Bump Stock Ban

[Gelston]

The 10th Circuit court today placed a stay on the bump stock ban, set to go into effect on the 26th of this month.

So, you are not going to become a felon on the 26th if you have one currently.

[Androidpk]

Why did they do that?

[Gelston]

Why did they do that?

They felt it was rushed through too fast without giving it proper study into the full implications of it.

[Stumplicker]

If I had to guess I'd say it has something to do with the NRA having a large lobbying budget.

[Gelston]

It was actually a group called the NCLA. I seem to recall the NRA not really making a big fuss about bump stocks.

[Methais]

It was actually a group called the NCLA. I seem to recall the NRA not really making a big fuss about bump stocks.

National Cwolff Loser Association?

[Gelston]

National Cwolff Loser Association?

New Civil Liberties Alliance, first I'd heard of them.

[BLZrizz]

Bump stocks are largely seen as a toy by serious operators in the field. But the banning was less a concern about their loss but more the way the process was all jacked up in terms of the ATFs expansion of the definition of the term "machine gun" to encompass the stocks, thereby accomplishing the ban through the ATF's rulemaking authority rather than by legislative action. Such a power comes with serious implications when it comes to the technical nature of firearms.

Also, the whole "the NRA has mad Benjamins" is largely a trope of the uninformed. They had a lobbying expenditure of approximately $5 million in 2017 and 2018 which put them somewhere like 80th on the list. Hardly huge by any measure. What they do have is access to a deeply engaged, active corps of single-issue voters who are vocal, vote without fail, and as a bloc carry a significant amount of political power. Notwithstanding this, true 2A supporters are quite disappointed in how the NRA seemed to roll on the bump stock issue given what's at stake above.

[Stumplicker]

Bump stocks are largely seen as a toy by serious operators in the field. But the banning was less a concern about their loss but more the way the process was all jacked up in terms of the ATFs expansion of the definition of the term "machine gun" to encompass the stocks, thereby accomplishing the ban through the ATF's rulemaking authority rather than by legislative action. Such a power comes with serious implications when it comes to the technical nature of firearms.

Also, the whole "the NRA has mad Benjamins" is largely a trope of the uninformed. They had a lobbying expenditure of approximately $5 million in 2017 and 2018 which put them somewhere like 80th on the list. Hardly huge by any measure. What they do have is access to a deeply engaged, active corps of single-issue voters who are vocal, vote without fail, and as a bloc carry a significant amount of political power. Notwithstanding this, true 2A supporters are quite disappointed in how the NRA seemed to roll on the bump stock issue given what's at stake above.

Maybe they "rolled" on them because the ban was a direct response to an incident where someone injured 851 people and killed 58 people in 10 minutes with what you just described as a toy.

[Alfster]

They're also highly influenced by Russia, considering a Russian operative was able to get to the highest ranks of the organization.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Maybe they "rolled" on them because the ban was a direct response to an incident where someone injured 851 people and killed 58 people in 10 minutes with what you just described as a toy.

They rely on physics of the rifle kicking to create a reaction that causes the trigger to be pulled faster mechanically, with a significant cost to accuracy. So for a person who's life might depend on it as a field operator, rather than some crazy guy with dozens of rifles in a very elevated and barricaded position firing randomly into a crowd of literal thousands with suicide his planned exit, yeah... they are toys.

[BLZrizz]

Maybe they "rolled" on them because the ban was a direct response to an incident where someone injured 851 people and killed 58 people in 10 minutes with what you just described as a toy.

I can't say for sure, but I find that assessment unlikely. The NRA's charter requires them to be politically untenable to large swathes of the American electorate and they've stood firm on previous events with worse narratives.

What's likelier is that:

1) the NRA understood that a fairly low percentage of gun owners own bump stocks, likely less than 0.5% (true);
2) they understood that in a tactical scenario bump stocks present little value and are employed by no government agencies or militaries (true); and
3) based on the above they concluded that it would be a fine and mostly ineffectual "sacrificial lamb".

