it seems he's concerned about what others think and doesn't want to look bad to people who already dislike him for being a gun owner. So much so, he's willing to give up quite a bit, apparently.
Bump Stock etc... "Banned"!
- Thread starter akdude
- Start date
- Status
it seems he's concerned about what others think and doesn't want to look bad to people who already dislike him for being a gun owner. So much so, he's willing to give up quite a bit, apparently.
Everybody knows that's a chopper with a 30 popper . . .
Agreed.
I fear when we press rights to an extreme, we'll be seen as extremists, lose credibility, and lose the debate on rights that really are essential. And friends, when something becomes illegal, that solves the issue for me - I've spent too many years enforcing laws to start deliberately breaking them. No civil disobedience for me, thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, the hole in the foot is the big guy or just used for some sort of effect?
BTW I live in NM.
Being a gun owner, makes us an extremist anyway and they don't want to debate us on ANY firearms argument. So much so they have to lie in order to get legislation passed. EVERY right is essential. Every one is worth fighting for.
Being a gun owner, makes us an extremist anyway and they don't want to debate us on ANY firearms argument. So much so they have to lie in order to get legislation passed. EVERY right is essential. Every one is worth fighting for.
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest issue as I see it is that if we let THIS administration ban something by "finagling" the definition (calling a bump fire device a machine gun) what happens when the next far left president in the White House decides to change another definition to take something else away from us?
I could care less about bump stocks. Heck I don't even own an AR. BUT that doesn't mean I think it is OK for the BATFE - at the direction of the President - to set this kind of precedent and change definitions already established in regulations to say that people CAN'T own one. If that is how laws about guns are going to be made going forward WE ARE IN DEEP DOO-DOO.
And for GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE, please stop with the mud slinging and name calling (like FUDD). When was the last time you saw someone persuaded by being called names? NEVER! We're supposed to be on the same side here. I sure wish the OTHER side were as divided and fractious as we are. They wouldn't succeed at any of their schemes - just like we don't seem to be succeeding very well at opposing them.
I could care less about bump stocks. Heck I don't even own an AR. BUT that doesn't mean I think it is OK for the BATFE - at the direction of the President - to set this kind of precedent and change definitions already established in regulations to say that people CAN'T own one. If that is how laws about guns are going to be made going forward WE ARE IN DEEP DOO-DOO.
And for GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE, please stop with the mud slinging and name calling (like FUDD). When was the last time you saw someone persuaded by being called names? NEVER! We're supposed to be on the same side here. I sure wish the OTHER side were as divided and fractious as we are. They wouldn't succeed at any of their schemes - just like we don't seem to be succeeding very well at opposing them.
Last edited:
Many things were illegal in this country, many covered under topics not to be discussed on the forum. Good thing people didn't just throw up their hands, but fought for their rights.
Gun owners are wusses compared to those who took to the streets, got beaten up or killed, but persevered.
Gun owners are wusses compared to those who took to the streets, got beaten up or killed, but persevered.
daglockman
Member
It IS a dangerous assault on our rights. It is NOT OK!!! What will the Gov decide is not OK next that was fine for years, and actually given to the ATF to inspect and given their stamp of approval???
How about the DOT determines that any vehicle that goes from 0-60 any faster than 7 seconds must be rendered inoperable, for there is no need to go that fast that quickly and it could only lead to harm. There is no good that could come from going that fast, that quickly. It could be supported by a bunch of useless made up charts and statistics.
How about the DOT determines that any vehicle that goes from 0-60 any faster than 7 seconds must be rendered inoperable, for there is no need to go that fast that quickly and it could only lead to harm. There is no good that could come from going that fast, that quickly. It could be supported by a bunch of useless made up charts and statistics.
03hemi
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,570
- Reaction score
- 7,011
On a side note, my buddy out in California (big gun collector) wanted me to send him a video of me shooting my AR with an Echo II trigger at the range, so I obliged him. Unfortunately, he miss-typed his phone number by one digit and it went to somebody in Cali that freaked out and came unglued when they saw it! I politely apologized and explained what had happened but they were already butt hurt and it didn't matter. Oh well.
If you live in Nevada.......................
you would know why this had to happen !!
Only LE or Military type should be allowed with the BS.
Refund......... go for it but
you might see the "Gray Motel" if someone rats on you or
people going through BS receipts, knock on your door, first.
Just be glad that they are not pushing for a maximum ten round magazine, in your state, like Calif. as well as non-lead
bullets for hunting game animals.
Drones, might be next..........?
you would know why this had to happen !!
Only LE or Military type should be allowed with the BS.
Refund......... go for it but
you might see the "Gray Motel" if someone rats on you or
people going through BS receipts, knock on your door, first.
Just be glad that they are not pushing for a maximum ten round magazine, in your state, like Calif. as well as non-lead
bullets for hunting game animals.
Drones, might be next..........?
I do agree that we should be on the same side, and I respect your post, however; When someone implies that my ownership of something like this makes me a hoodlum or something much worse, I've got every right to call them a fudd. They impugned my honor before I theirs.
And people calling others fat and so and so, cause they disagree with them. Look at your own damn self in the mirror.
