Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

[5whiskey]

But don't think it is your guns stopping them...
It is the judiciary and their interpretation of the law.

Oh you are spot on... kind of. So long as the judiciary is respected and upheld, guns will never serve any type of place in settling political differences IMO. But the threat of violence and bloodshed should the government overstep it's boundaries is not something to be taken lightly. The very reason why straight up confiscation passed overnight, with government agents serving search warrants to come and take what is not voluntarily turned in, would never ever be contemplated is this; the ensuing violence would not be good for any party involved, and every president and congressman knows this. People would resist with force, and people (both citizens and government agents) would die. The more death that could be blamed on the government's actions, the more emboldened the anti-government actors would become. Look at the outcry after Ruby Ridge. The private militia movement got a huge boost from that. Granted, few if any ever acted on the outrage, but if you had Ruby Ridge incidents occurring every day that story would change in a hurry. Do not get sucked into believing that the 2A has no deterrent value for an overbearing and oppressive government in modern society. It does in fact. Especially for us fickle Americans. Other societies may allow for dictatorship, but our country was born out of a distrust of government. That has not gone away.

And this is not to say that we should focus on "playing gun" to resist an overbearing government. We should focus on political solutions, because our political system still works and abides by it's own laws despite it's fractures. But the underlying deterrence value of the 2A still exists and isn't taken lightly. Fienstien's famous comment "If I could, I would tell America to turn them all in" is an example. The Democratic congress at the time may have been able to pass a bill to ban all semi-autos. But they knew it would go over like a lead ballon, and it would be a bad thing.

[Pond, James Pond]

It does in fact. Especially for us fickle Americans. Other societies may allow for dictatorship, but our country was born out of a distrust of government. That has not gone away.

I hear that. All of it. Nonetheless, if guns are the ultimate protection where bloodshed is unavoidable, the then judiciary is the ultimate protection where bloodshed is still avoidable.
And we all know that is where the battle will be fought.
Whoever wins there, gets their way further down the line. There may be a rise in militia groups but they will still be a massive minority.

But just be warned, from my outsider's perspective, I see danger signs.
I need only look east 300km to see what overbearing government looks like.
And what the lack of a free press and independent judiciary looks like.

So, back on your side of the Pond () make damn sure that any distrust of a free press is for good reason not because of someone else's say so and any distrust of the judiciary is or good reason not because of someone else's say so.

Once you lose them, you will not get them back. Just like gun rights.

And they are essential to a people-based democracy. Just like gun rights.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

I understand this. It might be its purpose, but that doesn't mean it works in the way intended.

But don't think it is your guns stopping them...
It is the judiciary and their interpretation of the law.

I am not an advocate for insurrectionist theory, however I would suggest that we don't perfectly anticipate how yet to occur problems will unfold.

In Iraq, after Hussein's government had fallen, a fellow walked up behind a US soldier, stuck a 9mm Mauser pistol up under the back of his helmet and shot, then blended back into the crowd. Certainly that little pistol isn't a match for laser guided bombs and Abrams tanks. Turns out that it didn't need to be.

The ridicule for insurrectionist theory that envisions a conventional pitched battle of angry individuals with rifles squaring up against tanks, planes and helicopters so the mob can be decisively defeated is not apt.


I would note that arguing whether a pre-existing, non granted right has the kind of utility you want misses the point. If it's a pre-existing right, whether you think it is helpful isn't relevant to whether it is to be enforced.

[5whiskey]

So, back on your side of the Pond () make damn sure that any distrust of a free press is for good reason not because of someone else's say so and any distrust of the judiciary is or good reason not because of someone else's say so.

Oh I hear that . As it stands, the RKBA is not the most important individual right enumerated in our constitution IMO. I couldn't pick the most important one, but Freedom of the Press, Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, Right to Counsel, the RKBA, and numerous others would all be near the top. Oh, and the 10th amendment... the one that has all but been abandoned even by our "independent" judiciary (which honestly is independent, but it is not by any means above politics).

