No, Banning Bump Fire Stocks Will Not Stop Mass Shootings

No, Banning Bump Fire Stocks Will Not Stop Mass Shootings

No, Banning Bump Fire Stocks Will Not Stop Mass Shootings

With the exception of attacks by Islamic Jihadists, as well as their current preferred group of people, every time there’s a mass shooting, the Left always moves to demonize and punish those who didn’t do the crime. The horrific attack by an evil gunman in Las Vegas is no exception.

Photo Credit: ScreenShot

If there were an opening for Gulag watchman, Nancy would apply.

So now, in an effort to “do something” to stop mass shootings, the Left’s newest target is bump fire stocks, three words most of them likely had never heard until a few days ago. They want them banned, and they want them banned yesterday.

But will making bump stocks—which are reportedly flying off the shelves much thanks to the Left’s hyper-focus on them—lower the incidences of mass shootings? In a word: No.

Why? Because anyone hell-bent on doing what the SOB in Las Vegas did will find a way. Pressure cookers, fertilizer, stolen guns, black market sales ring a bell? Heck, I can make a bump stock out of everyday items readily available at the local hardware store, or by simply using the belt that holds up my pants.

Now I don’t know how accurate that video is, but that’s not the point. The point is: similar videos and articles are literally all over the internet. And I’d bet any typical gun enthusiast already has that knowledge anyway. But that won’t stop the feeeeeeelings of the bleeding hearts from “doing something” in the face of the attack in Las Vegas. And you can bet that next will come the Internet purging. We already know that Google and YouTube, companies run by leftist ideologues, are already censoring speech they don’t like. Why not bump stock instruction?

When asked what specific new law would stop a mass shooting, this is the kind of tripe the Left offers:

Ah, the fallback “background checks” mantra, ad nauseum. Uh, we have background checks, lady. Is that all you’ve got? FYI: there is literally nothing that we currently know of that would have prohibited Mr. Paddock from owning guns. Epic. Fail.

And then there’s Queen Nance, gun control expert:

Which begs the question: why, when your party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, Nancy, did you not address gun control then? Answer: because you and your party elitists don’t really care about gun control. You’re playing politics in an effort to paint conservatives as evil and heartless in the face of a national tragedy in an effort to retake control of the House. Period. Full stop. I can just hear the campaign ads swirling around in your empty head, making that same weird sound a leaking balloon makes right before it flops to the ground.

No, banning bump stocks will not stop mass shootings, but it will lay another brick on the path toward the eradication of the second amendment. Thank you very much, Miss Pelosi, for finally telling the truth. And anyone who thinks the Left doesn’t want full confiscation of every gun in America is foolish, and naïve. See the proof of their true goal here. And here:

Also see the praise Obama once heaped on Australia, who, by the way, are collecting guns. Again. It didn’t work the first time, and it won’t work now. But that’s not the true goal, now is it?

No, this “bump stock ban” thing is a ruse. It’s a transparent power play by the Democrat Party. And exploiting the raw emotions of the entire nation in an effort to take away their rights, and place themselves back into power, is the very definition of “despicable.” Don’t buy the lies, people, and don’t let them exploit our grief. Do I want to see more mass shootings? Of course not. My heart aches for the dead, the injured, and the grieving. But bans are not the answer. If we lose the second amendment, every other right will fall like a rickety house of cards.

Written by

3 Comments
  • GWB says:

    which are reportedly flying off the shelves much thanks to the Left’s hyper-focus on them

    It makes you wonder if the left doesn’t own stock in these companies.

    Which begs the question: why, when your party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, Nancy, did you not address gun control then?
    Ummm, actually, they did. The ’94 AWB was because of Democrat control of Congress (and the WH). It cost them in the next election. In 2004 when it expired, the Dems did not control either house or the WH. When they did briefly control both houses, with 0bama in office, the Republicans held enough seats to risk a filibuster in the Senate. (Evidently, back then, they felt they could actually fight for conservative PoVs.) There were lots of bills introduced – none ever made it very far because of fear of a filibuster.
    But, it never slowed down their rhetoric. They’ve never stopped talking about it.

    You’re playing politics in an effort to paint conservatives as evil and heartless in the face of a national tragedy in an effort to retake control of the House.

    Well, this is absolutely true. But never doubt that they would eliminate the Second Amendment entirely (exempting themselves, naturally) if they thought they could get away with it.

    However, this “bump stock” ban won’t really impact the 2A much. It does not effect trigger add-ons that allow for effectively burst fire. And, if they can be easily built, they will be.

    Interestingly, I’ve heard that of the dozen weapons the Vegas shooter had with this add-on, most of them had jammed (this is a problem with the ‘bump fire stock’, evidently). This (assuming he knew about the jamming during his attack planning) might explain why he had so many weapons – instead of clearing a jam, you just pick up a new weapon.

    • GWB says:

      Screwed up the second /blockquote/ (got a ‘/’ in the first tag). “Which begs the question…” part is a quote.

      • Jodi Giddings says:

        Oh, sure, they’ve been trying to ban guns forever. How can you impose one-party rule with that pesky 2A inhibiting you. And what would they do without this wedge issue, anyway.

        Spot on on the rest of your points. It would indeed explain why he had so many rifles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram did not return a 200.