National Trump To Ban ‘Bump Stock’ Devices Used in Las Vegas Shooting

[Argonaut]

I don't know what went on inside the kid's head.

But I will say that there are literally billions of people out there who have had much worse lives who do not go around massacring innocent children because they got their feelings hurt.

The only thing I can think of that might lift some of the blame on the shooter would be if he had some kind of chemical imbalance in his brain (or the drugs they were giving him caused it) or if he was otherwise born with some kind of mental problems (and even then, there are millions of people who have mental issues that do not go around shooting innocent children).

Generally, people are responsible for their actions, no matter how rough their life has been.

What I DO know, is that it wasn't the gun that caused him to shoot those children.

That was a positive and comment. If we reinstitute strong mental hospitals and laws pertaining to them we would go a long way to solving many problems in our society. Homelessness would finnaly be able to be delt with in a pro active manner, potential mass shooters would be easier to identify and deal with. I would also include drug use would be effected in a positive way.

 

[Argonaut]

You would like to think you have and will. But you don't know me and I do not know you - so don't pretend that you do.



'Conservitive' politicians. LOL!

Those politicians are no better than the socialists on the left. Most on both sides of the aisle are corrupt and do not care about their constituents. They only care about remaining in power and the money from lobbyists.

I have rarely seen any legislation that comes out of WA DC (or state capitals for that matter) that does more good than harm.

So because this gun control legislation/etc. comes from the NRA and Trump and the GOP, it is supposed to be good for us?

Really? This is the line you are taking?

This is what is wrong with 'conservitives' - bad legislation is bad legislation, no matter where it comes from. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

"Advance to the rear" said the general.

That is a winning attitude........by the way, how do you get your internet from the bridge you live under?

 

[wired]

That was a positive and comment. If we reinstitute strong mental hospitals and laws pertaining to them we would go a long way to solving many problems in our society. Homelessness would finnaly be able to be delt with in a pro active manner, potential mass shooters would be easier to identify and deal with. I would also include drug use would be effected in a positive way.

It would also cost a LOT of money and a lot of constitutional questions would get raised from a civil liberties perspective. They were expensive when they were closed in the early 70's when taxes were much higher than now and wide ranging mental institutions doling out mental health care in the post ACA world will be EXTREMELY expensive. We all like to talk about better mental health care but few of us want to pay the higher taxes, much higher taxes, that it would cost to actually do more than make a small dent in the problem. Mental health institutions wouldnt have stopped most of the mass shootings in the last few years. Most of those people werent "crazy"

 

[Joe Link]

That is a winning attitude........by the way, how do you get your internet from the bridge you live under?

Let's remember Rule #1 and keep personal comments out of the conversation.

 

[Hop Sing]

It would also cost a LOT of money and a lot of constitutional questions would get raised from a civil liberties perspective. They were expensive when they were closed in the early 70's when taxes were much higher than now and wide ranging mental institutions doling out mental health care in the post ACA world will be EXTREMELY expensive. We all like to talk about better mental health care but few of us want to pay the higher taxes, much higher taxes, that it would cost to actually do more than make a small dent in the problem. Mental health institutions wouldnt have stopped most of the mass shootings in the last few years. Most of those people werent "crazy"

And I will add that while people might pay additional taxes for things that they can see (e.g., a new bridge) it is very difficult to convince people to pay for something that cannot be proven or objectively measured.

 

[Goosebrown]

View attachment 433345

They are pretty clearly not covered so they aren't an issue.

