Why do we “need” AR-15 rifles or any other firearm?

Recently during a very one-sided debate, I was shouted at and asked why I “needed” an AR-15 or other rifles like that. I was also told that only the police and government should have those types of firearms.

Those comments made me shiver. The fact that people who are discussing basic Constitutional rights do not know what the basis of a right is, and why we should not allow them to be restricted or removed anymore than they are.

The first question as to why I “need” an AR-15 or other firearm is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment. I do not ‘need” anything. I have the “right” to peacefully and lawfully possess an AR-15 or other firearm because it’s my choice. A “right” is just that, I can exercise it if I want to or not. Just like I can exercise my right to free speech or not. I can choose to be silent if I do not want to use that right, but if I do, as I am here, then there is nothing that should stop me if I am not harming anyone. Just as my right to own firearms is just that, my right, and should not be restricted if I am not harming anyone unlawfully. That’s why it’s a right and not a “need”.

And when they asked why I thought I should have them and not just the police and government, I almost fell out of my chair. Did they not know basic history? Our forefathers went to war to divest themselves of a government that was trying to do just that, remove arms from the citizens to make ruling over them easier. Of the numerous countries where the removal of the ability of the citizens to defend themselves, especially against a government that became tyrannical, dictatorial or worse, resulted in millions dying at the hands of that very government should have been enough. Then there is the minor issue of the police only having the guns. Having been one for 35 years, I am here to tell you police cannot protect you all the time. You are not able to rely on the few police officers out there that might just be lucky enough to be around the corner and arrive in the nick of time to save you. And the minor issue that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is not the duty of the police to protect you as an individual. So, if not theirs than who’s is it? It’s yours!

So when you ask why does someone need an Ar-15, we don’t need them. We have the right to have them. We don’t need them, unless of course we do to defend our family or country, from the government itself. Then it may be to late since some want them all removed because of the actions of a few murderers. And please don’t use that old worn out, you can never defeat the US Military with AR-15’s. I don’t expect a lot of military folks would go along with orders to attack or harm US Citizens. But that just is coming form a U.S. Army veteran. Had I been ordered to do so I would have simply refused.

So good luck with your arguments we don’t need these firearms. No we have the right to have them and until such a time as that right is repealed (that’s another topic) you have no right to tell me, a law abiding U.S. Citizen, that I don’t. As a side note, of the Bill of Rights, which ones have the words “shall not be infringed” in them? And why? Maybe because our forefathers had seen just that, a government trying to infringe on the citizens it was supposed to serve not rule?

Advertisements

Is Requiring a Fee to Exercise a Right Constitutional?

Regardless of which political party you belong, I think we can probably all agree that requiring a fee to exercise a right is just wrong, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. Let’s take voting for instance. We all can agree being able to vote is a right. The right to vote is mentioned five times in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments speak of voting specifically. So it’s agreed that it’s a right. So what if we required a few things in order to be able to exercise it?

Well, I think that requiring someone prove who they are, and qualifying that they are a U.S. citizen, is not too much to ask. Everyone can do that regardless of economic status, and it will not prevent anyone from voting. Right? But what if we added a $100 “voting” tax? Just something to make a little extra money for the government. Not a big deal, right? What? Wait! If you add a fee to exercise a right, does that not put that right out of the reach of some people who may be economically challenged? That makes that fee discriminatory against that demographic of people. We can’t have that. H,ow can we add fees to exercising a right and make it hard or impossible for people without the means to be able to exercise that right? Can we not all agree that is not what a right should be? Can we agree that if you exclude a segment of the population it becomes discrimination?Close

As one of our founding fathers, James Madison, stated so eloquently: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority.” We need to make sure that we remember that we have to take care of the rights of all the people —even those we may not agree with— but if it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution (our highest law of the land) then we should do everything in our power to make sure we do not discriminate against any group, majority or minority.

