Question of the day
Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This story has been going around all day, but the Tribune confirmed it…
Stephen Paddock, the gunman who fatally shot 58 people and wounded nearly 500 in Las Vegas Sunday night, rented two rooms in August at Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel overlooking the Lollapalooza music festival in Grant Park, according to a law enforcement source.
Paddock reserved the rooms on the park side of the hotel with a clear view of the outdoor festival, but he never showed up, according to the source, who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to publicly disclose the details.
The dates of the reservations covered the four-day event, which drew hundreds of thousands of music fans, including former President Barack Obama’s daughters Malia and Sasha, as well as Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
The Blackstone, in a statement, said a Stephen Paddock reserved rooms at the hotel but no one by that name stayed there.
* NY Times…
The National Rifle Association on Thursday endorsed tighter restrictions on devices that allow a rifle to fire bullets as fast as a machine gun — a rare, if small, step for a group that for years has vehemently opposed any new gun controls.
Twelve of the rifles the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock, had in a high-rise hotel suite when he opened fire on a crowd on Sunday were outfitted with “bump stocks,” devices that allow a semiautomatic rifle to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, which may explain how he was able to shoot so quickly, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds of others. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has ruled that bump stocks do not violate laws that tightly limit ownership of machine guns, and some lawmakers have called for them to be banned.
The bureau should revisit the issue and “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” the N.R.A. said in a statement released Thursday. “The N.R.A. believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”
* The Question: Should “bump stocks” be banned in Illinois? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- PJ - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:09 pm:
I’d love for anyone who says no to explain why they need a device that speeds up firing while making the weapon so inaccurate and dangerous to handle that even the NRA banned it on its own range. And just endorsed getting rid of them altogether.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:09 pm:
Absolutely yes. They serve no purpose but to kill people. Gun owners can own and operate their weapons just as effectively without anyone having one, so no one’s rights are being infringed.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:10 pm:
I voted yes. Bump stocks turn already-deadly weapons into indiscriminate killing machines.
- anon2 - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:12 pm:
Yes, hunters and target shooters wouldn’t be hampered. Besides, with NRA support, this could be a rare, bipartisan gun regulation.
- Put the fun in unfunded - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:14 pm:
A bump stock and similar devices “simulate” automatic fire but also make it harder to maintain consistent aim, and increase possibility of a jam or misfire. That is probably why target shooters would not be interested in them. That said, laws against possession of inanimate objects will not be effective in stopping psychopaths that want to do evil. So I voted no.
- Aldyth - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:14 pm:
Unequivocally yes. The sole purpose of this equipment is to make killing more efficient. Ban it.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:15 pm:
Yes. If it effectively turns a semi- into an automatic, it needs to be banned.
- Because I said so.... - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:15 pm:
YES, they serve no purpose but to kill people.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:16 pm:
Yes. There is no valid, legal purpose for them to be in the hands of civilians. Why allow the sale of something it is illegal to modify a gun with?
To the Lollapalooza thing. This will be a huge security headache for that festival going forward. There must be a couple dozen high rise buildings overlooking parts of Grant Park.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:19 pm:
It’s purpose is to make, and circumvent legalities, a semi-automatic act and perform like an automatic.
===Should “bump stocks” be banned in Illinois?===
As that question reads and my thoughts above, yes.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:19 pm:
I voted no. This is an easy one for Congress to fix. Ban them nationwide. We can’t keep hand guns from Indiana out of Chicago, who thinks we could keep bump stocks out if we ban them but other states don’t?
Plus, we pay Congress a lot of money. It would be nice to see them do their jobs for once. It seems like an eternity since they passed any meaningful legislation.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:22 pm:
===This is an easy one for Congress to fix. Ban them nationwide.===
Was waiting for someone else … this is the better solution, but if I’m answering as Rich is asking, I say yes.
National should be the next step.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:22 pm:
Yes, but more should be done to extract additional concessions from the gun industry. Either open gun companies to lawsuits or force their users to load each round one at a time.
- Louie Louie - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:23 pm:
Ban them everywhere.
Reading that the shooter had rented rooms here is chilling. How did no one see him spiraling downward. I will be interested to see law enforcements report. Clearly he planned on going down in flames. And the availability of weapons, whether legal or illegal allowed it to happen.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:24 pm:
What’s the point when you can order anything related to weapons over the Internet?
