Bump Stocks Are Illegal in California, Reminds the Attorney General

Bump Stock

By Phoenix7777 via Wikimedia Commons

Press release from the California Attorney General:

The California Department of Justice today issued an advisory reminding gun retailers that bump stocks, also known as “multiburst trigger activators” because they accelerate the rapid-fire capacity of a firearm, are illegal in California. Bump stocks reportedly were used in the Las Vegas shooting on October 1, the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

The advisory, issued to 2,300 dealers across California, references California Penal Code 16930, which defines bump stocks, and Penal Code 32900 and 32990, which make them illegal. Any person in the State who possesses, manufactures, imports into the state, offers for sale, or who gives or lends one of the devices has committed a crime. Penalties for violating the law can include up to three years imprisonment.



  • Hahahaa. Absurd nonsense. Bump stocks suck. No accuracy in firing. Anyone with a brain knows the “lone shooter” profile (in Las Vegas and elsewhere) is a fraud. False flag all the way.

      • Pc16930 is pretty vague. A device that “increases the rate of fire” of a weapon… increases from what? I dont think a gun will continue to work if it is increased beyond what it can physically do. They don’t define “burst”. It bans devices that “activate” the trigger but not devices that de activate or limit them. Doesn’t technically apply to all tac trigger setups. You can still bumpfire from the shoulder if you know how and there is the belt loop trick too. Good thing the LV shooter didn’t have a Nemo Omen or a Socom. Has anybody seen pics of the 10, 16, 26, 42,47 or how ever many different numbers of guns to be reported? I’ve only seen pics of 3.

        • That’s another weird aspect. Cop pictures like to line up all the illegal stuff (money, guns, drugs) and show their trophies… not in this case.

    • I don’t know about the false flag stuff, but there was no way to miss a crowd that covered over an acre of ground at four hundred yards. If the argument is that a bump stock wasn’t used in Vegas because they aren’t accurate, well a blind man could have wreaked havoc under those circumstances with one.

    • Oh, yeah. This is a false flag, sandy hook was a false flag, columbine was a false flag, viginia tech was a false flag. How many “false flag” attacks have happened without the government banning anything? Such a program of fake attacks would have involved tens of thousands of conspiritors, none of which have ever come foward, and have so far, has resulted in ZERO gun bans since 1994. Must be nice to think that nothing happens without big brother willing into existence, but in a society where assault rifles are more-or-less unrestricted, you’re gonna get some mass shootings from time to time.

    • Paranoid much?

  • Ya I feel safer already (sarc)

    • Ditto. Not even navy seals use “full” auto. Only dipshits who can’t shoot and want something “cool” on ther gun. Little do all these anti gun people know but a real “shooter” could have taken out as many people with a ruger 22. This guy had how many guns in his hotel room? Just more liberal hype to show how “bad” guns are. remember people…only guns with “evil” features and high capacity mags kill people.

      • Navy seals use full auto all the time, especially when bounding or suppressing movement. A good 240 man is a sight to behold. Why would the enemy want to take out your machine gunners first if full auto fire was not effective? A Ruger 22 at four hundred yards would have done some damage, but can’t even be compared to a high powered rifle at that range. Anyway I guess my point is that if you value your second amendment right, you shouldn’t damage your credibility by ignorantly spewing falsehoods about ballistics, fighting techniques and the like. Showing ignorance while belittling other uninformed people doesn’t make one look smart or responsible. There is a name for folks like that, the guys that know their stuff call ’em Fanboys and they are the bane of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners.

        • Not saying that elite teams don’t have fully automatics. Its not perfered to use since a lot of times these are small member crews working behind enemy lines with limited ammo. Using full auto is a waste of ammo and accuracy. PS never said anything about ballistics or fighting techniques. Fanboys?, i thought they were called couch commandos!? Oh well I’ll shut my mouth

        • I’ve got a closet full of guns, several of which could easily be retrofitted for bumps. And I believe in the “cold dead hand” phrase. But knowledgeable, responsible gun owners don’t need a .50 cal. (although I’d admit, it’d be fun to play with one), and don’t need unlicensed fully auto guns. But the nutbags that feel they need to carry their “manhood” under their armpits concern me just as much as the mentally deranged idiot in Vegas.

          • Responsible gun owners don’t “need” Ferraris, parachutes, private planes, canoes, dachshunds, or many other things. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to own them.

      • Lundbar Hillbilly

        Effective range of a 22 is 150 yards or less.

        • Dear Fanboy, What do you mean by effective range? If you get hit in the head at six hundred yards with a 22 rimfire it’s gonna kill you.

