Patterico's Pontifications

10/5/2017

New York Times: Republicans Open to Banning Bump Stocks

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am

The New York Times reports that — as I recently predicted — there seems to be some support among Republicans in Congress for banning “bump stocks,” which make it easier to fire semiautomatic weapons at a rate similar to that of automatic weapons:

Top congressional Republicans, who have for decades resisted any legislative limits on guns, signaled on Wednesday that they would be open to banning the firearm accessory that the Las Vegas gunman used to transform his rifles to mimic automatic weapon fire.

For a generation, Republicans in Congress — often joined by conservative Democrats — have bottled up gun legislation, even as the carnage of mass shootings grew ever more gruesome and the weaponry ever more deadly. A decade ago, they blocked efforts to limit the size of magazines after the massacre at Virginia Tech. Five years later, Republican leaders thwarted bipartisan legislation to expand background checks of gun purchasers after the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Last year, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub massacre, they blocked legislation to stop gun sales to buyers on terrorism watch lists.

But in this week’s massacre in Las Vegas, lawmakers in both parties may have found the part of the weapons trade that few could countenance: previously obscure gun conversion kits, called “bump stocks,” that turn semiautomatic weapons into weapons capable of firing in long, deadly bursts.

Before we go any further, let’s just correct some of the revisionist history here. In 2016, both sides passed their own stiffer gun control measures, each set of which was blocked by the other party. So it would be perfectly accurate to say that some gun restrictions were backed by Republicans but blocked by Democrats. For example, Republicans voted for a bill that would ban sales of firearms to people on terrorism watch lists. But Democrats voted against it because they rejected the due process protections that Republicans had included, given the well-known overbreadth of the no-fly list and the constitutional issues at stake. Republicans also voted to fortify the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Democrats voted against that proposal because they wanted more. Democrats would rather have gun control as an issue to smear Republicans with than accomplish something and have to share credit. Just so we’re clear on that.

Back to the article and the bump stock issue:

“I own a lot of guns, and as a hunter and sportsman, I think that’s our right as Americans, but I don’t understand the use of this bump stock,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said, adding, “It seems like it’s an obvious area we ought to explore and see if it’s something Congress needs to act on.”

. . . .

Other Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida, said they would be open to considering legislation on bump stocks.

. . . .

In the House, Representative Carlos Curbelo, Republican of Florida, said he was drafting bipartisan legislation banning the conversion kits. Representative Mark Meadows, the head of the conservative Freedom Caucus, also said he would be open to considering a bill, while Representative Bill Flores, Republican of Texas, called for an outright ban.

“I think they should be banned,” Mr. Flores told the newspaper The Hill. “There’s no reason for a typical gun owner to own anything that converts a semiautomatic to something that behaves like an automatic.”

I understand the reluctance of gun rights supporters not to give the left even an inch on this. Every time there is a mass shooting, the left agitates for some form of new gun control, as if this would solve the problem. Often the new gun control proposal has no connection to the shooting that prompted the proposal, and would not have prevented the current tragedy. That doesn’t stop the left. It’s like clockwork: they act as if conservatives simply acceded to their “common sense” proposals — some of which include banning all semiautomatics (!) or even grabbing all guns in the country (!!) — there would be no problem.

It doesn’t matter that researchers who look into gun control as gun control supporters have their minds changed by the data, and come to doubt the efficacy of gun control. For the left, policy is almost always about intentions, and not results.

But the fact that “common sense” has become a leftist buzz phrase to represent “more gun control” doesn’t mean we can’t apply some actual common sense, consistent with the Constitution and the Heller decision. Justice Scalia said in Heller that “commentators and courts [have] routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The justices in the Heller majority were not saying that machine guns were constitutionally protected. So what is the real problem with banning something that makes it easy to replicate the speed of automatic fire with a semiautomatic handguns?

I saw someone compare the Second Amendment’s relation to machine guns with the First Amendment’s relation to child pornography. Just because an amendment protects a right we love, and just because people are always trying to chip away at the freedoms protected by that amendment, does not mean we must automatically oppose any restrictions whatsoever. Unless you want to go to the mattresses to argue that we need to make machine guns fully available again — which they are not now — then there is little reason to get exercised about bump stocks.

Supporters of new legislation need to understand certain limitations on the efficacy of any proposed legislation. There are other ways to replicate the speed of machine gun fire. It can be done using one’s belt loops, as a simple YouTube search will show. Such techniques may not be as easy as using bump stocks, or permit the same sort of accuracy and aim, but they are possible. Also, bump stocks do tend to lead to less accurate fire than a simple semiautomatic, used in the normal manner, is capable of — making their use as a killing accessory rather limited to situations like the Las Vegas shooting, where there is a packed crowd and accuracy is less important. And the slippery slope argument is nothing to sneeze at. The real goal here is to ban all firearms. We need to be aware of that and vigilant against it.

And, as is always the case with gun control measures, you’re not going to prevent more mass shootings by passing this legislation. At best, you might make it marginally harder for someone to copycat this exact shooting in this exact manner.

That said, I don’t see the Big Threat to Our Liberties here. I think this particular restriction is coming, and it’s sensible. Republicans are right to get ahead of it.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

233 Responses to “New York Times: Republicans Open to Banning Bump Stocks”

  1. And, once again, lawmakers get excited by the object.

    I’ve been reading a lot of gun threads. I shoot, but am no expert, and defer to those who know more about long guns than I do. One thing I have found – many of those with extensive experience seem to feel that they could have done much the same damage, and maybe worse, given scopes and aimed fire, without a “bump stock.”

    The problem isn’t the tool, and watching a bunch of legislators currying favor by playing to the latest panic is disgusting.

    Dianna (b7aa4f)

  2. what’s super-fun is how they’ll only be banning them for regular Americans while the psychopaths will have no trouble making their own

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. The ammunition manufacturers will be the ones hurt the most, but they can recoup by investing in casino stocks.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. And I hope the new law is not so broad, or so badly written, that it makes Gatling guns illegal, leading to the historical ones which were never registered and cannot now be registered being seized and melted down.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. And the non-historical replicas, for that matter.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. It’s not “sensible” because there is no way to coherently define bump stocks.

    SPQR (5ea992)

  7. And, once again, lawmakers get excited by the object.
    Ban all the things. It’s been said time and time again, enforce the existing laws. The laws keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths. This extra stuff just clogs up the courts/legal system, distracts the police from their real jobs, gives the government more discretionary power, and undermines/dilutes the value of the laws that we already have. Meanwhile the oxygen in the room consumes talk and thinking-cycles that do little to address the real problems.

    what’s super-fun is how they’ll only be banning them for regular Americans while the psychopaths will have no trouble making their own
    Yep. And then what do we do? Make more laws about what kinds of designs that can be shared? Similar to banning the “silencers”. They’ll be banning pillows next. I keed, I keed…but only about the pillows.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  8. John Cornyn will know what to do Mr. Farleigh!

    he knows how to look and stuff and “see if it’s something Congress needs to act on”

    For example the John Cornyn Congress looked at Obamacare just recently and decided nope looks good

    This is called discernment.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. Of all the a-holes in the world chuckle schumer on the senate floor stated if all the dead in vegas were alive instead of in heaven they would go after the NRA. This guy mentioning heaven should be a 10 year stint in Leavenworth.

    mg (31009b)

  10. The problem isn’t the tool, and watching a bunch of legislators currying favor by playing to the latest panic is disgusting.

    Dianna (b7aa4f) — 10/5/2017 @ 9:31 am

    It is, indeed.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  11. Bottom line; The Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed”. Not “Shall not be infringed unless The Good People decide that some arms should be taxed through the roof” or “Unless it is decided that whole classes of legal citizens need to be treated like children” or “unless somebody comes up with new technology in a field that moves perhaps more rapidly than any other”.

    All taxes, registries, licenses, and bans are unconstitutional. All. Of. Them. That we have been screwing around on the plain meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights since before the ink was dry is not a justification for continuing to do so.

    We need to tell the Gin Control advocates “You claim to want a serious discussion on gun control. Fine; what Constitutional Amendment do you propose that would make serious gun control Constitutional. Because until you come up with one, either you are not serious or you are attempting to undermine the ENTIRE Constitution.”

    And we need to do this soon. As we have see, they are not too fond of ANY of the Amendments.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  12. RBG’s standard is one man one shot.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  13. I would like the Court to address the gerrymandering of my gun rights in this country.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  14. Doesn’t need new legislation. Doesn’t even need a new federal regulation from BATFE. Just needs the Executive to tell the BATFE to reverse its (poor- or mis-) interpretation of the existing law and regulation. Yes, if the POTUS won’t do that the Congress could step in. But this would be a far, far more palatable political move if Trump would take the lead on this, declare that he’s reversing the Obama-era mistake in interpretation, and simply announce that henceforward, bump stocks and trigger cranks and the like are going to be treated just like existing law treats conversion kits, i.e., as if they are themselves “machineguns” within the meaning of the statute, meaning they’d require the same registration and regulation as fully automatic weapons already receive. And he’d announce re-doubling enforcement of existing law.

    Passing new legislation would be a political mistake and an opening for the left that the GOP would be stupid to give them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. @Beldar;

    “Passing new legislation would be a political mistake and an opening for the left that the GOP would be stupid to give them.”

    Which is why I expect them to do so tomorrow, if not sooner.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  16. SPQR: Do you think the ban on conversion kits coherently defines them?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. (Not a “ban,” but making them subject to registration/regulation requirements for automatic weapons, which has much the same practical effect as a ban.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  18. Ah — sorry, SPQR, you answered my question on the other thread, in a pair of comments I just found.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  19. My grandpa lost a finger to a back alley bump stock. What could he do? He already had too many mouths to feed as it was. He had no choice is what I’m saying. Are you ready to turn the clock back?

    There’s already communities in Wyoming where someone has to drive 250 miles to a licensed gun provider.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  20. The ammunition manufacturers will be the ones hurt the most, but they can recoup by investing in casino stocks.
    nk (dbc370) — 10/5/2017 @ 9:50 am

    The SEC needs to be checkin’ up and down the line of that crazy brother. See if he shorted a bunch of casino stocks.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  21. Question..why is there so little care and attention to the Preambles mission statement as relates to Healthcare being a Constitutional Right, but so much emphasis on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED as though more prvileged?

