Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Putting less stock is a bit of an understatement.  That being said it absolutely does diminish our ability to respond the way NZ did.  This is exactly as the founders intended.  

There would be some wiggle room, if there was some wiggle room.   The anti-gun side will not stop with the next victory and they've shown this to be true more frequently of late.  Any concession will be followed by a demand for another.  Under these terms the pro gun ownership will give no ground and they logically should do exactly that.

If neither side is going to budge from an extreme point of view, then it's going to be all or nothing. 

I'll admit to being naive, but cooler heads should prevail.

Quote:I wish I could provide you with my daily proof of the lax enforcement of firearms laws in the state of CA.  I'm not talking about already serious felonies such as bank robbery, I'm referring to robbery, assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm in conjunction with another crime such as burglary.  Getting these people off the street for longer periods absolutely has an impact on future crime.

Lengthy sentences has an impact, but not always on prevention. Which, in regard to gun violence, is the issue.
I've got no issue with long sentences for criminals, although I think there are way too many things people get sent to jail for. But as you pointed out, there's a plethora of guns already out there. Putting away Criminal A for life is great, that takes of Criminal A... but there's still Criminal B with easy access to a firearm for the next crime.
Lengthy senteces as the cure has been tried. Several decades later, we've still got the same problems.

Quote:In saying this you actually help my argument.  If the next step doesn't produce the desired results then confiscation is the obvious next step.  You've literally made Shannon Watts argument in advance here.  The end goal is confiscation and the deep blue states have already shown this to be the case.


You want to couple any such efforts to legislation that would forbid confiscation and restrictions on law abiding citizens I'll happily hop on board.  I've yet to see such legislation.

Well, yeah, because lawmakers on both sides are extremist idiots. 
Our locations play a bit of a role in things. A friend of mine used to be a State Rep here in Kentucky. As a Democrat, he introduced legislation to expand concealed carry rights. Almost everyone on both sides supported it. Last year, Kentucky Republicans rolled back their concealed carry requirements, becoming a "concealed carry for all" state. It, also, received bipartisan support (although, I'll admit I was against it as it's already legal to open carry here, and I'm against having less gun safety education).