CNBC: Democrats quickly call for tighter gun laws after Las Vegas shooting massacre

[Political Junky]

Gunman Had 'Bump-stock' Device That Could Speed Fire

The gunman who unleashed hundreds of rounds of gunfire on a crowd of concertgoers in Las Vegas had two "bump-stocks" that could have converted semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic ones, officials said.

The devices have attracted scrutiny in recent years from authorities.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has long railed against them. Several years ago, she told The Associated Press she was concerned about the emergence of new technologies that could retrofit firearms to make them fully automatic.

The device basically replaces the gun's shoulder rest, with a "support step" that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter's finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, "bumping" the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.

"This replacement shoulder stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute," she said.


A semi-automatic weapon requires one trigger pull for each round fired. With a fully automatic firearm, one trigger pull can unleash continuous rounds until the magazine is empty.

Just heard on TV that he'd purchased 2 "Bump Stock". It figures that he used them.

 

[OldLady]

No American civilian needs a steenkin' machine gun.

Says who...

OldBitch is just another lefty that no matter the issue thinks she is one to determine what someone else needs.

And you, of course, politely and tentatively suggest that your opinion of what people need is only a thought for consideration. LOL

 

[hunarcy]

No American civilian needs a steenkin' machine gun.

And, no American citizen NEEDS a steenkin' bottle of bourbon.

 

[hunarcy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

 

[rightwinger]

i think that bump stock devices are perfectly legal , i think that 'batf' says so RWinger !!

They are legal....Why?

-------------------------------------------------------------- because Americans want them and because they were invented and because they are legal . Who in the he11 needs a pocket cellphone , i was very happy with a 'landline' . Who in the he11 needs electric windows in a 'kia soul' , who in the he11 needs a 'kia soul' . I was very happy with GTO , 442 and Roadrunners RWinger !!

None of those impact public safety

 

[rightwinger]

then simply tell me how banning bump devices and >20 round mags would have stopped this.

not saying we can't stop it. but how will the actions *force* a change? "hope" won't do it and you'll never get that past the NRA.

I have a very simple solution.

Make the gun sellers responsible. ALlow victims of gun violence to sue the people who sell guns to the crazies.

Yesterday, stock in MGM dropped 5%? Why? Because the survivors of yesterday's attack will sue the owners of the Mandalay for not catching this guy as he set up a sniper's nest in their hotel.

But the people who sold him 28 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, they are immunized from legal action.

Gun stocks went up

 

[Asclepias]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

 

[hunarcy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

 

[The Original Tree]

A lot of good that is going to do since you can buy any weapon you want off of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Eric Holder.
Hell, they will even sell weapons to drug cartels and terrorists, and even give mass murderers a get out of jail free card to kill again.

 

[The Original Tree]

well I will say only one thing, where the fk were the metal detectors at the high rise hotel?

This guy had help from inside. I suspect Eric Holder. He is known for giving weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels and other Hate Filled scoundrels.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

There are many examples of the analysis of the second amendment.

Language experts have done exhaustive analysis of the second.

Pick the one that agrees with you

 

[Asclepias]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

No they chose the word "people" because they had no standing military reserve like they do now. The needed ordinary civilians to be their reserves.

 

[The Original Tree]

Well the guy did have an automatic weapon . And this was gun free Nevada . What happened to more guns more safety ?

He probably bought the assault weapon from Eric Holder by claiming he was an Oppressed Mexican Drug Cartel Member.

 

[rightwinger]

Gunman Had 'Bump-stock' Device That Could Speed Fire

The gunman who unleashed hundreds of rounds of gunfire on a crowd of concertgoers in Las Vegas had two "bump-stocks" that could have converted semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic ones, officials said.

The devices have attracted scrutiny in recent years from authorities.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has long railed against them. Several years ago, she told The Associated Press she was concerned about the emergence of new technologies that could retrofit firearms to make them fully automatic.

The device basically replaces the gun's shoulder rest, with a "support step" that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter's finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, "bumping" the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.

"This replacement shoulder stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute," she said.


A semi-automatic weapon requires one trigger pull for each round fired. With a fully automatic firearm, one trigger pull can unleash continuous rounds until the magazine is empty.

Just heard on TV that he'd purchased 2 "Bump Stock". It figures that he used them.

Sounded like they were being used

 

[Timmy]

Well the guy did have an automatic weapon . And this was gun free Nevada . What happened to more guns more safety ?

He probably bough the assault weapon from Eric Holder by claiming he was an Oppressed Mexican Drug Cartel Member.

If u want to get rid of the ATF that's fine . It's redundant.

Now back to the topic .

 

[bendog]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

The gun lobby pretty much clobbered them after Sandy Hook. It's about money and one issue voters. Someday perhaps Americans will support legislation limiting the number of weapons owned and their storage. I don't see that as a total fix for the problem of mass shootings. Apparantly its' ok to ban Muslims for coming here, but not ok to make gun sellers very wary about selling an individual a whole truck load of rifles.

I'm not sure why you single out people who jump on the gun legislation issue, when you know damn well the AltR would be ejaculating if this guy had been a Muslim. Just look at the fake threads yesterday.

 

[rightwinger]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

But, none of that matters because the SCOTUS has already ruled in Heller that the right is not tied to militias, but is an individual right.

 

[The Original Tree]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

The gun lobby pretty much clobbered them after Sandy Hook. It's about money and one issue voters. Someday perhaps Americans will support legislation limiting the number of weapons owned and their storage. I don't see that as a total fix for the problem of mass shootings. Apparantly its' ok to ban Muslims for coming here, but not ok to make gun sellers very wary about selling an individual a whole truck load of rifles.

I'm not sure why you single out people who jump on the gun legislation issue, when you know damn well the AltR would be ejaculating if this guy had been a Muslim. Just look at the fake threads yesterday.

We need guns to protect ourselves from THE RACIST VIOLENT DEMOCRAT PARTY. Look how many GOP Congressmen, Trump Supporters, Country Music Fans they have tried to kill. They even killed Seth Rich, and threatened to assassinate the president.

 

[bendog]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

The gun lobby pretty much clobbered them after Sandy Hook. It's about money and one issue voters. Someday perhaps Americans will support legislation limiting the number of weapons owned and their storage. I don't see that as a total fix for the problem of mass shootings. Apparantly its' ok to ban Muslims for coming here, but not ok to make gun sellers very wary about selling an individual a whole truck load of rifles.

I'm not sure why you single out people who jump on the gun legislation issue, when you know damn well the AltR would be ejaculating if this guy had been a Muslim. Just look at the fake threads yesterday.

We need guns to protect ourselves from THE RACIST VIOLENT DEMOCRAT PARTY. Look how many GOP Congressmen, Trump Supporters, Country Music Fans they have tried to kill. They even killed Seth Rich, and threatened to assassinate the president.

Yeah they're coming for you chump. LOL