Original LVRJ article for reference
So Dina Titus sponsored a bill to ban bumpfire stocks and regulate them like machine guns under the National Firearms Act. I haven't bothered to read the text but either they will be effectively banned or people will have to register them and maybe pay a $200 tax. She is proposing this rehash of her 2017 bill written in the wake of the 2017 Mandalay Bay, I mean Route 91 Harvest Festival, or October 1 Shooting (whatever PC name we're calling it now) because of court rulings that are chipping away at the ATF's arbitrary reclassification of bumpfire stocks as machine guns.
Donald Trump, instead of having a spine, wanted to make a "deal" and with the NRAs help went for the low hanging fruit of getting the ATF to effectively ban bumpfire stocks. To do this, the ATF had to abuse the definition of machine gun and their whole regulatory authority like an Afghan man does to a young boy's butthole. A military court and the 6th District Court of Appeals found that bumpfire stocks are not machine guns. No logical person would, only hoplopaths and politically motivated retards.
Enter Dina Titus. So to remain politically relevant and get her name out there to appear she actually gives a shit about the retards, welfare queens, communists, illegals, and union employees that vote for her, she waved the bloody shirt of 10/01/2017. "We have to ban bump fire stocks because the courts might correctly interpret the law," she didn't say.
This is asinine on so many levels. First, when the ATF "banned" them there was not some mass turn in of the tens to hundreds of thousands of them out there. Most of them are probably still out there hiding under beds, in closets, and buried in the yard. Making them more illegal through the bill process instead of bureaucratic witchcraft won't cause thousands of gun owners to turn them in. Given the fake election, the COVID bullshit, and the fact that Democrats are politely saying they really do want to subjugate half the country, no one with any balls is turning shit in.
Second, machine guns are legal and should be more legal (like new manufacture and no NFA BS). 3D printing has made bumpfire stocks kinda redundant. You can print a lightning link and have a full-auto AR-15 that no one can stop. Heck, all you need is a coat hanger.
Third, who's to say that the court system doesn't unfuck itself and rules that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional? Or that in short order, the way things are going, citizens stop caring?
So this bill is going nowhere and if it does, who cares? Bumpfire stock owners didn't seem to care before. And frankly, if the Democrats get the votes to pass this, they will be passing much worse and then they will have much more to worry about than this.
In the end, this is a publicity stunt that idiots will fall for. Democracy simply doesn't work.
So we're comparing the LVMPD murder stat sheet from 2020, specifically for justifiable homicides, against our tracking of defensive gun uses for the same year. We track publicized events, which almost always means the news media (papers and TV). Most defensive gun uses never result in a shot being fired, so reporting is rare. In fact, guns are used more times in self-defense than in crimes, but few people ever share their experiences, call the police, or report it to the media. The most conservative estimate is about 100,000-200,000 defensive gun uses a year nationally, vs. 100,000 or so combined murder, suicides, deaths, and injuries by gun.
In Metro's jurisdiction (Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County) there were (per their report):
2020: 21 justifiable homicides
2019: 9 justifiable homicides.
Remember a justifiable homicide is when someone is killed; this does not track defensive gun uses reported to police. Also: Metro's numbers may include officer involved shootings and non-gun justifiable homicides.
But the updated report pulled today show different totals:
Metro reported the following fatal officer involved shootings (all cleared by the DA as justifiable):
Those numbers don't match up.
I'm not sure of the exact reason for the discrepancy but as more information is revealed over time the numbers can change (plus guns are only way to defend oneself). 2018's large variance? Aside from non-gun self-defense maybe I wasn't paying as close attention to the news as I would have liked or the stories didn't make the news. I tend to follow 2A news aggregator sites that find and post defensive gun uses to catch what I miss.
Anyhow, it looks like as far as deaths are concerned, a fairly accurate gun justifiable homicide picture can be put together through just media reports. Again, murders exceed justifiable homicides because most defensive gun uses don't involve a shot being fired and murders by gun always do.
On the Second AMendment
The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the government cannot force you to do anything.
Take a business for example. A business refuses to enforce a certain mandate. The health inspector comes to write a ticket. The business tax people suspend the license. Eventually, law enforcement will come to shut the business down or arrest people. In another vein, perhaps the police are called to pull a child out of the home because of a court order so the six year-old can become “transgender.” Or they want to arrest you for being in a political protest.
Non-compliance has to be backed by resolute force. That you are willing to kill those that would “force” you into compliance. When they come to arrest or otherwise harm you, you kill whoever the government sent. Once you’ve killed enough, eventually they stop coming (to badly paraphrase Gen. Lemay).
If a lot of people do this, then suddenly mandates aren’t enforced any longer because they can’t be because the enforcers won’t do it. I know a lot of would-be enforcers simply won’t get to that point, but others have to be dissuaded. That is why we have the Second Amendment (in part).
Yes, non-compliance by force may cost you everything, including your life, but the whole philosophy behind the Second Amendment and the American way of life is that death is preferable to living on one’s knees.
As far as exactly “when” to forcibly non-comply, I’d refer you to the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson articulated it very well.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
What does this mean in today’s context? When a very large number of honest, hard-working Americans are rendered destitute because they cannot work and shop and things look like Australia, then people will act. Historical examples show us that people don’t preemptively deal with problems ahead of time while they can suffer through because of the risks involved. This means that the suffering, and the consequences for failure, are greater earlier on.
Some will wait, some will not. I do not think we are at the tipping point, but I feel like the clock is at a minute to midnight.
Sage advice on "what to do".
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West