Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: President Trump Caves to Gun Control Demands, Moves to Ban Gun Parts

  1. #41
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Simmons View Post
    I'm still conflicted on this one. The 2A doesn't protect the right to own accessories that increase a firearms practical rate of fire so please explain how the NRA is failing, in your opinion as it pertains to the 2A? That being said this will be another "ban" that does nothing. In a way isn't that the best kind of ban?

    People are trying to link this to the 2A as some type of infringement. I understand the sentiment but it doesn't apply.
    So a drop in auto sear should also not be protected by "shall not be infringed"?

  2. #42
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,555
    Quote Originally Posted by imanaknut View Post
    So a drop in auto sear should also not be protected by "shall not be infringed"?
    I see where you're going but I feel like you're grasping at straws. An auto sear is not a firearm and it's an NFA item that has to have been registered before the 86 ban so it's already been "infringed". Does the 2A say anything about a right to keep and bear an auto sear? I'm just saying trying to tie an accessory to the 2A isnt going to fly. Does the 2A apply to suppressors?
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    " We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  3. #43
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,140
    I firmly believe that shall not be infringed means you have the right to do what you want to your firearm, whether adding a different stock, installing a suppressor, changing the fire control group, cutting down a barrel, etc. If it a firearm part, regardless as to OEM, aftermarket, modification, or addition to, it is part of our right to keep and bear arms without infringement. Not being allowed to install a suppressor I consider an infringement on my rights.

  4. #44
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,555
    So if for some reason they tried to ban slings, scopes, red dots, etc., those are also protected under the 2A and would be an infringement in your opinion?
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    " We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  5. #45
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,140
    You win Richard, AK-nut out.

  6. #46
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,555
    I don't believe there are any winners here. I'm just asking you to clarify if any accessory is covered by the 2A? Like I said, I'm conflicted about the whole thing. Should they be banned? Should they be regulated with a Form 4473 like a firearm purchase? IMO the bump stock was designed to increase the rate of fire to replicate full auto fire. Technically it doesn't make a firearm full auto as you are only firing one shot per pull of the trigger but if a person put any thought into it at all they had to see this coming.

    Either regulate or ban the bump stock or change the definition of a machine gun. One or the other was bound to happen. Just like the pistol brace thing. Everyone I see on YouTube is intentionally using it like a stock. We all know that sooner or later ATFE is going to change their opinion on it. Or they could realize the whole SBS/SBR is a non-event and take those items off the NFA. Which do you think is more likely?

    I still say and I'm willing to discuss if the 2A covers an accessory. I don't believe it does. IMO we need to fight for bump stocks because they do not meet the definition of a machine gun. That's absolutely a fact based on the law as written. Saying they are protected by the 2A like a firearm isn't supported by the 2A that I can tell but I'll be happy to have someone show me that it is.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    " We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  7. #47
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    14,590
    Quote Originally Posted by imanaknut View Post
    And with the NRA doing all it can to protect our second amendment rights, how can we lose?

    "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations"

    It's bad enough that WE always meekly concede to the gun grabbers, who are never satisfied, but instead ask for "one more" concession.

    From NRA (LINK):

    Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.
    What they SHOULD have said was "we support weakening American citizen's right to defend themselves, their families and their communities as demanded by sicko liberals".

    The NRA will accomplish nothing but to lose more members.

    WTF are they (NRA) good for?

    I personally don't give a crap about "bump stocks". I've never used one, never intended to, and can easily bump-fire with my finger alone.

    But it pisses me off royally that NRA would give in to ANY gun grab.

    WTF is the big deal with "fully automatic rifles" anyway? Put a machine gun in the hands of any normal law abiding gun owner and all he will do is expend ammo faster and have more fun.

    Nobody will get hurt. Does anyone think the "happy switch" will transform "Joe Average Target Shooter or Hunter" into a killing maniac?

    And it's really sad that even President Zero's administration approved bump stocks, but our "Make America Great Again" President Trump wants to ban them.

    Although NOTHING could make me change my vote, I can say that as time goes on I am less and less happy with Trump and I wonder (worry) if there is some nasty, dangerous hidden agenda swimming around inside his head.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  8. #48
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    14,590
    Quote Originally Posted by rci2950 View Post

    Posting a pic of Feinswine should be a permaban offense....
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  9. #49
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    14,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Simmons View Post
    I see where you're going but I feel like you're grasping at straws. An auto sear is not a firearm and it's an NFA item that has to have been registered before the 86 ban so it's already been "infringed". Does the 2A say anything about a right to keep and bear an auto sear? I'm just saying trying to tie an accessory to the 2A isnt going to fly. Does the 2A apply to suppressors?

    2A applies to the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, neighborhood, state and country.

    It does not protect suppressors. It does not protect hunting. It does not protect auto-sears.

    It protects our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

    How do you define an "arm"? That's what is protected.

    Now, I'll admit that some "arms" do indeed require training and discipline to use (such as high explosives) and indeed CERTAIN "arms" should be regulated for public safety reasons (I don't want Elmer Fudd next door to have bricks of C4 in his garage, for example).

    Other than a small number of (dare I say "common sense"?) restrictions, ANY other restrictions applied to our arms are an illegal and unconstitutional infringement on our 2A protected rights. Period.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  10. #50
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    14,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Simmons View Post
    So if for some reason they tried to ban slings, scopes, red dots, etc., those are also protected under the 2A and would be an infringement in your opinion?

    You could say that allowing the ownership of ONLY ONE FIREARM and ONLY ONE ROUND of ammunition would not be an infringement of 2A, but you would be wrong, because this would SEVERELY HAMPER your ability to use arms for defense of self and others and, therefore, violates the INTENT of 2A.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  11. #51
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Krupski View Post
    It's bad enough that WE always meekly concede to the gun grabbers, who are never satisfied, but instead ask for "one more" concession.

    From NRA (LINK):



    What they SHOULD have said was "we support weakening American citizen's right to defend themselves, their families and their communities as demanded by sicko liberals".

    The NRA will accomplish nothing but to lose more members.

    WTF are they (NRA) good for?

    I personally don't give a crap about "bump stocks". I've never used one, never intended to, and can easily bump-fire with my finger alone.

    But it pisses me off royally that NRA would give in to ANY gun grab.

    WTF is the big deal with "fully automatic rifles" anyway? Put a machine gun in the hands of any normal law abiding gun owner and all he will do is expend ammo faster and have more fun.

    Nobody will get hurt. Does anyone think the "happy switch" will transform "Joe Average Target Shooter or Hunter" into a killing maniac?

    And it's really sad that even President Zero's administration approved bump stocks, but our "Make America Great Again" President Trump wants to ban them.

    Although NOTHING could make me change my vote, I can say that as time goes on I am less and less happy with Trump and I wonder (worry) if there is some nasty, dangerous hidden agenda swimming around inside his head.
    What "gun grab"? A bump stock isn't a firearm.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    " We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  12. #52
    Team GunsNet Gold 07/2012 / Super Moderator Gunreference1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    AZ USA
    Posts
    5,745
    Trump Announces He’s a Few Weeks From Banning Bump Stocks

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ng-bump-stocks

    Steve
    After today, it's all historical.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •