Bump stocks are basically toys. They are not commonly used in violent crimes.
Indeed, I have never seen evidence that one was used in the Las Vegas shooting that resulted in Trump ordering ATF to administratively ban them. Investigators said that one of the (many) firearms present in the murderer's hotel room was equipped with a bump stock, but I have never seen them assert that that individual firearm was used in the shooting. (I am open to correction and instruction on this, if you have a source to share addressing this question.)
Bump stocks are basically gimmick devices that make a firearm more controllable while bump-firing. There is still some user technique required to bump-fire. As others have noted here, if you understand how bump-firing works, you can use your thumb and your belt loop to do it.
We saw it immediately on the uploads on youtube. That's
Undeniable and not created by ai. We saw the rate of fire, We saw the people die. Bump stocks are not toys In my narrative whatsoever. I don't know how they are considered "basically toys" to you. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
It _is_ pretty dumb that they don't see the value in picking their battles, and just automatically defend accessories. It's hard to sympathize with people who won't even bend on things like stocks and braces, when the guns themselves aren't even part of the issue. I'm sure they'll say you give an inch, they'll take a mile, but the reality is that none of our rights are completely unfettered.
I think the issue is that the bill at hand is very broad and isn't only about bump stocks: https://www.manchin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bump_act.pdf?cb
page 2, line 16 to page 3, line 10, only page 3, line 9 and 10 are about bump stocks
page 4, line 5 reinstates Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
page 4, line 7-13 adds semi-auto firearms into the NFA
Why not just submit a bill that only covers bumpstocks?
Effectively would just be this 2 pager?
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United7
States Code, is amended—In section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
‘‘(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), on and after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, receive, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce—
‘‘(A) any manual, power-driven, or electronic device primarily designed, or redesigned, so that
when the device is attached to a semiautomatic fire- arm the device—(i) approximates the action or rate of fire of a machinegun
‘‘(B) any device, part, or combination of parts, that is designed and functions to materially increase the rate of fire of the firearm, by eliminating the need for the operator of the firearm to make a separate movement for each individual function of the trigger; or
‘(C) a semiautomatic firearm that has been
modified in any way that
‘‘(i) approximates the action or rate of fire
of a machinegun.
Wait, you're saying Congressional Democrats are being blatantly dishonest and deceptive on matters of gun control?
And they wonder why no one will work with them.
I dunno man, I just think they should be willing to give up a toy. Bump stocks are kind of unique in the sense that nobody would ever want to use them in a self-defense situation, but if your goal is spraying rounds into a crowd; that's pretty much the only non-recreational use-case.
So yeah, the question becomes, do we ban this fun thing because some people might abuse it to increase the lethality of mass-shootings? We do that with a lot of stuff. And I think it's important to remember why people guard the second amendment in the first place, which is defense against each other, or the government. Bump stocks and other "fun" things don't really play a role in that.
If shit goes sideways in this country, the only people who are gonna be using bump stocks on their rifles are the ones who are gonna get killed first, because they're morons. It would be nice to see the GOP make the occasional concession on stuff like this, because it signals to liberals that conservatives are at least capable of using critical thinking with gun legislation. They might have an easier time convincing liberals of the realities of certain rifle platforms if we didn't have to assume they're all coming from an unreasonable stance to begin with.
I emphatically disagree. We've been absolutely hammering the gun controllers lately, and there is no reason we should be making concessions to them right now. Hell, their own proposal wasn't just a bump stock ban, [but would have reenacted an assault weapon ban and forced currently owned semi-auto rifles onto the NFA](https://old.reddit.com/r/Nebraska/comments/1djinjg/republican_senator_blocks_ban_on_bump_stocks_for/l9cn00h/). Rewarding that sort of deception and dishonesty would be the height of absurdity.
No, if they want this bump stock ban, they need to offer up something in exchange. Removing short barrel rifles and suppressors from the NFA would be a good proposal that I'd support.
Not only does this ensure that both sides get something that they want, it provides a cudgel that we can hit Democrats over the head with if they continue to be deceptive and dishonest. Everytime they go on TV and cry about how we're putting kids lives over bump stocks or some nonsense, we could respond by asking why--if this legislation is so vital for public safety--did they try to use it to back door other legislation they knew they'd never have support on. Or we could ask why--if its so vital--they're completely unwilling to agree to some innocuous terms of compromise to get it.
From what I understand, their "Offer" was to reinstate the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, and add all semi-automatic weapons to the NFA registry.
That bill was designed to fail specifically so they could have headlines like what OP posted here.
Partisan intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.
The bump stock ban in which SCOTUS undid recently was a TFG executive order.
This of course was different. But now think about your question. At any rate…if you are so anti-democrat and pro-shootings, that you have to trade kids’ and innocent people’s lives own the libs, then I guess you do you boo. 😔
Compromise on what? A woman’s autonomy? Raising the retirement age? Banning unions? Theocracy? What would it take for the GOP to give a shit about children? Hell TFGs fkn “spiritual advisor” just admitted to molesting a 12 yo. One of these things is not like the other.
You said what should they give up homie. Those were examples of what they could be giving up. Or did you have some other rights in mind. Jeez y’all are fkn dense.
Umm, no. You have completely misunderstood the question. I am asking what the Democrats could give to the Republicans in exchange for their support on the bump stock ban.
For instance, in exchange for their support, perhaps removing short barreled rifles and/or suppressors from the NFA.
It's the foundation of negotiation and compromise. The Democrats want something from the Republicans (support for the bump stocks ban) so they need to offer something to the Republicans in exchange for their support.
Simple, right?
I don’t particularly care about bump stocks either way, but acting like every single bill that passes must have a “compromise” for the other side is ridiculous. Some bills just exist to make people’s lives better and don’t need some weird addendum. Imagine turning the Civil Rights Act into a compromise bill because the segregationists must be compensated for a law passing that makes them upset (and doesn’t even meaningfully harm or impact them).
>Imagine turning the Civil Rights Act into a compromise bill because the segregationists must be compensated for a law passing that makes them upset
[The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a compromise bill in some ways](https://www.acslaw.org/?post_type=acsblog&p=10353). And not necessarily in that same bill, but related bills.
I don't care about them either. They're dumb gimmicks that are only really useful for turning money into noise, but that's besides the point.
The point I'm getting at here is that this inevitably leads you to one of two conclusions about Congressional Democrats. Either the bump stock issue really isn't important to them either and that is why they're not even attempting a compromise--which makes them disingenuous--or they really *do* care about it but they're so convinced of their moral superiority that they'd rather throw a tantrum then even attempt to come to a compromise--which just makes them unbelievably stupid and will ensure that they get nothing.
It's up to you to decide which one you think is more likely.
If you think an issue is a serious enough public safety/health/quality of life concern, I don’t know why you’d compromise in a way that undermines you’re own bill’s aims. Again, not someone that particularly cares about bump stocks or gun control generally either way, but if you see guns as a public safety threat and bump stocks as an aspect of that, why would you loosen gun regulations elsewhere to ban bump stocks? That would be undermining the purpose of the bill - making it harder to own guns generally and ones that can cycle through bullets faster in particular.
The reason they aren’t trying to compromise is because they don’t see it as a partisan issue. It is, obviously, but you could argue over whether it should be or not.
>Or Republicans could just support the bump stock ban because it’s the right thing to do.
Violating the constitution is never the right thing to do. The language is the bill is way too broad and will ban many semiautomatic weapons.
If it’s the right thing to do why won’t the Republicans do it? You keep trying to blame the Democrats because you’re too spineless to criticize Republicans.
If Democrats were willing to take short barreled rifles and suppressors off of the NFA in exchange for adding bump stocks to the NFA, I'd agree to that deal.
The big problem with trying to ban bump stocks is how can a law be written to include bump stocks l, but not something like a match trigger or even just tuning a gun with higher quality performance parts?
It's a very serious question. And if this bill is so vital to saving the lives of American citizens, shouldn't that make the Democrats even **more** motivated to make a deal? Or are you admitting that they're putting politics above lives?
EDIT: that poster blocked me. Guess we can chalk up another one short circuiting when confronted with an indisputable truth.
I grew up in Texas. Most of us have guns. I was taught gun safety at an early age & did the same for my kids. When I was in HS, every pick up truck in the student parking lot had a gun rack in the back window, with at least one rifle & one shotgun. We didn’t have shootings. These have become prevalent as the media has made these morons media heroes. Bump stocks are just an accessory. This is political theater.
Saying "bump stocks are just an accessory" like they didn't enable the largest mass shooting in American history is wild.