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:25 pm:
Yes. Duh. No-brainer.
They are good for nothing but killing humans.
- Dome Gnome - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:27 pm:
Yes, plus mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. ASAP.
- Toast - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:27 pm:
** Yes, but more should be done to extract additional concessions from the gun industry **
This is what’s known as the camel’s nose under the tent…
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
Yes. Unfortunately it isn’t the only device available that does the same thing.
- Ghost - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:29 pm:
Yes. They also need to ban the trigger cranks. It’s a device that sits in the trigger guard and has a has a handle you turn and as you crank it keeps pulling the trigger for you.
- Springfieldish - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:33 pm:
Yes, ban them in Illinois quickly then use that to begin forcing Congress to do a nationwide ban.
- Flapdoodle - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
As a gun owner/concealed carrier, voted YES to banning these things wherever possible. Can’t conceive why such things should be permitted. And a lot more must/can be done.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
===This is what’s known as the camel’s nose under the tent…===
No Toast, this is what’s known as having the camel’s head up its behind.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:36 pm:
Voted Yes plus they should do immediately in veto session. The NRA is obviously in a giving mood so take the win now before they change their position. Nationally would be good but with DC they’ll do countless hearings studies and commissions. Then they’ll punt.
Take the NRA give.
- TopHatMonocle - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
Yes, absolutely ban bump stocks. For that matter, ban anything that is designed to allow someone to fire a weapon faster than they could pull the trigger themselves. Anything less will allow people to continue to figure out ways to circumvent the ban on automatic weapons.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
I was wondering if any of the congress people will be offering thoughts and prayers at the funerals of the victims at all. Easy to do it where you are, will any of them go in person?
- sad but true - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
the first thing everyone does after a senseless killing like this is to ban or outlaw everything that was used , but fact is nothing can stop these, maniacs , and banning ,or outlawing these thing wont help abit
- Rod - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
I think banning commercially produced bump stocks are a waste of time either on the Illinois level or Federal level. They can be produced on a small scale using modern computerized 3D printers or similar ones that utilize metal all of which are readily available and cost no more than $2,000.
I think the NRA was wise not to fight this issue and I agree with their statement that “the NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”
Stephen Paddock would have not been stopped by such a ban, he would have still modified his weapons and carried out his plan. Once I read that he put 200 rounds through his hotel room door at a hotel security officer Jesus Campos who first attempted to stop Paddock who was located by Paddock using a remote camera I realized his strategy was virtually unstoppable. Sometimes the bad guys effectively win if they are willing to die in their murderous efforts, this was one of those cases. By the way Jesus Campos is an American hero.
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
Yes. but the NRA must give more concessions. any modification device, any modification technology, all must be illegal to sell not just to do. big clips should be illegal also.
- Toast - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:49 pm:
it seems 47th doesn’t like being proven wrong time and time again.
Voted no, because based on these posts, nothing with ever be enough for the anti-gun crowd.
- Fixer - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:51 pm:
I voted no with the same reasoning as 47th Ward. This needs to be addressed on the national level. Otherwise you end up with a patchwork solution like with concealed carry where different states have varying degrees of penalties and rules regarding the devices in question.
- Chris P. Bacon - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
Yes, and especially since they are likely selling like hotcakes now that most people just learned about them. Illogical to have something that’s such an obvious circumvention of the automatic weapon ban that no serious person opposes. Yes, the gun enthusiasts will say you can just use a rubber band or belt loop or whatever, but those hopefully aren’t equivalent to what the commercial devices allow in terms of reliability and accuracy.
BTW in case you didn’t know, it was the Obama Administration which specifically issued ruling declaring “bump stocks” were legal under federal law. ATF’s June 2010 advisory letter linked here: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/bump-stock-device-received-atf-green-light-during-obama-administration
- Swift - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
Yes, for the obvious reason the device is evil, but also for the fact it’s an easy win for the GA and Governor considering NRA support and a possible nationwide ban. With the Grant Park info now public maybe passage of the ban can be a unifier in the GA, well at least for 5 minutes or so.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:53 pm:
–This is what’s known as the camel’s nose under the tent… –
The refuge for everyone who doesn’t have a rational argument.