The above reasoning, however, failed to anticipate the long term consequences of the ban, its application, and its consequences, which is inconsistent with the NRA's stated mission.

[Stumplicker]

They rely on physics of the rifle kicking to create a reaction that causes the trigger to be pulled faster mechanically, with a significant cost to accuracy. So for a person who's life might depend on it as a field operator, rather than some crazy guy with dozens of rifles in a very elevated and barricaded position firing randomly into a crowd of literal thousands with suicide his planned exit, yeah... they are toys.

I know what they are. I also know there was no reason not to ban them before an insane person fired thousands of rounds out of a hotel room window using one. How long did it take to ban rocker triggers in paintball? Like 15 minutes? "Oh, that essentially makes it an automatic. Let's stop that.". Done.

Any nonzero amount of money spent fighting against bump stocks being banned is too much. If it's a useless "toy" for people who care, and a violent murder spree tool for people who don't, there's no argument against it.

[Taernath]

Bump stocks have always skated around the overly specific language in the law. They are dangerous because of their rate of fire, not their cycling and feeding mechanism.

[BLZrizz]

Bump stocks have always skated around the overly specific language in the law. They are dangerous because of their rate of fire, not their cycling and feeding mechanism.

Bottom line, hardly anyone in the firearms world cares about bump stocks specifically and as I stated above, a very tiny minority would be affected by a ban. From a legislative defense perspective, however, the NRA's supposed forte, the problem with bump stocks is that their mechanism as of action is so crude that it can be replicated with a relaxed thumb around one's belt loop or a rubber band. A ban of such a crude mechanism must necessarily be broad in language, but that language also sweeps up all sorts of other stuff, including a short leap to banning semiautomatic trigger operation entirely.

It's analogous to ending graffiti by banning spray paint, and then writing a ban that that states "all metal cylinders discharging a substance are banned." Meanwhile, this also in effect bans fountain pens, fire extinguishers, PAM cooking oil, hairspray, etc.

[Stumplicker]

Bottom line, hardly anyone in the firearms world cares about bump stocks specifically and as I stated above, a very tiny minority would be affected by a ban. From a legislative defense perspective, however, the NRA's supposed forte, the problem with bump stocks is that their mechanism as of action is so crude that it can be replicated with a relaxed thumb around one's belt loop or a rubber band. A ban of such a crude mechanism must necessarily be broad in language, but that language also sweeps up all sorts of other stuff, including a short leap to banning semiautomatic trigger operation entirely.

It's analogous to ending graffiti by banning spray paint, and then writing a ban that that states "all metal cylinders discharging a substance are banned." Meanwhile, this also in effect bans fountain pens, fire extinguishers, PAM cooking oil, hairspray, etc.

This is 100% bullshit.

Nobody is trying to ban triggers. Nobody is making that "short leap" to banning all semi-automatic weapons but you. Suck it up and accept that your murder spree "toy" is going away. There is no defense for keeping it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If it's a useless "toy" for people who care, and a violent murder spree tool for people who don't, there's no argument against it.

I think bump stocks should be banned, sure. I also think they are toys for people who like to shoot things fast without accuracy. Unrelated, I also like to see shit blown up. I can still buy a rocker trigger in paintball, btw. So, not really done.

You'll never be able to identify how things can be used by crazy people outside their intended purposes.

[Gelston]

You can create the exact same effect using your thumb and a belt loop. It us a technique, bump stocks make it easier and slightly more accurate.

[Methais]

You can create the exact same effect using your thumb and a belt loop. It us a technique, bump stocks make it easier and slightly more accurate.

Michael J. Fox doesn't even need a belt loop.

Ban Alex P. Keaton.

[Stumplicker]

You can create the exact same effect using your thumb and a belt loop. It us a technique, bump stocks make it easier and slightly more accurate.

We're talking about a product that has no practical use and one very impractical use that only interests mentally broken people. There's no reason to allow it, and 900 reasons not to.