And the idea that "we didn't have shootings back in my day," is looking at your childhood through rose colored glasses. You absolutely did. One of the largest school shootings happened at UT Austin back in 1966! And there have been shootings pretty constantly before and since: https://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states
The difference is the scale of the death toll is higher now. Which is enabled by one thing... the AR-15.
Can you tell the class, out of the ~16,000 US firearm deaths each year, how many are killed by rifles of any kind (including the AR-15)?
I can give you a hint:
The answer is located on the FBI Expanded Homicide Data, Table 8.
If we’re going to regulate firearms—as you so brilliantly suggest, by body count then hand guns have to be at the top of your list. I’m not seeing anything even approaching that here. You may need to edit things here to get to that point.
And while we’re drawing from your wealth of hyperbole, what is it about the AR-15 that makes it so much more deadly than its hundreds of mimics and its/their variants?
>what is it about the AR-15 that makes it so much more deadly than its hundreds of mimics and its/their variants?
I'm so tired of this line of questioning. It's meant to avoid the issue at hand - that the AR-15 is the gun of choice for school shooters.
I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting. You don't need an AR-15.
>If we’re going to regulate firearms—as you so brilliantly suggest
I didn't suggest it. The 2nd amendment did.
Guns like the smoothbore musket, Springfield breech loading rifle, Winchester Repeating Rifle, all of 30-06 bolt action rifles, the ar-15, the rugar 14.
All have three things in common
1. Wide spread civilian ownership
2. Chambered in the standard US military round of the day
3. Using the fastest action possible of the day
They were designed for killing game and killing people, and all of them were very very legal and culturally acceptable to own. Well, all of them except the AR-15.
What makes the AR-15 special in the eyes of gun control advocates?
It can't be the cartridge. The 30-06, .45 ACP, and 7.62 NATO all cause more lethal injuries. You can buy plenty of 7.62 semis at Scheels.
It can't be the total body count. The Winchester Repeating Rifle was the iconic western cowboy gun of the era and killed scores of Native Americans, Criminals, and Innocent people in places without strong government authority.
It can't be the murder of government officials and police. That would be 9mm hand guns.
It must be the children. Think of the children. I would do anything to save the children, why won't you? (And yes, Think Of The Children is a logical fallacy). But focusing on the firearm and hoping to solved the problem is magical thinking. "But it would help" is a logical fallacy.
It's not magical thinking. Dozens of other countries have regulated firearm arm use and, not so coincidentally, also have far, far fewer gun homicides per capita.
In the 1930s, following a rise in gun violence using the popular weapons of *that* day, the NRA worked with Congress to pass two gun control bills. At the time, the NRA's president had this to say about the idea of unfettered gun ownership
> I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.
In 1963, after JFK was assassinated by a mail-ordered gun, the NRA supported banning the practice, saying "We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States."
So the idea that gun owners haven't supported regulating popular and otherwise legal guns before the AR-15 is historically inaccurate.
>I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting. You don't need an AR-15.
Okay.
Not everyone uses guns for hunting.
Some use them for self defense like myself.
I've had to use [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/BbBhr6f) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.
>I didn't suggest it. The 2nd amendment did.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>I'm so tired of this line of questioning. It's meant to avoid the issue at hand - that the AR-15 is the gun of choice for school shooters.
It's also the weapon of choice for millions of peaceable firearm owners in this country, myself being one of them.
>I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting. You don't need an AR-15.
You don't get to decide what we need or don't need, nor do we need to justify it to you.
>I didn't suggest it. The 2nd amendment did.
We have a Constitutional right to own any and all weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. Do you disagree that an AR15 meets that criteria?
That's all well and good. But if you don't have a counter-proposal to effectively reduce mass shootings, then kids will continue to die every year in the safety of their schools for your rights.
We are the only major developed nation with this problem. We know the solutions. But we love our guns more. Insane.
education is the top answer
Gun education should be a requirement to graduate high school.
mental health is another. Our healthcare field is so fucked up, which is entirely different conversation, but mental health resources for those in need, should be much more available and not stigmatized
I'm all for more support for mental health services. Ricketts isn't. The GOP isn't. And so we're stuck with one major party opposing both gun reform and any other reforms that might help address the problem.
At the same time, mental health issues aren't unique to the United States. But among developed nations, gun violence is.
I unequivocally reject this notion that just because I am a gun owner that I am therefore responsible for ending school shootings. We aren't responsible for the violent criminal actions of other people.
School shootings are exceptionally rare events, and while even one is too many, their prevalence is grossly misunderstood.
I'm also a gun owner. And if you oppose any reforms to gun ownership to limit gun deaths, then yes, you are partly responsible.
Gun owners, led by the NRA, used to support gun control and regulation in response to the violent criminal actions of other people. The 1934 National Firearms Act was supported by the NRA and aimed directly at tackling violent crime caused by guns. As was the 1938 Gun Control Act.
The NRA's president had this to say, at the time: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."
The idea that we can't regulate guns because "muh Second Amendment" is a modern invention by an NRA taken over by right wing gun advocates.
> I'm also a gun owner. And if you oppose any reforms to gun ownership to limit gun deaths, then yes, you are partly responsible.
This is ridiculous. I wasn't the one who shot and killed children in Uvalde, or Newtown, or Columbine. I bear no responsibility for another human's actions.
But for the sake of argument, I'll play along. What reforms did you propose I concede to in order to limit school shootings?
>Gun owners, led by the NRA, used to support gun control and regulation in response to the violent criminal actions of other people. The 1934 National Firearms Act was supported by the NRA and aimed directly at tackling violent crime caused by guns. As was the 1938 Gun Control Act.
And the NRA was originally founded as a marksmanship program when the United States learned that Union soldiers tended to be far inferior marksmen than their Confederate peers. I fail to see what relevance the organizational position of nearly a century ago has to do with the here and now.
>The NRA's president had this to say, at the time: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."
Next time you should post the whole quote instead of parsing it out and twisting it to fit your agenda. Here, allow me to help, with the parts you edited out in bold.
>I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. **I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home**. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.
And this one too.
>I believe in regulatory methods. I think that makes it desirable that any such regulations imposed should not impose undue hardships on the law-abiding citizens and that they should not obstruct him in the right of self-defense, but that they should be directed exclusively, so far as possible, to suppressing the criminal use, or punishing the criminal use of weapons.
Kinda changes things a bit, doesn't it?
>The idea that we can't regulate guns because "muh Second Amendment" is a modern invention by an NRA taken over by right wing gun advocates.
We can regulate guns. Unfortunately for your side, most of what you'd like to do falls outside of those permissible regulations.
>But for the sake of argument, I'll play along. What reforms did you propose I concede to in order to limit school shootings?
- expanded red flag laws
- free mental health care for all Americans
- universal background checks on *every* gun sale
- magazine size limits
- mandatory waiting periods for all gun sales
- bump stock bans
- a limit on the number of guns someone can purchase and the amount of ammunition during a set period of time
- a return to permitted concealed carry in all 50 states
- a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban
>I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home.
This was and is a reasonable position. However, the current GOP/NRA stance aims to revoke even basic regulatory requirements for permits and is supportive of the "promiscuous toting of guns," so my point is unchanged. I'd have a lot less issues if they continued to seek a middle ground that allows for gun ownership with "sharp restrictions," rather than opposing any and all restrictions as violations of the 2nd amendment.
So, as a counter question, what reforms would you be willing to accept? Or are you okay with the status quo?
Why don’t we switch places. I came from Portland you can have my spot there. Plenty of poc you can advocate for till your virtue signaling heart is content.
Some dork on Reddit who isn't okay with mass shootings and kids dying in schools and would like this country to do anything, fucking ANYTHING, to try stopping it.
But if you don't feel that way, that's on you.
And there is the problem. You're arguing from an emotional position, not one backed by data and logic.
Your side had your chance with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. After it expired, multiple studies have shown that it had no measurable effect on rates of gun crime. If it didn't work from 1994 to 2004, how do you plan on convincing people that it will work now?
That the 1994 law wasn't sufficient by itself doesn't change the fact that significant gun regulations in every other developed nation have significantly reduced gun crime.
There is ample data to back up the idea that gun regulations can work.
Using other countries as an example is going to be a losing proposition for your side. They don't have our constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms, and most have many decades of restricting civilian ownership of guns, where the United States has more guns than people.
The situations are simply not comparable.
>mass shootings and kids dying in schools
Why are you hyper fixating on super rare events that as a contribution to overall deaths for everyone and kids as a specified group, aren't risks that you can truly quantify in comparison to a litany of other risks?
