McBell
Unbound
Seems to me that the precedent set over the last hundred or so years has rendered the militia part completely irrelevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
Pogo
Well-Known Member
McBell
Unbound
The case centered on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a U.S. Justice Department agency, interpreted a federal law called the National Firearms Act, which defined machine guns as weapons that can "automatically" fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger."
"We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a 'machine gun' because it cannot fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger,'" Thomas wrote. "And, even if it could, it would not do so 'automatically.' ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as machine guns."
McBell
Unbound
This is the duration of firing that a weapon could be expected to realistically withstand or output in a realistic environment. On paper, the M134 is capable of firing up to 6,000 rpm. Realistically, firing the weapon for a continuous sixty seconds would likely melt parts of the weapon.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Nor are users, 12 ga rifled slug is about the max for the local "country" and even at that someone "sighting" before deer season put one through my front wall from the valley below.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Keep the background checks or at least a waiting period, too many guns get used because they are available to people who do not intend to use them for reasonable purposes. A certain amount of inconvenience like seat-belts can be good for us and our loved ones even if temporarily annoying.
Besides you can take it off if you really want to hit that bridge abutment or suicide out, a few days won't make much of a difference in the long run.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm not against the standard three day waiting period.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Ah yup, and so we need to rethink the whole thing.
Maybe we can be big boys and girls, but international politics still says we have a way to go.
Better to start though than never attempt.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
this really isn't that hard if we can stop throwing rocks at each other and arguing over whether gun formats whose only real purpose is to kill many people at once are to be discouraged.
I'll make a socialist libertarian of you yet.
McBell
Unbound
I say to move it to equal the same ten day wait for a criminal background check like when I got my handgun license.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
But Freedom.
)
tytlyf
Not Religious
The Las Vegas shooter didn't have a problem hitting 400+ targets with it. There's a reason the bump stock was used. Increase fire rate.
All you're doing is repeating a typical conservative talking point. It's obvious a skilled person can aim just fine with a bump stock
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Bull****. Its an odds game with high fire rates and density. But I will grant a high fire rate increases the odds someone can be struck.
It's not skill as no one is accurate with high fire rates which is why all machine guns by professionals are shot in short burst increments.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Just fine should be replaced with sufficiently and you would be in agreement in regards to the shooters calculations.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Yep. alright then. So don't fire it for sixty seconds straight to be safe.
tytlyf
Not Religious
You're ignoring the fact that a rifle can shoot more rounds with a bump stock than without. Which is the point of putting on a bump stock.
A bump stock can kill more people quickly than without a bump stock.
This isn't an accuracy debate.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Assembled crowds haven't been acceptable targets since the Viet Nam whatever they called it instead of war at least so ex military may be unfamiliar with the concept.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Heh heh. On a mission then!this really isn't that hard if we can stop throwing rocks at each other and arguing over whether gun formats whose only real purpose is to kill many people at once are to be discouraged.
I'll make a socialist libertarian of you yet.
Honestly you may find I agree probably more than you think on some subjects.
I will always protect second amendment rights, but I also realize that the government has an obligation to ensure a safe environment for its citizens, so there is definitely wiggle room where one could compromise on the matter of firearms and mass shootings. It's something I would like to see both Republicans and Democrats shake hands on something that is firm but fair and subservient to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Democrats look to introduce legislation to ban bump stocks. I support this idea. These modifications have no purpose except as entertainment for shooters playing with guns, so they can have the sensation of what a machine gun can do without having one. The threat this stock has is not worth the entertainment value for the few people who will want to waste hundreds of dollars a minute to simulate a machine gun.
www.cbsnews.com
Machine guns were banned for open sale to the public in 1934 for a reason, and that is because they can spray many hundreds of bullets a minute in an indiscriminate way. The semi-auto versions of guns were, and are, still available to the public. The ban is certainly justified since ithe stock mimics what full auto guns do on a gun that is semi-auto. Machine guns were banned because of the high rate of fire, not because they had a certain design. These stocks allow a shooter to fire many hundreds of rounds again, which is why the full auto guns were banned in the first place. Semi-auto guns are still very deadly, but the slower rate of fire does allow many innocent people a little time to flee from a mass shooting event. How many lives have been saved due to the ban on machine guns over the decades?
