NO to bump stock bans

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Battle3, Mar 30, 2018.

  1. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/atto...es-regulation-effectively-banning-bump-stocks
    Attorney General Sessions Announces Regulation Effectively Banning Bump Stocks

    Here is the proposed rule: https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

    The reason given for banning bump stocks is that they are "dangerous", and "to reduce the threat of gun violence".

    To actually ban bump stocks, the DOJ has declared that bump firing with a device turns the semi-auto into a machine gun. Right now they simply dismiss the fact that bump firing can be done with a rubber band, string, pants pocket, belt, or no external "device" at all.

    The DOJ also claims that bump stocks should be banned because of the Las Vegas shooting:
    (page 19) "The shooting also made many people aware that these devices exist - potentially including persons with criminal or terrorist intent - and made their potential to threated public safety obvious".
    Think about those reasons.

    The govt is going to ban something because some people decided it was "dangerous", and because people know about it.

    Guns are dangerous. People know about guns. All semi-autos can bump fire without a bump stock.

    How long will it be before the gun banners decide a semi-auto is to banned? Answer: as soon as they take the White House and control the ATF.

     
    Reality likes this.
  2. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gun accessories are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
     
    BillRM and Bowerbird like this.
  3. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Typical gun banner attitude - you have a fatal flaw in your understanding of the Constitution, you think the Constitution grants rights. It does not, the Constitution grants limited powers to the federal govt. All powers not explicitly delegated to the federal govt are retained by the people and the states. All rights are retained by the people.
     
  4. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I support the right to own guns.
    Just don't feel there is a need to own every weapon in the universe or every accessory.

    We don't allow people to manufacture or own chemical weapons in their basements, we can control the availability - and have for years - of types of weapons. These bans have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Ergo - they are Constitutional bans.
     
    BillRM and Bowerbird like this.
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They need to amend the definition of Machine gun in the NFA act, in order to do this. bump firing a firearm is still defined as semi auto, using the NFA definition of machine gun.
     
    Reality and Bowerbird like this.
  6. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you do not. You want to allow people to own the guns or accessories that you feel are adequate. And no doubt your idea of what is "adequate" for other people will get stricter and stricter over time.

    Read Wickard v Filburn (1942), Kelo v New London, Obergefell v Hodges, for examples to see clearly that the supreme court does not follow the Constitution.

    As to chemicals, wrong. You most likely have in your house the chemicals needed to make a potent explosive or bio weapon, if you don't have them you can get them easily in Walmart, Home Depot, other commercial stores, or over the internet (even through Amazon). What you lack is the knowledge, not the material. Most with a BS (certainly graduate degree) in chemistry, petroleum engineering, certain areas of biology, etc., have the knowledge.

    Some items are illegal for a private citizen to manufacture, such as sarin gas. They fall into the same category as nuclear weapons, or biological weapons - items which if simply mishandled one time can kill 10's of 1,000's and render large areas uninhabitable for years.

    A far cry from guns.
     
  7. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AR-15s are used in a safe, legal manner 99.9% of the time or more. What are the safe, legal uses for sarin?
     
    Reality and DoctorWho like this.
  8. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Try to buy a bump stock now. You can't because they're sold before they're even manufactured.
     
  9. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bump stocks and similar devices circumvent the clear intent of the NFA ban on machine guns.

    thats why they should be banned.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Hughes Amendment clearly violates the intent of the NFA 1934. It should be rescinded.
     
    Reality and 6Gunner like this.
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WRONG!!!

    The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

    Machine guns
    This includes any firearm which can fire repeatedly, without manual reloading, "by a single function of the trigger."[8] Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (e.g., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machine gun, such as a KG-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered").
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  12. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NFA set up very strict rules for owning machines while still allowing them to be manufactured for and sold to the public. The Hughes Amendment prohibited those actions.
     
    Reality likes this.
  13. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wrong.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no Ban on machine guns, only on Post 1986 Civilian transferable machine guns.
    No machine guns made after 1986 may legally be transfered / sold to Civilians, not including Licensed Dealers aquiring Dealer samples and other firearms for sale to Authorized Government / Law Enforcement Agencies.

    Bump stocks are crappy Novelties and do nothing of value.
    No point in banning them, except histrionics.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they facilitate automatic-like firing and contributed greatly to the slaughter in Las Vegas
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  16. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bull.
    Nothing of the sort Ron.
    And I know much more about firearms than you ever will Ron, having been trained by the best.
     
  17. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you experience with full auto weapons and/or bump stocks is exactly zero.
     
    Reality likes this.
  18. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you're not familiar with the Las Vegas Massacre
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  19. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bump stocks were ancillary and had no factoral relationship or actual use, in relation to the crime.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  20. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The National Firearms Act did not outlaw or prohibit fully-automatic firearms. Nor was such the intent, clear or otherwise, of the law. It simply required paying a tax to the federal government to own said firearms. That is the sole purpose behind the National Firearms Act, simply to allow government to tax certain firearms.
     
  21. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go back and read the 2dA and gun laws generally.

    No intrinsic protection exists for accessories.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  22. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No specific mention of firearms accessories are part of "The Right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Or does it say, "the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, reserving the Government's authority over and to restrict ammunition and specifically the accessories pertaining to Arms."
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  23. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not in the slightest, DoctorWho. Or you can post case law to support your opinion: but you can't.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
    Bowerbird likes this.
  24. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want to ignore SCOTUS decisions, you can make many such claims.
     
  25. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SCOTUS has upheld restrictions and regulations on guns and accessories. Tough that.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page