National ATF Announces Proposed Bump Stock Rule Change

[The Heretic]

It will be challenged in court.

Trump is doing this to placate certain people (throw them a bone) thinking it will make them go away. It won't. It will just encourage them. The next time there is another shooting they will come back even stronger and more demanding and he will give them something else. Not to mention that even if the ATF attempt fails because it violates the law, states will go forward with their own laws.

Then there is the issue of what is going to happen to all the current owners of bumpstocks? There are probably tens of thousands of these stocks out there.

 

[Argonaut]

The NFA act dates to 1934 and has been upheld by the Supreme courts since. Laws have come and gone......odviously the ATF had some autonomous members outside of Obama's control (presidents are not omnipotent) or he was smoking dope that day. Laws change all the time. I grew up in Washington and they have had goofy gun laws for decades. Neither state was ever anywhere near as conservitive as Idaho has always been and I deal with issues here in my own state many times daily. I won't be asking for out of state assistance with problems. That is why we have levels of government allowing individuals to have control of issues closest to them. I would bet most people don't even know there county commissioners or city council people. That is how the system is designed so if nessisary, you can get your hands on the throat of some miscreant that represents you. Most people are too lazy or cheep to put themselves out enough to participate in a representative republic like we have. That is the problem. You leave the decisions to be made by teachers, unions, drug addicts and other low lifes in your communities that continue to vote there own anti freedom (communist) beliefs while you protect your time and bank accounts.

 

[safrole]

It's not trumps fault some whacko went ape bubblegum with a bump stock. Ya it's probably stupid to deal with it this way but he has to do something and let's be honest bump stocks are pieces of bubblegum anyway so who really gives a crap. I do think binary triggers are ok if they worked as well as the echo trigger and were made to a better quality standard and didn't rape you up the bubblegum on pricing but let's be honest 3 round burst would be amazing compared to a binary.

 

[The Heretic]

You have to take the long view. I've been around for a while, and back when I started owning guns it was a lot easier than it is now. When my father bought guns, he got them thru the mail, via the NRA. When my grandfather bought guns, you could buy a full auto thru the mail. Now you can't get a bump stock or trigger in WA state.

I can't buy ANY gun in either state without it going into their de-facto registration system - when they pass the laws requiring official registration and no more sales of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, then they will have a very good idea of who owns what because of the current system in place.

You can't most many semi-autos in Connecticut and you have to register them in Calif and so on and so on.

Give it time. Idaho and the other states will follow suit. There are fewer gun owners and hunters as a percentage in every state. In every state more and more people are living in urban and suburban areas. Attitudes are changing. Oregon and WA have become 'Californicated' and Idaho is next. It won't happen next year, but it will in the coming decades.

 

[ma96782]

Tried to send my comments using the link.

It doesn't work. The fix is in. Must be another example of, "Russian Interference."

Aloha, Mark

 

[Argonaut]

You are wrong about Idaho........but all those laws were passed as knee jerk reactions to someone's illegal use of a gun (including the bump stock issue). That is human nature that we need to resist and an example of how we as gun owners have to self Police our group. People that are dangerous or doing illegal activities need to be trained and if that fails reported and imprisoned.

 

[The Heretic]

You are wrong about Idaho.

I used to think the same about Oregon. I was wrong.

 

[Argonaut]

I used to think the same about Oregon. I was wrong.

Oregon has always been wobbly.....like Washington and California. Too many unions, big cities and universities. I remember talking about it in the 60's in high school. I do feel sorry for the good people in parts of each state east of the coast. Many good people in those areas......the cities can burn as far as I am concerned.

 

[DuneHopper]

I don't like bump stocks I think they are stupid.

However looking at this writing at the ATF, seems like they just picked facts right outta thin are.
I think its pretty clear now the ATF no nothing about the firearms and additions they regulate.

 

[The Heretic]

The problem is the increasing urbanization of any state, of the whole world for that matter, and the concentration of jobs and services in urban areas.

With urban life comes urban attitudes and activities, less self reliance and more reliance on others, especially governments.

I was raised on a farm. Due to Aspergers I have always disliked crowded places and always preferred the countryside. Even though today I live on 20 forested acres on a mountain, I still have to drive an hour into downtown Portland to work (still better than Seattle though), even though I could very easily do my job from my home office if I was allowed to.



No area is immune to this trend

 

[The Heretic]

I don't like bump stocks I think they are stupid.

However looking at this writing at the ATF, seems like they just picked facts right outta thin are.
I think its pretty clear now the ATF no nothing about the firearms and additions they regulate.

