Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks

[dfwgator]

It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.

I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?

Trump won't gain one vote from this...the people whining aren't going to vote for him anyway. All he did was piss off conservatives.

[edpc]

It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.

I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?

I’m not entirely sure what your lousy local gun laws have to do with rights for the rest of us. 

[INVAR]

Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?

And people wonder how the Party of Reagan became Democrat-lite.

[INVAR]

Trump won't gain one vote from this...the people whining aren't going to vote for him anyway. All he did was piss off conservatives.

And he will continue to do so, and his acolytes will continue to Trumpsplain why abolishing the Second Amendment, trillions in deficit spending and amnesty will MAGA.

[Jazzhead]

Just tell me how registration and insurance would have prevented this.

Go for it.

Then peddle that bullshit elsewhere.

The post to which you responded mentioned gun violence restraining orders.  Such a law could very well have prevented Parkland. 

My advocacy of registration and insurance is not directly tied to Parkland, although perhaps Cruz would have thought twice had he been required to register and insure the object of his fetish.  Or perhaps not.   I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles.   There may be half a trillion firearms in this country,  most completely outside the purview of law enforcement.  An insurance requirement will encourage gun owners to report thefts,  since otherwise they'd be liable for harm caused by their guns,  and will create a pool from which victims of gun violence can be compensated for medical costs and lost earnings.   

[Smokin Joe]

The average citizen can't get a concealed carry permit in New York City (and dozens of other cities), but the threat to the second amendment is about to land on us if bump stocks are banned? A bump stock ban, a device I never heard of till Las Vegas, is not a threat to the RKBA. That ship has sailed already.

Consider some 22% of NYC residents are non-citizens, so one in four will have some difficulty. Of course, we all know NYC is one of the safest places to live on the planet.  That ship sailed in 1934, to make people "safer". It failed, like every measure which has been passed since. They have provided Federal Agencies with the ability to kill quite a few people from gun collectors to church groups, and I bet that makes you feel safer.

If it helps Trump with soccer moms and helps us win the midterms I don’t give a whit if I can’t get a hold of a nice bump stock, a .50 caliber machine gun or a tank. I’ll just have to forgo those as being a bit of overkill here in the burbs.

Yo! Esau! Seriously? You'd trade a Right for the reelection of a politician who has called for an infringement on the Right?

Nothing like enthusiastically voting your way to tyranny, Devil take the hindmost!
Just because you don't want it, f*ck everyone else? Even if they don't have a neighbor for miles? 

Our Constitution was crafted to protect the Rights of the few against the whim of the multitude.

A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .

Maybe (except for the above principle being violated, until the first person gets arrested/incarcerated/shot over having one.  Like a "high capacity" (standard issue) magazine, making it illegal, even a felony, to have a piece of equipment that is of itself incapable of discharging even a single shot is not only an ineffective way to prevent crime, but a great way to create an entire class of criminals who never did and never will do anyone any harm.

For some reason, there is a group of people who think that will somehow make them safer. 

In the meantime, there are tens of millions of people here illegally, committing not just that crime, but a host of others, but those people will, on occasion, line up body-less heads on the border, and just aren't the folks to mess with if you want to be guaranteed to draw a pension.

So let's have another round of demonizing a gadget and peaceful gun owners and make a new class of criminals to make it look like LEOs are "doing something" rather than deal with the very real problems out there. Who cares, as long as it gets some jackasses reelected? And whatever you do, let's not mention the failures of the existing agencies and laws, and point (Shiny!) to a proposed "meaningless" law that diminishes our rights, whether you choose to exercise them or not.

[thackney]

I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles.

You ignore the reasons and try to imply false comparisons.  Ownership and use of a vehicle does not require insurance nor registration.

Use on public roads makes that requirement. 

You could make a reasoned argument for carry licenses to include such requirements, on a state level, but ownership is a false claim.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I have no problem with any of that, @Right_in_Virginia

 

[LauraTXNM]

You could make a reasoned argument for carry licenses to include such requirements, on a state level, but ownership is a false claim.

Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?

[txradioguy]

It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.

Then someone in New York state needs to launch a Heller style case against the City and State of New York.

Because The City and State are both in violation of the 2nd Amendment.  "Shall not infringe" means something even today.  And they are both willfully infringing on a person's right and ability to keep and bear arms.

It's sad to see how far New York has fallen.  They were one colonies that insisted there be a 2nd Amendment in the Constitution before the state would ratify it.

I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?

You are completely naïve on this issue.  You can stand by that statement all you want and you'll do it at the cost of the destruction of the Constitution.

Without the 2nd Amendment...there is no protections for the other 9 original amendments in the Bill of Rights.

[txradioguy]

Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?

No.  Not if it's forced upon us as a requirement for ownership.

[LauraTXNM]

No.  Not if it's forced upon us as a requirement for ownership.

What about if it was for carrying outside your home?

[txradioguy]

The post to which you responded mentioned gun violence restraining orders.  Such a law could very well have prevented Parkland.

No it wouldn't have.  But you continue to deal in what if's and good intentions that lead to nowhere. 

