Mass Shootings

Republicans Get Behind Gun Control in Wake of Las Vegas Shooting

Get your bump stocks while you can.

|

Rep. Bill Flores
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

In the wake of the horrendous shooting in Las Vegas that left 59 people dead and over 500 injured, a chorus of gun control advocates have been demanding the government just "do something" to stop mass shootings.

It looks as though politicians from both major parties have decided that something is a ban on bump stocks, until this week a device little known outside of gun enthusiast circles. Officers who stormed the hotel room of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock found several rifles equipped with bump stocks among his arsenal.

Small surprise given her long and storied career as a gun-grabber, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D–Calif.) has introduced a bill that would make illegal the devices, that greatly increase the rate you can fire a semi-automatic weapon.

Feinstein was the chief architect of the 1994* "assault weapons" ban, and her 2013 update to that legislation contained a prohibition on bump stocks. The scale of the bloodshed in Las Vegas, she says, justifies a ban now.

"The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people. No one should be able to easily and cheaply modify legal weapons into what are essentially machine guns," said Feinstein in a statement.

What might seem a bit more surprising are the Republicans getting behind her effort. U.S. Rep. Bill Flores of Texas, a professed gun owner, has said he would support a federal bump stock prohibition. "Based on the videos I heard and saw, and now that I've studied up on what a bump stock is — I didn't know there was such a thing — there's no reason for it," Flores told The Hill.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, claimed total ignorance of bump stocks until Monday, said he will "likely" support a ban.

Plenty of other Republican lawmakers are now leaving open the possibility for a bump stock ban, without committing themselves to vote for it quite yet.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R–S.C.) released a statement saying, "I think it'd be a good time to have a hearing. Just to find out how does the technology work and is there a legislative solution?"

Sens. John Conyers (R–Texas) and Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) have likewise supported hearings on bump stocks. Sen. John Thune (R–S.D.) said a bump stock ban was something Congress should "look into." And Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.) wouldn't rule out such a prohibition.

It's probably not unfair to see such wishy-washy utterances from normally staunch Second Amendment supporters as a way of determining which way the public wind is blowing on gun control. A ban on something relatively few people know about might spare Republicans from having to answer for not doing more.

There are signs they might not pay a political penalty for doing it. Conservative blogs Hot Air and Red State have opined that bump stocks are not a hill worth dying on. Conservative columnist Bret Stephens has made his defection to the liberal The New York Times complete by calling for the total abolition of the Second Amendment.

So far, the National Rifle Association has been silent.

Just because a bump stock ban is gaining popularity doesn't make it good policy. Reason's Jacob Sullum has questioned the role bump stocks played in the death toll, noting a tradeoff between speed and accuracy.

Nick Gillespie also reminds us of the perils of policy-making in the aftermath of a major catastrophe like the one that took place in Las Vegas Sunday night:

It's wrong, I think, to immediately pivot to what are inevitably pushed as "common-sense" policy responses to gun attacks, such as banning "assault weapons" (a class of guns that doesn't really exist, have been banned in the past with no impact on violence, and detract from other, arguably more effective regulations). Thoughts of tearing up the Constitution clearly come more from the heart than the head and should be resisted until the passions calm at least a little. If hard cases make bad law, then public tragedies make terrible policy, whether we're talking about mass shootings, acts of terrorism, or celebrity drug overdoses.

Political expediency aside, Libertarians and gun rights advocates of all political stripes have a reasonable fear that any gun control measures enacted after a crisis will lead to more regulations, more erosion of constitutionally protected rights, and the criminalization of law-abiding citizens.

UPDATE: House Speaker Paul Ryan has now expressed his openess to a bump stock ban, CNN reports. In a Thursday interview with conservative MSNBC Hugh Hewitt, Ryan said that a bump stock "allows you to take a semiautomatic and turn it into a fully automatic so clearly that's something we need to look into."

CORRECTION: The original version of this article stated that the federal assault weapons ban was passed in 1996.

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: Las Vegas Shooter's Girlfriend Returns to U.S., Republican Senators Talk 'Bump Stock' Ban, Kazuo Ishiguro Wins Nobel Prize in Literature

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Based on the videos I heard and saw, and now that I’ve studied up on what a bump stock is ? I didn’t know there was such a thing ? there’s no reason for it,” Flores told The Hill.

    “Based on three days research and the feelings of some of my constituents, I’ll toss the grabbers a bone.”

    1. Yes, good to know his feelings from his extensive 3 day “research” informs what goes into law.

      Of course, this explains most so-called “common sense” laws, that are written to cater to anything but common sense, considering those laws are whipped up even before the media frenzy dies down. Congress has demonstrated complete vacancy of reason now.

      And yet, all sorts of things cause exponentially more deaths per year than mass shootings and terrorism. Texting while driving, for example. It’s not even comparable in numbers, yet no “common sense” laws in that realm.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.startonlinejob.com

      2. Do you have data behind this assertion? One needn’t spend much time on the freeway to see how dangerous texting and driving is, but I’ve never seen any stats on it. (I’m not disagreeing, I’d generally like to see some stats)

    2. Dammit. These were $100 this summer and I didn’t want one because they are a waste of ammunition. But now…

      1. Now they’re $300 and you can’t find one ’cause they’re all sold out everywhere.

        I wonder how they’re going to confiscate the thousands of them that have been sold already when none of them required registration?

