Bump (the stocks, not the internet reminder)

[noharleyyet]

Only a heretic would use real butter on popcorn at a movie. Unamerican as well.

Coconut oil for the vegans....soybean for the ER crowd...clarified buttah for the discriminating.
.
...oh, and bump stocks for poor misunderstood recidivists only.

 

[ChrisC]

They were banned last year here in MA. Everyone holding a MA gun license received a letter stating they were to become illegal by a certain date and they had to be turned in, iirc. I can see how someone would be upset if they just paid for one and suddenly you have to give it up without any compensation. With that said, there wasn't much controversy, but in MA that isn't surprising.

 

[HighDesertSage]

I think it would be good for the NRA et al, to let this one slide.

Pun intended?

Denver tried this. https://denverite.com/2018/08/17/se...a-total-of-zero-have-been-turned-into-police/

Personally I don't give a shit. The one I had on my AR was inaccurate, clumsy, and burned through ammo faster than I could afford. Granted it put a smile on my face, and was fun, but not practical for sustained use. I returned it and was given a refund.

My guess, and maybe I am way off here (happened before), this will pass, very few will get turned in, someone will get caught, lawsuit/charges will be filed, and the courts will decide.

 

[PsRpOiGrRiAtM]

First they came for the Assault weapons, and I did not speak out—
Because I didn't own one.

Then they came for the high capacity magazines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was a target shooter.

Then they came for the semi autos , and I did not speak out—
Because I was a hunter.

Then they came for my shotgun -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

^^^I think it should be looked at it this way.

I don't own a bumpstock, but I don't believe that it should arbitrarily fall under the purview of the NFA because it doesn't change the mechanics of a semi-auto. It's a slippery slope.

 

[VikingsGuy]

First they came for the Assault weapons, and I did not speak out—
Because I didn't own one.

Then they came for the high capacity magazines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was a target shooter.

Then they came for the semi autos , and I did not speak out—
Because I was a hunter.

Then they came for my shotgun -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

^^^I think it should be looked at it this way.

I don't own a bumpstock, but I don't believe that it should arbitrarily fall under the purview of the NFA because it doesn't change the mechanics of a semi-auto. It's a slippery slope.

The slippery slope logic is fundamentally flawed in all its uses. Every law, every ethical choice, sits along a continuum, yet choices need to be made. Unless you really stand for zero societal constraint on weapons then it is just a matter of where along the range of options the choice is made - and that selection is not educated by calling the continuum a slippery slope. I have never heard even the most ardent 2nd amendment supporter suggest that a violent convicted felon should be able to open carry a 50cal fully auto machine gun to a parole hearing or a kindergarten so it is safe to assume we will draw lines. We will make choices along the slope because that is the only way. My original point was to suggest that this is not the place along the spectrum to lose sleep.

 

[schmalts]

I could care less if they were banned but in the end, if the NRA let the bump stocks be banned as a good gesture do you think the anti-gun crowd will celebrate, and then give up on all other gun bans they want? Will this really make the anti-gun crowd no longer want to take your 10-22 or benelli super black eagle? I don't own a bump stock. But I don't care if anyone does either because in the end how much of a difference would it really make. Would the Vegas shooting not have happened? I think it still would have but without a bumpstock. How many terror shootings had a bump stock? It was a crappy thing to happen, but in the grand scheme of things convince me it is a priority over something like mandatory breathalizers on all new cars manufactured, or making all phones unable to text when the phone knows it is in an environment that detects it is in a driving vehicle. Those last 2 things would save over 1000 times more lives in a year than a bumpstock ban. Google texting and driving accident stats, you will be AMAZED. But try and take the cell phone away from younger people and tell them it's to save lives. what do you think David Hogg would say if you told him he had to give up his phone because it kills too many people.

 

[rmauch20]

Never had one and I never had a desire to own one, but it is just another loss of gun rights for us all. I think it’s laughable at best if anyone thinks that suppressors are going to become easier to get. We will be lucky if they stay at the current process. We are always on defense. We never truly make any ground up as far as gun rights, we just keep getting pushed back with small incremental losses.

