NRA supports regulation on 'bump stocks' Update: 02/19/18 Trump reccomends bump stock ban to AG

[Mark Hunts FIST]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41519815

“The N.R.A. believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Here is someone using their belt loop for the same effect.

 

[Scott Parker 27]

So where do I invest in these companies? Time to get rich!

 

[SMEAC]

Wilting under the first sign of pressure and people think the NRA is so far right

 

[bobgeese]

Good.

 

[uncommon]

i dont think the guy used bumpstocks.
only had them in posession.

call it a hunch but reports are the guy wasnt a regular range goer.

bumpstocks are very unreliable, and this guy had no hiccups for ?20 minutes straight?

i dont think a special forces soldier could do that with a bumpstock.

had to be a hard trigger mod.

any concrete info that these were used?

if they were im down with the ban

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I honestly don't care about these. I think they suck.

Also

 

[Terry Noonan]

I mean bump stocks are just circumventing a prior law. Do not care if they are banned. I think banning guns that look scary is dumb, this however is reasonable IMO.

 

[Teppodama]

Eventually we will likely see a real push for limiting all civilian accessible semi-auto firearms to ten round magazines or feed tubes. That'll be handguns, rifles and shotguns.

 

[floivanus]

I mean bump stocks are just circumventing a prior law. Do not care if they are banned. I think banning guns that look scary is dumb, this however is reasonable IMO.

Look above your post... how is that any different?

Also this doesn't just go after bump stocks any afternarket trigger falls convieniently into this legislation

 

[ShoelessRye]

All bullshit deflection to sacrifice a nothing product to pretend something was done and it was the bump stock and not the 43 gun arsenal that the nutter had.

What if he didn't use one of these bump stock gimmicks? Likely same number killed - just different people maybe by the unluck of the bullet path changing. What would NRA look to sacrifice then? It would use it's lobbyists to make sure something else was focused on, something minor and not impact the gun manufacturers bottom line more than a rounding error blip.

Fuck the NRA.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I mean bump stocks are just circumventing a prior law. Do not care if they are banned. I think banning guns that look scary is dumb, this however is reasonable IMO.

The only use for those things is spraying bullets in a mostly inaccurate manner.

I still think if that guy actually sighted in a rifle for 400 yards and did quick but controlled shots the death toll would be a lot higher. Probably a lot less wounded but likely more dead.

 

[deltapapha]

I support this thread. This needed a narrower focus. Honestly I didn't know crap about all this gun stuff. Been learning a lot from you guys.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

All bullshit deflection to sacrifice a nothing product to pretend something was done and it was the bump stock and not the 43 gun arsenal that the nutter had.

What if he didn't use one of these bump stock gimmicks? Likely same number killed - just different people maybe by the unluck of the bullet path changing. What would NRA look to sacrifice then? It would use it's lobbyists to make sure something else was focused on, something minor and not impact the gun manufacturers bottom line more than a rounding error blip.

Fuck the NRA.

Lol the NRA is overwhelming funded by citizens.

It imo doesn't matter how many guns he had. All he needed was 1.

 

[lecter]

NRA = cultural Marxism
confirmed

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Look above your post... how is that any different?

Also this doesn't just go after bump stocks any afternarket trigger falls convieniently into this legislation

Republicans will likely put forth their own bill.

I'm having a tough time finding Dianne Feinstein's bill. Do you know a link? I just get stories talking about it but no real specifics.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Fuck the NRA.

It the strict scrutiny sense Congress has no authority to ban anything that makes a gun more effective. SCOTUS has ruled that firearms useful for a military are protected by the 2nd. Select-fire is utilized by every military. So one could make a case for the banning of bumpstocks based on them being a gimmick and not in common use, but if we're following the law it's of little consequence due to the people's right to own guns with the same capabilities as military and law enforcement.

 

[liljoe]

Fuck the NRA.

It the strict scrutiny sense Congress has no authority to ban anything that makes a gun more effective. SCOTUS has ruled that firearms useful for a military are protected by the 2nd. Select-fire is utilized by every military. So one could make a case for the banning of bumpstocks based on them being a gimmick and not in common use, but if we're following the law it's of little consequence due to the people's right to own guns with the same capabilities as military and law enforcement.

2A never mentions the word guns.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

2A never mentions the word guns.

Your point being?

 

[liljoe]

Your point being?

Leaves room for uncertainty in determining what is or is not allowed

 

[sub_thug]

Leaves room for uncertainty in determining what is or is not allowed

That's already been determined. Explosives, bio/chemical weapons, and nukes are out, guns are in.

Or it could be interpreted that EVERYTHING should be constitutionally protected. Maybe it should. And if people don't like it, then we can amend the Constitution to reflect the changes that we collectively decide on through representative democracy. Right?