          • Doubtfull 600 yards with a .22 rimfire out of a 16 in barrel of the typicial 10/22 ruger would be around 600 fps tops, the likely hood of a kill shot even if in the head is highly unlikely

  • I totally understand the public’s desire to have things like this regulated; but as in anything, banning something just means that only the crazies and criminals will have it. In California, the consequences need to be strong and enforced by the courts and judges; so when someone gets caught, the price is severe and carried through. As it is now, criminals know California is extremely lenient when it comes to paying for a crime. But, all you sympathizers vote in propositions that don’t put, and keep, people in prison.

    • Well said LE.
      It’s a fact that after the sentences increased for crimes committed with a weapon, the crimes with a weapon decreased.
      Since they lessened the convictions, crimes have shot back up. (no pun intended).
      They are releasing real criminals and arresting the common man to fill the empty beds. This makes the environment safer for the guards.

      • It also ensures the revenue stream,criminals don’t usually end up paying Their fines. Where as law-abiding working citizens are forced to.

    • The three round burst became popular with the advent of the M-16 because it was hard to control in full auto, as it was light, and it kept an over zealous shooter from wasting so many rounds. There are many sub guns that cycle faster than the 16 and are very controllable. FN, MP-5 is famous for this.

  • Guns should only be used for hunting and a pistol in the home for self defense. All these assault rifles are good for is nothing but making insecure little guys feel tough, and for killing people- not what the 2nd amendment was about. These assault type weapons are against all ethics that I was taught as a hunter and they should be totally illegal. Anyone who can give me a good rational reason as to why this is wrong please let me know.

    • “Assault rifle” is a political term not a technical term. Many of the illegal rifles can be slightly modified and they become legal… and those changes are, often, cosmetic.

      As for what you think the 2nd Amendment is about, think about these quotes and the quotes in the link:

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
      – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

      “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
      – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788


      • I get that there are principles involved with being armed. Do you think there is any chance we could ever be more armed than our government? Or that we should be? If that were the case there would be so many nut job revolutions it would never work.
        I think for the most part the ideas that these founding fathers had were sound. There were more than a few, though, that are completely wrong. It’s ok, they designed the constitution to change with the times, which desperately needs to be done at this time. The public safety is more of a concern than an antiquated idea of a standing army of citizens or what ever the concept is. We need to be able to hunt and defend our selves, in my opinion. There is no room for assault type rifles in a civilized society.

        • Emily, the Constitution is a Contract. It cannot be changed.
          The Constitution does not grant or deny rights, it secures the rights of the people. It secures against a rogue tyrannical invasion of any kind, including government.
          Your talking points come from the Communist regime. If you’re not familiar with the history of George Soros and Bill Ayers, I highly recommend jumping into those rabbit holes for discovery.
          This article provides many leads of discovery. https://townhall.com/columnists/marygrabar/2013/05/15/bill-ayers-bringing-down-america-destroying-education-n1596641

          • The constitution can be amended. And it has been, in order to fix societal problems. I think this gun violence has gotten unbelievably bad and we as a society need to weigh the pros and cons like we would in any situation and do what needs to be done. Where was the ‘good guy with gun’ in Vegas? It was a bunch of country music fans. By your logic it would have been great if some Joe blow (or a bunch of them) with an AR could have turned around and started blasting the hotel room balcony? Great idea! How about this- leave it to the cops who are trained to do that kind of thing. It’s How society works.

            I don’t take talking points from anyone, But if you want to carptegorize me in a certain box so you don’t have to listen to other viewpoints, then go ahead. Plenty of other critical thinkers out there to have a reasonable discussion with.

            • Gun violence is actually down over 50% since the early 90s

              “How about this- leave it to the cops who are trained to do that kind of thing. It’s How society works.”

              If they’re so well-trained and so good at protecting citizens then why did it take the cops over 75 minutes to breach the motel room when according to them the first ones were on the scene 12 minutes after the shot started.

            • Any amendments that “control” the people are unconstitutional.
              Amendments are to be used for fixing the contract itself, such as changing the word “wi” into the proper spelling of “we”.
              The Constitution is a contract that was created by the states. It was not a contract created by government to control the states.
              The Bill of Rights is an example list of what Rights are, and is in no means complete. It skims the surface, in order to keep each generation informed.
              Changing a natural born “right” into a man granted “privilege” is unconstitutional.
              No matter how it’s viewed, or defiled, the contract itself stays cemented. It cannot be constitutionally changed. Those who prefer a different form of governing than self governing, are encouraged to move to a country that better suits their ideals.
              Ideals are not to be legislated, they are to be discussed, debated, even promoted, but never legislated.
              The constitution secures the rights of the smallest minority of all, the individual. Those who do not respect the rights of the smallest minority of all, do not respect the rights of any minority.
              Your scenario of good old boys shooting up the town to rescue the damsel in distress is cute, but that’s all it is, is cute.
              It was a gun free zone, for one thing. For another thing, the good old boys did try to confiscate the shotguns out of the trunks of the patrol cars and rush the gunmen. But their attempts were futile. They wanted to storm the bad guys, but the cops wouldn’t let them. An hour later, the Swat team finally breached the door. Tell us again how the good old boys would have caused more damage. Those good old boys were trained military, off duty cops, and regular common man heroes who have developed skills.
              Your scenarios are cute, however, they are far from reality. According to you, no crowds consist of skilled persons, they only consist of joe blow f*cktards who wouldn’t know which end of a rifle to point.
              Thanks for sharing your most important pov. Perhaps some day, in a galaxy far far away, it might ring true. Today, not so much.

