Well the Supreme Court allow the Trump Bump Stock ban?

I am not falsely claiming anything. when gun banners call guns toys and attack lawful gun owners rather than criminals and those who refuse to deal with crime-then it is obvious what the motivation is.

Do you have any clue what it takes to lawfully own an automatic weapon?

 

So you say, but i don't believe you.

No one knows precisely where the aphorism I mentioned began, and clearly Stephen Colbert brought it to the fore, but your add ons were reactionary and very recent, as far as I can tell, by right wingers.

You can try and catch up, of course, but y'all will never catch up because of the very nature of progressivism, which is forward thinking , and conservativism, which resists it.

Note, that I do not argue that all progressive ideas are good but I will say that resisting forward thinking, the natural tendency of conservatives, is worse.

Now, both sides, these days, at least by some progressives, and some conservatives have elements of libertarianism. it's just that progressives have the good kind, and conservatives have the bad kind. I could elaborate, if you want to go there.

 

Viola, dishonesty on parade.

Look, let's dispense with who is honest, and who isn't.
I think you are dishonest, and you think the same of me, and let's just let that one slide.

Money and a lot of red tape. As it should be.

Items 1-4 on the list are easy.

But 5 and 6, just takes time for the BATFE background check and the $200 transfer tax.

And then the cheapest weapon would be, what, $5k? Probably more, if you can find one.

There are probably a few more steps than the 6 I'm thinking of, here is the more complete list, with the aid of the internet:

1. Eligibility: You must be at least 21 years old and a legal resident of the United States. You must also be legally eligible to possess firearms, which means you cannot have a felony conviction or other disqualifications.
   
   
2. Selecting a Firearm: Only machine guns that were manufactured and registered with the federal government before May 19, 1986, are eligible for civilian ownership. These are often very expensive and scarce due to the limited supply.
   
   
3. Find a Dealer: Purchase the firearm through a dealer licensed to sell NFA firearms (a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) with a Special Occupational Tax (SOT) permit).
   
   
4. Background Check: Undergo a thorough background check initiated by the dealer. This involves completing ATF Form 4 (Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm).
   
   
5. Fingerprint Cards and Photographs: Submit fingerprint cards and recent photographs with your application. These are used for the ATF's background investigation.
   
   
6. Notification of Chief Law Enforcement Officer: You must notify your local chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of your intent to apply for a transfer of the firearm by providing them with a copy of the ATF Form 4.
   
   
7. Pay the Transfer Tax: Pay a one-time transfer tax of $200, which goes with the application to the ATF.
   
   
8. ATF Approval: Wait for the ATF to process your application and conduct the background check. This process can take several months.
   
   
9. Safe Storage and Transportation: Ensure you have secure storage for your firearm and understand the laws regarding transportation of NFA items.
   
   
10. Compliance with State and Local Laws: Make sure you comply with any additional state and local laws regulating the ownership of machine guns. Some states prohibit or have additional restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic weapons.
    
    
11. Maintain Records: Once approved, keep the tax stamp and registration documents. You'll need to have these documents available whenever you are in possession of the NFA item.

This was the list I was thinking of:

1. Not be classified as a “prohibited person.” This includes individuals who:
   • Are felons.
   • Have been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (regardless of whether they served time).
   • Are under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison.
   • Are fugitives.
   • Are unlawful users of controlled substances.
   • Have been adjudicated as mentally defective.
   • Have been committed to a mental institution.
   • Are illegal aliens.
   • Have received a dishonorable discharge from the military.
   • Have renounced their U.S. citizenship.
   • Are subject to restraining orders related to domestic violence or harassment1.
2. Be at least 21 years old to purchase a machine gun from the current owner.
   
   
3. Be a legal resident of the United States.
   
   
4. Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm.
   
   
5. Pass a BATFE background check, which typically takes 8 to 10 months.
   
   
6. Pay a one-time $200 transfer tax (you’ll need a stamp for each machine gun)

Whatever it is, it boils down to money, red tape, and finding one for sale, if you can find one.

 

Resorting to insults only reveals ones inability to defend a position on merit. Your chart intentionally omits data to mislead the gullible. Your post is an example of the problem. While you are angerly attacking good, non-violent people, nothing is being done to make people safer. Both sides want to protect innocent life, but you have them tied up protecting their constitutional rights.

Guns are not toys and both sides agree that dangerous people should not have access to them. Your side is taking them from those who are not harming anyone and giving criminals access to unarmed victims.

I oppose the bumpstock ban, not because I would ever use one. Its because I live in your parties petri dish and know what happens when your party is given an inch.

 

Well, we certainly can see what happens when we give the right an inch, just look at the Supreme Court, the right has done a marvelous job of mucking it up.

 

You gave nothing. You have only infringed on the rights of good people. Do you know how a bumpstock works?

 

All I know is it that a bump stock will allow a gun or some kind of gun easily purchased to rapid fire bullets which facilitates mass murder.

What more do I need to know? You tell me. You're the expert.

If banning them pisses off some people, I'm not losing sleep over it.

