senorgrand wrote:

MaxWyatt wrote:

senorgrand wrote:I'm cool with bump-fire stocks going to tax stamp status. But since gun owners are asked by prohibitionists to "compromise" on new gun laws, what thing will they give up in return?

Perhaps relaxing background checks for CHL holders or other who have already been vetted at a higher standard than the normal background check? Seems like a rational give/take scenario to me. ...not that rational has anything to do with it.

highdesert wrote:
.......
I'm a strong believer in an evidence-based approach to new gun legislation. There is clean data out there that would help in developing new laws.

IMO, we need to use this approach. The recent 538 article pointed this out with great clarity.

Your point about CHL holders is interesting. Meaningless in CA, but...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control measures, introduced a bill Wednesday that would ban the sale and possession of bump-stock equipment and other devices that essentially turn a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) told reporters Tuesday that multiple bump stocks were found in the hotel room used by the shooter, who opened fire during the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on Sunday, killing 58 people and injuring over 500 others. According to a copy of the bill text provided to ABC, it would go into effect 180 days after its passage.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,” the bill states. The ban would not apply to sales or possession of the devices by U.S. agencies or departments. Feinstein, who in 2013 authored an assault weapons ban bill, which failed 40-60 in the Senate, currently has 24 co-sponsors of the bill, all Democrats. Republican leaders have pushed back on Democrats' calls for tightening gun control legislation after the shooting, calling the demands premature.

"I think it's particularly inappropriate to politicize an event like this," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday. "The investigation's not even been completed. And I think it's premature to be discussing legislative solutions if there are any." "In the meantime, our priority is on tax reform, as my colleagues have indicated," McConnell added.

highdesert wrote:

senorgrand wrote:If you want to avoid the "slippery slope" pitfall, just ask both sides what their limits are...what guns are OK and shouldn't be banned under any circumstances?

Sadly, the NRA seems to be more honest about their end game than do the gun prohibitionists.

You're right because the NRA knows firearms and the prohibitionists lack that knowledge but have passion and emotion. I think many of the anti-gun group were trying to pattern themselves after MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) but that was a very different campaign.

I'm a strong believer in an evidence-based approach to new gun legislation. There is clean data out there that would help in developing new laws.

Las Vegas Gunman May Have First Planned to Attack Chance the Rapper and Lorde Concert

featureless wrote:I'm no CSI but why are the magazines on the opposite side of the column? And how'd his foot get under the rifle on the bipod without knocking it over? Surreal shit in those photos.

+1 to YankeeTarheel's thoughts above.

p0lyhuman wrote:

featureless wrote:I'm no CSI but why are the magazines on the opposite side of the column? And how'd his foot get under the rifle on the bipod without knocking it over? Surreal shit in those photos.

+1 to YankeeTarheel's thoughts above.

He may have sat down first.

As for the magazines, who knows what his "workflow" was.

Eris wrote:

senorgrand wrote:

MaxWyatt wrote:

senorgrand wrote:I'm cool with bump-fire stocks going to tax stamp status. But since gun owners are asked by prohibitionists to "compromise" on new gun laws, what thing will they give up in return?

Perhaps relaxing background checks for CHL holders or other who have already been vetted at a higher standard than the normal background check? Seems like a rational give/take scenario to me. ...not that rational has anything to do with it.

highdesert wrote:
.......
I'm a strong believer in an evidence-based approach to new gun legislation. There is clean data out there that would help in developing new laws.

IMO, we need to use this approach. The recent 538 article pointed this out with great clarity.

Your point about CHL holders is interesting. Meaningless in CA, but...

Not only is it meaningless in places where it's hard to get a CHL, it is already the case in some places. Here in Texas, if you have a license to carry then they don't need to do the federal background check when you purchase a new firearm.

White male gun violence in the United States cannot be disentangled from the history of a nation that established "freedom" by using firearms to murder and control Indigenous peoples and slaves. Massacres are in this country's DNA. [That OWG in the White House], with his grievance politics and sanctioning of violence at his rallies, has freed up many white men to feel a bolstered sense entitlement to their inner rage. With his scornful and incendiary comments, [that OWG] has tapped into the vein of a long, deeply embedded violent tradition in US culture.