  2. If the republicans had any intelligence whatsoever, they would write a bill with a bump-stock ban and then include guaranteed national CCW reciprocity in it. How bad does the other side want it?

    1. That would be clever, which isn’t the GOP’s thing. The Republicans don’t have ideas – they just react to Democratic ones.

      1. The Democrats don’t have ideas, either. They just water down the communists’ ideas.

        -jcr

      2. Lately, as in the Roe v. Wade decision, Republicans have been copying Libertarian planks on energy and the Second Amendment. The combined popular vote of both parties on these two issues puts them dead even with the Communist, Econazi, Dem, Bernie coalition. Voters in two competing parties have expressed a preference for keeping both electricity and guns legal and abundant, and aggregated 49.4% of the popular vote count.

      3. The reason bump stock bans haven’t gone through in the past was because they were tacked on to bullshot legislation that couldn’t (and should not have) passed, like Feinstein’s updated 2013 “assault weapons” ban that essentially defined assault weapons as “it looks scary.”

        She could have gotten a bump stock ban passed on its own merit if it were a clean bill, but if she couldn’t get everything, she didn’t really care.

    2. If the republicans had any intelligence whatsoever

      I’m not holding my breath.

      1. If you hold your breath long enough you can cut off the oxygen supply to your brain and after a few minutes you’ll be just as smart as a Republican.

          1. covfefe

            There… fixed it for you.

    3. That would meet the correct definition of “compromise”, which no Democrat wants. Their idea of “compromise” is “you make some concessions now, and then you make more later, while I give you nothing in return but a tedious lecture about how fucked up you are”.

      1. Without the common decency of a reach around while they’re busy fucking Republicans.

    4. Tack on
      Reciprocity protects you from magazine limits provided the magazines you possess are legal in your state of residence
      Removing suppressors from NFA
      Updating FOPA to include stops typical of travel (gas, food, lodging, recreation), and that the burden of proof is on the State to prove that a traveler was not in compliance with FOPA, rather than the current situation where the traveler must prove they are in compliance.

    5. There is already an existing bill called SHARE act (H.R.3668) to modify a number of firearms laws. It includes modifications of some hunting regulations and what was formerly known as the Hearing Protection Act, which removes silencers/supressors from the NFA.

      They should add a provision to the SHARE act to place bump stocks on the NFA as Any Other Weapons (AOWs), re-name the act to be the Gun Safety Act and then pass it.

      1. Any law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

          1. I am glad you are such a fighter to protect constitutional rights.

            1. Fed politicians don’t give a crap about the constitution. I guess I don’t understand your point.

        1. Any federal law.

          IMHO state laws fall under the 14th amendment. I don’t think it’s racist to ban machine guns, but I think it does violate the POI clause to ban tools of self defense.

          1. State laws have to abide by the Constitution as well. They can’t jail you for criticizing the governor. They can’t use your house as a National Guard barracks. They can’t torture confessions out of you.

        2. So, why aren’t you fighting for repeal of the 1986/1934 acts that infringe the right to own select fire weapons?

    6. that would be great

    7. This is NOT a negotiation. The left does not control Congress and the Presidency.

      Any Republican who votes for gun control is a RINO as those laws are unconstitutional. Usurping the constitution is what Democrats and lefties do.

      1. Look. When they are in control they control policy. When they aren’t in power they control policy. It’s simple.

        1. They try and control policy and that’s what this gun grabbing media blitz is about.

          They hate Trump mainly because he does not do what the narrative is. First they focus on Congress and when they don’t have the votes or Trump vetoes any gun grabbing bill, they will move on to some other TDS story.

    8. What’s ‘guaranteed national CCW reciprocity”? I’m learning all kinds of things this week.

      As to the bump stocks themselves, all I want to know right now was that were they actually used by the shooter. It seems silly to ban item that may not have had any impact on the mass shooting itself. And I’m kinda weirded out that we still don’t know what the shooter’s motivation was.

      On a completely unrelated note, does the Reason commentariat have a contract that requires at least one socialist commentor to show up? Amsoc, Tony, Josef, there always seems to be one.

      1. Require that States shall honor every other states carry permits like they do with drivers licenses.

        Most states already honor every other states permits.
        A handful honor most other states permits
        A few honor no other permits (and for that matter barely issue them internally)

        There are some Federalism problems with the idea though.

        1. Thank you.

        2. It’s not a federal mandate that states honor DLs.

          1. Yes I know, interstate compact.

            Its just the most well known example of the end result.