A semi-auto shooter can fire about 80-120 rounds a minute, which a bump stock allows a shooter to fire 400-800 rounds a minute. In a crowded space the death toll could be significantly higher. It's true that magazines can't hold 400 rounds, so it's irrelevant. But there are magazines that hold 100 rounds, and using a full auto gun in a crowded space will catch victims off guard and the immediate kill rate will be significant, and limit how many can escape.
I assert that the governments we elect have an obligation to ensure the safety to the public. Does anyone have an argument why these stocks shouldn;t be banned, and they serve some benefit to society that offsets the threat to life and liberty?
Schumer to bring up vote on gun bump stocks ban after Supreme Court decision
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he plans to bring up a vote on restoring the bump stock ban under unanimous consent, which could be halted by opposition from just a single lawmaker.
www.cbsnews.com
Machine guns were banned for open sale to the public in 1934 for a reason, and that is because they can spray many hundreds of bullets a minute in an indiscriminate way. The semi-auto versions of guns were, and are, still available to the public. The ban is certainly justified since ithe stock mimics what full auto guns do on a gun that is semi-auto. Machine guns were banned because of the high rate of fire, not because they had a certain design. These stocks allow a shooter to fire many hundreds of rounds again, which is why the full auto guns were banned in the first place. Semi-auto guns are still very deadly, but the slower rate of fire does allow many innocent people a little time to flee from a mass shooting event. How many lives have been saved due to the ban on machine guns over the decades?
A semi-auto shooter can fire about 80-120 rounds a minute, which a bump stock allows a shooter to fire 400-800 rounds a minute. In a crowded space the death toll could be significantly higher. It's true that magazines can't hold 400 rounds, so it's irrelevant. But there are magazines that hold 100 rounds, and using a full auto gun in a crowded space will catch victims off guard and the immediate kill rate will be significant, and limit how many can escape.
I assert that the governments we elect have an obligation to ensure the safety to the public. Does anyone have an argument why these stocks shouldn;t be banned, and they serve some benefit to society that offsets the threat to life and liberty?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
At the very least, it is worth the attempt to see who will stop it.Democrats look to introduce legislation to ban bump stocks. I support this idea. These modifications have no purpose except as entertainment for shooters playing with guns, so they can have the sensation of what a machine gun can do without having one. The threat this stock has is not worth the entertainment value for the few people who will want to waste hundreds of dollars a minute to simulate a machine gun.
Schumer to bring up vote on gun bump stocks ban after Supreme Court decision
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he plans to bring up a vote on restoring the bump stock ban under unanimous consent, which could be halted by opposition from just a single lawmaker.
Machine guns were banned for open sale to the public in 1934 for a reason, and that is because they can spray many hundreds of bullets a minute in an indiscriminate way. The semi-auto versions of guns were, and are, still available to the public. The ban is certainly justified since ithe stock mimics what full auto guns do on a gun that is semi-auto. Machine guns were banned because of the high rate of fire, not because they had a certain design. These stocks allow a shooter to fire many hundreds of rounds again, which is why the full auto guns were banned in the first place. Semi-auto guns are still very deadly, but the slower rate of fire does allow many innocent people a little time to flee from a mass shooting event. How many lives have been saved due to the ban on machine guns over the decades?
A semi-auto shooter can fire about 80-120 rounds a minute, which a bump stock allows a shooter to fire 400-800 rounds a minute. In a crowded space the death toll could be significantly higher. It's true that magazines can't hold 400 rounds, so it's irrelevant. But there are magazines that hold 100 rounds, and using a full auto gun in a crowded space will catch victims off guard and the immediate kill rate will be significant, and limit how many can escape.
I assert that the governments we elect have an obligation to ensure the safety to the public. Does anyone have an argument why these stocks shouldn;t be banned, and they serve some benefit to society that offsets the threat to life and liberty?
On another note, it has already been done and would sell better apparently if it wasn't semi-auto.
FIGHTLITE INDUSTRIES MCR BELT-FED UPPER RECEIVER FULL AUTO | Brownells
Check out the FIGHTLITE INDUSTRIES available Online at Brownells Today and many more Rifle Receivers & Parts products are available in our Gun Parts Department.
And the belt 1600 rounds for only 1595$
