ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th February 2019, 11:23 PM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Trump's 1st Gun Grab; is it a Gun or Not?

My stance on Trump style gun control is not popular at all, especially with self-professed gun owners who claim to be 2nd amendment proponents. I posted a few memes about Trump's gun control attitudes and they're pissing off a few people here and there.

https://imgur.com/gallery/9zpaTmY
https://imgur.com/pP7q3n5

I'm not making any friend's at the Conservative Underground either. But as horrid as the CU is, the Democratic Underground was even worse as I lasted only a few months there and was banned for some reason.

So for all you people who care to give your opinion, are bump stocks firearms or non-firearms?

Here is the letter of the law. https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...k-type-devices
Quote:
The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices—meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics—are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968
The new regulation goes into effect March 26, 2019. I'm calling it Trump's 1st gun grab and getting lots of flak; so far anyone with an opinion on the matter says they're not guns so Trump is not a gun grabber.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 12:20 AM   #2
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,986
I'm not exactly liking the bump stock ban either. But when you think about it, it's just a loophole that allows everyone to have a full auto without the paperwork or the $200 tax. The stock is not a weapon. Yet it can be considered a conversion part (because it is) and so is covered in the NFA.

I don't like closing loopholes either, but if it keeps one idiot from using it against innocent people I'll bite the bullet and go along with it. This is yet another example of law abiding gun owners taking the heat and being punished for a criminal action they did not commit. Kinda funny since the criminals are not going to obey the new law anyway, the only people affected by this are the law abiding gun owners.

I suggest that anyone wishing to keep a full auto at home, go ahead and pay the $200, submit to the FBI, give away your right to privacy and allow them the freedom to search your home 24/7 without question, endure the strictest background checks known to man, and pay a minimum $6500+ for a low end registered weapon. If that's not enough hoops to jump through, don't worry, they'll probably be more soon.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 03:37 AM   #3
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,496
Does this mean that people who have a bump stock have to turn it in or become criminals?

No "grandfather clause"?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 06:38 AM   #4
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I'm not exactly liking the bump stock ban either. But when you think about it, it's just a loophole that allows everyone to have a full auto without the paperwork or the $200 tax.
Actually that is the unregistered drop in auto sear (DIAS) you're more likely talking about.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The stock is not a weapon. Yet it can be considered a conversion part (because it is) and so is covered in the NFA.
The feds define what and what is not a gun, so for now bump stocks are legally guns.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I don't like closing loopholes either, but if it keeps one idiot from using it against innocent people I'll bite the bullet and go along with it.
Let's consider Paddock's use of rifles equipped with bump stocks. He could have readily bump fired without the bump stocks. If he had not used a bump stock, you think they should be banned anyway?

There was no loophole to close. Federal law defines a machine gun in part by ,ore than one round is fired by "a single function of the trigger". Regulations written later change this to "single function of the trigger finger".

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I suggest that anyone wishing to keep a full auto at home, go ahead and pay the $200, submit to the FBI,
That is the usual process to do it without a license.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
give away your right to privacy and allow them the freedom to search your home 24/7 without question,
I have not encountered this bizarre claim for a while now. There is nothing on the ATF form 4 that waives the applicant's 4th amendment rights. Where are you getting your information from?

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
endure the strictest background checks known to man, and pay a minimum $6500+ for a low end registered weapon.
As far as I know it is only a NICS and processing the fingerprints. I'm certain that the confidential clearance I used to have for the shipyard was much more involved than what the FBI or ATF did for my tax stamp applications.

Last edited by Ranb; 1st March 2019 at 07:35 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 06:39 AM   #5
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Does this mean that people who have a bump stock have to turn it in or become criminals?

No "grandfather clause"?
Correct. Even without compensation the feds are going to spend millions on the new regulation. I'll link to the fiscal note later.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 10:57 AM   #6
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
You can read more here about the decision to ban bump stocks including the millions of dollars the feds will spend confiscating them and how much it will cost US industry.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2018-27763.pdf

It seems many more people opposed the ban than supported it according to this link if I read it correctly.

