No ban on bump stocks. I think the debate was won after Sandy Hook. There will be no legislation o guns in this country. If bump stocks are legal you might as go with full automatic. If a gun man sitting at floor 32 firing into a country concert isn’t enough to move Republicans nothing will.

Three Weeks After Las Vegas, Legislation to Ban Bump Stocks Has Stalled Out in Congress

An effort to ban bump stocks is effectively dead, aides and advocates say. And the NRA isn’t the lone suspect.

Three weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, efforts to pass even scaled-down gun-control legislation have effectively stalled on Capitol Hill.

Congressional aides and issue advocates say they see no viable path for passing even the most promising bill: an effort to ban the manufacturing and sale of bump stocks, which were used by the Las Vegas shooter to essentially turn his semi-automatic weapons into fully automatics ones.

“Depressing but not surprising,” is how one senior House Democratic aide put it.

“It’s pathetic,” said another.

The failure of lawmakers to move bump stock legislation comes despite the willingness of several House Republicans to sign on to the measure. A bill introduced by Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) has 20 co-sponsors in total—ten Democratic and ten Republican. But aides say that there is no indication that the House Judiciary Committee is going to consider that bill, or a similar one signed by 173 Democrats. Democrats are expected to ask the Committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), to address the matter in the week ahead.

Prospects look bleak in the Senate too. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill banning bump stocks has 39 Democratic co-sponsors but not one Republican, though an aide said that she is still hopeful that she can convince one to sign on to the measure. Even were she to find a GOP co-sponsor there is no guarantee that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would bring the bill up for consideration.

A committee spokesman for Grassley told The Daily Beast that the committee has been briefed about “regulatory and technical issues involving bump stocks” and that they are “evaluating potential regulatory and legislative proposals.”

More here

https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-week...n-congress

The NRA seems to be on the side on regulating these bump stocks.

(10-24-2017 10:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No ban on bump stocks. I think the debate was won after Sandy Hook. There will be no legislation o guns in this country. If bump stocks are legal you might as go with full automatic. If a gun man sitting at floor 32 firing into a country concert isn’t enough to move Republicans nothing will.

Here's the thing... if a "law" doesn't stop somebody, nothing will.

You do know there was already a law in place that banned murder.

(10-24-2017 10:59 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Here's the thing... if a "law" doesn't stop somebody, nothing will.

You do know there was already a law in place that banned murder.

Don't confuse the bleeding heart lefties with any logic or facts.

(10-24-2017 10:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No ban on bump stocks. I think the debate was won after Sandy Hook. There will be no legislation o guns in this country. If bump stocks are legal you might as go with full automatic. If a gun man sitting at floor 32 firing into a country concert isn’t enough to move Republicans nothing will.

Move them to what?

What could or would have stopped this guy?

Until he opened fire on all those innocent people, what was he in violation of?

When were “bump stocks” oked?

Americans choose to live with guns and gun violence. It is not an ignorant policy decision as I think most Americans are aware of the ramifications of that policy. We do because it is a sensible, rational decision.

Yes. So let’s not make it so easy for those wanting to commit murder on a large scale. It’s the access. Listen. If we can’t get bump stocks banned. The fight is over. Move onto something else. I think after Sandy Hook the debate was clear and concise. If that Las Vegas incident doesn’t get a Republican to move on gun legislation. Nothing will.

I'm not even convinced he used a bump stock. Until the FBI starts answering questions again, holding off on any knee-jerk policy decisions is the right thing to do.

(10-24-2017 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Listen. If we can’t get bump stocks banned. The fight is over. Move onto something else. I think after Sandy Hook the debate was clear and concise. If that Las Vegas incident doesn’t get a Republican to move on gun legislation. Nothing will.

Yes. You are correct. Americans and their elected representatives agree with you.

You can’t convince me of an argument of the need for these large scaled gun clips. This guy had an Arsenal in that room. It’s idiotic to say on one hand what could have stopped this guy and then in the other hand block any legislative efforts for assault weapons ban.


The intent of the post is to tell you the debate is over. You guys won.

Kronke........

How do you get up in the morning and figure out what end of the tooth brush to use?

(10-24-2017 11:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You can’t convince me of an argument of the need for these large scaled gun clips.

That's OK, different people have different opinions. I respect very much the idea that large capacity magazines can provide higher rates of sustained fire. It's not debatable, in fact.

(10-24-2017 11:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s idiotic to say on one hand what could have stopped this guy and then in the other hand block any legislative efforts for assault weapons ban.

I am almost completely certain that there have been no reputable sources claiming that this guy could have been stopped by laws current or proposed.

Unless, of course, your proposal is to completely ban firearms?