 

[Argonaut]

It would also cost a LOT of money and a lot of constitutional questions would get raised from a civil liberties perspective. They were expensive when they were closed in the early 70's when taxes were much higher than now and wide ranging mental institutions doling out mental health care in the post ACA world will be EXTREMELY expensive. We all like to talk about better mental health care but few of us want to pay the higher taxes, much higher taxes, that it would cost to actually do more than make a small dent in the problem. Mental health institutions wouldnt have stopped most of the mass shootings in the last few years. Most of those people werent "crazy"

How much money are we waisting on homeless and crime issues brought on by the mentally ill not to speak of the filth and habilitation issues they bring to our large cities. San Fransisco and many other once great American cities are inundated with human waste and people openly urinating in public. The only thing that helps Portland and Seattle are the frequent rains that help wash it away. We have a long history of caring for the mentally ill for there own and societies protection. Laws as simple as vagrancy and public nuisance are still on the books, all that would be nessisary would be to enforce them, have a judge evaluate the situation and deflect punishment to a treatment facility.

 

[The Heretic]

They are pretty clearly not covered so they aren't an issue.

Cite?

Is there some legislation I have not seen yet?

Or are you speaking to the directive Trump gave Sessions - again, I have not seen the text of that (if there is any besides a tweet).

 

[Goosebrown]

Cite?

Is there some legislation I have not seen yet?

Or are you speaking to the directive Trump gave Sessions - again, I have not seen the text of that (if there is any besides a tweet).

Leg legislarion you posted is quite clear. Your own post negates your point.

 

[Goosebrown]

How much money are we waisting on homeless and crime issues brought on by the mentally ill not to speak of the filth and habilitation issues they bring to our large cities. San Fransisco and many other once great American cities are inundated with human waste and people openly urinating in public. The only thing that helps Portalad and Seattle are the frequent rains that wash it away. We have a long history of caring for the mentally ill for there own and societies protection. Laws as simple as vagrancy and public nuisance are still on the books, all that would be nessisary would be to enforce them, have a judge evaluate the situation and deflect punishment to a treatment facility.

Good thought. Very hard to do. Have to have an official commitment hearing with a lawyer. Same as for us we can't take their rights without due process.

 

[Argonaut]

Good thought. Very hard to do. Have to have an official commitment hearing with a lawyer. Same as for us we can't take their rights without due process.

Off course........the Judge is due process. The other part of that solution would be "OK.....you can go to Jail or a hospital" most would be voluntarily committed. After the second or third infraction the motivation to stay out of a long term jail sentence would be measurable.

 

[wired]

Off course........the Judge is due process. The other part of that solution would be "OK.....you can go to Jail or a hospital" most would be voluntarily committed. After the second or third infraction the motivation to stay out of a long term jail sentence would be measurable.

And that would have stopped how many mass shootings in the last twenty years? It's not bums shooting up schools.

 

[etrain16]

I noticed yet another classified showed up on NWFA today for a slide-fire stock - $300 "get it while you can"

Considering the proposal may not have a grandfather clause, why would anyone invest in them now? I don't hear many folks coming to their defense, even on the pro-gun side.

 

[The Heretic]

How much money are we waiting on homeless and crime issues brought on by the mentally ill not to speak of the filth and habilitation issues they bring to our large cities. San Fransisco and many other once great American cities are inundated with human waste and people openly urinating in public. The only thing that helps Portalad and Seattle are the frequent rains that wash it away. We have a long history of caring for the mentally ill for there own and societies protection. Laws as simple as vagrancy and public nuisance are still on the books, all that would be nessisary would be to enforce them, have a judge evaluate the situation and deflect punishment to a treatment facility.

I think we are getting off-topic here - I don't recall how many mass shooters or people who have committed crimes with "bumpstocks" were homeless.

However, I do have some personal experience with trying to help someone close to me (my ex-wife) who is/was homeless (not sure if she is now - last I heard of her she was again evicted for trespassing, having been in jail for it before that) and who abuses drugs and is mentally ill.

I talked to a lawyer experienced in these issues who specializes in helping women with these problems, and her response was that it is very difficult to do anything for people with these kinds of problems unless they want the help and not just some kind of handout. Unless they are a significant danger to themselves or others, you cannot force them into any kind of program, and even if you could, unless they admit to needing help and are willing to accept it, no program is really going to help them.