I tell people that Trump folded like a lawn chair when confronted with demands that bump stocks be banned even though most any semi-auto rifle can be bump fired without one. The staunch supporters of Trump will gladly walk all over their 2nd and 5th amendment rights in order demonstrate their support for him.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:07 AM   #7
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,664
Even the NRA used to OK with a bump stock ban (oh and BTW they are banned at NRA ranges, I realize not the same as being illegal)*, before they changed their mind. With the tired trope that basically nothing should be illegal because bad guys will ignore the law (so why have laws?). I've never personally tried to bump fire anything so I'll have to ask you(Ranb): would the Las Vegas shooter have been as effective doing it himself? Of course its all academic, he had no criminal background and plenty of money. He could've gotten himself a real full auto.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.83ee560513a9

ETA: If your main, or only, problem is this is being done via executive decision versus legislature, then OK I see your point.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 1st March 2019 at 11:15 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:11 AM   #8
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,559
I am on mixed opinion about the bump stock ban

To my eye, they are clearly in violation of the spirit of the law, as it's an invention solely for the purpose of simulating automatic fire without being considered an NFA device. As such, I don't really have a general complaint against them being considered an NFA device. In the absence of the NFA, bump stocks wouldn't exist because they are inferior in pretty much every way to a real automatic weapon. Their entire purpose is to circumvent the NFA.

That being said, their design is such that the rifle is not fired as an automatic rifle as defined by letter of the law (the trigger is actuated for each shot), so just declaring them covered under the NFA strikes me as a bit of an overreach.

I chalk it up to the legislative branch being willing to give away their power to the execuitve/admin branches in order to avoid having to make difficult decisions they might have to defend to their voters. The right way to do this is for Congress to amend the NFA, but many aren't willing to do that. They take the coward's way out, abdicating their power to make and alter laws to some nameless, faceless admin decision.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 1st March 2019 at 11:25 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:21 AM   #9
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
....I've never personally tried to bump fire anything so I'll have to ask you(Ranb): would the Las Vegas shooter have been as effective doing it himself? Of course its all academic, he had no criminal background and plenty of money. He could've gotten himself a real full auto.
I've of the opinion that Paddock had ample time to aim and fire enough rounds to wound the 500 or so people he shot that night; no bump firing needed. Or bump fire without the bump stock. But since it is easier to learn how to bump fire with the bump stock and it is a bit less wildly inaccurate to use a bump stock than without, I suppose that is why he decided to use a bump stock.

Your link doesn't work for me.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
ETA: If your main, or only, problem is this is being done via executive decision versus legislature, then OK I see your point.
My main problem is that this is a solution to a non-problem. It is unlikely to save a single life; unless someone can show a person was convinced a bump stock was the key to their intended mass shooting. I also do not like how the executive branch changed the definition of a machine gun from "single operation of the trigger" to "single operation of the trigger finger". That is a job for Congress.

Last edited by Ranb; 1st March 2019 at 11:27 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:24 AM   #10
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
....They take the coward's way out, abdicating their power to make and alter laws to some nameless, faceless admin decision.
I prefer to put the blame on Trump. That really annoys some people.

I also credit Obama for 41P which greatly eased some restrictions on the transfer of NFA firearms. This annoys the Trump supporters even more.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:27 AM   #11
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,664
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Your link doesn't work for me.
Here i found the source of the quote:

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:27 AM   #12
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I prefer to put the blame on Trump. That really annoys some people.

I also credit Obama for 41P which greatly eased some restrictions on the transfer of NFA firearms. This annoys the Trump supporters even more.
Yes, it's Trump's decision, which means he's the gun grabber. But it should be noted that it is Trump's decision because Congress refuses to assert its authority as the chief lawmaking body, because sometimes that means taking up controversial issues. The most direct way to resolve this problem would be for Congress to amend the NFA to either include or exclude bump stocks. This would require legislators to take a position, which they would rather not.