So why do I bring this up and use the right to vote as an example? Because this is exactly what some legislators are trying to do to the Second Amendment. They want to charge an additional tax on firearms and ammunition. They want to add fees to getting a permit to own or carry a firearm (requiring a license to own a firearm is already unconstitutional in my opinion). The latest stroke of infringement is to outlaw private sales of firearms and require all sales to go through a federally-licensed firearms dealer (FFL). This would add a “transfer fee” to every purchase of a firearm. Regardless, if it was from a FFL or a private citizen. While these things are wrong on so many levels, let’s get back to the basics of a right. Making that right out of reach for any group of people.

Firearms are not cheap but you can get them fairly inexpensively if you look around. What possible way can taxing or adding a fee to firearms and firearms transactions stop any type of firearms crime? It can’t. That’s ludicrous, of course. And by adding a fee or tax to own or possess a firearm (other than the cost of the firearm itself and maybe regular sales tax) they are trying to limit the rights of all people who are of a certain demographic, in this case the very people who are most prone to crime and need the ability to defend themselves.

Many cry discrimination and racism about many things, but those that make our laws and try to restrict your rights this way are some of the biggest culprits. So a word of advice or warning to our legislators who are thinking of this way of restricting a right that all law abiding Americans should be able to exercise: You cannot tax a right out of existence; the people will not stand for it.

Folks, pay attention to your state and federal representatives and what they are trying to do or pass. Stay up to date on your state‘s legislative sessions and the bills being discussed and submitted. Most of all, make your voice heard! Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, trying to remove rights should be a time you come together and make sure that those in positions to make laws know your feelings.

Originally published on http://www.opslens.com

Is Requiring a Fee to Exercise a Right Constitutional?

I think regardless of what political party you belong to we can probably all agree that requiring a fee to exercise a right is just wrong, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

Let’s take voting for instance. We all can agree being able to vote is a right. The right to vote is mentioned 5 times in the Constitution. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments speak of voting specifically. So it’s agreed that it’s a right. So what if we required a few things in order to be able to exercise it?

Well I think that requiring someone prove who they are, and that they are a US citizen, is not to much to ask right? Everyone can do that regardless of economic status, and it will not prevent anyone from voting. Right? But what if we added a $100 “voting” tax? Just something to make a little extra money for the government. Not a big deal right? WHAT? Wait! If you add a fee to exercise a right does that not put that right out of the reach of some people who may be economically challenged? That makes that fee discriminatory against that demographic of people. We can’t have that, how can we add fees to exercising a right and make it hard or impossible for people without the means to be able to exercise that right? Can we not all agree that is not what a right should be? Can we agree that if you exclude a segment of the population it becomes discrimination?

As one of our founding fathers, James Madison, stated so eloquently: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority.” We need to make sure that we remember that we have to take care of the rights of all the people, even those we may not agree with, but if it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution (our highest law of the land) then we should do everything in our power to make sure we do not discriminate against any group, majority or minority.

So why do I bring this up and use the right to vote as an example? Because this is exactly what some legislators are trying to do to the 2nd Amendment. They want to charge an additional tax on firearms and ammunition. They want to add fees to getting a permit to own or carry a firearm (requiring a license to own a firearm is already unconstitutional in my opinion) and the latest to outlaw private sales of firearms and require all sales to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. This would add a “transfer fee” to every purchase of a firearm. Regardless if it was from a FFL or a private citizen. While these things are wrong on so many levels, let’s get back to the basics of a right. Making that right out of reach for any group of people.

Firearms are not cheap but you can get them fairly inexpensively if you look around. What possible way can taxing or adding a fee to firearms and firearms transactions stop any type of firearms crime? It can’t, that’s ludicrous of course. And by adding a fee or tax to own or possess a firearm (other than the cost of the firearm itself and maybe regular sales tax) they are trying to limit the rights of all people who are of a certain demographic, in this case the very people who are most prone to crime and need the ability to defend themselves.

So a word of advice or warning to our legislators who are thinking of this way of restricting a right that ALL law abiding Americans should be able to exercise. Many cry discrimination and racism about many things, but those that make our laws and try to restrict your rights this way are some of the biggest culprits.

Pay attention to your state and federal Represenatives and what they are trying to do or pass. Stay up to date on your states legislative sessions and the Bills being discussed and submitted. Most of all make your voice heard! Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, trying to remove rights should be a time you come together and make sure that those in positions to make laws know your feelings.