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  22. Patterico,

    Being that the question is how will the legislation being proposed look like with respect towards words and language. That is the biggest fear that Gun Rights folks have is that sloppy legislation will make all manner of events into felonies or ban items that weren’t “supposed” to be banned by the legislation. See for example the states of NY and Connecticut with their post Sandy Hook legislation that effectively, if you followed the language of the law, outlawed even police to have their standard issue firearms. The same was true of the 1994 FAWB, which while trying to outlaw the semi-automatic weapons like the AK clones and AR clones which had been used in a number of shooting instances, the committees that drafted the legislation ran afoul of the “sporting arms” language in the GCA of 1968 and some later laws. Which is why the law ended up with targeting of cosmetic features that are easily removable from firearms or could be manufactured around and still provide the same features. Heck, I remember receiving a mailer from the National Shooting Sports Foundation stating that the proposed FAWB would have outlawed my M1 Garand and M1903 rifles from ownership and even limited my ability to travel to qualification events target shooting because of the problems with legislation as it was being written in committee. I can even point to my own home state of WA state that with the recent I-594 background check law, it outlaws my ability to take my children or members of my family shooting and allow “transfer” of a firearm to another person without a a background check prior to the transfer even if only for the moment of allowing them to handle it prior to shooting. It is sloppy laws that puts all Americans into the “3 felonies a day from when you wake up” sort of situation.

    Reading you for a long time, you appear to take an originalist approach in the same vein as Scalia took his views on the law. So with that in mind, I would say that is where the Gun Rights crowd sits as well. Most of them don’t like new laws because of recent examples of sloppy laws written in the heat of the moment don’t allow for full discussion and/or understanding of the 2nd and 34th order effects of the legislation being passed. That is why I feel a need to take a small “L” libertarian view on the attempt to ban bump stocks. I don’t have a need for them and yet, I can totally see that some folks have a need or want for them. In discussions within my own shooting range crowd, one of the guys I shoot with also trains others in proper technique and has a few disabled shooters. Folks that can’t hold a firearm and shoot with their dominant hand. For one gentleman that he trains, it is because the man doesn’t have an arm below the elbow due to an workplace injury and has a prosthetic. Another had lost the ability to use an arm due to a chronic medical condition, there is no muscle control in an arm to allow for handling of the weapon and operating the trigger. So they use a bump stock to shoot with, it has taken a large amount of patience and training for these individuals to use a firearm with these bump stocks and get some form of accuracy that pleases them.
    Now we are going to say that these disabled individuals shall be denied their right to own or operate a firearm because they can’t safely handle a weapon due to a disability? That the capitalist market has found a way thru the manufacture of a device to allow these individuals to operate a firearm because one individual abused the device?

    If it was me; I would put this into a regulated device that would require individuals who are disabled and still want to shoot firearms, the ability to purchase these items with respect to lower limits vs all others. All others outside of those affected by the language of say the ADA would have to show a need for such a device and potentially pay the same sort of tax, licensing and other hoops that other class III weapons have to go thru.

    That is just my $.02 on the subject.

    Charles (24e862)

  23. Republicans Open to Banning Bump Stocks

    Well-whoop-tee-f-cking-do; slaughterhouse jive.

    “I’m an avid sportsman and never heard of them [bump stocks.]” – Paul Ryan.

    Mr. Speaker is either incompetent or a liar. There is no third choice.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  24. I understand the reluctance of gun rights supporters not to give the left even an inch on this. Every time there is a mass shooting, the left agitates for some form of new gun control, as if this would solve the problem. Often the new gun control proposal has no connection to the shooting that prompted the proposal, and would not have prevented the current tragedy. That doesn’t stop the left. It’s like clockwork: they act as if conservatives simply acceded to their “common sense” proposals — some of which include banning all semiautomatics (!) or even grabbing all guns in the country (!!) — there would be no problem.

    But the fact that “common sense” has become a leftist buzz phrase to represent “more gun control” doesn’t mean we can’t apply some actual common sense, consistent with the Constitution and the Heller decision. Justice Scalia said in Heller that “commentators and courts [have] routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The justices in the Heller majority were not saying that machine guns were constitutionally protected. So what is the real problem with banning something that makes it easy to replicate the speed of automatic fire with a semiautomatic handguns?

    Common sense? Patrick, c’mon. You need to phrase the argument the way that a leftist would, Patrick. Here liberal darling, J.K. Rowling, responds to criticism of Islam every time there’s a terrorist act and — surprise! — it’s a Muslim shouting, “Allahu akbar!” while executing it. Islam doesn’t kill people, she says. Who does then? Her answer: people kill people.

    Oh. Glad we got that straight.

    These bump-stocks have been around for 7 years and were okayed by the ATF in the midst of the most dour leftist administration in history. Prior to this idiot in Vegas, can you cite mass murder using these things? So the bump stocks killed people? You do know that all you need to bump fire one of these things is a rubber band, right? Ergo, banning the damned things — suddenly — is as pointless as banning tanks. (Remember the idiot in San Diego who stole a tank in 2007? What if, instead of heading for the highway, he’d run into schools or hospitals? How do you make stealing the tank and killing people any more regulated or illegal?)

    I’m tired of surrendering my rights when I have the rational argument. You want to surrender yours? Fine. Have a nut. Count me out, though.

    J.P. (9e0433)

  25. Ammo manufacturers aren’t the brightest rock in the bag. Sure, I understand they were unprepared for the idiocy of hoarding and continuous Loss at retail.

    But they should have anticipated the current glut because Obama is gone mow, dudes…gun sales down too.

    But I’m not complaining. A year ago .223 Federal 100s was 40 bucks. Now it’s 32.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  26. The problem isn’t the tool, and watching a bunch of legislators currying favor by playing to the latest panic is disgusting.
    Dianna (b7aa4f) — 10/5/2017 @ 9:31 am

    Others have pointed out that upwards of 2,000 people were killed with boxcutters. It’s a circuitous Shakespearean “for want of a nail” route but it’s legit IMO.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  27. nk

    I think most Gatling Guns were black powder.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  28. Of all the a-holes in the world chuckle schumer on the senate floor stated if all the dead in vegas were alive instead of in heaven they would go after the NRA. This guy mentioning heaven should be a 10 year stint in Leavenworth.
    mg (31009b) — 10/5/2017 @ 10:06 am

    Never go full John Edwards.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  29. So it would be perfectly accurate to say that some gun restrictions were backed by Republicans but blocked by Democrats.

    =yawn= Squirrel.

    This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue but a conservative versus common sense issue.

    End of story.

    There are other ways to replicate the speed of machine gun fire. It can be done using one’s belt loops, as a simple YouTube search will show.

    Duh. Lots of ways to cirumvent air travel security, too, if you’re hell-bent determined to steal or blow up airplanes. Point is to make deviations from the norm as acceptably difficult as possible.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. How does the Preamble say health care is constitutional right, Ben burn? A desire to “promote the general welfare” does not create a right.

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. While Paddock might have owned bump-stocks, the audio makes it clear they weren’t used. The initial shots are far too regular and go on for far too long a time. Chances are his primary weapon was belt-fed, as he manages continuous streams of 9 seconds of full-auto.

    So the bump-stock thing is pointless, but that’s the point.

    Ingot (e5bf64)

  32. Conservatives are about common sense, DCSCA. It’s common sense to hew to traditions that work and to be cautious about change.

    DRJ (15874d)

  33. CSP

    I know it was a typo, but we already tried Gin control and it didn’t work. I read somewhere that all that gun control bs in the 30’s was a job program for Treasury agents who were looking at unemployment with the abolishing of Prohibition.

    If the modern ATF can’t process all those tax stamps in a brisk manner they need to be rooted out and fired as well.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  34. Drj:

    It’s a mission statement, which IMO makes greater weight than a mere Amendment. It’s used to justify nearly unlimited Pentagon budgets and I think the Military should be included with the goal of health and welfare of its citizenry.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  35. @15 Beldar

    Conversion is a long sentence in prison with guns and a sacred rite for sexually confused grade schoolers.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  36. It’s a goal, not a right. Do all NFL team members have a right to be paid as if they won the Super Bowl simply because that was their goal?

    DRJ (15874d)

  37. Plus, promoting welfare is not the same as guaranteeing welfare. All it means is that government should keep the general welfare in mind when passing and executing laws.

    DRJ (15874d)

  38. It’s a reminder that government serves the public welfare, not a guarantee that government will be our nanny.

    DRJ (15874d)

  39. An additional thoughts on the subject is with respect towards enforcement.
    I have also heard the constant stress of the universal background check as being another way to stop this. Yet, as it seems in the last 20 yrs; the State/Leviathan/whatever you wish to call the government at all levels. Is failing to do the most basic requirements of meeting the law. Whether we are talking about a school shooter whose father was charged with a DV and shouldn’t have been allowed to purchase a firearm on over to the DC sniper that had been charged with DV and been flagged in the system or even the sniper’s assistant not being a citizen or that we have doctors who chosen not to report mental health issues to the proper authorities.

    All of which seems to ask if maybe we should sit down before adding more laws to the books that we examine and reform the laws that we already have so they can perform better. I mean every time we have an aircraft accident or a major train or even shipping incident. We don’t start to ban items the crews were using or even ban/limit the forms of transportation. We investigate and come up with ways that the current system has failed. In some cases, yes due to either the oversight organization hasn’t passed a rule or regulation to tighten up an issue or that there is a need for law reform. It is my belief that in the case of gun crimes we should be doing the same and we should review the laws for what is working and what isn’t working and apply reforms to improve the chances of success that the laws will limit the behaviors we want to have limit while keeping the ability of folks to enjoy their natural rights.

    Charles (24e862)

  40. @33. Except they’re not. But do cling to it. It’s quaint– and your own worst enemy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. So you’re saying were all on different teams competing for the coveted ring of good healthcare?

    That’s an interesting pov.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  42. (Not a “ban,” but making them subject to registration/regulation requirements for automatic weapons, which has much the same practical effect as a ban.)
    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/5/2017 @ 11:00 am

    How about we just ban gun parts based on their country of origin? I don’t want some federal judge mucking it up.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  43. Sarah the Huck is clueless on this. She should have been reading Patterico.com.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. Question..why is there so little care and attention to the Preambles mission statement as relates to Healthcare being a Constitutional Right, but so much emphasis on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED as though more prvileged?
    Ben burn (c2b66f) — 10/5/2017 @ 11:11 am

    There’s no obligation on your fellow Americans to pay for your guns and ammo.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  45. “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and Executive Director Chris Cox added in a joint statement.

    there you go then

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  46. @26 Ben Burn

    You are old, white, male, possibly angry and a member of the hopliarchy. You are part of the problem.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  47. “There’s no obligation on your fellow Americans to pay for your guns and ammo.”

    Thanks for hoarding though. That worked as good as welfare for pricing.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  48. So no conservatives are about common sense? Now that’s quaint. And the similarity to the bitter clingers meme shows the mileage Chairman Zero got out of his hate speech.

    Meanwhile, anyone with common sense will seek a second source when CBS reports info on guns……

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/21978/fake-news-cbs-makes-bogus-term-describe-ammo-used-ryan-saavedra

    CBS made up a bogus term to describe the ammunition that was used by the Las Vegas shooter during the rampage – calling the ammunition he used “automatic rounds.”

    harkin (9803a7)

  49. @47. Ben, can’t wait for hard right conservative ideologues to start taking a knee during the National Anthem at NFL games in support of gun rights!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. DC

    WWF..

