Really Paul Ryan? Not even bump fire stocks?
Halloween is approaching and our Congress is scared and scary in more ways than one. Our leaders are failing us in more ways than one. Our leaders claim that care about Americans. If they actually did, they would grow a spine and stand tall for the majority and do it proudly and feel good about it.
They are lapdogs for the NRA and other special interests.
The cynical and evil leadership of the NRA suggested that they may be able to support a ban on bump fire stocks. NOT. Not even that very small measure will pass muster with this group of disingenuous group of guys who represent the industry that sells these things.
So where are we? We are where we are after every one of the nation’s mass shootings. Lapdog and weak politicians with no backbone are afraid to do what they know is right. Because…..rights.
Rights? Where are the rights of Americans to be safe when going to concerts, shopping at malls, going to college classes, sitting at work or school, having a drink at a nightclub or at a military base? They don’t count. Death is not their concern. If it was one of their own though, they would care.
The gun issue is not untouchable. We will make it touchable. We will demand answers and demand solutions. Politicians will have to address it. They will not be left to avoid it any more. Some are already changing their tune:
Another Democrat who had once been in the NRA’s favor, Rep. Tim Walz (Minn.), also donated a sum matching his past NRA contributions this week. Walz, who is running for governor and was under pressure from a Democratic primary opponent, sent $18,000 to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, a nonprofit group that helps the families of service members who are killed or severely wounded.
“I’m doing what I can to get past the political attacks and back to addressing this problem,” Walz said, who also held an “A” rating.
They want to be elected and perhaps they are finally waking up to the common sense of the American voters. I have personally spoken with Rep. Tim Walz who is the only Democratic candidate for Governor with an A rating from the NRA. That is poison for him. We need to make it poison for all candidates. Gun violence is one of the most important issues of our day. It’s a public health epidemic that we are ignoring.
Speaking of NRA money, who does get the most money from the NRA anyway? Let’s take a look from the article:
Below are the top 10 career recipients of N.R.A. funding – through donations or spending to benefit the candidate – among both current House and Senate members, along with their statements about the Las Vegas massacre. These representatives have a lot to say about it. All the while, they refuse to do anything to avoid the next massacre.
American voters say 63 – 27 percent that it’s possible to make new gun laws without interfering with gun rights. Republicans voters say 51 – 37 percent that it’s possible to make gun laws that don’t interfere with gun rights and voters in gun households agree 57 – 33 percent. “The Las Vegas massacre echoes though a survey that shows American voters want stricter gun laws and a ban on high-capacity clips and bump stocks, the device that makes a lethal weapon even more lethal,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. -m
Like the rest of America I learned of the latest mass shooting in Las Vegas last Monday morning. My first thought was there will be fatalities. Families like mine receiving the devastating, life-altering news that a loved one has been murdered. That friends and family members will never come home again. More lives taken by bullets. These families will unknowingly and unwillingly join the sad club that no one wants to join. Tragically this club continues to grow, because a small loud vocal group of extremists love their guns more than they love their families. So I cry out to you America, it’s time to rise up and out shout the extremists to honor the 58 lives cut down at a music concert. It’s time to rise up and help me and thousands of other gun violence survivors, so that your family won’t receive the devastating phone call that a family member has been murdered by a disturbed man with a gun. Pick up your phone and call your U.S. Congressman and Senator and demand they fight for gun safety laws.
commongunsense 
My years in the military have removed any thrill I had for firing a fully automatic weapon. But then they also did the same for foreign travel and skydiving. However some people enjoy it and that’s perfectly ok.
Ryan has said that the bill goes beyond just banning bump fire stocks, overreach I believe he called it. Let’s look at what he’s referring to. The Feinstein bill starts out by mentioning bump fire stocks by name. All well and good so far. Then we come to this part,
“or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”
Click to access 0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf
This is where the overreach comes in. This portion is vague enough that it could ban many aftermarket parts that improve the trigger action, but come nowhere near the effect of a bump fire stock.
There are two possibilities for this overreach. The first is it’s unintentional. After all, this is the party that pushed the New York SAFE Act though with literally no debate and actually had to call a special session to fix some glaring errors. If this is the case, they have but to fix the vague language and reintroduce the bill.
The other possibility is that it intentionally overreaches. After all, this bill is co-authored by someone who has publically advocated the banning and confiscation of assault weapons. From what I’ve been reading, it’s possible to bump fire semi-automatic firearms with no special equipment. Does this mean the basic design would be banned, along with all of the rifles that use it? If its intentional, the solution is still the same, rewrite the bill to remove the overreach.
My personal belief is that it’s intentional. Senator Feinstein is a career politician and gets to be responsible for legislation she adds her name to. She owns it. But the intent doesn’t change the solution. Rewriting the bill would also put the onus back on the Republican Party to fish or cut bait as the saying goes.