You could if you were so inclined still commit suicide by asyphxiation, but when England stopped making coal gas ovens that people were using to commit suicide in, suicides on the whole dropped 30% and weren't replaced by other methods.

There is plenty of precedent for saying that getting rid of problematic products lowers overall problems, but in this case there's no need because it's a product with zero practical use in the first place. Just get rid of it. There is no downside.

[Gelston]

We're talking about a product that has no practical use and one very impractical use that only interests mentally broken people. There's no reason to allow it, and 900 reasons not to.

You could if you were so inclined still commit suicide by asyphxiation, but when England stopped making coal gas ovens that people were using to commit suicide in, suicides on the whole dropped 30% and weren't replaced by other methods.

There is plenty of precedent for saying that getting rid of problematic products lowers overall problems, but in this case there's no need because it's a product with zero practical use in the first place. Just get rid of it. There is no downside.

The reason to allow it us because I'm a free fucking American and you can go fuck yourself.

[Methais]

You could if you were so inclined still commit suicide by asyphxiation, but when England stopped making coal gas ovens that people were using to commit suicide in, suicides on the whole dropped 30% and weren't replaced by other methods.

That's only because those people didn't read this:

Maddox - How to kill yourself like a man (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

We're talking about a product that has no practical use and one very impractical use that only interests mentally broken people. There's no reason to allow it, and 900 reasons not to.

What practical use is there for cars that can accelerate 60MPH in under 3 seconds?
What practical use is there for no skill unemployed people?

Who gets to decide if an item has a practical use or not?

[Stumplicker]

The reason to allow it us because I'm a free fucking American and you can go fuck yourself.

The 900 people wounded or killed by the Las Vegas shooter were free fucking Americans too. You need a better reason to want the product available than "because go fuck yourself" to overcome that. It isn't the first product to be banned in the US, and it won't be the last.

Ivory and ambergris are banned in the US too, for example, and your "because I'm American" reasoning doesn't hold up for those any better. The only reason anyone's hanging on to this one is because it's vaguely gun related and it's a hot button political issue.

[Astray]

I'll make my own bump stock. Got a few good pieces of walnut laying around.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The only reason anyone's hanging on to this one is because it's vaguely gun related and it's a hot button political issue.

I'm happy to see how aware you are of your reasoning for hanging onto this one.

[Stumplicker]

What practical use is there for cars that can accelerate 60MPH in under 3 seconds?
You mean aside from massive corporations, the thousands of people they employ and the millions who consume their product?


What practical use is there for no skill unemployed people?
None. That's why assistance for the unemployed is contingent on them looking for jobs.


Who gets to decide if an item has a practical use or not?
A governing body of people who present and vote on issues such as this one as representatives of the population.

Any other questions? What's your practical use for bump stocks, by the way? I noticed you never offered one.

[Gelston]

The 900 people wounded or killed by the Las Vegas shooter were free fucking Americans too. You need a better reason to want the product available than "because go fuck yourself" to overcome that. It isn't the first product to be banned in the US, and it won't be the last.

Ivory and ambergris are banned in the US too, for example, and your "because I'm American" reasoning doesn't hold up for those any better. The only reason anyone's hanging on to this one is because it's vaguely gun related and it's a hot button political issue.

More people have been killed by multiple other things than a bumostock. Let's ban everything. Retard.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What's your practical use for bump stocks, by the way? I noticed you never offered one.

I think shooting really fast at things and watching them explode is fun.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You mean aside from massive corporations, the thousands of people they employ and the millions who consume their product?
Uh, that's not practical at all. No one needs a car to go 0 to 60 in 3 seconds. 30 seconds is just fine. Or 10. Arguably 30 seconds is safer though, so lets stick to 30. Or 60.


None. That's why assistance for the unemployed is contingent on them looking for jobs.
We should ban no skill unemployed people, right?


A governing body of people who present and vote on issues such as this one as representatives of the population.
No argument there!

