I was surprised to see this one, +1 to Trump for that. My guess is that people will just start buying printed ones, but not arguing about that. IS there a practical reason for owning one that I am missing?
No more bumpstocks
- Thread starter ukoffroad
- Start date
They make it easier for your gun to go off on its own and indiscriminately kill a bunch of people.
Guns are bad, mm-kay?
Why plus one to Trump?
They're fucking stupid. And you can build one from a hardware store, no need to buy them.
They make your weapon highly inaccurate and more prone to jamming and malfunctioning. I mean following that to its logical conclusion requiring bump stocks on all AR-15 style rifles would result in fewer deaths because you can't aim for fuck and your gun will probably jam.
This is just politics - ban something stupid so you can say you are tough on guns.
All he is is another anti-2A political dipshit. The only thing that bothers me is his supporters will say this is ok because bump stocks are dumb....well using that all kinds of styles of weapons are dumb, so they can be banned too?
They're fucking stupid. And you can build one from a hardware store, no need to buy them.
They make your weapon highly inaccurate and more prone to jamming and malfunctioning. I mean following that to its logical conclusion requiring bump stocks on all AR-15 style rifles would result in fewer deaths because you can't aim for fuck and your gun will probably jam.
This is just politics - ban something stupid so you can say you are tough on guns.
All he is is another anti-2A political dipshit. The only thing that bothers me is his supporters will say this is ok because bump stocks are dumb....well using that all kinds of styles of weapons are dumb, so they can be banned too?
Well, since that actual NFA law defines an automatic weapon as something that goes bang many times with ONE activation of the trigger, they really can't ban them - legally. The BATF had decided this previously.
But, the Trump administration being the Trump administration, they decided they could just ignore/re-write the law themselves; no need for Congress to actually pass a new law.
This will get struck down by the courts.
Remember: Trump is a liberal Democrat at heart, and a wannabe dictator. This is a result.
ETA: Bumpstocks are stoopid
But, the Trump administration being the Trump administration, they decided they could just ignore/re-write the law themselves; no need for Congress to actually pass a new law.
This will get struck down by the courts.
Remember: Trump is a liberal Democrat at heart, and a wannabe dictator. This is a result.
ETA: Bumpstocks are stoopid
There is not a practical use for them. They are simply for having fun pissing away ammunition.
I've always thought they should have been rolled in with the other stuff, and so have many firearm owners. I may not agree with the regulations, but if the shoe fits, put it in the box with the rest. Outliers like this just make freedoms in a regulated industry more complicated, and therefore vulnerable.
I'd consider it a little differently if people were out using them all the time, but you quickly find out that, when you're the one buying the ammunition, wasting it like that isn't as palatable. That being the case, people don't really use them too much, anyway.
Firearm owners and bump stock owners are like pickup drivers and pickup drivers that run around "rolling coal". It just makes the rest of them look bad, and chances causing increased regulation of things that don't need it, simply by attracting negative attention.
Cheers,
Kennith
So you can blow through 223's and waste money while telling everyone else on the range you're cool. Like a Yeti Cooler.
Bumpstocks are stupid. But banning anything by executive fiat troubles the shit out of me. Would my conservative friends be happy with a President Booker or President Warren exercising that power?
Nonsense. Doesn't matter who makes the decision or who's sitting behind that desk when the decision is made.
I've been happy to see those put on the list for as long as I was aware of them, regardless of the sitting President's political persuasions. Bumps stocks, to me and to many firearm owners, are a bug in the system. The sooner they go away the better.
If you want to burn up ammunition that fast, get the stamp and do it properly. Nobody cared about bump stocks when people were making them out of 2X4s, but as soon as they started being marketed aggressively, they weren't doing firearm owners any favors.
It's low-hanging fruit; an easy target. You don't want those floating around when you're already having to defend everything else constantly. The inclinations of the person presiding over the ban itself are immaterial. This eliminates a bigger layer of complexity in regulation than many seem to realize.
There was a small, irritating, and foolish "contextual physics" shaped hole in the definition of "automatic". Now there is not. This affects more than bump stocks, and can be considered a universal victory.
Cheers,
Kennith
I've been happy to see those put on the list for as long as I was aware of them, regardless of the sitting President's political persuasions. Bumps stocks, to me and to many firearm owners, are a bug in the system. The sooner they go away the better.
If you want to burn up ammunition that fast, get the stamp and do it properly. Nobody cared about bump stocks when people were making them out of 2X4s, but as soon as they started being marketed aggressively, they weren't doing firearm owners any favors.
It's low-hanging fruit; an easy target. You don't want those floating around when you're already having to defend everything else constantly. The inclinations of the person presiding over the ban itself are immaterial. This eliminates a bigger layer of complexity in regulation than many seem to realize.
