[KaiserJeep]

The Constitution says the "right to keep and to bear arms". A plastic stock designed to circumvent the prohibition against full auto weapons is not an arm, it is an accessory with no legitimate purpose.

I have fired the original M16A1 on full auto. Very little purpose to that either, outside of firing into a crowd of enemy soldiers. However, firing into a crowd at a concert and firing into a crowd of enemy soldiers, there is a world of difference.

[Shaved Monkey]

I imagine all the new anti terrorist surveillance doesn't catch someone who doesn't rave on the inter-webs,smart phone or in the street.
Key words would have been picked up
If this guy had a plan and a crew it must have been organised offline. (though obviously not very well as luckily no one else turned up).
And if he did have a crew where and who are they and how did they meet and communicate ?

or is he just a lone nutter ?

Surely Vegas has cameras everywhere they would have him coming and going talking to people etc.

[yellowcanoe]

Yes Plant I have big objection because any bans lead to other bans until we have no guns at all. Just ask the folks in Connecticut, New York, and Maryland where this goes.

Those states may have more restrictive gun legislation than other states but they are a long, long way from banning guns completely.

[Cog]

The Constitution says the "right to keep and to bear arms". A plastic stock designed to circumvent the prohibition against full auto weapons is not an arm, it is an accessory with no legitimate purpose.

I have fired the original M16A1 on full auto. Very little purpose to that either, outside of firing into a crowd of enemy soldiers. However, firing into a crowd at a concert and firing into a crowd of enemy soldiers, there is a world of difference.

Why not just be honest here? You want to ban all semi-automatic weapons because with your logic they have a faster rate of fire than does a bolt action or pump. Because everything affects rate of fire. Large capacity magazines, light triggers, buffer springs, even the training of the shooter. So at least be honest and say you want to ban all semi-auto rifles because that is exactly what the gun-grabbers want to do.

Bump fire stocks do not turn a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. Its still one trigger pull, one shot. Quit buying into the propaganda. The BATFE has already ruled that it does not violate the rules on turning a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. They ruled that way because it doesn't.

The Second Amendment does not say shall not be infringed unless it has no practical value or if I don't like what you like.

[Shaved Monkey]

Wasnt the constitution written in a time when people didnt have semi automatics

[vtsnowedin]

Wasnt the constitution written in a time when people didnt have semi automatics

It was written at a time when governments routinely disarmed populations of people they wanted to control and oppress.

[Cog]

Wasnt the constitution written in a time when people didnt have semi automatics

Does the First Amendment only cover communication delivered by quill and pen? Specious argument.

[Newfie]

Yes Plant I have big objection because any bans lead to other bans until we have no guns at all. Just ask the folks in Connecticut, New York, and Maryland where this goes.

Those states may have more restrictive gun legislation than other states but they are a long, long way from banning guns completely.

Yellow

Add NJ to this list. IF the laws were implemented they would be a long way to banning guns. The laws are NOT enforced.

[Newfie]

Cog,

I don't buy your argument that banning bump stocks would result in a total ban. As you well know there are any number of rules and regulations and Laws that regulate guns. We had a Hugh capacity ban, we have bans on full auto, limits on barrel length, etc.

In PA it's illegal to HUNT with a semiauto. There are Federal magazine restrictions when hunting migratory waterfowl.

By your argument we should already be at zero weapons.

Do you support REMOVING the ban on full auto?

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-
Why not just be honest here? You want to ban all semi-automatic weapons because with your logic they have a faster rate of fire than does a bolt action or pump. Because everything affects rate of fire. Large capacity magazines, light triggers, buffer springs, even the training of the shooter. So at least be honest and say you want to ban all semi-auto rifles because that is exactly what the gun-grabbers want to do.

Bump fire stocks do not turn a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. Its still one trigger pull, one shot. Quit buying into the propaganda. The BATFE has already ruled that it does not violate the rules on turning a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. They ruled that way because it doesn't.

The Second Amendment does not say shall not be infringed unless it has no practical value or if I don't like what you like.

If I wanted that, I would have said that. I said what I wanted. Now YOU explain why you want bump stocks to be legal, by telling us what legitimate purpose they have in hunting or home defense.

[Cog]

Cog,

I don't buy your argument that banning bump stocks would result in a total ban. As you well know there are any number of rules and regulations and Laws that regulate guns. We had a Hugh capacity ban, we have bans on full auto, limits on barrel length, etc.

By your argument we should already be at zero weapons.

Do you support REMOVING the ban on full auto?

Yes I do. Because its not the tool, its the person. 19 guys with box cutters killed more than the number killed at Pearl Harbor. But yet, I can buy box cutters all day long.

I can do aimed shots at the rate of 60 per minute, 180 rounds per minute unaimed with a standard AR. I can also bump fire an AR using my belt-loop or a rubber band wrapped around the trigger, as any number of Youtube video's will show you.

The left wants to ban all guns and that is their goal. If you want to cower down and give up your guns now, no one is stopping you. Go down to the police station and turn them in. In the mean time I will continue to exercise my rights. Funny thing about gun banners, they want to use the government to enforce their bans but don't have enough balls to enforce those laws themselves. I invited any of you who don't like my right to bear arms to come to my house to disarm me. Don't send a government goon, come yourself if its that important to you. Have the balls of your own conviction and don't hide behind the government.

[yellowcanoe]

The left wants to ban all guns and that is their goal.

Looking at http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm there is a CNN/ORC poll from June, 2016 in which 9% of respondents were in favour of "Preventing all Americans from owning guns". With such small support I don't think there is any danger of a complete ban on firearms.

[onlooker]

Cog,

I don't buy your argument that banning bump stocks would result in a total ban. As you well know there are any number of rules and regulations and Laws that regulate guns. We had a Hugh capacity ban, we have bans on full auto, limits on barrel length, etc.

Do you support REMOVING the ban on full auto?

Yes, that is why the Supreme Court exists to interpret the general intent of these laws and amendments. I am not for banning guns but certain firearms clearly have no other purpose other than to kill large numbers of people

[Newfie]

Cog,

50 cal and over?
Bazookas?
Shoulder launched air to air missiles?
Personal tanks?
Fully armed F-16s?

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

Yes I do. Because its not the tool, its the person. 19 guys with box cutters killed more than the number killed at Pearl Harbor. But yet, I can buy box cutters all day long.

I can do aimed shots at the rate of 60 per minute, 180 rounds per minute unaimed with a standard AR. I can also bump fire an AR using my belt-loop or a rubber band wrapped around the trigger, as any number of Youtube video's will show you.

The left wants to ban all guns and that is their goal. If you want to cower down and give up your guns now, no one is stopping you. Go down to the police station and turn them in. In the mean time I will continue to exercise my rights. Funny thing about gun banners, they want to use the government to enforce their bans but don't have enough balls to enforce those laws themselves. I invited any of you who don't like my right to bear arms to come to my house to disarm me. Don't send a government goon, come yourself if its that important to you. Have the balls of your own conviction and don't hide behind the government.

Cog, you still have not explained what legitimate purpose bump stocks serve in hunting or home defense. I don't doubt that you can simulate full auto fire in other ways.

Nobody is talking about banning semiautos or any other weapons. Bump stocks are pretty stupid, as are AR's converted to full auto by any other means. Factory built full auto weapons don't really have much purpose, either - we were allowed to fire one magazine on FA and observe that we could not keep the rounds on target. Then we were taught to fire bursts - not very easy with the M16A1, which is why they eliminated the FA setting in favor of the burst setting on M16A2 and later weapons in the series. The only real effective fire was aimed semi-auto, unless you want to be a mass murderer.

So tell us about the legitimate uses of bump stocks, please.

[evilgenius]

No infringement is one thing, but they could make all ownership of anything related to unusual gun operation completely and totally public, just like with the sex offender registries. That way other people could avoid buying property in neighborhoods where gun nuts live. Gun nuts would have to pay an economic price, in terms of lower real estate valuations, for owning bump stocks or otherwise skirting the traditional understanding of the role of guns in society.

[onlooker]

No infringement is one thing, but they could make all ownership of anything related to unusual gun operation completely and totally public, just like with the sex offender registries. That way other people could avoid buying property in neighborhoods where gun nuts live. Gun nuts would have to pay an economic price, in terms of lower real estate valuations, for owning bump stocks or otherwise skirting the traditional understanding of the role of guns in society.

That is a good idea but not really necessary if enforcement of existing gun laws really was taking place. We would not have dangerous or unstable people owning guns. That is part of smart gun laws, thorough background checks. The key to me is not allowing these type of people to have or own guns in the first place. So, you on not infrigning on the rights of most people to have guns just trying to avoid certain type of people who are a minority to not have possession of guns. Of course those people could get guns via shady black market informal transactions. But at least their access to guns would be more limited. These background checks should be mandatory on a Federal Level. Maybe they are already?

[Cog]

Are you guys sure you aren't still breast-feeding? I'm never seen a group of people so committed to turning government into your mother.

[KaiserJeep]

Onlooker, the problem is the "dangerous and unstable" label. There are by some estimates as many as 25,000,000 people in the USA with some form of mental illness. Perhaps 25,000 to 50,000 are so unstable as to be dangerous to themselves and others. But at last count, the FBI database only had about 1200 names in it with "mental illness" indicated - psychiatrists and other mental health professionals refuse to disclose names. (A significant numer of names on the list were dead, it has been around a long time.) Some cite confidentiality laws, others simply do not trust the government or do not want to infringe their patient's rights.

Then there was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, shot along with 18 other people, six of whom died. The attacker was a paranoid schitzophrenic who had a long history of mental illness and had even been arrested - but who had no problem purchasing a handgun and passed all the background checks.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (28 fatalities) was perpetrated by a 20-year-old mentally ill man who did not purchase weapons at all, he used those bought by other family members who had passed both criminal and mental health background checks.

The 2009 shooting at Fort Hood was committed by an Army psychiatrist, who also passed a criminal background check, and who was suspected of terrorism by the FBI and DOD, and had been suspected of mental illness by the staff at Walter Reed Hospital.

Like almost all gun control laws, background checks are not enforced, because the US public does not want them enforced. The only time we really even talk about gun control is following a mass shooting.

Cog, still waiting for you to explain the legitimate purpose of a bump stock.

[Ibon]

Cog, you are stuck in an ideological rut and we really should be asking ourselves on this site if we continually want to be drawn into the gutter by a poster who contributes nothing to topics that are by their very nature complex and require some nuance.

Newfie, KJ, you are engaging with a complete idiot (Ad hominem recognized for the truth that it is) and getting sucked into the same black hole of ideological rigidness that happened with me regarding the topic of racism.

This guy Cog does not contribute to dialogue, he only maintains one singular fixed position that drags folks into arguments with no real exchange of information.

Do we really want to be no better than Facebook.

Sigh!