They know quite a bit. But it took them a while to twist the facts and choose the words that would fit their master's bidding.

 

[ma96782]

COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED
The comment period on this document is closed and comments are no longer being accepted on Regulations.gov. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Yup, I went to the linked sight provided by the OP. When I clicked to leave a comment.....that is what I got. Comment period is suppose to end: 06/27/2018

The fix is in.

OR.....it's possibly another example of RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. Because, who but a Russian (or any other commie) bent on seeing the destruction of the USA would be in favor? LOL.

Aloha, Mark

 

[FireArm]

I can bump a mag off out of a semi-auto with my finger...
Politics is a slippery slope, we give up rights(as individuals) and the political systems continues to take more rights and produce more laws. If you cant see that your blind, I can send you a cane. And this discussion is over for me.

 

[FireArm]

I was told in school(middle school) by the year 2050 there will be enough people on earth, that if the land was divided up equally each person would have a 1ft×1ft area to own.
Buy land, own firearms, defend your small piece of this earth, thats what i have always thought after hearing those numbers.

 

[oneharmonic]

I was told in school(middle school) by the year 2050 there will be enough people on earth, that if the land was divided up equally each person would have a 1ft×1ft area to own.
Buy land, own firearms, defend your small piece of this earth, thats what i have always thought after hearing those numbers.

World population in estimated to hit 9.7 billion in 2050.

Earth habitable land area is roughly 24.6 million square miles.

That's roughly 1.63 acres per person.

Disclaimer: if climate change causes sea levels to rise, that number might drop a bit by 2050.

 

[Argonaut]

Every human on earth could fit in Texas with the same living area as a person living Paris (France) has now...........an old and interesting idea.

 

[The Heretic]

Every human on earth could fit in Texas with the same living area as a person living Paris (France) has now...........an old and interesting idea.

The problem with that assertion is that it assumes that there is enough food and water and energy to support the people in a high population density area. Where is that food, water and energy going to come from? Is the area even habitable? What would be necessary to make it habitable much less self-sustaining?

There are places in the USA that do not have people living there because it is difficult to live there - is it possible? Sure. We can live, at least temporarily, in space - but some places we cannot live without external support.

There is only so much arable land. There is only so much potable water. The air that we have must be kept clean as we cannot live very long without it.

But with every new human on the earth, there is that much less arable land, that much less potable water, that much less air per person and that much less energy to use to farm the arable land, keep the potable water and air clean, to fish the oceans that are becoming increasingly polluted, over-fished and destroyed by acidification.

At some point, we grow above the carrying capacity of the earth. Some think we are already past it and now we are seeing the first symptoms of that with climate change, destroying the oceans, drought and famine more and more.

The world will become increasing hostile to humans due to the damage that humans do to the world.

Then there is the fact that the more you crowd people together, the worse they react to that environment. Crime, poverty, etc. - all are worse in the densely populated cities. Would you want to live in Chicago or NYC or WA DC or LA? I sure would not. Who is going to keep all of these people in Texas?

 

[SIG34]

 

[safrole]

That picture is funny as hell

 

[Argonaut]

The problem with that assertion is that it assumes that there is enough food and water and energy to support the people in a high population density area. Where is that food, water and energy going to come from? Is the area even habitable? What would be necessary to make it habitable much less self-sustaining?

There are places in the USA that do not have people living there because it is difficult to live there - is it possible? Sure. We can live, at least temporarily, in space - but some places we cannot live without external support.

There is only so much arable land. There is only so much potable water. The air that we have must be kept clean as we cannot live very long without it.

But with every new human on the earth, there is that much less arable land, that much less potable water, that much less air per person and that much less energy to use to farm the arable land, keep the potable water and air clean, to fish the oceans that are becoming increasingly polluted, over-fished and destroyed by acidification.

At some point, we grow above the carrying capacity of the earth. Some think we are already past it and now we are seeing the first symptoms of that with climate change, destroying the oceans, drought and famine more and more.

The world will become increasing hostile to humans due to the damage that humans do to the world.

Then there is the fact that the more you crowd people together, the worse they react to that environment. Crime, poverty, etc. - all are worse in the densely populated cities. Would you want to live in Chicago or NYC or WA DC or LA? I sure would not. Who is going to keep all of these people in Texas?

No one is suggesting that anyone do such a thing but it illustrates how truly unsettled the planet is. The only problem we have is so many people want to live in the same place. That is what creates all the ills that you describe.