Previous Post
Next Post

The WaPo has never seen a gun control law it didn’t like . . . After getting an NRA permission slip, the GOP shouldn’t be let off the hook

There is something pathetic about grown men and women who hold federal office waiting to get instructions from the NRA before suggesting that they might be willing to discuss a laughably tiny move to regulate the bump stocks — but of course, not the semiautomatic weapons themselves nor the numbers of weapons one can buy for a personal arsenal. And perish the thought that the NRA might permit lawmakers to consider universal background checks.

The stubborn refusal to enact any meaningful reforms for fear of inconveniencing legal gun owners spurs otherwise sympathetic voices to demand drastic measures. (Bret Stephens decried half-measures, arguing, “Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones.”) When exasperated Americans demand big, bold steps, the NRA screeches that the government wants to take away your guns.

Kevin de Leon, Mr. Ghost Gun, will challenge Diane Feinstein for the US Senate.

Mr. Ghost Gun himself to challenge DiFi . . . Sources Say California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon to Challenge Sen. Dianne Feinstein in Democratic Primary

California state Senate president Kevin de León intends to enter California’s 2018 Democratic primary against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, three sources with knowledge of his plans say.

De León has begun calling labor leaders and elected officials to inform them of his plans, the sources said, and is expected to soon announce his campaign against Feinstein, a giant of California Democratic politics who has held the office since 1992.

Colorado Senate President John Morse lost his job over Colorado's push for gun control.

Gee, it’s almost as if gun control laws don’t really work . . . Gun laws that cost millions had little effect because they weren’t enforced

In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.

More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.

Congress has never let facts or precision of language get in its way . . . Two Bad Ideas on Bump Stocks

It’s a bipartisan effort that applies to “any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.” As Christian Britschgi notes at Reason, this is an insanely broad definition: “Binary triggers, which fire[] a round on both the pull and release of the trigger, would also likely be prohibited under this language, as would lighter triggers, and heavier recoil springs, both of which allow for a faster rate of fire.”

They need to reword this. One option they should explore is the concept of “deliberate engagement” (which made the rounds on “Gun Twitter” last week, though the user who came up with the idea seems to have deleted his tweets). The idea would be to regulate devices that help users fire multiple bullets without deliberately engaging the trigger each time.

The monoparty reaches consensus . . . Your Bipartisan Bump Stock Ban Has Arrived

As Reason has pointed out, bump stocks are easy targets for politicians looking to “do something” about gun violence, and it is not surprising that they would be the subject of Curbelo and Moulton’s bill. Some gun enthusiasts and retailers considered them a novelty—little known about until the shooting—and one that detracts from the functionality of a weapon by sacrificing accuracy for the speed of firing.

With the issue of a weapon’s rate of fire on the table, there is every reason to believe lawmakers might consider amendments to add to the ban extended magazines, reloading aids, or anything else that allows a shooter to get rounds off more quickly.

This is the slippery slope uncompromising libertarians and conservatives worried about and liberals hoped Congress would find itself negotiating. And even if it passes unanimously, the bill brings the nation no closer to preventing what happened in Las Vegas.


Previous Post
Next Post


    • On the one hand, new Senator, no seniority, less power.
      On the other hand, we could be stuck with him for another 30-40 years, she’s probably already on Alzheimer’s meds.

      • If she’s not on Alzheimers’ meds now, she needs to be.
        I got so sick of her in 1993, when she tried to violate the 1st Amendment of The Constitution, by trying to ban
        “anarchist literature” (Paladin Press, etc.)

        Sadly, I have a distant aunt who thinks Feinstein is great.
        Said relative was shut down at a recent family gathering when I mentioned Hillary supporters pulling people from their cars and beating them: “we know what Democrat/progressives are like when they don’t get their way- they are like spoiled children!” She went quiet. My stepmother congratulated me, because this batshit aunt had been trying to convince her that Christians were CURRENTLY more murderous than muslims……..
        It’s one thing to stand on someone else’s shoulders when you are drowning, it is quite another to do so at the
        dinner table…!