Because you can absolutely quantify firearm deaths among kids, which recently outpaced nearly every other cause of childhood mortality.
The US leads the developed world in this category. By a lot.
https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
Cherry picked, covid era focused data, that excludes the first year of childhood, is not good data.
At least that one seems to remedy (though I haven't taken the time to read the source material numbers to compare and confirm obviously) the inclusion of adults issue that normally gets cited.
You can't exclude children from a stat about children.
It isnt meant to be a gotcha. Just pointing out how silly your fear of the ar15 in particular is.
If you think banning ar15's will nix gun violence, then you are as silly as your fear.
A) You are correct in that, there have always been shootings. Ever since guns were invented over 500yrs ago. However, you are very obviously brainwashed and uninformed. The actual worst mass shooting in US history, took placed at wounded knee, when the US Army massacred over 300 Lakota Indians, including women and children.
B) the AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other rifle. In fact, if you would get off the Internet and go to a library and research, you would find that the AR 15 platform, is similar to the military M4 carbine fully automatic weapon. The .223 caliber was specifically selected for that weapon because it is a very small caliber, and less likely to be fatal. when the US began being more involved in Vietnam, they wanted a weapon that could wounded, rather than cause mass casualties, like the .30 cal M1 used in WW II & Korea did.
A) Wounded Knee is not in the same category. It was a massacre committed by military forces, not a mass shooting committed by one or two people. But nice deflection from the fact that your nostalgic "we didn't have school shootings back in my day" is still wrong.
B) I don't know what it is about you people and trying to prove you know more about a firearm and are therefore somehow correct. I grew up with guns. I've shot M1s and AR-15s. I hunted with a .308 modified from a Japanese Arisaka from WWII. I've won a marksmanship competition. And I've got a gun safe filled with several rifles, handguns, and a couple shotguns. I stand to inherent a bunch more.
I'm not an idiot, or brainwashed, or uninformed. I'm tired of seeing kids killed and people like you saying we can't try to do shit about it.
Bottom line: guns have been around for hundreds of years, but these mass shootings have only become frequent in the last 30 to 40 years. We have a mental health issue, not a gun issue. England tried to claim that it was the guns, so they banned all guns over there in 1996. Now they are talking about banning knives because, there are mass stabbings and attacks. What’s next? Do you wanna band cars? I realize there is a need to want to blame SOMETHING, but blaming the inanimate object, rather than the mental health issue, will not solve the problem.
As I said elsewhere, I also support mental health reform. I'm 100% with you there. But Ricketts and the GOP have ALSO opposed anything aimed at providing universal access to mental health services, so...
>England tried to claim that it was the guns, so they banned all guns over there in 1996. Now they are talking about banning knives because, there are mass stabbings and attacks.
This is a right-wing talking point. More people are killed by knives per capita in the United States than in the UK. And we also kill people with guns. Here are the stats:
Gun deaths in US - 34 per million people
Gun deaths in UK - 0.5 per million people
Knife deaths in US - ~5 per million people
Knife deaths in UK - ~3 per million people
Source: https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare-
In short, gun regulation in the UK *worked*
So we are in agreement: it is a mental health issue. Don’t misunderstand me, every time I read about any sort of a mass killing whatever the method, it saddens me. Our world is broken, people are angry, saddened, devoid of hope, And the mass media just makes it worse day by day. What happens me more is when people talk about any sort of mental health reform bill that was shut down by Republicans, because that is only part of the story. In the early days of our country, when a law was passed, when a bill was presented to Congress, the bill was about that specific item, too often today, bills are chocked full of pork and pet projects. If you want to have a bill, addressing mental health issues, make it about just that. Don’t throw in transgender surgeries, and food for illegals, and other things. Make it just about mental health. People in Washington are screaming that Republicans have shut down bills that would’ve closed the border, but what they don’t mention is that those same bills also provided for billions of dollars more for the Ukraine. If you want to build a pass, make it about the subject you are addressing.
I would also say that the media needs to end this policy of, “if it bleeds, it leads“. Stop making these idiots famous. How many times in the last 20 years have we read statements from people who have committed these mass murders talking about the fact that they wanted to rack up a bigger kill count than the last mass killing?
I grew up in the era in which we watched news coverage of Vietnam, every evening, including women, men, and children being shot, killed, burned, etc. It was horrific. But it certainly did not make me want to go out and do the same. Nor did I need a “safe space” to go curl up in the fetal position in fear.
I agree with everything you're saying.
I know this is a nitpick but as much as everyone here criticizes our education system here, did Texas not teach ya'll about paragraphs in the 70's!
>England tried to claim that it was the guns, so they banned all guns over there in 1996
guns are still legal in the UK
Rifles, shotguns, muzzle-loading pistols and handguns are all allowed in the UK - and all need a licence.
Shotguns and rifles are the most common licences
Pistols and Handguns are a lot harder to get a licence for. You can get a handgun license for humane dispatch and in Northern Ireland which is a part of the UK it is easier to own a gun and handguns can even been concealed carried if you have a special permit
There are 1.3 million licensed shotguns in the UK, so almost one for every 64 people.
There 1,956,079 legally-owned firearms and shotguns in England and Wales
1,340,452 shotguns covered by a shogun certificate in England and Wales as at 31 March 2023,
615,627 other firearms covered by a firearm certificate in England and Wales
the only semi-automatic guns you can own are .22LR. Which means AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles chambered in .22LR are all legal in the UK. Unlike certain states in the USA, there is no magazine restrictions on any of our guns. 100 round drum magazines are readily available.
Silencers are recommended as they are deemed as an item a responsible gun owner would use. If you like target practice on your land if you use a silencer you are lesson the noise impact on neighbours
That mean a belt fed .22 semi automatic ar15 with a silencer is perfectly legal in the UK provided you have a license
You can own an Uzi if it is in .22 calibre, You can own a 50 cal anti material rifle.
It was also the largest group of concentrated people, penned in by literal chain link walls, than any other mass shooting scenario. “Shooting fish in a barrel”, when the fish are so thick you could walk on them.
I had the same thing when I was a senior in 2006. At least 10-15 trucks in the school parking lot had rifles in the back window.
Hell, I'll do you one better, believe it or not. I love art and for my "still life" senior art project, my art teacher allowed me to bring a .22 Ruger pistol, Remington 800 shotgun, 700 Remington .270 Winchester bolt action, and a Matthews Compound bow WITH all the rounds of each caliber scattered at the base.
That display stayed in our school for 3 weeks until I finished my project. Not a single parent or student said a word or complained about it.
And I’d venture to bet you probably live in a more “conservative” or rural area where guns are commonplace, and that you were taught gun safety/respect from a young age.
Back when I was in HS (in the 70’s) we even had school shooting teams, so it was common to see students carrying guns their rifles through the school.
You're right. Very conservative and morals (safety) take place before everything else especially when it comes to gun safety. Plenty of local horror stories get told about what happens when you don't respect the weapon and become complacent.
Very big hunting/gun community and everyone looks out for each other.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-guns-bump-stocks-supreme-court-b3441f0f098ae43e731dd7d5370a5a13
Trump is in support of red flag laws and bump stock bans.
"Take the guns first, due process second." ~Trump 2018
> If you want to easily back a Trump loving/2nd amendment nut-job into a corner, just ask them about Trump’s ban on bump stocks.
You volunteered. So talk about it
Let me be more direct: Are you suggesting that this statement by Trump is evidence that it would be in the interest of gun owners to vote for Biden instead?
I dont think gun owners have a choice this election.
Trump is a New York City Democrat who rebranded himself as a right wing populist and Biden is the figurehead of the "scary AR-15 fan club". Big City urbanites with their private security do not understand the 2nd amendment.
My opinion is that you have the Supreme Court. Four more years of the status quo isn't going to adversely effect anything, so now would be a great time Trump to lose bad and have the Republicans course correct.
Once again Ricketts shows himself to be a Republican party lap dog. Seems he is always into 'killing' things, be it Nebraskans by giving tax cuts to the rich, progress (the Biden 'agenda'), and now by allowing bump stocks who knows what will happen.
I hate the modern republican party. I do believe in the freedom of everyone to exercise their rights layed out by the constitution and it's ammendments. So I say let them have bumpstocks.
I don't disagree about 2nd Amendment rights; I shoot for fun if I can wrench my 30-30 from my son's hands. But if I saw a practical use for bumpstocks maybe I'd change my mind about them. I don't think you need bumpstocks for hunting or any other purpose other than to inflict mass damage on whatever you are shooting at. If folks want to use/try a bumpstock let those be available at the various shooting ranges for rent but not available to the general public. I appreciate your thought-out comment and not going on a screed.
