Trump’s Bump Stock Ban – Even Senator Feinstein Calls BS!

By now you have heard that President Trump is calling for the ban of so called “bump stocks” and other items that simulate full-auto rates of fire while still meeting the current definitions for semi-auto firearms. You have probably also seen the same variety of responses including those who don’t own bump stocks and are wondering why a ban even matters. Well… Why does it a matter?

Bait and Switch

We’ve been had. President Trump was elected on the backs of gun owners and the NRA with the promise of ending the 8 year assault on Second Amendment rights. Now we see that he (and the NRA) are willing to capitulate on our rights when politically expedient. Worse that that, they are willing to do it in the same cowardly, backdoor ways as previous administrations – by decree of the ATF. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein is calling BS:

Loose Language

Perhaps the biggest reason that you should care about a bump stock ban, is the potential for the language used in such a ban to be more broadly interpreted than the author intended. Early ban legislation referred to devices that “increased rate of fire” which could have application far beyond just bump stocks and binary triggers to include high end target triggers, muzzle devices, and more.

Who gets to decide what constitutes an increase in rate of fire? What is the baseline rate of fire for a particular firearm? These questions should worry you.

Same Old, Same Old

The current threat to your rights doesn’t end with just banning certain firearm accessories. The President is reportedly exploring a whole host of potential measures including expanded background check and raising the age required to purchase certain guns. In the end, this is just more of what gun owners have become all too use to from a President, Legislature, and Lobbying Group that people expected would stand firm against such threats – the very reason they elected them.

Lets just throw new laws and definitions at the problem. That has always worked in the past right?

7 Responses to Trump’s Bump Stock Ban – Even Senator Feinstein Calls BS!

  1. Nero February 21, 2018 at 09:54 #

    How does removing a loophole in the ATF show an attack on the 2nd?
    You going to protect your family with a bump stock?
    how is a muzzle device going to change firing rate? Explain please.
    The broad scope is, your guns are safe, and will be unless you use loopholes to change the firing rate. Period. Unless your an idiot you should expect all loopholes to be closed eventually.

    • Publius February 21, 2018 at 14:24 #

      Calm down there Nero. “Loophole” is a classic red flag for the anti-gun crowd.

      When will the pro-2A crowd unify and stop giving up ground? All gun laws are an infringement. I for one am done compromising with the gun ban crowd because it will clearly never end, the 2A side will compromise until there is no second amendment remaining unless we realize this and help affect real change, not some bogus liberty-stripping token of gun control that does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

      Where were the school, workplace, and church shootings in the 18th and 19th centuries? They didn’t exist because our society as a whole had better respect for life and wouldn’t have even conceived of such an attack.

    • emclean February 23, 2018 at 07:38 #

      Because it isn’t a loophole, it is the letter of the law.
      “The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
      Which a bump fire stock dose not do.

      who could a muzzle device change a rate of fire, well we can’t know until the government defines how they will set the “normal” rate of fore with a gun. If the government decides that the rate of fire is set by so expert being able to put rounds on target, a muzzle break could effect that.
      yes, i am making up definitions, cause there are none currently. there is the danger in this, that definitions will be invented by an unaccountably agency. much like a pistol brace being redesigned by touching it to your shoulder.

  2. Omni February 21, 2018 at 15:57 #

    If we could comprimise on bump-stocks to get nationally protected concealed carry, it would be a more than fair trade.

    • Publius February 22, 2018 at 18:46 #

      Why talk trading bump stocks for national reciprocity? You act like there is some sort of negotiation of liberties here when in fact the anti-2A crowd would prefer to take bump stocks, binary triggers, and leave us high and dry with no national reciprocity. DO NOT GIVE AN INCH HERE. We are dealing with underdeveloped minds that choose to take liberty through any means possible, not trade. Our side has compromised far too often when we are not in the wrong!

  3. 2hotel9 February 22, 2018 at 08:15 #

    The fact a president has no authority to ban any item or change the age requirements to purchase anything seems to just go right over the majority of people’s heads.

  4. Omni February 22, 2018 at 18:24 #

    He can push for a legislative agenda which does.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes