Read, Copy, Paste, Click, Comment

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Nemo, Dec 27, 2017.

  1. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,798
    814
    113
    Read below and do above.

    Like I said, IMPORTANT!

    Nemo


    From the Virginia Citizens Defense League (GCO equivalent in Va) VCDL.ORG

    ACTION ITEM - BATFE REVIEWING BUMP STOCKS FOR POSSIBLE BAN

    Bump stocks had previously been reviewed by BATFE under the Obama administration and they concluded that the device was NOT a "machine gun."

    We agree.

    However, after the massacre in Las Vegas, there was the usual push to "do something," and bump stocks were in the spotlight.

    There was pressure for BATFE to review their previous ruling and to ban bump stocks.

    In the middle of the Christmas/New Years holiday the comment period has begun for BATFE reviewing the bump stock ruling and we need to get out comments telling BATFE to leave bump stocks alone.

    Whether you like the concept of bump stocks or not, we need to stand together and protect our rights. An attack on one firearm or firearm accessory is an attack on all of them and all of us.

    No sacrificial lamb will ever satiate the gun grabbers. Every time they take something from us, nothing is given in return and they come back more empowered to take the next item, whatever that might be.

    Why does someone "need" a bump stock? For a free people it's not about needs, but about wants. Don't let the anti-rights people divide us, ever. They absolutely love it when one group of gun owners says another group of gun owners doesn't "need" something, such as back in 1993 when many hunters were saying no one needed an AR-15. We were divided and we got a 10 year "assault weapon" ban.

    Here is the website to go to:

    https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF_FRDOC_0001-0035

    Click the "Comment Now!" button on the top right corner of the page.

    This was my comment. Feel free to use it as is or to modify it as you see fit:

    -

    It is important that rules are made based on logic, reason, facts, and law, not emotion, political correctness, or politics.

    Bump stocks were already examined by the BATFE and determined NOT to be machine guns.

    That was clearly the correct answer. A semi-automatic firearm equipped with a bump stock still fires only one round with each pull of the trigger.

    A person can bump fire a semi-automatic firearm with nothing more than their bare hands and the proper technique. Others can work the trigger in a conventional fashion, but very fast, and achieve a bump stock rate-of-fire.

    As long as one pull of the trigger fires one shot on a semi-automatic firearm, no accessory can be legitimately classified as a "machine gun."
     
    Scout706 likes this.
  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Quote:
    Whether you like the concept of bump stocks or not, we need to stand together and protect our rights. An attack on one firearmor firearm accessory is an attackon all of them and all of us.


    That’s about the stupidest reason and the worst position to take.

    I say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and 100% of the buyers of these things do so because it’s so much like a duck... the law should call it a duck!

    But that would take (should take) an act of Congress, because the 83 year old definition of “machine gun” isn’t stretchable enough to fit how bumpfire stocks work.

    So I say “no” to ATF reclassifying them, but for different reasons.
     

  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Quote: Others can work the trigger in a conventional fashion, but very fast, andachieve a bump stock rate-of-fire.

    My response: what a load of BS. Just because Jerry Miculek can do that doesn’t mean any Joe Blow could. With retarded thinking like that, let’s eliminate the regulations on cyanide and arsenic, and let anybody buy jars of the stuff anonymously at any pharmacy. Because, you know, The Professor (from Gilligan’s Isksnd) could make a batch of poison with a bamboo distillery and coconut husks.
     
  4. jsaund22

    jsaund22 Ninjaneering Computers

    2,569
    182
    63
    Seems like solid logical reasoning based on history. It's how we got from the very simple, direct "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to the mess of infringements we have today. Let's not forget this classic:

    https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

    ETA: Read, commented and submitted. Thanks for the heads-up.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2017
    Phil1979 likes this.
  5. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,948
    99
    48
    Warfarin and Ethylene Glycol are equally deadly, and sold at Walmart.

    And in that same trip can also buy a Ruger 10/22 and use a string to make it a machine gun.

