1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lemon Merchant, Apr 2, 2018.

  1. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Misery
    I don't see that as being enforceable. I'll just give them a throwaway account or say that I don't have one.
     
  2. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,132
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Moderator Action: As a reminder, this is a quarantine thread. No other threads or discussion about firearms or gun control are permitted outside this thread.
     
  3. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,611
    Location:
    the golf course
    are there any other rights you want us being deterred from using?

    we wont have many once everyone gets to deter rights they dont like
     
  4. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,963
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    We need to expand gun rights. Ex-felons don't have their 3rd Amendment Rights violated.
     
  5. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,020
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    • Personal attacks such as these are unacceptable.
    That's because you hate the Constitution and don't believe in civil rights.

    Moderator Action: You may not believe in following the site rules, but we do. ~ Arakhor
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    Anyway, the federal government officially made it illegal to own a bump stock today, claiming it fits the federal definition of a "machine gun". Here's the problem I have with that reasoning: a bump stock does not fit the definition of a machine gun. For reference, here is the current definition of a machine gun according to US federal law:

    Bolding by me, as that is the key part. A bump stock does not allow more than one shot to be fired by a single action of the trigger. The trigger still gets pulled for each individual shot that is fired. All the bump stock does is allow a person to fire a semi-automatic weapon at a rate that is comparable to a fully automatic weapon. It does not, however, make the semi-automatic weapon function as a fully-automatic weapon.

    The GOA has already filed a legal challenge to this ban and if the federal government actually cares about holding to its own definitions and laws, they will have to reverse this ban since the cited reason for the ban does not coincide with current federal law.

    Also for reference, here is a video that gives an overview of how bump stocks work for those who may be confused on the matter (explanation of the bump stock begins around 2:42):

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2018
  6. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    2,795
    Gender:
    Male
    If you state that the bump stock is an extension of the trigger you've gotten around that legalism. Also since you only actually squeeze the trigger once you could argue this is a single depression of the trigger.

    Nobody rational supports these things they are only good for blowing a ton of money on a firing range and shooting bunch of people randomly in crowds.

    This is the exact kind of thing gun control advocates point at and say gun rights advocates aren't rational actors.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2018
  7. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Misery
    Bump stocks are pretty obviously a loophole
     
  8. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,020
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    Except it's not an extension of the trigger. It's the stock of the rifle.

    No. You still squeeze the trigger for each shot. Plus, the technique of bump firing rifles has existed before actual bump stocks existed and the technique of bump firing itself is still perfectly legal. All the bump stock does is make the technique just a little bit easier to achieve (but not by much as even the guy in the video I posted still had some trouble getting it to work). So how does it make sense for the government to say bump firing is legal but bump stocks aren't? Hint: it doesn't.

    No. This is a common argument the anti-gun crowd tries to use in an attempt to shame gun rights advocates into agreeing with them. Honestly though, most people in the gun community don't like bump stocks (myself included), but still fight against banning them because of the larger implications. Redefining bump stocks as machine guns opens the door to redefine pretty much anything that might increase the rate of fire of a semi-auto weapon as a machine gun. This would include everything from triggers, bolt carrier groups, optics, and even lubricants that are essential to the basic maintenance of the weapon. All the government would have to do is make the case that the component in question somehow serves to increase the rate of fire of the firearm. They could, in theory, use this bump stock ban as a precedent to effectively ban guns without actually banning guns.

    No, it's not a loophole. Calling it a loophole would imply that bump stocks allow the creation of automatic weapons that would otherwise be banned, which they do not do. All they do is allow a semi-auto rifle to be fired at a rate that is comparable to an automatic weapon. However, the action is still semi-automatic and still meets the government's requirement of "one shot per trigger squeeze." So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, they are going to have to come up with a better reason than "they are machine guns."
     
  9. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,611
    Location:
    the golf course
    he had trouble because he never fired one

    the reason machine guns were banned is the rate of fire, bump stocks have a comparable rate of fire
     
  10. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,020
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    No, they weren't. If rate of fire was the issue, then the current definition according to US federal law would mention rate of fire. It does not. If I had a gun that only fired one round a minute but only required one squeeze of the trigger to fire multiple rounds, that would still be a machine gun according to US federal law.

    Also, if rate of fire were the issue, then bump stocks would have been banned the first time the ATF looked at them in 2010.

    Your point? There are speed shooters out there that can achieve machine gun-like rates of fire with semi-auto firearms with just their finger and no assistance from a bump stock or any other device. Should those people be classified as machine guns by the ATF and prohibited from owning firearms?
     
  11. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Misery
    You are being purposely obtuse.
     