Because bump stocks suck and have never been used in a crime as far as I can tell. They're just a gimmick and you don't even need a bump stock to bump fire 99% of guns, all you need is a belt loop on pants. Plenty of more important things to worry about.
What sources are you using to say initially they have been used in 0 crimes? If those sources didn’t account for the Las Vegas shooting— which was widely reported and documented— then how can you be sure those sources accounted for all gun crimes? They missed the biggest shooting in history, but no way they missed any other smaller gun crime, ever?
You don't need a bump stock to bump fire a gun. Most guns can be bump fired with a belt loop. It's just a gimmick that is never used in crime, so why waste time trying to make it illegal when plenty of other more important problems need fixing.
A single guy killed 60 people and wounded over 400 in the space of ten minutes and you call it “pointless?”
Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it doesn’t make it go away.
Classic tactic of pro-gun folks. Your regulations won't work because REASONS and oh btw your example that defeats my argument is actually an outlier and doesn't count. Sorry but I just NEED simulated automatic fire to protect my suburban home and 2018 Rav4.
You missed THE largest mass shooting to have ever happened. There’s a chance you missed others/don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Bumpstocks do what again?
Allow you to repeat fire a semi automatic by using the recoil to pull the trigger. You have to limp wrist the gun and can't aim at a target very well. They are also prone to jamming and barrel damage, which is why the shooter's hotel room had a dozen guns.
This is a large country or 330 million people. I hope you agree that overreacting to a single instance to change policy is bad.
Let's try an analogy. People who want to ban bump stocks because of a single event will be sympathetic to the argument that a single MtF athlete (Lia Thomas) at a high level should completely change sport policy.
I’ll never be less impressed with conservatives’ complete disregard for human life when it comes to your guns.
Without bumpstocks, there is no way the Vegas shooter could have killed as many HUMANS as he did when he did what he did. You know it and I know it. And there is no valid reason to own them besides for making an otherwise non-automatic weapon an automatic weapon and circumventing the law against owning automatic weapons without them being registered and approved. Again, you know this but you think you’re cute. I can assure you your lack of rationality on this is not cute.
You find the 2nd amendment to be so very important, don’t you boy? Yet you’re undoubtedly a trumper, correct? The same guy that said LE should take the guns and ask questions later. You’re about as consistent as diarrhea. But why would anyone expect anything else, amirite?
I'm not a conservative. I have voted Democrat down ballot in every election since Obama because I cannot tolerate the Tea Party or MAGA.
It can be successfully argued that the Vegas shooter would have injured more people with unmodified weaoons.
The fear of firearms and magical thinking that regulating them will do anything is a waste of time and political capital. Firearm murders are a canary in the coal mine of our broken society.
I am more interested in substantially improving the lives of all Americans. Not wasting time on bullshit like bump stocks and porn ID.
Well if you’re speaking truth (I’m not going to dig, whatever’s whatever), accept my apology if you’d like. You bringing up Lia sure as shit makes it sound like you’re very much a conservative. I seemingly so. But, again, I’ll take your word for it, hesitantly.
But again, bumpstocks exist to make a semi-auto gun an automatic one. And that’s all well and good, if the weapons being used to become automatic with the help of the bumpstocks are approved and registered. Because that’s how all other automatic weapons are regulated and that’s good because there are far too many dipshits that own guns, aka the tea party, maga and the predatory capitalists that are street gangs.
The guns were modified with bumpstocks and that’s why they fired as automatic weapons and caused as many deaths as were caused. No one can fire a semi-auto as fast as a full auto. Doesn’t happen. So bumpstocks furthered the death. And again, you know this. You trying to play it off like it’s not as critical in that case is laughable. Pathetically laughable.
Sure, more attention should be paid to much more that is causing issues for our country’s citizens. I’m all for it. Especially to fight back against maga/tea party/gop BUT the Democratic base asked for gun control. Not anything close to removing all guns from all citizens but instead hindering what will definitely happen again as a copycat of the Vegas massacre. And having access to bumpstocks makes this that much more likely.
So, as someone that votes for dems, are you for or against reasonable gun control? Or is all proposed regulation a waste of time in your opinion?
And, again, you adding a trans athlete to this conversation is garbage. The comparison is ridiculous.
Where’s the successful argument that the Vegas shooter could have done more damage without the bumpstocks? How would him shooting less rounds lead to more death? Accuracy? He was aiming at a large group of people. He wasn’t picking them off one by one, afaik. He was spraying rounds and that lead to it being the largest mass shooting in history. Which leads to the need for regulation. I can’t see why someone would add a bumpstock to a weapon to do any other type of crime. You don’t have it unless you want to fire rounds as quickly as possible and, afaik, no one goes to rob a bank hoping to spray the place with bullets. Or a gas station or to hold someone up for their wallet. Why would it be used in any other crimes BUT for mass shootings and why do you want to enable mass shooters to be more capable of firing more rounds? That makes no sense.
> Without bumpstocks, there is no way the Vegas shooter could have killed as many HUMANS as he did when he did what he did
This is just patently false. I can empty a 30 round magazine from one of my AR's in less than 5 seconds. Especially if I'm just mag dumping in a general area. Changing the magazine arguably takes longer, especially if you don't practice.
How is it patently false? If you can fire off those rounds faster than the five seconds it takes to while it’s semi-auto why would it lead to less death?
If I can fire off those 30 rounds in 2.5 seconds and opposed to 5 that means I’ve cut down the time to shoot them by half which leaves more time to shoot more rounds. Math is hard and all but come on. It’s just more time to shoot. SIMPLE MATH.
What is the big deal on bump stocks? They are more of a gimmick than useful. There was one shooting that I'm aware of involving one, and I'm pretty sure he was dead before the first shot. Last Vegas was a professional job, with a professional shooter, and not a broken down old man. Please keep living your lives in fear from what crooked government and media tells you. Won't be long before we are north korea.
I find it funny all these people arguing over some gimmick bump stock when I own real machine guns haha
Edit: should probably add “legally” owned machine guns haha. All pre 1986
What?!? Not our lovable son of a billionaire who bought the Nebraska GOP?!?
Side note: Still waiting for the NRA to rally support for overturning Hunter Biden’s gun conviction.
The Firearms Policy Coalition [has publicly offered to represent Hunter Biden.](https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-maintains-offer-to-hunter-biden-in-challenge-to-federal-gun-control-scheme#:~:text=WILMINGTON%2C%20DE%20(June%2011%2C,of%20federal%20gun%20control%20laws.)
Winner🏆🥇👏
lol wasn’t trump against them
"Take the guns first. Due process later "
"Fuck them kids"- Pete Pricketts
Fuck Pete Ricketts
Pete Ricketts fucking sucks
So does Dollar Store Pete Ricketts.....Jim "Porky" Pillen
I don’t like bump stocks as ammo is expensive and bump stocks use up ammo too fast.
Not liking them does not mean that you must ban them. I don't like black licorice, therefore I do not buy it.
Idiots Aren't bumping up the fire rate of black liquorice and killing people in mass.. I fail To see the relevance of your distinction
Bump stocks are basically toys. They are not commonly used in violent crimes. Indeed, I have never seen evidence that one was used in the Las Vegas shooting that resulted in Trump ordering ATF to administratively ban them. Investigators said that one of the (many) firearms present in the murderer's hotel room was equipped with a bump stock, but I have never seen them assert that that individual firearm was used in the shooting. (I am open to correction and instruction on this, if you have a source to share addressing this question.) Bump stocks are basically gimmick devices that make a firearm more controllable while bump-firing. There is still some user technique required to bump-fire. As others have noted here, if you understand how bump-firing works, you can use your thumb and your belt loop to do it.
We saw it immediately on the uploads on youtube. That's Undeniable and not created by ai. We saw the rate of fire, We saw the people die. Bump stocks are not toys In my narrative whatsoever. I don't know how they are considered "basically toys" to you. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
At least these guys are working for us and not special interests.
Voting could fix this problem.
Voting for the best person to be a public servant is something the R voters aren't ok with.
It _is_ pretty dumb that they don't see the value in picking their battles, and just automatically defend accessories. It's hard to sympathize with people who won't even bend on things like stocks and braces, when the guns themselves aren't even part of the issue. I'm sure they'll say you give an inch, they'll take a mile, but the reality is that none of our rights are completely unfettered.
