SCOTUS refuses bump stock case
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
There is zero legitimate need among law biding citizens for a work around to convert civilian semi-automatic into quasi- full automatics, we've seen what they can do in the hands of the mentally ill.
And insisting that a bump stock ban is part of the 'slippery slope' is just a false canard, there is a wide gulf of reason between a citizens right to bear arms and the unregulated right to own an automatic weapon.
And insisting that a bump stock ban is part of the 'slippery slope' is just a false canard, there is a wide gulf of reason between a citizens right to bear arms and the unregulated right to own an automatic weapon.
Well, this is where we can agree to disagree. I've seen what can happen with a motor vehicle, a big sword, or a rock in the hands of the mentally ill, and it's not pretty. When we start talking about "need" in association with a right, then it fails to remain a right. "Because I want to" is a legitimate reason . . .
Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness
To me, that sums up the "Because I want to" defense. If I haven't done anything wrong, why can't I? Innocent, until proven guilty.
ggibson511960
Member
Does the government not immunize itself from intellectual responsibility? There is no accountability in the civil bureaucracy. The IRS issues Private Letter Opinions on serious tax matters, but is not bound to abide by them. Our fourth branch of government needs some serious rule making to check the runaway, unaccountable, elitist posture it now takes.
The question IMHO isn't whether or not we should have bumpstocks, but whether the BATFE has the authority to redefine what a "machine gun" is. This is a term codified in law with a specific definition. Can an agency of the government simply decide that it can be something else? There is no question that a bumpstock is not a "machine gun".
BATFE is part of the Executive Branch. They don't really have the power to make laws. The execute the laws, in effect. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets and decides how the laws are applied and carried out.
Seems to me everyone in DC needs to go back to Freshman Civics/US Governmenmt class in high school.
Seems to me everyone in DC needs to go back to Freshman Civics/US Governmenmt class in high school.
I think we're pretty far outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment Forum's purpose . . .
OP
Don’t want to buy one, don’t need one, fine. Let us who support the 2A as written have them.
Eddie Southgate
Member
I am against the government being able to pass any laws telling me what I can and cannot have without me having any say so in the matter . No anti gun law has ever been effective in stopping or even slowing down the commission of an act of violence . Show me proof that it has . How many people did a box cutter kill ? Ever see a bump stock on a box cutter? How about a box cutter with a 30 cut magazine ? Everybody wants to blame the inanimate object for the fact that a crime was committed , thats stupid.
I have no urge to ever own a bump stock but I do not support any law that says I can not have one if I want one . I do not support any law that limits by date of manufacture the full automatic weapons that I can own. This law just jacked the price of existing Legal weapons up to the point that their ownership is pretty much limited to people with big incomes . That has not changed the outcome of any criminal activity that I am aware of . Can anyone show me evidence that I am wrong on this ? As far as I know , the only crime committed with a Legal FA weapon since the original legislation passed is still the one where the Cop killed his wife and her lover with his duty issued Thompson . Anybody aware of any other legally owned FA's having been used in a crime . All of the mass shootings and the big cop shootouts that I am aware of have involved only illegally manufactured weapons or have been semi autos. Can't stop this with a law .
We only need one gun law . Do not use a firearm ( weapon ) of any kind in the commission of a crime . Punishment for breaking that law should vary depending on the nature of the violation not the weapon used .
They need to put the blame where it belongs and quit beating up on the inanimate object .
I have no urge to ever own a bump stock but I do not support any law that says I can not have one if I want one . I do not support any law that limits by date of manufacture the full automatic weapons that I can own. This law just jacked the price of existing Legal weapons up to the point that their ownership is pretty much limited to people with big incomes . That has not changed the outcome of any criminal activity that I am aware of . Can anyone show me evidence that I am wrong on this ? As far as I know , the only crime committed with a Legal FA weapon since the original legislation passed is still the one where the Cop killed his wife and her lover with his duty issued Thompson . Anybody aware of any other legally owned FA's having been used in a crime . All of the mass shootings and the big cop shootouts that I am aware of have involved only illegally manufactured weapons or have been semi autos. Can't stop this with a law .
We only need one gun law . Do not use a firearm ( weapon ) of any kind in the commission of a crime . Punishment for breaking that law should vary depending on the nature of the violation not the weapon used .
They need to put the blame where it belongs and quit beating up on the inanimate object .
squidsix
Member
“ We only need one gun law . Do not use a firearm ( weapon ) of any kind in the commission of a crime . Punishment for breaking that law should vary depending on the nature of the violation not the weapon used . ”
I respectfully disagree.
The law should be much simpler than that:
“It is a crime to initiate violence against any person”.
See? Easy.
I respectfully disagree.
The law should be much simpler than that:
“It is a crime to initiate violence against any person”.
See? Easy.
I wish we could purchase new machine guns. I only know of one crime committed in 1994, with a legally owned machine gun. Owners of machine guns seem to be the most " law abiding" of any group. Yes bad people do bad things with rope,fire, knives, guns, baseball bats, etc, so we can not police every item. Be safe, h
Eddie Southgate
Member
Can you be specific about the the 1994 incident ?
In 1994 a police officer shot his wife with a legal machine gun. There may have been other paperwork violations, such as traveling with a machine gun without informing ATF. I will try to find a link to the event. Be Safe,