    Banning objects doesn't reduce homicide, it only reduces homicide by object xyz. And in so doing expands the net that ensnares peaceable people.
     
    Phil1979 and mdlott like this.
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    I bet Thanksgiving get-together and dinner was a blast wherever you where! :groupprotest::devil::drink::hide::lol:
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.
  7. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,386
    70
    48
    I see. So you're in the camp of "No one needs an -X-, so let's ban -X-"?

    Would you not agree that the entire point, the complete and entire point, of the Founders' construction of the Second Amendment was in order for the citizens to be secure against a tyrannical government? If you do, how do you reconcile that point against your support that anything "too dangerous" is something bannable by the government? Does security against a tyrannical government require the citizens to have very dangerous items? (Ignoring the question of whether bump-fire stocks are even a potent kind of danger)

    Is your belief system the same, in principle, as Mexico's constitutional "right" to bear arms, with pistol calibers no larger than .380s? Because anything bigger is too dangerous and superfluous for just self defense?
     
    Phil1979 likes this.
  8. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,198
    181
    63
    GS, you do know most shotguns fire multiple projectiles with only one pull of the trigger, right? And they are much more accurate and wield-able than a bump fire weapon though range is much shorter.

    But even though they fire multiple projectiles with a"single" trigger pull, even anti-gunners such as Joe Bidden (and apparently you) are fine with them while condemning bump stocks which actually do require multiple pulls of a trigger.
     
    Phil1979 likes this.
  9. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,476
    595
    113
    Great points being made here for liberty!
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.
  10. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,948
    99
    48
    Preface: I think the NFA and the BATFE are unconstitutional and should be eliminated. I stand by "shall not be infringed" to include rocket launchers and missiles. If the government can own it, so can I. If I am prohibited, so are they. That said....

    The language of the law is not "one projectile", but "one shot". Shotguns are defined, and regulated, separately.

    "2.1.6 Machinegun.
    Firearms within the definition of machinegun include weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger."

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-2/download

    My issue with bumpfire stocks is that it attempts (poorly) to regulate fire rate in a semi-automatic weapon. That is the nose of a very large and smelly camel that I do not want in my tent.
     
    Phil1979 likes this.
  11. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113

    More Bravo-Sierra.
    You can’t get an effective, functional full auto with a string looped around a gun’s trigger.

    And ethylene glycol is not even close to being “equally deadly” as cyanide. One has a human lethal dose (LD 50, or 50% of the time proving fatal) of about 1.5 milliliters per kg of body weight. The other is lethal (50% of time) with only 1.5 micrograms of poison per kilogram of body mass.

    Cyanide is 1000 times deadlier, and about that much faster-acting too. Which is why it’s more tightly regulated.
     
  12. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    You quoted my post where I pointed out that it’s a lie to say that people can shoot guns as rapidly without bump fire stocks as with them.

    The stocks really do function to let anybody, with very little skill or practice, have the functional equivalent of a full auto, but unregistered, anonymously, with no vetting or screening of the buyer.

    Whether it is good public policy allowing this newfound loophole to remain as a backdoor workaround to avoid the National Firearms Act, that’s a different topic for a different thread.
     
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    If somebody says baby seals shouldn’t be clubbed to death for their fur because they’re the smartest animals next to humans, and their tears cure cancer, I can call-out those lies without necessarily being in favor of bashing the baby seals’ brains out.
     
  14. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,798
    814
    113
    OK so GS is spouting BS and others are leaving him tarred and feathered with simple logic and intelligence but only one person has noted they filed a comment.

    Did anyone else send in a comment of any type? If you read Post 1 and got to here and did not comment or swear your firstborn to filing it in the next hour you are in the same basket as GS, and we must note he is not deplorable.

    Nemo
     
  15. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,948
    99
    48
    "Deadliest" in poisons is like which is the "best" caliber, and there is much more to that than the numbers. For example, cyanide (which isn't actually hard to get) is bitter, difficult to hide in food/drink, and produces a dramatic painful death. Glycol is sweet, easy to include in consumables, and causes death by renal failure.