We would have been happy just to get her to accept the help of someone who made sure her SSI disability benefits (which actually derive from my SSI taxes, not hers) went to pay for shelter, food and meds. But once we got her a roof over her head and gave her some money for food and meds, she did a 180* and backed out on a promise to seek help. At that point, after years of trying to help her (both physically and financially supporting her) and dealing with her verbally abusive behavior to both I and my daughter, I saw that I was doing more harm than good and let her be.

She went on from there and we occasionally see court records online. We do not allow her contact with us anymore as that just enables her behavior and causes stress for both of us (which my daughter cannot deal with).

I don't want people with such problems forced into programs, nor do I feel responsible for anybody outside my family as I am not the proximate cause of their problems. I have enough on my plate with my own family and every dollar taken from my paycheck to help strangers is one less dollar I have to help my own family and take care of my own responsibilities.

 

[wired]

I noticed yet another classified showed up on NWFA today for a slide-fire stock - $300 "get it while you can"

Considering the proposal may not have a grandfather clause, why would anyone invest in them now? I don't hear many folks coming to their defense, even on the pro-gun side.

Man, I only got $100 for mine. Damn it.

 

[The Heretic]

I noticed yet another classified showed up on NWFA today for a slide-fire stock - $300 "get it while you can"

Considering the proposal may not have a grandfather clause, why would anyone invest in them now? I don't hear many folks coming to their defense, even on the pro-gun side.

I have no personal use for the actual stocks, but I do see a use for the binary triggers. Some keep saying triggers are not covered, but every ban legislation I have seen specifically refers to them.

That said, it is our right to own what we wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Whether it is a trigger or a stock, when we say they do not matter, it allows the anti-gun people to chip away at our rights. A while back it was pistol grips, and bayonet lugs and flash hiders and folding/collapsible stocks. Then it was this or that model of a firearm. Then it was magazines. Then it was buttons. Then it was triggers and stocks. The order varies and isn't important - what is important is that they are chipping away at our gun rights.

It doesn't help when some gun owners say "I don't care about this or that feature - it isn't important to me - or it is stupid so I don't care, give it up so we don't get something worse or we get something more important to me personally". THAT is counter productive and divisive. It makes us our own worst enemy because we can't agree on what is really important; that we agree that it isn't this or that feature (whether it is an exploitation of a legal loophole or not),

What is importatnt is that the basic principle is one of freedom to own whatever firearm with whatever features we wish to own. That almost every single gun control law is an infringement on that basic right and that none of these laws are good, and that it is important that we don't compromise and fight each and every law tooth and nail.

 

[etrain16]

I have no personal use for the actual stocks, but I do see a use for the binary triggers. Some keep saying triggers are not covered, but every ban legislation I have seen specifically refers to them.

That said, it is our right to own what we wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Whether it is a trigger or a stock, when we say they do not matter, it allows the anti-gun people to chip away at our rights. A while back it was pistol grips, and bayonet lugs and flash hiders and folding/collapsible stocks. Then it was this or that model of a firearm. Then it was magazines. Then it was buttons. Then it was triggers and stocks. The order varies and isn't important - what is important is that they are chipping away at our gun rights.

It doesn't help when some gun owners say "I don't care about this or that feature - it isn't important to me - or it is stupid so I don't care, give it up so we don't get something worse or we get something more important to me personally". THAT is counter productive and divisive. It makes us our own worst enemy because we can't agree on what is really important; that we agree that it isn't this or that feature (whether it is an exploitation of a legal loophole or not),

What is importatnt is that the basic principle is one of freedom to own whatever firearm with whatever features we wish to own. That almost every single gun control law is an infringement on that basic right and that none of these laws are good, and that it is important that we don't compromise and fight each and every law tooth and nail.

