Gun rights group says it will sue over bump stock ban

[Rucker61]

Very true. Have fun with your watermelons. Feel safe in your back 40. I want to feel safe in a movie theater.

You're safer in the movie theater than you are driving to the movie theater.

 

[Rucker61]

And alcohol is regulated four ways from Sunday, often for safety reasons. That's my point.

Pretty much anyone over the age of 20 can purchase and possess alcohol with only an ID check. Is that what you want for bump stocks?

 

[Chillfolks]

Regulated sure, but not banned. Banning bump stocks is akin to banning whiskey.

No it's not. Its more akin to banning double shot glasses. You can still drink as much whiskey as before and as fast as you want you just can't use a double shot glass to do so. Same with a bump stock. No one is saying you can't shoot your gun really fast you just can't do it using a bump stock.

 

[lwf]

No it's not. Its more akin to banning double shot glasses. You can still drink as much whiskey as before and as fast as you want you just can't use a double shot glass to do so. Same with a bump stock. No one is saying you can't shoot your gun really fast you just can't do it using a bump stock.

That is a better comparison. I would argue banning double shot glasses is also unnecessary.

 

[Chillfolks]

That is a better comparison. I would argue banning double shot glasses is also unnecessary.

I don't think a bump ban is necessary, I'm also not upset or troubled by it being banned. It is what it is, I just don't see it as a big deal in the realm of gun control or a rights violation.

It will have little to no impact on crimes, if someone wants to waste ammo and money they still can pew pew as fast as they could before.

IMO making a big deal of this is people looking to be upset about something. Look on this thread people make the leap that if you are for this bump ban you must also be for banning water because people drown ( ok slightly exaggerated ) Its hard to take people like that's outrage seriously.

 

[Rucker61]

I don't think a bump ban is necessary, I'm also not upset or troubled by it being banned. It is what it is, I just don't see it as a big deal in the realm of gun control or a rights violation.

It will have little to no impact on crimes, if someone wants to waste ammo and money they still can pew pew as fast as they could before.

IMO making a big deal of this is people looking to be upset about something. Look on this thread people make the leap that if you are for this bump ban you must also be for banning water because people drown ( ok slightly exaggerated ) Its hard to take people like that's outrage seriously.

I have no problem with it being banned; I have a big problem with the executive branch adding new definitions to a law passed by Congress.

 

[lwf]

I don't think a bump ban is necessary, I'm also not upset or troubled by it being banned. It is what it is, I just don't see it as a big deal in the realm of gun control or a rights violation.

It will have little to no impact on crimes, if someone wants to waste ammo and money they still can pew pew as fast as they could before.

IMO making a big deal of this is people looking to be upset about something. Look on this thread people make the leap that if you are for this bump ban you must also be for banning water because people drown ( ok slightly exaggerated ) Its hard to take people like that's outrage seriously.

It may not lead to a firearm ban, but doesn't it use the same logic that a firearm ban would? "It's dangerous and serves no legitimate purpose, so let's ban it." I think pointing out the hypocrisy is useful since I have yet to meet someone who was against the second amendment who didn't also enjoy an occasional alcoholic beverage. If safety is the motive, isn't that hypocritical?

 

[Nickyjo]

Regulated sure, but not banned. Banning bump stocks is akin to banning whiskey. Can they cause problems? Yes. Should children have access? No. Should a supplier be sanctioned for selling them to a law-abiding adult? No. Should a supplier be liable for damages resulting from their misuse? No. Should a law abiding adult using them properly be arrested for possession? Hell no.

This is becoming a question of semantics. Bump stocks as I understand them are an accessory, not necessary to the functioning of a weapon. I am not concerned about their prohibition. You can still use the gun. And as I understand it, there are well regulated places where one can get the experience of firing a fully automatic weapon. Not a big sacrifice.

 

[Nickyjo]

Pretty much anyone over the age of 20 can purchase and possess alcohol with only an ID check. Is that what you want for bump stocks?

No, confine fully auto to special ranges. Get your pleasure that way. I’d probably want to try it too.

 

[lwf]

This is becoming a question of semantics. Bump stocks as I understand them are an accessory, not necessary to the functioning of a weapon. I am not concerned about their prohibition. You can still use the gun. And as I understand it, there are well regulated places where one can get the experience of firing a fully automatic weapon. Not a big sacrifice.