- Anon - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:53 pm:
No. A piece of string or a finger through a belt loop can produce the same effect, with simply a cosmetic difference in look.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:57 pm:
Toast, guns are not making us more free any more. I don’t think all of them should be taken away. Perhaps people feel more empowered when the sleep next to their gun. Maybe it makes you feel good to shoot it at range. But when people can’t go to school, church, concerts, or their job without feat of being shot - that is not freedom.
- truthbetold - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
Yes. They serve no purpose except to kill large numbers of people quickly. Lets have Illinois lead for a change
To all those that say regulation won’t stop the carnage, the crazies that want to do this will find ways to get guns, I ask is the US crazier than other countries? Countries that have gun regulations don’t have the same problem we do.
So either regulation does work, or the US has a disproportionate number of Crazies
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
Lol Toast. Ouch. Burn.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
Yes. Nation wide.
- PJ - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
===nothing with ever be enough for the anti-gun crowd.===
Not being the only country on earth with a mass shooting epidemic like ours would be enough.
You want every public event, from church to concerts, to be at the mercy of someone deciding to massacre everyone with legal weapons. You want the risks of gun ownership to be borne by the general public instead of gun owners themselves.
What’s your plan to stop mass shootings? Prayers and thoughts for the future victims?
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:05 pm:
“This is what’s known as the camel’s nose under the tent”
One can hope…
– MrJM
- Jack Kemp - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:05 pm:
Didn’t vote in the poll. But point of information: a “bump stock” can be achieved with the belt loop on your jeans or a strong rubber band. YouTube has hundreds of videos to this effect if you don’t want to take my word for it. That said, not sure what outlawing this accessory would do.
- Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:10 pm:
Yes, but even the NRA endorses this ban. Not enough.
- northsider (the original) - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:13 pm:
While they’re at it they should ban all assault weapons again.
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
how can a person whose house has guns be called an anti gun person? when she posts things/says things that would restrict the industry that profits from producing more and more lethal products. It is pure bull nonsense that the side that wants sensible gun regulations…licensing dealers, universal background checks, banning devices to render semi auts fully automatic…..is looking to ban your guns, take your guns, be against guns being sold. is it an individual right? or a militia? because that guy in vegas was arming up for war. and we need to stop the war on the American public. the way to do that is to stop selling guns and products that are for and in quantities for war.
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:15 pm:
Yes, ban them. For those arguing a ban won’t help, auto air bags don’t prevent all deaths but the sure do reduce the numbers.
- Actual Red - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:16 pm:
Voted yes. So many are making arguments (in this thread and elsewhere) along the lines of “It won’t stop these things entirely, so why bother?”
By that logic it doesn’t make sense to pass any laws prohibiting anything.
There are all kinds of laws banning or regulating all kinds of objects to prevent all kinds of negative outcomes. There are bans on certain custom lights on cars. There are bans on flammable materials in couches. There are bans on building with certain materials. There are bans on putting toys inside candy, for crying out loud.
No one says these regulations are pointless because there are still car accidents or house fires or lung cancer or children choking. But all of those things happen less because of regulations. So yes, banning bump stocks or 30 round magazines or whatever won’t stop mass shootings, but it will at least make them logistically more difficult to carry out and therefore reduce harm.
- Dust in the Wind - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:17 pm:
Yes yes yes. And the second amendment was written with single shot flintlocks in mind.
- Chicago_Downstater - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:26 pm:
Voted yes.
I don’t get the folks who voted no because it “wouldn’t work.” Are there any psychics on this comment board that can tell me who to put money on for the World Series?
All jokes aside, anything that raises the difficulty level on mass murder–however slightly–is generally a good policy choice in my book.
- Shamrockery - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:35 pm:
As a hunter, I voted yes. There is only one purpose for a device like this, and it has nothing to do with self-defense or hunting.
- Jocko - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:35 pm:
When the NRA says “Whoa, hold on a minute (exclamation point)” on an item, you know it’s bad.
- Blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:38 pm:
Yes on the thoughts and prayers.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:39 pm:
Bump stocks will be banned. Quite a clever device, but ban it.
- DeseDemDose - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:42 pm:
Duh. YesYesYes.