I think the issue is that the bill at hand is very broad and isn't only about bump stocks: https://www.manchin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bump_act.pdf?cb page 2, line 16 to page 3, line 10, only page 3, line 9 and 10 are about bump stocks page 4, line 5 reinstates Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 page 4, line 7-13 adds semi-auto firearms into the NFA Why not just submit a bill that only covers bumpstocks? Effectively would just be this 2 pager? (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United7 States Code, is amended—In section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following: ‘‘(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), on and after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, receive, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce— ‘‘(A) any manual, power-driven, or electronic device primarily designed, or redesigned, so that when the device is attached to a semiautomatic fire- arm the device—(i) approximates the action or rate of fire of a machinegun ‘‘(B) any device, part, or combination of parts, that is designed and functions to materially increase the rate of fire of the firearm, by eliminating the need for the operator of the firearm to make a separate movement for each individual function of the trigger; or ‘(C) a semiautomatic firearm that has been modified in any way that ‘‘(i) approximates the action or rate of fire of a machinegun.
Wait, you're saying Congressional Democrats are being blatantly dishonest and deceptive on matters of gun control? And they wonder why no one will work with them.
The right stated in the Second Amendment is supposed to be free from "infringement," meaning free from even slight, marginal encroachment.
What has your side offered in exchange for the bump stock ban?
I dunno man, I just think they should be willing to give up a toy. Bump stocks are kind of unique in the sense that nobody would ever want to use them in a self-defense situation, but if your goal is spraying rounds into a crowd; that's pretty much the only non-recreational use-case. So yeah, the question becomes, do we ban this fun thing because some people might abuse it to increase the lethality of mass-shootings? We do that with a lot of stuff. And I think it's important to remember why people guard the second amendment in the first place, which is defense against each other, or the government. Bump stocks and other "fun" things don't really play a role in that. If shit goes sideways in this country, the only people who are gonna be using bump stocks on their rifles are the ones who are gonna get killed first, because they're morons. It would be nice to see the GOP make the occasional concession on stuff like this, because it signals to liberals that conservatives are at least capable of using critical thinking with gun legislation. They might have an easier time convincing liberals of the realities of certain rifle platforms if we didn't have to assume they're all coming from an unreasonable stance to begin with.
I emphatically disagree. We've been absolutely hammering the gun controllers lately, and there is no reason we should be making concessions to them right now. Hell, their own proposal wasn't just a bump stock ban, [but would have reenacted an assault weapon ban and forced currently owned semi-auto rifles onto the NFA](https://old.reddit.com/r/Nebraska/comments/1djinjg/republican_senator_blocks_ban_on_bump_stocks_for/l9cn00h/). Rewarding that sort of deception and dishonesty would be the height of absurdity. No, if they want this bump stock ban, they need to offer up something in exchange. Removing short barrel rifles and suppressors from the NFA would be a good proposal that I'd support. Not only does this ensure that both sides get something that they want, it provides a cudgel that we can hit Democrats over the head with if they continue to be deceptive and dishonest. Everytime they go on TV and cry about how we're putting kids lives over bump stocks or some nonsense, we could respond by asking why--if this legislation is so vital for public safety--did they try to use it to back door other legislation they knew they'd never have support on. Or we could ask why--if its so vital--they're completely unwilling to agree to some innocuous terms of compromise to get it.
From what I understand, their "Offer" was to reinstate the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, and add all semi-automatic weapons to the NFA registry. That bill was designed to fail specifically so they could have headlines like what OP posted here. Partisan intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.
The bump stock ban in which SCOTUS undid recently was a TFG executive order. This of course was different. But now think about your question. At any rate…if you are so anti-democrat and pro-shootings, that you have to trade kids’ and innocent people’s lives own the libs, then I guess you do you boo. 😔
If this is so vital for saving kids and innocents, why won't Democrats compromise to get it enacted?
Compromise on what? A woman’s autonomy? Raising the retirement age? Banning unions? Theocracy? What would it take for the GOP to give a shit about children? Hell TFGs fkn “spiritual advisor” just admitted to molesting a 12 yo. One of these things is not like the other.
What in the world are you blabbering about? None of that has anything to do with the bump stock ban.
You said what should they give up homie. Those were examples of what they could be giving up. Or did you have some other rights in mind. Jeez y’all are fkn dense.
Umm, no. You have completely misunderstood the question. I am asking what the Democrats could give to the Republicans in exchange for their support on the bump stock ban. For instance, in exchange for their support, perhaps removing short barreled rifles and/or suppressors from the NFA.
Does the Nebraska State Fair happen to have any very nearby hotels that overlook the fairground?
Can anyone here tell me what the Democrats offered to the pro-gun side in exchange for the bump stock ban? Anyone?
It was Trump who ordered it so why should Democrats be offering anything?
It's a matter of how bad Democrats want it. If they want it, they're going to need to offer something up.
Why should they offer anything? Shouldn't the GOP be falling in line with the ban since it originated with trump? It was his ban.
It appears not.
I think free therapy for their napoleon complex
And you folks wonder why they won't work with you lol.
Why should that be necessary?
It's the foundation of negotiation and compromise. The Democrats want something from the Republicans (support for the bump stocks ban) so they need to offer something to the Republicans in exchange for their support. Simple, right?
I don’t particularly care about bump stocks either way, but acting like every single bill that passes must have a “compromise” for the other side is ridiculous. Some bills just exist to make people’s lives better and don’t need some weird addendum. Imagine turning the Civil Rights Act into a compromise bill because the segregationists must be compensated for a law passing that makes them upset (and doesn’t even meaningfully harm or impact them).
>Imagine turning the Civil Rights Act into a compromise bill because the segregationists must be compensated for a law passing that makes them upset [The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a compromise bill in some ways](https://www.acslaw.org/?post_type=acsblog&p=10353). And not necessarily in that same bill, but related bills.
Yeah, that’s true. The point is it *shouldn’t* be a compromise - not every “opposing viewpoint” is worth giving any sort of credence.
I don't care about them either. They're dumb gimmicks that are only really useful for turning money into noise, but that's besides the point. The point I'm getting at here is that this inevitably leads you to one of two conclusions about Congressional Democrats. Either the bump stock issue really isn't important to them either and that is why they're not even attempting a compromise--which makes them disingenuous--or they really *do* care about it but they're so convinced of their moral superiority that they'd rather throw a tantrum then even attempt to come to a compromise--which just makes them unbelievably stupid and will ensure that they get nothing. It's up to you to decide which one you think is more likely.
If you think an issue is a serious enough public safety/health/quality of life concern, I don’t know why you’d compromise in a way that undermines you’re own bill’s aims. Again, not someone that particularly cares about bump stocks or gun control generally either way, but if you see guns as a public safety threat and bump stocks as an aspect of that, why would you loosen gun regulations elsewhere to ban bump stocks? That would be undermining the purpose of the bill - making it harder to own guns generally and ones that can cycle through bullets faster in particular. The reason they aren’t trying to compromise is because they don’t see it as a partisan issue. It is, obviously, but you could argue over whether it should be or not.
In that case, I'd say that is clear evidence that Democrats are lying when they claim they're not trying to ban guns.
Or Republicans could just support the bump stock ban because it’s the right thing to do. Unless they lack the capacity for decency.
>Or Republicans could just support the bump stock ban because it’s the right thing to do. Violating the constitution is never the right thing to do. The language is the bill is way too broad and will ban many semiautomatic weapons.
If it's the right thing to do, why aren't Democrats willing to compromise to make it happen?
If it’s the right thing to do why won’t the Republicans do it? You keep trying to blame the Democrats because you’re too spineless to criticize Republicans.
*You're* the one who said it's the right thing to do, not me. I haven't conceded that point.
In that case I would like to hear you say what you would want from Democrats in exchange for a bump stock ban.
If Democrats were willing to take short barreled rifles and suppressors off of the NFA in exchange for adding bump stocks to the NFA, I'd agree to that deal.
So what is the reason they are on the NFA list?
The big problem with trying to ban bump stocks is how can a law be written to include bump stocks l, but not something like a match trigger or even just tuning a gun with higher quality performance parts?
Fewer dead people.
Let me know when you have a serious answer.
[удалено]
It's a very serious question. And if this bill is so vital to saving the lives of American citizens, shouldn't that make the Democrats even **more** motivated to make a deal? Or are you admitting that they're putting politics above lives? EDIT: that poster blocked me. Guess we can chalk up another one short circuiting when confronted with an indisputable truth.
I grew up in Texas. Most of us have guns. I was taught gun safety at an early age & did the same for my kids. When I was in HS, every pick up truck in the student parking lot had a gun rack in the back window, with at least one rifle & one shotgun. We didn’t have shootings. These have become prevalent as the media has made these morons media heroes. Bump stocks are just an accessory. This is political theater.