Certainly. But think about if there were a ban on your favorite kind of alcohol due to "the dangers of alcohol" after a particularly nasty drunk driving incident involving multiple fatalities caused by someone drunk on that particular kind of alcohol. People could still drink all of the other kinds of alcohol. They could still get drunk. The problems of drunk driving, liver failure, and all other alcohol related deaths would still exist. But now you aren't allowed to buy or consume one particular kind of alcohol that you enjoy.

Is this a big sacrifice? Probably not. Are you in favor of it, seeing as there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it other than a pointless knee jerk reaction to a much bigger problem?

 

[Nickyjo]

Certainly. But think about if there were a ban on your favorite kind of alcohol due to "the dangers of alcohol" after a particularly nasty drunk driving incident involving multiple fatalities caused by someone drunk on that particular kind of alcohol. People could still drink all of the other kinds of alcohol. They could still get drunk. The problems of drunk driving, liver failure, and all other alcohol related deaths would still exist. But now you aren't allowed to buy or consume one particular kind of alcohol that you enjoy.

Is this a big sacrifice? Probably not. Are you in favor of it, seeing as there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it other than a pointless knee jerk reaction to a much bigger problem?

I am in favor of it simply because it makes it harder to rapid fire a weapon. That’s it.

 

[lwf]

I am in favor of it simply because it makes it harder to rapid fire a weapon. That’s it.

I could argue that banning a particular beverage with a high alcohol content might make it (marginally) harder for people to drink and drive. Of course, does it really? Would there really be fewer alcohol related deaths? Would it really reduce alcohol consumption? Or would people just drink more of any other kind of alcohol to get the same drunk? Similarly, semi-automatic rifles can be manually fired almost as fast as bump stock equipped rifles, and with better accuracy. One could argue that a more accurate rifle is in fact a more deadly one.

Bump stocks are absolutely dangerous in the hands of the untrained or the unhinged. I'm all for regulation. I also have never, and have no desire to, own or use a bump stock personally so a ban would have no adverse material effect on me. But when someone tells me that I can't be trusted with one regardless of my status as a law abiding adult and no matter how much training I receive, then I say they are going too far and would rather that person not be making arbitrary laws that serve no real purpose.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think a bump ban is necessary, I'm also not upset or troubled by it being banned. It is what it is, I just don't see it as a big deal in the realm of gun control or a rights violation.

It will have little to no impact on crimes, if someone wants to waste ammo and money they still can pew pew as fast as they could before.

IMO making a big deal of this is people looking to be upset about something. Look on this thread people make the leap that if you are for this bump ban you must also be for banning water because people drown ( ok slightly exaggerated ) Its hard to take people like that's outrage seriously.

I think you don't understand that you are buying into the entire fallacy of gun control-that is applied to NFA firearms, or "assault weapons" or normal capacity magazines. that being, you support banning something most people use legally because you think that will stop someone who doesn't mind committing capital murder from being able to use that item.

 

[Chillfolks]

I think you don't understand that you are buying into the entire fallacy of gun control-that is applied to NFA firearms, or "assault weapons" or normal capacity magazines.

I think you don't understand me being fine with banning the bump stick does not mean I'm fine with banning other things. Only the foolish see it as all or nothing. You're getting as bad as the anti gunners spouting off the " if you can own an AR you can own a nuke" bull****.

that being, you support banning something most people use legally

most people do not use bump stocks. I had one used it twice realised it was a dumb gimmick to waste ammo and sold it. No one I know has a bump stock on there "go to" semi auto rifle.

because you think that will stop someone who doesn't mind committing capital murder from being able to use that item.

Are you illiterate? That would explaine why when I said "It will have little to no impact on crime" you couldn't understand it and typed that. Or did you ignore what I wrote and are addressing an issue I didn't raise for ****s and giggles.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think you don't understand me being fine with banning the bump stick does not mean I'm fine with banning other things. Only the foolish see it as all or nothing. You're getting as bad as the anti gunners spouting off the " if you can own an AR you can own a nuke" bull****.
most people do not use bump stocks. I had one used it twice realised it was a dumb gimmick to waste ammo and sold it. No one I know has a bump stock on there "go to" semi auto rifle.

Are you illiterate? That would explaine why when I said "It will have little to no impact on crime" you couldn't understand it and typed that. Or did you ignore what I wrote and are addressing an issue I didn't raise for ****s and giggles.

you do agree that you are using the same logic banners use for wanting to ban semi auto rifles, 15 round magazines, etc? Is your support for a ban based on trying to appear reasonable to anti gun types?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think you don't understand me being fine with banning the bump stick does not mean I'm fine with banning other things. Only the foolish see it as all or nothing. You're getting as bad as the anti gunners spouting off the " if you can own an AR you can own a nuke" bull****.
most people do not use bump stocks. I had one used it twice realised it was a dumb gimmick to waste ammo and sold it. No one I know has a bump stock on there "go to" semi auto rifle.