        3. what, you mean that the “full faith and credit” clause of the 14th Article of Ammendment is a problem? What about the Interstate Commerce Clause, ONE of the duties of FedGov is to make trade across state lines “regular”, that is, it happens unimpeded. If I am in my home state, travel through the adjacent state, my home state Mother May I Card works at home, and because I have that, the next state extends me a Card for, allowing me to carry there. Fine, though they SHOULD just recognise my home state Card instead of charging me money and requiring a three hour training course to get theirs. OK, so far I’m mostly OK with the paperwork and “freedom” I now have.
          BUT when I cross into State Number 3…. they refuse to ever recognise any other state’s Mother May I Card, refuse to issue them to non-residents. Thus I break their laws when I do what I’ve been doing for the past five hundred miles…… legally. THAT is a clear violation of that Interstate Commerce Clause, AND the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I won’t even go into states like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Illinois, DeeCee……WHY cannot I do in those states what I fully legally do at home?

    9. Or put in a provision end8ng all govt. funding for Planned Parenthood.

      1. I sort of like that idea. But let’s not worry about reciprocity. Let’s just stop funding Planned NonParnethood.

      2. But, with mass shootings we’re talking about murderers……..Oh,…..Right!

    10. The republicans are intelligent enough to lie about what they support to get elected, then vote against their promises while making all kinds of excuses. I’ll give them that.

      But seems to me, most of them would like to ban guns for citizens, but not for those in government.

      After all, conservative voters keep voting for RINOs, just like Linus keeps trying to kick the ball Lucy is holding.

  3. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R?S.C.) released a statement from inside a Cambodian pool boy saying, “I think it’d be a good time to have a hearing. Just to find out how does the technology work and is there a legislative solution?”

    Let’s be honest here.

    1. I thing we all already knew what was going on there.

    2. A false accusation of child rape is your idea of honesty.

      1. The stereotypical pool boy is in his 20s, you no-sense-of-humor-having goober.

      2. Reading the words “Cambodian pool boy” brings my mind to a deep, dark, place too, nicmart.

        1. To be fair nicmart, Lindsay graham does f*ck little boys. And the rest of us too.

  4. Just because a bump stock ban is gaining popularity doesn’t make it good policy. Reason’s Jacob Sullum has questioned the role bump stocks played in the death toll, noting a tradeoff between speed and accuracy.

    Yeah well, Jacob Sullum was a moron for that question, and your a douche bag for citing it. Firing into a crowd of 22,000 at 400 yards, accuracy counts for very little. Number of rounds is everything. This is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Only a hack would suggest otherwise.

    1. Yeah. In most cases full auto fire is not helpful at all if you want to hit specific targets. But mowing down a large crowd seems like one place where it would definitely help get the body count up.

    2. We have yet to find out how many of the dead and injured were actually shot, and not trampled to death/injured by the mob in trying to get away from the sound of the gunshots. Hell, we don’t know at this time just how many rounds were expended by the shooter either – those abacus’ must have run out of capacity, or something.

  5. If “there’s no reason for it” is now adequate grounds for prohibition, I move we outlaw male nipples.

    1. Hey! From, um, *somebody’s* cold dead hands!

    2. And pubic hair.

  6. “Based on the videos I heard and saw, and now that I’ve studied up on what a bump stock is ? I didn’t know there was such a thing ? there’s no reason for it,” Flores told The Hill.

    If they’re gonna outlaw things that have no reason to exist, it’s gonna be an interesting nation.

    1. Yeah, that’s pretty much contrary to the whole idea of liberal government.

      1. That was the phrase that jumped out for me too. No good reason to have something…. really dude? Now everyone has to justify why they own a piece of plastic molded in a certain shape?

        1. Outlawing things there’s no reason for is just another way of saying they’re for “reasonable” gun control laws. There is no such thing as an “unreasonable” gun control law. It’s like a rat eating an elephant, you gotta do it one bite at a time.

        2. Now everyone has to justify why they own a piece of plastic molded in a certain shape?

          It’s how my wife relieves tension in her shoulders and upper back I swear!

          1. That is exactly what I was referring to, in fact. Back in the 80s, a lot of local prosecutors sought to make names for themselves raiding sex shops. When I was in school I used to drive past Adam and Eve in Carrboro North Carolina. One time I was driving by while a huge raid was happening. The sheriff proudly held up boxes of dildos that had been confiscated as violations of community standards.

            I just thought it was the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen in my life. An oblong piece of silicone rubber being branded as Enemy Number One. And not just things that were realistic. They seized smooth plastic ones as well. How the heck could something less penis – like than a cucumber be deemed obscene?

            Now it is gun parts. But the same idea applies. A magazine is just a simple plastic box with a spring in it.

      2. Didn’t you get the memo? Jefferson was a Fascist slave owner.

    2. ANYTHING NOT MANDATORY IS FORBIDDEN.

      ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS MANDATORY.

  7. The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people.

    I can think of several other reasons. It can be fun if you don’t mind wasting lots of ammo. You might also want to kill large numbers of animals. Or perhaps write your name in bullet holes on something.

    1. It can be fun if you don’t mind wasting lots of ammo.

      And, think of the JOBS!!

      1. Buy American ammo and support domestic manufacturing!

    2. Zombi appocolips come to mind for a reason to have a bump stock.

      1. Bump spears!

    3. The bill I saw proposed would still allow the Feds and state/local police to have them. Clearly they still need to the ability to quickly kill large numbers of people.