And I hear the rest of your statement too, and I only disagree with you on the small point we've debated. As it stands I've already discussed a scary and unlikely future that I hope we never see enough. Currently we are no where near that point, so we need to focus on political and social solutions. I agree with you and others on political pragmatism. We may have to swallow a bump fire ban. I would only think about supporting it if the investigation was concluded and the motive and means were released to the public so we could form an educated opinion on the matter. If it looks like the bump fire stock played a significant role, I don't think it would be pragmatic to expend resources fighting against a ban personally. It's akin to soldiers having limbs amputated for gunshot wounds before modern antibiotics came to be. They certainly didn't want to lose a foot or a hand, but it was better than dying a slow and painful death brought on by gangrene.

[Pond, James Pond]

The ridicule for insurrectionist theory that envisions a conventional pitched battle of angry individuals with rifles squaring up against tanks, planes and helicopters so the mob can be decisively defeated is not apt.

Maybe not, but nor is the assumption that enough of the population would rise up so as to make any significant difference. If push comes to shove, many who think they wouldn't probably would, but many more who tink they would, would not.

That is my guess, anyhow.

I would note that arguing whether a pre-existing, non granted right has the kind of utility you want misses the point. If it's a pre-existing right, whether you think it is helpful isn't relevant to whether it is to be enforced.

Fine, but there remains the question of whether an aspect being disputed falls under the protection of that right or not.

They certainly didn't want to lose a foot or a hand, but it was better than dying a slow and painful death brought on by gangrene.

The mental imagery certainly makes a fine analogy!!

Likewise, I hope no nasty, second WoI comes about...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

Maybe not, but nor is the assumption that enough of the population would rise up so as to make any significant difference. If push comes to shove, many who think they wouldn't probably would, but many more who tink they would, would not.

That is my guess, anyhow.

The right doesn't rest on an assumption of mass uprising.

Our experience in Iraq indicates fairly small asymmetric violence wore us down.

I imagine your guess about people is right.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

But, please tell me you don't honestly think bump-stocks are a RKBA issue. Think about what they are designed to do and when you might use them in a way that wouldn't end in jail time and tell me that.

Yes.. I DO.
Let me bottom line it for you so it's perfectly clear.

I believe there should be NO restrictions for a free adult man/woman to own arms except if mentally ill.

I could go down the list of what that means. Spell it out for you word for word but don't bother asking me if is misspoke I did not just now, You understand it perfectly as written.

2a is not dependent on "need" you only play into their hands when you talk about need, I guarantee you we can cut some fat off and tighten restrictions you wanna go down this line of logic.

I really only "NEED" 1 good handgun, and 1 good longgun. Imagine what they could do with that statement?

2a is there so we have the means to overthrow a tyrant, It's not there "just" for home defense, self defense, or hunting.
You probably disagree with that, think im a nut, will disregard further statements from me.. that's fine.

I think the cake analogy that was posted from reddit is spot on, I don't own a bump stock, But I support a lot of things I don't own, or do.

I support smokers right to smoke and without being taxed to death.. I have cast votes to this effect.. I can't stand cigarettes, I hate them, But I support your right to smoke if you want.

I support your right to drink alcohol, I don't drink, I've tried beer twice and never got past 3 swallows.. That might come as a shock given my name but if it is I'd tell you my name is also not Joe.

The desire to impair my judgement even slightly has absolutely no appeal.
I will still back you up to have the drink of your choice.
Even if that means some people will then get in a car and have a wreck and possibly kill the other driver. (I don't support drunk driving just to be clear, Just like I don't support murder or mass shootings)

I support your right to hunt, I don't hunt, I have never hunted, I wouldn't mind trying hog hunted however, but I support YOUR right to hunt, I support less restrictions and greater opportunities for hunters.

Very often That support is not reciprocated by the hardcore hunters who see no need for my evil black weapons.

I don't own a bump stock but I support your right to own a bump stock.
Pick and choose what you care about and you may one day find you fight alone.

I fight for Liberty.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Just because something is connected with guns, doesn't make it a 2nd A issue. It may, but not by default.

Anything gun related they want to ban makes it a 2a issue.. at least to me it does.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Does a bump stock improve the gun it is fitted to?

Would you use it in a HD situation?

Does anyone ever advocate spray and pray for SD?

Is a bump-stock primarily recreational?

I wouldn't use any rifle for HD.

