Trump Administartion bans bump stocks

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Lumenari

You could have fooled me after the Las Vegas shooting, righties were up in arms over bump stocks around these parts. Now all of a sudden "no big deal". Lol, typical groveling at Trump's feet.

Trump said when he heard about bump stocks that they should be banned.

Nobody I know gives a rat's ass about bump stocks.

Not like you're using them to hunt... for self-defense I can get 13 rounds out of my Glock and into center of mass without one.

So not quite sure why my position should be considered groveling at someone's feet...

That last bit of your post is probably a whole lot of projection.

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
One less weapon in the arsenal.

Trump bans bumpstocks

So who is going to take the guns away? This seems to be the first step.

Nobody cares about a bump stock but lefties who don't even know what it is besides "bad", so seems like a win-win...

This will effect exactly 0% of the 2A crowd.

Well color me shocked. Given the gun-toting armchair machismo of these threads and the reactionary "They are coming for our guns!" exclamations that we normally see, I would expect that this thread would be a rousing call for those "well regulated militias" to assemble and storm DC. But nope. Save for one or two comments, Trump is off limits. Just imagine if this was Hillary passing this. Hypocrisy will steal your credibility wholesale.

I guess it's because those "gun nutters" you are talking about actually know what a bump stock is and could care less about it.

The only ones that pitched a fit about bump stocks was the left.

If Hillary decided to ban them, nobody would care either but the left.

You know, the ones who don't really even know what it is, except a military grade shiny black rifle accessory that mass murderers have to have.

The uninformed.

a reply to: Grambler


democrats don't want to ban guns. the CONSTANT whining it's so god damn unattractive. ugh..

but, the lemmings should go buy more guns now! lol this will boost sales like it always does, it's hilarious.

Some of us can just move on because time stops for no one = Conservatives

Others can't they have to go on and on while progress stops = libs

People who keep moving forward are leaders the others are ???

originally posted by: Lumenari
If Hillary decided to ban them, nobody would care either but the left.

Guess we are not going to get honesty. Please think about this statement and whether you actually believe this to be true.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Grambler


democrats don't want to ban guns. the CONSTANT whining it's so god damn unattractive. ugh..

but, the lemmings should go buy more guns now! lol this will boost sales like it always does, it's hilarious.

Well not all


But some sure do

They just don’t want to be honest about it

So they pretend it’s just about bump stocks, or “assault weapons “

But then when you ask them why, they give insights and justifications for why other guns like handguns should be banned

Because handguns are semi automatic and kill more than any other gun

There will never be a point where some bans on guns will satisfy many of these people. What’s they achieve their stated goals, they will always have the next fun type the need to go after

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: Lumenari
If Hillary decided to ban them, nobody would care either but the left.

Guess we are not going to get honesty. Please think about this statement and whether you actually believe this to be true.

I know that through the political lens you view the world you are not going to understand what I said.

I get that.

Yes, there are political hacks on both sides that will jump up and down and scream any time someone on the "other side" does something.

See the last few years of reporting on Trump, for instance.

What I was attempting to tell you is that, in the case of bump stocks, nobody in the 2A crowd really cares and they should be banned anyways.

Only use for them is some sort of spray and pray attempt to kill as many people as possible.

Which I understand is how you view the "gun nutters" in America.

That isn't actually the case. I'm happy they got banned... there is no real honest use for them in society besides mass murder.

Which isn't the point of the second Amendment at all.

Hope that helped..

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
One less weapon in the arsenal.

Trump bans bumpstocks

So who is going to take the guns away? This seems to be the first step.

Guess this new "rule" isn't worth the paper it is printed on?

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed the new rule Tuesday morning

That guy can't be the ag, right?
All his decisions will be overturned, right?

a reply to: Lumenari

I remember plenty of people defending bump stocks on here after the Las Vegas shooting so your comment that "no one cares" is false at best and a lie at worst.

a reply to: Lumenari

Only use for them is some sort of spray and pray attempt to kill as many people as possible. 

That's what some on here were saying right after the Las Vegas shooting, you would have thought banning them was equivalent to getting rid of the second amendment with how zealously people were defending its use.