              • Amen, too many people get there info from the main stream news and believe everything they are fed. It even says California republic on the flag yet we do not live in one.

              • I’m understanding that first part. Trying to go back to government class … I admit I’m not very keen on the finer details relating to the constitution, but I Will say that I think it’s a weak argument to say, we all have the right to own and operate these deadly weapons that have caused so much damage, just because the constitution gives the right to bear arms (it was a different meaning back then, you have to admit)
                I guess we just keep on getting shot up by wack jobs then – that’s your solution? I bet if your kids went to sandy hook you might think differently.

                • What do you think “…the right to bear arms…” means?

                  The chances of getting shot in a mass casualty event are miniscule. Be afraid of cars and heart disease if want to rationally fear something.

        • Bad guys are uncivilized. It takes a civilized guy with a gun to stop the uncivilized bad guy with a gun.
          Assault weapons are very important for taking down groups of uncivilized wo/men with guns.
          The government has other types of weapons that vaporize and microwave, melt and smelt. It’s just a matter of time before the uncivilized bad buys has the same types of weapons.

          Freudian slip? Bad guys/Bad buys.

        • A couple things to consider: knee-jerk reactions to current events can have long lasting, unforseen effects down the road. While the idea of an armed revolution in the USA seems farfetched, what will conditions be like in 20, 50, 100, 200 years down the road?
          The common citizen in the USA does not have more firepower than the military but there are 100 million gun owners with 300 million guns. That makes the US citizens the largest, by far, potential militia in the world. As for firepower, consider Vietnam. The VC were out gunned by every metric in that war, but an entrenched enemy who had everything to lose proved a tenacious enemy when they were ready to sacrafice everything, and it was almost entirely with small arms and bodies.

          The founding fathers reference to a standing army was not about citizen’s, rather it was about a regular army and the potential for that army to move against the People. “A well regulated militia (the collection of armed citizens) being necessary for the security of a free state (a counter force to tyrannical intentions)….”

          • Re : Ullr Yes, I agree with that last part. As to the first part of your statement, it could be offered that the authors of the constitution were having a knee jerk reaction to the situation that they were in at the time, ie an unfair ruling system from England. So now we have different problems and we need to adapt to them, instead of clutching at straws to justify an antiquated idea (that we should all be able to carry around semi-automatic weapons and be our own police force)

            • It took 12 years for the US Constitution to be drafted and ratified after the Declaration of Independence. Hardly knee-jerk.

              • How long have mass casualty shooting by gun nuts been going on?

                • In the US, at least since Wounded Knee in 1890 and Sacramento in 1846:

                  •Wounded Knee (1890) – The Army opened fire on Chief Big foot of the Lakota tribe and his people, killing more than 150. (Some estimates put the number as high as 300.)

                  •The 1921 Tulsa Race Riot: As many as 300 people were killed, 35 city blocks were burned and more than 800 people were hospitalized over Memorial Day weekend in 1921 when a white mob attacked black residents of the city’s Greenwood District. The neighborhood was one of the wealthiest black communities in the country at the time and had earned the nickname “Black Wall Street.” In addition to guns, planes reportedly dropped burning balls of turpentine on the rooftops of black residents. (Source: Tulsa Historical Society and Museum)

                  •The Elaine Massacre: After black sharecroppers met in Elaine, Ark., in 1919 with union leaders to discuss more equitable treatment by white plantation owners, the sheriff of Phillips County led a group of white men to intercept a rumored “insurrection” among the black men. The mob of whites began killing black people on sight, with the number of deaths of blacks reaching into the hundreds. (Source: Equal Justice Initiative)

                  •The Sacramento River Massacre: Explorer John C. Frémont, motivated by the idea of “Manifest Destiny,” disobeyed orders from the U.S. government to set out with an expedition for the Rocky Mountains, and went to California instead. Upon arrival in 1846, he heard a rumor that a group of Native Americans was preparing to attack the men. Fremont led his men, carrying pistols and rifles, up the Sacramento River to find the members of the Wintu tribe. Upon discovering the group, Fremont’s men fired on the men, women and children, killing at least 120 of them. (Source: An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846—1873)

                • Waco, Ruby Ridge, MK Ultra, …

    • Because I should be able to protect myself and family by what ever small arms means there is. Im a law abiding,tax paying,no criminal record free American. The “bad” guys who want to break into my house or do harm to my family are not gonna use “hunting” rifles n single shot guns. So I guess my point is….yes I want to own guns that can kill people…people that want to assault me with assault rifles.Sorry if u disagree. Enough said Emily?

