WTF? (**NSFW**)

[waveshaper]

Anyone know if the M4 Bushmaster used in the Resorts World Manila Casino attack had a bump stock? This attack took place on 2 June 2017 (38 killed/70 wounded) and the attacker was a high roller/loser. The Las Vegas shooter and his girlfriend spent mucho time a her brothers house about 25 miles from this casino in Manila and I wouldn't be surprised if he also gambled there. IMHO, the Manila casino attack may have provided the Las Vegas shooter a wee bit of inspiration/motive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Resorts_World_Manila_attack

Edited October 7, 2017 by waveshaper

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, HU&W said:

I'd like to see the NFA updated to have the Hughes amendment removed, gat crank and bump stock classified as automatic modifications (not banned, but with SBR/silencer type restrictions), and national basic requirements for CHL with nationwide reciprocity.

Do you believe that will prevent the next attack?

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Do you believe that will prevent the next attack?

No law will prevent the next attack.  Crazy people do crazy things.  You can't stop crazy, but you can make it more difficult for crazy people to maximize damage.  This last attack was exacerbated by someone that used a legal, off the shelf, modification that has zero purpose outside of novelty at the range and spraying a bunch of bullets randomly into a crowd.

Edited October 7, 2017 by HU&W
clarity

[HU&W]

I will add that one way I think attacks could be deterred (not prevented) would be to hold companies and local government entities liable for the security of people on their property if it's a 'gun free' zone.  But that kind of legislation wouldn't have a chance of ever passing.

[matmacwc]

No way, then the lawyers would own everything.

[Warrior]

No law will prevent the next attack.  Crazy people do crazy things.  You can't stop crazy, but you can make it more difficult for crazy people to maximize damage.  This last attack was exacerbated by someone that used a legal, off the shelf, modification that has zero purpose outside of novelty at the range and spraying a bunch of bullets randomly into a crowd.

It’s a novelty sure, but let’s get at the root cause-why is a bump stock a thing? It’s because the Hughes amendment stopped registration of new machine guns.

If I could spend $10 on different parts and $200 on a tax stamp to register a machine gun as an NFA item then the bump stock wouldn’t have been invented and every gun capable of this kind of firing rate would be registered within the NFA construct. As it is, gun control (Hughes amendment) artificially limited supply so prices for legal full auto are through the roof. So someone invents the bump stock which the ATF said was legal!

Let’s stop pretending that more regulation will achieve the desired effects

[BFM this]

8 hours ago, HU&W said:

I will add that one way I think attacks could be deterred (not prevented) would be to hold companies and local government entities liable for the security of people on their property if it's a 'gun free' zone.  But that kind of legislation wouldn't have a chance of ever passing.

Which is why it costs nearly half a million dollars to buy $69,000 worth of new airplane these days.

Great plan!

 

[HU&W]

2 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Which is why it costs nearly half a million dollars to buy $69,000 worth of new airplane these days.

Great plan!

Thanks, I think so too.  Sarcasm aside, I do think it would deter establishments from arbitrarily disarming their customers without cause, thereby denying them self protection without providing an adequate substitute.  

4 hours ago, Warrior said:

It’s a novelty sure, but let’s get at the root cause-why is a bump stock a thing? It’s because the Hughes amendment stopped registration of new machine guns.

 

 

I agree.  Hughes is part of the problem.  I recommended repealing it in my original post.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Justonethought said:

This is an echo chamber.  You guys are talking  and agreeing amongst yourselves.  I am pro gun (ccw).  Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

You’ve read through 6 pages of debate and think this is an echo chamber without disagreement?  Has someone said they needed  a bump stock to protect their family?

4 hours ago, Warrior said:

It’s a novelty sure, but let’s get at the root cause-why is a bump stock a thing? It’s because the Hughes amendment stopped registration of new machine guns.

If I could spend $10 on different parts and $200 on a tax stamp to register a machine gun as an NFA item then the bump stock wouldn’t have been invented and every gun capable of this kind of firing rate would be registered within the NFA construct. As it is, gun control (Hughes amendment) artificially limited supply so prices for legal full auto are through the roof. So someone invents the bump stock which the ATF said was legal!

Let’s stop pretending that more regulation will achieve the desired effects

 

 

Great point.  The law of unintended consequences.  Too bad few of the anti-gun folks are smart enough on history and details surrounding this debate to recognize the truth in your observations.

[Smokin]

Hughes may be part of the problem, but the real 'problem' with banning items is innovation.  As soon as the government passes a law or the ATF issues a letter making a specific thing illegal, people will find a way to get the same result using a new work around that accomplishes a similar result in a legal manner.  It's not just the bump stock, but the arm brace and countless other things to work around the law.  In modern times when a middle class American can afford to buy automated milling equipment and manufacture their own parts or even entire guns, arbitrary laws banning specific items are obsolete before they even take effect.  The problem is only going to get worse as technology increases and prices decrease.  I'm actually surprised we don't have a bigger problem with people buying ARs and retooling them to be full auto, but that will probably happen if the bump stock gets banned.

 

But the true root cause of attacks like this is America as a country deliberately walking away from the moral foundation of our country.  We have banned God and related religious morals from our government and society while simultaneously crying out against the evils of society that inevitably result.  Hatred of people across the political isle is given only cursory public condemnation while de facto encouraged within both political parties.  While a problem with both sides, the easiest example is the "love trumps hate" slogan protesters carry just before they start throwing rocks or worse.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Justonethought said:

This is an echo chamber.  You guys are talking  and agreeing amongst yourselves.  I am pro gun (ccw).  Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

 

 

 

Show me in the first amendment where it says the only reason I can own a gun is to protect my family.