Spray and Pray it would depend in most situations no.
But bump firing does not = mag dump it can be stopped in between.
Why do swat carry select fire weapons if they have no use?

Improve is pretty subjective.. If you want a bump fire stock then obviously you would say yes.
I suppose we could start applying some sort of benchmark.. maybe I dunno we'll call it "sporting purpose" or something to decide if somethings legit.. I mean im just thinking off the top of my head here. /Sarcasm

Is it recreational, Surely the answer to this is yes

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

I've said this before and I'll say it again: The RKBA is a great thing. It was written in to protect the citizenry from tyranny and guns achieved that.

They no longer do. People think they do but they don't.

The 2a was written after not before.
Just because there hasn't been a need to overthrow a tyrant in our short history as a country does not mean it won't be in the future, We long ago lost parity with the government so the 2a has already been greatly diminished.

We still have 1a, we still have what appears to be an honest vote.. although there is at least one time I know of when the vote was rigged:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ens_%281946%29

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

The courts are your defence against tyranny now because it is the courts who will decide if guns are taken away or not.

No one is actually going to take up arms against the government and no one on here would advocate that, despite all the "defence against tyranny" rhetoric. And any government that turned to tyranny would not do so before the public was disarmed and this would happen through the courts.

They are until they aren't.. What happens if tomorrow they decide it's ok to go collect all the guns in America? Highly unlikely but what if they don't do it at once but piecemeal.. at what point do you not comply?

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

So you need to keep that system on side.

Other way around, System needs to stay on the side of the people.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

What the 2nd A still does is allow citizens to have the most effective self-defence at their disposal to protect their right to a peaceful life for themselves and their loved ones, free of unwarranted aggression. That, for me is as important, if not more so than the tyranny argument. Because it is more relevant on a day-today basis.

You're to concerned with today, by the time you reach your limit you'll be half cooked, I prefer to just fight for every inch that's left.. don't bring the wooden horse thru the gate.

Some fights will be lost im sure.. why make it easier?

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

What happens when those two decide this is more than their re-election chances are worth and let it go to a vote?

What happens when they lose their election because they backed a policy that was frowned upon by the public, be it sound or not?

Our greatest strength is our fervor.

Many of us at times can be 1 issue voters.. the general public has a shorter memory and won't make 2a a litmus test.

At least that's what I'd have said a week ago.
Now I ain't sure after seeing so many willing to just give in often with illusions of trade offs. I don't care about bump stocks let's trade them for suppressors.. I almost busted my head on the desk falling out of my chair laughing at that.

As for the ones that think they can win reelections by voting for gun control..
Ask them if they want another 1994

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

I mean, I hope you're right. I hope it is not going to snow-ball.

It only snowballs if we do nothing, if we can't provide a united front they will erode until they find a common line just hope the common line arrives before they ban something you do care about.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

As for bailing on the NRA over this, I think that would be biting one's nose to spite one's face. Again, in the grand scheme of RKBA things, this is not a central issue. It is, however, a major issue in the court of public opinion, IMHO.

I was already sour on the NRA years ago.. they supported the 34 and 68 law, Think im BS'ing you? They said so in a 1968 issue of American Riflemen, I believe march issue.

I think GOA actually has some scans of it on their website but I"ll go hunt it down if you doubt me.

When ever I bought that up in the past people would tell me NRA was not a political org back then and it was a different time, and blah blah blah.. well they tried to squash Heller vs DC They was afraid of a loss.. only after it was too late to stop they decided to get behind it.. After the win NRA started the "stand and fight" moto and I thought Ok maybe it's a new leaf.

NRA is dead to me now Im planing on contacting them today about it and I won't be cashing in the 4 years coming to me from Taurus for buying their guns recently.

I don't need the NRA, My state org's do more then the NRA even though one has gotten super chummy with them in the last few years.

After I finish with the NRA im gonna compose a email and call my rep's just to tell them I don't support a ban before they think no one cares and they try to cash in publicly on the momentum..

[RC20]

I fight for Liberty.

No, you in fact fight for what your twisted view of liberty is.

Liberty is not owning a gun, free speech is, a free press is (and despite the denigrations, they do a fair job and one you do not).

