There OUGHTA' be a LAW !
 

Banning BUMP STOCKS or Fully Automatic Weapons from being depicted in ANY Hollywood -so called- "Action" Film!


But keep your god damn hands OFF my 2nd amendment rights!

2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, but does not say anything about what TYPE. The term "well-regulated militia" implies that regulations are acceptable.

Seriously - and please don't any of you NRA types start slamming me - can you tell me what legitimate civilian use there is for bump stocks or full autos?

Let's try to keep this discussion civil.

Agree 100%, glc. And, to answer your largely rhetorical question, the only "use" for bump stocks or full autos is that they are seen as "toys". That was not how I was taught to view any weapon.

- Jack

I’ve owned guns all my life but have no problem with the imposition of sane regulations on the types of firearms folks can use. In my opinion, there is NO reason “Average Joes” should running around with automatic assault rifles.

The problem with just about everything in today’s political climate is that there is no room for reasonable compromise on ANYTHING from either side of the political spectrum. Whether the topic is gun control or abortion, the demagogues in our political world will not accept anything but TOTAL victory, which really limits our ability to reach reasonable consensus on just about any issue.

There OUGHTA' be a LAW !
 

My problem is the worthless obstruction-icans and liberal-icrats can't get one damn beneficial thing legislated in 8 months. But within three days of such a tragedy as has been forced upon us - they are ALL egar, willing and able to JUMP on the band wagon to get 'bypartizen' and pass some other stupid law that will do NOTHING to solve the problem, but further limit gun owners rights.

A law prohibiting Hotels from renting rooms overlooking public venues - would do just as much good in preventing such a tragedy in the future.
So. There OUGHTA' be a LAW! Prohibiting any Hotel from renting corner rooms above a concert venue!

As for what legitimate civilian use there is for bump stocks or full autos? I don't have any, but I could ask the same question about venimous snakes, baseball cards, antique cars and a whole host of other collectibles - whose rights of ownership is not being irrelevantly effected by some political move couched in 'saving lives'!

Automatic guns are already illegal unless you go through some extra checking and get permission, maybe a license. I'm not sure. Same thing with silencers. There appears to be general agreement to ban bump stocks and I'm sure they will be soon. Do I need my AR15? No, I don't unless the economy falls apart which I was convinced for a while might happen and it still might with the $20 trillion national debt we have and we are still adding to it about a half trillion a year even though the guvment is receiving record amounts of taxes. Combine that with the $30B to $60B monthly trade deficit we have had for decades and it is not a pretty picture for the economy of this country.

My 3rd Amendment Rights. There OUGHTA' be a LAW !
 

There OUGHTA' be a LAW !


That homeowners can own & use a bump stock to prevent illegal entry and occupation of their homestead by government troops.

I share @Roadie's sentiment and reasoning about the safety and stability of the government - that continues the ASSULT on gun rights. I believe citizens are far too complacent in thinking the 'government' consists ONLY of humans who are NOT power hungry or would NEVER seek to overthrow the government in a police or military coup (the thing our fore-fathers sought desperately to build defenses against). Case in point - just look at the money and power being brought to bear against President Trump.

Want a citizen reason for 'bump stocks' or 'automatic' weapons?


The framers put the 2nd Amendment in place in part to protect our 3rd Amendment protections. Almost NO ONE even knows about it. But with the steady increase in unabated fire power of police departments, sheriff departments, and SWAT teams ect, In the emergence of a police state, how would you like to keep troops from commandeering your homestead for troop quarters with your 22 single shot?

I have friends that own legal full auto weapons. They're a hoot to shoot but you better be on good terms with your banker. They're not a cheap date to shoot. The last time we all got together, one of the guys brought a 1918 Browning that sits on a tripod. He also brought an M14 and an M16 with the select fire sear. In the back of his F150 was a pallet of ammo. When he left, there were mounds of empty brass and nothing on the pallet. Don't know what 3006 for the Browning cost him but at 50 cents, it would be a bunch of money.

I'm not an advocate of just anybody owning full auto weapons. I can't afford to buy one and I sure can't afford to feed one. For a lot of folks, a bump stock brings the joy of the full auto experience. I've shot with the bump fire stocks, and a hand crank cam thing that fits on the trigger guard that pulls the trigger 4 times per revolution. None of these can you hit anything with that resembles a target. I've never bought any of these gadgets mostly because I'm a detail kinda guy. If it's nothing but a pray and spray, I'm not interested. Because of that, it wouldn't bother me that they made these a Class 3 item meaning you have to have a Federal License to possess one. The background checks are extensive for these types of licenses. Anything appears on your record and the answer is no, you can't have it. To make the bump stock illegal is wrong but it does need to be controlled. Same with any gadget that makes a semi auto run full auto. For this same reason, the 80% lowers and jigs to finish an AR lower should also be controlled. The full auto sears are available and nothing but money required to own one. The jig and 80% lower means any clown with any mechanical skills can inlet the 80% lower for the full auto sear. He can also take a legal AR15 and inlet the lower for the full auto sear. My good friend Elmer Balance of Devine got into trouble for doing just this. Elmer is the creator of the M1a and his rifles command a huge premium but he got sideways with the Gov't over a deal with them and got to spend some time on sabbatical at taxpayer expense.