 

[rmauch20]

It was a crappy thing to happen, but in the grand scheme of things convince me it is a priority over something like mandatory breathalizers on all new cars manufactured, or making all phones unable to text when the phone knows it is in an environment that detects it is in a driving vehicle. Those last 2 things would save over 1000 times more lives in a year than a bumpstock ban. Google texting and driving accident stats, you will be AMAZED. But try and take the cell phone away from younger people and tell them it's to save lives.

You nailed it there.

 

[PsRpOiGrRiAtM]

The slippery slope logic is fundamentally flawed in all its uses. Every law, every ethical choice, sits along a continuum, yet choices need to be made. Unless you really stand for zero societal constraint on weapons then it is just a matter of where along the range of options the choice is made - and that selection is not educated by calling the continuum a slippery slope. I have never heard even the most ardent 2nd amendment supporter suggest that a violent convicted felon should be able to open carry a 50cal fully auto machine gun to a parole hearing or a kindergarten so it is safe to assume we will draw lines. We will make choices along the slope because that is the only way. My original point was to suggest that this is not the place along the spectrum to lose sleep.

I see your point, however I believe that it is foolhardy to continually give ground, when law-abiding gun owners are the ones on the losing end. While your point stands that there are limits (violent felon + .50cal,) I contend that there are limits that are continually placed on us, while there are rarely concessions on the other end. Therefore the slippery slope argument, and what I bolded in your post--we'll constantly be told that we shouldn't lose sleep when we have a *seemingly* small 2A concession. An honest question to you, how will you feel if restrictions are placed on bolt action hunting rifles if someone does a clocktower style shooting a la Austin, TX, and all of the sudden they're painted in the light of being a high-powered sniper rifle that's actually more powerful than assault rifles? Or an 870 when someone uses one in a shooting and it's revealed that 5 rounds of 00 buckshot holds more actual projectiles than a 30rd AR15 magazine? That's where my post was born from, because my crystal ball says that we'll be dealing with in the future.

 

[schmalts]

I think it’s laughable at best if anyone thinks that suppressors are going to become easier to get. We will be lucky if they stay at the current process. We are always on defense. .

Speaking of that, where are we on the suppressor deal?? After getting tinnitus a year ago after I shot one too many deer I am thinking about one of those Howas with the threaded barrel end. I bought a pair of those in the ear hearing protector/aids but they are battery eating PITAs

 

[PsRpOiGrRiAtM]

You nailed it there.

this *1000

 

[mtmuley]

I don't want a bump stock. Don't need one, wouldn't use one and will never purchase one. But, I am not behind a ban. I also don't want or need 30 round magazines, or an AR platform rifle. Don't support a ban on those either. First one thing, then another. In my mind, the "slippery slope" is real. mtmuley

 

[shootbrownelk]

I don't want a bump stock. Don't need one, wouldn't use one and will never purchase one. But, I am not behind a ban. I also don't want or need 30 round magazines, or an AR platform rifle. Don't support a ban on those either. First one thing, then another. In my mind, the "slippery slope" is real. mtmuley

What He said. Give the gun grabbers an inch and they take a mile.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I see your point, however I believe that it is foolhardy to continually give ground, when law-abiding gun owners are the ones on the losing end. While your point stands that there are limits (violent felon + .50cal,) I contend that there are limits that are continually placed on us, while there are rarely concessions on the other end. Therefore the slippery slope argument, and what I bolded in your post--we'll constantly be told that we shouldn't lose sleep when we have a *seemingly* small 2A concession. An honest question to you, how will you feel if restrictions are placed on bolt action hunting rifles if someone does a clocktower style shooting a la Austin, TX, and all of the sudden they're painted in the light of being a high-powered sniper rifle that's actually more powerful than assault rifles? Or an 870 when someone uses one in a shooting and it's revealed that 5 rounds of 00 buckshot holds more actual projectiles than a 30rd AR15 magazine? That's where my post was born from, because my crystal ball says that we'll be dealing with in the future.

