Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks

[Smokin Joe]

What about if it was for carrying outside your home?

Not many people have a shooting range at home. Maintaining proficiency with a firearm takes practice, especially with a handgun. Therefore, to remain proficient, one must carry the firearm outside the home. What you propose would only have an uptick in people who were less proficient with their self-defense weapon, which would have the unintended consequence of making those firearms owners less effective when using their weapon for defense, and potential to make them more dangerous to others in the area if used for self-defense.

Then, too, consider you propose the same rules for someone living downtown somewhere and the person living on a ten section (one section=1 square mile) ranch or wheat farm.

[truth_seeker]

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

Gun owners could get n insurance waiver, if they agree in advance to eat their kill, as do migrants to France.

[txradioguy]

When and where was this?

WWII Germany...Russia...New Zealand...Canada...Australia...The UK...Cuba...Bermuda...Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia.

[LauraTXNM]

Gun owners could get n insurance waiver, if they agree in advance to eat their kill, as do migrants to France.

So as long as he killed and ate his friend, he was covered ;)?

[LauraTXNM]

Not many people have a shooting range at home. Maintaining proficiency with a firearm takes practice, especially with a handgun. Therefore, to remain proficient, one must carry the firearm outside the home. What you propose would only have an uptick in people who were less proficient with their self-defense weapon, which would have the unintended consequence of making those firearms owners less effective when using their weapon for defense, and potential to make them more dangerous to others in the area if used for self-defense.

Then, too, consider you propose the same rules for someone living downtown somewhere and the person living on a ten section (one section=1 square mile) ranch or wheat farm.

Thank you; this makes a lot of sense!  I know some people can shoot on their property, but obviously not everyone has the room.  I hadn't thought about the need for practice at a range.  I was just thinking about going to work, routines, open or concealed.

Seriously, I'm really not trying to be snarky.  Thank you for helping me understand.

[truth_seeker]

So as long as he killed and ate his friend, he was covered ;)?

In Europe, it is either eat the kill, or start a "lorry ban."

It also puts migrants to work, since most that arrive do not work as it is. They go straight from the border, to the Dole as they say in Merry Olde.

[Jazzhead]

You forget that the primary purpose of the protected, enumerated RKBA being protected and enumerated is to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

Absolutely untrue.  The RKBA derives from the natural right of individual self-defense.   This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment.   The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it. 

No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right.   Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO,  specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.     

[Jazzhead]

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

Why not?  Police more than 30 times came to Cruz's door in response to complaints.  A GVRO could have stripped of his killing machine.   

Laws allowing GVROs deserve the support of responsible gunowners - they focus on bad actors, not the law abiding.   

[thackney]

Absolutely untrue.  The RKBA derives from the natural right of individual self-defense.   This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment.   The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it. 

No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right.   Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO,  specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.   

The why does it say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You can pretend all you want.  But the 2nd Amendment and the related federalist papers make it clear they wanted the ability of the "people" to be able to stand up to the federal standing army.  Which also goes to say the arms should not be limited to slow, small caliber hunting.

[Jazzhead]

The why does it say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You can pretend all you want.  But the 2nd Amendment and the related federalist papers make it clear they wanted the ability of the "people" to be able to stand up to the federal standing army.  Which also goes to say the arms should not be limited to slow, small caliber hunting.

Here's what I think is the correct answer, @thackney.  I understand, respectfully, that you will disagree.

The natural right is the right to self-defense, including that of home and property.   Justuce Scalia, I think, understood that, and that is why his landmark Heller decision held, for the first time in the history of our Republic,  that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

Now I understand that the Heller decision was, of course, made in the context of the Second Amendment.   If you read the opinion,  you'll be astonished at the trouble Scalia had to go to, to reach that interpretation.  The Second Amendment is worded in a very peculiar way.   It is not worded like that other Amendments describing the rights of Americans.   It has a predicate clause about a well-regulated militia, and it  - uniquely for the Constitution, I believe - uses the word "infringed".

