• Trump administration officially bans bump stocks
    60 replies, posted
purchased for my bolt action.
Is that really true though? The Vegas shooter was over 300 yards from his targets. Would he actually have been capable of hitting anything firing single fire once people had started to scatter, or was most of his efficiency from being able to put out a high volume of fire while he still effectively had a single large target?
Given that he was clearly a fire-arms enthusiast, that he was ignorant of the down-sides of bump-fire seems unlikely. So clearly he chose "automatic" fire for a reason, just as the military has automatic-fire weapons for a reason: crowd control. Sure, for hitting a single target (or even a group of, say, 3-4 targets) accuracy suffers, especially if you're at the same level as the targets, but in situations such as the Vegas shooter, where there was not only a very dense crowd, but he was elevated, why wouldn't he go for quantity over quality? And considering that almost every single fire-arms enthusiast here says that bump-fire is "unreliable" and "a way to turn money into noise" and "easily doable with a belt-loop", then why are they so bent out of shape about losing the stocks? Are they running out of belt-loops?
It's about the precedent it sets for future items that the government could deem "unnecessary" - like for instance semi-auto rifles as a whole, mags over 10 rounds, etc. Additionally this violates several rights as stated above - anybody who bought a bump stock legally before today would now be considered a criminal if they do not hand them over, with no grandfathering or compensation in return.
What about the precedent of a stock modification making it easier to dump rounds into a crowd? "Nobody would use a bump-stock in a mass-shooting" they said, until they did.
Bump stocks and similar modding kits are fucking stupid and while it ain't gonna solve any wider issues, at least this is making sure to some degree that reckless morons have one less way of hurting themselves and people around them by showing blatant disrespect for something that you should handle with the utmost care.
I don't think this argument holds up entirely. You could argue that larger capacity mags, optics, semi-auto actions, and many other firearm accessories could make it easier for someone to cause mass harm. I'm not disagreeing with you that bump stocks have a useful purpose outside of "shoot fast for fun" but again this legislation could be a precursor to declaring other firearm accessories illegal which is not something many enthusiasts are excited about.
banning them makes sense, there's no legitimate purpose to them and they're a great way to hurt yourself / fire your rifle without real control over where you're shooting.
Your first reason is textbook Slippery Slope fallacy. Though I do agree that the lack of compensation is too heavy handed of an approach.
The major issue here isn't that bump fire stocks are illegal. I wouldn't really miss them, though I don't think they should be banned. The problem is that a three letter agency has, without real legislative procedure, declared possession of an item previously repeatedly confirmed legal, to be a felony. Non-elected officials have declared possession of a previously legal thing to be a felony and are also the agency that will be enforcing the new ban. This should be opposed altogether by everyone on principle.
How is this effectively different from any other government agency though? Agencies are given some power in determining and regulating specifics of broader guidelines dictated by legislature. The DEA for example has power to classify which drugs fall under which scheduling category and rightfully so, because legislature would not be able to act quickly or efficiently enough. Likewise, the ATF should be able to determine how specific items or modifications should be classified into the criteria set by the law. Sure, it might be a bit of a stretch in terms of whether or not it actually does fit, but that usually goes to the courts at that point. It seems to me like this sort of thing is well within their power, legally speaking. Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstanding how this works.
It would be within their power if bump stocks met the legal definition of machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger A bump fire stock is just a stock that causes the gun to shake enough that you pull the trigger repeatedly without any real control beyond having your finger in the trigger loop. Each time the gun fires, the trigger is still being operated once. The problem is that they examined bump stocks several times previously, said "this is not a machine gun because xyz, they are legal" and are now going back on that, arbitrarily claiming that the bump stock is a machine gun and must therefore be banned, even when it clearly does not meet the definition in federal law. It would be a problem if, to stick with the DEA comparison, the DEA declared coffee a Schedule I narcotic and started locking people up for drinking coffee.
Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, my reply will stay the same: https://cdn3.volusion.com/3fyq2.mno9q/v/vspfiles/photos/HAFLG002-2.jpg?1423145343 Hopefully a lawsuit throws this out the window alongside the Hughes Amendment.
One positive side effect to this is that the thread on r/T_D is the most civil thread I've seen on the subreddit in a while. You know, if you can find it buried under all the upvote circlejerk since it's something the infallible GOD-emperor did that they reasonably disagree with.
Gun Owners of America is already getting a lawsuit ready! Time to make heads roll on the hill!
As much as I want to see Hughes repealed I would hate to see it done this way because I guarantee you a bunch of people are going to say "Trump did this on purpose because hes planning 3 steps ahead." There are enough nutjobs in the gun community without half of them thinking Trump is gods gift to America.
I’m no fan of Trump but at this point I’d just laugh for days if it comes back to bite people in the ass. Anyone who supports this nonsense and still pretends to advocate for gun control under the guise of “public safety” and “common sense reform” can sincerely fuck off and go to hell. This does not increase public safety and is nothing more than a symbolic gesture saying “fuck you” to gun owners.
You mean like he's already tried to with his travel ban? And you honestly think it'll go unchallenged?
I know this is petty of me to say, but oh my god, I would be tickled pink if this won and cockslapped the ATF, and by extension, Trump's admin.
Yes? Although that sounds even worse considering that was successfully challenged and the courts already told him to stop that shit I thought. The challenge isn’t against Trump, but the DOJ and ATF. Both of which kind of have the ability to do whatever they damn please 98% of the time, even when things are blatantly illegal. Sorry but what is this even referring to?
IIRC he's tried multiple times, even after being told to piss off with it. Look at his shirt, dude.
And what, that’s supposed to invalidate my point about this “ruling” being garbage because pretty much anyone can bump fire without a bump stock? Look I know you just want to “stick it to those pro gun people” (apparently even when it establishes a precedent which is detrimental to all other civil rights) but come on.
you know you don't even need a bump stock to bump fire right?
THOT detected. THOT vaccine is a fucking meme, get over it
Should have been regulated, not banned. I mean, Christ, in California they are now documenting ammo purchases every time you buy ammo.
My ATF lawyer has informed me not to answer this
That’s all this really is. It’s like back in my high school, there were two seniors that were speeding in their car before prom (going, like, 120 mph?), crashed and died instantly, so the school decided to add a driver’s course class as an elective to prevent anything like that happening again, except barely anyone could into the course, since it could only accommodate, like, 6 or 7 kids. Everyone knew it was just a publicity stunt to earn brownie points from parents. Same with this shit, except you can be criminally charged for owning them.
I personally don't give a shit about bumpstocks. However, what I do not agree with is how they are now defined and automatically made defunct/illegal. The fact that that a bumpstock make a weapon become a "machine gun" is fucking asinine to me. May as well just say fingers that can pull the trigger fast in rapid succession make me a machine gun (Yeah i know this is an oversimplification). If they want to be made illegal or restricted that is fine, but to me the ATF is just circumventing the law by being wishy-washy on the definitions. It is kinda dangerous really, all the ATF needs to do is write a memo and something can essentially become illegal overnight.
the ATF has an unconstitutional amount of power and should be gutted and rebuilt
polidicks would benefit from a "think before you type" rule tbhhhhhhhhhhhhh. i personally dont think this ban will solve anything, i think that mental health in the US is a massive contributor to some of these incidents that happen across the country, and it's really unfortunate. it's also unfortunate when attention is shifted away from it to stuff like this, which solves nothing. but i also dont get why people live by the "come and take it hurr durr" mentality, like if you legitimately believe in this you will solve nothing and prolly get a bullet in your brain, but hey im not a US native so what do i know /shrug
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.