Home Featured Why banning bump fire stocks is not the answer

Why banning bump fire stocks is not the answer

Why banning bump fire stocks is not the answer

By now everyone is aware that the Las Vegas coward used a bump fire stock device to at least aid in his murderous rampage of thousands of innocent Americans. And naturally, the politicians on the left grabbed their prepared, pre-packaged talking points to repeat to the cameras who’d talk to them. As we can nearly always predict, their first reaction is to attack modern sporting rifles – “assault weapons/rifles” according to them – and then they move on to fill in the blanks of their packaged sentence “Why does anyone need a ___________?” This time that sentence – at least for now – includes “bump fire stocks”.

Bump fire stocks, by association, were thrust into the spotlight this week because they were used by the Las Vegas murderer. We have our own opinions of the usefulness of bump stocks that we documented in our own video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6oaRAgdslE) and are personally not fans of them. My guns are for sporting, hunting, and self defense use and the bump fire system is ineffective in all of these cases. But bump fire-equipped rifles are in many cases the closest many americans will get to firing something close to that of a fully automatic rifle. Therein lies the attraction to many gun owners.

Our video points out that while the rate of fire the Las Vegas coward sought could be accomplished with a bump fire stock, his accuracy suffered. Based on the number of rounds this psycho fired, thankfully the majority of his shots hit nothing or no one. Had this shooter employed standard shooting techniques without a bump fire stock, I am fearful of what the outcome may have been.

Now that the focus has turned to bump fire stocks, naturally the cry is to ban them. This is typical of the left. And the right becomes naturally defensive because we are so used to the attack on our Second Amendment rights. But by pushing back, the right is accused of being insensitive which we all know isn’t true and is simply a baiting technique.

So what do we do? Do we “have a conversation” as is so often said? The problem is that the conversation is always expected to be had by those in Washington DC. That is the wrong place to start. We know what the Democrats’ stance is – ban as many firearm-related products as we can. The Republicans? Let me ask you this: do you trust Mitch McConnell, John McCain, or most of Republicans to represent you in a closed door meeting with Democrats to decide the fate of the Second Amendment? How many deals would be cut with concessions being made on behalf of our constitutional rights?

The “conversation” can only be had by non-politicians who are less concerned with lobbyists and television cameras than they are about addressing people’s concerns. Any ideas could be shared with politicians once a non-political panel provides them. But if the start of the conversation is “what can we ban?”, then the conversation is over before it starts. At some point the left has to include accountability in their own thought process. Ignoring the evils of the criminally insane, the overly medicated, and other people and placing blame on whatever they choose to grab prior to or during their murderous rampages is their biggest weakness.

Should the bump fire stock be banned? Simply, no. It would only be banned because it was used in the Las Vegas shooting, not because it increased the shooter’s effectiveness. That can be proven. Why ban something that can be proven to be less effective than a standard semi-automatic rifle? And we know what would happen if they were banned. Then the left would suddenly agree that the bump fire is less effective and that the AR-15 was the issue and they’d then focus on modern sporting rifles saying they are more deadly then the accessory they just banned.

I spoke to what I can only assume was an anti-gun group a year ago in Louisville. I was approached outside my hotel as I sipped on a cold beer. The two chicks who talked to me asked my opinion on “assault weapons” and fully automatic guns. They also asked about accessories that sped up how fast a gun is fired. I had never heard anyone ask that before. How odd is it that two years later this is a hot topic? The intent of this person was clearly to attack semi-automatic rifles – AR-15’s. I made it clear to her that a “device” is not the same as a firearm. I did this because I feel that if the left wants to ban a device and then eventually the gun and we treat them both with equal importance, then they will attempt to equally ban them. To me, one – the gun – is protected by the Constitution. The other – the device – is protected by courts.

I recognize that the Second Amendment does not apply directly to a bump fire stock. As I told a reporter on a radio show yesterday, if a rifle is manufactured with a bump fire stock then the Second Amendment would in fact apply to that rifle that happened to have a bump fire stock on it.

Finally, how dare the left say that the right does not have the right to pray for the families and friends affected by this horrible crime. Who are they to decide who can mourn and when? As long as Democrat-controlled cities with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation continue to register some of the most jaw-dropping and disgusting murder numbers on a daily basis without so much as a shoutout let alone a prayer by any Democrat, they forfeit their right to throw shade onto anyone.

  • Erik Winter


  • James

    “Why does anyone need a ___________?”

    So, answer the question. Why do they? More importantly, if it is not overstepping some 2nd Amendment protection to limit the importation, manufacture and ownership of fully-automatic assault rifles then why is it overstepping the 2nd Amendment to limit bump fire stocks and gat cranks? Or let me guess, you don’t think there should be any limits on these, either? If so, then that puts your defense of these bump fire stocks into what, to most Americans {and rightly so}, is the same irrational category.

    I can appreciate that you keep calling the Las Vegas mass shooter a “coward”, but that isn’t actually doing a damn thing about making it less likely that some other lunatic like him will legally be able to buy both the firearms and accessories which effectively turns a semi-automatic assault-style weapon {modeled after full-auto military assault rifles} into full-auto military assault rifles. Your answer is claims that they’re not very effective? Unacceptable.

    I’m not a politician but I am a gun owner who firmly believes there need to be limits to gun ownership. I don’t think wholesale bans are necessary, I believe in restrictions like those of FFA weapons. If you want a modern weapon of war then you should have to show yourself qualified and responsible enough to safely handle one and they should be in short supply. This is called a compromise, and the existence of such requirements and limitations for decades is why full-auto M4’s, M16’s and AK-47’s are all but non-existent in crimes in this country.

    Of course, for this view I would be relegated to “the left”, only interested in “bans” and thus “the conversation” would be “over before it starts”. Obviously it isn’t just the politicians in Washington D.C. you have a problem with, it’s anyone who doesn’t buy into your laissez faire attitudes about the 2nd Amendment and the typical slippery-slope fallacies of the gun lobby.

    Videos mocking the effectiveness of certain weapons or accessories just isn’t going to cut it if we’re being at all serious about actually addressing the issue of these kinds of extremely dangerous weapons easily getting into the hands of people who slaughter innocents with them. Clearly you and I, Mr. Glasco, are very much at odds. You can keep writing partisan rants and saying your prayers for victims, I’m going to stick to the far more practical solution — voting for more common sensible gun control.