Congress is happy to heap choices, and thus consequences, on the presidency. Makes their job easier, but is an abdication of their duty.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 1st March 2019 at 11:39 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 12:00 PM   #13
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 777
Baby steps.

A law-abiding gun owner is such until he's not. How many times have non-criminal folk grabbed a gun in a fit of pique, or got to the point of aggrievement to plan a killing?

I mean, wasn't whatshisface in Vegas basically considered a law-abiding dude, at least as far as his purchasing of his horde, until the moment he pulled the trigger?

Having ready access to tools designed to effortlessly kill are an awfully tempting recourse when emotions run hot.

Yeah, the already criminally-minded care not for regulation. But measures to reduce the potential for otherwise decent folk to make regrettably rash decisions of immense consequence must be a good thing.

Baby steps, if the country can't get round to bravely doing anything along the lines of what Australia did. And her citizenry are to this day largely in agreement with that decision. The US should adopt an equally courageous stance.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 12:05 PM   #14
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,095
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
snipped...

I suggest that anyone wishing to keep a full auto at home, go ahead and pay the $200, submit to the FBI, give away your right to privacy and allow them the freedom to search your home 24/7 without question, endure the strictest background checks known to man, and pay a minimum $6500+ for a low end registered weapon. If that's not enough hoops to jump through, don't worry, they'll probably be more soon.

Chris B.
It's ATFE, not the F.B.I., and NFA owners do not face loss of any 5th or 4th Amendment rights based on their ownership of NFA weapons or devices. Very long standing myth, absolutely false.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 12:47 PM   #15
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Baby steps, if the country can't get round to bravely doing anything along the lines of what Australia did. And her citizenry are to this day largely in agreement with that decision. The US should adopt an equally courageous stance.
If the USA is to be compared to Australia, then the least we can do is pay for the guns we confiscate from law abiding Americans. So far it is not happening.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 12:55 PM   #16
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It's ATFE, not the F.B.I., and NFA owners do not face loss of any 5th or 4th Amendment rights based on their ownership of NFA weapons or devices. Very long standing myth, absolutely false.
This is probably a myth based on the real reporting requirements of being an FFL holder. The various types of FFL, which include dealers, manufacturers, and Curio and Relic license holders, have certain requirements in order to maintain their license. Keeping a bound book record and making that book available for inspection is one such requirement. For a license holder, an ATF agent really can just show up out of the blue and start poking around.

This, as you say, has nothing to do with owning NFA items.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 01:04 PM   #17
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
.... For a license holder, an ATF agent really can just show up out of the blue and start poking around.
Sort of. Back in 1990 it was explained to me that they can show up unannounced during business hours. I made my business hours 0800-1200 on Sunday. So when I was inspected, I was at my real job on the Radcon Barge at the Pearl Harbor Subase.

By the time I came home he was gone. When I got him on the phone later he asked permission to inspect my records and safe. I of course said yes. I didn't need him showing up with a warrant or giving up a Sunday morning.

One of the errors in my records was similar to one that Bullseye in Tacoma (where the DC sniper stole his AR-15) made 210 times. I logged a revolver into my personal inventory without first logging it in and out of my business inventory. He was not concerned about it as I was able to show him the gun in my safe.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 02:48 PM   #18
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,730
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
My stance on Trump style gun control is not popular at all, especially with self-professed gun owners who claim to be 2nd amendment proponents. I posted a few memes about Trump's gun control attitudes and they're pissing off a few people here and there.

https://imgur.com/gallery/9zpaTmY
Just for the record - I'm left-leaning on many issues, guns being one of them. I'm not going to argue the pros or cons of gun control at this time (although the thread might go that way anyway; any remotely gun-related thread on this forum stands a very good chance of devolving into such a discussion). I only want to say that if you showed me the linked statement above completely out of context and asked me if I thought it was written by a liberal or a conservative, I would say most likely a liberal. The arguments about AR-15's and silencers are classic liberal stances toward those things, in my experience.

