Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
The dam broke on Thursday and now everybody and their brother is now in favor of a ban on bump stocks. Word went out to politicos in DC that it was “safe” to support such a ban, and now everyone loves it.
They won’t pass anything. And they shouldn’t try. Stay focused on Taxes guys.
What you say is accurate and irrelevant. Better this than almost anything else they will come up with. See Kevin’s post below.
I say, thank goodness he used a bump stock or it could have been a lot worse. There’s no way to be accurate with those things.
I’m disgusted by the NRA signing on to efforts to ban the stupid things.
Something was getting sacrificed in the fires of leftist rage after Las Vegas. Better the bump stock than the whole rifle.
Doesn’t work that way. It’s called appeasement. Who cares it’s small insignificant, doesn’t matter, why fight the fight here, on this right? Don’t even address the issue. invite them in for a discussion of gun violence, urban, black on black, terrorists, suicides, and these occasional crazies. What can work toward what? Be serious. Don’t give in mindlessly to the mob. Make them make a case. They don’t want to because they can’t.
Bump stocks were legalized under B. Hussein so handicapped people could enjoy shooting again.
I dont think you need special equipment to convert a gun to rapid-fire.
Americans are right to object to any infringements on their constitutional freedoms. Period. Homicidal maniacs we have always with us.
It’s called choosing battles. If it’s one you’re likely to lose (and I think this a tough row to hoe in the immediate aftermath of Vegas) then pick one you can afford to lose.
We have already conceded that guns are only for hunting and under certain circumstances self defense. Everyone seems to agree they aren’t useful for either of those purposes. Therefore bump stocks are fair game.
(I am not part of the “we”.)
Really? You might lose so you give in before they even try? How about fighting and if they corner you, then you can toss this out? Make every concession feel like a major one, even a stupid bump stock that is worthless. How about forcing the issue in court? How about taking aim at the GCA and NFA instead of always accepting those unconstitutional monstrosities as untouchable?
How about not quitting before the fight even starts?
My point is they want to make this one thing into a battle, win it and move to the next. That’s letting them choose the battle field. Instead try to get them into a real battle about gun violence, not about guns. We must choose the narrative, not let them define the issue, nor use their words. That is why they always win the PR battles. It’s not just that they own the press they write the questions. We must answer their questions with better ones. In the case of gun violence and other narratives they take up, we own the truth.
I never heard of the term until now and when I saw your original post, I thought it was about the stock market! Yes it should be banned – a no brainer – we need to get something right in this insanity.
If it is illegal to internally modify an AR-15 to fire repeatedly, it should be illegal to externally modify an AR-15 to fire repeatedly.
If you are arguing the libertarian line that fully automatic weapons should be legal, argue that, but I would not argue for pedantic work arounds like bump stocks.
Having said, I freely concede the absence of bump stocks would not have stopped the Vegas massacre, it would have simply lowered the body county by low single digits. I also conce that bump firing can be done without a bump stock. But that, in and of itself, does not imply that bump stock modifications should be freely allowed.
I wish people would learn about something before making absolute pronouncements.
The bump stock is not automatic weapons fire. You have to pull the trigger for every shot. It is not a no-brainer to make it illegal. We don’t even know why this crime happened and people are already trying to change laws hoping to prevent it from happening.
We need fewer emotions and more reason.
Meh.
I am aware of how bump stocks work and what they do.
Then why are you wanting to make them illegal?
Instead, the pressure should be on to make the purchase of machine guns easier, and make us free men again.
As I said initially, I would prefer the argument that both should be legal. At least it’s consistent.
I don’t see the legal distinction between the internal modification to true automatic fire and using an external modification to accomplish effectively the same thing (recognizing that bump fire has a slower rate of fire than an M-16 though modern M16A2 only fires in 3 round bursts, not full auto.)
Personally, I would be fine with allowing 3 round bursts in civilian life.
Having used one he would have been better off just aiming and firing the regular way. Rate fire slightly lower, accuracy far higher.
and with 3D printing any ban will be futile.
I still don’t understand what a “bump stock” is, and neither does most of Congress. I stand athwart history and demand that things that no one had ever heard of until a few days ago should not be banned. I demand congressional hearings to elucidate the meaning of this new term. I demand to know why the Obama officials decided it was legal. I’m not saying I disagree with them, but it would be nice to have some facts and some bipartisan crow-eating.
For a moment, I thought we were talking about some version of the stock market as implemented by Thaler and Sunstein.
But Fred does have it right. The real goal is to confiscate guns exactly as in the UK and Australia, and Richard Epstein is a proponent.