I'm sure the lives of those saved by the ban will appreciate my point of view, as well.

 

You can know what you are talking about. The same result can be achieved easily without a bump stock.

Would you also ban assault clips?

 

I've never heard of 'assault clips', is this a standard term?

Now then, on other devices, let's examine:

Should be legal only for disabled persons for their intended purpose.

Should be banned.

Should be banned.

Next question?

 

The charts states what stats it includes.

What is your issue? Be specific.

 

now there is a real intellectual power plant-Steven Colbert. OMG next you can quote Oprah Winfrey

why does anyone want to catch up to collectivist hatred of individual rights and freedom? Progressive is a term that has little to do with the modern movement. It's reactionary, statist, cynical and hateful: it presumes the worst in mankind and tries to restrict any and all freedoms that might contribute to the false sense of "the "worst". Progressive is a code name for fascist

 

You are on record wanting to ban just about every firearm. what should be banned is any infringements on the second amendment

 

most of the above is clearly unconstitutional under Miller and Bruen. the background check wait is nothing more than harassment since it is done in the same time as when you buy a non NFA weapon.

The Hughes Amendment is clearly unconstitutional. IT also proves the mendacity of the Anti Gun movement-

 

I clearly stated in a previous post that I favor banning any weapon for private citizens that doesn't offend Heller.

According to Heller, that is not infringement.

Are you disagreeing with Scalia?

 

Until someone takes the NFA, FOPA/Hughes to the supremes, it's the law.

Why haven't they?

I think fully auto for private ownership is insane, and definitely NOT an infringement.

The second amendments goes to the right, and nothing more than the right.

What is the right?

To keep and bear arms.

Now, it's an individual right, so, that's Heller.

since Heller, the right is 'keep and bear arms' per constraints set by Huges/FOPA/NFA Heller (and a couple of others), as well as Bruen , which I think should be reversed.

The right is to keep and bear arms for self defense of the home, one's person, family, possessions and for hunting food, per Heller, (thereabouts) and Bruen places more constraints. So, anything beyond the scope of the constraints set by law are fair game for regulation, and do not constitute infringement, given that the second amendment does nto protect.

"shall not infringe' only goes to the right. THat right is defined by legislation and court rulings.

so, beyond the court rulings and legislation, regulation cannot be construed as 'infringement'.

It is not a right keep and bear atomic bombs.

It is not a right to keep and bear tomahawk missiles.

Iet is not a right to keep and bear fully automatic machine guns.

Haven't we beat this horse to death, before?

Anyway.....

Nows, if Hughes/NFA/FOPA violate Bruen, why hasn't anyone challenged it?

 

He didn't say that

 

common use for lawful purposes includes civilian law enforcement use

if not, then the government could ban any new type of arm and claim it cannot meet the Heller test

 

Being allowed to own one revolver with 6 bullets, not more, is enough for this amendment.

But the tragic element is the mindset: Firearms are bought to defend something, and mankind is frightened.

 

that is as stupid as saying you can own one book, write one letter to the paper or attend one mass and your first amendment rights are ok. what people like you do not understand is this-the second amendment is not about what I can do but what the government cannot do. The government does not suddenly get the power to ban me owning a gun merely because I just took possession of one. These arguments are what we who are trained in constitutional law call frivolous or specious.

 

Okay, let's start over.

i said I favor banning weapons that don't offend Heller.

now the, let me frame it this way:

If the weapons I favor banning don't offend heller, are you disagreeing with Heller?

 

No, because there is no bill of rights amendment setting the parameter of the right to write letters, or own books, which are covered by the 9th amendment by legal concept of 'penumbra' rights. But, it's not in the bill of rights, so your point is moot.

The government, and the courts, can do whatever the hell they want,

 

The government and the courts can do whatever the hell they want.

But common law is a guiding light in their deliberations, of course,

 

that's a tenth amendment violation. the weapons that are protected by Heller are ALL arms in COMMON USE for LAWFUL Purposes and NOT UNUSUALLY DANGEROUS.. the second amendment is limited to weapons that citizens would keep and COULD BEAR. that means that hand held surface to air missiles are out (not in common use for lawful purposes and unusually dangerous) grenades (same) crew served mortars (not a arm a citizen normally can bear)

what is protected

all handguns
all rifles
all shotguns
swords
spears
dirks
nunchaku
flails
clubs and batons
SMGs

 

the first part demonstrates a frightening lack of understanding of the bill of rights

the second part is why we have a second amendment-to prevent a rogue government from doing "what the hell they want. and this is why big government fan boys want to disarm the public, so the ever growing government can do whatever the hell it wants and no one can stand up to it


It's no secret why gun restrictions and gun bans are invariably the poster child of the authoritarian left

 

My claim was that the courts and congress can do whatever the hell they want. The court can interpret the constitution any way it wants. Congress can write legislation however it wants, constrained only compromise and/or executive veto or by the court's interpretation of the constitution, which is however the hell they want to interpret it.

It's an oversimplified view which beckons for qualifications, many, of course, as books can and are written on the subject, but, in general, I believe history proves that point, which was my point.