I am in full agreement that folks should be allowed to own whatever they want, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

As to opinions, since you bring up freedom, shouldn't folks be free to express their like or dislike of certain firearms and/or features and accessories. Actually, it happens all day, every day here on this site. Does one gun owner's dislike of a particular item really harm our rights? Must every gun owner give praise to every gun or accessory to protect the 2nd?

I will never fight for or support any ban of any particular gun or accessory - whether I like that gun or accessory. But I will express my opinion about those items when the mood strikes me.

 

[The Heretic]

Leg legislarion you posted is quite clear. Your own post negates your point.

It is quite clear in that it covers any trigger modification intended/designed to increase the rate of fire. It unequivocally states that right there in the legislation. I also linked an example of a trigger sold by Geiselle that is not binary, but is intended to increase the rate of fire, as are many other triggers being sold for competition.

So it proves my point, not negates it - no matter how many times you say it does.

 

[The Heretic]

I am in full agreement that folks should be allowed to own whatever they want, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

As to opinions, since you bring up freedom, shouldn't folks be free to express their like or dislike of certain firearms and/or features and accessories. Actually, it happens all day, every day here on this site. Does one gun owner's dislike of a particular item really harm our rights? Must every gun owner give praise to every gun or accessory to protect the 2nd?

I will never fight for or support any ban of any particular gun or accessory - whether I like that gun or accessory. But I will express my opinion about those items when the mood strikes me.

Certainly you are free to do so and should have that freedom.

But when it comes to supporting legislation based on the dislike of this or that feature, that is at least counter productive and the result may be legislation being passed which does infringe on my rights.

People may not like guns or drugs or people marrying a person of the same gender, and that is their right. It is NOT their right to enact legislation to enforce that dislike on others.

 

[Argonaut]

I think we are getting off-topic here - I don't recall how many mass shooters or people who have committed crimes with "bumpstocks" were homeless.

However, I do have some personal experience with trying to help someone close to me (my ex-wife) who is/was homeless (not sure if she is now - last I heard of her she was again evicted for trespassing, having been in jail for it before that) and who abuses drugs and is mentally ill.

I talked to a lawyer experienced in these issues who specializes in helping women with these problems, and her response was that it is very difficult to do anything for people with these kinds of problems unless they want the help and not just some kind of handout. Unless they are a significant danger to themselves or others, you cannot force them into any kind of program, and even if you could, unless they admit to needing help and are willing to accept it, no program is really going to help them.

We would have been happy just to get her to accept the help of someone who made sure her SSI disability benefits (which actually derive from my SSI taxes, not hers) went to pay for shelter, food and meds. But once we got her a roof over her head and gave her some money for food and meds, she did a 180* and backed out on a promise to seek help. At that point, after years of trying to help her (both physically and financially supporting her) and dealing with her verbally abusive behavior to both I and my daughter, I saw that I was doing more harm than good and let her be.

She went on from there and we occasionally see court records online. We do not allow her contact with us anymore as that just enables her behavior and causes stress for both of us (which my daughter cannot deal with).

I don't want people with such problems forced into programs, nor do I feel responsible for anybody outside my family as I am not the proximate cause of their problems. I have enough on my plate with my own family and every dollar taken from my paycheck to help strangers is one less dollar I have to help my own family and take care of my own responsibilities.

I truly sympathize with your issue and if more people took care of there own families, we would have far fewer problems in our society. We have to establish laws and procedures to deal with people like your family member as a Society. In ancient times, they would have been jailed, branded criminals and fed to the lions in the coliseum. We can't do that any more so as a group we need to establish laws and procedures to effectively and humanily deal with the issue. Otherwise it degrades our lifestyle and security across the society. Most of the school shooters exhibited severe mental issues long prior to the event. I am sure some would slip through but it would catch many. Instead of dealing directly with this sort of issue, we spend time and money kicking the can down the road by addressing the symptoms instead of the root causes. There are very few causes for gun violence, mental illness is a major one and deserves no protection under the 2nd amendment.