You cannot tax a right out of existence, the people will not stand for it.

Florida’s attempt at adding fees – http://bit.ly/2AuuuTV

A few Federal Attempts – http://bit.ly/2Aopyjm & http://bit.ly/2AqUPlY

Mandatory background checks and restricted private sales in store for Florida gun owners, nationwide?

How do you get mandatory background checks on ALL firearms sales, including private sales without passing a background check law? You regulate the sales themselves. But like many firearms related proposed gun laws, this has nothing to do with reducing crime or saving lives. It is simply an emotionally driven do nothing law that will cost law-abiding citizens (they are the only ones that will follow it) money they should not have to spend.

Here is something I want you to think about while reading this article: What percentage of criminals who used firearms in crimes got their guns from private sales to include gun shows? I will answer that later on here.

After the Parkland School murders there was an outcry for ‘more gun control” from many groups. Even though the murderer in that case was already illegally possessing and using the firearm in a prohibited place and committing murder. A push for more laws, new laws was heard nationwide. This is called an emotional response to a non-existent problem. That’s right, looking to pass laws that would have zero effect on a mass murderer is basically doing something just to say they did something. So in Florida they raised the age for anyone to buy a long gun (rifle or shotgun) from 18 to 21. They banned bump-stocks (documented to have been used in one crime nationwide), created a “red flag” law to remove guns from citizens who have been accused of mental illness, and on a positive note, they created armed school safety officers.

Now even after doing all that Representative Margaret Good, (D) Sarasota, submitted on December 21st, 2018 a Bill (HB 135) in Florida that as described on the Florida House website: “Requires transfers of firearms when neither party is licensed dealer to be conducted through licensed dealer & requires processing by licensed dealer”. This bill wants to require any sale of a firearm to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer, requiring a background check processing, and a fee on top of the cost of the firearm itself. Anyone who would violate this would be committing a felony. So just exactly what problem does this address? What criminals are they trying to target by making all sales of firearms, even private ones, go through a firearms dealer and requiring a fee?

Back to my statement earlier that I wanted you to think about while reading this: “What percentage of criminals who used firearms in crimes got their guns from private sales to include gun shows?” The Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997-2004” found that 0.8% (that’s less than one percent) of criminals bought their firearms at a gun show. Also they found that about 12% bought or traded for the firearm with a family member or friend. Just how would this new proposed law stop that from happening? Who in their right mind thinks for one minute that a criminal that wants to acquire a firearm will go through any kind of sale that requires a background check? Anyone that thinks that is just kidding themselves. What that same survey found was that in over 77% of the cases the criminals obtained their firearms illegally anyway. And this new law is supposed to stop that?

This is the problem with the “gunsense” or “guncontrolnow” movements. They continually try and pass more and more laws restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to purchase, possess and carry firearms, since they are the only ones that will follow any new laws. Criminals as the name implies do not follow laws. We outlawed many drugs and just see how well that has stopped the illegal drug trade right?

I alluded earlier that the firearms crisis is not really a crisis. Many who have been fed the sensationalized headlines of the anti-right mainstream media will become apoplectic at this statement. But all one has to do is look at the facts (numbers) to see it. According to the FBI’s annual report “2017 Crime in the United States” murders with a firearm declined 1.4% from 2016 to 2017. This includes a 2.4% decrease in murders using a handgun. The NRA-ILA ran the numbers and found “Murders involving a rifle of any kind increased 6.6% due to the horrific attacks in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. Outside of those two attacks, the number of rifle murders decreased 15.9%. The number of people killed with their attacker’s fists, hands, or feet increased 4%. There were 696 people killed in such a manner – more than 72% more than killed with a rifle of any kind.” Yes you read that correctly, more people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles in any given year. Looking over a preliminary study of 2018 crime numbers from police departments in the 30 largest U.S. cities projected the 2018 murder rate to be 7.6% lower than the 2017 rate. That’s right down not up, you would never believe that given the way the news media feeds the hysteria nationally.

What about other violent crimes where guns may be used? Robbery decreased from 332,797 in 2016 to 319,356 in 2017. Down 4% overall. Robberies that used a firearm were down 5.4%.