      “ He who lives by the sword, dies by those who don’t”

      • I hear u.. I just think the image of an average American defending his home with an assault rifle is laughable. So someone breaks into your house and you are going to wake up, grab your AR and start cutting loose ? Come on… ever think what that would really be like? Give me my 38 special revolver and I feel pretty safe. My house has been broken into several times.. I imagine I might have to use it at some point (or maybe I’ll use my old bear leg trap!) but I’m pretty sure a shot into the floor is all it would take to turn around a tweak thief.
        If you are really imagining you are going to have a shootout with an equally armed ‘bad guy’ with an assault rifle, and win, you watch too many movies.

        • I don’t base shit like that on movies. I practice a lot with firearms. Real life. No I don’t even have an assault rifle in my house even though I own a dozen of those types alone. I like your thinking Emily with the 38 special. That’s my go to gun for wife….only loaded with 357 mag. I use a good ol moss berg 500 with seven rounds of 00 buck,my first round is actually a flash/bang Grenade round,no projectile.So yes your right…defending a Home with an assault rifle is “overkill” but I should still be able to own one (or 12) if I want. U have valid points Emily and sound well educated. Do watch Last Man Standing with mark walberg. I great movie that (yes) dictates proper SEAL team shooting techniques (to guest!) no full auto there. This movie was help directed by actuall seal team members. A good watch. Peace

        • There is more than one scenario, one movie, one level of skills, Emily. You’ve reduced all into one little tidy summary. That’s the laughable part.

    • Emily. Any law enforcement officer who has been around a long time in an area with a lot of shootings will tell you that a pistol is a crappy self defense tool. Many people soak up multiple rounds before being out of the fight when shot with one, and many criminals hit multiple times kill their victims. One hit from a high power rifle generally does the trick. I fail to see the relationship between the ethics of hunting for meat and shooting a person, as they are two different things. I once asked a Game Warden how many times I could shoot a deer if I was carrying an AR15 in the state of California. That one stopped him cold for a few seconds.

      • Um people don’t “ soak up” multiple rounds of 357 mag. 1 is all you need

        • Actually, stats for the .357 making a one shot stop with a head or torso hit come in around 60%, which is actually very high for a handgun. Single torso hits with any centerfire rifle produce about 80%. That being said, if I could only own one hand gun it would be the .357. It is extremely versatile and there are some nice carbines chambered for it. A carbine is hard to beat for a house gun for a lot of reasons, not the least being the fact that not everyone wants to, or can practice, practice, practice with a handgun. Relatively little skill needed when you are full of adrenaline, shaking, scared to death and looking down that nice long barrel at someone trying to take your life.

    • Dear Emily,
      While I am not defending the rational behind a marketing scheme like bump stocks, which in my opinion, serve no useful purpose, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The single shot musket was the “Assault Weapon” of it’s day. The founding fathers made it clear as to the rights and reasons of the “People” to be secure in their homes and in their new country. I know this comment will do little to change your opinion on regulating semi-auto rifles, but the AR-15 class of rifles are the most popular sporting rifles in America today, and are utilized safely in sanctioned rifle competitions on most week-ends throughout this country. Their light recoil makes them popular with women competitors, and they are accurate target rifles. I know this will not ease the pain and suffering caused by the soulless murderer that killed and maimed so many innocent people in Las Vegas, but FBI statistics reflect that less than 2% of homicides are committed with semi-auto loading rifles such as the AR-15. If the government were successful in banning this class of rifles, the banning of handguns would come easy. As for the use of pistols for self defense, it is up to the individual to choose the method that suits their needs, and as with anything, good training needs to come with the responsibility. A shotgun makes a much better self defense method, with much less danger of missing the intended target, and penetrating walls and hitting someone else. And I am sure you are (were?} an ethical huntress.

    • Because the Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with personal protection and the people’s protection against a tyrannical government.

      • Ok good luck with that. THC vs. tyrannical government. Pass the popcorn. If that’s the best argument you have against the real threat of armed wackos taking out music concerts and elementary schools, I will not have a hard time deciding what action should be taken. Again, I’m not against guns but I don’t see a real good logical reason to not make some gun laws that make sense. Btw I have an AR that someone gave me as a gift, I think it’s the most useless piece of metal I have. It does not make me feel badass to shoot it. I have no intention of killing anyone, bad guy or whomever, and it’s sure as hell no good for hunting. Stupid toy for stupid people. Make me an offer on it. (Jk)

        • You just admitted to owning one yourself, does that make you a stupid person? And how is it that people believe AR15s are so dangerous towards people but are not effective in hunting animals? After all we are made up of the same thing.