I don't think the Second Amendment addresses the natural right at all.   It talks of ensuring the resources (the men and arms) necessary for the defense of the Republic (the "free state").   I'll go out on a limb here - I think the Constitutional is as textually silent about the natural right of individual  self defense as it is about the natural right of individual privacy, which is what undergirds the hated right of abortion.

I hail Scalia for discerning the missing piece of the Constitution -  that we have the natural right to defend ourselves as individuals,  and the government cannot us deny us that right.   I don't think the Second Amendment ever got us there.  I think the Second Amendment, on its face, is concerned with the collective defense, not individual self defense.   And because of that,  I do not for a minute believe it bars the registration, licensure  and insurance of firearms.   To the contrary,  I believe it anticipates it.   

[thackney]

Here's what I think is the correct answer, @thackney.  I understand, respectfully, that you will disagree.

The natural right is the right to self-defense, including that of home and property.  Justuce Scalia, I think, understood that, and that is why his landmark Heller decision held, for the first time in the history of our Republic,  that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

Now I understand that the Heller decision was, of course, made in the context of the Second Amendment.   If you read the opinion,  you'll be astonished at the trouble Scalia had to go to, to reach that interpretation.  The Second Amendment is worded in a very peculiar way.   It is not worded like that other Amendments describing the rights of Americans.   It has a predicate clause about a well-regulated militia, and it  - uniquely for the Constitution, I believe - uses the word "infringed".

I don't think the Second Amendment addresses the natural right at all.   It talks of ensuring the resources (the men and arms) necessary for the defense of the Republic (the "free state").   I'll go out on a limb here - I think the Constitutional is as textually silent about the natural right of individual  self defense as it is about the natural right of individual privacy, which is what undergirds the hated right of abortion.

I hail Scalia for discerning the missing piece of the Constitution -  that we have the natural right to defend ourselves as individuals,  and the government cannot us deny us that right.   I don't think the Second Amendment ever got us there.  I think the Second Amendment, on its face, is concerned with the collective defense, not individual self defense.   And because of that,  I do not for a minute believe it bars the registration, licensure  and insurance of firearms.   To the contrary,  I believe it anticipates it.   

We agree completely, until you made that jump I bolded.  Up until that point, it appears the founders intended the peoples arms to be equal, or nearly so, of those owned by the standing army.

Confiscation of arms was the breaking point that caused the colonies to do more than protest, but rather stand and fire upon the British army. 

Federalist No. 46 talks specifically about the people being able to raise far more powerful militia than the federal army would every be. 

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

To believe they would want to set the federal system up with the ability to identify and locate those arms is contrary to anything the founders put in writing.

[INVAR]

This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment.   The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it.

Wrong again as usual.   Resisting tyranny when the government itself became corrupt and despotic is EXACTLY why the Second Amendment was added and why the Founders wrote extensively about the need for the people to bear arms.  It was the ULTIMATE check and balance to ensure the People had the ability to put government tyranny down when the other checks and balances in government were corrupted and they failed.

No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right.   

You are.  On every gun thread, with every stupid and bullshit argument to justify infringement under the color of 'reasonable'.

Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO,  specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.   

Not surprising you find that the First Amendment specifically contemplates homosexual marriage and abortion rights too.  Why not insist that the Second Amendment also specifically grants government infringement to keep and bear arms?  You keep spouting bullshit often enough - the emoting gullible will eventually buy into your shit.

[txradioguy]

Why not?  Police more than 30 times came to Cruz's door in response to complaints.  A GVRO could have stripped of his killing machine.

That's not the fault of the gun...the NRA...too little legislation on gun controls or because we don't have any of the gun grabbing junk you propose.

That falls strictly on law enforcement all the way up to the FBI for not taking the threat the kid posed seriously.

None of what you're proposing would have made a difference if the law enforcement agencies refuse to act on what they know is a threat to the public. 

Laws allowing GVROs deserve the support of responsible gunowners - they focus on bad actors, not the law abiding.   