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  51. That’ll teach the ammo manufacturers to give money to the Second Amendment Foundation instead of giving it all to the NRA.

    I’m kidding. The NRA is fine with me, and under Wayne LaPierre very politically savvy.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. 41.So you’re saying were all on different teams competing for the coveted ring of good healthcare?

    Good, affordable healthcare with a maximum of choices is a great goal.

    As long as we’re spending $25 on a single Tylenol or $150 for a pillow……it can be improved.

    Good healthcare for many appears to mean jacking prices up even higher so people can pay even more ridiculous prices for not only themselves and their dependents but also a couple other families.

    harkin (9803a7)

  53. LaPierre/nk/2020

    mg (31009b)

  54. 12.Bottom line; The Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed”.

    Except it doesn’t. The full line is the bottom line:“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Now grab your Brown Bess and go play Minuetman in the backyard. Supper will be ready at 6.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  55. Duh. Lots of ways to cirumvent air travel security, too, if you’re hell-bent determined to steal or blow up airplanes. Point is to make deviations from the norm as acceptably difficult as possible.

    Because circumventing air travel security is as simple as gripping one’s belt loop. And as benign an action.
    Deviations from the norm, acceptable difficulties, and all that jazz. No, duh.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  56. @55. See, we’d weed you out w/paperwork. Duh, take a knee for bump stocks this Sunday, son.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  57. Machine guns do not significantly increase the ability to defend oneself. Handguns, shotguns, semi-auto rifles do. Unless you expect to be attacked by human waves, though, you don’t gain anything with a machine gun. So, the ancient right of self-defense (in the penumbra of the 2nd and 9th Amendments) is not impacted by a automatic weapon ban.

    As for militia use, the Armory has them and more when the (REGULATED) militia is called up, although you are also expected to bring your rifle.

    I see the ban as perfectly in keeping with the bill of rights, and any tension is minimal (and more on the 9th amendment than the 2nd).

    Kevin M (752a26)

  58. except for it’s only a notional ban

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. a) Not your son, jack wagon.
    b) Paperwork. Nothing stops a determined mass murderer like paperwork.
    c) This “take a knee for bump stocks” talking point is a clear indication that you have not the f of an idea as to what the issue is there
    d) Gave up on the NFL ages ago.
    e) IF I take a knee on Sunday it will be for more sacred reasons.

    Got it, jack?

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  60. @57. It’s essentially a technology issue. No problem w/semi-auto guns– they are what they are; just plugging a work around to make mods as difficult as possible. A completely sane, rational, common sense move. And opposition to same as utterly irrational as Paddock.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  61. 1st Am didn’t pay for my Fender Strat

    2nd Am didn’t pay for my AR

    4th & 5th Am didn’t pay me to watch “Am I being detained, or am I free to go?” videos

    Laws and interpretations of the Constitution give me legal and medical care when my life is on the line

    Ben Burn wants to turn every MD into a PD (public defender)

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  62. And just to be clear, similar to HF’s point, my objections to this proposed law have little to zero to do with the 2nd Amendment and much more to do with the legal, logistical, philosophical, and other-things-that-may-or-may-not-end-in-L problems with outlawing things. Especially things that are otherwise quite easy to obtain and/or manufacture. See above re drugs, alcohol, etc.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  63. @59.:
    b. Deter. You’ll never stop every, but you can deter many– and that’s the point.
    c. You’re scared. Have more of an idea what’s at issue here than you know, jack. But a Talking point? Just made it up. Good, it works.
    d. No football is un-American. Watch that or you’ll be on a HUAC watch list.
    Oh, a. Don’t be a jack-off, jack.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. CSP reads the second Amendment as follows:

    Mumble mumble mumble the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    I don’t think that was the original intent. They had a Navy and a trained professional Army by 1812, so the idea that heavy weapons would be in the hands of the militia wasn’t true even then. Oh, some may have wanted that, being truly paranoid about governments, but those weren’t the people who wrote debated and passed the Bill of Rights. Paranoid loner anarchists don’t usually run for office.

    Ask yourself: why did most people of late 18th century America think that keeping and bearing arms was important? Were they really demanding the right to have cannon?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  65. @ Ingot (#32): You’re behind on your news. A large number of the rifles found in his room had bump-stocks; many were jammed (which became spectacularly more likely the more rounds he fired at full-automatic rates with the bump stocks), and as more details come out we’ll probably find those still had rounds in the magazine. I’ve not yet seen a single report of a belt-fed weapon. There are many Youtube videos of people obtaining long, regular streams of fire using a bump stock and a high-capacity magazine.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  66. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    That’s a direct quote, DCSCA.

    I think it’s kinda trollish to dismiss this with an eye roll or a demand someone practice their militia training. We all have a civic duty these days to listen and reason with eachother with respect.

    Many Americans think their right to keep weapons is not just for self defense.

    Machine guns do not significantly increase the ability to defend oneself. Handguns, shotguns, semi-auto rifles do. Unless you expect to be attacked by human waves, though, you don’t gain anything with a machine gun. So, the ancient right of self-defense (in the penumbra of the 2nd and 9th Amendments) is not impacted by a automatic weapon ban.

    As for militia use, the Armory has them and more when the (REGULATED) militia is called up, although you are also expected to bring your rifle.

    I see the ban as perfectly in keeping with the bill of rights, and any tension is minimal (and more on the 9th amendment than the 2nd).

    Kevin M

    This is a much better example of seriously addressing the concern. I tend to agree. Why would I need a machine gun to protect my home? It would destroy my home and risk innocent people to use in self defence. A rifle or pistol is simply better for that, so regulating a machine gun away is not a real problem.

    The other issue is that militias are defined as people who could fight, not some government agency, and many people believe the second amendment exists to protect the ability of people to overthrow government. I think this argument is actually in line with the framer’s intent, but there’s such a compelling interest in regulating away machine guns, huge bombs, other true weapons of warfare. I think this remains an issue of tension however, worth acknowledging. Fans of guns should be aware that if they press the issue, the second amendment could actually be changed, and if that happened I am pretty sure gun fans would not be happy with the result.

    Truth is that millions of Americans with rifles and our know-how (tools, handy skills, cars) are a powerful deterrent to true tyranny in America without machine guns.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  67. Duh. Lots of ways to cirumvent air travel security, too, if you’re hell-bent determined to steal or blow up airplanes. Point is to make deviations from the norm as acceptably difficult as possible.
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/5/2017 @ 11:25 am

    They’ve been searching 80 year old grandmas at TSA all this time when they should have been at Mandalay Bay!

    So you think profiling works then?

    You’re ok with a no fly list as long as it’s felons and crazy weed smokers?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  68. @64. Read the complete amendment as quilled and put your mindset in the context of the times [maybe down a tankard of warm ale with some squirrel stew off a lead-pewter plate might help]– and it clearly wasn’t.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. It’s a mission statement, which IMO makes greater weight than a mere Amendment. It’s used to justify nearly unlimited Pentagon budgets and I think the Military should be included with the goal of health and welfare of its citizenry.

    Ben burn (c2b66f) — 10/5/2017 @ 11:31 am

    I think a specific law in an amendment carries significantly more power than a vague sentiment. Our right to a free press is pretty clear compared to the government’s interest in our welfare. The fact is that our federal government was designed to leave most issues to the more directly accountable states and your interpretation of the Constitution is simply wrong. It wasn’t intended to create a nation wide government of such power and impact that it literally puts a spoon of soup in my mouth, a roof over my head, or healthcare. You’re asking for a completely different form of government based on a very loose and convenient interpretation of the idea that government works for the people.

    This goes back to the classic problem. Our government is so big, so vast, over such a wide difference of opinion. This causes so much anger and reduces accountability. What are the benefits of a national government that we couldn’t get through treaties with two closely allied but distinct nations?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  70. Thanks for hoarding though. That worked as good as welfare for pricing.
    Ben burn (c2b66f) — 10/5/2017 @ 11:49 am

    Check your sights. You’re always high and to the left.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  71. Were they really demanding the right to have cannon?

    Privateers and such were equipped with cannons.

    c. You’re scared
    And you’re projecting, I presume, as I cannot see where scared comes into the picture otherwise. OK, DCSCA (aka Jack Wagon) is another BB. My bad. No more feeding.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  72. @64. Read the complete amendment as quilled and put your mindset in the context of the times [maybe down a tankard of warm ale with some squirrel stew off a lead-pewter plate might help]– and it clearly wasn’t.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/5/2017 @ 12:27 pm

    Again, are you reaching people with this, or are you causing fights?

    There are two conflicting contexts. On the one hand, in 1775 the most deadly guns didn’t shoot hundreds of people in a matter of minutes and we didn’t have mental illness problems anything like we have today. Crazies plus the ability of a modern military weapon create as compelling a government interest in protecting us as I can think of.

    The other context is that those guys just used their private military, their privately owned submarines and warships and cannons, to kill the military of the government over their territory and take over. They were protecting the ability to do that, just in case tyranny comes again. Does Modern America have tyranny like King George? Is it worse or better? I think it’s debatable but it’s somehow not a dangerous question as violent revolution just isn’t a thing sensible people would contemplate. Does that mean we no longer need a second amendment? No, as Kevin notes, the right to self defense is natural. But we can reason our way to a compromise that isn’t ugly towards either side of this issue.

    We’ll have zealots who want tanks or a ban on all guns, but I’m not talking to them.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  73. Harkin @ 52.

    Those costs have been erupting for decades.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  74. @58

    As for militia use, the Armory has them and more when the (REGULATED) militia is called up, although you are also expected to bring your rifle.

    What are you defining as the “regulated militia” because if it’s the National Guard I can tell you that they are codified as federal troops and have been since the end of WW2. Which is why Ike was able with a pen turn off Arkansas NG from governor control and also use the 101st to help enforce the desegregation laws. The whole issue of what is and isn’t the militia and does the National Guard count hasn’t been effectively challenged in the courts (to my knowledge it hasn’t even been brought up in the courts at all) and that laws that define the militia have changed multiple times after governors refused militia call ups for events like the Punative Raids into Mexico, the Spanish American War and even the 1st world war. Laws were passed that redefined state militias as the National Guard and the language seems to say they are demobilized federal troops that can serve at the pleasure of the state governments. The actual “ownership” of these troops again has never been resolved successfully in courts. As well, a number of states have their own independent “militias” on books (NYS even has a naval militia law) and actually define them as being 18 to 50 yr old in good standing of the community. Yet, they are not funded by the state to own arms and would have to provide their own arms when called up.

    So again what and who is the militia and to what level do they need arms?