  8. This would be a good article to include a description of what a bump stock is.

    I’ve heard some of the most ridiculous descriptions in the media. One reporter on NBC kept emphasizing that even the ATF administrator she interviewed couldn’t give her a good definition (because she was asking her why the were legal and got the response that they don’t alter the firing mechanism).

    The general public at this point is hearing an uninterrupted line of BS on the topic.

    I’m no expert, so I’ll let wikipedia tell you:

    The bumpfiring process involves bracing the rifle with the non-trigger hand, releasing the grip on the firing hand (leaving the trigger finger in its normal position in front of the trigger), pushing the rifle forward in order to apply pressure on the trigger from the finger, and keeping the trigger finger stationary. During a shot, the firearm will recoil (“bump” back) and the trigger will reset as it normally does; then the non-trigger hand pulls the firearm away from the body and back to the original position, pressing the trigger against the stationary finger again, thereby firing another round when the trigger is pushed back.

    So you don’t need a bumpstock to get that effect. It just makes it easier. Check youtube, there are plenty of videos of people trying it out at the range, without bumpstocks. Some of them even feature attractive women firing AR-15 variants, rather than survivalist nutters with beards.

    1. There was a video of a hot chick with a gun trying out a bump stock posted here a few days ago. It illustrated the concept pretty well.

    2. Here is a video that shows the installation and operation of a bump stock.

      As you can see, it just allows the stock to slide back and forth a little bit.

      Compare with this guy doing the same thing without a special stock.

      The special stock does appear to make it more accurate – for things that are going to be wildly inaccurate, that is. The question is, how much difference does it really make when your target is 15,000 square feet?

      Disclaimer: don’t own one, never tried it either. Probably because I’m too cheap to burn that much ammo.

      1. It’s easy enough to go through too much ammo with an unmodified AR-15 fired in the usual way. I think it would be fun to try for laughs, though.

      2. for things that are going to be wildly inaccurate

        Sigh.

        Why don’t you shoot three shots as close together as possible at sporting clays? If I fire one shot that hits the clay and a second that’s off by 3 ft. and you fire three shots precisely on top of each other that miss the clay by a foot, who’s more accurate?

        Any given round fired from an M134 is 10X as likely to hit it’s targets as a given round fired from an M240. The only way the bump or automatic fire weapons are ‘wildly inaccurate’ is by a measure of accuracy that’s not significant relative to the design and purpose. It’s like saying baseball players suck at basketball and their shooting would be wildly inaccurate because a .400 batting average is phenomenal while a 50% field goal percentage is terrible.

  9. I have just been watching rednecks show how to make a bump stock with nothing but a strip of aluminum on Youtube.. it seems more that the bump stock concept was “discovered” and mainstreamed in gun culture around 10 years ago, and then recently became commercial. but banning it won’t actually stop people from make rifles with bump stock because it is sooo easy to do at home..

  10. I wake up and the whole world suddenly knows what a bump stock is. WTF happened?

    1. The media wants gun control so everyone needs to know about bump stocks.

      Once the left can get bump stocks banned, they will move to some other gun control measure.

      Luckily, the left does not control Congress and the presidency so this gun grabbing is all wishful lefty dreaming.

      1. “Luckily, the left does not control Congress and the presidency”
        You are not paying attention. Tyranny requires a submissive citizenry. Left vs right policy proposals are just more bait & switch bullshit.

        1. You would be right about submissive citizenry and the Democrats and Republicans being mostly the same big government types.

          The NRA still keeps most Republicans in line with regard to gun grabbing. That will the case here too.

          The media is saying that their gun grabbing has Republican support but it doesn’t. Some Republicans might just not have the spine to privately tell gun grabbing Democrats to fuck off.

          1. Congressional republicans should offer to ban bump stocks. On a related note, the bill doing so will also have the following. non-negotiable provisions:

            1. All government funding and support for Planned Prenthood eliminated
            2. ACA repealed
            3. Tax reform
            4. CCW license reciprocity in states that require such licensing (mentioned above, good idea)
            5. Whatever else you want t9 add to stick it to the progs.

            If they say no, then they are clearly irresponsible and for dangerous gun nuts.

  11. This is not terribly surprising. It’s always a mistake to expect politicians to refrain from violating your rights. Even if they’re from the “correct” party. They are unscrupulous individuals who only care about their own careers and nothing else.

  12. bump stocks are not a hill worth dying on

    The reason Dems win over time is because they never give an inch. This is giving an inch.

    1. ^this guy gets it.

      Never give the left one step and take all political power from them.

      The left will always take advantage of conservative’s good nature to avoid trouble.

      1. If I were a lefty politician trying to get elected, I’d pretend to be conservative and lock in that there redneck vote.

        1. I live in the South. There are all sorts of RINOs here that are actually Democrats but could never win, so they claim to be Republicans.

          1. They should be lynched.

            1. Better, they should be relocated to live in Venezuela or North Korea.

  13. I’ve considered the “bump stock” and arrived at to the conclusion that they are wasteful and inaccurate, at least for the type of shooting I do. Once you get the hang of it, it does sound like a machine gun, more or less. Until now you could buy one any day for about $100, bu it will cost you way more than that in ammunition the first couple of times you use it. Usually whenever I smell “ban” I buy it, but will not succumb this time around.

  14. For a population that cowers in fear of everything, all they need is a reason to cower more.

    1. Yeah, if only those Jason Aldean fans weren’t such pussies.

        1. Quite a few people during the shooting were on video saying “what do I do?”

          If you think life is all drunken concerts and super safe plus you freeze when the shit does hit the fan, you are a moron and a pussy.

          1. Yes, anyone who goes about their daily life with the expectation that they won’t suddenly come under heavy suppressing fire is a moron and a pussy. That’s a completely reasonable thing to say.

            1. You’re either a survivor or a not. Evidently you are not and you don’t think its reasonable to be a survivor.

              In much of the World, life is cheap so people act accordingly. Not in the USA, we get all pasty soft thinking nothing bad will ever happen.

              Most of those people thought fireworks were going off rather than gunfire. Many Americans live in fantasyland.

              1. What happened to you that made you how you are?

                1. Me being a Libertarian? Long story.

                  What happened to you that made you not want to be a survivor?

          2. Blade had some good advices the subject…….

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ih3tTprwY04

  15. In this situation, the first time a bump stock was used, I’m guessing it increased the casualties by like 10-20% max. As with all of these things, I honestly couldn’t care less. I just know that it will have no statistical effect on anything. It is security theater no different than the TSA.

    1. The only thing that congress has achieved over the last 40 years is to grow government.

      This gives them the first polarizing incentive to do it together since the patriot act. One more of these and marshal law will be old hat.

      As scary as this was, I still fear the government response more than the next nut job.

      Just once I would like to hear the gun control nut’s estimate of the likely outcome vs. the feel good immediate response. If they are capable of deduction.

      1. Actually it’s well documented. Australia’s implementation of gun control legislation and buyback program is estimated to have saved around 200 lives per year.

        1. And how many people died because they could not have guns to protect themselves.

          I know, you don’t want that to be known nor used against gun grabbing.

        2. “estimated”
          I estimate the number to be far less. I also estimate your IQ to be 75.

        3. They had almost no mass shootings even before the ban, and the US’ murder dropped at about the same rate over the same time period after they passed their ban, even though Americans were buying more weapons.

          1. America can’t be compared to culturally homogeneous nations that never fought a bloody war for their independence from their colonialist founders. America is far more like Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and the rest of the Americas than it is to anywhere in Europe or Australia.

        4. That’s it? For the money spent, political ‘capital’ burned, people arrested for noncompliance, they could have just paid people a small stipend as long as they stay crime free and saved more lives.

        5. Then it’s not worth it, even by lefty standards.

        6. Who estimated that number? How did they arrive at 200? Are suicides included in any way?

          1. If they documented that 200 people were going to die, why didn’t they just arrest their murderers and convict them of attempted murder before the murders occurred?

            I’d estimate (and document even) that the overlap between people voluntarily turning over their guns and people likely to murder someone with a gun (not to mention unlikely to murder them with a knife, car, or tire iron) is pretty close to zero and that any estimates of lives saved from a gun buyback suffer from at least one form of selection bias.

            1. ^ This

            2. They chose to arrest the nation and lock them up in a nationwide gun-free zone. Oh, wait! Plenty of criminals still have guns. Not gun-free at all. Just a nation of sitting ducks. The violence has increased in Australia, by the way. I don’t know where that 200 lives saved comes from. Sounds like government propaganda to justify what they did, to me.

        7. Name the people “saved”.

        8. “Australia’s implementation of gun control legislation and buyback program is estimated to have saved around 200 lives per year.”

          Only by those with an ideological axe to grind. Over the same period, all homicides in Australia declined, and by a greater margin than gun-related homicides alone. So did the gun ban have anything to do with fewer gun deaths, or was it just part of a larger trend? No one knows, but since other homicides went down by more, it could be as credibly argued that banning guns actually propped up the number of gun deaths.

  16. It’s clich?d to call it a slippery slope but that’s still what it is.
    Substitute the psycho’s tool for anything other than a bump stock and see if you can generate the same vitriol.

    Its a fair discussion to say that some of these weapons are unnecessary for civilians to have but only when we discuss the unnecessarity of the police force to have tanks.

    I still prefer the last defense against tyranny argument and would rather risk the psychos.

    1. What is missed about the value of an armed populace is not that it will resist the military or even police, though that is important. What is most important and never talked about is the ability of an armed populace to resist political mob violence. If we didn’t have the Second Amendment and it was illegal to own a gun, things like Antifa would go from an amusing and annoying joke to a real threat to our freedom and the republic. And the left knows that. And they hate it. They so want to use the threat of mob violence and terrorism against their opponents. Only the Second Amendment prevents them from doing that. I will take my chances with the odd nut case.

      1. Right. All that is left is the element of doubt. Hopefully I wont see the government test that resolve in my lifetime. Because the chances that the citizenry simply succumbs is high.

        Think how miserable the founding fathers were to risk there lives and fortune back in the day. I think we are a long way from that type of conviction today.

      2. John doesn’t want to have a shootout with the police any more, (though he’s not discounting the possibility) he busts wants to engage in a shootout with Leftists if they get out of line. You go, John.