[nunya]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Show me in the first amendment where it says the only reason I can own a gun is to protect my family.

[BFM this]

1 hour ago, HU&W said:

Thanks, I think so too.  Sarcasm aside, I do think it would deter establishments from arbitrarily disarming their customers without cause, thereby denying them self protection without providing an adequate substitute.  

Ahhh, reading comprehension fail on my part.  Thought you were referring to gun manufacturers being held liable.

Disregard all after...

[HossHarris]

It was subtle...but I certainly appreciated it. 

[Hacker]

3 hours ago, Justonethought said:

Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

That's the beautiful thing about being a free man living in a liberal democracy: it isn't about "need".

The whole point is that free citizens are allowed to pursue whatever makes them happy (within the limitations of not violating the rights of others) without having to garner the approval or permission or validation of any other person or organization.

"Because I want to" is all the "need" anyone requires.

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Show me in the first amendment where it says the only reason I can own a gun is to protect my family.

I keep trying to find the references to cars and hunting in the Bill of Rights, too.

[BFM this]

I was ambivalent about bump stocks.  Don't own one, would consider it a novelty if someday I'd amassed a collection large enough to seek unique ways to entertain myself on the range.  From a constitutional position, I was waiting to hear some justification; from a legislative position, I was waiting to hear how THIS was the panacea that volumes of previous laws and regulations had promised themselves to be.

But just like that (*snap) I went from ambivalent to opposed.

https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-more-gun-control

Guess politics is funny like that.

[Seriously]

34 minutes ago, Hacker said:

That's the beautiful thing about being a free man living in a liberal democracy: it isn't about "need".

The whole point is that free citizens are allowed to pursue whatever makes them happy (within the limitations of not violating the rights of others) without having to garner the approval or permission or validation of any other person or organization.

"Because I want to" is all the "need" anyone requires.

Yeah, but there is a line. You aren't allowed to own your own fighter and an inventory of Mk 82s either... as much fun as that would be. 

I don't think banning bump stocks would do much anyways. You can bump fire with a belt loop, and you can make minor mods to turn a semi-auto AK-47 into full auto (sort of..).

[M2]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:50 AM, FourFans130 said:

Your terminology invalidated your arguments.  Only grandparents and M2 spout phrases like that.

[Buddy Spike]

3 hours ago, Seriously said:

You aren't allowed to own your own fighter and an inventory of Mk 82s either...

 

Says who?

[Vertigo]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:21 PM, pbar said:

Agreed but unfortunately compromise isn't possible with the gun control Left.  We could trade away bump fire stocks and trigger cranks as part of a compromise but that would just whet their appetite for more gun control, leading to their desired end game-total abolition of private firearm ownership.  Like a Terminator, they will not stop until they reach that endstate.  

The sad fact is that elimination of most firearms would be fairly easy to accomplish.  Once they have ownership lists, either by mandatory registration, credit card data mining, having doctors ask kids if their parents have guns, etc. then they can require you to turn them in.  They don't need to send police or military to round them up.  All they need to do is make turning them in a condition of any interaction with the government such as renewing your driver's license or license plates, getting a tax return, applying for unemployment, etc. 

That's the same BS argument used when gay marriage was being debated "People will marry their dogs, or their toasters".

When someone wants to discuss reasonable, common sense, gun control measures, it's disingenuous to reframe it as a discussion about abolishing firearms.

[Vertigo]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 3:46 PM, Buddy Spike said:

Now is not the time to give up because of one horrific incident.  It's a very slippery slope.

 

 

ONE horrific incident?

Was I dreaming up Sandy Hook elementary? Columbine? Aurora? Orlando? Ft Lauderdale? San Bernardino? Roseburg, OR? Chattanooga? Charleston? Isla Vista, CA? Ft Hood? Washington Navy Yard? Santa Monica? Newtown? Binghamton, NY? Omaha shopping mall? Virginia Tech? Salt Lake mall? Pennsylvania amish school? Red lake high school? Lockheed Martin? Santee high school? Wakefield, MA? That's just in the 2000's.

[Vertigo]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 3:41 AM, matmacwc said:

I meant acid, we need to ban acid.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-acid/britain-to-limit-acid-sales-after-steep-rise-in-assaults-idUSKCN1C817L

I need some help with this comparison... can you point me out an article where 59 people died and another 500 were wounded by a man with a jug of acid? I can't seem to find any.

[Vertigo]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 6:38 PM, M2 said:

I1) I can kill someone with a rock, so does that mean we have to outlaw rocks? 

4) good luck trying to pull an Australia in Texas...this is our governor!


We don't fuck around when it comes to our firearms, BBQ, religion or football!
 

1- Same question... can you point out to me a time when some dude killed 59 people and wounded 500 more with a rock?

2- So what would happen, hypothetically, is a gun ban law was passed? Would you fight those enforcing the law? Do you no longer believe "blue lives matter" at that point?

[HossHarris]

21 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

2- So what would happen, hypothetically, is a gun ban law was passed? Would you fight those enforcing the law? Do you no longer believe "blue lives matter" at that point?

A-I lost all of my firearms in a tragic boating incident in the Gulf of Mexico. 

B-if your sworn to support and defend the constitution, you should have a really hard time with a blanket ban and/ or confiscation .... unless there are changes to the constitution.