(10-24-2017 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes. So let’s not make it so easy for those wanting to commit murder on a large scale. It’s the access. Listen. If we can’t get bump stocks banned. The fight is over. Move onto something else. I think after Sandy Hook the debate was clear and concise. If that Las Vegas incident doesn’t get a Republican to move on gun legislation. Nothing will.

If you were given the choice to eliminate one and only one type of killing event which would you choose?

1. Mass shooting event (multiple victims)
2. Single shooting event (one victim)

Would you choose to eliminate all future mass shooting events or would you choose to eliminate all future single shooting event?

(10-24-2017 10:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Three Weeks After Las Vegas, Legislation to Ban Bump Stocks Has Stalled Out in Congress

An effort to ban bump stocks is effectively dead, aides and advocates say. And the NRA isn’t the lone suspect.

Three weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, efforts to pass even scaled-down gun-control legislation have effectively stalled on Capitol Hill.

Congressional aides and issue advocates say they see no viable path for passing even the most promising bill: an effort to ban the manufacturing and sale of bump stocks, which were used by the Las Vegas shooter to essentially turn his semi-automatic weapons into fully automatics ones.

“Depressing but not surprising,” is how one senior House Democratic aide put it.

“It’s pathetic,” said another.

The failure of lawmakers to move bump stock legislation comes despite the willingness of several House Republicans to sign on to the measure. A bill introduced by Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) has 20 co-sponsors in total—ten Democratic and ten Republican. But aides say that there is no indication that the House Judiciary Committee is going to consider that bill, or a similar one signed by 173 Democrats. Democrats are expected to ask the Committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), to address the matter in the week ahead.

Prospects look bleak in the Senate too. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill banning bump stocks has 39 Democratic co-sponsors but not one Republican, though an aide said that she is still hopeful that she can convince one to sign on to the measure. Even were she to find a GOP co-sponsor there is no guarantee that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would bring the bill up for consideration.

A committee spokesman for Grassley told The Daily Beast that the committee has been briefed about “regulatory and technical issues involving bump stocks” and that they are “evaluating potential regulatory and legislative proposals.”

More here

https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-week...n-congress

You realize that you can replicate what a bump stock does by simply looping your trigger finger through your belt loop (to maintain a stable position for the trigger) and fire while applying forward pressure with the hand supporting the front of the gun. There are lots of other ways to do it. Didnt the guy in Fance kill 100 people with a truck? If you want to kill a lot of people I doubt the bump stock ban would make much difference.

That said, Id be fine with banning them. I just dont think it would make much difference.

I know the hoplophobes aren't going to believe it but it's my opinion that the bump stock and it's inherent inaccuracy probably saved lives. Had he taken single, well aimed shots there is no doubt in my mind he would have killed more people.

(10-24-2017 11:36 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I know the hoplophobes aren't going to believe it but it's my opinion that the bump stock and it's inherent inaccuracy probably saved lives. Had he taken single, well aimed shots there is no doubt in my mind he would have killed more people.

I get what you're saying. Makes perfect sense.

(10-24-2017 11:38 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:36 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I know the hoplophobes aren't going to believe it but it's my opinion that the bump stock and it's inherent inaccuracy probably saved lives. Had he taken single, well aimed shots there is no doubt in my mind he would have killed more people.

I get what you're saying. Makes perfect sense.

I figured most with firearms experience would.

But alas we are probably going to continue to get lectures from people so ignorant about guns that after the many threads we have had on the subject still don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine. At this point I realize that it's not a lack of knowledge it's simply willful ignorance on their part and should weigh heavily when considering their emotional screeching on the subject.

(10-24-2017 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes. So let’s not make it so easy for those wanting to commit murder on a large scale. It’s the access. Listen. If we can’t get bump stocks banned. The fight is over. Move onto something else. I think after Sandy Hook the debate was clear and concise. If that Las Vegas incident doesn’t get a Republican to move on gun legislation. Nothing will.

Move to what?

Specifically.

As in, “if we had done xxx, xxx many years ago, Vegas wouldn’t have happened or been possible to happen.

All ears.

What?

(10-24-2017 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yes. So let’s not make it so easy for those wanting to commit murder on a large scale. It’s the access. Listen. If we can’t get bump stocks banned. The fight is over. Move onto something else. I think after Sandy Hook the debate was clear and concise. If that Las Vegas incident doesn’t get a Republican to move on gun legislation. Nothing will.

Mach, while I have no qualms with making bump stocks illegal - you think they will disappear from the country?? Kinda like because Heroin is illegal, there isn't any in the country?

The fact that our southern border is a sieve all but assures all this new law will accomplish is adding another lucrative "commodity" to the black market for the cartels to make money from.

You want to lobby for more mental health money for the loonies among us, okay.

Wait - why don't we just "make a law" that makes it illegal to kill other people - no more murders, problem solved!! I mean, the criminals and mentally ill won't break that law!