- Kevin Highland - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:48 pm:
I said no.
If this is done it should be at the national level with ATF Rules.
That said, the knowledge is out there. With practice this method of fire can be performed without the “bump stock”. The knowledge is already out there to make these devices, they aren’t complicated a quick search of youtube will show you how simple they are.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 4:54 pm:
No. A ban would just waste political capital that could be spent on worthwhile efforts (eg Youth programs to incentivize kids to not join gangs and shoot people) But it would check the “did something” box and we humans prefer quick, superficial solutions.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:01 pm:
Voted yes.
We do not need fully automatic weapons in civilian hands.
I doubt it will have much effect. There are alternative ways to effectively convert the weapons.
I still think it is worth doing. If the police find someone with them, they are up to no good. This gives a basis for arrest.
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:04 pm:
-Anonymous @ 4:54 pm-
I didn’t know the guy in Vegas or any of others who committed mass shootings were in gangs — I learn something new every day.
- California Guy - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:06 pm:
Did not take survey because it’s not feasible to enforce such a ban. The ATF has already stated that it is practically impossible to ban a “bump stock.” The bump stock itself does not change the mechanical or operative nature of the weapon. In fact, you can actually bump fire with your thump through a belt loop on your jeans. You can also bump fire with a backpack by using the same concept. The bump fire stock is literally a plastic triangle and a hand grip.
This would be like the ATF coming out after the Boston bombing and saying pressure/rice cookers are now banned.
- OldIllini - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:08 pm:
I voted yes, but people shouldn’t think bump stocks are the whole problem. There are alternate inexpensive ways to convert a semi- into an automatic. The real solution is manufacturer redesign to eliminate semi- to auto- conversion by any means.
- Responsa - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:09 pm:
You can “ban” them until the cows come home and I have no problem whatsoever with bump stocks being banned and made illegal to sell. However, nobody ever seems to have a good answer to how a state or country could get them out of circulation if they are already owned. Sure, a few law abiding conscientious gun owners who for some reason have them might turn them in. But the criminal/mentally ill Paddock types and gang bangers of the world will not.
- Vole - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:11 pm:
yes and yes to all the hardware in front of the stock too
the militarization of arms
and the exercise of the distorted right to gain some identity with such
has only put enormously lethal weapons of mass destruction
into the hands of mass killers
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:13 pm:
- Toast -
“Voted no, because based on these posts, nothing with ever be enough for the anti-gun crowd.”
So I’m guessing that all gun regulation is bad according to you. Also, careful with that broad-brush. I’m guessing that many commentators don’t fit the “anti-gun” category - I know I don’t.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:14 pm:
I voted yes. Prefer a national solution, but that wasn’t the question.
Do you YouTube gun experts believe everything you see on the Internet? Converting a rifle to full auto with a “strong rubber band?” C’mon, man.
- TooDaLooMF - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:22 pm:
Ban them - but for all those anti-gun people - if it is the will of this country to be rid of all guns then it should be done the correct and ONLY way - repeal the second amendment. When all guns are illegal then maybe even the bad guys will give up their guns. Can’t get your hands on a gun and intent on mass killing? Use a u haul truck. Then we can ban those too - it’ll be easier since there’s no constitutional protections for u haul truck ownership.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:25 pm:
He wasnt in a gang, but 50 people get shot in Chicago probably every week. Nobody seems to care enough to grandstand because the solution isnt easy. Propose banning some goofy range toy that anyone could make in their garage and you get an energetic crowd of “do something” box tickers. Wasted effort…
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:32 pm:
Yes, this is a no-brainer that even the NRA will give in to as a concession to avoid assault weapon bans.
But the next serious problem will be the banning of silencers, which the NRA likes to call “suppressors,” since they don’t completely silence the noise.
If you’re worried about gun noise damaging your hearing, use hearing protection or don’t shoot as often.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:37 pm:
Yes. As a former ISRA & NRA member, before Brandon Phelps sold out Otis McDonald and every gun owner in Illinois to police unions in his concealed carry bill with Duty to Inform, ban bump stocks. They serve no legit purpose at the range or hunting.
Next ban full auto firearms for anyone but the military, and that means ban full autos for law enforcement. Full auto has no use in police work, and militarized police are a greater threat to the rule of law than lone nuts.