      • Like the ATF fast and furious government who still hasn’t defined the types of weapons sold? Direct Energy Weapons vs the common man’s wild wild west style of self defense. They play real life Halo, while we play real life Oh Shit! Yet, they still want the common man disarmed. LOL. You go Common Man! Give em hell Harry!

    • Shotgun with bird shot for home, won’t shoot through the wall . Covers more space. It’s not the guns people, it’s all of us, we need to unite, become neighbors again, love yourself so other are open to love you.

      • Cut the top off the shell mix the bird shot with wax and pour it back in to let Harden, makes one of the best home defense rounds possible.

    • So tired of this garbage

      The reason for the 2nd ammendment is to defend agaist tyranny. Not hunting. Pay attention. Read.

      • Ok good luck with ‘defending against tyranny’. I’m a hunter, that’s the position I’m coming from. I think all you who are talking about tyranny and raising a militia are a bunch of kooks. I was raised by a colonel who taught me how to use and respect a gun, and how to hunt. We never went shooting for the ‘fun’ of it, and never talked about militias or standing armies or revolution. That’s above my pay grade. I think guns are great for hunting, having in your home for self defense, and all the other stuff, I don’t think is needed. There’s no room for arguing to keep your toys when people are getting mowed down by the hundreds in mass shootings every year. I understand that a lot of you all disagree. But these shootings are really happening, it’s bad stuff. I think you are hiding behind the constitution so you can keep you toys and have your fantasy of rebelling against tyranny or shooting the Mexican invaders or some such. I believe that people who want guns in our future, like me, should agree that these assault style rifles are anethema to responsible gun ownership and are ultimately doing us all harm. That’s my 2€ I’m tired of typing!

        • The long view is hard to see and requires more guessing than anything, but the driving principle behind 2A is parity. Of course, the founding fathers did not imagine the amount of fire power that one man can wield today, but the idea was that the People could never be subjugated to a standing army run by whomever… if the People had parity in force. The hope with the whole Constitution is that We the People would become more enlightened and would create a “more perfect union” through our intellectual evolution, but they understood that tyranny is real and can come in many forms.

          “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
          Thomas Jefferson

    • Where in the second ademment does it say anything about hunting ? You wont find anything. But it does say something about to defend ones self from an over reaching tyrianical goverment

  • A .22 at six hundred yards is not guaranteed to kill you,…or do any harm, hahahaha, maybe he means maximum effective range, the range at which a bullet is constantly effective, and not just lucky, a .22 has a very short MER, and just because it’s a travelling bullet doesn’t mean it’s at max velocity, or a deadly one. but guest is on point. the idea that a .22 could have killed so many at that range is a silly one, Navy seals and the rest of the military use full auto plenty of the time, it’s not necessarily to kill as much as to suppress enemy personnel to facilitate movement.

    • He Who Laughs Last

      US Army designates 30 ft/lbs. of energy as the threshold for causing a casualty. A 22 long rifle round with a 40gr. bullet at 1,255 fps., with a ballistic coefficient of .139 will produce 33 ft/lbs of energy at 600 yards. Several companies produce ammo with these specs. There are no guarantees it will kill you, but is perfectly capable of doing so.

  • Real shooter was 2pac

  • you can do the same thing with your belt and your belt loop.

    • Remember that our 2nd amendment rights are under attack in Kalifornia. If this were a firearms forum, making the “belt loop” statement would be frowned upon by many. These are the kinds of statements that will lead to the banning of all semi automatic firearms unless someone injects some serious US Constitution into the conversation, but I’m not holding my breath on that one. Too many people holding their hands over their ears and screaming LaLaLaLaLa. Think Poker and suppress the tell or you are done.

  • The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, banning things doesn’t work, all it does it is put the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage in a gunfight, especially with the 10rd mag bs, we will always be outgunned. Bump stocks on the other hand I really don’t care for they hold no tactical advantage, ban them if it makes you feel good but it solves nothing.

  • Thanks for the many thoughtful comments on this subject.
    One more thing to consider. I find it ironic that all honest, law abiding firearm owners will gladly have a conversation on how we can limit bad people hurting others with guns, yet our state legislature and governor would eliminate mandatory enhancements for using guns in the commision of a crime. It appears by encouraging the release of convicted felons and eliminating prison enhancements for gun crime, it may increase crime statistics to support reasoning for more gun bans.


  • Why is the other shooter at Bellagio not being talked about ?

    • Because whenever anybody questions the official narrative they’re called a conspiracy theorist.

      • That term was created by the Communist Intelligence Agency, aka CIA, to “shame” people from speaking the truths. Haha, shame. Who has “shame” anymore? Let it all hang out bro, let it all hang out. Nothing shocks us anymore. Blackmail will become a laughable past tense before we know it. What will they come up with to replace it?