    Charles (24e862)

  75. “It wasn’t intended to create a nation wide government of such power and impact that it literally puts a spoon of soup in my mouth, a roof over my head,”

    A gross exaggeration of my words.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  76. 70

    I still thank you for the subsidy.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  77. @67. Deterrence works– it’s not perfect– but it works– as inconvenient as that might be. Back in the day, before hijacking and air terror was in vogue, you’d put on a coat and tie, go to the airport, check in, get your boarding pass, get your passport stamped, hit the duty free shop, eye the lines of a stew’s legs, walking on the plane and jet off overseas. It wasn’t that long ago. No hassles, no wanding, no magnetometers or carry on searches, no emptying of pockets, security lines and so forth. The few made it as acceptably difficult for the many.

    Drivers bitched about seat belts when they were first introduced and manufacturers fought like hell against them, too. Common sense prevailed. Now they’re second nature and save lives. The arc of common sense will prevail w/gun matters as well. It’s inevitable.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. @72. Your squirrel was cold, eh. Try the chicken.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. 66.the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    That’s a direct quote, DCSCA.

    Duatin: half line from a half wit; THIS is a direct quote: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Go play minuteman w/your Brown Bess. But do take a knee this Sunday during the National Anthem for bump stocks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. Duatin: half line from a half wit; THIS is a direct quote

    Thanks for sharing, but I was focusing on the part you deceptively did not focus on. The second amendment does state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It justifies this with the necessity of a militia, but it does not qualify them. My quote was a direct quote of your comment and is 100% accurate even if you want to get angry and insult me about it.

    Try decaf?

    So again what and who is the militia and to what level do they need arms?

    Charles (24e862) — 10/5/2017 @ 12:39 pm

    In many states the militia is simply defined as whoever could fight. All able bodied men, for example. It’s distinct from the military or the national guard. To what level do they need arms is, of course, the entire point of this controversy.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  81. Looks like the NRA is going the Beldar route: suggesting that these things could be regulated away under existing law. I meant to talk about that possibility in my post but it got lost in a pile of other thoughts in what was already a long post.

    Patterico (e2dce3)

  82. According to an inflation calculator, $200 in 1935 money was $3,603.46. That seems like a reasonable tax on a five dollar gun or suppressor.

    To my knowledge its the only tax in US history to never go up.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  83. Now grab your Brown Bess and go play Minuetman in the backyard. Supper will be ready at 6.
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/5/2017 @ 12:00 pm

    More like

    Whoa, Black Betty

    Blam Blam Blam!

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  84. Blam Ballam

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  85. It’s essentially a technology issue. No problem w/semi-auto guns– they are what they are; just plugging a work around to make mods as difficult as possible. A completely sane, rational, common sense move. And opposition to same as utterly irrational as Paddock.
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/5/2017 @ 12:15 pm

    But the Schumers of the world don’t want to stop with semi-autos.

    It’s funny, if a gun were a uterus people would say those who don’t own one don’t get an opinion.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  86. I see DCSCA’s dishonest snark is in full dipshit mode.

    SPQR (5ea992)

  87. Semi is fine even if I have to face Fed’s with a saw. Auto is over rated. They teach you not to spray, anyway. Short bursts for the impulsive is recommended. I can do ten good shots in 10 seconds. It’s more effective than spraying 30 on auto.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  88. Patterico, actually that’s not exactly what the NRA statement says. It’s a bit more subtle than that.

    SPQR (5ea992)

  89. This is politically consequential:

    The National Rifle Association signaled its support for some new restrictions on “bump stocks,” devices that allow a semiautomatic rifle to mimic a fully automatic weapon, as Republican support accelerated Thursday for re-evaluating the legality of the devices.

    … [T]he NRA’s statement, as well as GOP lawmakers, left open the possibility that they might seek action from the administration, rather than new legislation, to add new guardrails around the device’s use.

    Bad writing by the Wall Street Journal in that last sentence, because the “guardrails” it references are metaphorical but likely to be confused by liberals as a new proposal for literal guardrails.

    However, this suggests to me that someone with a clue is figuring the politics of this issue and coming around to what I argued here three full days ago: Skip the whole argument about Second Amendment absolutism or even the constitutionality of the 1934 act and later legislation that presently is used to require registration and regulation of “machineguns” as currently defined by the statute and regs. And seize the political initiative by emphasizing how all good citizens can and should support better, clearer, more consistent enforcement of existing gun laws than previously. (“Previously” can be somewhat disingenuously but not unfairly focused on the Obama Administration.) Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Declare victory, turn to tax reform.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  90. @Patterico,

    I wonder if the NRA is attempting to show bipartisan support for revisions and setup the lawmakers to either except a law or a regulatory change. That if the politico types go law then they face ballot box issues.

    Charles (590666)

  91. I am relieved that people are being sensible about this. It’s a silver lining on a dark and dangerous cloud.

    Tillman (a95660)

  92. “So what is the real problem with banning something that makes it easy to replicate the speed of automatic fire with a semiautomatic handguns?”

    The fact that handguns don’t have stocks, so you can’t put a “bump stock” on one?

    Dwight Brown (3b771d)

  93. SPQR: I agree the NRA is being coy, but only a little: They’re signaling, and someone from the NRA is surely putting together a conference call among other pro-Second Amendment interest groups and the White House. They’re not going to show the whole plan in their first press release because there’s a negotiation about to start, but it needs to happen quickly, so they skipped a few steps of the normal kabuki show already with this signal.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  94. Good riddance..all hypocrites must die.

    Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), the embattled anti-abortion lawmaker who allegedly encouraged his lover to terminate a pregnancy, on Thursday announced his plan to resign from office later this month — just 24 hours after announcing his plan to retire after 2018.

    “This afternoon I received a letter of resignation from Congressman Tim Murphy, effective October 21,” Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “It was Dr. Murphy’s decision to move on to the next chapter of his life, and I support it.”

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  95. If Trump and Congress can simply agree to go this route — no legislation, not even a new regulation, just a reinterpretation of an existing regulation — then it’s not only “Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Declare victory, turn to tax reform.” It will also remove most of the political significance of this attack as a wedge issue in the 2018 midterms. The Dems will no longer be able to run on “the GOP never does anything about gun violence.” Because every time they say that, the GOP can say, “Oh yes we do, we fixed that bump stock problem that Obama created! We enforce the law rather than flouting and evading it!”

    And Trump can take credit for the whole thing. When he does, some considerable number of even Second Amendment absolutists who are also fervent Trump supporters will either jump on board or at least mute their protests.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  96. http://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/916005210174214149

    Reads like a statement calling on BATFE to review whether the devices comply with federal law, and opining that they should be subject to further regulation.

    SPQR may be right that the statement is a tad more subtle than I said, but not much.

    Patterico (a955cf)

  97. @65 Beldar

    And those stupid 50 and 100 round AR mags are prone to feeding problems.

    Volume of fire doesn’t necessarily mean anything:

    Cops unloaded 71 shots on Jose Guerena’s neighborhood and hit him like four times.

    The Chris Dorner look a likes delivering papers had 102 shots put in their truck and one woman was wounded twice.

    I think nk mentioned the ATF shooting themselves in Waco.

    We need to revisit the 1st Am. The FF’s never envisioned manifestos. You can assemble to petition the government but you have to fight for your right to party.

    I think Kelo clearly allows municipalities to assert eminent domain over compounds.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  98. @ Pin (#97): You should clearly be gathering your arguments and supporting materials in order to be prepared for the Convention of States if it happens. My political goals for the current controversy are very modest: Treat bump stocks like conversion kits by Executive action and move on to other problems.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  99. The NRA statement is a delaying tactic. And I still haven’t seen a coherent definition of what it supposedly “sensible” to ban.

    SPQR (5ea992)

  100. @66 Dustin

    In regards to what you wrote I was thinking about a regular and commercial drivers license. It’s not that driving a commercial truck is illegal, it’s restricted. Some people don’t need one and some people don’t want to go thru the hassle. Not everyone has the space to park or drive a commercial truck.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  101. @DCSCA,

    I have been listening to idiots spout the “but it’s about having a militia” argument since the 1970’s. It is no more supported by either the history of the passage of the Amendment OR common English grammar now than it was then.

    The firm of the Amendment is “For reason A, Law B shall be in effect”

    Reason A does not modify Law B. Law B is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Now, you can argue that this was a lousy idea. The Constitution contains several. What you cannot reasonably argue is that A) it only applies to weapons that existed at that time (or the First Amendment would not apply to DVDs) or B) Amending the Constitution to correct the mistake is not necessary.

    I don’t own any guns. I am a slew-foot. People like me should not own guns, or operate power saws, and should drive VERY CAREFULLY (I do). However, I want as much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as can be salvaged in this age of State worshiping swine to continue to protect me from all the busybodies.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  102. form a line to the front form a line to the back

    are you ready?

    To do the Bump Stock!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. In regards to what you wrote I was thinking about a regular and commercial drivers license. It’s not that driving a commercial truck is illegal, it’s restricted. Some people don’t need one and some people don’t want to go thru the hassle. Not everyone has the space to park or drive a commercial truck.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 10/5/2017 @ 2:03 pm

    That’s a pretty good comparison.

    Treat bump stocks like conversion kits by Executive action and move on to other problems.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/5/2017 @ 1:56 pm

    And doesn’t that just feel fair? I mean what were bump stocks if not a silly way to have a machine gun? It’s against the spirit of banning machine guns, so if bump stocks are OK, machine guns are too, and if machine guns aren’t, bump stocks aren’t.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  104. Privateers and such were equipped with cannons.

    CFarleigh (5b282a) — 10/5/2017 @ 12:36 pm

    My grandpa bought me a couple of carbide cannons when I was a kid. Fun 70’s Style.

    A friend of the family my grandparents more or less raised went to military school. Every morning at Reveille someone would fire off a cannon powered by a 12 gauge shell. One night the friend dumped a couple of handfulls of poker chips down the barrel. He had to clean up the parade ground.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  105. I’m not a member, nor even a close watcher, of the NRA, even though I agree with its positions most of the time on most issues. But surely its leadership and guiding voices see this time, with the GOP controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, as a time to be on offense.

    The press release mentions, for instance, the NRA’s support for proposed federal legislation to provide for reciprocity of concealed carry licenses. That’s something that can be sold as pro-law and order and that might actually pass the Senate — they’d need to pick up votes from Dems to get past a filibuster, but they might because of the map for 2018 and the number of red-state Dem senators sweating reelection and looking for something to attract marginal voters without completely alienating their bases.

    This shooting imperils all that from a political standpoint. This shooting, handled clumsily by the GOP, turns into weeks and weeks of teeth-gnashing and breast-beating at one rampart after another — not just bump stocks, but large capacity magazines, and of course suppressors (see above, re hoped-for moves on offense), and how far down that slippery slope we go is anyone’s guess. Mostly likely it would all just turn into a prolonged legislative clusterf*ck with nothing actually getting passed, but that gridlock and the resulting campaigning opportunities add another full chapter to the Dems’ 2018 playbook.

