Gun controllers want new laws that they can word vaguely enough to allow arbitrary interpretations so that new, more restrictive regulations can be placed on accessories, manufacturers, and owners. They've proposed a bill that would outlaw bump stocks, but could also be interpreted to regulate magazines, aftermarket triggers, buffer tubes, springs, bolt carriers, forward grips, forward vertical grips, and just about anything else.
The NRA is throwing bump stocks under the bus, but they are trying to throw the BATFE under it, too. They are pointing out that BATFE likely failed in its analysis and regulation of the bump stock, and that no further legislation is necessary because they should have been subject to regulation in the first place.
There are different methods to bump fire a semiautomatic rifle, all of which require some special technique to hold and work the gun, most of which require practice, and none of which are particularly reliable or accurate.
The bump stock is a device which makes it easy and reliable to bump fire a weapon with some accuracy. It was designed and marketed to circumvent the onerous regulation of fully automatic weapons. It effectively allows fully automatic fire by changing the action by which the firing mechanism is activated. It "simulates" or "approximates" full auto and bypasses any licensing, tax stamps, or background checks associated with the full auto registry and regulation.
Applying direct and intentional force to the trigger (trigger pull) is no longer the action by which the shooter activates the firing mechanism. The trigger finger is kept pressed against a block. The forward hand applies the forward force that brings the trigger against the waiting trigger finger. The forward stock or grip of the gun essentially becomes the "trigger" and the gun will then fire automatically while the shooter applies that forward force.
This should be pinned directly on the BATFE and on the bump stock manufacturers. I am not sure that BATFE didn't disallow it just so that they could wait for it to become an issue and then push for more power. The bump stock manufacturers made a product that we all know was to circumvent regulation and thumb their nose at the regulatory agency. Now, because they saw a potential their own gain, unrelated gun owners, arms manufacturers, and other accessory manufacturers are put in immediate legislative peril.
We can choose to die on this hill, and we'll lose 20-30 years of progress.
Look where we are. Victories on suppressors and CCW reciprocity were looking increasingly likely. After that, possibly the opening the full auto registry, maybe eventual repeal. Are we ready to lose all of it, because someone thumbed their nose at the law? We've put so much time, money, effort, votes, and discussion into working in the courts, working in statehouses, and changing the culture. Do we want to lose it all because someone decided to show how clever they could be and circumvent the law? Hell, given several years and another justice or two in the same vein as Gorsuch, we wouldn't have to worry about bump stocks, because we would have cracked open the full auto registry.
Wrong. I see the dangers of your preemptive surrender appeasement strategy. Your too-clever-half NRA/GRPC set is using arguments against bump stocks that have been and will be used for other gun controls like high capacity detachable magazines, limits on ammunition purchase and ownership, and limits on gun purchases and ownership. You are advancing the enemy's arguments and ignoring our own case. If you're not getting paid by Soros and Bloomberg, you're selling yourself short
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
While making the enemy's argument on bump stocks, the NRA, their "prag" fans, and Bloomberg-Soros shills suppress, evade & divert attention from the basic case against "gun free" zones, an argument that is very relevant here.
Mandalay Bay is a "gun free" zone. Civilian carry might not have helped on the ground level outside, but it might well have helped in the hotel. For starters, security guard Jesus Campos was the first person shot, in the leg through the door. Assuming Campos wasn't an accomplice, how many might still be alive had he been allowed to carry and return fire, maybe hitting the shooter(s), at least disrupting/suppressing? How many Nevada CCWs were in the hotel, nearby, who couldn't legally carry and were therefore unable to help, provide suppressive fire, even disable or dispatch the shooter(s). How many out of state CCWs were in the hotel, nearby, including off-duty cops? Why did it take 17-18 minutes for the police to even get to the 32nd floor let alone another hour to get into the room?
All this highlights a key principle, that police carry is no substitute for civilian carry. The only person who can always be there with you, armed to defend you, is you. When seconds count the police are minutes, even hours away. Dial 911 & die. In this case, the police were there to count bodies. They had no beneficial reduction of the death toll. This is no slur on the police. Many loyal American LEOs acknowledge this truth.
But the Vulcan Chessmasters, hysterical sissies, cucks, "prags", appeasers & collaborators of the gun community would rather preemptively surrender than man up, say NO and make OUR case.
You fail to see the strategy or the danger.
