America's Gun Violence

Halifax2TheMax

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Thoughts_Arrive

Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang, shoot shoot.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored, by law, at the range?

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...

PJPOWER

Not interested in democrat created gun bills.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/10/12/anti-gun-crusader-admits-already-knew/

mcgruff10

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...

I would hope it is just a poorly written one but who the heck knows.  And that's why I pay my NRA dues; I'm thinking their lawyers analyzed it and came to this this conclusion.  
i had no clue that the ATF can just ban bump stocks, why don't they?  

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...

I would hope it is just a poorly written one but who the heck knows.  And that's why I pay my NRA dues; I'm thinking their lawyers analyzed it and came to this this conclusion.  
i had no clue that the ATF can just ban bump stocks, why don't they?  

Yep, let me know if you hear of a cheap lifetime membership coming around like has happened in the past . 

mcgruff10

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...

I would hope it is just a poorly written one but who the heck knows.  And that's why I pay my NRA dues; I'm thinking their lawyers analyzed it and came to this this conclusion.  
i had no clue that the ATF can just ban bump stocks, why don't they?  

Yep, let me know if you hear of a cheap lifetime membership coming around like has happened in the past . 

i would say that is an example of you give an inch they take a mile.

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

Not interested in democrat created gun bills.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/10/12/anti-gun-crusader-admits-already-knew/

Why would you put so much weight on an opinion piece by someone who isn't an elected official; who is, in fact, a media guy? What's that got to do with any actual party policy? You do because it suits the position you believe all democrats hold. 

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

Link?

mcgruff10

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons/

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons/

As suspected, a very biased source. Sorry, but the bill doesn't "actually ban all semi-automatic weapons."

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr3999/BILLS-115hr3999ih.pdf

mcgruff10

Experts beg to differ.  

dignin

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
 But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.

Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...

Getting closer? Don't pretend you weren't always in the "don't give an inch" camp.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons/

As suspected, a very biased source. Sorry, but the bill doesn't "actually ban all semi-automatic weapons."

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr3999/BILLS-115hr3999ih.pdf

I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me.
But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons/

As suspected, a very biased source. Sorry, but the bill doesn't "actually ban all semi-automatic weapons."

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr3999/BILLS-115hr3999ih.pdf

I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me.
But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.

Yes, the "any rate faster than zero" argument is just grasping-at-straws to come up with a way to argue against it, without admitting that they desperately needed to find a loophole so they could argue.

vaggar99

7 years old.  the man you idolized gets sent to prison.  might you fuck you up a little

brianlux

Melt them all down and make something useful:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2246515/lets-melt-all-the-guns-to-make-cooler-stuff/