I think more needs to be done to increase general awareness that Trump supporters aren't "Republicans" or "conservatives", they are Trump supporters. They may have started out as one of those things before they became mesmerized; but now they are Trump supporters, and only support conservative stances and policies insofar as Trump endorses (or at least doesn't oppose) those policies. If Trump decides to ban AR-15's, they will be okay with that, even after they impotently threatened civil war over the imaginary proposition of Obama banning them. If Trump decides a whole border wall is no longer necessary, they will accept that and call any reports pointing out that Trump's position has changed fake news. If Trump decides to raise taxes, they will be on board before he finishes saying so.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 03:05 PM   #19
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,295
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Just for the record - I'm left-leaning on many issues, guns being one of them. I'm not going to argue the pros or cons of gun control at this time (although the thread might go that way anyway; any remotely gun-related thread on this forum stands a very good chance of devolving into such a discussion). I only want to say that if you showed me the linked statement above completely out of context and asked me if I thought it was written by a liberal or a conservative, I would say most likely a liberal. The arguments about AR-15's and silencers are classic liberal stances toward those things, in my experience.

I think more needs to be done to increase general awareness that Trump supporters aren't "Republicans" or "conservatives", they are Trump supporters. They may have started out as one of those things before they became mesmerized; but now they are Trump supporters, and only support conservative stances and policies insofar as Trump endorses (or at least doesn't oppose) those policies. If Trump decides to ban AR-15's, they will be okay with that, even after they impotently threatened civil war over the imaginary proposition of Obama banning them. If Trump decides a whole border wall is no longer necessary, they will accept that and call any reports pointing out that Trump's position has changed fake news. If Trump decides to raise taxes, they will be on board before he finishes saying so.
Which makes it tough for republicans or conservatives who actually have principles. If there is an issue you care about, then Trump is not a good ally. He will flip on a dime if he gets to keep the dime.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 05:01 PM   #20
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,542
The dumb thing is that people have no clue about how fast you can pull a trigger by un-aided finger. Here is a guy with a revolver, 8 shots in one second, that is a rate of 480 minute. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixoxCpYSFl4

Bump stocks are for wanna-bees. You should see me with a 100 year old pump shotgun.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 05:47 PM   #21
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
.... I only want to say that if you showed me the linked statement above completely out of context and asked me if I thought it was written by a liberal or a conservative, I would say most likely a liberal. The arguments about AR-15's and silencers are classic liberal stances toward those things, in my experience.
I would say they are classic ill informed opinions on guns in general from the right or left. Ever heard of the anti-gun owner or the self loathing gun owner? The "guns er-bad except for mine" gun owner?

This person actually appeared to be right leaning but never objected to my gun politics in the past. I'm very vocal about it at work and play to anyone who will listen; especially about the Kitsap County's lawsuit over noise at the gun club followed by their attempts to discourage the use of noise abatement. I typically work silencer stuff into the conversation then too. The point is these people knew me to the the GUN NUT at work and never had a problem with it.

Quote:
If Trump decides to ban AR-15's, they will be okay with that, even after they impotently threatened civil war over the imaginary proposition of Obama banning them.
I said this on a conservative forum and got a three day suspension soon after.

Quote:
If Trump decides a whole border wall is no longer necessary, they will accept that and call any reports pointing out that Trump's position has changed fake news. If Trump decides to raise taxes, they will be on board before he finishes saying so.
Yep. Just not enough oxygen up inside Trump's ass to operate the brain properly.

ETA; Back up in post #17 I should add that my experiences with ATF compliance officers was as a licensed gun dealer.

Last edited by Ranb; 1st March 2019 at 05:49 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 01:46 AM   #22
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
Since most semi-auto rifles will bump fire without a bump stock, banning them will not saving any lives at all.
I disagree with this.

Bump firing a semi-auto fitted with a bump stock allows a person who is not very proficient or who has little experience shooting to very quickly learn to fire accurately at automatic fire rates.