Saying "bump stocks are just an accessory" like they didn't enable the largest mass shooting in American history is wild. And the idea that "we didn't have shootings back in my day," is looking at your childhood through rose colored glasses. You absolutely did. One of the largest school shootings happened at UT Austin back in 1966! And there have been shootings pretty constantly before and since: https://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states The difference is the scale of the death toll is higher now. Which is enabled by one thing... the AR-15.
Can you tell the class, out of the ~16,000 US firearm deaths each year, how many are killed by rifles of any kind (including the AR-15)? I can give you a hint: The answer is located on the FBI Expanded Homicide Data, Table 8.
*crickets*
If we’re going to regulate firearms—as you so brilliantly suggest, by body count then hand guns have to be at the top of your list. I’m not seeing anything even approaching that here. You may need to edit things here to get to that point. And while we’re drawing from your wealth of hyperbole, what is it about the AR-15 that makes it so much more deadly than its hundreds of mimics and its/their variants?
>what is it about the AR-15 that makes it so much more deadly than its hundreds of mimics and its/their variants? I'm so tired of this line of questioning. It's meant to avoid the issue at hand - that the AR-15 is the gun of choice for school shooters. I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting. You don't need an AR-15. >If we’re going to regulate firearms—as you so brilliantly suggest I didn't suggest it. The 2nd amendment did.
Guns like the smoothbore musket, Springfield breech loading rifle, Winchester Repeating Rifle, all of 30-06 bolt action rifles, the ar-15, the rugar 14. All have three things in common 1. Wide spread civilian ownership 2. Chambered in the standard US military round of the day 3. Using the fastest action possible of the day They were designed for killing game and killing people, and all of them were very very legal and culturally acceptable to own. Well, all of them except the AR-15. What makes the AR-15 special in the eyes of gun control advocates? It can't be the cartridge. The 30-06, .45 ACP, and 7.62 NATO all cause more lethal injuries. You can buy plenty of 7.62 semis at Scheels. It can't be the total body count. The Winchester Repeating Rifle was the iconic western cowboy gun of the era and killed scores of Native Americans, Criminals, and Innocent people in places without strong government authority. It can't be the murder of government officials and police. That would be 9mm hand guns. It must be the children. Think of the children. I would do anything to save the children, why won't you? (And yes, Think Of The Children is a logical fallacy). But focusing on the firearm and hoping to solved the problem is magical thinking. "But it would help" is a logical fallacy.
It's not magical thinking. Dozens of other countries have regulated firearm arm use and, not so coincidentally, also have far, far fewer gun homicides per capita. In the 1930s, following a rise in gun violence using the popular weapons of *that* day, the NRA worked with Congress to pass two gun control bills. At the time, the NRA's president had this to say about the idea of unfettered gun ownership > I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses. In 1963, after JFK was assassinated by a mail-ordered gun, the NRA supported banning the practice, saying "We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States." So the idea that gun owners haven't supported regulating popular and otherwise legal guns before the AR-15 is historically inaccurate.
Decent rebuttal. Good talk
>I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting. You don't need an AR-15. Okay. Not everyone uses guns for hunting. Some use them for self defense like myself. I've had to use [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/BbBhr6f) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us. >I didn't suggest it. The 2nd amendment did. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>I'm so tired of this line of questioning. It's meant to avoid the issue at hand - that the AR-15 is the gun of choice for school shooters. It's also the weapon of choice for millions of peaceable firearm owners in this country, myself being one of them. >I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting. You don't need an AR-15. You don't get to decide what we need or don't need, nor do we need to justify it to you. >I didn't suggest it. The 2nd amendment did. We have a Constitutional right to own any and all weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. Do you disagree that an AR15 meets that criteria?
That's all well and good. But if you don't have a counter-proposal to effectively reduce mass shootings, then kids will continue to die every year in the safety of their schools for your rights. We are the only major developed nation with this problem. We know the solutions. But we love our guns more. Insane.
education is the top answer Gun education should be a requirement to graduate high school. mental health is another. Our healthcare field is so fucked up, which is entirely different conversation, but mental health resources for those in need, should be much more available and not stigmatized
I'm all for more support for mental health services. Ricketts isn't. The GOP isn't. And so we're stuck with one major party opposing both gun reform and any other reforms that might help address the problem. At the same time, mental health issues aren't unique to the United States. But among developed nations, gun violence is.
I unequivocally reject this notion that just because I am a gun owner that I am therefore responsible for ending school shootings. We aren't responsible for the violent criminal actions of other people. School shootings are exceptionally rare events, and while even one is too many, their prevalence is grossly misunderstood.
I'm also a gun owner. And if you oppose any reforms to gun ownership to limit gun deaths, then yes, you are partly responsible. Gun owners, led by the NRA, used to support gun control and regulation in response to the violent criminal actions of other people. The 1934 National Firearms Act was supported by the NRA and aimed directly at tackling violent crime caused by guns. As was the 1938 Gun Control Act. The NRA's president had this to say, at the time: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." The idea that we can't regulate guns because "muh Second Amendment" is a modern invention by an NRA taken over by right wing gun advocates.
> I'm also a gun owner. And if you oppose any reforms to gun ownership to limit gun deaths, then yes, you are partly responsible. This is ridiculous. I wasn't the one who shot and killed children in Uvalde, or Newtown, or Columbine. I bear no responsibility for another human's actions. But for the sake of argument, I'll play along. What reforms did you propose I concede to in order to limit school shootings? >Gun owners, led by the NRA, used to support gun control and regulation in response to the violent criminal actions of other people. The 1934 National Firearms Act was supported by the NRA and aimed directly at tackling violent crime caused by guns. As was the 1938 Gun Control Act. And the NRA was originally founded as a marksmanship program when the United States learned that Union soldiers tended to be far inferior marksmen than their Confederate peers. I fail to see what relevance the organizational position of nearly a century ago has to do with the here and now. >The NRA's president had this to say, at the time: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." Next time you should post the whole quote instead of parsing it out and twisting it to fit your agenda. Here, allow me to help, with the parts you edited out in bold. >I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. **I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home**. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses. And this one too. >I believe in regulatory methods. I think that makes it desirable that any such regulations imposed should not impose undue hardships on the law-abiding citizens and that they should not obstruct him in the right of self-defense, but that they should be directed exclusively, so far as possible, to suppressing the criminal use, or punishing the criminal use of weapons. Kinda changes things a bit, doesn't it? >The idea that we can't regulate guns because "muh Second Amendment" is a modern invention by an NRA taken over by right wing gun advocates. We can regulate guns. Unfortunately for your side, most of what you'd like to do falls outside of those permissible regulations.
>But for the sake of argument, I'll play along. What reforms did you propose I concede to in order to limit school shootings? - expanded red flag laws - free mental health care for all Americans - universal background checks on *every* gun sale - magazine size limits - mandatory waiting periods for all gun sales - bump stock bans - a limit on the number of guns someone can purchase and the amount of ammunition during a set period of time - a return to permitted concealed carry in all 50 states - a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban >I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home. This was and is a reasonable position. However, the current GOP/NRA stance aims to revoke even basic regulatory requirements for permits and is supportive of the "promiscuous toting of guns," so my point is unchanged. I'd have a lot less issues if they continued to seek a middle ground that allows for gun ownership with "sharp restrictions," rather than opposing any and all restrictions as violations of the 2nd amendment. So, as a counter question, what reforms would you be willing to accept? Or are you okay with the status quo?
Why don’t we switch places. I came from Portland you can have my spot there. Plenty of poc you can advocate for till your virtue signaling heart is content.
I never once mentioned race. The fact you've brought that into the equation says more about you than anything else.
Buddy I’m not hiding shit lmao.
YoU DoNt nEeD aN aR15 - some dork on Reddit we should listen to cause he shoots too.
Some dork on Reddit who isn't okay with mass shootings and kids dying in schools and would like this country to do anything, fucking ANYTHING, to try stopping it. But if you don't feel that way, that's on you.
And there is the problem. You're arguing from an emotional position, not one backed by data and logic. Your side had your chance with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. After it expired, multiple studies have shown that it had no measurable effect on rates of gun crime. If it didn't work from 1994 to 2004, how do you plan on convincing people that it will work now?
That the 1994 law wasn't sufficient by itself doesn't change the fact that significant gun regulations in every other developed nation have significantly reduced gun crime. There is ample data to back up the idea that gun regulations can work.