So just what are these background check, gun storage, sales, age restrictions, banning of certain firearms supposed to accomplish? Murder and firearms victimizations are already much lower than 25 years ago, by >45%, in the number of murders nationwide. We already have over 30,000 gun laws on the books, not to mention laws against firearms being on school grounds, federal laws against certain people possessing firearms, and of course not to be forgotten that MURDER is already illegal and carries some of the stiffest penalties in the nation (as it should).

So I challenge anyone that supports more gun laws or restrictions on citizens possessing firearms. Please explain in simple language just how any of these new laws will stop a murderer bent on killing someone. Taking away guns will not work, they will just get them on the black market and remove the ability of law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from these criminals. I contend that any more restrictions on firearms ownership and possession will only result in more victims. Why and how you ask? Because you will be removing the firearms from those that follow the law, not break it, making them unarmed helpless victims to those who care less what laws you make.

So what should we do you ask? I say allow law abiding citizens to carry lawful firearms at places that are now designated “gun free zones” since they really are only “law abiding citizen self-defense restricted areas” now anyway. Murderers call these areas “target rich” environments. We have seen how well those areas stop attacks and murderers. Stop putting more restrictions on those who follow the law. Enhance penalties on crimes already on the books committed with a firearm, maybe actually prosecute those who break the federal firearms laws already on the books. Better mental health treatment and evaluation for those that need it. Hold people responsible for their actions, including kids and young adults. Hold criminals accountable, hold parents responsible for their kids. Enough is enough. Stop blaming things that have no bearing on the results. Freedom is not pretty or safe, it’s actually not supposed to be, it’s supposed to make you appreciate when you have it, and yearn for it when you don’t.

AFT rules “bump stocks” are now “machine guns” and illegal to own.

So it has started. The Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced yesterday that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), stating that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law.

What I find really sad is that the AG and group received 119,264 comments in support of the new rule and only 66,182 comments were received that opposed the rule. Of those that opposed it, over 40,000 were form letter submitted by National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) on behalf of its members. A little over 25,000 submitted by individuals. That is just downright sad. That Americans who believe in the right to bear arms, and did not see this ruling for what it was, the first step in more to come, could not be bothered enough to send in a comment? All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.

Many that did comment made many valid points that the “Department” responded to. One of the most interesting that I read was the argument that if bump stocks are made illegal then other things that can accomplish the same type of firing of a firearm must be made illegal also, such as rubber bands, belt loops and even just trigger fingers. The Departments response was very interesting:

The Department has detailed in the NPRM and this rule the distinction between bump firing with a bump-stock-type device and using belt loops or rubber bands. Although a shooter using a belt loop, string, or other manual method utilizes recoil energy to bump fire, the shooter is responsible for constraining the firearm, maintaining the correct finger pressure, and regulating the force necessary to fire continuously. This is clearly distinguishable from a bump-stock-type device, as ATF has explained that such a device functions “as a self-acting and self-regulating force that channels the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device’s extension ledge.

Does that make any sense to anyone other than maybe the ATF?

So what will this new rule cost you? That’s right even if you don’t own a bump stock, it will cost you. Well, first there is the cost to the Government (You the taxpayer) as stated in the new rule “ATF estimates the total undiscounted cost of this rule at $312.1 million over 10 years.” So they are instituting a rule that very few if any will follow, and it will cost the taxpayers 312 MILLION dollars!

Then there is the not so small fact that the ATF estimates “the number of bump-stock-type devices held by the public could range from about 280,000 to about 520,000“. And they estimate the value of these at about $139,000,000. Meaning they are going to cost the public in personal property over 139 million! Now just how does the ATF propose that all of these new illegal devices be accounted for?

You see again we must look at simple history for things like this. NJ enacted a high capacity magazine ban about a year ago, and they called for owners of them to destroy them or turn them in or face becoming felons. Guess what happened? No one turned any in. Simply put it’s an unenforceable law that does nothing but make law abiding citizens into felons and accomplishes nothing for public safety. In other words a complete waste of time, money and effort. Typical for our government these days.

