https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-turn-them-in/
Must be the Socialist mind control rays influenced the Donald. Not that I have use for the item but the implications are interesting.
Let the flames rise!
Going to eat breakfast and lift weights! Later!
And 7 people will be dopey enough to throw their stuff away in the name of progress.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
Originally Posted by Peally
"We may be short, Peally, but we're not mental dwarves!"
There's nothing civil about this war.
Dopey, sneezy, bumpy and pewpewsie
"We may be short, Peally, but we're not mental dwarves!"
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Wait, did you think he was a conservative, or even better, a Libertarian? Hahahah!
"Does no one honor trademarks anymore? Where is my attorney?"
On topic: Never owned a bump stock, never intended to...but surely no one is surprised by this.
It's all well and good to draw a hard line and promise to die supporting it, but as others have mentioned, is this the hill we want to die on? Perhaps better to win the war and concede a battle here and there. Each side has its merits.
There's nothing civil about this war.
So yes, surely this calls for sweeping and permanent legislation.That attack marked the first time that bump stocks were known to have been used in a crime.
Bumpstocks are completely useless and the only people who like them are hillbillies who think Applebee's is a fancy restaurant. I don't like 'em, but I like stupid rules even less.
Dammit Trump, I thought we were bros.
Bump stocks were illegal under the generally pro-gun Bush administration. They then became legal under the Obama administration, which used Fast and Furious to drive up gun deaths and calls for more gun control. Hmmmm, why would an anti-gun administration responsible for Fast & Furious legalize bump stocks? Perhaps hoping something like the Las Vegas shooting would happen so that support for gun control would increase? Perhaps Bush knew the same thing, which is why his administration banned them?
Too many gun owners reflexively stand on the position that no ground can be given, ever. The vast majority of the time, this is correct. Here, they are walking right into a trap.
If we are going to keep and expand concealed carry, standard capacity magazines, modern sporting rifles, and perhaps make sound suppressors easier to obtain and/or do away with the sporting purposes test, we need credible arguments in favor of our positions. Most here could make credible, sensible arguments for all of the above. NO ONE can do so for a bump stock.
I have challenged bump stock supporters multiple times in multiple threads to come up with a credible argument that they serve a legitimate purpose. NO ONE has even attempted to do so. Any takers here?
The problem then becomes persuading the narrow population in the middle - the ones who truly decide elections - of the validity of our positions when we have lost significant credibility defending something for which there is no defense. We then lose our ability to persuade them that concealed carry or AR-15’s really serve good purposes. THAT IS HOW WE LOSE EVERYTHING THAT REALLY IS IMPORTANT.
My prediction is that some responses to this post will say “second amendment” or “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand”. It isn’t that simple.
The judges who will decide the second amendment cases know it is not that simple. They will look not only at the intent and meaning of the language, but the consequences of the decision. They don’t want to issue a ruling which would someday allow someone to buy a nuclear submarine, which would actually be easier to defend under the second amendment than a bump stock.
The problem with the oversimplistic “what part of shall not be infringed” argument is that it creates a slippery slope that leads places the judges do not want to go. To win the argument, a way off the slippery slope must be provided. That is how Heller was won.
If you want a favorable ruling, for example, that making concealed carry across state lines difficult or impossible is a second amendment violation, you need a way off the slippery slope, and that way off had better occur before you get to bump stocks. Otherwise, you lose what should have been a winnable case.
I predict that some will accuse me of trying to appease the other side. I agree that appeasement never works, and encourage those people to reread my post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by BillSWPA; 11-29-2018 at 12:03 PM.
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
When the bumbling backwards backwoods folk are bump-firing along Caney Creek, in Montgomery County, Texas, which runs behind my wife’s family’s property, well within range of the home site, I am completely ready to throw those idiots under under any bus which happens to be rolling along. Appeasement of the leftistas has nothing to do with it.
Last edited by Rex G; 11-29-2018 at 12:27 PM.
We'll be haunted by this, because the opposition in play is not interested in being reasonable or rational about this, and they'll take a mile from the inch provided by this ban. This SHOULD have been an opportunity to re-write the NFA to include bumpstocks and de-stupify the rest. But we're just rolling over and taking the ban instead because that's 'not the hill we want to die on'. What's the next 'hill we don't want to die on'? Pistol braces? 30 round magazines?
Because they're banning an accessory outright, it sets the precedence that banning accessories based on one terrible use of them in one major crime is justifiable. How much farther of a reach is it to suggest that the actual weapon they were installed upon should also be banned, when it's been used in several of those rare, terrible, high profile crimes?
When we're appealing to the middle, we need to make the argument that policy should not be dictated by profoundly rare uses in crime, but instead be dictated by what can be substantiated as a repeated, common risk to society that otherwise is not used lawfully by lawful citizens. Not what got used once to absolutely terrible effect.
Yes, it's a stupid redneck range toy. But rednecks wasting ammo and simulating full-auto fire isn't a crime nor is it a common injury/murder/suicide vector. Full auto fire does have a very applicable 2A use for 'militia' purposes in modern warfighting, and thus should be protected by the 2A just the same. The compromise, if there was one to make, should be to streamline the NFA process, add the bumpstocks to the NFA, and get rid of SBR's, Suppressors, and the Hughes amendment, but we're not doing that.
The bottom line is that neither bumpstocks nor registered legal MG's are commonly seen in drive bys or other so-called 'gun' crime. So banning them is a politically visible victory for the antis based on nothing substantially useful beyond the optics of banning evil gun stuff.
By the measure of what's commonly used in 'gun' crime, such as handguns, we all know the number of handguns being used for criminal activity are such an infinitesimal minority compared to the numbers of lawfully owned and safely carried/used handguns every day that banning handguns is an idiotic measure and doesn't solve the problem - in addition to completely disregarding the nature of criminality and that no ban makes these items just turn into dust.
So yes, as stupid as this is, it is a hill we should be ready to fight on. Supporting stupid policy is supporting stupid policy. If they want a compromise, it should give us something we don't have that we want. Giving up bump stocks without getting something in return is a full loss. Period.
Reply With Quote