It would be wrong to say that none of the measures that aim to control gun manufacture and distribution would work. Some of them would, no doubt, be ameliorative (although we must be cautious, and ensure that these measures do not further criminalize and incarcerate marginalized people, particularly people of color). Nevertheless, until the US comes to terms with its historical embrace of state violence as the key to so-called "American exceptionalism," the horrifying nightmare of gun violence will continue in this country, as the result of white masculine rage and domination.

Top Senate Republicans said Wednesday they are open to considering legislation banning devices that were reportedly used to gun down scores of people in the worst mass shooting in modern American history. Bump stocks — also known as “slide fire” devices, which work by rapidly “bumping” the trigger of a semi-automatic weapon to boost the rate of fire — were reportedly used by Stephen Paddock to kill 58 people and wound more than 500 in Sunday’s Las Vegas massacre. No Republican has yet joined Democrats in endorsing a bill targeting bump stocks, but their comments suggest a potential shift in the party’s typically hard-line opposition to gun control measures.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), the second-ranking Senate Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, has dispatched his staff to research the use of bump stocks and said it would be “worthwhile” to have a hearing on the topic. “It is ordinarily illegal to transform a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon, and it’s illegal to buy an automatic weapon unless you have a special license and undergo a special background check,” Cornyn said in an interview. “I’m not sure how these bump stocks fit into that scheme, but that’s certainly something that’s got my attention and I think we ought to get to the bottom of it.” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Senate Republican, said he had talked to other GOP lawmakers about the narrow topic of bump stocks and said several were at least interested in finding out more about how those devices are used. “I think it’s something we ought to look into,” Thune said. “I don’t know a lot about them and I’m somebody who, I’d like to think, is fairly familiar with a lot of firearms and you know, the use of those. And that incident out there is something that I think we need to take a look at.”

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) even said he’d support a bill barring bump stocks from purchase. “Automatic weapons are illegal. If that facilitates that, to me it would subject to the same ban,” Johnson said. “If that actually gets on the Senate floor I’d vote for it.” Use of the accessory has become more widespread since the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said in 2010 that it would not object to their sale. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and more than two dozen Democrats unveiled a bill on Wednesday to prohibit the sale of bump-stock devices. “Bump stocks — which cost less than $200 — increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire from between 45 to 60 rounds per minute to between 400 to 800 rounds per minute. That’s the same rate of fire as automatic weapons,” Feinstein, a longtime gun-control advocate, told reporters. “The only reason to modify a gun is to kill as many people as possible in as short as time as possible.” The sale of automatic weapons has long been tightly regulated, including by a 1986 law that banned individuals from owning or transferring such weapons. Kits to convert semi-automatic to automatic weapons are also banned.

A host of rank-and-file GOP senators expressed interest in learning more about the devices Wednesday. We’re looking at that too. I wasn’t familiar with them until this came up. So we’re looking at that and studying the issue,” added Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “It’s a terrible tragedy and we should look at it.” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said that he’s not a gun expert, so he’s been quizzing a close friend familiar with technical specifications of bump stocks to better understand the issue. Flake said a ban should not be dismissed summarily out of hand, though he worried that Democrats would rush to push legislation before Republicans familiarized themselves with the matter. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) didn’t dismiss the proposal but said he needed to “think through” how rapidly a narrow piece of gun legislation could spiral into a broader debate about concealed carry, background checks and other measures that are unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate.

“If you were to ask me about that or any other thing dealing with the Second Amendment, I think you’ve got to think of the process more than you think of any given issue,” Grassley said in an interview. “If you get a gun bill on the floor, you’re going to have all the amendments on the left and all the amendments on the right.” Other Republicans, including Sens. Mike Rounds (S.D.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and David Perdue (Ga.) also left the door open to action on bump stocks. “You can’t buy a chain-fed machine gun in the United States today. There’s a reason for that,” Perdue said. “I’d want to make sure that nobody had access to that, if that’s the law of the land.” But other conservative Republicans insisted that they will resist any measure to restrict gun use, including limits on the rapid-fire devices. “I’m a Second Amendment man,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). “I’m not for any gun control, OK? None.”