  1. Hadn’t really thought of this until I watched that video, but no wonder the bump-stocks spray bul lets all over the place – your strong hand is on the non-reciprocating pistol grip but your support hand is holding the reciprocating hand gu ard. Kind of like grabbing the chisel on a jackhammer to try to control it.

    • *sigh* practically all the support for these bills stems from complete ignorance of what bump-firing is. It is merely the act of loosely holding the firearm such that its recoil bounces it off your shoulder back into your stationary trigger finger. Anything that decouples the solid link between your grip and the trigger shoe ‘assists’ this process; a bump-stock merely constrains that motion along an axis parallel to the point of aim to somewhat increase the user’s control of the muzzle.

      Since you can bump fire nearly any semi-auto with a disconnector (even pistols) and a passable trigger, and people have/do/will perfectly legally, a bump stock is, if anything, more of a safety device than a machinegun conversion. It’s primary purpose is to allow the user a more solid hold on the pistol grip and cheek rest while bump firing, so they can actually use the sights in some fashion.

      Yes, the bump stocks may have given the Vegas shooter better control to direct fire onto the crowd than hip-fire bump firing, but the same can be said of magnified and even iron sights, or autoloading systems in general. All these things were invented to increase the effectiveness of a machine for the user’s purposes, be they military, hunting, or even fun. Bump fire falls solidly on the fun line, but the Vegas shooter demonstrated perfectly well that even such a device is to be feared in the wrong hands. However, the RKBA isn’t about keeping fearsome devices out of the wrong hands, but ensuring they are always present in the right ones for when evil inevitably finds a way. On the surface it seems like childish impudence or reverse psychology, but the fact Congress suddenly wants these banned so badly is the evidence they should remain protected.

      • Who said anything about the RKBA? I was just thinking that it would be a lot more controlable if you extended the bump stock out to provide a stable forend grip. That would probably involve the hand gua rd sliding in a second rail, but then you’d have both hands on a stable piece of plastic. You could even fire it off a sandbag. As is I’d think full auto would be much more accurate than that.

        • For bump firing to work, one hand has to be on the gun proper, pulling it (and its’ trigger) into the stationary finger. I can see what you describe working. Am I missing something?

        • There’s no spring in a bump stock (like many “news” outlets are reporting) so if your sliding stock included a forend you would have no way to fire it, let alone make it repeat. What you’re thinking of, the stock with its own recoil spring, is the Akins Accelerator. It was banned by ATF as an illegal machine gun shortly after it became publicly available.

        • Ah, I see, my idea wouldn’t work. Still if hitting a target smaller than a dump truck is the objective you’d be better off just wiggling your index finger back and forth.

    • It is only partly true that, “bump-stocks spray bullets all over the place.” The recoil – spring return motion is actually less than an inch and control is easier than you seem to think. A loose arm on the fore grip (either stock or handle) can readily resist rise from recoil and the hold on the trigger grip can maintain sight position. The only thing “lost” with a bump-fire stock is a perfect sight picture. With the movement of the weapon in rapid fire, it just is not possible to maintain an exact sight picture – but that is true when rapidly firing any weapon, with or without “bump-stocks” or any other form of speed aid. And really, it IS possible to place all 30 rounds from a standard .223 mag within about 2′ of center at 100 yards using bump-fire (which is better than I remember my results from the ’70s version of the M-16 on full auto) – with practice.

  2. You could go on CO armslist the day after the law went into affect and see 100’s of ads from people trying to offload guns or buy them, “no checks”. It did absolutely nothing here.

    • I’ve posted on this topic before (IIRC, TTAG took one such comment of mine and made it a new post), but…

      Since Colorado’s “universal background check” law (CRS 18-12-112) went into effect on 01 July 2013, only 5% of the firearm background checks performed by/through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s “InstaCheck Unit” have been for private-party transfers.

      When the law was proposed / debated, proponents were saying things like “40% of all gun purchases don’t have a background check” and “this new law will make sure prohibited persons don’t get guns”. Opponents (myself included) responded “that number is nonsense” and “no, it won’t”.

      Given the actual 5% result over the last 4+ years, at least one of these is true:
      1. The 40% number is far removed from reality. We all know the history of that number, so this is pretty much a given.