[Methais]

What practical use is there for cars that can accelerate 60MPH in under 3 seconds?

Where were you when your diarrhea came back?


What practical use is there for no skill unemployed people?

Voting democrat.


Who gets to decide if an item has a practical use or not?

Democrats. They know what's best for us. Unless you're a bigot.

[Methais]

The 900 people wounded or killed by the Las Vegas shooter were free fucking Americans too. You need a better reason to want the product available than "because go fuck yourself" to overcome that. It isn't the first product to be banned in the US, and it won't be the last.

Ivory and ambergris are banned in the US too, for example, and your "because I'm American" reasoning doesn't hold up for those any better. The only reason anyone's hanging on to this one is because it's vaguely gun related and it's a hot button political issue.

I bet there was at least 1 person there that wasn't American.

Reported to PK's pretend pro-bono lawyer for fake news.

[Astray]

The idea that banning a part of a weapon will stop the number of deaths associated to that weapon is absolutely retarded.

[Methais]

What's your practical use for bump stocks, by the way? I noticed you never offered one.

If you attach it correctly, they're an incredible addon for fleshlights.

[Methais]

Uh, that's not practical at all. No one needs to spell up 60 people at once. 16 people is just fine. Or less. Arguably 6 people is safer though, so lets stick to 30. Or 60.

Confirmed SHM is Estild.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I bet there was at least 1 person there that wasn't American.

Reported to PK's pretend pro-bono lawyer for fake news.

Lawyered. Ad-hominem. locus delicti. prima facie. inter alia.

[Methais]

Lawyered. Ad-hominem. locus delicti. prima facie. inter alia.

https://i.imgur.com/7uNaSI5.png

[Parkbandit]

We're talking about a product that has no practical use and one very impractical use that only interests mentally broken people. There's no reason to allow it, and 900 reasons not to.

You could if you were so inclined still commit suicide by asyphxiation, but when England stopped making coal gas ovens that people were using to commit suicide in, suicides on the whole dropped 30% and weren't replaced by other methods.

There is plenty of precedent for saying that getting rid of problematic products lowers overall problems, but in this case there's no need because it's a product with zero practical use in the first place. Just get rid of it. There is no downside.

How many bump stocks have been used to commit murder?

How many bump stocks have been sold legally in the US?

How does the US ban on them make it impossible for criminals to buy them?

My PERSONAL opinion is that they are unnecessary. I don't own one and will never buy one.

But THE WAY they were banned is what is suspect right now.

[Stumplicker]

More people have been killed by multiple other things than a bumostock. Let's ban everything. Retard.

No. Let's just ban the things it makes sense to ban.


2007. Virginia tech shooting. Deadliest school shooting in US history, and at the time, deadliest mass shooting in US history. 32 killed, 17 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

2016. Orlando night club shooting - 49 killed. 53 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting

2017. Las Vegas shooting. 58 killed, 851 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

We've topped ourselves three times in the last 12 years for deadliest shootings. The most recent was a casualty increase of 900% compared to the next because of a product that nobody here or anywhere has a practical use for. It makes sense to ban it, whether you're "fucking American" or not. Whether you enjoy guns for recreational use or not (and I do, which you know).

[Methais]

No. Let's just ban the things it makes sense to ban.


2007. Virginia tech shooting. Deadliest school shooting in US history, and at the time, deadliest mass shooting in US history. 32 killed, 17 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

Ban asians.



2016. Orlando night club shooting - 49 killed. 53 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting

Ban muslims.


2017. Las Vegas shooting. 58 killed, 851 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

Ban white people.

I suspect #3 will be the most popular suggestion.

[Stumplicker]

Ban asians.




Ban muslims.



Ban white people.

I suspect #3 will be the most popular suggestion.

Haha

[Astray]

Ban asians.

Keep the Koreans though, those people are amazing on rooftops during riots.

[Parkbandit]

No. Let's just ban the things it makes sense to ban.