You may not care but you can't claim to speak for anyone but yourself. Stop putting words in other people's mouths, I know for a fact people cared back when it wa first being discussed after Las Vegas. You're either ignorant to that fact or simply lying about it.

a reply to: ausername

I hear yah.

Complete Idiots making these videos. Guns are toys crowd.

Bad for business and bad for freedom.

Pretty sure this whole bump stock bs was started to explain away why somone had a bunch of autos in vegas.

More fast and furious gun running gone bad?

Odumbo Smith-mundt'ed us right up the earhole. Who knows wtf's real anymore.


Next will be a bullet ban.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Lumenari

I remember plenty of people defending bump stocks on here after the Las Vegas shooting so your comment that "no one cares" is false at best and a lie at worst.

That is an opinion of yours, of course.

So bears the same weight that your other opinions do.

I am talking about reality... I literally know nobody that was up in arms when after the Vegas shooting Trump said that bump stocks should be banned.

I think you are trying really hard to prove to yourself that I am being hypocritical about an issue because you feel it will score you some points in your head.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

No one is going to stop the shooting sports, and firearm mfg industry. Not the democrats or any political entity.

51.3 billion ain't small potatoes. Their lobbyist force is yuggggeeee. No one is taking your or my guns. Wise up!!

The right wing needs a new fear factor propaganda point. This one's just dumb...



www.msn.com...

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Pretty sure this whole bump stock bs was started to explain away why somone had a bunch of autos in vegas.

More fast and furious gun running gone bad?

Odumbo Smith-mundt'ed us right up the earhole. Who knows wtf's real anymore.


Next will be a bullet ban.

I've thought right from the beginning that the Vegas guy was probably an illegal gun runner. He lived like a high roller, but had no apparent (legal) income. He told people he made money gambling, which is just short of 100% impossible, because the casinos hire the best mathematical minds to make sure the odds will always be in their favor over the long run. For sure, he was using the casinos to launder illegal income. Add in the room with guns set up like they're on display, plus the fact that the feds seemingly changed the story every time they tried to tell it, before eventually just refusing to talk about it anymore, and the idea of this guy being a Fast & Furious alumni isn't so implausible.

What are they going to do next, take away our belt loops? You can bump fire off your belt loop if your in the know. Bump stocks are for amateurs anyways. One shot one kill.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Lumenari

Only use for them is some sort of spray and pray attempt to kill as many people as possible. 

That's what some on here were saying right after the Las Vegas shooting, you would have thought banning them was equivalent to getting rid of the second amendment with how zealously people were defending its use.

You may not care but you can't claim to speak for anyone but yourself. Stop putting words in other people's mouths, I know for a fact people cared back when it wa first being discussed after Las Vegas. You're either ignorant to that fact or simply lying about it.

I was speaking for everyone that I personally know and most of those I know online.

So I am not putting words in anyone's mouth at all... projection again?

Again, I just think this is you thinking that you have a good shot on this particular topic to get away with calling me a liar and ignorant.

Just another part of being enlightened, I suppose...

So you have a good day, Do some fist pumps and an air scream on your incredible win on this thread.

I'm going to not remember it in a few minutes... I'm in the middle of making elk pastrami.

originally posted by: 38181
What are they going to do next, take away our belt loops? You can bump fire off your belt loop if your in the know. Bump stocks are for amateurs anyways. One shot one kill.

It's just like the assault weapon ban: a pointless attempt to ban "scary-looking guns" by people whose complete knowledge of guns comes from TV shows.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
One less weapon in the arsenal.

Trump bans bumpstocks

So who is going to take the guns away? This seems to be the first step.

But a bumpstock is a mod, not a weapon.
What I find curious is that, before Trump, when there was talk of banning these, everyone was up in arms, it was an infringement of your 2nd Ammendment Rights, but now that Trump is doing it, it's fine.

What would you say if Trump told you lube up and bend over?

This gives the anti-gun side a meaningless win. I wonder if its a compromise to get something else he wants? If so, it's a good move. Get rid of something meaningless that satiates the rabid anti-gun crowd and maybe get a little cooperation on something else?