Well the Supreme Court allow the Trump Bump Stock ban?

What about teaching people how to bounce the stock against their hip or shoulder?

 

I completely agree because they are properly trained and regulated.

 

so you labor under the erroneous belief that the negative restriction on the federal government only comes into play if a citizen is well trained and regulated? do you realize how inane that is? BTW I am far better trained than 99% of the police and military for use of weapons in a civilian environment.

 

You think a guy intent on murdering lots of people in a school or parking lot cares?

Better to ban them, at the federal level.

 

ban what? and your own question sort of destroys your desire--you think a guy intent on murdering lots of people in a school or parking lot is going to obey a ban?

 

What did banning machine guns (er 'highly regulating them' ) do?

Led to scarcity, which led to machine guns, after you clear all the hurdles, costing at what ,$5k to $50k a pop? And how many crimes are committed using them? Not many, if any, I'm told. I'd say the machine gun regulation is one of the big gun reg successes.

Now, let's get to the apples and oranges aspect of this, yes, bump stocks are cheaper and easier to make and distribute than fully automatic machine guns. However......

Now, banning federally will lead to a scarcity (eventually) and a scarcity of bump stocks will probably lead to them very expensive and some being hand made, or 3D printed by the determined, since they would much easier to make than a real fully automatic machine gun.

Now a lot of opportunistic type criminals follow the path of least resistance (many cars stolen are opportunistic), and just go with semi automatic instead, which is the entire point (so, the ambitious mass murderer might be thinking of killing 50, but since bump stocks after banning, would be very expensive on the black market, this guy, not being a handy guy, being a lazy guy, opportunistic killer, will settle on killing, say 20, with a semi auto, so, well, that's 30 lives saved in this theoretical scenario.

Is that worth it? For me, yes I'd say that it would probably be voted favorably for banning by the electorate. but i believe the punishment should be severe for owning bump stocks, that would include plans or schematics on their construction, or anything that will aid in their production (except 3D printers, and generalized tools which have many other functions, of course).

What's the argument for no bans? I get it, you just want another toy to play with because you are an honest law abiding citizen, right? Well, the arguments the same for machine guns, so for me, that is not a merit worthy argument. You sure as hell don't need them to hunt for food or self-defense and I'm not seeing a Bruen issue here. .

I'd say the odds favor banning them.

 

the argument for no bans is it is a obvious violation of both the 2nd and tenth amendments and it is a idiotic mindset that we should put people in prison for merely owning something that is almost never used in crime. We don't have enough room in prison for real criminals-a group gun banners often want to enable and coddle, so your scheme is really misguided

when people start claiming how deadly "bump stocks are" it proves to me they have no real understanding of firearms

I agree on one thing-there should be no need for bump stocks. Private lawful citizens ought to be able to own any automatic weapon that civilian police and law enforcement agencies have access to as well as the standard issued individual rifle that the national guard and US army uses

 

It does not appear that you have working knowledge about the topic. Do you know how a bump stock works?

 

it is almost a given that those who most want to ban firearms are the least knowledgeable about how they work or their uses. that is because the motivation to ban these things is based almost purely on a political loathing of the political leanings and voting patterns of gun advocates

 

So true. They are fed terms to rebleat for the purpose of demonizing inanimate objects they know little to nothing about. In CA, they banned all rifles that allow the webbing between the thumb and forefinger to be below the level of the top of the trigger. This makes the firearm hard to grip and is unsafe.

 

gun banners are almost entirely leftwing advocates. Now I am not talking about Suzy Soccermom who will sign an "Everytown for Gun banning" petition that they are told is to make their children safer, but rather the people who constantly advocate gun bans and solicit others to do the same. The main goal is to retaliate and harass people who generally oppose whatever leftwing cause these advocates hold dear, be it economic socialism, gender confusion acceptance, abortion on demand, feminist agendas, animal rights activism, environmental extremism etc

 

Well, answer me this:

Does a bump stock allow the weapon to which it is affixed to discharge dozens of bullets in seconds?