Bump firing a semi-auto without a bump stock takes a lot of practice and is nowhere near as accurate.

I am a fairly experienced shooter. I have tried bump firing an L1A1 7.62mm SLR, a Steyr Aug 5.56mm and a friend's Remington 750 Synth. I was able to keep it together for three or four consecutive shots before "losing it", and I was all over the place as far as accuracy is concerned. I can see it would take a lot of practice to become proficient and accurate at automatic type rates of fire.

The very fact that the use of a bump stock allows a wider range of less skilled people to fire at automatic rates means that you will necessarily allow a wider range of less responsible gun owners access to those rates of fire and that will affect the number of people killed by spree shooters.

I seriously doubt that Stephen Paddock, for example, could have killed and wounded as many people as he did in Las Vegas in 2017 as he did, if he had to bump fire without bump stocks.

I can only imagine what the carnage would have been like if Nikolas Cruz had a bump stock fitted to his AR-15 style semi-auto. We might be talking 40 or 50 dead schoolkids instead of 17.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd March 2019 at 01:59 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 09:21 AM   #23
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,213
I enjoy guns as a hobby. I’m also very pro-regulation.
Anyhow, I read and watched info on these things. Regardless of banning or not, as a hobbyist I think I’d get bored after the first magazine and don’t really understand what purpose they’d serve outside of violence. When I shoot, which is admittedly rarely, I like the shooting a target aspect. Not just spraying bullets everywhere
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 07:44 PM   #24
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If the USA is to be compared to Australia, then the least we can do is pay for the guns we confiscate from law abiding Americans. So far it is not happening.
I quite agree that a buy-back would be a good-faith measure.

Another approach could be an amnesty on disposal. Here in Canada police occasionally institute a brief program whereby anyone can drop off guns with no questions asked.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 12:19 AM   #25
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
WA State banned bump stocks last session. The people on the pro side of the ban were at times hilariously stupid. They compared the firing rate to a machine gun calling the semi-auto bump fired AR-15 much faster than the M-16.

There is a proposal to pay WA residents for their bump stocks; I think it will be a cold day in hell before anyone gets money for them.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...buy-up-illega/
Quote:
When lawmakers banned the sale, manufacture and eventually the possession of bump stocks earlier this year, they approved paying up to $150 to buy back the devices from state residents as soon as the Washington State Patrol devised a plan to handle the logistics.

But they didn’t budget any money for the buy-back, so the plan remains in a “holding pattern,” State Patrol Capt. Monica Alexander said Tuesday.
I think any person who turns one in unprompted will not get in trouble. But there is no way I'd turn one in; I'd just chop it up into several pieces and throw it away. Not worth the risk getting caught even trying to turn it in.

Last edited by Ranb; 5th March 2019 at 12:21 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 05:44 AM   #26
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,559
As far as compensation, I don't really see a strong need. NFA defeat devices come with a big "caveat emptor" label implied, because odds are good that they will soon be addressed by the ATF and deemed illegal.

People who are buying bump stocks are playing stupid games with the spirit of the law, so I don't see any need to reimburse them when they lose a couple hundred bucks when the inevitable happens.

I'm not going to call for fair market compensation when they come for bump stocks, binary triggers, pistol "braces" that are actually rifle stocks, and whatever other NFA workarounds that are sure to be invented. People who buy these products ought to know that they are playing a silly game and might come out a loser.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 06:59 AM   #27
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,642
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Even the NRA used to OK with a bump stock ban (oh and BTW they are banned at NRA ranges, I realize not the same as being illegal)*, before they changed their mind. With the tired trope that basically nothing should be illegal because bad guys will ignore the law (so why have laws?). I've never personally tried to bump fire anything so I'll have to ask you(Ranb): would the Las Vegas shooter have been as effective doing it himself? Of course its all academic, he had no criminal background and plenty of money. He could've gotten himself a real full auto.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.83ee560513a9

ETA: If your main, or only, problem is this is being done via executive decision versus legislature, then OK I see your point.
My problem is that they make people worse at killing, they are a toy that is scary to some, and the government is going to spending money better spent else where taking them away.

