Now that one I’d accept. Suppressors have been unfairly demonized, and serve a useful purpose. Allowing them while getting rid of bump stocks is a win-win, as far as I’m concerned.
Well, so far, just the “worst mass shooting in modern American history”, but when you look at how many have been sold since that, it’s a damn good bet that the next guy to try this will be using them. Up until now, they’ve been a novelty item that only hard core gun enthusiasts even knew existed. Now, everyone knows they exist, including the next loser who decides to shoot the shit out of some public gathering.
No argument here. I suspect the problem is, the people who want to keep drugs illegal have a large overlap with those who want to keep guns and all the related paraphernalia legal, so there’s no trade-offs to be made.
Let’s hope the Teapublicans are listening to your sage wisdom.
For the same reason that any other type of gun control is proposed. It is a meaningless “solution” that makes half the left “feel” as if they have done something about the problem. The other half know it will do nothing and will use a later shooting as a justification to close the “loophole” in the earlier failed law.
I personally think that bump stocks are ridiculous items and would not own one. But I would never support, not just a gun control measure but any law, which is passed solely for a transparent purpose.
This evil asshole in LV had the means to purchase fully legal NFA weapons he could have used. We would be talking about banning those if he had.
I think the perfect solution to the issue is instead of outlawing bump stocks, we should outlaw hotel room windows, or at minimum make it illegal to shoot people out of hotel windows.
I am a strong gun rights supporter and have probably shot more types of guns than anyone on this board. My father was a firearms dealer and we owned hundreds over the years including true machine guns with silencers.
I support the severe restrictions on machine guns and I would support a new restriction on bump stocks. There is no practical purpose to either one of them. I don’t want either in the hands of the general public. They are just spray and pray weapons. I realize that the Las Vegas shooter was smart enough to do anything he wanted regardless of the law but this is a separate issue.
I am a huge advocate of gun safety and bump stocks run completely contrary to that whole idea. Banning them won’t stop a determined killer shooting from a building or criminals but it will stop someone from accidentally killing a family member just because they think they have a cool new toy.
The NRA was wise to be among the first to come out against them. Even with the 2nd Amendment, there is no way to defend that loophole. Bump stocks operate effectively as machine guns and have no use other than recreation or mass murder. The general public is already woefully ignorant about the difference between semi-automatic firearms and true machine guns. Having a hacked category in the middle doesn’t help matters.
And you’re a good example of the opposite side of the Strawman Divide. Post 124 in the thread, and you just respond to the OP, ignoring all the posts that have expressed good reasons for banning these devices, in favour of responding to some fantasy version of the argument.
:rolleyes:
Yes, you’ve now mentioned several times how positive a development it is, in a thread you started solely to express how pleased you are by it. Please, try to contain your exuberance.
If they’re so easy to make, what’s the challenge anyway? A guy with your creative drive should’ve already moved on to popsicle stick mobiles and Play-Doh ashtrays.
You think these arguments are demonstrating that it’s trivial to mod a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle, and thus we shouldn’t bother trying to illegalize mod methods.
I hear your arguments and I hear you arguing that there’s no material difference between semiautomatic rifles and fully automatic rifles, and thus semiautomatic rifles should be recognized as being what they are and the full restrictions on fully automatic rifles should be applied to them.
What, in your mind, is the difference between a piece of string that makes a semiautomatic firearm into an automatic firearm, and a couple pieces of metal that make a semiautomatic firearm into an automatic firearm? How about a piece of plastic that does the same thing? Or a sponge? Or some unobtainium?
It seems you think certain materials should be allowed to make guns into machine guns, so I’m curious which materials you think should be allowed to do this, and which ones shouldn’t.
Why is the mechanism being a shoelace make the idea of a mechanical process of rapid-fire, i.e. a mechanical gun or if you prefer, a machine gun, inherently silly? An actual machine gun uses a perfectly banal triggering mechanism for its function, but if I held up a metal sear and pointed out that it was just a small bit of metal and isn’t it silly that people say this is what makes a machine gun, herp-derp-derp…
I admit it would just be better to make the legal distinction not between “gun” and “machine gun”, but “gun” and “gun that fires at a rate above some acceptable limit”, i.e. 5 rounds per second. Similarly, there’s no point making a legal distinction between “car” and “sports car”, just pull over anyone who is driving over the speed limit.
As is typical with people trying to make such decisions sound stupid, you ignore significant parts of that letter that renders it not, actually, stupid.
“any part designed and intended solely and exclusively … for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun…”
“designed”, “intended”, “solely” and “exclusively” all have legal weight in that statement, and cannot simply be ignored. A shoelace used in your shoe would not fall afoul of this ruling, no matter how often some idiot on the internet claims it would.
They would need to prove that you designed it (that is, made the loops and attached the ring needed) for this use, that you intended to use it in that manner, and that there was no other use for that configuration. That’s actually a pretty high barrier. For example, I could see the exact same piece of string with a ring on it being used as an extension for a pull-cord to turn on an overhead light. If you have such a light in your house or garage, it would be trivial to show that you intended it for that use.
Reading the comments there, based on how it operates, the specific length is also important. To long or too short would both render the device inoperative. And it would seem that the length would be dependent on the dimensions of the gun in question. The proper length for one gun would likely be inoperative on another.
There are now two bills in Congress that are intended to ban bump fire stock type items. HR3999 from Curbelo and a similar bill from Feinstein.
The first one from Curbelo says:
The second bill from Feinstein one says:
Both of these are terrible. First, it’s patently ridiculous to outright ban bump fire stocks when actual machine guns are legal. In most states, you can pay enough, go through the background checks and forms, and acquire an actual machine gun. These bills would make the legal owner of a machine gun a criminal for possessing a bump fire stock.
Second, the language in the bills are overly vague. There are a lot of things that can increase the rate of fire without converting the firearm into a machine gun, and also do not simulate anything resembling a machine gun. For example, a lower trigger pull weight, a lighter bolt carrier, buffer springs, etc. There is no description about the magnitude of the increase in rate of fire required to trigger this law and as a result invites creative interpretation. If a lighter bolt carrier allows the firearm to be ready to fire in .001 seconds faster than a standard bolt carrier, that could trigger this law.
There are currently 10 Republican co-sponsors of the Curbelo bill, of which 7 have an A rating from the NRA. I’m thinking now that the NRA has come out against both these bills those sponsorships may fall by the wayside.
