Bump stock banned

[Guest akaspecials]

Coach and ThomC,  I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions that this is not a big deal. The second amendment is like a block that is being chiseled on. Once chiseled, it can never be put back. At some point, we will have nothing left to chisel. 

 

This is also setting a precedence that they dont have to reimburse or grandfather in existing weapons.  When the handgun ban hits, there will be no grandfathering, no reimbursement. All of us with handguns will be felons. Precedent was set when they outlawed bump stocks. They can take away your livelihood, make it impossible to get a good job, imprison you. I really think it's a big deal. 

That being said, I think bumps are a silly  novelty and I have no need for them. But hey, that's how I feel about ATVs too...

 

And I'm down for the weenie roast. That could be quite the gathering! I'll bring out the smoker and some pork shoulders if someone will donate me some ammunition and a bump stock. 

[trphyhntr]

19 hours ago, Coach said:

Holy Crap - Bump fire stocks??? They are so useful, so accurate. I don't know what my AR or AK would be like without them. 

Chill guys, it's political pandering. Nothing more, nothing less. 

youve missed the point entirely. 

[Lucafu1]

Are these the same guys who wanted to give up our 2nd ammendment rights after one if the shootings? dang WTH is wrong with people. You dont give up anything, especially as something as stupid as this....

[ctafoya]

Magazines will be on this list soon. Yeah, its just a bump stock, but it opens the door for everything else. 

[Coach]

On 12/21/2018 at 2:49 PM, akaspecials said:

Coach and ThomC,  I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions that this is not a big deal. The second amendment is like a block that is being chiseled on. Once chiseled, it can never be put back. At some point, we will have nothing left to chisel. 

 

This is also setting a precedence that they dont have to reimburse or grandfather in existing weapons.  When the handgun ban hits, there will be no grandfathering, no reimbursement. All of us with handguns will be felons. Precedent was set when they outlawed bump stocks. They can take away your livelihood, make it impossible to get a good job, imprison you. I really think it's a big deal. 

That being said, I think bumps are a silly  novelty and I have no need for them. But hey, that's how I feel about ATVs too...

 

And I'm down for the weenie roast. That could be quite the gathering! I'll bring out the smoker and some pork shoulders if someone will donate me some ammunition and a bump stock. 

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I agree with you and trphyhntr on the premise that this "could be" a first step toward more banning - hi cap magazines, so-called "assault weapons" in general. Just to be clear, I'm with you guys on this. I have the kind of guns, the kind of magazines and the amount of ammo the anits want banned. 

It's been illegal since 1932 to turn a semi-auto weapon into fully auto without doing it legally. Many products have been created that blur that line.

Now, thinking chess instead of checkers, we have to be smart about this fight because it is going to be a long, hard one. If we go completely into zero regulation beyond what's already there, and what almost zero percent of the population understands, if we take an "all or nothing" approach. And I get that - giving an inch sometimes means opening the door to much more - we can paint ourselves into a corner.

On the other hand, let's look at the assault weapons ban of 1994. This was hailed by the anti-gunners as a win at first. In reality, the guns were still there, harder to get, more expensive, but over ten years it lead to no reduction in crime. It proved over time to fail to do the only thing it set out to do. As a result, the ban was lifted, and despite the outcry from the left, gun violence continued to decrease after the sunset of a stupid law.

So, my point is, let them have their tiny, short-sighted victories. In the long run, it can be used against them to prove that their policies don't work. 

I look at it this way. If they succeed in their little battles, it only to gives us more proof that their policies fail every time, that gives us more data to fight them with. 

If every ban they've tried has absolutely zero affect on crime, their bans can be proven ineffective, which give us the upper hand in future legislation.