So to those who think that we should make felons out of more than 280-520,000 Americans because of the actions of one evil murderer, you just got your wish. But even though I do not own a bump stock myself (and would tell you anyway if I did) I think you are a bunch of idiots. If that is the rationale used then why did we not outlaw box cutters when they were improperly used to kill not hundreds but thousands? You can’t answer that so don’t even try, you will look foolish.

To those who do own a bump stock, the Government has deemed you unable to act like lawful Americans that you are, you are a criminal and felon 90 days from now. If you fail to destroy or turn in your bump stock, you are violating this new rule and federal laws. But then again, they have no idea you have it, they cannot come to your home and search it without cause and a warrant (we at least still have that right for now) and like in NJ, when no one turns any of these in, and no one destroys them (except for a few who probably got them second hand to do it for publicity) we will all see this new rule for what it was, the possible start of more restrictions and laws to make law-abiding firearms owners into criminals.

Have we just gotten closer to that “Crossroad” I was speaking of in my last article? I think so, and I think the anti-rights and government are driving us faster and faster in that direction.

You can read the new rule, the public comments (summarized) and related things here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

My Fellow Americans, have we come to a crossroad yet again?

We must take an honest look at where we are and where we may be heading in order to make sure that our country does not collapse around us, and become that very thing many Americans have fought and died so selflessly to prevent.

Many valiant Americans have fought both on American soil, in the formative years of our country, and during conflicts many thousands of miles away, to prevent the loss of the very freedoms that our country was founded to ensure for “we the people”. Shall we allow the very fabric of that to be torn and thrown to the winds to go where it may fall? I pray not.

I feel we are coming to a crossroads again in our country. We have come to these before, during the Revolution, during the Civil War, and during the wars that enveloped most of the world, and we have endured. All fought to preserve the United States in the form that would stand the test of time. All fought by brave Americans who believed that they were standing up for something bigger than themselves, something so important that their lives were put on hold, they traveled away from family, and some paid the ultimate sacrifice of their very lives. What could hold that type of meaning to an American?

I say to you that it is that very thing, FREEDOM, that is what they and many before and now hold so dear. We grasp at it, cherish it, and yearn for it because we know that without it, we are not truly Americans but may as well be part of the very countries subjects we fought to win our freedoms from.

True Americans believe reverently in those iconic words written by Thomas Jefferson so many years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This was such an important part of why we became the country that we are they wrote those very words down when declaring their independence from others! We fought a war amongst ourselves, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died, fighting to make all men free and citizens. Racism has no place in America that I see. ALL are created equal, and all have the rights we share.

But the meaning of that word that was so important to our founders seems to be losing it’s meaning and it’s worth to many today. And therefore, we find ourselves at the crossroads today. What is freedom and what did it mean, and should it mean to us today? Should it mean anything different than it did to Jefferson, Adams, Washington and the rest? I say NO! It is no different now than before and, in the future, that none can see, it should be the same.

A citizen is free because they are just that a citizen. As those wise Americans said, EVERY citizen must be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. And as long as those things do not harm or restrict another’s same rights, it is then an individual thing, this freedom we have. This is where many today fail to see what freedom really meant then and should mean now.

Freedom is that choice of choosing between what is right and what is wrong. Choose wrongly and you may have consequences, some of which could be forever and affect you for the rest of your life. Who decides what is right and wrong? That is already set in the fabric of our founding documents, and our Basic principles as outlined in our Constitution.

Freedom was so important to our countries founders they codified it in our most precious of founding documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. They felt that freedoms all citizens should share were so important that they listed some that they did not even want the very government they were forming to be able to take away. This became known as the Bill of Rights. Many today have never even read this iconic document, yet they call for it to be changed because it is “outdated” or “does not apply” to today’s America. I say to them you are ignorant of the meaning of the document and its entire purpose. I say that you who think that way are not only wrong, but the very kind of threat that the authors were worried about rising up in this great nation and made that very document to stand against.

We have the freedom to choose. We have the freedom to decide our own fates. We have the “Bill of Rights”. No more should one desire to give up their rights than their very lives. As without those rights are our lives any better or for the worse? The founders wrote in the preamble to the Bill of rights these very telling words: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” declaring that they wanted to make sure that the Government DID NOT restrict the very thing they were voting on and passed, the rights of the citizens.