Yes?

or

No?

Now, if your answer is yes, what else beyond that fact do I need to know, for regulatory purposes?

If the answer is no, then what in holy hell is the fuss all about?

 

Oh, my, poor little gun worshipper, is someone going to take your little death toys away? Excuse me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

I love how you guys spam the argument with stacks of irrelevance. I mean, I got a right wing sh*t list that will put yours to shame. Aren't we having fun in our mutual basket of straw?

And don't give me any crap about 'suicides', take them away, and we still beat other countries by a long shot, and it could easily be argued that gun shootings in schools and contribute to the depression plus poor parental control over gun storage that leads to child suicide by gun deaths, it's like a never ending death loop vortex. America has a cultural problem and if you think guns aren't part of it, you are naive, 'in my opinion'.

Jeezus f*ck, In the mean time your gun worship is a culture of death and the stats prove it.

I hope that makes you happy.

I do believe in the right to die, but not the right to make it easy for people, especially children.

When children abuse their toys (and, compared to years of existence, America is the child in the world equation) it's time to the toys away.

Ban all guns and gunfire facilitating accessories for non military/police not needed for self defense and hunting, which includes bump stocks and other measures that aid in preventable deaths that isn't a burden more than auto licensing, etc., is. That's Heller and Bruen friendly, or, reverse Bruen if it isn't. If it saves a few lives, at least we are showing America we are doing something, because on this issue, something is better than nothing. You can't end crime, and related issues, but you can put a dent in it, and dent we must.

 

Well, that's probably because of the old saying......

Truth has a liberal bias.

Which is why I'm a liberal.

 

what silliness. do you think your desire for victim disarmament is a realistic possibility? we understand your goal is to harass lawful gun owners and gun ownership as much as you can and when you call firearms toys-it proves the point I constantly make-your desires are not based on a mistaken belief that your schemes will decrease crime but rather a cultural hatred of those who don't buy into the leftist agenda. So stop pretending that crime control is what motivates this nonsense. the people who the highest rate of LEGAL gun ownership have low rates of GUN related crime

 

You are dodging. Do you understand how a bumpstock works?

 

LOL a claim made by liberals has no value to those of us not infected with that silliness. Long before that false claim was developed there was this

If you aren't a liberal at age 20 you have no heart
if you aren't a conservative at age 30 you have no brain.

Or this

Liberalism is a mental disorder

the gun control issue is a prime example where the "facts" have a pro gun bias. nothing gun banners spew has any valid factual basis

 

I'll take NO for 2000 Alex,

 

bump stock permission, fully automatic machine gun permission to non police/military is insane.

I really so no argument that counters this position.

But, isn't it true that, if you really want a fully automatic weapon, clear a few paper work hurdles, fork out enough cash, then you can own one?

 

More straw. Congrats, you're pretty good at it.

 

the government never had the proper power to impose those idiotic restrictions on hand held automatic weapons, let alone enact the spiteful ban in 1986. your bolded sentence makes no sense BTW

 

so when you post a silly mantra that is proper and I counter with more valid mantras' it's a straw man?

consistency has a conservative bias apparently

 

It's about this: What is your north star?

I'll take the north star that reduces death and base my policy recommendations guided by it's light..

You take the one that leads to more death, etc.

The stats prove my point.

Auto licensing could also be mischaracterized as 'harrassment'.

So, your characterizations are without merit.

 

nothing you propose will have any valid impact on crime. what it will do is harass honest people which is clearly the goal. It also wastes time and law enforcement resources.

 

Honesty? If you were honest you wouldn't be falsely accusing gun control advocates.

Attacking our 'honesty' is dishonest, and not a merit worthy argument.

I don't believe you.

Auto licensing 'harrasses' lawful auto owners.

Your characterization is without merit.