I think the NRA is right in taking this to the Feds to have it controlled. I see no need for a civilian to own one except for the thrill effect. But there are other ways to turn most any semi auto into a full auto. Banning or making the bump stock illegal is not going to stop anyone that is determined to kill a bunch of innocent people. Look at Europe. Are they going to ban trucks now? Are they going to ban knives? Explosives are already illegal but it certainly hasn't stopped the attacks. Like someone said on another forum, we'll outlaw guns just like we did drugs. Now that problem is over.:cool: Yeah, right.

Case in point.

Any attempt to curb the type of weaponry available to the general public is immediately spun into “the government is just around the corner and they’re coming to take the homestead away from you and your missus!”

Using the same logic, why should there be speed limits on the highway or drinking and driving laws? I mean, I’m a grown adult and don’t need the government telling me what I can and can’t do - right?

Gotta’ say - the logic escapes me.......:rolleyes:

The 'spin' (or emotion driven political rhetoric) is more the issue with me than the prudence of establishing 'reasonable' boundaries on society - as a whole. I don't have a bump stock, automatic firearm, OR A DWI - and I don't want one. Although I have to admit I have driven probably when it would have been much wiser not to and I've speeded a time or two. But the drinking / driving issue is a perfect one for this discussion. (God knows the truth from my prayers that this is not to diminish a single one of the Las Vegas deaths). But there are some 11,000 killed in drunk driving accidents annually in the US. How many politicians (or news media for that matter) have uttered a single one of their names or spent a solid 'WEEK' coverage on the issue. No politician has proposed a law requiring interlocked breath-a-lizzer ignition on ALL cars sold in the US. Would not all drivers be 'up in arms' (pardon the pun) about imposing that kind of limit on their driving rights? Pure statics of the effectiveness of such a device would actually be shocking and unmistakable. So if this is about 'saving lives' or 'protection' of citizenry - lets compare the 4 - 5 chances per 100,000 population who die at the hands of drunk drivers to the ????? perhaps .0001 per 100,000 who might be an unfortunate victim of a mass shooting at the hands of some crazed gun owner - who would be breaking a HOST of laws already. If it were that simple, simply pass a law making it "ILLEGAL TO SHOOT PEOPLE FROM HOTEL WINDOWS!" There. Problem solved! Or "ILLEGAL TO CHECK INTO A HOTEL WITH 10 SUITCASES". I can suggest 100 other ridiculous ones that will be just as effective. Hence the thread subject.


In no way being argumentative. I'm not even arguing against 'reasonable' boundaries ('reasonable is the operative word'). I abide within them every day - including the current regulations on my guns. What I take exception to is "The Rahm Emanuel" effect that will be displayed by ALL politicians: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...9637&FORM=VIRE


One should not be lulled into 'yet another' liberal attempt to grease the 'Nancy Pelosi' slippery slope and accomplish something that could not otherwise be accomplished - even though it will DO ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD in the end. Except just further limit a particular class of citizen's rights (even if it is the FEW who want "the thrill effect" like @labnerd says). It's all under the false pretense of 'saving lives' or 'making you safer' - against some dynamic misunderstood tragedy. (Not that I can understand it either - or have a magical solution).

This is a case of division and diversion plain and simple. Nobody wants to bring up the idea of banning "assault" rifles (stupid idea anyway, no such thing), because the leftoids already know they won't win the argument. So they're USING a tragedy to further an agenda. The Russians do it all the time. So we're using "Bump Fire" as the new "hateful thing", so that the idea can illegally infect the ideas, hearts and minds of people in unrelated forums (like this one) in hopes that they will eventually wear you down and change your mind. (See KGB reprogramming strategy papers/interviews, et al.). Thing is, to "Bump Fire" a weapon to make it "fully auto" is laughably difficult, it hurts the arms and whatever part of the body your "bumping" against to make it happen. What's worse, they're not trying to convince the "good-old boy" demographic; they ARE convincing the "city-boy" demographic, and they are WINNING those minds because they've SUCCESSFULLY divided us as generations.

It's called "nudge" mentality. It's used in Marxism, and it was most recently described by former president Obama's first appointed assistant, the closet communist, and first "Czar" Cass Sunstein, in his own book, a man and a mentality that has long since been forgotten (blessing in disguise).

If you want your children to continue to have and enjoy the country you fell in love with, you need assist by re-engaging with the hearts and minds of the children you so wished to be "successful" when you sent them college. You show them why you think what you think and how everything works and why. Be sincere, ignore your apprehensions, and let them see why the stuff works. May the country you save be your own....