why doesn't congress ban bump stocks?

Author: linate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 35
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    the idea of banning bump stocks enjoys broad public support. and it makes sense that if you are against machine guns that you would support a ban. but congress must be afraid of the people who don't support that ban. it seems like an obvious thing to do, cause the amount of times someone will go on a rampage dwarfs the number of times someone would need a machinegun for self defense. so, gun nuts, why do you not support a bump stock ban? do you also think machine guns should be legal>
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    --> @linate
    Because the NRA has shown little interest in planning to regulate them.



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,248
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    People can modify things all the time, and no "ban" can fix that. 

    Just look at all the clever ways drug users modify everyday objects into delivery systems, despite "bans" on them.
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    --> @Greyparrot
    Correct, which is why the NRA is not interested.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    The obama doj found they did not meet the definition of automatic, if you don't understand the definitions and differencsd between the two then you are arguing from ignorance.  Obviously they were deamed legal when first created, even against challenges, perhaps you should understand how and why, then attempt to make your argument.

    Let's start with cars that can go much faster than the average and cause accidents that kill people.

  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    1.  There's too many jackasses who want to treat America as a mental illness, both at home and abroad.  
    2.  It's a political gambit to them, and they often propose bills in a way that would never pass.  
    3.  Our legislature has cumbersome rules and is burdened with other stuff.





  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @linate
    the idea of banning bump stocks enjoys broad public support. and it makes sense that if you are against machine guns that you would support a ban. but congress must be afraid of the people who don't support that ban. it seems like an obvious thing to do, cause the amount of times someone will go on a rampage dwarfs the number of times someone would need a machinegun for self defense. so, gun nuts, why do you not support a bump stock ban? do you also think machine guns should be legal>
    Because that would impinge on Muuuricans 2nd amenment right to slaughter as many school children as you can, other peoples children, you know those pinko lefty liberals who cry when their children are slaughtered, not the ever tough wingnuts who don't give a fuck if their children are slaughtered as long as their right to slaughter school children is protected. Wingnuts have never met empathy all they know is self..

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    How many crimes have been committed with them?

    Under what law would you ban them?

    Give your example for the wording of the law that would ban them w/o infringing on other legal things and the 2A.

    How do you guard against the work around that will happen if they are banned?  (this happened with the cosmetics ban in NY fyi)




  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @disgusted
    Not exactly.  Bump stock legislation would not necessarily warrant constitutional protection, but law just needs to be taken with a high level of scrutiny when it comes to the Bill of Rights in general or you could end up with an unconstitutional precedent.  

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    So so funny, do not restrict your 2nd amendment right to slaughter school children.
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @disgusted
    What on earth are you talking about?
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @disgusted
    answer the questions I posed since you seem to be so intelligent as to have a solution or can you only post tard comments?
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Plisken
    this sums it up best, from another thread, but to the same person....

    I don't have time to decode your autism. Either start making sense or do not post at all.
    enough said.



  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    you keep saying that bump stocks don't meet the definition of automatic weapons. but that's irrelevant. i'm not asking why the president or executive doesn't ban them based on existing law, i'm asking why congress doesn't ban them based on a new law. 



  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate

    also just because people might try to find a way around restrictions doesn't mean we shouldn't try. there would be less people who end up doing it if we put hurdles in place. and, should we just get rid of the ban on machine guns just because some people will find their own way?

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @linate
    so answer my questions in post #8
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    If they are actually interested, they should just change the definition of automatic, so it means more precisely that you pull the trigger one time, and a mechanism pushes the trigger into the actuating position for a burst of fire.

    There's really no need to ban accessories at all, but from a socialist/prohibitionist standpoint they probably prefer it that way as a means of manipulating the market accessible to the deplorables.  I think another thing to consider is that protectionism will not as easily corrupt the legislative process post Obama because of the establishment in the market for modularity.  
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Plisken
    The definition of semiautomatic has already been established,  the bumpstock meets it,  that's why it's legal,  it was challenged during Obama presidency but again, it meets the definition.   If there's someway the language could be changed to out law the stock and not all semiautos,I haven't heard it.
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    Yeah, they actually need to change it through legislature because the executive branch doesn't have the authority to interpret law, and they determined it was not being applied incorrectly.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Plisken
    Again I ask, change it how?  I don't think it's possible. 
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    You don't actually pull the trigger with a bump stock.  The gun pushes it into you, and that part just happens to be your finger.  Imagine if its helpful that someone could invent a system where the trigger is actually the stock and you have to pull the gun which is strapped to your body for the first shot.  If it was semi automatic you would have to hold it with both hands and with dexterity pull away each time from your body with one hand while maintining the position of your trigger finger to do something like that.  A semi automatic requires you to actuate the trigger to engage the firing mechanism each time.  I don't see the issue here.  Basically, with a bump stock, you could probably duct tape a stick onto the trigger guard so it doesn't slip off and transform it into a recoil operated automatic as the law is written now.  

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Plisken
    you still have to have your finger on the trigger, so actually you are pulling the trigger (I've used a slide fire stock before, similar thing) and the trigger is pressed and released causing the gun to fire semi automatically as legally defined.  Similar effects can be done with rubber bands, belt loops and other ways all on youtube. 
    If this was something I desired, personally I'd go the cheaper route, almost free, than to purchase a bump fire or slide fire stock.  The plans will probably come out for 3d printers soon anyway.

    one thing to keep in mind when dealing with these controversies, basically the company is getting free advertising and has probably sold more than they would have otherwise, like guns during Obama.  Not all fights have to be fought or should be, just something to think about.

    If you've never used one before it has short lived entertainment value and pretty much zero usefulness.  Very hard to control and or aim.  Many ranges don't allow them for safety reasons (see squib load)

  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    I think I'd rather have a gatling gun.  This one is a work of art, miniature replica manufactured here in states.

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Plisken
    I've seen things like that, pretty cool and innovative imo, would like to use one, but as far as spending MY money on something like that.....naw.  You probably know but there is a crank style thing you can put in the space where your finger goes and just crank the handle, i forget what it's called or if it's even legal, but anyway there's several ways to accomplish the same affect.

    We haven't chose wisely imo as to which battles to fight, which has accelerated things like 3d printed guns and bump stocks.  Much like telling kids no or they can't have something, if not done correctly it will make them desire it more and be creative on how to get it or circumvent you.
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    you could just define in the law how fast the gun is allowed to be shot. if it shoots too fast, then it's banned. in any case it's just a matter of using creativity to do the best you can in outlawing certain types of gun contraptions. 

    there aren't a lot of people who die from machine gun type guns. they say only a few hundred people die from even assault rifles. but i'm sure the bulk of those deaths are from murders, and a tiny fraction from self defense use. in any case, the potential is always there, and even a smaller amount of lives is worth the effort. 

    we can't stop every person who might go against the law or circumvent it, but we can stop some people. beleive me, having machine guns or that sort of stuff just laying around makes a difference.