The anger is strong in this one. I find it funny that the violent alt left only care abojt gun control when white people are killed. When it happens in the ghetto, you hear nothing.
Yes prior to that only gun enthusiasts knew about them. If the Las Vegas shooter did not use them no one would be talking about bump stocks today!
I broadly agree with this. I don't have a strong feeling for the numbers, majority or not, but I do think they represent a lot of peoples thinking and concerns. And that is their true and significant political power.
No I not believe at all that the majority backs their agenda. The majority of people back some form of trestrictions to obtain a gun the NRA. Does not.
Good. won't save a single life, but 'work around' (think 'loophole') devices like this are stupid toys for stupid people and I rather like when stupid people are deprived of things they enjoy. what stupid people who push the boundaries with stupid crap like this are doing is giving stupider people ammunition to ultimately criminalize the AR and other semi-automatic rifle platforms. then what are the stupid emeffers going to play with?
The bump stock was a novelty before Vegas. It is lousy for accuracy but I don’t think anyone envisioned someone using it to indiscriminately shoot fish in a barrel. That was one sick puppy. We still know little about the Vegas shooter.
Did you not read the several posts I authored saying that bump stocks have only a marginal affect on the rate of Fire.
That means federal will have to legally describe what an assault weapon is because currently there is no federal definition for a rifle with cosmetics that have to be identified. That is unless they just limit rifle sales to those 21 and over.
But you said he had to ask the NRA. That was my point. You drew the conclusion, but it wasn't factual. Just keeping things honest.
Sure you did. I still don't see where he needed their permission like you stated. Only if they didn't agree would it be a good idea?
You OMG, ! Needing their permisssion is a euphmism for the NRA is not aopposing restrictions on bump shocks.
That's better. So basically Trump wants to ban something and so does the NRA and lots of other folks. Seems like that makes it a good idea instead of a way to slam Trump.
I doubt the liberal gun experts even know about bump firing without a bump stock.....just like how some of them (one of their politicians) think magazines are a 'use once, discard' item
An assault rifle, in the histories I have read, generally refers to a military rifle designed to fire automatically as had machine pistol such as an MP-38. An Ak-47 is an obvious example of an assault rifle given this definition. Initially they fired rifle ammunition such as the Nato 7.62 mm. The US later went to a much smaller round (I think 5.56) which to me anyhow blurs the difference between a machine pistol and assault rifle. But I am obviously not an experts on guns. I don't think they ever defined it in civilian law because no one thought they would use these domestically.
See my other post on the ". Permission". I do not understand what you mean by this sentence" Only if they didn't agree would it be a good idea" .
Your post I originally quoted made it sound as though he only did it because the NRA supported it. So, if we continue the logic stream out, would it only be a good idea for Trump, in your eyes, if the NRA were not in support but Trump did it anyway?
