The Threat is Real, very real.

[Klem]

Until this year Pennsylvania would not let hunters hunt with a semi-automatic firearm.

I could have said all semi-autos should be banned because I had no use for them, but I didn't.

I fully supported your gun rights. Just because you have no use for something doesn't mean you should want them banned.

That is the anti-gunners biggest arguement that they use against us, that ... "No one really needs to have a gun".

That's fine, that's the stance you take and I respect that. That is democracy in action. My thoughts are tat you conveniently misquoting me. I'm not saying that 'No one really needs to have a gun'. I believe not only that we need guns but we should have them. I'm saying, 'No one really needs to have a bump-stock'. If you want Full-auto then go through the process of being vetted by the authorities, for all our safety.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

The point overlooked by everyone using the "need" argument is the 2A is not about every day needs. It is completely about ensuring that the population can defend against foreign and domestic (including overreaching government) enemies.

Our extensive sporting and recreational shooting opportunities are by-products of that protection.

Well stated, JASmith:


(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...p-us-safe.html)

[41bear]

With cries of Bump stocks, 60 round mags, suppressors, and other crazy additions to our already over burdened Second Amendment rights I offer this alternate into the root cause of our problem.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-ringo/a-theory-on-las-vegas/10155111388257055/

[biodsl]

With 58 killied and 500+ wounded, somehow I doubt that John Q. Public is going to be convinced guns are not the issue.

I've been asked about three times over the last several days my reaction to this shooting. My reply is always the same. "Thank God he didn't use a truck."

[montana]

The point overlooked by everyone using the "need" argument is the 2A is not about every day needs. It is completely about ensuring that the population can defend against foreign and domestic (including overreaching government) enemies.

Our extensive sporting and recreational shooting opportunities are by-products of that protection.

You are absolutely correct. My post on democide was the reason we have the Second Amendment. People in government are just that, "people" with the same capacity of decency and evil as the population as a whole. When power is concentrated with a small group bad things seem to always happen. This is why we are suppose to have division of power. The Second Amendment is part of that division. No other nation has these freedoms. Saying homosexuality is a sin or Islam evil will get you jailed in the UK. Not exactly my idea of a free nation. Every tragedy is not a conspiracy yet rolling ones eyes when questioning the "official" story line is not logical either considering the history of many official story lines from the past.

[bj139]

Don't give up any gun related accessory, no matter how small. It just gets you used to giving up.

That is what they want; to chip away your rights a bit at a time till the only thing left is dust.

If I have to put on a tin-foil hat to say it, I will.

BTW, tin-foil hat (attacking the person) is a brainwashing technique to distract your attention from the real issue.

If you don't realize you are being brainwashed, you probably are.

[montana]

That's fine, that's the stance you take and I respect that. That is democracy in action. My thoughts are tat you conveniently misquoting me. I'm not saying that 'No one really needs to have a gun'. I believe not only that we need guns but we should have them. I'm saying, 'No one really needs to have a bump-stock'. If you want Full-auto then go through the process of being vetted by the authorities, for all our safety.

Klem, your going down a dark scary road when you use the word "need". Almost any freedom or choice can be destroyed by the word "need". Do you need a 400 horsepower car, donuts, beer, 3 children instead of 2, nightclubs, concerts, coffee, etc, etc. The Second Amendment is about division of power not sport hunting, target shooting or games. If going through the process of being vetted for full auto ownership was to keep others safe then a one time vetting would be enough for other full auto purchases. That is not the case. Banning firearms violated the Second Amendment so they made it into a tax. Owning antiquated firearms is not what the 2nd Amend is about and banning this device or that gun is a violation of the intent of the 2nd Amend.. Today case law is trumping Constitutional intent. This is criminal but it is working because of a purposeful misdirection of the intent of the Second Amendment has been spewing out of our educational system and media for decades. Our First Amendment is now under attack by the term hate speech. Never compromise on freedom.

[montana]

I've been asked about three times over the last several days my reaction to this shooting. My reply is always the same. "Thank God he didn't use a truck."

[BjornF16]

That's fine, that's the stance you take and I respect that. That is democracy in action. My thoughts are tat you conveniently misquoting me. I'm not saying that 'No one really needs to have a gun'. I believe not only that we need guns but we should have them. I'm saying, 'No one really needs to have a bump-stock'. If you want Full-auto then go through the process of being vetted by the authorities, for all our safety.

Klem

Minor but significant point. America is not a democracy...we are a Constitutional Republic. The whims of emotional people were purposely muted and our rights (allegedly) protected/enshrined against government encroachment with the Bill of Rights.