If fact your so called right to smoke has an impact on the rest of society, if you want to kill yourself I am ok with that (informed suicide as opposed to depressed)

But a smoker is a lower educated individual proportionally , they are a greater drain and far less contributor to society in all ways and they impact the health and well being of those who have to be in their vicinity. You can't smoke in a vacuum.

And the rest of us have to pay for your cancer costs, the cost of illness and cancer to your kids and SO as well as second hand smoke you inflict on me.

In short, there is no logic to your statement. Its selective and self serving.

James P has great points, he lives what a truly authoritarian giant not only looks like, his country lived with that giants fist on his country.

I have not lived his life, but I have read in depth the history.

Go live in NK for a while, come back and report.

And that folks is how a minority feels when they are about to have to give up something for the benefit of society.

Entitlement are always so hard to let go of aren't they?

What he is really saying is we control the levers of power despite being a minority and we hope we can hold this down to where the levers can snuff it like they have for a long time.

That's the problem, isn't it. The push is for change NOW, not after looking at the facts. Gun control doesn't get passed because of the facts, it gets passed when emotions are running high and logic/facts are put on the back burner.

I strongly agree that the best course of action is to go about this in a systematic fashion, but it's looking more and more like that's not an option.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by RC20

No, you in fact fight for what your twisted view of liberty is.

Liberty is not owning a gun, free speech is, a free press is (and despite the denigrations, they do a fair job and one you do not).

If fact your so called right to smoke has an impact on the rest of society, if you want to kill yourself I am ok with that (informed suicide as opposed to depressed)

But a smoker is a lower educated individual proportionally , they are a greater drain and far less contributor to society in all ways and they impact the health and well being of those who have to be in their vicinity. You can't smoke in a vacuum.

And the rest of us have to pay for your cancer costs, the cost of illness and cancer to your kids and SO as well as second hand smoke you inflict on me.

In short, there is no logic to your statement. Its selective and self serving.

James P has great points, he lives what a truly authoritarian giant not only looks like, his country lived with that giants fist on his country.

I have not lived his life, but I have read in depth the history.

Go live in NK for a while, come back and report.

Point was I fight for a whole host of things I have no interest in personally.

So you just trashed smokers.. wanna take a stab at the drinkers? Or would that include you and there for aokay?

Wait you're saying Jame pond came from North Korea? Im confused.. maybe the 2nd hand smoke lowered my IQ.

[Pond, James Pond]

That was indeed a passionate post.
Just for the record don't assume I'm not equally passionate about firearms and firearms ownership. Trust me when I say that I live in an environment that is way more hostile to private firearms ownership than the States, even if Estonia is relatively generous with its firearm legislation.

Now onto the meat of your post!

If you consider it a 2A issue, then be my guest. Ultimately, your opinion and mine have little bearing as the courts will decide. But for me the 2A is way more important and above such gimmick recreational add-ons. Doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be banned it just means I don't see a bump-fire stock that is made for faeces and giggles as something that comes under the umbrella of protection from tyranny. And yes, I know that the 2A came in after the WoI....

You and I can just agree to disagree on that.

As for liberty, absolute liberty... there's no such thing.

Unless you live on an island alone, what you do and can do is tempered by the affect on those around you. It's called living in a society with laws.

RC20's point is valid. Your health insurance is doubtless higher than it would be if you were the only risk it had to cover, but it's not because part of your premium will go to cover some of the many co-morbidities associated with smoking and a host of other illnesses.

I don't suppose you'd support lifting all speed restrictions, would you?
I mean some people want to go fast, right?

Anyway, I digress...

By the way, I never said the 2A was about "NEED". I said it was about guns. Guns that afford the holder an effective defence against an abuse of their right to "life and liberty" whether by the authorities or a local ne'erdowell.

What happens if tomorrow they decide it's ok to go collect all the guns in America? Highly unlikely but what if they don't do it at once but piecemeal.. at what point do you not comply?

That is for the people to decide, each for themselves.
But as I said to Zukiphile, I think most would simply comply.

Those who don't would probably be slowly caught or killed in confrontations and in any case the firearms use that most gun owners on here enjoy such as range time etc would have been out-lawed long before.