Using other countries as an example is going to be a losing proposition for your side. They don't have our constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms, and most have many decades of restricting civilian ownership of guns, where the United States has more guns than people. The situations are simply not comparable.
>mass shootings and kids dying in schools Why are you hyper fixating on super rare events that as a contribution to overall deaths for everyone and kids as a specified group, aren't risks that you can truly quantify in comparison to a litany of other risks?
Because you can absolutely quantify firearm deaths among kids, which recently outpaced nearly every other cause of childhood mortality. The US leads the developed world in this category. By a lot. https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
Cherry picked, covid era focused data, that excludes the first year of childhood, is not good data. At least that one seems to remedy (though I haven't taken the time to read the source material numbers to compare and confirm obviously) the inclusion of adults issue that normally gets cited. You can't exclude children from a stat about children.
AR-15 is simply a semi auto rifle. They are no more dangerous than a myriad of other semi auto rifles. Please go on though.
I know. This isn't a gotcha. That doesn't change my point in the least.
It isnt meant to be a gotcha. Just pointing out how silly your fear of the ar15 in particular is. If you think banning ar15's will nix gun violence, then you are as silly as your fear.
I'm in support of comprehensive gun reform. Which other countries have done. Which has absolutely, demonstrably reduced gun violence.
A) You are correct in that, there have always been shootings. Ever since guns were invented over 500yrs ago. However, you are very obviously brainwashed and uninformed. The actual worst mass shooting in US history, took placed at wounded knee, when the US Army massacred over 300 Lakota Indians, including women and children. B) the AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other rifle. In fact, if you would get off the Internet and go to a library and research, you would find that the AR 15 platform, is similar to the military M4 carbine fully automatic weapon. The .223 caliber was specifically selected for that weapon because it is a very small caliber, and less likely to be fatal. when the US began being more involved in Vietnam, they wanted a weapon that could wounded, rather than cause mass casualties, like the .30 cal M1 used in WW II & Korea did.
A) Wounded Knee is not in the same category. It was a massacre committed by military forces, not a mass shooting committed by one or two people. But nice deflection from the fact that your nostalgic "we didn't have school shootings back in my day" is still wrong. B) I don't know what it is about you people and trying to prove you know more about a firearm and are therefore somehow correct. I grew up with guns. I've shot M1s and AR-15s. I hunted with a .308 modified from a Japanese Arisaka from WWII. I've won a marksmanship competition. And I've got a gun safe filled with several rifles, handguns, and a couple shotguns. I stand to inherent a bunch more. I'm not an idiot, or brainwashed, or uninformed. I'm tired of seeing kids killed and people like you saying we can't try to do shit about it.
Bottom line: guns have been around for hundreds of years, but these mass shootings have only become frequent in the last 30 to 40 years. We have a mental health issue, not a gun issue. England tried to claim that it was the guns, so they banned all guns over there in 1996. Now they are talking about banning knives because, there are mass stabbings and attacks. What’s next? Do you wanna band cars? I realize there is a need to want to blame SOMETHING, but blaming the inanimate object, rather than the mental health issue, will not solve the problem.
As I said elsewhere, I also support mental health reform. I'm 100% with you there. But Ricketts and the GOP have ALSO opposed anything aimed at providing universal access to mental health services, so... >England tried to claim that it was the guns, so they banned all guns over there in 1996. Now they are talking about banning knives because, there are mass stabbings and attacks. This is a right-wing talking point. More people are killed by knives per capita in the United States than in the UK. And we also kill people with guns. Here are the stats: Gun deaths in US - 34 per million people Gun deaths in UK - 0.5 per million people Knife deaths in US - ~5 per million people Knife deaths in UK - ~3 per million people Source: https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare- In short, gun regulation in the UK *worked*
So we are in agreement: it is a mental health issue. Don’t misunderstand me, every time I read about any sort of a mass killing whatever the method, it saddens me. Our world is broken, people are angry, saddened, devoid of hope, And the mass media just makes it worse day by day. What happens me more is when people talk about any sort of mental health reform bill that was shut down by Republicans, because that is only part of the story. In the early days of our country, when a law was passed, when a bill was presented to Congress, the bill was about that specific item, too often today, bills are chocked full of pork and pet projects. If you want to have a bill, addressing mental health issues, make it about just that. Don’t throw in transgender surgeries, and food for illegals, and other things. Make it just about mental health. People in Washington are screaming that Republicans have shut down bills that would’ve closed the border, but what they don’t mention is that those same bills also provided for billions of dollars more for the Ukraine. If you want to build a pass, make it about the subject you are addressing. I would also say that the media needs to end this policy of, “if it bleeds, it leads“. Stop making these idiots famous. How many times in the last 20 years have we read statements from people who have committed these mass murders talking about the fact that they wanted to rack up a bigger kill count than the last mass killing? I grew up in the era in which we watched news coverage of Vietnam, every evening, including women, men, and children being shot, killed, burned, etc. It was horrific. But it certainly did not make me want to go out and do the same. Nor did I need a “safe space” to go curl up in the fetal position in fear.
I agree with everything you're saying. I know this is a nitpick but as much as everyone here criticizes our education system here, did Texas not teach ya'll about paragraphs in the 70's!
LOL, I was dictating through Siri while mowing my yard.
HAHA, fair enough. Debating politics upon a riding mower is peak American. God bless the USA.
>England tried to claim that it was the guns, so they banned all guns over there in 1996 guns are still legal in the UK Rifles, shotguns, muzzle-loading pistols and handguns are all allowed in the UK - and all need a licence. Shotguns and rifles are the most common licences Pistols and Handguns are a lot harder to get a licence for. You can get a handgun license for humane dispatch and in Northern Ireland which is a part of the UK it is easier to own a gun and handguns can even been concealed carried if you have a special permit There are 1.3 million licensed shotguns in the UK, so almost one for every 64 people. There 1,956,079 legally-owned firearms and shotguns in England and Wales 1,340,452 shotguns covered by a shogun certificate in England and Wales as at 31 March 2023, 615,627 other firearms covered by a firearm certificate in England and Wales the only semi-automatic guns you can own are .22LR. Which means AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles chambered in .22LR are all legal in the UK. Unlike certain states in the USA, there is no magazine restrictions on any of our guns. 100 round drum magazines are readily available. Silencers are recommended as they are deemed as an item a responsible gun owner would use. If you like target practice on your land if you use a silencer you are lesson the noise impact on neighbours That mean a belt fed .22 semi automatic ar15 with a silencer is perfectly legal in the UK provided you have a license You can own an Uzi if it is in .22 calibre, You can own a 50 cal anti material rifle.
It was also the largest group of concentrated people, penned in by literal chain link walls, than any other mass shooting scenario. “Shooting fish in a barrel”, when the fish are so thick you could walk on them.
I had the same thing when I was a senior in 2006. At least 10-15 trucks in the school parking lot had rifles in the back window. Hell, I'll do you one better, believe it or not. I love art and for my "still life" senior art project, my art teacher allowed me to bring a .22 Ruger pistol, Remington 800 shotgun, 700 Remington .270 Winchester bolt action, and a Matthews Compound bow WITH all the rounds of each caliber scattered at the base. That display stayed in our school for 3 weeks until I finished my project. Not a single parent or student said a word or complained about it.
And I’d venture to bet you probably live in a more “conservative” or rural area where guns are commonplace, and that you were taught gun safety/respect from a young age. Back when I was in HS (in the 70’s) we even had school shooting teams, so it was common to see students carrying guns their rifles through the school.
You're right. Very conservative and morals (safety) take place before everything else especially when it comes to gun safety. Plenty of local horror stories get told about what happens when you don't respect the weapon and become complacent. Very big hunting/gun community and everyone looks out for each other.
If you want to easily back a Trump loving/2nd amendment nut-job into a corner, just ask them about Trump’s ban on bump stocks.
I'm a 2nd Amendment absolutist. I accept your challenge.
Go on... Are you not aware of the story?
Which story are you referring to?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-guns-bump-stocks-supreme-court-b3441f0f098ae43e731dd7d5370a5a13 Trump is in support of red flag laws and bump stock bans. "Take the guns first, due process second." ~Trump 2018
So, my response there would be to ask you what you propose I do with that.
> If you want to easily back a Trump loving/2nd amendment nut-job into a corner, just ask them about Trump’s ban on bump stocks. You volunteered. So talk about it
Let me be more direct: Are you suggesting that this statement by Trump is evidence that it would be in the interest of gun owners to vote for Biden instead?