ReplyDeleteGun controllers want new laws that they can word vaguely enough to allow arbitrary interpretations so that new, more restrictive regulations can be placed on accessories, manufacturers, and owners. They've proposed a bill that would outlaw bump stocks, but could also be interpreted to regulate magazines, aftermarket triggers, buffer tubes, springs, bolt carriers, forward grips, forward vertical grips, and just about anything else.
The NRA is throwing bump stocks under the bus, but they are trying to throw the BATFE under it, too. They are pointing out that BATFE likely failed in its analysis and regulation of the bump stock, and that no further legislation is necessary because they should have been subject to regulation in the first place.
There are different methods to bump fire a semiautomatic rifle, all of which require some special technique to hold and work the gun, most of which require practice, and none of which are particularly reliable or accurate.
The bump stock is a device which makes it easy and reliable to bump fire a weapon with some accuracy. It was designed and marketed to circumvent the onerous regulation of fully automatic weapons. It effectively allows fully automatic fire by changing the action by which the firing mechanism is activated. It "simulates" or "approximates" full auto and bypasses any licensing, tax stamps, or background checks associated with the full auto registry and regulation.
Applying direct and intentional force to the trigger (trigger pull) is no longer the action by which the shooter activates the firing mechanism. The trigger finger is kept pressed against a block. The forward hand applies the forward force that brings the trigger against the waiting trigger finger. The forward stock or grip of the gun essentially becomes the "trigger" and the gun will then fire automatically while the shooter applies that forward force.
This should be pinned directly on the BATFE and on the bump stock manufacturers. I am not sure that BATFE didn't disallow it just so that they could wait for it to become an issue and then push for more power. The bump stock manufacturers made a product that we all know was to circumvent regulation and thumb their nose at the regulatory agency. Now, because they saw a potential their own gain, unrelated gun owners, arms manufacturers, and other accessory manufacturers are put in immediate legislative peril.
We can choose to die on this hill, and we'll lose 20-30 years of progress.
Look where we are. Victories on suppressors and CCW reciprocity were looking increasingly likely. After that, possibly the opening the full auto registry, maybe eventual repeal. Are we ready to lose all of it, because someone thumbed their nose at the law? We've put so much time, money, effort, votes, and discussion into working in the courts, working in statehouses, and changing the culture. Do we want to lose it all because someone decided to show how clever they could be and circumvent the law? Hell, given several years and another justice or two in the same vein as Gorsuch, we wouldn't have to worry about bump stocks, because we would have cracked open the full auto registry.
Wrong. I see the dangers of your preemptive surrender appeasement strategy. Your too-clever-half NRA/GRPC set is using arguments against bump stocks that have been and will be used for other gun controls like high capacity detachable magazines, limits on ammunition purchase and ownership, and limits on gun purchases and ownership. You are advancing the enemy's arguments and ignoring our own case. If you're not getting paid by Soros and Bloomberg, you're selling yourself short
DeleteDon't tell me what I fail to see. I see you perfectly.
ReplyDeleteIf ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
ReplyDeleteThe low-hanging fruit divide and conquer strategy.
ReplyDeleteWorks every time ... when our side allows it.
While making the enemy's argument on bump stocks, the NRA, their "prag" fans, and Bloomberg-Soros shills suppress, evade & divert attention from the basic case against "gun free" zones, an argument that is very relevant here.
ReplyDeleteMandalay Bay is a "gun free" zone. Civilian carry might not have helped on the ground level outside, but it might well have helped in the hotel. For starters, security guard Jesus Campos was the first person shot, in the leg through the door. Assuming Campos wasn't an accomplice, how many might still be alive had he been allowed to carry and return fire, maybe hitting the shooter(s), at least disrupting/suppressing? How many Nevada CCWs were in the hotel, nearby, who couldn't legally carry and were therefore unable to help, provide suppressive fire, even disable or dispatch the shooter(s). How many out of state CCWs were in the hotel, nearby, including off-duty cops? Why did it take 17-18 minutes for the police to even get to the 32nd floor let alone another hour to get into the room?
All this highlights a key principle, that police carry is no substitute for civilian carry. The only person who can always be there with you, armed to defend you, is you. When seconds count the police are minutes, even hours away. Dial 911 & die. In this case, the police were there to count bodies. They had no beneficial reduction of the death toll. This is no slur on the police. Many loyal American LEOs acknowledge this truth.
But the Vulcan Chessmasters, hysterical sissies, cucks, "prags", appeasers & collaborators of the gun community would rather preemptively surrender than man up, say NO and make OUR case.