And anyway, you make my point: the courts are the line separating a society that can be disarmed by government and one that has not been.
Whichever way you look at it, whichever outcome we end up with, they are the gate-keepers.

Our greatest strength is our fervor.

Agreed, but...

....it can also be your own worst enemy. Why do you think some anti-gun types are so fearful and weary of gun-owners: the zealots...

Sort of hard to convince the other side of your point of view when they're too scared to come to the table...

Here's my take which you can agree with or not. It is purely based on my gut feeling and worth as much in the grand scheme:

I think that if you fight a bump-stock ban (and especially if you win) I think you make the chances of bans on semi autos further down the line more likely, not less... Take that prediction or leave it...

[magnumPi]

Originally Posted by RC20

No, you in fact fight for what your twisted view of liberty is.

Liberty is not owning a gun, free speech is, a free press is (and despite the denigrations, they do a fair job and one you do not).

If fact your so called right to smoke has an impact on the rest of society, if you want to kill yourself I am ok with that (informed suicide as opposed to depressed)

But a smoker is a lower educated individual proportionally , they are a greater drain and far less contributor to society in all ways and they impact the health and well being of those who have to be in their vicinity. You can't smoke in a vacuum.

And the rest of us have to pay for your cancer costs, the cost of illness and cancer to your kids and SO as well as second hand smoke you inflict on me.

In short, there is no logic to your statement. Its selective and self serving.

James P has great points, he lives what a truly authoritarian giant not only looks like, his country lived with that giants fist on his country.

I have not lived his life, but I have read in depth the history.

Go live in NK for a while, come back and report.

I'm sorry, I find it hard to take anyone serious who actually makes the statement that they believe the media is doing a fair job.
Based on your many posts over many months RC20, it seems you can barely contain your disdain and disgust of most RTKBA advocates. Makes me wonder, why are you here?

And your tirade against smokers could easily be used against gunowners as well, simply substitute a few words here and there, and you have a reason to ban guns. Which implies an inconstancy in your belief structure, why are the arguments against smoking valid in your mind, but the same "for the public good" argument for guns not valid?

[Metal god]

I keep telling my self I'm going to stop posting in this thread because it seems to have run it's course . Then I see something I want to comment on . Maybe this will be my last

But for me the 2A is way more important and above such gimmick recreational add-ons.

I ask is it a "gimmick" only because the real thing has been restricted . There are many that feel full auto should not be restricted . There likely would not be bump/slide fire stocks if law abiding citizens had the same access to NFA items as they do to general firearms . This is one of those things that the government outlaws something . Then later justifies outlawing something else related because the related item is no longer "in common use" . I believe that has already been found unconstitutional .

You hear the anti's always saying the court has said it's not an unlimited right and we should compromise . I go back to the cake analogy I posted . We've compromised , if that's what you want to call having things kept from you with nothing given in return . It is time to say there are enough restrictions .

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

NRA is dead to me now Im planing on contacting them today about it and I won't be cashing in the 4 years coming to me from Taurus for buying their guns recently.
~
After I finish with the NRA im gonna compose a email and call my rep's just to tell them I don't support a ban before they think no one cares and they try to cash in publicly on the momentum..

Apparently the only way to cancel a membership is to send a letter to HQ.
Im not wasting a stamp so I told them to just kill the mag and not to call or mail me.



Now to contact my rep's.

[Pond, James Pond]

Then I see something I want to comment on . Maybe this will be my last

Well, I won't bait you into further comment unless you actually want to but you raise a good point. All the same the fact is that FAs are restricted and bump/slide-fire stocks are, as most seem to agree, a recreational item that don't make the gun more accurate to use. As I understand it even the military seem to advocate semi-auto operation of M4s etc so the usefulness of FA longarms may well be in question anyway...

I can only say what I said before, albeit it in a different way: I feel that to use the RKBA/2ndA defence for owning these stocks cheapens the RKBA/2ndA... It becomes about owning gun stuff for fun more than other reasons.

The fun side, although most prevalent in my own shooting practices, is still the least important reason for having a gun.... SD is the main reason and I hope I never need to apply that reason.