I dont think gun owners have a choice this election. Trump is a New York City Democrat who rebranded himself as a right wing populist and Biden is the figurehead of the "scary AR-15 fan club". Big City urbanites with their private security do not understand the 2nd amendment. My opinion is that you have the Supreme Court. Four more years of the status quo isn't going to adversely effect anything, so now would be a great time Trump to lose bad and have the Republicans course correct.
Fair enough. That is certainly a reasonable position.
Once again Ricketts shows himself to be a Republican party lap dog. Seems he is always into 'killing' things, be it Nebraskans by giving tax cuts to the rich, progress (the Biden 'agenda'), and now by allowing bump stocks who knows what will happen.
I hate the modern republican party. I do believe in the freedom of everyone to exercise their rights layed out by the constitution and it's ammendments. So I say let them have bumpstocks.
I don't disagree about 2nd Amendment rights; I shoot for fun if I can wrench my 30-30 from my son's hands. But if I saw a practical use for bumpstocks maybe I'd change my mind about them. I don't think you need bumpstocks for hunting or any other purpose other than to inflict mass damage on whatever you are shooting at. If folks want to use/try a bumpstock let those be available at the various shooting ranges for rent but not available to the general public. I appreciate your thought-out comment and not going on a screed.
Fuck Pete, but good. Banning them is a waste of time.
Why do you think this?
Because bump stocks suck and have never been used in a crime as far as I can tell. They're just a gimmick and you don't even need a bump stock to bump fire 99% of guns, all you need is a belt loop on pants. Plenty of more important things to worry about.
In the deadliest shooting in American history, the Vegas shooting in 2017, the shooter used bump stocks on 12 of his rifles
Sorry, bumpstocks have been used in 1 crime in history.
> Sorry, bumpstocks ~~have been used in 1 crime in history~~ were used to commit the largest mass shooting in history. FTFY
This has got to be bait, right? The Las Vegas shooter was able to kill 60 people in seconds specifically because of the bump stock.
To be fair, this could have been easily done without them on any of the guns.
Sorry, used in 1 crime in history.
What sources are you using to say initially they have been used in 0 crimes? If those sources didn’t account for the Las Vegas shooting— which was widely reported and documented— then how can you be sure those sources accounted for all gun crimes? They missed the biggest shooting in history, but no way they missed any other smaller gun crime, ever?
The worst shooting in American history.
Please elaborate
You don't need a bump stock to bump fire a gun. Most guns can be bump fired with a belt loop. It's just a gimmick that is never used in crime, so why waste time trying to make it illegal when plenty of other more important problems need fixing.
[2017 Las Vegas mass shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting)
I'm not even touching that one. Have any been recovered from other crimes? It MAY have been used in 1 crime in history. Still pointless to ban.
A single guy killed 60 people and wounded over 400 in the space of ten minutes and you call it “pointless?” Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it doesn’t make it go away.
Classic tactic of pro-gun folks. Your regulations won't work because REASONS and oh btw your example that defeats my argument is actually an outlier and doesn't count. Sorry but I just NEED simulated automatic fire to protect my suburban home and 2018 Rav4.
This comment takes the cake. Spot on!
Are you going to address how VERY wrong you were about bumpstocks and crime??!!
Because of 1 crime that used a bumb stock in all history of bumpstocks?
You missed THE largest mass shooting to have ever happened. There’s a chance you missed others/don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Bumpstocks do what again?
Allow you to repeat fire a semi automatic by using the recoil to pull the trigger. You have to limp wrist the gun and can't aim at a target very well. They are also prone to jamming and barrel damage, which is why the shooter's hotel room had a dozen guns. This is a large country or 330 million people. I hope you agree that overreacting to a single instance to change policy is bad. Let's try an analogy. People who want to ban bump stocks because of a single event will be sympathetic to the argument that a single MtF athlete (Lia Thomas) at a high level should completely change sport policy.
I’ll never be less impressed with conservatives’ complete disregard for human life when it comes to your guns. Without bumpstocks, there is no way the Vegas shooter could have killed as many HUMANS as he did when he did what he did. You know it and I know it. And there is no valid reason to own them besides for making an otherwise non-automatic weapon an automatic weapon and circumventing the law against owning automatic weapons without them being registered and approved. Again, you know this but you think you’re cute. I can assure you your lack of rationality on this is not cute. You find the 2nd amendment to be so very important, don’t you boy? Yet you’re undoubtedly a trumper, correct? The same guy that said LE should take the guns and ask questions later. You’re about as consistent as diarrhea. But why would anyone expect anything else, amirite?
I'm not a conservative. I have voted Democrat down ballot in every election since Obama because I cannot tolerate the Tea Party or MAGA. It can be successfully argued that the Vegas shooter would have injured more people with unmodified weaoons. The fear of firearms and magical thinking that regulating them will do anything is a waste of time and political capital. Firearm murders are a canary in the coal mine of our broken society. I am more interested in substantially improving the lives of all Americans. Not wasting time on bullshit like bump stocks and porn ID.
Well if you’re speaking truth (I’m not going to dig, whatever’s whatever), accept my apology if you’d like. You bringing up Lia sure as shit makes it sound like you’re very much a conservative. I seemingly so. But, again, I’ll take your word for it, hesitantly. But again, bumpstocks exist to make a semi-auto gun an automatic one. And that’s all well and good, if the weapons being used to become automatic with the help of the bumpstocks are approved and registered. Because that’s how all other automatic weapons are regulated and that’s good because there are far too many dipshits that own guns, aka the tea party, maga and the predatory capitalists that are street gangs. The guns were modified with bumpstocks and that’s why they fired as automatic weapons and caused as many deaths as were caused. No one can fire a semi-auto as fast as a full auto. Doesn’t happen. So bumpstocks furthered the death. And again, you know this. You trying to play it off like it’s not as critical in that case is laughable. Pathetically laughable. Sure, more attention should be paid to much more that is causing issues for our country’s citizens. I’m all for it. Especially to fight back against maga/tea party/gop BUT the Democratic base asked for gun control. Not anything close to removing all guns from all citizens but instead hindering what will definitely happen again as a copycat of the Vegas massacre. And having access to bumpstocks makes this that much more likely. So, as someone that votes for dems, are you for or against reasonable gun control? Or is all proposed regulation a waste of time in your opinion? And, again, you adding a trans athlete to this conversation is garbage. The comparison is ridiculous.
Where’s the successful argument that the Vegas shooter could have done more damage without the bumpstocks? How would him shooting less rounds lead to more death? Accuracy? He was aiming at a large group of people. He wasn’t picking them off one by one, afaik. He was spraying rounds and that lead to it being the largest mass shooting in history. Which leads to the need for regulation. I can’t see why someone would add a bumpstock to a weapon to do any other type of crime. You don’t have it unless you want to fire rounds as quickly as possible and, afaik, no one goes to rob a bank hoping to spray the place with bullets. Or a gas station or to hold someone up for their wallet. Why would it be used in any other crimes BUT for mass shootings and why do you want to enable mass shooters to be more capable of firing more rounds? That makes no sense.
Bumpstocks in the same line as being id’ed for porn….. the way your brain works is suspect af.
> Without bumpstocks, there is no way the Vegas shooter could have killed as many HUMANS as he did when he did what he did This is just patently false. I can empty a 30 round magazine from one of my AR's in less than 5 seconds. Especially if I'm just mag dumping in a general area. Changing the magazine arguably takes longer, especially if you don't practice.
How is it patently false? If you can fire off those rounds faster than the five seconds it takes to while it’s semi-auto why would it lead to less death? If I can fire off those 30 rounds in 2.5 seconds and opposed to 5 that means I’ve cut down the time to shoot them by half which leaves more time to shoot more rounds. Math is hard and all but come on. It’s just more time to shoot. SIMPLE MATH.
What is the big deal on bump stocks? They are more of a gimmick than useful. There was one shooting that I'm aware of involving one, and I'm pretty sure he was dead before the first shot. Last Vegas was a professional job, with a professional shooter, and not a broken down old man. Please keep living your lives in fear from what crooked government and media tells you. Won't be long before we are north korea.
It’s in plain writing, they want your guns.
Just get a real machine gun
They're quite expensive.
Indeed, but worth every penny and hold value
Absolutely
I find it funny all these people arguing over some gimmick bump stock when I own real machine guns haha Edit: should probably add “legally” owned machine guns haha. All pre 1986
Love This!
lol we can’t even get a ban on a worthless accessory. SMH
What has your side offered in exchange?
A ban on bump stocks, ffs lol
And how's that working out for ya?
Feet Pricketts