    And you're being pedantic about the string, which was an example. There are lots of easy tricks to achieve high rates of fire.



    True, but none of that is even remotely an accurate description of what has transpired.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
  16. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,386
    70
    48
    Fair point. I went back up to quote and only picked your most recent one. The one my thoughts were targeted for is not much different.

    You go on to say essentially the ATF ruled as it did only because of an accident of law and imply that Congress should only write laws better to ban the things. So, how should I not read your post as implicit agreement that anything can be banned as long as Congress writes the proper law for it? All of my questions still stand unanswered.

    I see this argument as the same sort of argument you make regarding "large capacity" [sic] magazines. "They let people have more bullets and more bullets [faster fire] kills more people" :panic:

    It's not so simple. Seriously, if they are the "functional equivalent" of full auto, why doesn't our military save a lot of money and just issue them in the standard loadout? So many factors go into whether some article of weaponry actually makes a mass killer more effective that we ought not go running off the deep end like any anti- talking about how terrible they are. In this case, the LV killer shot into a packed crowd of people and happened to be using some device on his ARs. He could have been just as effective using plain ARs. The packed crowd, his placement, and his planning were more significant contributors to his goal that overwhelmed whatever difference the bumpstock made. If you disagree with that, then you are saying it would have been impossible for him to kill 51 people in a packed panicking crowd with just his ARs.

    I will agree with you on one point I believe you're making. We need to be persuasive in our arguments, and "muh rights! 2A! Shall not be infringed" isn't very persuasive. But, to say that it's the "stupidest" position to push back against any encroachment, no matter how small? Really? Let's just roll over and let them ban bump stocks without working for it?

    The problem is more than just bump stocks. The current law is built around somewhat of a bright line where it's "easy" to define a mechanical device that is the operative portion of "machine gun". Once we're past that point, we're into nebulous gray area of "functional equivalents" and subjective definitions and so on. So, if we roll over, we're into a messy, muddy battleground of defining a particular behavior as being bad, whether it's done with a bump stock, rubber band, pant loop, polished trigger, practiced finger, etc. That is the battle line getting drawn. Not on "bump stocks"
     
    Phil1979 and AtlPhilip like this.
  17. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    If you want to fulfill the purpose of the 2A by making full autos no more regulated than break-open .410 shotguns (or, for that matter, kitchen knives), fine. Lobby for that. Write your Congress-critter. Protest. Start a social media campaign.

    As long as the national policy of the USA, as made 84 years ago by our duly-elected representatives, and modified in 1968 and 1986 and 1991 (I think?) is to treat full autos differently, I say it would be a good thing to close the bumpfire stock loophole.

    I don’t see any principled, logical reason to advocate for unregulated bump stocks on semi auto battle rifles (knowing such guns can be used with 30- 100+ round mags or drums) while leaving full autos subject to even pre-Hughes restictions.
     
  18. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    P.s. the U.S. military uses hand grenades filled with RDX or C4 or whatever.

    Our military doesn’t use pipe bombs filled with match heads.

    That doesn’t mean the NFA should only apply to factory hand grenades, or that the basement workshop versions aren’t the functional equivalent .. at least close enough to put in the same regulatory class.
     
  19. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,214
    837
    113
    Thanks GS you motivated my deplorable rear end into action. So Nemo I went to the site filled out all the info and gave them my opinion. You take enough bricks out of a wall and it will fall.
     
  20. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,948
    99
    48
    Many such arguments have been made, one immediately above your post.

    And your argument runs counter to the core GeorgiaCarry.org philosophy of persistent incrementalism and never yielding ground. The idea of "repeal the NFA or accept it" is a strategy doomed to failure and you know that (see below).

    The simple fact is that you support burdensome federal regulation of firearms you deem "too dangerous". And apparently you're willing to support legislation intended to regulate fire rate accelerators, even if it puts all semi-automatic weapons at risk. Sorry, I reject such ideas with prejudice.

     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
    Taurus92 and Phil1979 like this.