That, and the fact that I think defending such an item under the RKBA/2ndA would ultimately undermine the RKBA/2ndA by making a ban lon semi-autos later more likely.

It's just what I think...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

As for liberty, absolute liberty... there's no such thing.

It really doesn't require a state of absolute liberty to prohibit federal restrictions on a stock for a semi-automatic rifle simply because some people are having an emotion about it.

Originally Posted by PJP

I don't suppose you'd support lifting all speed restrictions, would you?
I mean some people want to go fast, right?

No where in our jurisprudence or COTUS is there a right to fast travel.

PJP, I believe you are missing part of the theme here, and I attribute none of that to your location; there are plenty of americans who don't quite get the point of a right as a principled matter.

If you want to ask about restrictions on rights, there are rights that are exercised with regulation. We can regulate public speech so demonstrations don't screw up traffic; we aren't supposed to regulate speech according to its content, so a law prohibiting a stupid word, let's say using ask as a noun, will run afoul of the 1st Am.

I think slide-fire stocks are sort of stupid and I think treating ask as a noun is pretty stupid.

I suppose I could write "If you consider misuse of the word ask a 1A issue, then be my guest. Ultimately, your opinion and mine have little bearing as the courts will decide. But for me the 1A is way more important and above such linguistic gimmickry. Doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be banned it just means I don't see "ask" as a noun as something that comes under the umbrella of protection from tyranny."

However, that would betray a misunderstanding of the right itself. Rights are necessary not for the things people can justify independently and with political success, but for the less popular things that can't survive the political process.

To be frank, I haven't any real interest in genuinely fully automatic arms or slide fire stock. They aren't my area of interest. Linguisticly gratuitous neologisms also hold no allure for me. Yet, a congress that moves against either threatens the rights I hold against government.

[Al Norris]

In order to make sure we do not have confusion and cross-posting of threads, let's confine ourselves to discussing Feintstein's bill (or others bills of the same ilk that may come before the Congress), here.

If you must discussing the NRA's stance and/or motives, then another thread remains open for that discussion: NRA is calling ATF to review the bump stock!!

A third thread was closed. Let's continue to remain civil, but let's use these two threads for the ramifications of the Las Vegas incident.

[JN01]

Originally posted by Pond, James Pond

I think that if you fight a bump-stock ban (and especially if you win) I think you make the chances of bans on semi autos further down the line more likely, not less... Take that prediction or leave it...

I believe the opposite is true. If you concede that a semi-auto with a bump fire stock is essentially the same as a machine gun, it will be easier for gun control fanatics (who are always wanting to ban semi-autos anyway) to argue that ANY semi-automatic that can be bump fired (without any sort of attachment) is equivalent to the others as well.

[jrinne0430]

I believe the opposite is true. If you concede that a semi-auto with a bump fire stock is essentially the same as a machine gun, it will be easier for gun control fanatics (who are always wanting to ban semi-autos anyway) to argue that ANY semi-automatic that can be bump fired (without any sort of attachment) is equivalent to the others as well.

I agree. Bump firing has been around long before the stocks and banning beltloops and rubber bands are not on the anti's minds. If anyone will visit the anti's sites, you will see the stocks are not their target, they are focused on semi-autos, registration, denials, then 2nd amended repeal. The NRA, some congressional members, and some fellow gun owners believe that making a deal with the devil will somehow benefit us in the long run but they are mistaken. The beast will never be satisfied and when the next shooting occurs in the near future, it will demand to be once again fed. What will we be willing to sacrifice the next time?

[Pond, James Pond]

Then I wish you all good luck!

I certainly hope to be wrong in this.

[Creek Henry]

We should be banning people on antidepressants from owning guns instead

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by shooterdownunder

What? I think your buddy has had a bit too much to drink. Scopes are in no way banned here.

Yeah, I should've done my due diligence about that, but instead I ASSumed he was properly informed. My bad. I deleted that from my original post. My apologies. Anyone who read that post (#134), please ignore that portion of it. Riflescopes, as far as I can determine, are just as available there as they are here.

[jrinne0430]

Here is Sen Kaine's bill. It should make Feinstein proud...It will never end.