    • Because no one died or even got hurt.

  • “multiburst trigger activators” because they accelerate the rapid-fire capacity of a firearm”

    I’m sorry they do NEITHER of these. Just because idiot anti gun Politicians in Cali like to make shit up doesn’t mean its true

    1. “multiburst trigger activators”

    It does nothing to the trigger, DOES NOT EVEN TOUCH IT

    2. “they accelerate the rapid-fire capacity of a firearm”

    Accelerate over what ? You can bump fire
    faster with your FINGER.

    There are ZERO standing laws on the books banning these in Cali if anything they are a Grey area and are still shipped here.

  • Yep, ban the gun ,because his car bomb would have killed less people,if your taking medicine to keep your mental state stable ,that might be an issue, and you are right Emily a pistol works just fine to protect one’s family from a psychotic armed stalker

    • They need to ban cars! Sounds as plausible as banning guns?? All these terrorist attacks of them using vehicles as ways of mass killing,right? Think about it people…if he would have took an 18 wheeler into that crowd it would have done the same. Banning shit is stupid. If your deranged enough and determined anyone can kill lots of people these days by lots of means. Period. Oh wait….. ban cars n trucks!!! Lol

  • Unless your in war you Don’t need a bump stock,or any device that changes the gun from its original use.50 cal.why?no need ,we have no elephants to kill here.(sad)ak-47 why? Why?I’m not against guns,just the ones we don’t need.why does a person need 47 guns?this is my opinion,comment not meant to start any shit✌

    • 47 guns isn’t alot to a collector, I may have 47 guns that have increased 20 percent in value over the last 10 years, they are fun to shoot and can be a good investment

    • Why does a person need 47 guns?!? Thats a communist view. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” – Karl Marx.
      You don’t NEED ten pairs of shoes, you don’t NEED a fridge as big as a closet, you don’t NEED a car that goes over 65mph. Luckily for us, ownership in America is not predicated upon a persons ‘need’ for it. You want it, can afford it, you buy it, you own it. Period.
      Its not about a NEED for something. Its about a WANT. Why do the cops want AR-15’s? To have a better firearm than the bad guys do and thats partly why I own them also. The other reason is because its a great firearm! Well made, low maintenance, interchangeable, accurate AND AMERICAN MADE! Keep your commie Ak’s (jk) because I’m keeping my AR’s.

  • so the real problem is illegals that have been deported un multiple occasion setting fires !
    but these hippy idiots up here don’t want to talk about it.
    dont cry about fire when you practically set it yourself bitches!

    • I don’t know of multiple stories of illegal immigrants starting fires. Could you show me a link to where a credible source says that?

      • Google it Kym, there are multiple reports of an illegal immigrant being arrested for arson, however there are several new sites that refute the reports. From what I gather the fire that was started by Jesus was not the cause of the big blazes.

        • I did Google it and there were no REPUTABLE sites saying that an illegal immigrant was arrested for starting these large wildfires. I’m merely giving builthewall an opportunity to offer something to support his/her contention that “illegals that have been deported un multiple occasion setting fires.” Personally, I’d rate that as Pants on Fire but, I’m open-minded enough to at least see if there is a source for what looks like SPOOYA (Statistics Plucked Out Of Your Ass.)

          • Define reputable.

          • I forgot only liberal news sources are considered credible these days. Although I do agree I have found no evidence supporting that Jesus started the big fires but he was arrested for arson for starting a fire to keep warm.

            And what statistics have I plucked out of my ass?


            • Well, there was only one guy, it makes no reference to his immigration status, and the Sheriff says that he didn’t start a major fire. Sounds like you’re wrong on every single count.

            • Jaekelopterus pretty much covered the objections to builtheWall’s statement.

              One person who has not been confirmed as illegal by any source that would know first hand his immigration status has been arrested for setting a fire so small that the deputy who found it was able to put it out before firefighters arrived. There is no indication in a reputable source to this point that he has been deported even once let alone multiple times.

              The original statement I was asking for support of was “illegals that have been deported un multiple occasion setting fires”—so far it looks like SPOOYA to me.

              (Note: I find the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, among other conservative media, reputable.)

