off based on the direction of the wind, or if it really wasn't there in the first place?
I loose no sleep worrying about additional gun controls. Of the 300,000,000+, (300million), guns in the US 40% at a minimum are in possession to someone other than their original regerstered purchaser. Private sales don't get reported so the trail ends with the first private sale until it goes through a FFL dealer at a later date. So let's call it 120 million guns with zero accurately recorded paper trail. If they passed total gun confiscation those guns will never all be collected. On top of that there are still a decent number of guns never on a FFL form because they were sold before 1968.
Then there are the number of gun owners who will refuse any attempt to have their guns confiscated by the government. Call them one to two million. How are you going to jail that many people? You can't. Worse if you started you would find those left would become almost impossible to deal with.
The only thing this entire mess will do is stir up those people who already refuse to accept facts. Guns are out there, you can't get them all and to try to do it any way is not going to work. What it will do is allow both parties to raise, spend and waste an enormous amount of money. Face facts. We can't stop illegal immigrantion, can't stop illegal drugs and they can't stop people from owning guns. Just not going to happen, ever. What I do worry about are th backdoor controls like ammo taxes or limits on the number of rounds of ammo allowed in a personal home. Guns without ammo are just fancy tomato stakes.
I guess the hardest thing for me to understand whenever we have one of these Gun Rights discussions is the idea that any man would willingly and knowingly negotiate or give up his rights and freedoms. The very idea of giving up a little bit here or there is absolutely ignorant, irresponsible, and borne of cowardice and fear.
I say this because there is ample evidence that giving up on any of our Gun Rights only leads to the anti-gunners coming back for more and more. When dealing with people like that, RIGIDITY is the only logical path. To read the posts by you Brittany Man, one would think that the only thing they're (the Anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats) really coming after is the bump stocks that neither you or I own. Nothing could be further from the truth. As noted, bump stocks could be regulated by the ATF without any legislation. Blaming Republicans and gun owners for that is just grandstanding. Perhaps the biggest prize they want once again is their so-called Universal Background Checks... even though this shooter sailed through literally dozens of them. This is because Universal Background Checks are nothing more than the National Gun Registry that will make confiscation of entire classes of arms much easier.
And yes, they are calling for absolute bans on large cap mags and semi-automatics too. That may seem reasonable to you too Brittany Man... until they come back later for handguns, pumps, and then your precious doubles. I know you think it won't ever happen, but in many circles, they are already openly calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you think that a few concessions now will keep them at bay at least for your lifetime. That is just so selfish and cowardly, knowing that you are helping them on the path to take it all away from generations to come.
What else did they 'want' in '34? Pistols and revolvers. They will never stop.
Quote:
After the initial hearing on H.R. 9066, a modified version of the NFA was proposed in June of 1934, H.B. 9741. This is the bill that was ultimately passed and enacted as the National Firearms Act. Representative Robert Lee Doughton, a Democrat from North Carolina, introduced this bill. It passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Roosevelt all in the same month. It was, as suggested in the final hearing by Rep. Doughton, a law that was supposed to no longer put the citizenry at the “mercy of the gangsters, racketeers, and professional criminals.”
The initial NFA bill, H.R. 9066, defined “firearm” as “a pistol, revolver, shotgun having a barrel less than 16 inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun.”
Clearly, H.R. 9066’s focus on pistols and revolvers was nothing new to Congress. But to date, the prior bills had failed. The NRA and other opponents to the bill ultimately relented by accepting the tax on and registration of firearms, if pistols and revolvers were removed from the bill’s mandates. The compromised, restrictive NFA that gun owners live with today does very little, if anything, to deter crime, fails miserably as a revenue raiser, and costs Americans millions of dollars annually to implement.
KY Jon, don't be too sure of your conjecture. The antis play the long game and time is on their side. Every inch you give up brings them closer to their goal. And it's damn hard to gain back something you gave up, once you realize your mistake.
Exactly James! Here's what the "Long Game" looks like in Australia.
People might not comply with the law, but they will become instant criminals if they don't, and they sure as hell won't be able to use and enjoy what gets banned. As Utah Shotgunner points out, the attempts by the Democrats to go much further in the name of public safety goes back over 80 years, and has only gotten worse despite the fact that the things they actually did get passed didn't accomplish anything except to make firearms ownership more difficult and more expensive for law abiding citizens. Under the most optimistic scenario, even a total ban on firearms with 100% compliance would only make mentally ill homicidal maniacs turn to other weapons such as Tractor Trailers, bombs, gasoline, poisons, chemicals, crop dusters with biologicals, propane tanks, etc.
A vote or support for almost all Liberal Left Democrats is nothing more than support for anti-2nd Amendment legislation. In the midst of the so-called "Big Tent" of gun owners is a rotten minority core that is like a deadly cancer that is helping the anti-gunners to achieve their ultimate goal.
it is not about making America safer. It is the Marxist/Democrat goal of all-powerful government unimpeded by the public and the God given rights listed in the U.S. Constitution. I have absolutely no respect for any current Democrat (there no longer being any conservative Democrats). I don't want to see them or listen to them or be around them. I never want one as a friend. I consider them un-American, Godless heathens. I consider them proponents of unnatural acts and the harbingers of filth and cultural and societal failure.
The Vegas killer could have just as easily slammed a semi into all those victims as to kill them with gunfire. Gun control isn't the answer. Look at the U.K. Gun control recently cost them imho, where the unarmed police had to wait on a SWAT team before they could do a damned thing....that's gun control at the epitome where they disarm the police. We do NOT want that or any semblance of more gun control here. Because we have a few nut cases here is no reason to render impotent the best of society, the law abiding citizen.
