User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 6:11:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no need really. I think they were likely used in the attack. But thing is I’m not 100% sure as no one tested the guns. With such a high profile killing I have no clue why. Just screams of lazy incompetence. We don’t make policy off of leaked crime scene photos. We do off of verifiable police forensic reports. This thing was not given the due diligence it deserved. The government had to concede this point in the court cases. There is no courtroom admissible proof they were used because no investigation was done on the guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Actually they didn't. No police agency ever examined the guns. Nolo has the proof via FOIA paperwork from the .gov themselves. It's actually part of the lawsuits. A couple of photos with some rifles laying around that looked like a bumpstock on one of them and the video of the rapid fire with a metric fuck load of media speculation. There was no examination done on the weapons to see if bumpfire was used, a LL, DIAS, trigger crank, or proper drill the 3rd hole illegal machine gun. Everyone says he used a bumpstock. They've said it since less than 48 hours after the shooting. Where's the proof? The national news media told us Trump colluded with Russia for 2+ years straight. How true is that? Why would we believe them about the Vegas shooting? @Sylvan https://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/10/03/931/524/694940094001_5597002361001_5596953752001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 ETA: Can't see much purpose in having a bumpstock if you've got a third hole as an option. We don’t make policy off of leaked crime scene photos. We do off of verifiable police forensic reports. This thing was not given the due diligence it deserved. The government had to concede this point in the court cases. There is no courtroom admissible proof they were used because no investigation was done on the guns. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 6:50:25 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fair enough. The action to ban them wasn't taken until after the Parkland shooting which didn't involve bumpstocks is the bizarre part. It simply was no longer an issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:03:17 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ATF started the reclassification process in December 2017 (the 5th to be exact)........ 2 months after Las Vegas and 3 months before Parkland Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Fair enough. The action to ban them wasn't taken until after the Parkland shooting which didn't involve bumpstocks is the bizarre part. It simply was no longer an issue. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/21/trump_orders_ban_on_bump_stocks_used_to_convert_guns_136330.html WASHINGTON (AP) — As a grieving Florida community demanded action on guns, President Donald Trump on Tuesday directed the Justice Department to move to ban devices like the rapid-fire bump stocks used in last year’s Las Vegas massacre. It was a small sign of movement on the gun violence issue that has long tied Washington in knots.
“We must do more to protect our children,” Trump said, adding that his administration was working hard to respond to the shooting in Parkland that left 17 dead. After past mass killings yielded little action on tighter gun controls, the White House is trying to demonstrate that it is taking the issue seriously. The president, a strong and vocal supporter of gun rights, has not endorsed more robust changes sought by gun control activists. But the White House cast the president in recent days as having been swayed by the school shooting in Florida and willing to listen to proposals. In a tweet Tuesday night, Trump indicated he wants to strengthen the background check system, but offered no specifics. Trump said: “Whether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening Background Checks!” Asked at a press briefing Tuesday if Trump was open to reinstating a ban on assault-type weapons, spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said White House officials “haven’t closed the door on any front.” She also said that the idea of raising the age limit to buy an AR-15 was “on the table for us to discuss.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:11:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Let's hope that The NRA doesn't demand a ban on pistol braces as they did with bump stocks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:12:51 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's hope that The NRA doesn't demand a ban on pistol braces as they did with bump stocks.  Trump tells senators: ‘You’re afraid of the NRA’ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:18:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you have a link to this information? It seems a bit contradictory to what was reported. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/21/trump_orders_ban_on_bump_stocks_used_to_convert_guns_136330.html https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-atf-begin-regulatory-process-determine-whether-bump-stocks-are And here is the Federal Register Notice......also from December 2017 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-12-26/pdf/2017-27898.pdf Bumpstocks were done anyway after Vegas.....so why not use them to satisfy the lust for "some kind of gun control" after Parkland ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:20:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is the DOJ/BATFE press release from December 5th 2017: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-atf-begin-regulatory-process-determine-whether-bump-stocks-are And here is the Federal Register Notice......also from December 2017 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-12-26/pdf/2017-27898.pdf Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Do you have a link to this information? It seems a bit contradictory to what was reported. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/21/trump_orders_ban_on_bump_stocks_used_to_convert_guns_136330.html https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-atf-begin-regulatory-process-determine-whether-bump-stocks-are And here is the Federal Register Notice......also from December 2017 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-12-26/pdf/2017-27898.pdf
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:22:42 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, obviously Trump is very beholden to the NRA.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JfisbUVei4
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/10878/72391.GIF Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's hope that The NRA doesn't demand a ban on pistol braces as they did with bump stocks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JfisbUVei4