            • @Kym
              The Redding article with it’s credible additions are interesting.
              The author repeated the narrative countless times, about it being a Left/Right thing instead of a Right/Wrong thing.
              Not once did the reporter question why the man wasn’t held accountable for starting a “campfire” during high fire season. Nor did the reporter question why the man wasn’t held accountable for being reckless with the “campfire” and not putting it out completely.
              The reporter did mention that they can’t prove he was a “sole” cause. The fires started all across the state, that’s pretty obvious he wasn’t a “sole” cause.
              There are men in prison for putting out fires that accidentally went astray. Yet this person isn’t held accountable for his actions?
              If Avg Joe had of started a controlled trash burn in a pit in the ground, he would have been fined and arrested for 1. collection of pizza boxes attracting pests and disease. 2. burning without a permit. 3. burning out of season. 4. not tending the fire until all signs of fire and smoke are completely out. 5. air quality particles from a stray piece of plastic. 6. Lack of proper and mandated tofu on pizza. He would be in jail, prison, his assets forfeited, broke ass poor from court costs and fines and every community member would be living in fear of having their pizza box stash inspected and fined before burning season is finally here. Yet this person just gets a slap in the wrist for scaring ICE.
              The reporter did a fair job of repeating their narrative of Left against Right. Repeat a line often enough and some people will eventually believe it.
              As for the rest of us, we want the guilty one to be held accountable, no matter his status, or the scale of his guilt.

  • I am not condoning or condemning this form of gun control, but what I would like to say is that it should be illegal for politicians to jump on any disaster that happens to prey on peoples emotions instead of their logic to suit their political agenda. Jacking up prices in a disaster is illegal but politicians farther their careers and make money of them as if it is their personal piggy bank. You have to wait 10 days in california to purchase a gun to have a “cooling off period” but how many days after the Vegas was it before they started pushing their agendas that they have had for some time. It is not honoring the dead or making the living safer, it is capitalizing on a horrific event, seems like they are more like vultures

    • Quoted in San Francisco Chronicle.
      “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before”

      Rahm Emanuel

    • Well said, Mike.

    • Well, it’s not just a current news event Mike. It’s been going on for years and it needs to be addressed. What if your kids went to school at sandy hook? Laws are changed because of terrible events. That’s how it works.

      • How what works? It’s not working! Address the problem.

      • I would be devasted, i am not trying to belittle this travesty. There was a bill proposed in California to try to make our infasructure safer by burying more power lines to prevent fires like the ones that just happened. My point is where is the moral outrage over the 42ish life’s just lost do most likely in part due to power lines. The politicians aren’t on the front page saying what did we do wrong, you aren’t saying what if that was your house lost, why? Because the vegas shooting is better publicity and coverage/ratings. Horrible terrfying things happen every day somewhere, but the politicians choosing to jump on ones that only impact their parties goals (on both sides) make them prostitutes in my book. Scratch that, at least prostitutes do actual work

      • Changing laws is what creates bigger messes. You can’t outlaw evil, stupid, or brainwashed hypnosis. You can only increase the sentences. Instead, we see states lessening the sentences of criminals, while passing laws that pretend to protect through “preventative” measures. Laws don’t protect people from evil, only people can protect people from evil. Not allowing them to protect increases the act of evil casualties.

        You keep bringing up sandy hook. In the old days, half the kids and teachers would have had a weapon in their possession. Sandy Hook wouldn’t have gotten past the first few shots before being taken down by a switchblade, pistol, knuckle sandwich, rifle, wrestlers, etc. Today, kids and staff can’t even say the word knuckles and heaven help them if they should dare use them against a poor little misunderstood murderer.

  • Well. Im off to the shooting range. All this talk has inspired me. Guest….we need to go shooting sometime!

  • Multiround capability is ridiculous, and I seriously don’t understand why someone living in the city should have a semi-auto long gun capable of mass carnage…aside from a zombie apocalypse, the notion of which should disqualify anyone from obtaining a firearm. But I live on a remote ranch 2 hours from any law enforcement. On a nice rainy day like today this time of year I have to go look for poachers. It is not uncommon for me to find 3 drunk f*cs hiding in the brush that don’t like that I have something they want. It isn’t fun, at all. I am also surrounded by by warm and fuzzy “Sanctuary no-hablas” carrying AK’s destroying the forest and water systems, how much fun is that when the wife heads out with the kids to go play at the creek on a 110deg day? Identity politics has everyone thinking we all live on the same cul de sac, buy our coffee in the same Starbucks and go to the same yoga studio…what happened to thinking about peoples needs, sensible carveouts, etc? If I call law enforcement and they ALWAYS say I am on my own why shouldn’t I have that they feel the need for? This is not fantasy like most posters, I have been fired upon with the intention of killing me 8 times. Here are my sanctuary neighbors…

    • Wow, auto spell butchered the most important sentence, “If I call law enforcement and they ALWAYS say I am on my own, why shouldn’t I have what they feel they need for?”

    • So, good enough for you, but not for the rest of your fellow citizens?

  • According to FBI statistics for Year 2015 guns were only responsible for 13,286 murders 322 of those were committed with an assault-type rifle this does not include suicides, this ranks number 26 on the list of things that kill Americans. You are more likely to be killed by a deer then a person with an assault rifle. Ownership of Guns is protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

    Can anyone guess The number one cause of death in America even above heart disease responsible for over 600,000 deaths in America in Year 2015? I’ll give you a hint progressives touted it as a woman’s right to choose!


