Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Trump moves to ban bump stocks

I always got the impression that public support for stricter gun laws was always there but the congressmen were fully bought and paid for by the NRA who spoonfed them (very reasonable sounding but flawed) arguments to use against gun controls.

The votes they would lose from constituents annoyed at voting through poor gun laws is worth far more to them than the campaign contributions they get from the NRA. People in general aren't against new guns laws, they are against the ones that would penalise them and do little or nothing to prevent gun crime.

Look at who the NRA actually give campaign donations to, they are all politicians who already have strong positions on the second amendment. I can't think of a single example of a politician that changed their stance on gun laws after receiving a campaign contribution.
 
I take it you're not familiar with Forbes then.

The original article re investing, not Forbes. The third world shithole from which I'm posting doesn't allow enough bandwidth to edit posts to rectify what I saw immediately as an ambiguous question.

May we assume the writer of the article has wealth counted in billions and is well known as an entrepeneur?
 
Having been a shooter all my life, Full bore, Black Powder etc, and still at it. It occurs to me "Why the hell would anybody want a fully automatic weapon?" other than showing off, what possible use is it in any shooting world other than a proper combat situation. I discussed this last Sunday morning with about ten stalwarts at our Range, they are of the very same opinion.

I know the Americans are pretty touchy about the carriage of arms, but surely after all the shootings that they have had in the country in the past year alone, and the young lives already lost. Any man with a little sense should see the dire need to ban fully automatics.
 
Last edited:
Having been a shooter all my life, Full bore, Black Powder etc, and still at it. It occurs to me "Why the hell would anybody want a fully automatic weapon?" other than showing off, what possible use is it in any shooting world other than a proper combat situation. I discussed this last Sunday morning with about ten stalwarts at our Range, they are of the very same opinion.

I know the Americans are pretty touchy about the carriage of arms, but surely after all the shootings that they have had in the country in the past year alone, and the young lives already lost. Any man with a little sense should see the dire need to ban fully automatics.



The debate isn't about fully automatic weapons - they are not the ones being used in shooting sprees!

Fully auto weapons (legally-owned ones, that is) are registered and strictly controlled in US, as has been stated many times. Spree shootings are typically carried out with commonly-available (in US) semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Don't know what club you belong to (is it TR only, by any chance?), but most people - given chance - enjoy shooting semi- and full-automatic firearms. Its an interesting visceral experience, and the rate of fire opens up many forms of competition and shooting disciplines.

If you don't understand why people want something, then you could apply the same logic to any hobby, interest or gadget.
 
I want artillery, I could have an awful lot of fun with that and I'm sure it could open up a whole lot of different and interesting disciplines, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to have it. [The only way to stop a bad guy with artillery is a good guy with artillery!]

The US missed out when they failed to severely restrict ownership of semi-automatic weapons in the same way they do fully-automatic weapons. Surely you can do everything you personally need with a revolver, double-barrel shotgun or a bolt action rifle with a 5 round clip.

If you then wanted to shoot full or semi-automatic weapons for the lulz then that could be done at gun clubs with the appropriate facilities and security.
 
In the event of Trump getting this done, which is more likely than any massive change in firearms ownership, won't he have achieved slightly more than his predecessor?

'Following a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 of the 26 victims were children, Obama addressed gun violence on Dec. 14, 2012, in a tearful White House press conference.

Obama lamented the familiarity of such a heart-breaking tragedy, declaring that "we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

His eight years in office included many more headline-grabbing attacks.'

There is a thread on gun control somewhere out there and it doesn't look to be an easy problem to fix.

Maybe they should follow the various bits of legislation the UK put through. They seem to have worked ok.
 
Last edited:
I get the idea los Yanquis see restriction of 2A rights as the thin edge of the wedge. If there were any chance of changing the amendment I'm pretty sure pressure groups would have had a go by now. It's an internal thing and as stated previously, all the foot stamping and posturing in the world by those from other countries is not going to change a thing. That has to come from within and so far the distrust of big govt is an obstacle to that ever being allowed to happen.

It's something those who vote will have to live with until they decide to change it.
 
I want artillery, I could have an awful lot of fun with that and I'm sure it could open up a whole lot of different and interesting disciplines, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to have it. [The only way to stop a bad guy with artillery is a good guy with artillery!]

Nothing stopping you having some in the UK if you want to. A reenactor I know has just bought his second live firing cannon.

Edited to add; lots of people in the US own artillery of different types, I don't remember any of them being used in a crime though.
 
I get the idea los Yanquis see restriction of 2A rights as the thin edge of the wedge. If there were any chance of changing the amendment I'm pretty sure pressure groups would have had a go by now. It's an internal thing and as stated previously, all the foot stamping and posturing in the world by those from other countries is not going to change a thing. That has to come from within and so far the distrust of big govt is an obstacle to that ever being allowed to happen.

It's something those who vote will have to live with until they decide to change it.

The interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to have varied over time, no reason the interpretation couldn't change to be more restrictive again if the public wanted it.
 
Top