      2. People are ignoring the new law. I strongly suspect his this is happening, whether through ignorance of the law or through an understanding that the law is almost completely unenforceable.

      3. Private-party transfers have basically stopped since the law was passed. I’ve never seen any evidence (other than the actual 5% result) supporting the premise that this might be true.

  3. “…researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.”

    In general, conservatives are historically the ‘law-n-order’ political party.

    Don’t be surprised to see a sudden interest in ‘law-n-order’ by the Progressives, as a bid to win back the voters they abandoned with their interest in identity politics.

    But watch them bias their ‘law-n-order’ *enforcement* as a means for gun control.

    It will all be framed as ‘law-n-order’ to the dumbshit electorate…

    • Of course, all these bastards who will leap to the defense of actual cop-killers will suddenly use the police as a political prop for their commie gun grabbing agenda.

  4. From first article…There is something pathetic about grown men and women who have to get permission from the federal government on what products they should be able to buy or not buy, and which activities are safe and which ones are too dangerous or scary.

    Fixed that for them.

    • DeLeon is a career politician, and he probably figures he has a much better chance of unseating someone who may not live for another seven years to complete her term that winning the California Governor’s race against an even slimier politico, Gavin Newsome. Further, if he doesn’t run and DiFi doesn’t make it to the next election, Gruesome Newsome, should he be governor at the time (which is unfortunately likely), will have a free hand in appointing her successor–who won’t be DeLeon. And DeLeon has a fair chance. While DiFi is San Francisco elite, half of DeLeon’s family are dreamers or illegals.

  5. Reason? Oh the guys that work with the extremely reasonable stossel and that extremely unreasonable anti-Trump lanky guy? Cool story bro.

  6. “that detracts from the functionality of a weapon by sacrificing accuracy for the speed of firing.”

    All those that spout this sh_t need to F themselves with something sharp and heavy. Cause we know they DON’T GIVE A TRUE FLYING FV<K ABOUT HOW ACCURATE OR FAST YOUR WEAPON IS.


    They all gotta go,

  7. Woah Woah Woah… Woah. I think I just blew my own mind…
    The rate of fire of a semi-auto rifle is the result of the user pulling the trigger thus it cannot be measured as some amount of rounds per second. So if the Rate cannot be measured how do you prove that ANY device increases it?
    ANY device. I’m saying: they want to ban any device that increases some measurement that has no value, thus there is nothing to ban because it had no rate value to begin with.
    Even a binary trigger doesn’t increase the “rate of fire” if the user doesn’t pull the trigger quickly. If you activate a binary trigger (into binary mode) Pull the trigger and hold it pulled for 30 min then release it you have 2 rounds per hour rate of fire. Doesn’t this whole thing create a logical absurdity? Doesn’t that open the door to being struck down in court if some kind of ban does pass?

  8. “any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”

    They need to reword this:

    …any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun is still covered under the “Shall not be infringed” portion of the Second Amendment.

  9. I would love to see another SJW from California in the Senate. I hope Mr. ghost gun makes it in. The pot heads in cali won’t care how he will make fools of the state. DiFi is an articulate speaker. Mr. ghost is not. People with money are leaving the state. People with no money are moving in and going on welfare. Cali 12% of USA population, has 30% of nations welfare cases.

    But you can walk around proudly with a strap on dildo, well fitted for public attire. And you can smoke weed in public as well, and the government will pay for it. In SF you can shoot crystal meth in public to improve your sexual experience, and the government will pay for it. You just can’t have a gun, or at least the one you want.

  10. Roughly 22,000 gun laws already on the books, Federal, State and local. Not one liberal or politician can give one good reason which new law or laws added to the 22,000 (illegal) gun laws we already have are going to fix all the crime and killings. we are surrounded by fools and mindless idiots, they are a far bigger problem than mine and all of the other legally obtained guns in our Country. People need to realize there is no utopia, you can’t fix everything and bad things are going to happen, there’s nothing you can do about it. Live your life and stop trying to tell everybody else how to live and whats best for them. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that’s all you are entitled to, anything else you want you have to EARN IT !!!!!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here