    • Also, Death-by-doctoring, it is not a tracked statistic.

    • this is what the CDC states for 2015. “Number of deaths for leading causes of death. Heart disease: 633,842 • Cancer: 595,930 • Chronic lower respiratory diseases”. your link is bogus.

      • The CDC link on abortions is bogus? I guess you should take that up with the CDC then.


        • I get it now but I am pro-choice. we wouldn’t be in the shithole we are in now if people could only have kids they can properly raise. I am a foster parent of a relative who would rather enjoy meth than her kids.

          • You are pro-choice, I am pro Second Amendment. See how that works in a free country? Just because your opinion is different than mine doesn’t make my opinion wrong, nor does it make your opinion wrong . Even if what I support killed hundreds of thousands less people than what you support . Assuming that you’re anti assault rifle which could be wrong. My point is how hysterical people get over less than 400 deaths a year caused by assault rifles, when your chances of being killed by a deer are higher along with hundreds of other things.

            • you can’t deny it is a major growing problem in the US, combine it with mental health issue which are also growing in the same demographics. 48% of all guns sold worldwide are owned by gun nuts in the US. and most are truly nuts. combine that with the rise in dementia. what do you see in ten years? there was a mass shooting yesterday and the day before, almost one for ever day of this year so far. I have a 2 year old buck in our yard and when he comes at me lately for his critter crunch, I get a little nervous, but he’s not nuts, he just wants the nuts. a huge difference when compared to someone with emotional or mental issues that sets out to kill.

              • Actually I can deny it. statistically according to the FBI, gun deaths have dropped almost 50% in the last 30 years. There has been a small uptick in mass shootings in the last 10 years, a mass shooting is characterized by any one person killing more than one individual at a time, almost all of these are gang related.

                I would agree that something needs to be done with the mental illness of people in this country. But then again estimates show that doctors are responsible for accidentally killing over 100,000 people a year, so do we trust them with the mentally ill?

                • a mass shooting is defined by 4 or more victims not including the shooter. almost none are gang related.

                • maybe this will help you. it gives all data and the source from which it was obtain.

                • The last available statistics I could find were for 2015 where they show 39 people died in mass shootings. Compare that to the estimated 51 people killed by lightning strikes each year.

                • I gave you a link that is considered the most accurate in the US and has up to 10-18-17. we are over 270 for 2017. when you don’t want to know the truth, you won’t.

                • I give you CDC statistics that over 600,000 babies are killed every year and your reply is simply I’m pro-choice, yet you’ll spend hours arguing over a couple hundred people being killed, I’m done it’s a waste of time even talking to you.

                • the term is fetus. your intentions tell me everything in need to know about you. my comments are to help others that may have been contaminated by you.

                • Okay one last comment, as a matter of fact I am also pro-choice because I believe in a free country. Freedom comes with a cost and the cost of pro-choice is over 600,000 potential lives, the price for the Second Amendment is around 15,000 lives. Freedom isn’t free and sometimes it cost more than a buck o five. At any rate I think this has been a pretty educational conversation for the both of us and the ability for us to have these conversations and Voice or separate opinions is what makes this country great. I have other things to do today so I wish you a good day.

              • You got it ,if a person has ever taken any type of medication for their mental state, take their guns away forever, including ANTIDEPRESSANTS, no guns for the mentally unstable ,pretty simple,what’s the hold up? Too many Americans taking these pills,

              • I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

                By Leah Libresco October 3

                Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

                Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

                Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

                I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

                When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

                As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

                As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

                However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

                By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

                Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

                Was the Las Vegas shooting the worst in U.S. history? It depends.
                While the attack on the Las Vegas strip is the deadliest in modern American history, attacks in the 19th and 20th centuries had higher death tolls. Here are two deadly events in American history that you may not have heard about. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
                Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

                Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

    • Mike Dice quote:
      “58 dead, worst shooting in US history.

      In chicago they call that August.

      At Planned Parenthood, they call that Tuesday”.

  • Timothy McVeigh's ghost

    Bump stocks… have to blame something
    Becouse private ownership of an M240 is uncommon couple that with multiple weapons systems firing off at the same time you would think John Rambo himself was in the nest


  • I believe that it’s a gods givin right that one can ,and must defend ,protect ones self ones family ones belongings ones home by any means necessary. With Whatever weapons are at his disposal.

  • I believe that it’s a gods givin right that one can ,and must defend ,protect ,ones self ,ones family ,ones belongings ,ones home by any means necessary. With Whatever weapons that are at his disposal.

    • Ahhhhh that was a sweet day at my personal gun range. Made me appreciate being a free American. God bless all n good night. PS. Don’t forget to put away all loaded guns out of children’s reach.

Leave a Reply

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