-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real
- Thread starter Hotrod29
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I had no idea that it was even possible to "time out" while typing a post. Now I will say that I frequently "time out" myself when reading a post, but that's a manual process and usually consists of me saying to myself, "Screw it. I'm not reading all this ****."
Aggressive semi-automatic fire. I like that phrase.
Okay Bug, here goes. You hit on a lot of different things, none of which really addresses the problem I actually have with what Trump did. Maybe it's because we have some differences in worldview. You seem to be a bit more authoritarian. I'm more libertarian. You're a full-time Trumper. I'm a part time critic. I'll not speculate any further than that.
I've said before, not in so many words, that bumpstocks aren't my hill to die on either. I don't believe bump stocks are protected by the 2nd Amendment. They're just an accessory. If congress moved to ban just them in clear language, I'd have no problem with the constitutionality of it. My only problem with such a law would be my ideological opposition to banning stuff. If I were grand poohbah, I'd ban banning stuff.
As long as it does not ban actual firearms in common use, it's within the power of Congress to enact such a law. It is NOT within the power of the executive branch to enact a law not passed by congress. Redefining a term clearly defined in a law passed by congress is beyond the regulatory power of the executive branch.
You talked a lot about what you perceive of me complaining about the "why" of it. You even implied some attributions of complaints I didn't actually make. I'm not seeking out interpretations which make Trump look worse. I've defended Trump on a lot of things, for some of which you've rep'd me. I am not a Trump hater. I am an authority critic. Trump has shown an exploitative disregard for law his entire career. He does what he thinks needs done, whether it's legal or not, and then tries to win in court.
Why he forces the outcomes he wants doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he does it for selfish or benevolent reasons. It's THAT he forces outcomes that is bothersome, especially now that he's the POTUS. Unconstrained audacity by government is dangerous. Maybe you like that he's audacious against our opponents, and I have to admit, I like it when he does the right thing audaciously. But I think it'd be great if we could agree that audacity can go too far. The executive branch making law goes too far even if it's your guy doing it. Defining a plastic non-firearm accessory as a machine gun goes too far. The justifications you've made aren't what the BATFE interpretation says. It says these devices are machine guns. Doesn't say they become machine guns when attached to an actual firearm. It says they're machine guns. Even though bump stocks don't have a single component that makes them a firearm. They're now classified as machine guns.
The courts so far have declined to take up the issue. I suspect they won't be too eager to strike this down because they'll look at it like you and so many other people do. Bump stocks aren't their hill either. It seems obvious enough that it's even the outcome they want. A lot of people think that people shouldn't get to own devices that help a semiauto simulate automatic fire. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the courts are going to stop this ban. And that will embolden this and future administrations to overstep their regulatory power more. Getting more "conservative" people on the bench doesn't matter. A chamber-o-commerce authoritarian style traditional conservative will uphold the ban because people shouldn't be free to use such dangerous devices and the executive branch should get to say so.
I've said before, not in so many words, that bumpstocks aren't my hill to die on either. I don't believe bump stocks are protected by the 2nd Amendment. They're just an accessory. If congress moved to ban just them in clear language, I'd have no problem with the constitutionality of it. My only problem with such a law would be my ideological opposition to banning stuff. If I were grand poohbah, I'd ban banning stuff.
As long as it does not ban actual firearms in common use, it's within the power of Congress to enact such a law. It is NOT within the power of the executive branch to enact a law not passed by congress. Redefining a term clearly defined in a law passed by congress is beyond the regulatory power of the executive branch.
You talked a lot about what you perceive of me complaining about the "why" of it. You even implied some attributions of complaints I didn't actually make. I'm not seeking out interpretations which make Trump look worse. I've defended Trump on a lot of things, for some of which you've rep'd me. I am not a Trump hater. I am an authority critic. Trump has shown an exploitative disregard for law his entire career. He does what he thinks needs done, whether it's legal or not, and then tries to win in court.
Why he forces the outcomes he wants doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he does it for selfish or benevolent reasons. It's THAT he forces outcomes that is bothersome, especially now that he's the POTUS. Unconstrained audacity by government is dangerous. Maybe you like that he's audacious against our opponents, and I have to admit, I like it when he does the right thing audaciously. But I think it'd be great if we could agree that audacity can go too far. The executive branch making law goes too far even if it's your guy doing it. Defining a plastic non-firearm accessory as a machine gun goes too far. The justifications you've made aren't what the BATFE interpretation says. It says these devices are machine guns. Doesn't say they become machine guns when attached to an actual firearm. It says they're machine guns. Even though bump stocks don't have a single component that makes them a firearm. They're now classified as machine guns.