And I’m all in favor of intentionally limiting the lethality of any weapon designed to kill as many people as possible. After all, that is the only reason for those types of assault rifles. They are not necessary for hunting or self defense.
Your dismissal of “assault rifles” is not true.
“Assault Rfiles” (by which you mean, black rifles or modern sporting rifles like AR15s) are actually used quite a bit for home defense. In fact, they are much more effective for women and smaller stature folks in home defense than shotguns (have you ever tried to shoot a 12 gauge shotgun? The recoil is intense). They are far more accurate than a hand gun as well. This is why many trainers now actually encourage and advocate for using an AR15 for home defense.
Cursory google searches will show that it has been used for home defense purposes quite frequently (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/27/homeowners-son-shoots-kills-three-would-be-burglars.html)
Likewise, AR15s are excellent for varmint control, hog hunting, and coyote hunting, and the 308 version (AR10) is an excellent large game hunting gun. This is because modern black rifles are lighter, more versatile, and easily accessorized with hunting scopes than your standard wood stock Remington 700. For goodness sake, AR15s now even come in mossy oak camo (https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/mossberg-mmr-hunter-semi-automatic-556-nato-223-remingt-20-barrel-mossy-oak-brush-51-rounds?a=1800514)
The third thing to mention is that black rifles are frequently used in sports shooting. The hottest shooting event in the gun world is 3-gun, and you guessed it, the AR15 is used extensively there.
What I haven’t mentioned are that gun rights don’t have a “needs” or “necessary” clause to them, but I’ll leave that aside for this reply. I’m just saying that black rifles have several legitimate purposes outside of the 2nd amendment, which is why they are so popular and beloved in the gun community.
I have never read an article from a credible source that says that an AR-15 is the gun of choice for self defense. In fact I read the opposite in article after article. You are claiming something that is just not true. In the first place, a gun is rarely used for self defense in the home or in public. That is a fact. Check out this article among just one of many: https://www.bustle.com/articles/166357-arguments-that-the-ar-15-is-for-home-defense-are-insane
“The idea that if good people have guns then everyone will be safe is simply ridiculous. Whether you have an AR-15 or a pistol in your home, the chances of you ever using it for home defense are minuscule. In 2012, the Violence Policy Center released data that revealed only 259 justified homicide cases (i.e. when people killed others in self-defense) were confirmed in the United States. In contrast there were 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012.
Even more alarming? The LA Times reported there was just “one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012).” With that data in mind, would having an assault rifle in your home honestly make you feel any safer?”
This argument is not worth having. There is no question whatsoever that assault type rifles meant for war in the first place before they became “common sporting rifles” which is what the gun lobby called them to normalize them, are not needed by any citizen for any purpose whatsoever. You may want them but you don’t need them. I know that “black rifles” are used for shooting sports and people like to use them. But they don’t need to use them.
“They are not necessary for hunting or self defense.”
The utility of these rifles has been validated by law enforcement fielding them as their defensive long arm in a great number of their patrol cars nationwide. In fact, I believe there was even one documented defensive use of an AR-15 in Oklahoma recently when three people attempted to commit a home invasion. The only one that got away was the get away driver.
One cited case of someone using an AR-15 for self defense? Impressive. You do realize that police officers have had to change their own policy regarding the weapons they now have available to them because they are outgunned by the public and criminals. And where do criminals get their guns? Hmmm. If the public and criminals were not armed with so many weapons, officers wouldn’t be either. That is why police in so many other countries do not carry weapons. http://www.wboc.com/story/12349793/police-outgunned-by-criminals-add-assault-rifles-to-shifts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/more-police-officers-die-on-the-job-in-states-with-more-guns/?utm_term=.5167fca3fc87
“In 2012, the Violence Policy Center released data that revealed only 259 justified homicide cases (i.e. when people killed others in self-defense) were confirmed in the United States. In contrast there were 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012.”
You should always check the math of anything the Violence Policy Center claims. One big shortcoming with the VPC is that they only count dead people for defensive gun uses. If a person is wounded and stopped, or even decides to run away upon seeing a victim prepared to defend themselves, that counts too. I do however like to use their Concealed Carry Killers database though since it demonstrates that those who carry for lawful self defense are safer and more law abiding than the general public.
One source that contradicts the VPC is the Gun Violence Archive which has reported well over a thousand defensive gun uses per year for the last four years.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Also the recent CDC gun violence study reported that defensive gun uses occur frequently with the low number cited being 109,000 per year. And keep in mind that just because more violent crimes occur than defensive gun uses doesn’t invalidate the concept of armed self defense. It just needs to be encouraged more.
This is vastly different than the millions of DGUs claimed by the NRA and gun extremists. It may be closer to what GVA reports. Over a thousand per year. You do understand I assume that compared to 33,000 dead every year from gunshot injuries and 100,000 injured, that number is nothing. More people get killed and injured by those guns used for self defense by a long shot ( sorry for the pun) than are used to protect people.