    I admit that’s utter speculation on my part, and I invite others to share their contrary impressions, especially if they’re based on more contextual knowledge than I can claim to have.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  106. You are too modest Beldar…

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  107. @ CFarleigh (#56): You’re overplaying your hand with the belt loop arguments. If using belt loops to achieve fully automatic fire rates with ordinary semi-automatic weapons were that simple, I’m reasonably sure we’d have read about it being used in some crime before this week. But we’ve had semi-automatic weapons and belt loops for well over a century now.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  108. I’d love to see a duel between mcconnell and ryan.

    mg (31009b)

  109. Beldar, more like underplaying. You don’t even need the belt loops. From what I have seen, the reference to belt loops is some degree of sarcasm. Can be done bare handed. Likely reason this hasn’t been more well known is accuracy is significantly reduced. You are literally shooting from the hip. The bump stock helps with accuracy, I believe. Not a big concern with terrorists spraying large targets.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  110. No, sir, I don’t believe it can be done bare-handed by the ordinary person, or an ordinary person would have done it in committing a serious crime that we’d have all heard about sometime during the last century. I also don’t believe it can be done with just a little practice either, or an ordinary person would have done it. I respectfully call BS.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. And be clear: By “it” we’re talking about emptying a large capacity mag the way this shooter did, repeatedly.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  112. It’s doable with practice. You can look these things up. Have you seen the videos? Either way, my objection, as I state above, is to the banning of things. It undermines legal authority, most especially when such things are easily produceable. See drugs and alcohol.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  113. Yeah, but the ‘optics’..

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  114. The justices in the Heller majority were not saying that machine guns were constitutionally protected.

    But they should be. I know people here MGs and get all scared, but the Second Amendment was written to protect people’s ability to defend themselves from criminals, and the country from tyranny. The right protects the standard infantry issued arm- which is currently the M16- and other arms used to defend oneself (other pistols and rifles). Anybody arguing that it only applies to the militia, is a completely misreading of the amendment and misunderstanding of the history. Look no further than state constitutions written at the time for the purpose, such as PAs of 1790:

    That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned

    Which leads into this:

    @64. Ask yourself: why did most people of late 18th century America think that keeping and bearing arms was important? Were they really demanding the right to have cannon?

    To defend against a tyrannical government. How do you defeat a tyrannical government? With arms equal to the government. Which means standard military arms. And yes, they were. Plenty of people owned cannons. I believe Jefferson had a cannon on his front lawn. So Kevin M, and anybody else arguing the militia clause is restrictive of the right clause, you have it backwards. If anything, its more expansive, because to have that militia, the people need arms that militias would need- standard military ones.

    Practically speaking, however, that battle was lost in 1934 and onward (because of the above fear). MGs will remain heavily restricted for decades. We will probably wait decades just to repeal the Hughes Amendment. And devices that simulate MGs will cause the same fears, and politicians will give in easily.

    Hence I’m ok with acquiescing to a bump stock ban (which practically speaking will do nothing), but ONLY if we get a compromise back. We need National Reciprocity and Suppressor Deregulation to go with it.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (91304d)

  115. (Ugh, hear not here)

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (91304d)

  116. Well said with a caveat. The civilian contingent will never include MRAPS or mortars so there goes reciprocity. But I agree proscriptions by the Feds cannot be lamely accepted.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  117. Beldar, you are flat out wrong about what can be done with an unmodified semi auto rifle with practice.

    SPQR (517b9d)

  118. As for belt loops, the reality is we have an ATF letter about a shoe lace.

    SPQR (517b9d)

  119. so…

    when do the diy bump stock videos disappear from youtube?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  120. It’s just cynical posturing to win PR points. I think that’s a foolish long term strategy, but then, I was upset when William & Mary got mealy-mouthed about the first amendment so as not to have hellfire and destruction visit the fair city of WIlliamsburg. I’m pretty sure that was as pratical a ways to let heat blow off as possible.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  121. If it’s really so easy to modify a gun or modify how to use a gun to make it virtually automatic, then why give even an inch on gun control? It seems that even those who are willing to ban bump stocks are only doing so for the optics, not because it will really chage anything.

    Have we all succumbed to making people believe they are safer when they aren’t? Have we given up on Americans’ intelligence completely?

    DRJ (15874d)

  122. Drj: only ‘ Scary’looking carbines are targeted. As you said wrt ‘common sense earlier..

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  123. oh my goodness we’re thisclose to where a high school student can print an armed robot what can fire 12 semi-autos at once while constantly reloading

    you don’t even have to be in the hotel room with it

    but John Cornyn will have banned them bump stocks praise texas jesus

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  124. Re the Second Amendment and militias and cannons, you’ll understand if you read this superb book about the outbreak of the American Revolution: Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution. Then re-read Heller.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  125. @ DRJ, who asked in part (#122), “If it’s really so easy to modify a gun or modify how to use a gun to make it virtually automatic ….”

    But it’s not, or it would have been done for the last century by just about every bad guy, wouldn’t it have?

    This is a better mousetrap to do more quickly and easily what the conversion kits were doing using different parts, but to no different effect. And conversion kits are already subject to registration/regulation. This mousetrap should have been treated by BATFE like a conversion kit, but even under Obama it wasn’t. So let’s just fix that and move on.

    Look, a law doesn’t have to be 100% effective, or 10% effective, to keep it around. Consider the Illinois murder law: Clearance rates for homicides are less than 10%. Should be repeal the law against murder?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  126. Further @ DRJ (#122): If bump stocks had been treated like conversion kits by the BATFE, this shooter couldn’t have bought them legally.

    In other words, if existing law had been interpreted and enforced consistently, then what this guy did would have been illegal. As is, due to the BATFE approval of bump-stocks, what he did to prepare for this was legal, and will be for someone to copy tomorrow.

    So why not fix that?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  127. @ SPQR (#121): Yes, I know, that looks like a dumb and indefensible interpretation by the agency. But that’s not a weapon that can loose off 30 rounds in a continuous burst at auto-fire rates, is it? I don’t think that example proves anything more than that gadget nuts and gunnies in particular will always be fencing at the margins with the regulators. That doesn’t prove that something’s unconstitutionally void for vagueness, nor that it’s unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  128. @101. I have been listening to idiots spout the “but it’s about having a militia” argument since the 1970’s.

    More like the 1790s. This isn’t an A therefore B thing– just read the damned thing as the complete sentence it is and visualize why it was quilled in the context of the times. If you’re an honest man you’ll see it for what it is.

    This isn’t a gun rights issue anyway- it’s a technology issue. And honest, good faith gun owners should demand it be treated as such. Because it keeps their own semi-automatic weapons safe–and safely in their hands. The gadget is a clever work around– but just that; a work around to literally ‘spray’ bullets. There will always be attempts to do work arounds, be it swiping a neighbors WiFi, tapping your buildings cable TV, burying a Canadian quarter in a roll or jiggering an odometer– point is not to make it any easier. Rallying to accept banning these things would actually be a show of good faith by gun owners.

    @85. But the Schumers of the world don’t want to stop with semi-autos.

    That is not the issue with this; it’s a distraction. If this gadget wasn’t available, it’s likely fewer shots would have been fired and more innocents would have survived. It’s a loophole that can be ‘plugged’– and everyone on both sides of the gun issue should embrace it. It’s just common sense.

    @80. C’mon, Dustin, be honest w/yourself- it’s a complete thought quilled on parchment. Ask your missus if she’d mind if you parsed your wedding vows the same way.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  129. My Remington 1100 (a semiautomatic shotgun) had a cushiony recoil pad. It even looked cushiony. Bump stock?

    nk (dbc370)

  130. I think the whole discussion is a distraction. The country is talking “bump stocks”, not “59 killed, 400 wounded, in Las Vegas”. I predicted this.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. The Supreme Court had already tacitly dismissed the “militia = collective right to a National Guard formed by the State” argument in Miller, in 1937, and dismissed it again, twice and thrice in Heller and MacDonald, explicitly. Which is not to say that the anti-gunners might not be able to make that dead horse get up and gallop.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. While I agree that a law does not have to be 100% effective, it does need to be significantly respected by the otherwise law abiding parties it will effect. There is a balance that needs to be maintained between their positive and negative impact. Somewhat like currency, the more laws you have, the more their impact is diluted. Barring an onerous tyranny, of course.

    CFarleigh (4e6bac)

  133. Re the Second Amendment and militias and cannons, you’ll understand if you read this superb book about the outbreak of the American Revolution: Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution. Then re-read Heller.

    It’s a fine book. But you have to ignore Philbrick checking off his quota of SJW points even when totally irrelevant to the narrative.

    Another useful book would be Paul Revere’s Ride by David Hackett Fischer.

    kishnevi (9a5a41)

  134. @130. Not if it was designed w/it and you’ve made no modifications to accommodate it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  135. @132. Prohibition was once the law of the land, too. Which reminds me– it’s cocktail hour.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  136. Beldar writes “This is a better mousetrap to do more quickly and easily what the conversion kits were doing using different parts, but to no different effect. ”

    This is false. And it is the core of the misunderstanding. .A conversion kit alters the trigger/disconnector mechanism such that the result is a firearm that fires more than one round for each trigger press. That’s the actual definition of full automatic. Bump fire is just a way to manipulate the grip of the firearm to pull the trigger more rapidly but still once per round.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  137. Here is one of the simplest, easiest to install and cheapest, full auto “conversion kits”. With video, too. http://www.saysuncle.com/2017/09/27/glock-full-auto-switch/

    They were offered on Amazon for a time.

    nk (dbc370)

  138. yes yes once upon a time

    it is said there were things what could be repealed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  139. .46 Caliber Girandoni Air Rifle ca 1790

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  140. That’s cool, pin. 1500 pumps for 40 shots. I did not know.

    Ben burn (c2b66f)

  141. Nazi-killing air gun, circa 1940s. If you click the link to Dr. Beeman at the beginning of the text, it will take you to a lot of cool stuff about Pinandpuller’s Girandoni, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  142. @141. Interesting piece, PP.

    Real question: who brought it over; how did it get here.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  143. Now, what model of air rifle did Sebastian Moran use?

    kishnevi (9a5a41)

  144. SPQR, you wrote (#137) that “the result is a firearm that fires more than one round for each trigger press. That’s the actual definition of full automatic.”

    But it’s not. The definitional language for “machinegun” refers not to a “trigger press” — which would have been a normal, natural phrase to use — but instead to “a single function of the trigger.” You assume that “press” or “pull” equals “function.” Why must it?