My advocacy of registration and insurance is not directly tied to Parkland, although perhaps Cruz would have thought twice had he been required to register and insure the object of his fetish.  Or perhaps not.   I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles.   There may be half a trillion firearms in this country,  most completely outside the purview of law enforcement.  An insurance requirement will encourage gun owners to report thefts,  since otherwise they'd be liable for harm caused by their guns,  and will create a pool from which victims of gun violence can be compensated for medical costs and lost earnings.

You're making silly arguments based on emotion and feelings...like most liberals are want to do.

Those type of feel good do nothing substantial hopes and dreams you peddle in order to whittle away at constitutional rights blow away like sand in a stiff breeze when confronted with the facts you ignore on this issue on almost an hourly basis.

[INVAR]

I advocate registration...

Which leads to direct confiscation sooner or later, without exception EVERY SINGLE TIME registration has ever been imposed.

Of course you advocate for it.

[thackney]

Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?

I see states having that authority, not the federal government.

But I most prefer the Alaskan style carry requirements.  If you are legally allowed to own the gun, you are allowed to carry it with you.  Often called constitution carry.

[INVAR]

Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?

Would you support an insurance requirement and license to be able to post your political thoughts on the internet?

[txradioguy]

What about if it was for carrying outside your home?

Again the answer is no if it's forced upon us as a requirement to have a permit. 

It's a backdoor form of gun registration.  And it leaves something like that susceptible to the whim of a state that can and would set the "insurance" premium and deductible requirements and rates to such a costly level that it would make it impossible for your average American or someone on a fixed income to own a weapon. 

And that would be a gun ban in all but the name.

[Smokin Joe]

The post to which you responded mentioned gun violence restraining orders.  Such a law could very well have prevented Parkland. 

My advocacy of registration and insurance is not directly tied to Parkland, although perhaps Cruz would have thought twice had he been required to register and insure the object of his fetish.  Or perhaps not.   I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles.   There may be half a trillion firearms in this country,  most completely outside the purview of law enforcement.  An insurance requirement will encourage gun owners to report thefts,  since otherwise they'd be liable for harm caused by their guns,  and will create a pool from which victims of gun violence can be compensated for medical costs and lost earnings.

His online posts of "professional school shooter" with images of him with firearms had been reported to law enforcement.


That didn't work, how will adding in more BS make anyone safer? It just makes more jobs for the Union.

You forget that the primary purpose of the protected, enumerated RKBA being protected and enumerated is to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. That is our insurance. Bearing and being proficient with arms is insurance, not just against that tyranny, but against malevolent and dangerous persons n general.
Not one government which has required firearms registration has failed, in its course of existence to ultimately use those registrations as the tool to confiscate those arms. While there are governments which have not reached that point yet, there are plenty which reached those levels before becoming repressive and totalitarian, usually accompanied with mass murder by the State.

Requiring insurance (liability insurance for having a gun) is just back door registration. Many gun owners carry personal liability insurance, and that covers their actions, regardless of whether with a firearm or a rock from their lawnmower, whatever, so long as they aren't committing a crime at the time. Singling out gun owners isn't going to stop the criminals any more than requiring auto insurance will get my vehicle fixed because some uninsured jackass runs into it. Only full coverage victim insurance (known as comprehensive and collision "full coverage" in the car insurance industry) will fix the victim if the owner isn't insured, as few criminals are going to run out and register the gun they are not legally capable of possessing, much less insure it. Which brings us back to universally required/ state provided health care, etc.

Just no. There is nothing reasonable about requiring people to pay for a fundamental right because of the presumed or anticipated actions of others who commit crimes. That isn't Due Process, but it is sure removing "life, liberty, or property" without it.

[txradioguy]

I see states having that authority, not the federal government.

But I most prefer the Alaskan style carry requirements.  If you are legally allowed to own the gun, you are allowed to carry it with you.  Often called constitution carry.

Several states are like that Idaho is another one.  Vermont is the one that got the ball rolling on this in modern times.

[catfish1957]

What about if it was for carrying outside your home?

I think most of us carry a weapon (protection version)  at home, the vehicle, or at range....  and transport between the 3. 

What are you getting at?

[LauraTXNM]

Again the answer is no if it's forced upon us as a requirement to have a permit. 

It's a backdoor form of gun registration.  And it leaves something like that susceptible to the whim of a state that can and would set the "insurance" premium and deductible requirements and rates to such a costly level that it would make it impossible for your average American or someone on a fixed income to own a weapon. 

And that would be a gun ban in all but the name.

So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?

[thackney]

Several states are like that Idaho is another one.  Vermont is the one that got the ball rolling on this in modern times.

By "modern times" do you mean since the state first existed?  Or the 1903 Vermont Supreme Court case with Andrew Rosenthal?

Vermont’s Long, Strange Trip to Gun-Rights Paradise
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/vermont-gun-rights-constitutional-carry/

Cheers!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Which leads to direct confiscation sooner or later, without exception EVERY SINGLE TIME registration has ever been imposed.

When and where was this?

[Right_in_Virginia]

So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?

Good point.

[thackney]

So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?

No, you are not required to have liability insurance in almost any activity that can lead to injury.  Do you think that should be changed, or just the ones involving guns?

If you think only guns, why is that?