Last edited:
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Anyone who didn't see a bump stock ban coming has been asleep since October 1, 2017.
Within days after the Las Vegas massacre, Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox issued a joint statement regarding bump stocks. Everyone knows who those two guys are, right?
Quoting from their statement:
"...the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
You may click on this link to read about what some members of Congress think about a ban.
Shortly after the Las Vegas mass shooting, Speaker Paul Ryan said, "We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix." He went on to say, "We are still trying to assess why the ATF let this go through in the first place, so what happened on the regulatory side to allow this to occur."
I have my own ideas as to why this is happening at this particular time in this country, and I don't believe the impetus is coming totally from the anti-gun/anti-2A movement. Look in the recent headlines, and anyone with any sense ought to be able to figure it out themselves.
Within days after the Las Vegas massacre, Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox issued a joint statement regarding bump stocks. Everyone knows who those two guys are, right?
Quoting from their statement:
"...the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
You may click on this link to read about what some members of Congress think about a ban.
Shortly after the Las Vegas mass shooting, Speaker Paul Ryan said, "We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix." He went on to say, "We are still trying to assess why the ATF let this go through in the first place, so what happened on the regulatory side to allow this to occur."
I have my own ideas as to why this is happening at this particular time in this country, and I don't believe the impetus is coming totally from the anti-gun/anti-2A movement. Look in the recent headlines, and anyone with any sense ought to be able to figure it out themselves.
The problem is that the ATF already evaluated and determined the things are not "machine guns" and the ATF cannot (generally) regulate accessories, just guns and those things identified as subject to regulation by law, like suppressors. The ATF cannoit add things or remove things from the NFA. To now have the President or the Attorney General make a different determination or order the ATF to do so, or to use the ATF to regulate things that are outside the scope of their authority is improper. and dangerous
Paul Ryan and other legislators would of course love to have the President do this through regulatory means. It is faster, cheaper and the political blowback goes to the White House and not Congress. But it is not the right way to do this. If a bump stock is now a machine gun, then what other things might be re-defined to become destructive devices or short rifles or machine guns. I will concede that there may be a way to ban bump stocks through the regulatory process, but this isn't the way.
CurbeloLetter
cmj8591
Member
The Peoples Republic of Mass banned them about 2 months after Las Vegas. They sent letters to every licensed gun owner in the state telling them that they had until a certain date to turn them into the local police department. No, there is no compensation and possession is now a felony. As of now, I believe that 3 have been turned in. I never found bump stocks to be common on the ranges that I use, but there has to be more than 3 of them in the state. I think that what is happening is that the laws have become so convoluted that people are starting to just ignore them. I know if I owned one, I don't think I would have turned it in either. If the cops show up to search my house, it's likely that I have bigger problems than possessing a bump stock.
chiefdave
US Veteran
I agree that this ban could open the door for the anti's.
I also agree with those who think that there is no practical application for a bump stock other than to make noise.
In the United States there are several things that were legal to purchase in the past but are now banned. Cocaine and opium are examples.
I also agree with those who think that there is no practical application for a bump stock other than to make noise.
In the United States there are several things that were legal to purchase in the past but are now banned. Cocaine and opium are examples.
I am very concerned that unelected folks at the BATFE can decide whether or not a particular firearm or accessory is illegal.
The worst part of the new ban is that it shows a government agency interpreting a law passed by Congress one way and then turning around and saying it means the opposite.
What's to keep the BATFE from deciding next week that all semi-auto firearms are illegal because they can be easily turned into the equivalent of a machine gun. And what about 00 buckshot -- 9 projectiles with a single pull of the trigger.
The worst part of the new ban is that it shows a government agency interpreting a law passed by Congress one way and then turning around and saying it means the opposite.
What's to keep the BATFE from deciding next week that all semi-auto firearms are illegal because they can be easily turned into the equivalent of a machine gun. And what about 00 buckshot -- 9 projectiles with a single pull of the trigger.
Last edited:
daglockman
Member
No, I think by the ATF's definition, a '06 is more like a machine gun as you can fire more than one round per single trigger pull, but not a true machine gun as subsequent rounds cannot be fired without further manipulation by the operator. You CANNOT fire more than one round per trigger pull with a bumpstock. The trigger still needs to be manipulated EVERY time the gun fires. There will be no getting around this. That is why the ATF ruled that it did not fit within the definition of machine gun. I would assume that at the time everyone at the ATF knew what they were holding, but also knew that by the current definition of what the ATF constitutes as a device that converts a semi automatic firearm into a machinegun, this device did not fall within those guidelines. It would have to give the gun the ability to fire more than one round per trigger pull. I think that I understand that this is what the Government is claiming that a bumpstock can do, but just because you say something is so, it does not change reality and make it so. In other words, I believe the definition of a machine gun would have to be changed, otherwise interpretation of what anything is defined as would be speculative, and rulings and judgements could be made on a whim on any number of issues. I believe very dangerous waters are being tested here, and as others have said, I don't think the bumpstock is the big picture at all. But then again I live in Colorado, and my goose may already be cooked as far as gun laws go.....
Last edited:
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
Banning AR's does not bother me either, I don't own one. Guess I will sit it out when somebody wants to ban your AR.
- Status