“I don’t think we ought to punish 80, 90 million gun owners who have a right to own a weapon under the Constitution because of the act of one idiot,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “Just like I don’t think we ought to condemn all Muslims because of the act of one jihadist.” Even Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican namesake for legislation four years ago that sought to expand background checks, was unpersuaded that lawmakers should pass a bill barring bump stocks. However, he said in a statement later Wednesday that he is open to hearings on the issue. “You know, I am very skeptical about legislation that attempts to ban features and particular guns,” Toomey said. “So I haven’t looked at it, but I’m skeptical.” Democrats worried that if there wasn’t quick action, pro-gun rights groups would pressure Republicans to withhold their support. “My only pessimism comes in our failure to address the terror watch list in the wake of Orlando. That seemed like no brainer just like bump stocks seem like a no-brainer,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “And ultimately we couldn’t get there but you’ve got to walk before you can run and if we could find some small agreement on bump stocks, that’s meaningful progress.

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) plans to introduce bipartisan legislation to ban a device used by the Las Vegas shooter that makes semi-automatic weapons fire more rapidly. Legislation to ban bump stocks has gathered bipartisan support rapidly over the past few days in the wake of the shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday. Curbelo, a centrist, hopes to file a bill in the next day or two, spokeswoman Joanna Rodriguez said Wednesday. While GOP lawmakers made clear in recent days that they don’t plan on taking up expansive gun reforms in response to the Las Vegas shooting, some have indicated openness to addressing the use of bump stocks that help guns mimic automatic weapons. Curbelo joins a growing number of Republicans who have expressed support for prohibiting the devices.

The Sunday shooting was the deadliest in modern U.S. history with 59 dead and more than 500 wounded. Earlier Wednesday, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he would likely support legislation banning bump stocks. The devices work by using the recoil of a semi-automatic gun. “The fact that fully-automatic weapons are already illegal and this makes another weapon capable [of automatic fire], I would be supportive of that,” Johnson said.

Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), a former Republican Study Committee chairman and gun owner, also expressed support for the idea. "I think they should be banned. There's no reason for a typical gun owner to own anything that converts a semi-automatic to something that behaves like an automatic," Flores told The Hill. Multiple Democrats in the House and Senate have already introduced legislation to ban bump stocks. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is spearheading the version in the upper chamber. Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Dina Titus (D-Nev.), who represents Las Vegas, introduced similar legislation on Wednesday. “No person should possess a device that turns a semi-automatic rifle into the equivalent of a machine gun," Cicilline said in a statement. Current law already bans the purchase of fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.

eelj wrote:Another theory is that he was a trump hating antifa member, you know a hilclin/bernie lover. I have a bucket next to me in case I puke.

CDFingers wrote:Me, an Old White Guy (OWG), posting this is like a Black Guy calling another BG the n word. So I'm ready for y'all to chew on me some.

White male gun violence in the United States cannot be disentangled from the history of a nation that established "freedom" by using firearms to murder and control Indigenous peoples and slaves. Massacres are in this country's DNA. <snippage>
Do the proper things with your guns.

CDFingers

wanzer777 wrote:Ugh god. how stupid can these people get? sure lets ban bump stocks and when someone comes along with a semi auto again? sure ban that, ban everything until the mass murderers are using fertilizer bombs then lets ban the fucking fertilizer..... oooops that'll kill off billions in starvation when coupled with global warming.

people it's called earth, it's a planet swimming in hydrocarbons. there is always going to be an easy way to kill dozens of people and humans are clever enough to figure it out.

You can make explosives with your piss, some trees and a rock. and the recipe is everywhere.

popgunn wrote:I had bad vibes the first time I learned about bump stocks. That was only about two years ago (where had I been?). Anyway, the potential for mayhem apparent, I kinda knew, sooner or later we would deal with a user/shooter of one. I never imagined the magnitude of hell it would be.
Banning them would be futile. Anyone with a little mechanical ability, knowledge of physics or engineering could bodge something together to do the same job.

I miss Tom Petty

lurker wrote:

eelj wrote:Another theory is that he was a trump hating antifa member, you know a hilclin/bernie lover. I have a bucket next to me in case I puke.

where did you see this? apparently there's something like this on infowars.

LGBTGunner wrote:

popgunn wrote:I had bad vibes the first time I learned about bump stocks. That was only about two years ago (where had I been?). Anyway, the potential for mayhem apparent, I kinda knew, sooner or later we would deal with a user/shooter of one. I never imagined the magnitude of hell it would be.
Banning them would be futile. Anyone with a little mechanical ability, knowledge of physics or engineering could bodge something together to do the same job.

I miss Tom Petty

I guarantee that the design has already been 3D scanned and loaded onto the web to allow it to be manufactured .