It's just a leveled up version of the banning of balisong. Some people got scared so a bunch of money gets wasted banning what is essentially a toy with very limited functionality.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 07:02 AM   #28
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,642
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
I enjoy guns as a hobby. I’m also very pro-regulation.
Anyhow, I read and watched info on these things. Regardless of banning or not, as a hobbyist I think I’d get bored after the first magazine and don’t really understand what purpose they’d serve outside of violence. When I shoot, which is admittedly rarely, I like the shooting a target aspect. Not just spraying bullets everywhere
How does spraying bullets everywhere help violence? Are you one of those people who think welding two mp5s is practical because of the increased amount of fire will make up for lack of accuracy?
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 07:12 AM   #29
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
As far as compensation, I don't really see a strong need. NFA defeat devices come with a big "caveat emptor" label implied, because odds are good that they will soon be addressed by the ATF and deemed illegal.
First the BATFE assured manufacturers that the spring assisted bump firing was legal semi-auto. Then they changed their minds and went after the springs. Then bump stocks were deemed legal, repeatedly. It wasn't until Trump ordered them to amend 27 CFR that they became illegal. By that reasoning I suppose anything semi-auto will become illegal as soon as they see how fast Jerry Miculak can shoot a rifle or pistol.

Quote:
People who are buying bump stocks are playing stupid games with the spirit of the law, so I don't see any need to reimburse them when they lose a couple hundred bucks when the inevitable happens.
The spirit of the law is that a machine had to be causing more than one round per pull of the trigger. The feds changed it to one function of the trigger finger.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 07:14 AM   #30
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
How does spraying bullets everywhere help violence? Are you one of those people who think welding two mp5s is practical because of the increased amount of fire will make up for lack of accuracy?
Well, if your goal is firing indiscriminately into a target that is literally hundreds of yards wide (like, say, an outdoor music venue), accuracy is really not a priority. I don't think mass shooters are focusing on the fundamentals of marksmanship when they start spraying down large masses of people.

If you goal is to get as many hits as possible in a short time firing at a large group of people, increasing the firing rate is probably worth the loss in precision.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 07:23 AM   #31
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
First the BATFE assured manufacturers that the spring assisted bump firing was legal semi-auto. Then they changed their minds and went after the springs. Then bump stocks were deemed legal, repeatedly. It wasn't until Trump ordered them to amend 27 CFR that they became illegal. By that reasoning I suppose anything semi-auto will become illegal as soon as they see how fast Jerry Miculak can shoot a rifle or pistol.


The spirit of the law is that a machine had to be causing more than one round per pull of the trigger. The feds changed it to one function of the trigger finger.
Yes, as a matter of legal technicality, the bump stock ban is a bit of a reach. The trigger actuates each time, and that does make the ban more of a stretch than previous NFA defeat devices. As a matter of law, the ATF reinterpreting the law to ban bump stocks is not a great way of doing this. Congress ought to have amended the law if they wanted to ban these bump stocks.

As to the spirit of the law, it's obvious that bump stocks are a way to evade NFA status while approximating automatic fire. If the NFA didn't exist, no one would want a bump stock. It's inferior in every way to a real automatic weapon except that it wasn't considered a NFA device.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 12:29 PM   #32
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
How does spraying bullets everywhere help violence? Are you one of those people who think welding two mp5s is practical because of the increased amount of fire will make up for lack of accuracy?
This kind of thinking drives me nuts. A nutter pointing his bump stock-equipped AR-15 at a huddled group of kids in the corner of a classroom doesn't need to worry too much about accuracy. He can get a whole lotta killin' an' hurtin' done all the quicker.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 12:55 PM   #33
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,074
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
My stance on Trump style gun control is not popular at all, especially with self-professed gun owners who claim to be 2nd amendment proponents. I posted a few memes about Trump's gun control attitudes and they're pissing off a few people here and there.

https://imgur.com/gallery/9zpaTmY
https://imgur.com/pP7q3n5

I'm not making any friend's at the Conservative Underground either. But as horrid as the CU is, the Democratic Underground was even worse as I lasted only a few months there and was banned for some reason.