    I believe the word “function” can be broader than “pull,” and it can and should be interpreted to include the initiation of a sequence in which the weapon’s natural recoil, pressing against the continuous grip of the shooter, can fire off multiple rounds at full-auto rates without another such initiation of sequence. (If you can do that with a shoestring, then yes, you can make a shoestring so used subject to registration and regulation, but I’ve yet to see that actually demonstrated.) If so, then bump stocks are no different than conversion kits under existing laws & regs, and should be aggressively regulated as such (i.e., as requiring the same registration and regulation as actual “machineguns” themselves).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. Going back also to your prior comments — which I did read and consider — I also am not moved by your and others’ arguments that a worn-out part in a semi-automatic can lead to someone accidentally coming into possession of a weapon that requires registration. From the tales I’m hearing and reading about BATFE nonsense, maybe they’re tried to enforce these regs in that situation. But that doesn’t make the statute unconstitutionally vague, nor violative of the Second Amendment. It just means we need better, smarter, more consistent bureacrats or, at worst, a clearer set of policies regarding interpretation of the existing regs that would create an exception for this sort of temporary, unintended consequence. (If you keep and continue to use that weapon with intent to take advantage of the worn-out-part that’s mimicking a conversion kit, then yeah, you should be in trouble.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  146. If using belt loops to achieve fully automatic fire rates with ordinary semi-automatic weapons were that simple, I’m reasonably sure we’d have read about it being used in some crime before this week. But we’ve had semi-automatic weapons and belt loops for well over a century now.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/5/2017 @ 2:21 pm

    Criminals grab their beltloops because their a$$ is hanging out.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  147. It was an AI rifle, with revolver bullets, seems to be a coals to new castle sitauation

    narciso (d1f714)

  148. The function of a trigger does not begin with a press, except in double-action revolvers and some semi-automatics, in which the trigger also serves to cock the gun, and we are not concerned with those.

    In the guns we’re talking about, the function of the trigger begins when the weapon is cocked, and the trigger, through a sear, holds the hammer or firing pin back against the pressure of a spring. Its function continues when it is pressed to release the hammer or firing pin. It ends when it returns to its initial position, ready to catch the hammer or firing pin when the weapon is cocked again.

    nk (dbc370)

  149. With a full automatic, when the trigger is held back it does not grab hold of the hammer or firing pin and the gun continues the firing cycles until it is released to reset to its “catch” position. With bump fire, every shot involves a full cycle of the function of the trigger — catch, release, reset, catch, release, reset ….

    nk (dbc370)

  150. I went shooting with a bunch of Libertarians. They called the technique “Hellfire Trigger”. It’s as easy as getting to third base, if you know what I am saying.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  151. “It’s as easy as getting to third base, if you know what I am saying.”

    Yes, PandP… I’m awake and I speak English, so yeah, I know what you’re saying.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  152. Col Haiku

    Lol. In my mind I thought HT was a technique not an actual device. It could as well been called Spanish Fly if you know anything about flamenco.

    Pinandpuller (61695b)

  153. The probable reason that the ATF considered that shoe string an auto-sear is because some machine gun designs do work as a series of very fast single shots. The hammer or firing pin is cocked and held locked as the bolt moves forward into battery. If the trigger is not in the forward “catch” position when the bolt is fully forward, a do-hickey trips a release, automatically releasing the hammer or firing pin. But the trigger only performs one function. Holds the weapon cocked, releases whatever number of shots as it is held back, and resets to catch and hold when it is returned to the forward position.

    nk (dbc370)

  154. That’s been around for a long time, Pinandpuller. Since I was a kid and had a toy gun with a ratchet that would give me a machine gun sound when I pulled the trigger. The one you showed looks like it gives three-round bursts. It’s like the sprockets on your bicycle. You pull on the HT’s long trigger once and a sprocket or cam inside the trigger guard rotates three times to hit the trigger.

    nk (dbc370)

  155. Seems what your link proves about Bret Stephens is once you enter “The Bubble” you become one, narciso. Like The Borg, resistance is futile.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  156. Its like those stingrAY creatures that drove spock to madness.

    narciso (d1f714)

  157. @ nk, re #150, #151 & #154: I don’t know your source for this info but from you I happily take it all on faith, without claiming to follow it all.

    A gunsmith might agree with every technical detail you just described. That doesn’t mean the BATFE has to interpret this “function” in the same way you and the gunsmith did, does it? Yours is a technical, and almost assuredly technically correct, use of the word “function,” but the first time I read that word in the context of this statute, I thought to myself: “Hmm. ‘Function’ is an interesting word choice there. Sounds to me to be a word chosen to describe a category of actions rather than a single action.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  158. I am not at SPQR’s level but I have owned, and still own, some guns. Including semi-automatic pistols, shotguns and rifles, among them an AK-47 and another rifle and shotgun which were hammerless (no visible hammer anyway). It meant that they were cocked when a round was chambered and what held them from going off was the trigger when the safety was disengaged. Even my external hammer pistols, a Walther and a Beretta, are cocked when the slide is pulled back and released to chamber a round, and I need to lower the hammer myself if I don’t want them that way.

    nk (dbc370)

  159. A bump stock is basically EVH rigging a three sided pick on a cordless drill so he can play 64th notes. I think I’ve been inspired to make a bump headstock for my classical guitar so I can play flamenco without practicing right technique.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  160. nk

    You ever put a playing card in your gun’s action? Brrreeeeppp.

    So the old style open bolts were more like a simple catch?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  161. I home you mean bicycle wheels, cause otherwise I have no clue what you’re talking about.

    I am not enough of an expert to opine on open bolts or closed bolts. I know some designs are closed bolt for single fire and open bolt for auto but don’t ask me which or how they do it.

    I’m really a bolt action rifle guy. Those were my favorites, and I knew that when I pulled the bolt, whether to chamber a round or eject a fired case or empty the gun, the gun would be cocked and would remain that way until I pulled the trigger. The same thing when I broke open my double-barreled shotgun. Most of the time, say 99.9%, the trigger’s job was to keep the gun from going off if you want to think of it that way.

    nk (dbc370)

  162. nk

    I think Bradley Manning’s MD got his idea for a de-cocker from Heckler and Koch.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  163. Sig-Sauer. Like Clint Eastwood carried in In The Line Of Fire. That much, I do know. My Walther’s safety also decocks, but it’s not the same thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  164. Yrs that’s enough kabuki:
    freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-expected-declare-iran-breach-nuclear-deal

    narciso (d1f714)

  165. Okay, I’m still trying to get up to speed here. From this today by Robert Verbruggen, I followed the link to Akins v. United States, in which the Eleventh Circuit (per curiam, in a panel that included Judge Pryor, who’s on the List of 21) held in 2006, regarding the “Akins Accelerator,” thus:

    The Bureau acted within its discretion when it reclassified the Accelerator as machinegun. A machinegun is a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The interpretation by the Bureau that the phrase “single function of the trigger” means a “single pull of the trigger” is consonant with the statute and its legislative history. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 602 n.l, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 1795 n.l (1994); National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, 73rd Congo 40 (1934). After a single application of the trigger by a gunman, the Accelerator uses its internal spring and the force of recoil to fire continuously the rifle cradled inside until the gunman releases the trigger or the ammunition is exhausted. Based on the operation of the Accelerator, the Bureau had authority to “reconsider and rectify” what it considered to be a classification error. See Gun South, 877 F.2d at 862-63. That decision was not arbitrary and capricious. See id. at 866.

    Tell me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, the bump stock merely substitutes the spring’s force in the Accelerator for the force exerted back against the sliding mechanism after the recoil, combined with perhaps some sort of stop to limit the travel of the trigger-finger. Do I have that right?

    This case illustrates that all that’s needed is a similar reconsideration and rectification of the classification error that treated bump stocks differently from conversion kits, it still seems to me. But then again, I’m guessing — because I know nk’s mentioned this product earlier, for example — that he or SPQD or Brad or other gun enthusiasts may already be familiar with this Akins decision.

    I freely confess that for politically compelling reasons, I want to find ways for the existing law and reg to be made to fit bump stocks. But what am I missing still?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  166. @165 nk

    If you don’t know me by now…

    Although before the advent of snap caps my dad would fold up a paper match and put it over the firing pin for dry firing exercises.

    Say, have you ever

    1. Been to the Buffalo Bill Cody Center of the West (nee Museum) in Cody, WY ?

    The Cody Firearms Museum houses the most comprehensive collection of American firearms in the world. The collection includes firearms ranging from a 16th-century hand cannon to guns of modern manufacture. It holds weapons from almost every significant gun manufacturer in the world. The Winchester Collection, the heart of this museum, was transported from New Haven, Connecticut to Cody in 1976. Dedicated in 1991, the Cody Firearms Museum provides a permanent home for the Winchester collection, as well as the largest collection of DuBiel Arms Company rifles in the United States. Visitors learn about topics in firearms manufacturing, including factory workers, business competition, and innovations in production. Within the exhibits, visitors are able to trace the evolution of modern firearms technology from its earliest days through today’s variations. Membership to the Cody Firearms Museum allows access to the Cody Firearms Museum Records Service, which provides information from original factory records of the Winchester, Marlin, or L.C. Smith companies based on the make and serial number of the firearm.

    2. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross?

    Pinandpuller (fc74a1)

  167. The facts of that case are now moot, Beldar. Akins redesigned it without the spring and the ATF approved the new version. It’s on the market as the Accelerator 2.

    nk (9651fb)

  168. But “gunman? Really? Don’t those guys read what their staff attorneys give them to sign? Or does Chevron obligate them to characterize the challenger of a regulation in the light most pejorative?

    nk (9651fb)

  169. Just to comment on the statistical paper from Libresco, there are a few glaring errors that need pointing out. And then I’m going to digress! :)

    Australia, prior to 1996 when our gun laws were enacted, had around 11 mass shootings in the preceding 18 years. After 1996, none. The Martin place incident a few years ago only had three deaths, but only one person was killed by the perp; the other two were caused by the police, including the perp. Despite being a Muslim with links to known terror networks, the best he could come up with was an old sawn-off shotgun.
    The UK also enacted their very strict laws in 1996 (that was after the Dunblane school shootings; the shooter had 4 semi-auto handguns; they were legal); they have had one mass shooting since (that was a guy driving around in a taxi shooting out the window at random people; he had a shotgun and a .22 rifle).
    New Zealand also had a mass shooting in the 80’s (with an AK-47 variant); they enacted strict gun laws, and none after that.
    Canada has no mass shootings of the kind we are talking about (I’m excluding massacres of natives by white settlers in the 1800’s). I believe their gun laws are similar to yours, but they in theory have a magazine limit of 5 rounds.

    Stats, can be made to say whatever you want them to say. Yes, Australia has very few mass shootings . . . if your start date is 1996. If you look prior to this, we have almost one per year with more than 10 deaths per episode (yes, I know, American mass shootings are better than ours).

    Other differences that have helped us include no domestic gun industry; and the use of firearms for self defense was also made illegal. Yet despite this, our homicide rate is around 1 per 100 000, similar to the UK, NZ and Canada. The US’s is 4.8. In line with your level of gun ownership. And yes, in line with your level of lawnmower, computer, car, phone and dishwasher ownership, if you want to play that game. Same as Oz, UK, NZ and Canada. But, homicide rate 4.8 vs 1.