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:45 pm:
Yep. The Federal ban on automatic weapons (exceptions noted) was designed to, you know, ban automatic weapons. So, if a tool can be used to turn a semiautomatic into an automatic, it follows that that tool should be banned.
To the “there are other ways and there is existing knowledge that will allow people to similarly modify their guns” crowd, my response is pretty simple.
Ok. So, because someone could do it themself, might as well hand it to them?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 5:57 pm:
===repeal the second amendment===
No one is arguing to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There may be a few people who think that simplistic idea would be wise. An overwhelming majority of pro-gun control supporters do not support repealing it or stripping the right of people to keep and bare arms.
Of course, some of us read the two clauses as inherently connected and we prefer to focus on the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment.
My personal opinion is we could end this debate if we changed one simple word in the Amendment: change “infringed” to “prohibited” and then I think we could all get along happily.
- West Sider - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:07 pm:
Easiest Easy Poll ever: Hell yes. I don’t want your purse gun or your hunting rifle, or your Grandpa’s shotgun or war souvenir. But I am sick of waking up counting shots, so I can call the cops.
I’m truly sorry it took a Massacre of a relatively conservative audience, to move this issue but it must end. We are a nation held hostage. This domestic terrorism will destroy our economy, and our nation.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:10 pm:
“Not prohibited”…. Agreed, we should really rethink that Bill of Rights thing.
- Toast - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:12 pm:
** I’m guessing that many commentators don’t fit the “anti-gun” category - I know I don’t. **
I’ve read your posts. and yes you do. You’re going to “allow” me to keep grandpa’s single shot shotgun and bolt-action 22, I’m sure that’s your idea of supporting 2A.
- amalia - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:14 pm:
hey Toast, what guns do you want to keep?
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:17 pm:
The ATF will reverse the Obama era ruling on bumpstocks. I always viewed as toys for wannabes who never fired a true automatic weapon. For those who owned them legally, will there an exception to thier possession? Ex Post facto laws come to mind. Will there be compensation equal to the amount paid for them to be relinquished?
As far as this domestic terrorists scoping out other sites, there is a reason why I do not like large crowds and I am always looking around and being aware of my surroundings.
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:28 pm:
-Toast-
I am gun owner and I like to shoot trap and hunt upland game and deer. With that, I support the second amendment.
What I don’t support is the insane believe that any regulation is bad regulation; and I don’t believe that government is going to take away my guns.
- Toast - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:28 pm:
All of them. Full auto is already illegal (unless you have a federal license), and I’d never heard the term “bump stock” until this week (though I knew there were methods for accelerating trigger-pull). Nearly every handgun sold today is a semi-auto, and of a larger caliber than an AR-15, yet there is no discussion of banning those. Why is that ? Because liberal politicians go for the “scary” looking guns because they know they have no chance banning everything they consider distasteful. try reading this: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/21/496931/-
- California Guy - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:32 pm:
@AlfondoGonz
I think you’re misunderstanding how a bump stock works. A bump stock basically forces the shooters finger to pull the trigger as it bounces around the trigger guard. The opposition to the bump fire ban i think is more practical than philosophical. Google “belt loop bump fire” and you’ll see what I mean. So even if you wanted to ban the bump fire stock, which is simply a convenient plastic triangle and open trigger guard that helps shooters bump fire, it will do nothing to stop someone who plans an attack from bump firing a rifle. Additionally, a bump fire stock can be easily (though, not as easy as a pre-made bump stock) made out of an existing stock with a few modifications.
So, banning the exact bump fire stock that the shooter used would have required the shooter to invest probably 2-3 hours more into the planning of his attack. He wouldn’t had to bump fire with a d-ring on a backpack, or cut his own stock to make it work like the actual bump fire stock.
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:34 pm:
well, Toast, I sure hope you are not a member of the NRA because they are in favor of regulations on guns. they are not for making machine guns widely available or putting rocket launchers in the hands of second amendment lovers. And now they want bump stocks regulated! See, the NRA is in favor of regulations, so everyone just stop saying that regulations are the problem.
