Why we can't give in on bump stocks

Selwyn Duke has an article today that explains why the gun rights community will fight tooth and nail to prevent the government from infringing our Second Amendment rights by banning bump fire stocks.  Dukes article entitled Why I Oppose Banning Bump Stocks in today's American Thinker perfectly captures the attitude of a lot of people in the gun rights community. Duke:

The latest firearm-equipment boogeyman is the “bump stock,” a device allowing one to fire a semi-automatic rifle more rapidly. Liberals learned of bump stocks because Las Vegas murderer Stephen Paddock had modified 12 of his rifles with them.

This has made them a target for prohibition, and an easy one, too. After all, almost no one wants to buy a bump stock, so even many Republicans — and the National Rifle Association — are willing to place greater restrictions on the device. I also have no plans to acquire one, but I wouldn’t even consider outlawing the stock. Why?

Well, for that, you will have to read the rest of the article.  Suffice it to say that Duke is past weary of the ever changing drive to ban whatever it is that is the latest piece of firearm equipment.  If you are old enough, you will remember when they wanted to ban the so called cheap  "Saturday night special" because supposedly urban blacks used them to kill each other.  Notice the racist overtones here, and these were Democrats that wanted them banned. But it doesn't really matter.  What matters is that they can ban something, anything, then they will be back the next shooting for another slice.

Duke's idea is to try to pin down liberals as follows before we give in to any sort of ban:

*  You say bump stocks allow a person to fire too rapidly. Okay, what exactly is the maximum number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public should be capable of firing? What’s your reasoning?

*  “High-capacity magazines” is an ambiguous term. Exactly what size magazine should citizens be allowed to own? What’s your reasoning?

*  Don’t tell us about “high-powered rifles.” Tell us exactly what the maximum muzzle velocity of a publicly available firearm should be. What’s your reasoning?

*  Another ambiguous (and misleading) term is “armor-piercing ammunition.” What exactly should the maximum penetration power of a publicly available round be? What’s your reasoning?

Once you formulate your concrete vision (for the first time in your lives), please present it. If we accept it, though, note what the agreement means: You don’t get to ask for more anti-gun laws ever again. There’s no more politicizing of the issue after every shooting. The vision is conceived, articulated, agreed upon — and then set in stone.

Of course, Duke realizes that this is highly unlikely, and short of them offering a unified, all gun grabbers agree on this list, there is really no point in discussing it further