How long before Paul Ryan caves on gun control?


Any estimates? Do you think he will?

Also, if any of you are members of the NRA, how do you feel about how Pelosi and left are portraying you?
Anything you want to discuss about this latest push on gun control?


If he does (and I certainly won’t bet against it), I think it’ll be more like taking a dive than caving.


Why would he? Ryan does what the people cutting him checks tell him to do. The NRA and other gun groups have given him plenty of money. He’s received no money from anti-gun groups, so no risk of him doing anything.


Well then, that’s good to know. My money is well spent.


I would tend to agree with CWolf. Even after Sandy Hook when Dems were in control everything proposed was shot down (pun intended). I see little threat that anything meaningful will happen.

Having said that, I think it’s possible that “bump stocks” would be an easy sacrifice (something that could be banned) to create the appearance of doing something without actually affecting that many gun owners.

What do you think? Bump stocks legit, or are they protected by the 2nd Amendment?

I can’t imagine anyone here doesn’t know what a bump stock is, but just in case:


Bumpfire stocks do not modify the function of the weapon. They are still semi auto with the stock installed. The trigger is still pulled individually for each shot.

I do not support banning.


2nd amendment is pretty vague(deliberately). “Arms” doesn’t ensure any particular type of weapon. It doesn’t say “Unrestricted arms”. Just “Arms”. I don’t see a clear constitutional issue with limiting automatic weapons, magazine sizes, etc. Now in my opinion limiting magazine sizes is just obnoxious. But I don’t see where it’s a constitutional issue.

The bump stock thing is pretty clearly just a workaround for full auto. If autos are banned, I don’t see why bump stocks shouldn’t be. Frankly all they are is a way to modify a semi-auto into a complete PoS auto. Which is really the worst of both worlds. Either allow both or ban both.


Ok, but bump stocks do increase the rate of fire, correct? I mean, I can’t pull the trigger on my semi-auto AR at 700rpm, but if I used a bump stock I could exceed what I can do manually. Isn’t that a weapon modification?

Furthermore, are you saying that the internal trigger mechanism is what defines full auto? I mean, clearly, the bump stock and a full auto weapon operate just about the same. How do you define “full auto”?

Now it’s interesting because full auto is purely mechanical. Your finger is the last mechanism in the cause and effect chain in a fully automatic weapon. Bump stocks put your finger in the middle of the chain of cause and effect and I suspect that’s the argument that people that argue for bump stocks are making

Seems to me it’s an argument in semantics. You can look at the way the high rate of fire is achieved or you can simply look at the high rate of fire.

Now I’m no idiot when it comes to weapons. I’ve said before my father and brother are Marines, so I grew up in a “firearm friendly” household. I learned to shoot in elementary school. I know there is a difference in performance between bump stocks and genuine full auto weapons. They are harder to use and less effective (all other things being equal) compared to a true fully automatic weapon. I know you served and I know you understand this as well.


The expectation of enforcement is very different. Automatic weapons are expensive to find, and expensive to produce.

Bump stocks meanwhile already have mass-market penetration; the one in that video is advertised at just $99. You can even find 3D printed versions.

I don’t see the point in diverting police resources to go after any & every person with a quality printer and an internet connection.

And this file.


Pulling the trigger faster can alter the rate of fire.
There was a rotary attachment that you wound around like a fishing reel years ago that would attach to your trigger guard that was much more effective than the bumpfire stocks, and is still legal.

The definition of Semi Automatic fire is that one pull of the trigger initiates one and only one cycle.

Fully Auto is where one pull of the trigger initiates a cycle or numerous cycles will continue until the trigger is released.

The left will not just go after bumpfire stocks. The left’s short term goal is to ban semi auto weapons.
The long term goal is to ban all weapons.

I will not submit.


The auto ban is a ban on transfer, not possession to my knowledge. If you already owned an automatic weapon when the ban went into effect, you were allowed to continue to own the guns. But you were no longer allowed to sell them or transfer ownership by gifting.


Even so; I don’t see how this doesn’t just become an exception that swallows the rule, or a major expansion to police authority to execute.

If I “borrow” a “friend’s” printer, and use it to make a Bump stock, have I committed a crime? And even if I have, how will the police find out?

I just don’t see healthy policy flowing from this.


Is that really the issue? I mean, just because meath can be made with ingredients bought at a grocery store and made in your kitchen doesn’t prevent us from making it illegal, nor does it mean that law enforcement resources need to be “diverted” to find bump stock owners, but if it was made illegal and a person was found to be in possession, they would violating the law.

It’s sort of like “gun free zones”. The purpose (despite what many on the left and right think) isn’t to prevent everyone from carrying guns near schools, it simply places consequences for doing so. Thus if someone is seen carrying a weapon near a school they can be reported and investigated.


Again, that’s a bizarre line of reasoning. Just because you can make it on a printer at home and it will be hard to detect means that we shouldn’t bother making it illegal?

Laws don’t prevent people from making choices, it creates consequences for those that do. It establishes a precedent. If they are illegal and you break the law, that creates a profile of the kind of person you are.

It’s illegal for me to scratch the serial number off my firearms. It’s illegal to take a hacksaw to my shotgun. The fact that these things cannot be stopped means that they are ok?

Help me understand here.


It also requires a good amount of knowledge of chemistry, and you (personally) building a rig you use solely for the purpose of making meth that is itself highly prone to detection.

Meanwhile, printing pieces of a gun does not require specialized knowledge, nor machinery, nor even putting yourself in any sort of extreme danger. 3D printers are general use by their very nature.

Democratization of technology; it’s a scary thing. Eventually, it will make most forms of prohibition pointless; but for right now, certain drugs and automatic weapons aren’t among the things you can reliably make. Certainly not at a price point that’s less than a decent laptop.

No, that’s a different sort of policy entirely.

Gun Free zones do not control who owns a gun; only where you can take them.

If you want to ban people from taking Bump stocks somewhere, you may be able to do that. It’s far more difficult to prevent them from having one in the first place, because then, you’re trying to control what people do at home.


Yeah, it’s a lot like how the IRS defines income. You can generally cheat a bit on your taxes and never be caught. The rules exist simply to deter, and to put some teeth behind it in the event you do get caught.

I don’t actually know anyone who owns a full auto. They’ve made it difficult, though not impossible to acquire. I don’t mind that. Some people I know are highly responsible gun owners, and I’d have no issue with them owning not only a fully automatic rifle, but I’d trust them with owning grenade launchers. On the flip side I know several people who have managed to shoot themselves with their own guns, as well as two who have shot relatives(all non-fatal). I absolutely do not want those people owning full autos, and in my experience they’re one of the most likely groups to want to purchase them.

Guns are not toys. And far too many people like to combine drinking and shooting. That’s more dangerous to themselves than others with most rifles. That could pretty well flip when you introduce full autos or mods that mimic the effect.

I don’t care about this from a mass shooting perspective. Mass shootings are rare. And they’re also deliberate acts of murder. This Vegas guy most likely would have carried this out regardless of gun laws. He’d have had a similar arsenal for this regardless. He also may have even killed more people if he’d been using his rifle in semi mode and aiming for people instead of blindly spraying bullets into a crowd.


Your making two different arguments.

To create the formula for meth, sure, you might need to understand chemistry, just like to create a 3D file for a bump stock you have to be highly specialized using AutoCAD or Rhino 3D, Truspace (whatever your 3D modeler program of choice is), but once someone does the hard part. It’s no harder following the recipe for meth than it is knowing how to operate a 3D printer (though I admit, making meth is a lot more dangerous).

I don’t have to know how to use AutoCAD to print a bump stock and I don’t have to know a thing about chemistry to follow a recipe for meth.


It’s not the policy I’m comparing it to. Making it illegal to possess creates consequences for ownership. That’s it. If there are consequences, legit businesses won’t sell them and some people, like me, won’t attempt to purchase them.

Would anyone here argue that bump stocks are a legitimate way to protect yourself?


I wont argue it. It’s a fact. As does full auto.

You need to realize that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not hunting, nor protection from burglars. It is protection from the government.


Under what circumstances might a soldier use full auto in a hostile situation?

Do you think that you should have the right to procure larger more destructive weapons, or do you think there is a line?