        1. See, when you say “out of line” what you actually mean is usurping the Constitution, engaging in theft from law abiding Americans, engaging in enlargement of a Nanny and Police state that kills innocent people for unconstitutional reasons.

          You want what lefties do to sound all noble and peaceful, so the Americans that challenge you are the bad guys. You consider the Founding Fathers bad guys too.

          If you are treasonous, you will treated as such.

          1. And AmSoc is definitely treasonous.

        2. I own a gun so I don’t have to be involved in a shootout, you half wit. Did your parents have any children who lived?

          1. If average IQ is 100 then by “half wit” you are estimating Robespierre Josef Stalin has an IQ of 50. I estimated 75 so by consensus estimate he is around 62.

            1. You’re too kind and generous.

            2. I’m fairly certain that the that the question of whether RJS can think is about as relevant as whether submarines can swim.

        3. He doesn’t want a shootout with them, it I do. I hope you treasonous douchebags are dumb enough to provoke me.

      3. Another thing the Left hates about gun ownership is the fact that anybody who owns a gun for self-protection has accepted–whether he/she is aware of it or not–that (1) in an emergency you will probably be on your own and (2) while you’re not invincible you are capable of looking after yourself in a crisis. This sort of mindset gets you through all kinds of emergencies, including those which don’t involve violence.

        The Leftists would much prefer that we regard ourselves as helpless and that we have faith that the State will protect us.

      4. You’re worried about antifa and not about the (euphemistically named) alt-right?

        One sided? Much?

        Personally, I’m worried about both of these anti-freedom groups.

  17. Can’t repeal Obamacare, can’t-do anything about spending, can’t reform taxes, but my God they can ban bump stocks. What a bunch of worthless buffoons. At this point, I am prepared to support a constitutional amendment that changes the Congress from being elected to being picked by lot among registered and eligible voters within each state and congressional district. Picking people at random seems to work okay with juries. And we couldn’t do any worse and would almost certainly do better.

    1. This is mostly hype from the media. Anything that appears that gun control will work…and look they got some Republicans on boards, so it must be great gun control.

      On that note, going back to states picking Senators like before the 17th Amendment would be better.

      1. The 17th Amendment was a disaster. Picking them by state legislature made the Senate accountable to the state governments. Electing them made them accountable to no one and took away the most important check there was against the expansion of federal power.

        1. State’s selecting Senators did balance power between the states and the federal gov, which is why it was changed to make the states less powerful.

          1. Yep. And the shitiest politicians seem to be Senators. Old, stale stupid.
            Fat Teddy, McCain, who was that geezer than was in the klan? yadayadayada

            1. Senator Byrd was a Klansman. Now half of West Virginia is named for him.

              1. That’s the asshole I was thinking about. Got his name on every bridge & government building in WV. Probably true in most (all) states. Bring home the pork and you get to put your name on shit. Once they’re in office, you can’t get rid of them. Like certain venereal diseases.

                1. As the agitators are busy tearing down any statue that mentions Confederate dead, they’ve apparently overlooked all the West Virginia monuments to the former “Exalted Cyclops.”

  18. 2nd Amendment:
    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.

    Any law relating to arms would be unconstitutional, but that has never stopped Congress before.

    1. What’s the constitution? Is that the thing that authorizes the police to declare marshal law and have armored personnel carriers?

    2. I wish the grammar was better. Left too much for interpretation.

  19. Get your bump stocks while you can

    Ooooh, chilling. First they came for bump stocks then they came for me.

    1. Any law infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

      This is all media hype anyway. Gun control is being rolled back around the USA, so there will be no law banning any propane and propane accessories.

      1. Yeah, yeah… another right-singer conflates the Constitution with libertarianism.

        1. Define a right winger please.

        2. Yeah, yeah…another socialist trying to act like a Libertarian while undermining Libertarianism and our Constitution.

          1. I think undermining this Constitution written by slave-holders should be required by libertarians. Burn the thing and use the ashes to feed pigs

            1. Thanks for admitting (1) you’re not a Libertarian and (2) you want to destroy the Constitution.

              I will treat you accordingly.

              Fuck off slaver!

              1. Dude, he chose one of the most vicious mass murderers of all time as his handle.

              2. His intention to subvert the constitution must make him guilty of a number of sedition laws. We need to get AmSoc prosecuted for treason and sedition. Maybe start a trend to put all the commie trash in prison, or maybe even six feet under.

                1. Elias Fakaname, you have been reported to the FBI.

                  1. Dude, that ship sailed a looooooooonnnnnggggggg time ago.

  20. Who cares?

    1. I called it that the lefty media would only be able to do non-stop coverage of the shooting for less than a week and then they had to go back to TDS.

      There will no gun grabbing, you socialist.

      1. Protip: a guy who used to use the screenname “american socialist” and openly defends socialism and communism all the fucking time is probably not going to be insulted when you call him a socialist.

        1. That would be “Roach Pierre;” now that you mention it just where is American Socialist?

        2. I was just trying to get this socialist to admit it. I don’t think this sock puppet has yet. He learned his lesson removing “socialist” from his handle.

