I propose reducing the 22,000 anti-gun laws currently on the books by 10,000. If that's unacceptable, however, I'll agree to a 5,000-law reduction--for now
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?