There was a small, irritating, and foolish "contextual physics" shaped hole in the definition of "automatic". Now there is not. This affects more than bump stocks, and can be considered a universal victory.
Cheers,
Kennith
so here is the funny thing. Near as i can tell in my research, the bump stock exists because of the tax stamp created by the NFA act of 1934 and then the subsequent ban on new civilian production machine guns in FOPA (1986). a true select fire AR or AK pattern rifle will cost you north of 25k. $75-150 stock vs $25-35k NFA transferable machine gun. Yes, you have to pay to play but that is quite the entry price.
i 100% agree with the pointless nature of the bump stock.I don't own own, never will but that doesnt mean that someone who does want one shouldn't be able to. whatever jostles your jimmies. I do have concerns about how the ATF is going about this. 10 years of repeated letter to manufactures saying it is NOT a machine gun, only to about face now due to political pressure. Most of the hubbub about bump stocks now stems from their reported use in the Vegas shooting. Owners are also being required to turn in or destroy without compensation, which doesn't sit well with me.
AbnMike and SGaynor kind hit it on the head. its an emotional response to an non existent problem based on non-existent legal grounds that sets a dangerous precedence for future regulations on all things, not just firearms.
cant believe i came out of lurking for this. whoops
opcorn:
i 100% agree with the pointless nature of the bump stock.I don't own own, never will but that doesnt mean that someone who does want one shouldn't be able to. whatever jostles your jimmies. I do have concerns about how the ATF is going about this. 10 years of repeated letter to manufactures saying it is NOT a machine gun, only to about face now due to political pressure. Most of the hubbub about bump stocks now stems from their reported use in the Vegas shooting. Owners are also being required to turn in or destroy without compensation, which doesn't sit well with me.
AbnMike and SGaynor kind hit it on the head. its an emotional response to an non existent problem based on non-existent legal grounds that sets a dangerous precedence for future regulations on all things, not just firearms.
cant believe i came out of lurking for this. whoops
opcorn:
Kennith, a president declaring a previously-legal item illegal doesn't bother you? And not only illegal, but you must turn them over or destroy the previously-legal item? Leaving aside the stupidity of the bumpstock and the yokel that's too cheap to get a stamp, that's disturbing as fuck to me, no matter the item in question.
Damn man, do you love the taste of bootleather?
How you can view this as a victory boggles my mind.
Damn man, do you love the taste of bootleather?
How you can view this as a victory boggles my mind.
I explained why.
Bump stocks and similar devices are a thorn in the side of precision language, and this all boils down to language. Any outliers must be eliminated. This should have been covered thirty years ago.
They needed a category. They got one. I don't have to agree with a law to recognize that it should be properly written.
Cheers,
Kennith
Stu, as a matter of fact, governments do declare previously-legal items illegal. By itself it is nothing new, neither it is a breach of the law. Even if the item was previously (arguably) protected by the Constitution. Societies change, so are the policies and the laws. My only vague concern stems from my ignorance in legal matters - could/should it have been done by the President or Congress.
Bump stocks are a senseless abomination. I don't see banning them as Second Amendment violation or threat of one.
How many rapidly deployed inane comments and questions do you enjoy addressing? Do holes in definitions and systems people already don't understand help us at all? The arguments that must be endured from all angles and any number of ignorant perspectives rely entirely on things that are not immediately understood by most.
A device that performs such a function throws definition into chaos for the sub-standard mind, and adds fuel to an already out of control fire. If they were going to implement the automatic ban, they should have rolled in similar devices from the beginning.
They didn't. Now it's been done. A "trigger pull" has now, finally, been defined completely with the ban of bump stocks. Now we've got a better foundation from which to build our own arguments. I'd say it's a fair trade, and a correction of a mistake.
Cheers,
Kennith
The only correction of mistakes that should occur is the following:
The word Infringed be completely re-defined in the dictionary from what it states currently or
Any gun law enacted at all, anywhere, by anyone, be repealed and/or voided.
Continuing to make laws, create categories, require registration, enact training requirements, licensing, etc serves 0 purpose other than to state: The Constitution, as written, is worthless garbage. It carries no weight.
If a "bump stock" is illegal, is it similarly illegal for me to mount my rifle and insert a stick or rod in front of the trigger and pull back on it repeatedly and often? (this serves the exact same purpose as a bump stock although it is more stationary). Maybe we can define "trigger pull" as occurring one per minute, but no more. More than one per minute is hereby outlawed.
They should probably outlaw bayonet lugs too. Talk about worthless in this day and age, especially for non-combat personnel, right?
I mean as long as infringed doesn't mean what it's defined as and outlawing dumb things is A-ok as long as there's a quorum of people saying they're dumb, we certainly shouldn't stop at just the bump stock.