Status of Bump Stocks

[SirBannedAlot]

And let's be honest, the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to write laws and that resides with the Congress, is exactly the argument that the Dems are using concerning the Wall. They voted it down, he is going and doing it anyway via executive order.

We seem to have a case of hypocrisy here, where executive orders are bad when we don't like them, but perfectly ok if they accomplish something that we do like...

 

[Hayata]

Since any fully semi-automatic firearm can do this...

We should clearly outlaw all fully semi-automatic firearms...

It's common sense, yo'!

 

[Fatal_Bert]

And let's be honest, the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to write laws and that resides with the Congress, is exactly the argument that the Dems are using concerning the Wall. They voted it down, he is going and doing it anyway via executive order.

We seem to have a case of hypocrisy here, where executive orders are bad when we don't like them, but perfectly ok if they accomplish something that we do like...

you'll find no hypocrisy from me on that issue. Plus the most elementary study of the Constitution tells you the president doesn't have authority to write laws

 

[batoncolle]

And let's be honest, the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to write laws and that resides with the Congress, is exactly the argument that the Dems are using concerning the Wall. They voted it down, he is going and doing it anyway via executive order.

We seem to have a case of hypocrisy here, where executive orders are bad when we don't like them, but perfectly ok if they accomplish something that we do like...

Although Fatal_Bert would agree with you on the wall subject, that is not the same as this. It's not even close. And there are also threads to discuss the wall.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Since any fully semi-automatic firearm can do this...

We should clearly outlaw all fully semi-automatic firearms...

It's common sense, yo'!

Uh oh, the intent of the law says you can't do that. So the next president should make any trigger under 12lb illegal, that way no one can't break the precious intent of the law.

In the meantime, we're gonna need you to register that finger

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Since any fully semi-automatic firearm can do this...

We should clearly outlaw all fully semi-automatic firearms...

It's common sense, yo'!

Again, maybe I will repeat it for the folks in the back of the room...

I don't agree with the law. I think that the NFA is largely stupid, even if it made sense to them at the time. Most of it needs to go away.

That said, I am simply not surprised that the bump stocks got pulled. They were nothing more than a workaround, a way to skirt and side step the NFA laws. You can play lawyer all day and argue about the mechanics of the sear... I don't care, despite not even disagreeing with you...

But the reality is that the bump stock IS a way to in essence, convert a semi auto to a full auto. How it accompishes it is slightly different, but let's at least be honest about what it is.

And yes, I have fired my AK47's in "bump mode" with my belt loop just like all of you have, but the bump stuck does it a lot easier, where the average noob can just pick it up and do it, and shoulder it as well, which makes it a lot moe accurate than hip firing.

Again, dumb law, but it's not hard to connect the dots as to why they pulled them... I am simply not going to plant my flag in the hill of the bump stock... its a waste of time.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

It goes like this...

We all agree that like it or not, the NFA exists and that full auto's are banned. Yes?

Ok, so if I have to put myself in the shoes of someone arguing FOR bump stocks, what is my argument?

Me - Well, it's not an auto, you have to keep pushing the trigger.
Them - What's the rate of fire?
Me - Same as the full auto.
Them - Then how is this not a full auto?
Me - Because the sear is different
Them - But it achieves the same result right?
Me - Yeah, pretty much. Different means to the same end
Them - But then what makes one legal and the other not?
Me - How they do it. It's different.
Them - Yeah but if in the end the point of banning full auto's was because of that rate of fire, right?
Me - Yeah, the rate of fire was what made the gun different and what they based the ban on.
Them - So why would a nearly identical rifle, that has the same rate of fire, be ok?
Me - Because how it does it is slightly different

I just don't feel like this is a strong argument that I can win... If you want to get mad at Trump for doing it via EO, fine. But if Congress voted to ban it and he signed it, which very likely would have happened had he not issued the EO...

I just feel like we are bickering over semantics here...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Since any fully semi-automatic firearm can do this...

We should clearly outlaw all fully semi-automatic firearms...

It's common sense, yo'!

See, while very pro gun, I do try to put myself in the shoes of the other side at times, because if you understand how they think you can usually counter that...

So when someone says full auto's are banned, and should be, and your response is, "Hey look, why bother banning them, I can just fire all these semi-auto's just as fast!"... Our side sees that one way.

The other side says, "Oh, really? Well then I guess we have to ban those as well because you just proved that you can easily make your gun a full auto, so hand that one over as well"...

You kinda make their case for them, and so I personally would try NOT to make such an argument, because it can easily be used back against you...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

The mental gymnastics in this thread have surpassed my ability to keep up

 

[batoncolle]

See, while very pro gun, I do try to put myself in the shoes of the other side at times, because if you understand how they think you can usually counter that...

So when someone says full auto's are banned, and should be, and your response is, "Hey look, why bother banning them, I can just fire all these semi-auto's just as fast!"... Our side sees that one way.

The other side says, "Oh, really? Well then I guess we have to ban those as well because you just proved that you can easily make your gun a full auto, so hand that one over as well"...

You kinda make their case for them, and so I personally would try NOT to make such an argument, because it can easily be used back against you...

Except full autos are not banned. They fall under the purview of the NFA. And while the NFA is also Unconstitutional, it still doesn't come close to what the Trump admin did with bump stocks. They took it to the level of a dictatorship, and again every firearms owner should be outraged over it.