  12. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,020
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    No I'm not. The issue with automatic weapons was not with rate of fire, but rather with ease of fire. That's why the law focuses on the type of action the firearms uses, not how fast it can spit rounds down range.
     
  13. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Misery
    And bump stocks aren't easier in any way?
     
  14. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,020
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    Of course they are. However, the wording of the law cited to justify the ban clearly defines a machine gun as a firearm or modification to a firearm that allows more than one shot to be fired with a single squeeze of the trigger. A bump stock does not do that, thus it is not a machine gun and the ban, as it is currently worded, has no legal justification.
     
  15. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Misery
    if you have a mechanism engage the trigger for you

    is that not a machine? making it a machine gun?
     
  16. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,020
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    It's not engaging the trigger for you though. At best (or worst depending on your perspective), it is providing assistance to increase rate of fire just like other currently legal modifications, like binary triggers, do.

    It also does not engage the trigger at all. All it does is change the way in which you, the shooter, engage the trigger in a way that allows you to take advantage of the weapon's recoil to achieve higher rates of fire.

    EDIT: And again, this is a technique that has existed long before the invention of bump stocks. All the bump stocks do is make the technique of bump firing easier to execute.

    EDIT2: And while we are on the subject, I think it is both sad and funny at the same time that the government chose to ban bump stocks with the machine gun reasoning while leaving binary triggers alone. Binary triggers definitely come closer to the federal definition of a machine gun than bump stocks do since they, technically, fire two rounds per trigger squeeze instead of one. With a binary trigger, one round is fired when you squeeze the trigger and another is fired when you release it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2018
  17. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,611
    Location:
    the golf course
    I'd like to see these speed shooters who can match a machine gun, but the reason politicians banned machine guns was gangsters and bank robbers were running around with them overpowering the cops. The ATF doesn't do anything without the blessing of the politicians and gun lobby.

    So machine guns were banned because they're easy to fire and the rate of fire had nothing to do with it? I had a 22 that was really easy to fire. You've gone from claiming bump stocks aren't easy to use (like the guy in the video) to how easy they are.
     
  18. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    2,795
    Gender:
    Male
    You are being purposely obtuse and you are doing it because it serves your agenda. This is intensely ironic because of the legal leaps taken in the ACA case you support I'm sure (on whether say the Texas plaintiffs had any standing in the ACA case). The bump stock could be argued to become an extension of the trigger since its purpose is to increase the firing rate of the trigger, you could also argue that since you only depress and hold the trigger once with a bump stock that it fits the definition of an automatic weapon. Both are legit points. You just don't like them.

    Slippery slope arguments on weapons start with nuclear bombs. The american public agrees automatic weapons should be banned. I know you know better than the public though so please go on telling the masses what is good for them.

    I should point out I support gun rights I'm just against this crap and well semi automatic rifles, high velocity rounds, and clip sizes like the one used in your video. You know the items whose only purpose is fun on a range and mass death. Your hobby can take a back seat to public safety.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2018
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,748
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Except that bump stocks do absolutely allow more than one round to be fired with one pull of the trigger. Now, you want to argue that because the bump stock relies on recoil to push the trigger repeatedly and each pull of the trigger is technically associated with only a single shot, it should not be banned.

    As someone else already pointed out, this kind of argument is what is gradually making the rest of the country see you "gun rights advocates" as bloodthirsty lunatics. So by all means continue to argue against banning bump stocks, which have literally no practical purpose other than killing large numbers of people quickly! In fact I hope the NRA files a lawsuit. What a public relations event!

    For the record Commodore has stated in the past that he believes any gun regulation of any kind is a Trojan Horse for a total ban and confiscation of existing guns. So that's his 'agenda.'
     
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  20. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Doctor of Funk

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm all in for the ban on bumpstocks, although I don't celebrate it as much of a victory. They're not what's causing the bulk of the problem. afaik, the massacre in Las Vegas is the only instance of a bumpstock being used. As Lexicus says, I wouldn't mind if the NRA makes a big deal out of it, but only because it would make them look ridiculous.

    Off the top of my head, iirc, something like 23,000 Americans commit suicide every year with guns. Of those, approx. one-third are veterans. The number that's been circulating for several years now is "twenty per day", but I can't verify that. Anyway, this very morning, I read that, as of September, the Veterans Administration had spent 1% of its money that had been specifically allocated to suicide prevention. One-forking-percent. If just the veterans who are committing suicide with guns could be cut by one-third, we would save ten times the number of people killed in the Las Vegas shooting, every year.

    If banning bumpstocks is some kind of "slippery slope", I'd say we need more grease, because we're not moving nearly fast enough.

    Someone probably just shot himself while I was typing this.
     
    Lexicus likes this.

Share This Page