    We also have an oppressed minority (if you want to get really depressed, google “australia aboriginal health stats”) but our crime rates are substantially lower than yours across all categories. As is our “successful” suicide rate; the attempt rate is similar when controlled for SES ie non poor whites.

    Now to jump the shark for the American audience. I’m only talking about mass shootings ie 4/more deaths in the one episode. Most of the perps had legal weapons; or used weapons that other people had obtained legally that they had access to. Paddock, the dick, was a legal, fully compliant “good” gun owner until he started shooting people. No changes you guys make to your laws that are likely to pass, would have stopped him. No changes you make that do not involve BANNING semi-auto weapons (rifles and pistols) will stop the majority of your mass shootings.
    The self-defense argument is rubbish. Multiple studies have shown that even highly-trained infantry, used to operating under fire, have terrible accuracy when shooting under fire in a fluid situation; yet you are trying to argue that the random guy in the street is going to be able to fire back at some POS and not add bystanders to the body count. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been shot by some POS in a hoodie, or the footy coach exercising his 2A right to wear a Glock on his belt, dead is dead. You only have to look what your own police do in those situations, even when they are not under fire!

    The 2nd Amendment, that came out of the formation of your country, was meaningful when your population was smaller, semi-distributed, and almost all households had weapons that were used daily as part of normal life, and perhaps more importantly were single-shot and loaded by hand. In those circumstances, you could actually get a citizen-militia that would be effective against government forces, particularly when most of those militia had already been trained by the government they were fighting against. And you were allied with the other superpower of the age (oui!). And it was; hello USA.
    Looking at it that way, the 2A has probably not been relevant, in terms of its original purpose, for probably over 150 years. Citizen uprising in 2017? I give you about 30 min.
    The 2A has been directly responsible for the deaths of 1000’s of your fellow countrymen. And you’re all up in arms that someone’s going to take your precious guns away, that you are going to use to band together and overthrow your government. Yep-nup. Or just use to “turn money in to noise”. Childish.

    Your culture is sick. There is no consensus as to why, so no hope for a cure. If you have a culture that is producing people who like to kill masses of other people, at least make it a little more difficult. Half or more would-be bombers blow themselves up or give themselves away; some ped-vs-car incidents are more survivable than a high-velocity round to anywhere.

    As a country, I say to you guys, grow up.
    That is all :)

    that david from Oz (f4c48c)

  170. All you guys need to know about “bump stocks”. by Nazi Pelosi:


    Notorious leftist Nancy Pelosi made a statement Thursday that surely caught some off guard, if for no other reason than its brazen honesty. When asked about Republicans’ potential hesitation to join the Democrats in a ban on “bump stock” accessories like the ones possibly used in Sunday’s Las Vegas massacre, the House Minority Leader had very little regard for any “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile” concerns on the part of her political adversaries. “How do you plan to overcome [GOP resistance] when the truth is that you would like to go further?” the reporter queried. In an act of either surprisingly respectable transparency or political grandstanding, Pelosi said:

    “So what? They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stocks, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.”

    That’s a powerful statment. And scary.

    If you haven’t learned by now that compromise with a leftist is impossible you are a threat to yourself and the Republic.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  171. They seize on one incident to restrict all;

    http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/man-charged-in-relation-to-murder-of-nsw-police-worker-curtis-cheng/news-story/e7b0948d23534ee2c32eb2d10786ec86

    The perpetrators use other tools like the Turkish cypriot imitator of death race 2000

    narciso (d1f714)

  172. I’d call it “Pelosi Unhinged”, but when isn’t she?

    Nancy with teh Laughing Eyes…

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  173. I call her normal desmond, ne use she seems as insane as Gloria Swanson, who carol Burnett parodied once upon a time.

    narciso (d1f714)

  174. The Land of Wondah, the Land Down Undahbelly

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  175. All togetha now, tie me kangaroo down sport…

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  176. The whole thing makes me want tchchunder. After a vegemite sandwich.

    You would think pulling out of the rhodes road show would be with a note.

    narciso (d1f714)

  177. We dodged a comet:
    iotwreport.com/wapo-fact-check-rates-tim-kaines-silencer-lie-less-untrue-because-of-his-ignorance

    In aspiring to salon status.

    narciso (d1f714)

  178. Ahh, leftists. And their willing accomplices in Oz.

    http://moonbattery.com/graphics/nancy-sinatra.jpg

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  179. Maybe there is something to shermers contention:
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/10/the-rotting-corpse-of-wisconsins-john-doe-investigation-still-stinks/#comments

    That a subpoena is worse than a bullet.

    narciso (d1f714)

  180. David from Oz shows us that elitist, leftist snobs exist outside America too. I love being talked down to by an alien a$$hole who thinks he’s better than us. The “As a country, I say to you guys, grow up. That is all :)” is particularly haughty. I fought with ANZAC’s in Nam. They were real men. David, you are the Pajama Boy of Sidney. Mind your own business we will tell you when it’s your turn to talk.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  181. Although I’m persuaded bump stocks and similar accessories likely require additional regulation it’s worth recognizing that the accessory doesn’t produce rapid firing – the shooter’s grip and trigger finger positioning does. Without the modified grip and trigger fingering technique the bump stock modified weapon fires one shot at a time. The bump stock and other similar accessories just make the rapid firing technique easier, probably too easy for most of US to be comfortable with.

    Following this discussion reminded me of that first day on the range decades ago and the shooter who kept burst firing his M-16 in single shot mode while swearing to the range instructors he wasn’t doing it on purpose. While I don’t remember anyone figuring out exactly how it was happening I do remember the range instructors telling him colorfully to stop holding that weapon like you’re scared of it and get a grip. Since he was hitting everything but the target I’m guessing his weapon must have been bump firing as it jumped around in his hands. I’m gonna say mystery solved.

    crazy (d99a88)

  182. Rev, did the NZ’s do the Haka, or is recent multiculti claptrap?

    urbanleftbehind (02b4bd)

  183. Teh Great Aussie Famine… oh, teh Humanity!

    https://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  184. Knock it off, you guys.

    David, America’s history and traditions are decidedly different from Ausralia’s. From Canada’s, too. As are our populations and our economic, social and political structures. What laws work for you would tear America apart.

    nk (9651fb)

  185. We’re just toying with the wallaby, we know from Tim Blair such attitudes grow in the pouch

    narciso (d1f714)

  186. “The Judiciary Committee is not running a comprehensive Trump/Russia investigation,” the staffer added..”

    GrASSley is investigating the Investigation…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/senate-russia-probe-is-not-really-investigating-russia-staffers-say

    Ben burn (106ab9)

  187. @ nk (#171): I understand that product with the spring isn’t now marketed and the facts of that case are moot. It’s precedential effect isn’t diminished by that because it wasn’t moot when the decision was rendered. So why doesn’t it control bump stocks, too?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  188. @ my friend Hoagie, who wrote (#174):

    If you haven’t learned by now that compromise with a leftist is impossible you are a threat to yourself and the Republic.

    Then give up on getting anything passed while the GOP controls Congress until the filibuster is acknowledged.

    I agree in spades with fireworks that Dems, as a party and usually as individuals, can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith. That doesn’t mean I’ve given up on picking up a few Dem votes to pass some legislation while we still have majorities in both chambers. That would be stupid and self-defeating, whether one trusts the Dems or not.

    You make a good point, my friend, but you over-apply it to the detriment of our side. Their untrustworthiness and bad faith are good examples to try not to fight a fight over gun control on the legislative floor in the immediate aftermath of this massacre — which, politically, helps them at the margins, not us. And yes, the slope is very slippery, and they’re trying to roll us all down it to hell together.

    But that’s why I urge, for this controversy at this time, that we step back onto the ledge we’ve carved out out the slippery slope from which we’re standing firm on preserving semi-automatic fire but we’re not contesting (except for the Second Amendment absolutists among us, who are a tiny minority among gun-supporting Americans) the constitutionality or appropriateness of laws and regs to require registration of fully-automatic weapons or their practical equivalents as created by bump stocks, conversion kits, trigger cranks, or other gizmos.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  189. @ “that David”: I don’t think Australia’s experiences are determinative of what we ought to do here, nor even very persuasive, but others can argue those statistics. I will tell you as a matter of advocacy that you won’t ever persuade anyone in a discussion like this by telling him or her his country needs to “grow up.” That’s insulting and patronizing, and you can’t fix it with an emoticon. So think twice, mate.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  190. I think the 11th Circuit was wrong. In upholding summary judgment. Whether subsequent shots resulted from one operation of the trigger is a question of fact. Possibly in the Chevron deference, too. Granting approval and then withdrawing it sounds arbitrary and capricious to me. It will be doubly so if the ATF reverses itself again on the second, springless version which it has approved. Further, the use of the word “gunman” makes me susoect that the 11th Circuit itself was biased, arbitrary and capricious both in applying summary judgment and on the merits.

    nk (9651fb)

  191. Why did America rebel and fight the British for its independence when Australia, a British colony at the very same time, did not?

    It’s quite obvious, historically: Australia wasn’t cheek-by-jowl with colonies from a competing world power, the Brits’ arch-rival over centuries, the French, so the colonists of Australia didn’t face the prospect of being overrun and annexed by the French, or by the aboriginal population that the French had armed and organized to fight on their behalf. Consequently the Australians weren’t subjected to the same violence and warfare as their American counterparts during the French Indian wars; the Australian versions of George Washington never formed, because they never needed the kind of militias the American colonists needed to avoid scalping and death and loss of territory; and then the Australians were never subjected to the series of royal privations to which the American colonists were subjected after that war while facing continuing threats it might suddenly be renewed based on something outside their control happening half a world away. Australians had no occasion to rebel, no list of reasons to explain why in the course of human events they’d reached the point of separating from Britain, no Bunker Hill analog.

    So if we want to talk about who’s “grown up,” I suggest the Australians — whom as a country and individually I am excessively fond of — aren’t the ones to be claiming they’ve been there, done that, and outgrown it all.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  192. nk, the result was pre-ordained by the standard of review, which was indeed a summary judgment standard used without a trial. But the operative facts weren’t the ones the agency had itself reviewed; rather, the question was “rational basis” for the agency action, which was dispositive and, indeed, dispensed with per curiam in a single long paragraph because it was such an obvious application of the appropriate standard. The facts considered by the agency were disputed, but that’s not what mattered; there was no dispute that the agency had given due process to those wishing to speak during the regulatory process, and those were the only facts material to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, given the deference they had to accord the agency decision under the relevant administrative and constitutional law.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  193. FWIW, I don’t dispute your criticism of the choice of the word “gunman” instead of, say, “shooter.” But “shooter” also often has negative connotations — “active shooter” could be a guy on a rifle range, but shouted as people at a concert are scattering, it meant something very different.