I would object to the banning of bolt action hunting rifles on the merits. Their societal pros and cons, of which there are both. But in no case would I argue that they are a step on a slippery slope towards banning pocket knives (or whatever less threatening weapon you might choose by way of example).

 

[belly-deep]

I could care less if they were banned but in the end, if the NRA let the bump stocks be banned as a good gesture do you think the anti-gun crowd will celebrate, and then give up on all other gun bans they want? Will this really make the anti-gun crowd no longer want to take your 10-22 or benelli super black eagle?

No (as you well know).

They will go after the next item on their list as soon as the top priority is disposed of.

I remember back when the AWB was in effect. It was all about handguns this, handguns that, we've got to control handguns. They were the most evil thing you've ever heard of according to the anti-gun crowd. Now you don't hear much about banning handguns because AR-type weapons are front-and-center.

But if those are ever banned, it will be back to handguns, handguns, handguns. You can count on it.

I'm all for fighting for every inch of ground, even if it includes bump stocks.

Of course, I have no use for one, but it makes for a good front line to keep everything else off the radar.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I could care less if they were banned but in the end, if the NRA let the bump stocks be banned as a good gesture do you think the anti-gun crowd will celebrate, and then give up on all other gun bans they want? Will this really make the anti-gun crowd no longer want to take your 10-22 or benelli super black eagle? I don't own a bump stock. But I don't care if anyone does either because in the end how much of a difference would it really make. Would the Vegas shooting not have happened? I think it still would have but without a bumpstock. How many terror shootings had a bump stock? It was a crappy thing to happen, but in the grand scheme of things convince me it is a priority over something like mandatory breathalizers on all new cars manufactured, or making all phones unable to text when the phone knows it is in an environment that detects it is in a driving vehicle. Those last 2 things would save over 1000 times more lives in a year than a bumpstock ban. Google texting and driving accident stats, you will be AMAZED. But try and take the cell phone away from younger people and tell them it's to save lives. what do you think David Hogg would say if you told him he had to give up his phone because it kills too many people.

And banning the addition of salt to prepared foods would save many more multiples than cell phones in cars, but that doesn't really address the issue before us - as one could easily be for bump stock ban and for cell phone in car ban (in fact I am fairly certain there are thousands of commentators who are).

I don't care about bump stocks, and I don't think a ban would prevent a nut job from shooting people, but laws (any laws) are a social outcome and as such we are best advised to pick our battles carefully lest we lose in the long run. Certainly the antis won't stop there, but there are middle of the road dems and republicans who are squeezed toward anti positions by seemingly silly NRA positions, like teflon coated bullets and bump stocks. The best 2nd amendment advocate is a smart 2nd amendment advocate and in 2018 falling on an incredibly minor sword might be the smart choice.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I bought a pair of those in the ear hearing protector/aids but they are battery eating PITAs

I love mine - and a season's worth of batteries are way cheaper than those expensive scopes you keep selling me

(kidding aside, schmalts has great deals on great items - fast, friendly and good pricing -- even dropped the price on one recent purchase without me asking for it)

 

[mtmuley]

What's the next sword we have to fall on going to be? mtmuley

 

[PsRpOiGrRiAtM]

I would object to the banning of bolt action hunting rifles on the merits. Their societal pros and cons, of which there are both. But in no case would I argue that they are a step on a slippery slope towards banning pocket knives (or whatever less threatening weapon you might choose by way of example).

And yet that's exactly what we see going on in the UK. Moreso, we're not a country based on societal merit, we're *supposed to be* a country based on freedom. Freedom to drink large sodas, smoke cigarettes, own the same weaponry as the people assigned to police and govern us.....

That may be a very simplified way to put it, and I could very well be off-base, but that's how I view it.

 

[schmalts]

Until the root cause of mass shootings become the front and center debate on both side, nothing will change. And I think we all can agree that the root cause is mental health. But being it is not as easy as banning something, our politicians and protestors just sit there doing nothing that will make a difference. I think this topic should end there as it really isn't related to hunting enough to continue. Hence my diversion to the suppressor topic What kind of hearing aids did you buy? I have the pro-ear ghost stryke and they are OK as long as the batteries are good.