Keep Up With Tim
10.6.17 Responding To Gun Violence in Las Vegas
Dear Friend,

Our hearts were broken by the news of another horrific mass shooting this week in Las Vegas -- the deadliest in modern U.S. history. My prayers are with the victims and their families coping with this terrible tragedy.

We continue to suffer horrific mass shootings -- in Virginia we know the unbearable pain they cause -- but Congress has remained unwilling to do anything to help stop them from happening again and again. We have to do better.

This week, I introduced four gun safety bills that seek to make common sense reforms. The first two bills would close dangerous loopholes that allow people to buy bump stocks and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. These accessories make weapons more dangerous and can make it more difficult for law enforcement to stop a shooter. I also introduced a bill that would require the completion of a background check before any gun sale, something the vast majority of Americans support. No one should be able to purchase a firearm before a background check has been completed. Finally, I joined legislation to repeal a shameless law passed in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers and firearms dealers from civil liability.

While no single legislative action can solve the problem of gun violence or wholly prevent another tragedy, Congress should continue to pursue solutions that would help reduce it. We need to take long overdue action on gun safety and quickly pass these bills that can save lives.

Sincerely,



Tim Kaine

[Metal god]

Slippery slope WHAT

Let me guess Mr Kaine you are willing to compromise and only insist on 3 of the 4 Hmm seems he wants my cake and eat it to .

No vote for you !

Finally, I joined legislation to repeal a shameless law passed in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers and firearms dealers from civil liability.

That one is absurd . No way Ford should be liable when a mad man runs over a bunch of people any more then S&W should be liable for a mad man using there firearms to shoot people . One has nothing to do with the other .

[Stats Shooter]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think most gun owners of all shades do not mind slide fire stocks going away....springless versions of the Atkins Accelerator.

The problem is that there is all give on the part of gun owners, and all take on the side of gun controllers. The only wins for gun rights proliferation is though the courts.

Time after Time we see the left wing pass a restriction , only to pass another one, and another one. And we know already what the logical conclusion is....an outright ban on civilian ownership of most firearms, if not all. Let's not forget DC's ban on pistols, or all the kooky stuff California does legislatively.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if WE KNEW for sure that gun laws on owning AR's , AK's , pistols, buying ammo etc would never get more restrictive than it already is. But it will never be enough. If they can't ban them they make procuring them difficult, or ban where you can have guns...or neuter them to single shot only etc. And if that doesn't work make getting ammo difficult. And if that doesn't work, make it so you can sue all gun makers into bankruptcy so no one makes them anymore.

Again, me being presumptuous, but if we could sit down and discuss what laws made sense and what current laws are senseless, and discussed enforcement constructively. But when one side wants an almost all out ban, there really isn't much of a middle ground to be found.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Then I wish you all good luck!

I certainly hope to be wrong in this.

The problem is history has shown it does not stop, Steps are incremental.
That's why I don't wanna just roll over on the fight because it's like throwing your self in front of a run away bus, you're not gonna stop it, it's senseless sacrifice and when you show weakness on the subject and they see a gap to exploit....

few days ago it was ban bump stocks as you see you give a inch and now it's "gun show loophole", mag capacity, and civil liability for gun manufacturers (and im sure dealers)

They're loading up the truck.. Imagine that? The smart thing here would be to write a very narrowly focused bill and cash in on the other sides willingness to sacrifice bump stocks.. They'ed probably pass it quick and clean.. I hope they don't.. I hope they load that truck till the tires go flat.

The bigger the bite the bigger the choke.

Originally Posted by jrinne0430

Here is Sen Kaine's bill. It should make Feinstein proud...It will never end.

And here we go they're at the buffet.. This could actually be a good thing.
The more they ask for the less chance they get anything.

Unlike healthcare that keeps coming up they're only gonna get one bite at the apple.. least till the next shooting.

The longer they take to load up a bill the less chance it will ever even see a vote, and if it does get a vote the less likely it's going to go anywhere.

My US house rep is a lost cause didn't even bother msg'ing her she'd take Bidens shotgun if she could and she won reelection by to far a margin to threaten here with reelection, Senator Brown I sent a msg but he's a sold YES vote on anything anti gun... I just gotta keep my man Portman strong as a check on Brown in the senate.