Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'

[redred]

US President Donald Trump has signed an order to ban bump-stock devices, which were used by a gunman who killed 58 Las Vegas concert-goers last year.

Such devices enable a rifle to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Trump said he had directed the justice department to propose a law to make the accessories illegal.

The gun control debate took on a new urgency after 17 people were killed at a school in Florida last week.

At an event on Tuesday recognising the bravery of law enforcement, Mr Trump said he had directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to finalise new guidelines to declare bump stocks illegal "very soon".

"The key in all of these efforts, as I said in my remarks the day after the shooting, is that we cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference, we must actually make a difference," he said.

"We must move past clichés and tired debates, and focus on evidence-based solutions and security measures that actually work and that make it easier for men and women of law enforcement to protect our children and protect our safety."

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1269D/production/_100112457_tv044827713.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43135584

[redred]

he also says about strengthening background checks and raising the age of being able to get assault rifles

so is this a good or bad start of things for you guys ?

[DemonGeminiX]

If we're taking emotions out of the equation and speaking honestly, this is a blatant executive over-reach and a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

All the gun enthusiasts voted for him. Now he's stabbing us in the back.

[DemonGeminiX]

You wanna hear something funny? In the 8 years of Obama's presidency, Obama never tried to do anything like this. It was under Obama's administration that bump stocks were declared legal to own by the ATF.

Go figure.

[Griffin]

I have a Mini 14 (.223) and a Mini 30 (7.62x 39) both purchased during the assault weapon ban.
I now have AR 15s in both calibers. Either style of weapon functions the same as the other with the same rate of fire.
Semi automatic guns have been used for hunting around the planet for the last century.
As far as bump stocks go I don't care one way or the other, I would have never bought one before or after they became so notorious.


https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t/27581811_210237482886540_919384947104415744_n.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

You need to care about bump stocks. This is just the beginning. Mark my words.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJO-Wt0uZ0

[RBP]

he also says about strengthening background checks and raising the age of being able to get assault rifles

so is this a good or bad start of things for you guys ?

I am fine with all three as long as they are carefully reviewed. In the Florida case, the age restriction would have impacted the shooting. Bump stocks impacted Las Vegas. And background checks should be streamlined and tight. It's rare that they actually propose legislation that has anything to do with the actual events. Because of that, I am not opposed to those three provisions.

There is no weapons ban, no confiscation. I'll let DGX argue slippery slope. I am willing to deal with additional provisions later if proposed. These 3 do not demonstrate slippery slope to me.

[Muddy]

he also says about strengthening background checks and raising the age of being able to get assault rifles

so is this a good or bad start of things for you guys ?

I think it's good. Scary to start a ball rolling because over here everything ends up in extremes. But in general we got to figure something out. :2cents:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I am fine with all three as long as they are carefully reviewed. In the Florida case, the age restriction would have impacted the shooting. Bump stocks impacted Las Vegas. And background checks should be streamlined and tight. It's rare that they actually propose legislation that has anything to do with the actual events. Because of that, I am not opposed to those three provisions.

There is no weapons ban, no confiscation. I'll let DGX argue slippery slope. I am willing to deal with additional provisions later if proposed. These 3 do not demonstrate slippery slope to me.

I agree with you 100% on all three counts.

Bump stocks (IMHO) are used as a way to get around the onerous regulations (and massive expense) of acquiring a fully automatic weapon. I have no problem with them being banned. There is no slippery slope here for me on this one. Besides, the City of Denver has now passed an ordinance banning them and I think more cities and states will be banning them no matter what the federal government does. I have also seen some reports that the NRA is not against banning these per se.

The age limit - I have no problem with raising the minimum age for purchasing any firearm to 21, not just handguns. My caveat on this one is so long as the law is a purchase law only and not a purchase AND possession law, because there are a great many teenage hunters (and even younger) throughout rural America. Like I said in another thread somewhere last week (I think), I got my first rifle when I was 9 years old. It was a single shot .22 bolt action. You need to be 21 to drink, you need to be 21 to buy cigarettes in many states now, so I have no problem with a person needing to be 21 to buy a firearm.

And of course no one objects to tightening up and fixing the background check system. They need to go after the institutions that don't report to the federal database like they should. The asshole here that shot and killed a deputy sheriff and wounded 4 more on New Year's Eve bought weapons even though he had been put in a psychiatric ward in the VA, but the VA never reported that and so it didn't show up on his record when the background check was performed. Had the VA done it's job, he never would have been able to buy the weapons he had, and that deputy sheriff would still be alive.

[RBP]

:agreed:

[DemonGeminiX]

I am fine with all three as long as they are carefully reviewed. In the Florida case, the age restriction would have impacted the shooting. Bump stocks impacted Las Vegas. And background checks should be streamlined and tight. It's rare that they actually propose legislation that has anything to do with the actual events. Because of that, I am not opposed to those three provisions.

There is no weapons ban, no confiscation. I'll let DGX argue slippery slope. I am willing to deal with additional provisions later if proposed. These 3 do not demonstrate slippery slope to me.

Actually, you're wrong about the confiscation. They're talking about banning bump stocks without grandfathering in current owners. So basically, if you own one, and they change the definition of "machine gun" to include bump stocks (which is a whole other unconstitutional issue unto itself), then if you don't give up your bump stocks immediately, congratulations, you're now a criminal and subject to a felony for unlawful possession of a machine gun. I'm not kidding. They're really going to do this.

And they're not just talking about bump stocks. The last discussion period by the ATF was bump stocks and any accessory that could be construed as a rate increasing device. A very dangerous general term. That's any aftermarket part that may make it easier for you to fire faster. They're basically saying that you won't be able to fire your gun at a rate faster then what they deem to be lawful. Who sets that standard? Who decides what's fast enough? You know you can become a trick shooter and learn to shoot ridiculously fast without any additional parts. So basically, under the wording of this proposed regulation, if you're a speed shooter practicing in your backyard, then you're firing a machine gun and you broke the law... congratulations, you're now a felon.

And this is just the start. You think they're going to stop here? A Republican President is doing this with a Republican-controlled supposedly pro-gun Congress that's allowing it. They're setting a precedent. What do you think's going to happen when an anti-gun Democrat takes the White House and/or the Congress flips? Don't kid yourselves. This isn't just about bump stocks or rate increasing devices. This is about control.

There's a whole mess of problems this can lead to, which ultimately leads to you saying goodbye to your constitutionally protected rights. The bill of rights? Gone. Freedom of speech? Gone. Freedom of religion? Gone. 4th amendment rights? Gone. 8th amendment rights? Gone. All of it, gone.

Y'all are ok with this as long as it's protecting the kids. I'm sorry, but that is so short-sighted. Think about what kind of country you're setting up for the kids to face. We are heading down the road that turns us from citizens into subjects. And you are allowing it to happen willingly. Congratulations, by letting the media pull on your heart strings, you royally fucked your kids and grandkids.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Sorry, but that's my :2cents:

[Muddy]

I'm down with what Lance said.

[DemonGeminiX]

I gotta run, but I'll respond to Lance's post in a little bit. I have some choice words about the NRA. If I knew two years ago what I know now about the NRA, I never would have joined.

[redred]

thanks for all your opinions on this :tup: