Posted on Oct 5, 2017
Bump stocks bill to be introduced Thursday in House
2.95K
51
31
6
6
0
I'm sure there are a few gun owners here that will be upset about this but I'm not one of them. This time the Republicans are getting ahead of the issue and introducing their own bill to ban the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar devices.
I see this is a win for gun owners for several reasons, it shows the American public (which is becoming increasingly indifferent to the second amendment) and it dead ends any proposals like the one Dianne Feinstein introduced that of course sought to overreach (her bill could easily be interpreted to ban any replacement trigger).
I see this is a win for gun owners for several reasons, it shows the American public (which is becoming increasingly indifferent to the second amendment) and it dead ends any proposals like the one Dianne Feinstein introduced that of course sought to overreach (her bill could easily be interpreted to ban any replacement trigger).
Bump stocks bill to be introduced Thursday in House
Posted from cnn.com
Firearms and Guns
Congress
2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
8
8
0
PFC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) well sir we will just need to get involved in the policies of it all make sure that we keep the regulations sensible and counter the anti gun lobbies. We will just need to be alert and be informed of any further legislation inf firearms from here on out.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I am drafting a letter now to my elected representatives. We need to push for the hearing protection act to get out of committee and to vote as well.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
2LT Louis G. - I empathize with you. So many read a news report are are self proclaimed experts. Gun control doesn't work and hasn't worked in any place it's been implemented. A person with intent will find a way, whether it's a knife or a home made bomb or the latest trend of driving a vehicle into a crowd.
As for repealing the firearms control act of 1934, 1968 and 1986, I am all for it.
As for repealing the firearms control act of 1934, 1968 and 1986, I am all for it.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
Doesn't bother me in the least (specifically the bump stocks or devices made to simulate the ability to have automatic fire). Thing is, they're not hard to make from what I understand. There are laws out there now restricting the manner in which one can buy a fully automatic weapon. Whether one agrees with it or not, these devices are made to essentially circumvent that law.
(4)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
2LT Louis G. - This guy was a law abiding citizen until he pulled the trigger thay hotel room
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
2LT Louis G. - He had no arrests on record and passed background checks to buy those weapons, that is a matter of open public record,
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
The police have talked about his lack of criminal record and the fact that he went through a background check to buy at least some of the weapons.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Lt, who said anything about "military grade assault weapons"? Last I saw there are not federal laws restricting us from having these with the exception of a more extensive background check for those wishing to have fully automatic ones.
Regardless, I am talking about the bumper stocks which in effect, circumvent the law, enabling citizens to avoid that background check. This is not about whether I support the NFA or not, I only pointed out that people have found a way to circumvent it. In order for that law to be more consistent/inclusive, bumper stocks should be included to the list, or they need to do away with the NFA. Hell, even the NRA supports both the NFA and the inclusion of bumper stocks.
You're trying to pick a fight here in some larger discussion on the merits and intent of the 2nd Amendment. I'm talking about bumper stocks and the fact they circumvent the law as it is stated today and how their absence in the NFA makes it incomplete/inconsistent.
I'll also add that for the moment, Paddock was in fact a law abiding citizen until he pulled the trigger in Vegas. There are no indications otherwise at this time.
Regardless, I am talking about the bumper stocks which in effect, circumvent the law, enabling citizens to avoid that background check. This is not about whether I support the NFA or not, I only pointed out that people have found a way to circumvent it. In order for that law to be more consistent/inclusive, bumper stocks should be included to the list, or they need to do away with the NFA. Hell, even the NRA supports both the NFA and the inclusion of bumper stocks.
You're trying to pick a fight here in some larger discussion on the merits and intent of the 2nd Amendment. I'm talking about bumper stocks and the fact they circumvent the law as it is stated today and how their absence in the NFA makes it incomplete/inconsistent.
I'll also add that for the moment, Paddock was in fact a law abiding citizen until he pulled the trigger in Vegas. There are no indications otherwise at this time.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google