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/10878/72391.GIF 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 7:24:24 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like something has attached it_self to my leg. https://whisperingsbyjkl.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dog-biting.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's hope that The NRA doesn't demand a ban on pistol braces as they did with bump stocks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JfisbUVei4
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/10878/72391.GIF https://whisperingsbyjkl.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dog-biting.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 8:07:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry you don't like facts. Trump has somehow managed to implement more gun control than Obama ever did and setup future administrations to make the situation even worse for gun owners. Mr Comey said: “Surely there are things we can agree upon that relate to who’s able to buy a weapon, what kind of weapon and at what age, what the capabilities of the weapon are, how many rounds does it hold, and things like that, that in no way threaten the rights under the US constitution of people to keep and bear arms. “One of the worst things that goes on in the US is the current voice of the National Rifle Association, because it sells fear in the wake of any incident.” Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/world/james-comey-national-rifle-association-nra-gun-control/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 9:10:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For 90% of incumbent democrats in congress its winning. But your question is irrelevant to the discussion. The relevant question is, "Is banning machine guns a winning or losing position for democrats and republicans 1 week after what 99% of america thinks was a machine gun just shot 200 people" Again. You can't fathom the unique nature of the Vegas shootings. So why listen. See also: GOA. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 10:27:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
#Comey2020 Mr Comey said: “Surely there are things we can agree upon that relate to who’s able to buy a weapon, what kind of weapon and at what age, what the capabilities of the weapon are, how many rounds does it hold, and things like that, that in no way threaten the rights under the US constitution of people to keep and bear arms. “One of the worst things that goes on in the US is the current voice of the National Rifle Association, because it sells fear in the wake of any incident.” Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/world/james-comey-national-rifle-association-nra-gun-control/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Sorry you don't like facts. Trump has somehow managed to implement more gun control than Obama ever did and setup future administrations to make the situation even worse for gun owners. Mr Comey said: “Surely there are things we can agree upon that relate to who’s able to buy a weapon, what kind of weapon and at what age, what the capabilities of the weapon are, how many rounds does it hold, and things like that, that in no way threaten the rights under the US constitution of people to keep and bear arms. “One of the worst things that goes on in the US is the current voice of the National Rifle Association, because it sells fear in the wake of any incident.” Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/world/james-comey-national-rifle-association-nra-gun-control/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 11:43:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So that means for 10% of democrats, it's a losing issue. Because a week after Las Vegas there were no bills being voted on. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 11:57:08 AM EDT
[#14]
If every gun owner made unregistered SBRs and full auto guns the nfa would go away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:03:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If every gun owner made unregistered SBRs and full auto guns the nfa would go away. I'm right behind you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:33:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fucking hilarious. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d So I have to fall back to single questions. Do you think after Vegas a bill would have been passed that simply banned bump stocks? Or would it have been a more invasive gun control bill? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:37:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not surprising that because I posted a long post, you focused on one minor point and used a meme to "disprove" it. So I have to fall back to single questions. Do you think after Vegas a bill would have been passed that simply banned bump stocks? Or would it have been a more invasive gun control bill? But we won't know. I do know that bump stocks were dead. How was the only question? First trick to warfare is know when your enemy has the high ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:41:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Far more invasive in my opinion. But we won't know. I do know that bump stocks were dead. How was the only question? First trick to warfare is know when your enemy has the high ground. Would it have passed the house? Would it have passed the senate? Would it have passed with a veto proof majority? Would Trump veto it? Would that more invasive gun control cause democrats to lose seats? 10% of them? Would that more invasive gun control be more likely or less likely to result in Republicans who supported it being primaried? Even if it's a 10% chance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:43:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it would have been a more invasive gun control bill, it would have sought to ban more than bump stocks. We agree on that point. Let's say for the sake of discussion, it included "Red Flag" laws. Or "Universal Background Checks". Or a "high capacity mag ban". Let's say it included 2 of those 3. Would it have passed the house? Would it have passed the senate? Would it have passed with a veto proof majority? Would Trump veto it? Would that more invasive gun control cause democrats to lose seats? 10% of them? Would that more invasive gun control be more likely or less likely to result in Republicans who supported it being primaried? Even if it's a 10% chance? Read the statements from cornyn and ryan in the days after the shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:48:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking hilarious. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So that means for 10% of democrats, it's a losing issue. Because a week after Las Vegas there were no bills being voted on. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:50:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would have passed. Read the statements from cornyn and ryan in the days after the shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:54:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I tend to agree with you about how much the average American "cares" about bump stocks. They're pretty much a niche product even among gun owners. But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So that means for 10% of democrats, it's a losing issue. Because a week after Las Vegas there were no bills being voted on. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 12:58:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I tend to agree with you about how much the average American "cares" about bump stocks. They're pretty much a niche product even among gun owners. But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So that means for 10% of democrats, it's a losing issue. Because a week after Las Vegas there were no bills being voted on. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:03:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have passed. Read the statements from cornyn and ryan in the days after the shooting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: If it would have been a more invasive gun control bill, it would have sought to ban more than bump stocks. We agree on that point. Let's say for the sake of discussion, it included "Red Flag" laws. Or "Universal Background Checks". Or a "high capacity mag ban". Let's say it included 2 of those 3. Would it have passed the house? Would it have passed the senate? Would it have passed with a veto proof majority? Would Trump veto it? Would that more invasive gun control cause democrats to lose seats? 10% of them? Would that more invasive gun control be more likely or less likely to result in Republicans who supported it being primaried? Even if it's a 10% chance? Read the statements from cornyn and ryan in the days after the shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:12:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Pistol braces aren't going anywhere currently as I don't have one. The minute I do I'm sure they will get banned, it's how things work. Feel free to start a go fund me page for stamps so I don't ruin it for the rest of you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:17:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what happened until Parkland. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So that means for 10% of democrats, it's a losing issue. Because a week after Las Vegas there were no bills being voted on. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:21:58 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm deep in braced pistols. I should probably diversify a bit more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:24:22 PM EDT
[#28]
If pistol "braces" are banned, will the weapons become pistols with just the tubes?
Or will they all become illegal SBRs? I suppose we will have to see the wording of the legislation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:30:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Tomorrow. Hes coming for everyone that has a pistol brace. He will play his fiddle as he does it too. Muahahahahaha.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:33:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was no bump stock at Parkland. Trump didn't need to do anything about them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So that means for 10% of democrats, it's a losing issue. Because a week after Las Vegas there were no bills being voted on. So let's say that Republican wafflers like Marco Rubio had offered up a bill to ban bump stocks. You know that Democrats would have added amendments for red flag laws, magazine capacities, etc. That would have made it an even BIGGER losing issue for democrats and less likely to get passed. It is likely that Trump would have vetoed such legislation, or is it? It would turn it into a much bigger loser for Dems than 10%, if ARfcom's belief system since 1994 is to be believed. But let's say it is a losing issue for only 10% of democrats. What would the House of Representatives look like now? In the previous Congress it was 236 Republicans and 196 Democrats. Now it's 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. According to your numbers, 10% of democrats would have lost if they supported gun control. It's possible Republicans maintain majority if they had voted on it. And we'd have a list of Republicans who supported banning bump stocks to primary. But also according to you, Republicans supporting gun control would have "demoralized" the base and voter turnout would have handed control to the Democrats. Do you believe President Trump is immune from this side effect? Why or why not? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BUMP STOCKS. NO ONE. The bill would have had a hell of a lot more so here is the horns of the dilemma You vote no because its a de facto AWB and the media screams "Republicans vote to let Machine Guns be sold over the counter." You vote yes because you don't want the above headline "Republicans eagerly pass assault weapons ban." That you can't see this is both funny and sad at the same time. https://external-preview.redd.it/SWXhCULR4T60GOHu1_zL593bfRPigubYLGYJ10jca_k.jpg?s=b9155aa355565f088c29f57eab0caf2c66eb0f7d But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:48:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I tend to agree with you about how much the average American "cares" about bump stocks. They're pretty much a niche product even among gun owners. But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 1:49:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They will always find a way to justify their Kings actions. Your cunty queen's actions you love so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:06:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@Top_Secret still waiting for you to address this? Trump is the boogeyman because of banning an accessory but your guy wanted to ban the whole class of weapons. Please explain? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Sorry you don't like facts. Trump has somehow managed to implement more gun control than Obama ever did and setup future administrations to make the situation even worse for gun owners. Mr Comey said: “Surely there are things we can agree upon that relate to who’s able to buy a weapon, what kind of weapon and at what age, what the capabilities of the weapon are, how many rounds does it hold, and things like that, that in no way threaten the rights under the US constitution of people to keep and bear arms. “One of the worst things that goes on in the US is the current voice of the National Rifle Association, because it sells fear in the wake of any incident.” Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/world/james-comey-national-rifle-association-nra-gun-control/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:10:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump keeps his promises. Sometimes that works against us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:14:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find this pretty funny as I sat in a crowd and watched him promise that the assault on the 2nd ammendment was over. Thats how it goes. Don't like it? Go take a noob shooting and explain it to him. Or buy out ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC and change America's mind. Your basement and ARFCOM GD doesn't constitute public opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:17:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He, and 99% of Americans to include 9 SCOTUS justices, don't think it covers bump stocks. Thats how it goes. Don't like it? Go take a noob shooting and explain it to him. Or buy out ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC and change America's mind. Your basement and ARFCOM GD doesn't constitute public opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:20:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
says the dude who cries every night because Hillary isn't president. Your cunty queen's actions you love so much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: They will always find a way to justify their Kings actions. Your cunty queen's actions you love so much. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:21:01 PM EDT
[#38]
I’m curious as to what the excuses will be when their king signs a national red flag bill
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:22:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that these people think that "being right" or "being Constitutional" or something is how you "win" when in reality you win by beating the other side. Our side simply doesn't push hard enough. Doesn't mean anybody agrees with me. The world is as it is. Not the way it should be or the way I want it to be. It just is. Bang your head against the wall if you want. It won't help. Lord grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:24:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m curious as to what the excuses will be when their king signs a national red flag bill If you're girl had won things would be even worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:25:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump keeps his promises. Sometimes that works against us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I tend to agree with you about how much the average American "cares" about bump stocks. They're pretty much a niche product even among gun owners. But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:25:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m curious as to what the excuses will be when their king signs a national red flag bill Oh, wait, you know who the alternative is. It breaks your heart she isn't president. THe question is why? So your whole prediction that "Trump can't win" would be right? #nevertrumpers crack me up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:30:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know, its as if you jerk off to fantasies you have so you can say "I told you so" on ARFCOM not realizing the alternative was Hillary. Oh, wait, you know who the alternative is. It breaks your heart she isn't president. THe question is why? So your whole prediction that "Trump can't win" would be right? #nevertrumpers crack me up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I’m curious as to what the excuses will be when their king signs a national red flag bill Oh, wait, you know who the alternative is. It breaks your heart she isn't president. THe question is why? So your whole prediction that "Trump can't win" would be right? #nevertrumpers crack me up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:34:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh the indoctrinated and their simple binary world they live in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I’m curious as to what the excuses will be when their king signs a national red flag bill Oh, wait, you know who the alternative is. It breaks your heart she isn't president. THe question is why? So your whole prediction that "Trump can't win" would be right? #nevertrumpers crack me up. You have one of the least nuanced understandings of the world in all of GD. Orange Man Bad covers you're entire world view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:39:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL. You have one of the least nuanced understandings of the world in all of GD. Orange Man Bad covers you're entire world view. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I’m curious as to what the excuses will be when their king signs a national red flag bill Oh, wait, you know who the alternative is. It breaks your heart she isn't president. THe question is why? So your whole prediction that "Trump can't win" would be right? #nevertrumpers crack me up. You have one of the least nuanced understandings of the world in all of GD. Orange Man Bad covers you're entire world view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:48:19 PM EDT
[#46]
As soon as the NRA whispers to do so in his ear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 2:49:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As soon as the NRA whispers to do so in his ear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 3:02:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump keeps his promises. Sometimes that works against us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I tend to agree with you about how much the average American "cares" about bump stocks. They're pretty much a niche product even among gun owners. But couldn't we have used the relatively lack of concern to our advantage? It would have been trivial to spend 2 years having the ATF "consider" the issue and then come to the same conclusion they did under the Obama Administration. "Gee that's terrible. But I guess they're legal. We should have Congress do something" The media cycle barely lasts 24 hours - there's be almost zero pressure on Congress to do anything 1-2 years later. It just seems like we sacrificed something for no real reason and we had a perfect excuse to stall until the political pressure subsided. Where is the 2A coalition? When will the assault on our 2A rights be over? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 3:05:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As soon as the NRA whispers to do so in his ear. This was Trump after the NRA whispered in his ear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2019 3:15:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This was Trump right after Parkland. This was Trump after the NRA whispered in his ear.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As soon as the NRA whispers to do so in his ear. This was Trump after the NRA whispered in his ear.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