So for all you people who care to give your opinion, are bump stocks firearms or non-firearms?

Here is the letter of the law. https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...k-type-devices

The new regulation goes into effect March 26, 2019. I'm calling it Trump's 1st gun grab and getting lots of flak; so far anyone with an opinion on the matter says they're not guns so Trump is not a gun grabber.

Ranb
I think the basic problem here is the misconception that something Trump does makes sense. All it does is whatever he currently assumes will buy him popularity.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 04:16 PM   #34
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think the basic problem here is the misconception that something Trump does makes sense. All it does is whatever he currently assumes will buy him popularity.
I didn't think Trump craved popularity from the anti-gun crowd.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 04:56 AM   #35
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,986
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Actually that is the unregistered drop in auto sear (DIAS) you're more likely talking about.


The feds define what and what is not a gun, so for now bump stocks are legally guns.


Let's consider Paddock's use of rifles equipped with bump stocks. He could have readily bump fired without the bump stocks. If he had not used a bump stock, you think they should be banned anyway?

There was no loophole to close. Federal law defines a machine gun in part by ,ore than one round is fired by "a single function of the trigger". Regulations written later change this to "single function of the trigger finger".


That is the usual process to do it without a license.


I have not encountered this bizarre claim for a while now. There is nothing on the ATF form 4 that waives the applicant's 4th amendment rights. Where are you getting your information from?


As far as I know it is only a NICS and processing the fingerprints. I'm certain that the confidential clearance I used to have for the shipyard was much more involved than what the FBI or ATF did for my tax stamp applications.
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It's ATFE, not the F.B.I., and NFA owners do not face loss of any 5th or 4th Amendment rights based on their ownership of NFA weapons or devices. Very long standing myth, absolutely false.
I didn't make myself clear, you are correct on private citizens. I was speaking from a dealer standpoint. You have to give consent to search, 24/7.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:04 PM   #36
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I didn't make myself clear, you are correct on private citizens. I was speaking from a dealer standpoint. You have to give consent to search, 24/7.
I think you're still not clear. First you claimed, "give away your right to privacy and allow them the freedom to search your home 24/7 without question". This applies to FFL's? As far as I know the BATFE can only come calling during business hours without a warrant.

What regulation says the BATFE can inspect 24/7 without a warrant, as in "giving away your right to privacy"?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2019, 03:46 AM   #37
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,986
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think you're still not clear. First you claimed, "give away your right to privacy and allow them the freedom to search your home 24/7 without question". This applies to FFL's? As far as I know the BATFE can only come calling during business hours without a warrant.

What regulation says the BATFE can inspect 24/7 without a warrant, as in "giving away your right to privacy"?
https://www.myguntrust.com/the-fourt...-firearms.html

"The idea that the ATF can conduct a warrantless search when someone owns an NFA firearm probably stems from confusion about the rules that apply to Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL’s). An FFL must submit to a warrantless inspection by the ATF, but that has limits as well. The ATF can conduct a surprise inspection of gun dealers once a year, but it must be during the FFL’s business hours. Whether the FFL is a dealer of Class 3 firearms or not, the FFL is subject to the these warrantless inspections to check for compliance with the regulations governing FFL’s."

Also, the ATF can view your import records if you are in the business of importing machineguns for parts kits. In this situation they can raid you without warrant as they did with TN Guns. Any time they feel as though something may be out of order based on an import record or other evidence, they have your number and can raid you 24/7. Ask Charlie Jones.

I was in the same exact business for several years. As I'm unwilling to go to jail on any type of technicality, I no longer participate in these type businesses. The risks of even the most minor mistake on import documents far outweigh the potential profit from the parts kits.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.