Are you illiterate? That would explaine why when I said "It will have little to no impact on crime" you couldn't understand it and typed that. Or did you ignore what I wrote and are addressing an issue I didn't raise for ****s and giggles.

Slow down a bit. What, exactly, is your valid reason for banning a bump stock? Can't you see that others can, and obviously do, make the same claim (argument) about "high capacity" magazines and even semi-auto guns? Once you place the additional requirement of practical need for X or "no one that I know has" X then you could replace X with any feature of, or accessory for, a gun and reuse that argument.

 

[Chillfolks]

you do agree that you are using the same logic banners use for wanting to ban semi auto rifles, 15 round magazines, etc? Is your support for a ban based on trying to appear reasonable to anti gun types?

My support for the ban is it reduces the safety and performance of the gun. Its use adds to the danger of anyone around because it reduces accuracy and control. Its design does nothing to improve the firearm only hurt its capabilites. Being that it's not a firearm its not protected by the 2nd. Being it bypassed Congress all it takes is a signature and they would be legal agian.

I'm much more focused on easing the restrictions on supressors, CC reseprosity in all states, fighting senseless magazine or looks scary bans. This is just a none issue to me.

As a side it will be fun to spin up liberals how Trump has been more effective than democrats in the last 18 years on gun control. I like watching them yell at clouds

 

[Xelor]

Gun rights group says it will sue over bump stock ban

What is there to say about that? It's their right to sue.

 

[TurtleDude]

My support for the ban is it reduces the safety and performance of the gun. Its use adds to the danger of anyone around because it reduces accuracy and control. Its design does nothing to improve the firearm only hurt its capabilites. Being that it's not a firearm its not protected by the 2nd. Being it bypassed Congress all it takes is a signature and they would be legal agian.

I'm much more focused on easing the restrictions on supressors, CC reseprosity in all states, fighting senseless magazine or looks scary bans. This is just a none issue to me.

As a side it will be fun to spin up liberals how Trump has been more effective than democrats in the last 18 years on gun control. I like watching them yell at clouds

1) do you have any evidence or information where someone was harmed through the use of a bump stock accidentally

2) do you think the use of a bump stock is safer than other methods of rapidly firing semi autos-as well demonstrated on youtube

3) I agree with the rest of your post

 

[JLee1977]

After Las Vegas, I think the overriding issue is public safety. You can legally buy machine guns from the right dealer with the right permits but these bump stocks are an unregulated equivalent of a machine gun.

If the overriding issue of the reclassification of bump stocks is public safety. Then why did the DOJ / ATF mention approved alternatives to mimicking what the bump stock do?

 

[Rucker61]

If the overriding issue of the reclassification of bump stocks is public safety. Then why did the DOJ / ATF mention approved alternatives to mimicking what the bump stock do?

View attachment 67246346

Freaking great point.

 

[TurtleDude]

Freaking great point.

The ATF tends to be a joke when it comes to this stuff. If you need any proof, look at their constant flip flops on "pistol braces" that have allowed honest citizens to effectively bypass the idiocy of the NFA SBR rules

 

[Rucker61]

The ATF tends to be a joke when it comes to this stuff. If you need any proof, look at their constant flip flops on "pistol braces" that have allowed honest citizens to effectively bypass the idiocy of the NFA SBR rules

Please dont write any letters about braces. My gun safe would be sad.

 

[Chillfolks]

1) do you have any evidence or information where someone was harmed through the use of a bump stock accidentally

Only personal stories and what I've witnessed people do. Most of those were not serious. I've also never taken nor do I plan to take the time to research the number

2) do you think the use of a bump stock is safer than other methods of rapidly firing semi autos-as well demonstrated on youtube

I think it gives the illusion of being safer but in reality It isn't. Like how I've convinced myself beer doesn't get me as drunk as wine.

3) I agree with the rest of your post

I think we agree on far more about GC than we disagree

 

[TurtleDude]

Please dont write any letters about braces. My gun safe would be sad.

LOL, I own one of the piston driven SIG "pistols" great car gun. Since I have a CCW, i Can keep that sucker loaded in my car or my wife can keep in loaded a scabbard on her driver's seat in her F350