    FWIW, per the dictionary, gunman means:

    1 :a man armed with a gun; especially :a professional killer
    2 :a man noted for speed or skill in handling a gun

    I think you’re straining here, and this wording choice certainly doesn’t invalidate this precedent or undercut its legal reasoning.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  194. In that case, I think that if Congress passes a bump stock law similar to the ATF’s ruling, it will amost certainly be upheld on intermediate scrutiny. I don’t think the court will apply strict scrutiny.

    nk (9651fb)

  195. Didn’t see your “gunman” comment. I’m glad they didn’t say “gunsel”. It doesn’t mean what Hammett fooled the censors into thinking it meant. 😉

    nk (9651fb)

  196. Australia was a settler state, populated much the way Georgia was, by debtors. They often seen of sterner stuff than the Brits, who have lost much of the stick in them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  197. @ nk: Yes, and best not to call cat-lovers catamites. 😉

    Beldar (fa637a)

  198. Narciso, I thought it was harder (violent) criminals that were sent to Australia, at least in first wave.

    urbanleftbehind (02b4bd)

  199. Good book on Australia’s colonization: The Fatal Shore: The epic of Australia’s founding (2012). Who was transported, for what, for how long, and so forth varied quite a bit over the relevant time period.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  200. Gun controllers think, or wish others of the unwary to think, that “banning” something makes it disappear. As if,given two or three hours after the law is passed, all the banned items in the entire country magically turn into piles of rust.
    And nobody will have the wherewithal or knowledge to make more.
    As gun owners know, gun controllers have never, ever looked even slightly at the problem of disarming those illegally owning guns.

    Richard Aubrey (0d7df4)

  201. Beldar, re your 146. Then this unmodified semiautomatic rifle, with no bump stock at all, is a machine gun under your interpretation. And you have put every semiautomatic rifle under the NFA. https://youtu.be/NXrTq2Guk7c

    SPQR (a3a747)

  202. SPQR, do you not think you might be overreaching here, my friend? That is a trick-shooting demonstration. I’ve fired an semi-automatic AR-15 — lots and lots of fun.

    But tell me: Can you do, on the first try and without practice, what that guy did? Do you think the average shooter — not average person, but average guy we’d pluck at random from a rifle range — could do that? There’s a really good reason he was grinning so self-satisfiedly in that video, wasn’t there? We both know there was, it’s the show-off’s grin and I’ve displayed it (in the hallway) after a really good cross-x or two.

    Trick-shooting demonstrations may still be evidentiary, and even entertaining. They’re not dispositive in my view, nor even very probative. The fact that some MacGyver can gizmo around them or a trick-shooter can train himself to do this without gizmos doesn’t change the constitutionality of a federal statute.

    I think you forgot to answer my earlier question: Do you think the existing law and reg banning conversion kits is constitutional? Worthy trying to enforce? Because we know, surely, that a sufficiently dedicated person can learn to be a gunsmith and build his own fully automatic (illegal) weapon with sufficient time, energy, and access to tools.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  203. I’m also still confused by your assertion on the other thread that it would be unconstitutional (or perhaps simply wrong, for some other reason) to write either legislation or regs that regulated fire rates by rounds per minute. That was the same comment you talked about the part wearing out, if I was following it. If you don’t think the existing law can be read to prohibit bump stocks, tell me again why the law couldn’t or shouldn’t be changed in a way that would, even if that involved a rounds-per-minute metric.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  204. “Overreach” in #211 wasn’t the word I was, er, reaching for. I don’t think SQPD is overreaching. I just think it would be a mistake to say a semi-automatic weapon is a “machinegun” because it can be made to do what that video reflects. SQPD has more granular and practical knowledge here than I do, has thought about this longer and harder, and is teaching me things for which I’m grateful. I apologize in advance for my poor word choice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  205. There were about 22k people at the concert, including a bunch of on- and off-duty LE and ex-military who have both semi- and full-automatic experience, plus thousands more like me who were familiar with semi-automatic rifles. Immediately after the shooting, before there were any reports regarding what was in the room, many of those interviewed were insisting, “That had to be fully automatic weapons fire.”

    Me, my first reaction was, “Sounds a little ragged and occasionally stuttering, maybe that’s semi-automatic fire with a conversion kit.” Wild guess. Started looking for more along those lines, found lots of people more knowledgeable than me saying, “Could be a conversion kit, could be a trigger crank, could be a bump stock.”

    Those people earlier in the week weren’t saying, “Yeah, and it might have been belt loops too!”

    If that was a real-world equivalent, we’d have seen bad guys using bump fire techniques to cover their get-aways for the last century or more, wouldn’t we have?

    I can catch a mouse in my bare hands and kill it! Doesn’t mean that I’m not in the market for a better mousetrap.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  206. #196 and #198, and Beldar in general
    All true, and I take your points regarding the situation at the time . . . over 200 years ago. I gave you guys this.

    The situation now, is vastly different. What, you think if the g’ment takes your semi-autos the Canadians will invade? The Mexicans? The Cubans? I thought your military, the bulk of whom are stationed on US soil, was the best in the world . . .

    You think the drug cartels are going to rise up and take over? How many incidences are there of armed citizens taking action against criminals with guns? Aren’t your crimes rates in general decreasing?

    You have two problems; a culture that produces people who like to go on mass-shootings. And the ability, within the existing legal framework, to obtain high-power, multishot weapons that vastly increase their ability to do so.

    No-one knows what to do about the culture, so that leaves the weapons. Sure, with the current level of legal gun ownership its going to be almost impossible to “take” these weapons; its going to take probably 50 years to significantly reduce the number of just legal weapons in the community with a blanket ban on new sales and domestic maufacture tomorrow.

    My point is that you point blank refuse to concede that the 2A is JUST a law written on a piece of paper; its just an amendment, you have a crap-load of them already, and you can just make another law, if you choose to. There is no viable, reputable, reproducible evidence, that high levels of citizen gun ownership decreases crime. IF so, you should be the safest country in the world. Instead, you have the highest murder rate in the Western world. Oz, NZ, UK, Canada – 1 /100 000; US 4.8.

    Your steadfast refusal to even consider changes to the 2A Amendment, in light of the fact that everything else you have done wouldn’t have stopped the majority of mass shootings you’ve already had, just shows a lack of maturity as a nation. Childish. Own it.

    that david from Oz (f4c48c)

  207. And if Americans were all the descendants of gallows birds who had been transported to their new country in chains, we might even agree with you, David.

    nk (dbc370)

  208. One time, I thought I’d apply for a visa to visit Australia. One of the questions on the application form was “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?”. I had not, so I did not even bother to submit the application, surprised and disappointed that it was still a requirement.

    nk (dbc370)

  209. The first amendment, its just another law, you can get more of those. And tell me home durAble that particulAR principle is in Canada or the UK. The culture is the fundamental problem.

    narciso (d1f714)

  210. Also do you have any pets to declare, a question amber heard should have cinsiderec nerd closely, ironic though her main persecutor was a kiwi.

    narciso (d1f714)

  211. Then again tube morning herald is nit consucive to serious thinking:
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/peter-hartcher-20171006-gyvw2x.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  212. Crocodile Dundee put Australia in the public eye for a time, primarily because of Paul Hogan’s knife, an American Bowie, and Linda Kozlowski’s buttocks, likewise American, but by and large Australia is like an old woman: Everybody knows it’s down there somewhere, but nobody really cares.

    nk (dbc370)

  213. @ Ozzie David, who wrote (#215):

    My point is that you point blank refuse to concede that the 2A is JUST a law written on a piece of paper; its just an amendment, you have a crap-load of them already, and you can just make another law, if you choose to

    You seem confused on the very most basics. This is part of our Bill of Rights. It’s part of the Constitution. It’s not just another law. We have thousands of laws, but one Constitution with only 27 amendments. They are important to us for a reason.

    And you’ve doubled down on the insults. You’re making enemies, not converts. Trolling is indeed a worldwide phenomenon, and I can but conclude that you’re one such.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  214. For people wanting a change from buttstocks, 15 seconds of Linda Kozlowski’s buttocks.

    nk (dbc370)

  215. One of the reasons I’m fond of Australians is because my dad was, based on his time there in 1944 & 1945.

    Dude, arguing you would be the total fish-in-barrel experience. It’s just boringly easy. You write, “You think the drug cartels are going to rise up and take over?” I’ll show you in Mexico where they have; Mexico borders my state; Mexican drug cartels can and do target Norte Americanos on American soil. You write, “How many incidences are there of armed citizens taking action against criminals with guns?” I see reports of exactly that in local, state, and national news dozens of times every year; the answer is “not infrequently.” You write, “Aren’t your crimes rates in general decreasing?” The answer is: Yes, as prison incarcerations have risen and gun ownership by private citizens has increased; these things are linked and make my point, not yours.

    You don’t seem to be very well informed about America, sir. I confess to not knowing much about Australia either, although the thing I’d read most recently about it before you brought your comments here was a write-up in the WaPo by a leftie statistician from 528.com who’d expected to find that Australian gun control efforts had been a success, but then was disappointed and surprised to find no statistical evidence for that.

    But I wish you’d cut out the insults. My dad wasn’t aboard it yet, but his troopship participated in the amphibious operations in New Guinea that kept your forebears from Japanese occupation, and he’d really be offended by your insults, so I guess I’m offended on his behalf.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  216. *FiveThirtyEight.com, sorry.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  217. @224

    gun ownership by private citizens has increased

    Total number of guns owned has increased, but they’re owned by fewer people.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.b0ba101a6be3

    According to the survey, which was conducted among 1,001 Americans in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting, 36 percent of U.S. adults either own a firearm personally, or live with someone who does. That’s the lowest rate of gun ownership in the CBS poll going back to 1978. It’s down 17 points from the highest recorded rate in 1994, and nearly 10 percentage points from 2012.

    But the declining rates of gun ownership across three major national surveys suggest a different explanation: that most of the rise in gun purchases is driven by existing gun owners stocking up, rather than by people buying their first gun. A Washington Post analysis last year found that the average American gun owner now owns approximately eight firearms, double the number in the 1990s.

    Davethulhu (719fd1)

  218. I would not put too much faith in that survey, or similar surveys. Even if they were conducted honestly which is doubtful, nine out of ten gun owners would refuse to participate or lie. A better weather vane are the politicians, even in the bluest constituencies, who walk on tiptoe around gun control and gun rights when campaigning, and the laws they pass when elected.

    nk (dbc370)

  219. Yes, it’s a shame the survey wasn’t conducted by someone reputable, like conservativetreehouse.com

    Davethulhu (719fd1)

  220. Dave: Guns can be compared to tools. You don’t pound nails with a crescent wrench.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  221. Alinskyite tactics have become too well-known to be effective anymore, except in the minds of the self-deluded Alinskyites themselves. You can believe your survey of 1,001 people taken by organizations with an anti-gun agenda. I’ll believe 50 states with public carry, open or concealed, 16 of them with no permit required. 49 through legislative action, and one (plus DC now) through court decision.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6183 secs.