- Como Sense - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:38 pm:
It’s unfortunate that the Obama administration allowed these to be sold. A lot of blood on their hands. Thank God for the NRA and common sense.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:40 pm:
Paddock bought 33 guns, mostly rifles, in 12 months. At the very least, he doesn’t look like a straw buyer? But no reports were required.
ATF would have required that one buyer who racked up that many purchases in such a time frame to be reported by licensed gun dealers in AZ, CA, NM and TX.
Apparently, they’re worried about lots of guns going south across the border.
Maybe that concern could be applied to the United States as well.
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-multiple-firearms-sales-or-other-disposition-reporting
- Toast - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:43 pm:
** I don’t believe that government is going to take away my guns. **
And I believe it would have already been done if not for the NRA. How many democrats and posters on this very board have called for European-style gun laws ? Those hobbies you enjoy would either be very expensive or impossible to do if you lived in Europe.
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:48 pm:
-Como Sense-
You made me laugh - “NRA and common sense” now that’s funny.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:48 pm:
–Those hobbies you enjoy would either be very expensive or impossible to do if you lived in Europe.–
Geez, watch your honesty there.
You’re supposed to sell it about the gubmint comin’ to get ya, the tree of liberty, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Inconveniencing your hobby time ain’t exactly a winner of an argument.
- Ebenezer - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:55 pm:
Yes. And I support our second amendment right to any small arms that were in general use in 1789. Muzzle loading, 2-3 rounds per minute. Completely child-safe.
Beyond that, get a license and show proof of insurance commensurate with the destructive potential.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 6:59 pm:
-And I believe it would have already been done if not for the NRA.-
And I believe the extreme and paranoid approach of the NRA in fighting reasonable regulation drives the anti-gunners.
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 7:07 pm:
Anonymous @ 6:59 was me
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 7:29 pm:
People are still making the 1776-era firearms only argument? That makes no sense for multiple reasons. The Bill of rights is timeless. It enumerates pre-existing human rights that we all share. We should all fight for them. Otherwise, someone with power will start to apply the 1776-era test to other rights.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 7:41 pm:
I voted yes, but it’s a straw man.
The NRA is primarily a marketing arm for the gun industry. Their goal is to get as many people to buy as many guns as possible. The NRA doesn’t care about bump stocks because the gun makers don’t make them (or at least don’t make a lot of money from them) and they see a bump stock ban as the perfect distraction from the real issue: too many guns, too freely available. And the side note of this disaster: there was no way a good guy with a gun could have stopped the bad guy with a gun.
The painful truth is that limits on availability and ownership would have the greatest potential to slow the gun violence. Our “militia” is not “well regulated” in fact, it’s not regulated at all. Banning everything but hunting rifles and shotguns would not infringe on anyone’s “right to bear arms” it would simply regulate which arms could be purchased and possessed. More importantly, it would limit the damage a crazy person would be able to inflict.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 7:42 pm:
– The Bill of rights is timeless. It enumerates pre-existing human rights that we all share.–
Not so you would have noticed, among preexisting human societies. And many today. And they, like anything else in the Constitution are interpreted and can be amended (remember that old 3/5 rule?).
–Otherwise, someone with power will start to apply the 1776-era test to other rights.–
You can’t be serious. Ever heard of a fellow named Scalia? Thomas? Originalists? Federalist Society?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 7:51 pm:
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If all hunting was made illegal, it would not infringe on the 2nd amendment
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 8:03 pm:
-PCK-
I’m with you. The founding fathers included checks and balances throughout the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated Militia” — somehow the “regulated” part (the check and balance) has been lost to the “…right to keep and bear arms” part.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 8:04 pm:
How on the heck did Eric Holder think this bump stock thing was ok? Was he on the NRA parole?
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 8:05 pm:
Payroll.
- Newsclown - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 8:10 pm:
You can’t undo the invention as an idea, but you can reduce the market for it in the shooting community by banning devices and techniques like this from ranges, shops, gunsmiths and shooting events and shows and criminalize owning it or using it in connection with a crime. We let people own personal vehicles but we don’t let them drive drunk without penalties, and semi-auto weapons pose too great a public hazard. The long range goal should be to eliminate auto and semi-auto weapons thru buy-backs and other incentives, and leave the single-action hunting and sport weapons as they are. Auto and semi-auto should be reserved for police and military only. It was a mistake to ever let that genie out of the bottle and it will take years if not decades to undo that mistake. But Australia shows us it can be done, and we don’t need to go ad far as they did, if we only did away with the semi and full- auto weapons, owners could still have the single-shot weapons and express their “freedum” with those.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 9:00 pm:
I’m sure a compromise can be had on bump stocks. As long as these aren’t banned… https://youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ&feature=youtu.be
- We'll See - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 9:25 pm:
- Anonymous @ 9:00-
Thanks for helping the banning guns argument. I’m sure made the NRA and ISRA proud.