The courts so far have declined to take up the issue. I suspect they won't be too eager to strike this down because they'll look at it like you and so many other people do. Bump stocks aren't their hill either. It seems obvious enough that it's even the outcome they want. A lot of people think that people shouldn't get to own devices that help a semiauto simulate automatic fire. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the courts are going to stop this ban. And that will embolden this and future administrations to overstep their regulatory power more. Getting more "conservative" people on the bench doesn't matter. A chamber-o-commerce authoritarian style traditional conservative will uphold the ban because people shouldn't be free to use such dangerous devices and the executive branch should get to say so.
It didn't log me out. It redirected me to a page that said the token expired. Usually when this happens, I can hit the back button, reload the page, and then the text that I submitted will reappear in the texbox. But this time it didn't. I'm not sure why.
I had no idea that it was even possible to "time out" while typing a post. Now I will say that I frequently "time out" myself when reading a post, but that's a manual process and usually consists of me saying to myself, "Screw it. I'm not reading all this ****."
There are a couple of different "time out" scenarios that would be common. One is when the session expires. When you visit a page after logging in, a "session" is created, which usually has a duration. Every time you click a link on a page, the timer restarts. The session ends automatically if you haven't visited a page within the session duration, at which point you'll be logged out. I don't think Vbulletin sessions time out if you check the "keep me logged in" checkbox when you log in. I did, so I don't think that's the cause.
The other thing is a token that is often used on web pages which have submittable forms, like a forum post. These tokens are often used to protect against cross site request forgery exploits. These tokens usually have a timestamp. So if you leave a page open for long enough, and then try to submit a post containing an expired token, you'll be redirected to a page like the one I saw.
I think this is what happened in this case. I started to write out the post, then my wife told me it's my turn to make dinner. So after dinner I came back and finished my post without first refreshing the page (which would refresh the token). I think the page sat idle for maybe a couple of hours.
Oh, okay, that second scenario does sound likely. I've had that happen to me on other sites, just not this one.
Dinner! Hrmph! Here I thought I had raised such weighty issues that the answering of them left you lost in thought for hours
No, I wrote out a post saying essentially what I said above. I was so pissed about losing it I just put off rewriting it until this morning.
I made Pizza. When it's my turn I always make the easy stuff.
Me too. If it comes in a bag, box or can with directions, I'm a chef.
So, you want him to go back to NY?
When you're a ChemE eventually you realize it's all easy stuff in cooking. The right amounts of the right reactants plus the right amount of heat equals delicious food, and the reaction rates are pretty slow and most temperatures never get much above the boiling point of water
Given how awful prepared food tastes, the bar for the results has been set pretty low so peeps should have more confidence that they can try anything and it will still be better than the usual fare
If you’re going by the “common use” doctrine, the ATFs guess of 520,000 bumpstocks being in the wild should pass muster on that one (however; every gun site I have been on has numerous examples of people’s homebuilt versions on it, and most of the sites had 3d printed ones being cranked out like crazy after vegas, so that number is very low IMHO)
We ALL know the downfalls of automatic fire, however stating that bumpfire stocks are “just accessories” and not covered by 2A is exactly where an anti-gunner would want us to go, admit it has no protection if it is an accessory, the ATF didn’t think so and classified it as a firearm, we just had a CA judge classify magazines as ARMS themselves, quit playing their game. 2A applies to any blade, bludgeon, spike, projectile, self defense item, etc.
We ALL know the downfalls of automatic fire, however stating that bumpfire stocks are “just accessories” and not covered by 2A is exactly where an anti-gunner would want us to go, admit it has no protection if it is an accessory, the ATF didn’t think so and classified it as a firearm, we just had a CA judge classify magazines as ARMS themselves, quit playing their game. 2A applies to any blade, bludgeon, spike, projectile, self defense item, etc.
As dumb as I think bumpstocks are, how exactly is a bumpstock a firearm? It is an accessory. Magazines are accessories. Pistol grips are accessories.
Many semi-autos won't feed and function without magazines, hence they fall under "arms."
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Gauging interest in a Darryl Bolke Bryan Eastridge class- Latest: Patrick Taylor