        3. Sounds good to me…

          Waiters and shop-workers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said “Se?or” or “Don” or even “Usted”; everyone called everyone else “Comrade” or “Thou” ? In outward appearance, it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners, there were no “well-dressed” people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform.
          Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.

          – George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

          1. Listen we get it: total equality is very appealing to places.

          2. For his part, Orwell concluded that from the start, the war had been “essentially a triangular struggle.” The May Days had proved the revolution’s death knell.
            History would not only uphold Orwell’s judgment of Communist motives and the role of the USSR. Secret Soviet documents revealed only in 2003 proved that these betrayals went even further than Orwell had surmised.

            Orwell through spanish civil war
            Orwell was a fanatical believer of socialism until Stalin sent hot squads to silence him and he realized the mistakes of the power of the state. Orwell was also born a rich British subject and was hardly a common-man. Orwell remained committed to the left but thanks to him pointed out how bad the socialist state always is.

            1. Yeah he was also a lifelong committed socialist used by the political Right who had no idea that he wrote something other than 1984 and Animal Farm.

              1. Conservatives know that he was a socialist. They forgave his trespasses because he pointed out the flaws of socialism from the inside out.

                He was not as committed to socialism as an uneducated lefty like yourself thinks. Stalin tried to have him killed. Plus, he was a British socialist, so they are okay with parts of capitalism since that is how you have low unemployment.

              2. Who gives a shit? His beloved political system killed 200 million people in the 20th century. Anyone who espouses such a system is pretty clearly wrong.

                1. People like AmSoc should be put to death to protect the rest of us from their tyranny. Socialism/Marxism must be heavily criminalized.

        4. “Protip”… Is that a male professional golfer’s tip of his driver?

  21. A prescient riff on guns in Vegas appeared In the wake of Freedomfest 2014:

    http://tinyurl.com/y984w4pt

  22. When will Feinstein die already, that crypt keeper looking fuck has just got to kick the bucket soon.

    1. Feinstein and Hillary will croak in the same year- bet.

  23. Guns don’t kill people, guns with bump stocks kill people.

    You would be just as effective to ban the shirt that the shooter was wearing, windows from hotels, or multi-story hotels. All of these things were used to commit mass murder. BAN THEM NOW!

  24. Because banning a mechanically simple and relatively simple to produce device will make it go away…

    While we’re at it, let’s ban marijuana. Then no one will be able to get marijuana. Because that’s how it works.

  25. Bump stock ban! Say it fast three times . . .

  26. Republicans have no honor. None

    Bump stocks have been around since God had acne. They have been used all that time. Now we have one incident where an assassin used (probably) bump stocks to raise his fire rate, thus adding to the lethality of his attack.

    Note the qualifier: “ONE incident”. One incident does not a crisis make. Republicans need to remember to lead with facts and ideas and not surrender to the impulse to jump on every popular bandwagon, even when triuggered by a truly horrific event.

    Policy decisions, like revenge, are best served cold

  27. What next, belt loops? You know, the bump stock before there were bump stocks?
    I haven’t heard a bump fired weapon as consistent as what I heard in the videos.

    Republicans not jump on bandwagons? That’s not the Republican way. They just have different wagons than Democrats.

  28. This one leaves my head spinning. I am in favor of honoring the 2nd Amendment which says “Shall not be infringed”. That means NO control laws. This seems like a harmless way to get people off their backs. It is unlikely to cause many problems. But I’m not comfortable with it, and I think Republicans should stand firm. THE REAL NEED IS TO BAN PSYCHOTROPICS, SINCE NEARLY EVERYONE WHO HAS DONE A MASS SHOOTING HAS BEEN ON ONE OR MORE. These pose a danger to the public. Millions are taking them. They make some people homicidal. We need to stop diverting attention from the REAL problem by talking about gun control. The sooner people wake up and see this, the better. In the meantime, nothing is done, and the killings continue. Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money off these drugs (that work poorly, if at all, anyway), and they have tremendous political power. There is a general need to control them, because they are behind drugging people against their will in hospitals (happened to us) and other places, and marketing drugs that are not safe by hiding adverse research and bribing doctors. Yeah, I know libertarians don’t like this, but pharmaceutical companies rampantly commit fraud, and fraud IS against libertarian principles, and rightly controlled.

  29. Start your home business right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 55$/hour just on a computer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously. Start her>>>

    http://www.webcash20.com

  30. Ryan has all the backbone of severely overcooked linguini.

  31. Banning a bump stock isn’t “getting behind gun control”. Also, what Feinstein proposed needs to be changed as it would end up banning far more than bump stocks.

    “component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle”

    What is proposed is poorly written. That would also ban trigger upgrades as well as a variety of other components. It is so broad even a muzzle break, recoil spring, or bi-pod could qualify. It would be easier to just classify bump stocks as an NFA item.

    In the end clean up the language of the bill and attach it to the Hearing Protection Act. It will be fun watching Democrats vote against it.

