Featured Trump Moves to Ban Bump Stocks

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
  2. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,261
    525
    113
    I hope they don't ban fingers too.
     

  3. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,815
    820
    113
    String, pants pockets and thumbs also fit the requirements.

    Nemo
     
  4. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    They need to ban hands, double ban thumbs and fingers, joints, triple ban elbows, knees, and any sharp objects, any blunt objects, all rocks, all drills, drill presses, hammers.

    Screw it, just ban humans, let's force us all to get into the Prius Final Solutions and we'll never have to have murder again, and the last human alive should quad-ban murder before he gets into his Prius.

    See there, Utopia now, no more murder.
     
  5. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    This is a machinegun. No, really.

    [​IMG]
     
    EJR914 likes this.
  6. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,815
    820
    113
    Hope you did the proper licensing for that. It is unlawful without it.

    Nemo
     
  7. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    When you need a license for a string, that's when you know the government is in full over-reach mode.

    What would our Founding Fathers have thought about this?
     
    EJR914 likes this.
  8. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Let's all speak plainly, our founding fathers would have already been shooting back when they passed the First Federal gun control law back in 1934.

    They would have basically said come and take them like the boys did up in Concord when the British came for their illegal arms and munitions
     
  9. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,706
    113
    That one supposedly was registered as the metal tag supposedly has a serial number on it. The owner actually applied for it to use it legally.
     
  10. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,706
    113
    The string only needs to be licensed if you add it to a semi-auto rifle. The ATF didn't want to piss off the string-owning public in general. :lol:
     
  11. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,815
    820
    113
    But any string can be added to the rifle, making it illegal. So all string must be serial numbered and registered.

    Nemo
     
  12. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,845
    361
    83
    100% Concurrence. Now we say support a gun group and send in the lawyers. Please take note of where we are presently using that tactic. What was that definition of insanity again?
     
  13. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    And any firearm capable of accepting a string is only one step away from full-auto, and therefore must be banned. /sarcasm

     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I do take note of where we presently are . . . It seems to me over the last twenty years, and especially over the last ten, things are way better for liberty, not worse. Does this opinion of mine reflect insanity?
     
  15. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,261
    525
    113
    No...

    Having been around for far longer than the last 20 years things have been getting better. More and more states are once again allowing the carrying of firearms where 20 years ago the practice was all but eliminated. Go back 40 years and things are not so great today as they were then. There has been a big turning back the clock in the last 20 years. Maybe some day we can get back to to the pre NFA days. It just takes the courts to not interject their personal beliefs and feelings into their decisions.
     
  16. GAfirearmsReference

    GAfirearmsReference Weapons Law Booklet

    1,056
    32
    48
    Well, I think it would have been better to have NEVER had a federal "assault weapon" ban in the first place, even though the one we had came with an expiration date 10 years after it was enacted. Its passage encouraged many states to pass their own permanent and non-expiring AWBs too.

    I don't mind so much the 1986 cut-off on new machinegun registrations, considering that we got more important pro-gun reforms passed through the same bill: No more FFL recordkeeping of ammo (made it OK for companies to sell you ammo directly and ship it to your home address), a safe passage provision for passing-through anti-gun jurisdictions with an unloaded firearm encased and out of reach, and some limits on ATF's inspections of and harassment of FFL dealers.

    To me, the biggest loss in gun rights over the last 20 years, well, let's say 25 years, was the Lautenberg Amendment that banned gun possession by any domestic violence misdemeanor offender, regardless of the date of offense. To permanently lose a fundamental constitutional right over a MISDEMEANOR crime was unheard-of at the time. Only felonies have historically triggered the loss of traditional rights of citizens beyond any period of incarceration or probation. Stripping citizens of their rights over small or petty offenses is a huge new development in the law.

    Carry rights have been expanded in the last 25 years, sure.
    More permits issued, more reciprocity, more states issuing carry licenses.
    But gun ownership has been denied to many more people, and the types of weapons we can choose from was limited for many years (and still is, in some states).

    I'd call it a mixed bag of results.
     
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,706
    113
    But only if the string is of a certain length, has loops at each end and is added to the rifle specifically to increase the rate of fire. So sayeth the ATF.

    https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    One benefit of having had it is that everybody now pretty much agrees it did zilch for crime prevention.

    I strongly disagree. While the Firearm Owners Protection Act did have some good provisions, it was not enough to cut off the militia's access to militia weapons. This Act did more to undermine the militia than any other federal law passed in the history of the United States.

    Outside of 20 years . . . doesn't count! :grin: I still hold out hope that maybe the Supreme Court will undo this one in the future . . .

    I find your last paragraph ironic given your minimizing the damage done in 1986.
     
    EJR914 likes this.
  19. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,845
    361
    83
    I guess this is why know one is putting up too much of a fuss over bump stocks. I mean they can infringe there if they leave something else alone right?
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I am not sure that has anything to do with what I wrote, but the reality is that not many people have them and not many people care about them and the general public perception is that they turn a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. It does not matter that you could hand a slide stock equipped AR15 to a member of the public who holds that opinion and laugh as he tries to get it to fire "full-auto" . . . nobody is undertaking that education on a large scale sufficient to sway public opinion. In this case, public opinion is based on a false premise, but I do not see a way to correct it.

    The general public also does not care about executive overreach so long as they agree with the result.

    The general public does not care about judicial activism so long as they agree with the result.

    I tried to make this argument when the S. Ct. was about to rule that homosexuals have a right to marry, something the writers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment never in their wildest dreams would have imagined, but many here did not care, because they liked the result.

    Well, when you adopt that sort of reasoning, then this is what you get. Results based principles (which means no principles).

    A principled approach to the second amendment would look at the reasons it was adopted and keep the government away from undermining those reasons regardless of the majority's whims at the moment.

    A principled approach to executive power would need to find the power to ban an item of commerce in Article II of the constitution (article, not amendment).

    The public by and large has no principles but is swept up in whatever current propaganda is being displayed to them on the internet. Conservatives and libertarians and anarchists are not immune from this.