As we've see and history gives proof of...your feel good emotionally driven pap leads to more than just focusing on the bad actors...those laws are eventually turned on law abiding citizens as well.

[musiclady]

Come on.  Do you really believe that will make the kids safe?  These things happen because evil exists in the world.  If you could stop the demons in people's heads you could stop mass shootings.  In Sweden they had a school attack and people died.  The attacker wielded a sword and knives.  Well maybe not as many died.  But today it is bump stock.  Another day it is another kind of gun or weapon, or perhaps even with a ban another illegal gun with bump stock.  Laws don't stop demons.

Wisest words on the thread.

[edpc]

If the ACA is known as Obamacare, these should be called Trump Stocks once they are banned.

[LauraTXNM]

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?

People have liability insurance for their cars.  Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools.  I don't think it's that uncommon.

[LauraTXNM]

Why not?  Police more than 30 times came to Cruz's door in response to complaints.  A GVRO could have stripped of his killing machine.   

Laws allowing GVROs deserve the support of responsible gunowners - they focus on bad actors, not the law abiding.   

The shooter's mother wouldn't press charges for "elder abuse".  But she might have been willing to get a restraining order.

[edpc]

People have liability insurance for their cars.  Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools.  I don't think it's that uncommon.

Mostly, because it is forced upon them by law. What are people going to be required to insure next, power tools?

[roamer_1]

The Second Amendment absolutists have no plan.   They want guns,  and they want them free of simple requirements of registration and insurance which are commonplace with respect to other useful but inherently dangerous implements.

Oh horseshit. I can walk out to my truck right now, open the sawbox, and find at least 30 implements that are 'inherently dangerous', and suitable for murder. *NONE* of them are registered or insured.

Trump's motivation is likely political.   He can see where the GOP's future is headed when, as appears inevitable, the community that demands answers to the senseless violence outnumbers the gun fetishists.   Banning bump stocks will solve little, but does present the illusion of "doing something".   Coming out in favor of gun violence restraining orders will likely do more, especially since responsible gun owners can see the value of such focused intervention.

More bullshit. I don't know ANYONE who actually knows guns that would consider this to be 'valuable focused intervention'. Because anyone who actually knows how a semi-automatic rifle works knows inherently that this does nothing at all.

But the current battle is political.   The Dems see the tide is turning after Las Vegas and Parkland.   The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that gun regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.     

There is no such thing.

[roamer_1]

The key word  is "ACTION".

Riiight. DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, Even if it's wrong. 

[LauraTXNM]

Mostly, because it is forced upon them by law. What are people going to be required to insure next, power tools?

You don't think automobile insurance is necessary?

[thackney]

People have liability insurance for their cars. 

To drive them on public roads.

Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools.  I don't think it's that uncommon.

Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool?  No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.

But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry.  How do you imagine that would be enforced?

My kids do rodeo.  Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt.  Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.

And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm?  It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.

[txradioguy]

To drive them on public roads.

Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool?  No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.

But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry.  How do you imagine that would be enforced?

My kids do rodeo.  Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt.  Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.

And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm?  It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.

@thackney and as I noted earlier...state insurance regulators could make the cost of a "gun insurance policy" so expensive it prohibits most people from ownership...creating a defacto gun ban.

[LauraTXNM]

To drive them on public roads.

Yep, that is why I was thinking about insurance for carrying guns out in public.  Some of the problems with that idea were noted above.

Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool?  No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.

Actually, here in CA I think you are.  Definitely if you own a rental property with a pool.

But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry.  How do you imagine that would be enforced?

I suppose it would be like in an auto; if you're driving and a LEO asks to see your proof of insurance, you show him.

My kids do rodeo.  Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt.  Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.

And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm?  It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.

I know with "dangerous" activities, participants often have to sign liability wavers.  Makes sense to me.

I was mainly asking about "gun insurance" in case there's a hunting accident and the injured person needs medical care, physio, etc.

[edpc]

You don't think automobile insurance is necessary?

I don’t believe the government should be able to mandate what you have to purchase, but we’re way beyond that now, after the Obamacare decisions.