So how have we drifted so far away from where we were to where we are today that one may strip the rights from this group or that? By the use of the courts and the controlling parties. America was meant to be a land of the free. A land where citizens ruled themselves and when they had common interest the Government could aid them not restrict them. The Government was established to help make the United States stronger, not more divided, to make the country wealthier not poorer. We have lost the vision of our founders.

I say to you that we are free Americans. We have basic rights that the Constitution does not create but were given to us at the beginning of time, and are PROTECTED by the Constitution. Lest we allow those rights to be given away and restricted by the very government we the people founded we must decide what road we take.

We must choose carefully. If we give up one right what is to stop the rest from falling along with it. Do we want a Government that is all powerful? One that can disregard the rights we have now and say enter you home whenever they wish? Maybe incarcerate you for a crime without a trial of your peers? How about seizing your property or land because they think that they are better stewards of it? And of course one that is hotly debated today, the right to defending yourself and your family and property from lawless criminals.

Do we become that country of the subjects to a government that is our provider of all or do we work to become that country that the citizens work to provide for themselves and have the right to become whatever they wish and can achieve? I say the later.

I will leave you with this. Freedom is never pretty or safe. It has always had its dangers and perils. Yet it is the very reason we are here where we are and in this wonderful country we are part of, the United States of America. My ancestors came here and fought to free this country. Some of them fought to maintain it, and in the future should it become necessary we must be willing to defend it again. Freedom is not safe, it should not be, it should be hard fought and cherished like the prize that it is.

God Bless you and keep you safe, may he watch over you and your family. God Bless the United States of America.

By Chris Wagoner

Those terrible death machines called “bump stocks”.

Well, I finally got to read the official Las Vegas Mass Murder report. It is 187 pages long and a lot of it is simple documentation of evidence and statement of things we already knew.

But a few interesting things came to light. Probably the most interesting being that it is documented that bump stocks were used in that shooting. Yes it has been documented that bump stocks were used in exactly 1 (one) crime in the entire United States, yet we have a national push to ban them and they have been in 11 states already. Think about that for a minute.

Here is a firearm accessory that when looked at in all honesty is nothing more than a novelty, a “fun” item to shoot with. It definitely is not used for accurate fire. Nor does any serious shooter use one for self-defense as it cuts the accuracy of your shot placement way down. If you know firearms and know how to shoot a rifle, you can fire very quickly (as fast as a bump stock if not faster), with far more accuracy without one.

The Las Vegas murderer used bump stocks on 12 of the 14 rifles that he fired before he killed himself. He fired over 1050 rounds. What became interesting and obvious to anyone with knowledge about firearms is that most of the rifles used had 100 round magazines and when he ran them dry (ran out of ammo) rather than reloading, he just switched rifles. Even though he had multiple loaded magazines ready to go. Also interesting was the fact that many of the rifles used had no optics or sights on them at all. What does that mean? He was not aiming at anyone but just spraying rounds at the crowd. Some of those he did have optics on had red dot style sights. Shooting one of those with a bump stock is not very accurate at all either. And at the distance he was from the crowd, would have been useless.

What does this lead one to think about the shooter and shooting? He was not very experienced with shooting the firearms he used. Had he been, well without giving copycats out there ideas, he could have done much more damage shooting differently. Let’s leave it at that. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say had he not used bump stocks he would have caused many more deaths or injuries as his accuracy would have been much greater.

Now before you go off on a tangent and think I am defending bump stocks, I am not. Personally, I think they are just a novelty item and serve no real purpose other than maybe being fun to waste ammo with. BUT I will say that I also do not support any bans of them. Especially based on the fact they have been used in just one (1) document case of murder. Again we must revisit the fact that it’s not the tool that is at fault it’s the person using the tool.

So why the bump stock bans and cry for a national ban? Because they need something to blame that they can target. It’s is to hard to target human behavior and it’s causes. The real problem in these cases. So let’s target something that really had nothing to do with the causation and may have actually contributed to fewer lives being lost. Let us blame the tool, not the user. Does that make any sense at all? I say no.

http://bit.ly/2G9rUYU