[bj139]

Klem

Minor but significant point. America is not a democracy...we are a Constitutional Republic. The whims of emotional people were purposely muted and our rights (allegedly) protected/enshrined against government encroachment with the Bill of Rights.

Yes. Good point.

[Drift]

Does anyone know if the NRA directors who want to curtail bump stocks have personnel access to fully automatic firearms themselves? Is this another instance of an elite few who want to ban usage, but not forgo the privilege themselves?

[howl]

I think you have to consider the business side of the NRA when considering actions. The lack of threat and loss of rights has not been good for business. That's where a lot of the internal strife has come from over the years.

[howl]

Well, it's all about the risk we all take living in a democracy where a small portion of gun owners want to misuse their guns. As a gun owner, do you want to live with the risk that someone will misuse a bump-stock to maximise carnage for continued access to them? I love my guns but don't particularly care about bump stocks. So, if it makes society a tiny bit more safe then sure, let's ban them. We've all got to live together and I also want live in a safe place.

As for encouraging the narrative that guns are the problem, well to be honest they are part of the problem. Obviously it is the nut behind the bolt that does the killing but you cannot deny that restricting civilian gun ownership lessens the likelihood of firearm misuse. But, this logic only holds true if the restrictions are across the board and cannot be circumvented. There are of course other issues at play here;

1. The definition of freedom in a country that valorises gun ownership.
2. The potential the guy will simply use a different means to kill others.
3. The likelihood that restriction will only target law-abiding citizens in a country where the authorities remain largely unaware of who has what.

and probably a bunch of other cogent arguments that with a little effort we can think of.

My argument is that gun restriction is a politically convenient and clumsy way of mitigating the problem. If it works then let democracy in a population decide the extent of restriction, but we all know it doesn't really work.

I'd rather they used a bump stock than a truck loaded with diesel and fertilizer. If these wackos have to get serious about killing, serious enough to use things other than guns, survivability of Joe Q. goes way down. That is the message to the public so they understand guns are not the problem.

And follow up with that we lose 100+ per day to traffic accidents. Why is there no outcry for those people as there is with gun control? Because reducing traffic accidents does not expand control of the people the way disarming them could.

I watched Eric Pratt use almost the above argument against an anti-gunner on tv yesterday. He owned the poor disarmer so bad the hostess gave up trying to help him out. This is plain as day. Don't concede unnecessary defeat.

Edited to add this quote: "And then, of course, there's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who when it was pointed out to her that banning bump stocks could lead to further gun control, shot back: "So what? ... I certainly hope so.""

[JASmith]

Please forgive my naivete, but what is the difference between the rate of fire and convenience of use between a bump stock and firearm fitted to be full auto?

My impression is that the functionality is very mich the samefor the two types. That similarity creates a contradiction in the regulations if one is freely permitted and the other requires a long approval and tax process.

That might might the cause for the NRA request for an ATF review. The request also makes it seem tihat the NRA has some flexibiltiy.

[Klem]

Please forgive my naivete, but what is the difference between the rate of fire and convenience of use between a bump stock and firearm fitted to be full auto?

My impression is that the functionality is very mich the samefor the two types. That similarity creates a contradiction in the regulations if one is freely permitted and the other requires a long approval and tax process.

That might might the cause for the NRA request for an ATF review. The request also makes it seem tihat the NRA has some flexibiltiy.

I'd say the difference you are pointing out is only relevant if someone wants to access full-auto legally. Paddock could have purchased full-auto parts legally and just been careful about having them lying around in case of 'Constructive intent'. Bought a drill press and removed some meat in the lower and drilled a hole for the auto sear. You can buy jigs for the hole or just measure the spot and do it manually.

Or, he can take the path of least resistance and buy a bump stock legally and practise using it to make it work. Both ways don't involve any contact with the authorities.

As for all the other arguments here...You all know I am a gun owner and because of that I am selfish in my own want to own and use guns. I am not overly worried if someone opposes my suggestion that some restriction is good for the rest of society because it will affect me as well. Where I come from in the southern hemisphere the population all seems to agree in gun restriction, including gun owners. Talk to any gun owner and they all strongly agree there should be some checks and balances for the greater good. Here there is no right to have firearms, only privileges. Our culture is less defined by the individual imperative to have the means to protect your family, less individualistic and with less emphasis on individual entitlement. We have never had a civil war and so while sometimes people groan about being over-governed there is less community suspicion of the government. Not saying it is a better culture but just different. I have legal access the guns I want in a society that restricts them so it's not the end of the world, just the bottom of the world....