2007. Virginia tech shooting. Deadliest school shooting in US history, and at the time, deadliest mass shooting in US history. 32 killed, 17 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

2016. Orlando night club shooting - 49 killed. 53 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting

2017. Las Vegas shooting. 58 killed, 851 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

We've topped ourselves three times in the last 12 years for deadliest shootings. The most recent was a casualty increase of 900% compared to the next because of a product that nobody here or anywhere has a practical use for. It makes sense to ban it, whether you're "fucking American" or not. Whether you enjoy guns for recreational use or not (and I do, which you know).

So, out of all this, you believe that banning bump stocks is the solution and will prevent these from occurring again?

[~Rocktar~]

Bump stocks are largely seen as a toy by serious operators in the field. But the banning was less a concern about their loss but more the way the process was all jacked up in terms of the ATFs expansion of the definition of the term "machine gun" to encompass the stocks, thereby accomplishing the ban through the ATF's rulemaking authority rather than by legislative action. Such a power comes with serious implications when it comes to the technical nature of firearms.

Also, the whole "the NRA has mad Benjamins" is largely a trope of the uninformed. They had a lobbying expenditure of approximately $5 million in 2017 and 2018 which put them somewhere like 80th on the list. Hardly huge by any measure. What they do have is access to a deeply engaged, active corps of single-issue voters who are vocal, vote without fail, and as a bloc carry a significant amount of political power. Notwithstanding this, true 2A supporters are quite disappointed in how the NRA seemed to roll on the bump stock issue given what's at stake above.

This is correct.

[~Rocktar~]

So basically the argument can be boiled down to this:

"There is this scary thing that I don't see the need for so I want it banned. In defense of my indefensible position, I will argue about how morally justified I am because of some terrible events while ignoring the fact that plenty of other things can and have killed as many people or more in the US and the world but I am not yelling to ban those. Then when called out on the bullshit and having the slippery slope of banning such things pointed out as dangerous, I argue that it's ok to ban them because no one is yet making the transition down the slippery slope into other equally illegal, unjustified and absurd bans."

So, Stuplicker, are you male and do you agree with rape?

[Stumplicker]

So basically the argument can be boiled down to this:

"There is this scary thing that I don't see the need for so I want it banned. In defense of my indefensible position, I will argue about how morally justified I am because of some terrible events while ignoring the fact that plenty of other things can and have killed as many people or more in the US and the world but I am not yelling to ban those. Then when called out on the bullshit and having the slippery slope of banning such things pointed out as dangerous, I argue that it's ok to ban them because no one is yet making the transition down the slippery slope into other equally illegal, unjustified and absurd bans."

So, Stuplicker, are you male and do you agree with rape?

What the everloving fuck are you talking about? Literally none of that is accurate to anything that's been said here, from any standpoint.

[~Rocktar~]

What the everloving fuck are you talking about? Literally none of that is accurate to anything that's been said here, from any standpoint.

Talking about you dumbass and it is almost blow for blow your complete argument in this thread.

[Androidpk]

Don't pay attention to rocktard, he thinks people should be able to own nuclear weapons if they want.

[Astray]

Guess we have to build a new nation. Let's build a base out on the ocean.

[~Rocktar~]

Don't pay attention to rocktard, he thinks people should be able to own nuclear weapons if they want.

Still less dangerous than you supporting a murderous philosophy, murdering babies and surgically and chemically maiming teens in the name of diversity.

[Roiken]

Michael J. Fox doesn't even need a belt loop.

Ban Alex P. Keaton.

I don't even need to read further in this thread... Methais didn't skip a beat.

[Roiken]

i was wrong.. it just got better... A+++ thread would read again.

[~Rocktar~]

What the everloving fuck are you talking about? Literally none of that is accurate to anything that's been said here, from any standpoint.

So do you agree rape is ok?

[Androidpk]

The ban goes into effect today. Chief Justice Roberts has rejected a bid to block the ban.

[Tgo01]

Looks like the supreme court let the ban go into effect today.