  32. Good thing gun-control measures didn’t prevent Paddock from acquiring his arsenal of guns, because otherwise he likely would have murdered several thousand of the 22,000 in attendance with a well-placed bomb using the explosives he had in his car. If he was able to smuggle all those guns up to his room, he certainly was capable of defeating security to get a bomb (explosive belt, etc.) into the middle of the crowd and setting it off.

  33. I think we should have legislation on individuals that poses an ability to move their trigger finger remarkably fast. Pass a law that will prohibit the possession of such an ability and if you’re caught having this remarkable ability then off with your fingers + 10 years in prison. There you go, problem solved!

  34. I would gladly take this if it meant an end to wailing for “moar gun control”. Of course it won’t, and so I will oppose the camel’s nose in the tent.

    But, let’s be honest, bump stocks are just idiotic, from a strictly practical perspective. The only thing they are good for is wasting ammo (which can be fun, admittedly).

    It’s a good thing the Vegas shooter had one, really. He almost certainly would have killed more had he not used one.

  35. I think we should have legislation on individuals that poses an ability to move their trigger finger remarkably fast. Pass a law that will prohibit the possession of such an ability and if you’re caught having this remarkable ability then off with your fingers + 10 years in prison. There you go, problem solved!

  36. Hard cases make bad law!
    We certainly must have a rush-to-judgement on the tools used, before discovering what the motivation of the shooter was, it’s the sensible thing to do./s

  37. Bret Syephens op-ed call for the repeal of the Second Amendment overlooks the New York Times own history.
    It famously defended its First Amendment rights against the Civil War Draft Rioters Stephens cites by deploying a Gatling gun in the newsroom!

    http://tinyurl.com/y94alcj4

  38. Look common sense is paramount until the investigation is completed. There will be triggers that were signaled to family, friends, and others that he had severe complications in his life for many years coming that may guide the investigators into a solid corrective action report.

    Until that part is completed, we need to focus on how to cure the disastrous out of control mental health system, and the abuses with opioid medications are the immediate priority. Just from the little we know, these two items were never appropriately controlled in his life, it seems.

    Bottom line relax because 9 times of 10 when politicians leap, the mess they create cannot be fixed. Sensible adjustments are necessary, but over the top, silly feel-good dumbass liberal solutions will not change a damn thing.

    To put it into perspective, the major cities in this country are run by liberals and beginning with Chicago no one seems to want to fix those issues? I wonder why because it has been going on for decades. If I am not mistaken, they have comprehensive gun regulations in place, and that has not solved the problem over these many decades? So the answer is simple, stop electing liberals, and the problems go away!

  39. YOU WRITE: [It’s probably not unfair to see such wishy-washy utterances from normally staunch Second Amendment supporters as a way of determining which way the public wind is blowing on gun control. A ban on something relatively few people know about might spare Republicans from having to answer for not doing more.]

    I and my gun owning friends seem to know more about guns than anyone who has so far emerged in Congress with their typically outrage and wise words about banning something they seem to know nothing about.

    Earlier everyone including Hillary, of course, was shouting about how the suppressor had such an effect that the people didn’t know they were being shot at. Now, that more muddled minds are at work, it’s the bump stock that’s the cause. Who’d a thought.

    With the low quality of people we have in governance, it’s surprising some of them don’t call for shutting down the country since the people are so damned difficult to control.

  40. A modest suggestion: the government could reduce violence by binding its employees to forswear the initiation of force for social or political goals. Does this sound like a plan?

  41. Stupid is as stupid does. A ban on a particular mechanical device that produces a desired result will only result in the proliferation of different mechanical devices that achieve the exact same result. They already exist, but I am afraid to list them for fear that those too will be added to the list of “scary black mechanical devices.” A fully automatic cross bow can reach 500 yards with accuracy and is completely silent. They are often black. Think about it. Nothing they can ban will result in any different outcome for a determined killer. Nothing they can regulate will actually result in a ban. This is all an exercise in self-delusion.

  42. By the way, Reason: let’s drop the New York Times’ factoid of “59 dead” in Las Vegas. It was 58. The NYT’s using a death toll for Las Vegas that includes the shooter is as offensively equivocal as their numbering the 19 hijackers among those killed on 9-11.

  43. Great idea. Make the next gun-owing Cymbalta patient even more accurate. Fucking idiots.

    Bump stocks are worthless.

    They are a creation of the BATFuckups, when they declared the Atkins Accelerator a machine gun, the spring was removed and voila: bump stock.

  44. I favor anything that restricts the access to guns.

  45. Two words: slippery slope. That is a documented logical fallacy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

  46. The “accuracy” of bump stocks seems like an odd thing to bring up when the person is firing indiscriminately into a crowd of thousands of people. Sure, it would have been useless if he wanted to hit a particular person, but given that he was just trying to fire as many rounds as possible in the general direction of an unmissable mass of people, it doesn’t really seem relevant that his ability to fire precisely was impeded slightly.

  47. Bump Stocks are easily built from wood at home so if any individual was dying for one a ban at the Federal level is a wate of time.

  48. Republicans Get Behind Gun Control in Wake of Las Vegas Shooting – Hit & Run : Reason.comis the best post by imo for pc Please visit imo app imo app snaptube for pc snaptube app

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.