- I said it - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 10:03 pm:
Why did the Obama administration allow this and arm braces for AR type pistols
That can be used as stocks.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 10:16 pm:
I Said It, because Obama and Holder were obviously in the tank for the NRA. Quite a ruse they all played, all those years, don’t you think? Give LaPierre and brave family-values Nugent lifetime Oscars.
Good thing BDD got done with his thoughts and prayers and just laid it out for you, now that it’s not disrespecting the dead to get all “politicized.”
- Toast - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 11:04 pm:
Wordslinger - the founders could have easily imagined semi-auto weapons, but what about computers ? Should that device you are using to gripe about 2A also be regulated? After all the 1st amendment isn’t absolute…
- RNUG - Thursday, Oct 5, 17 @ 11:11 pm:
Yes. See zero reason for these to be legal. Unless you have a rioting mob in your front yard, I see no good use for such a device. I don’t think we’ve reached that level most places in the US.
However, I’m also realistic enough to realize they can be easily made, so they won’t be totally eliminated.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 6, 17 @ 12:33 am:
Toast, thanks for making my point, you are correct, that none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have been interpreted by the Supremes to be absolute or origanalist.
Far from it.
Was that your intention?
You might want to check with the NRA lawyers who took the very risky gambles and won the 5-4 Heller and McDonald cases.
Because originally, since 1789, the sheriff or marshall could confiscate your guns when you rode into town.
Ever seen any Westerns?
Those Supreme wins were big deals for “gunners.” Changed the ballgame. You should read them.
And when you discover the part that legislatures can’t regulate guns, let me know.
Becaus Scalia sure as heck didn’t say that.
For example, like NRA-sponsored gun shows, he sure didn’t want anyone bringing their personal-loaded-firearm-for-protection into his courtroom. No 2nd Amendright there.
But, from his writings, I’m sure Scalia would defend the right of the LV shooter to bring 23 rifles into his hotel room.
And armed Nazis and Klansman to walk down the streets of
Charlottesville.
For freedom.
No one ever taught you anywhere that grown ups are supposed to deal with the conflicts of rights and responsibilities?
Must be good to be you, junior. Leave the heavy-lifting to others.
- Anonymous - Friday, Oct 6, 17 @ 12:55 am:
Newsclown- “…semi-auto weapons pose too great a public hazard. The long range goal should be to eliminate auto and semi-auto weapons…”
Okay, I’m following you until…
“Auto and semi-auto should be reserved for police and military only.”
If automatic and semi-automatic firearms are especially dangerous and you think that their supply should be reduced and eliminated, why do you want police to have them? You’re contradicting yourself, as well as failing to recognize the difference between police operating domestically in the U.S. under the Constitution, and military operating on foreign soil.
Some sources show police kill over 1,000 citizens per year (without trial) and that police in America have killed more citizens since the 2004 invasion of Iraq than the number of American troop fatalities from Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004. Stats seem to show that militarized police are the greater threat to Americans than lone nuts.
- Blue dog dem - Friday, Oct 6, 17 @ 7:35 am:
Also. Lets outlaw Tanna-right. Dumb. Just plain dumb. I can walk into rural king and buy it.
- Anonymous - Friday, Oct 6, 17 @ 11:28 am:
Somebody’s watching too much T.V.
Many of those westerns were directed by foreigners, mostly from Italy.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 6, 17 @ 1:18 pm:
Anon 11:28, someone is ignorant and doesn’t mind showing it.
What region of Italy is Clint Eastwood from (Unforgiven)? How’s about John Ford (My Darling Clementine)?
Those and many other Westerns, including every one based on the OK Corral, had central plot points of having to give up your guns to the law when you rode into town.