Trump Administartion bans bump stocks

a reply to: network dude

lawcenter.giffords.org...

It is legal for a state to do this, here it is illegal to own one. I know people who had them, both got caught and had them taken away and one of them lost his job as a cop because of that. The other guy spent some time in the country jail and lost the gun. He was not allowed to get a hunting license for quite a while after that either, probably because he was using it for hunting at the time.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm pointing out hypocrisy. Call that that you want, I feel no need to call out left-wing corruption on a board where 95% of the most popular content is already doing that.

Let me start by say in complete jest that the Democrats need to push harder for the banning the real cause of these "Mass Shootings". People! The Democrat should just outright ban people, if you are or have ever been a person then you should be turned in to the authorities. Hate speech, mass shootings, wild fires, all of these things are only harmful because of people. Banning the people will solve all of our issues we have.

***BACK TO REALITY***

I said it before that bump stocks are a useless thing, and it seems that is only a legal market for these by people just wanting to pretend to be cool. This being said I personally don't care if they are banned or not since I already know that some of the criminal elements here in this city that I live in have fully automatic weapons. I know this because a couple of people wanted on drug charges were in a car crash and several Afghanistan weapons that were reported destroyed a few years ago were in their vehicle. I guess this goes back to the issue that Christopher Dorner was making about how individuals within our government at the time (looking at you State Department of Obama's first term) were illegally bringing in weapons from Afghanistan and Iraq that were also being reported as destroyed.

So bump stocks or no bump stocks, I don't think any of these measures will make that difference of an impact for anyone wanting to have a mass shooting.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: network dude

lawcenter.giffords.org...

It is legal for a state to do this, here it is illegal to own one. I know people who had them, both got caught and had them taken away and one of them lost his job as a cop because of that. The other guy spent some time in the country jail and lost the gun. He was not allowed to get a hunting license for quite a while after that either, probably because he was using it for hunting at the time.

From your source:

Note, however, that this prohibition does not apply to a person licensed by the federal government to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun.2 Federal law allows private citizens to obtain permission from the federal government to purchase or possess any machine gun lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986.

I'd wager your guys had some that weren't on the list.

I went into the USAF in early 1990, I was at Ft. Bragg when the first wave of Desert Storm came home. I was buying my first pistol from Jim's Pawn. While there, I watched a guy at the door, turning soldiers around who were trying to pawn what looked like AK-47's. If I was a thinking man, I'd have abandoned the pistol, and followed one of those guys to the parking lot and bought one to stash away. But amazingly enough, a fresh E-3 in 1991 didn't make a whole lot. So I had to take a pass.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Grambler

I'm pointing out hypocrisy. Call that that you want, I feel no need to call out left-wing corruption on a board where 95% of the most popular content is already doing that.

LOL, you tell it anyway you want to, It's your story.

a reply to: network dude

I can't help that the right is just as hypocritical as the left and that this board chooses to ignore that fact for the most part.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: network dude

I can't help that the right is just as hypocritical as the left and that this board chooses to ignore that fact for the most part.

It's kind of funny that you don't see the hipocricy here. I think we are all just glad you are a neutral member who doesn't at all, favor any one side. I think your ability to stay in the middle is your best quality.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: network dude

lawcenter.giffords.org...

It is legal for a state to do this, here it is illegal to own one. I know people who had them, both got caught and had them taken away and one of them lost his job as a cop because of that. The other guy spent some time in the country jail and lost the gun. He was not allowed to get a hunting license for quite a while after that either, probably because he was using it for hunting at the time.

From your source:

Note, however, that this prohibition does not apply to a person licensed by the federal government to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun.2 Federal law allows private citizens to obtain permission from the federal government to purchase or possess any machine gun lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986.

I'd wager your guys had some that weren't on the list.

I went into the USAF in early 1990, I was at Ft. Bragg when the first wave of Desert Storm came home. I was buying my first pistol from Jim's Pawn. While there, I watched a guy at the door, turning soldiers around who were trying to pawn what looked like AK-47's. If I was a thinking man, I'd have abandoned the pistol, and followed one of those guys to the parking lot and bought one to stash away. But amazingly enough, a fresh E-3 in 1991 didn't make a whole lot. So I had to take a pass.

Yeah...sure...as if the Feds are going to give a license to own a machine gun to a Yooper. The feds will probably ask if this is even part of the USA

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
One less weapon in the arsenal.

Trump bans bumpstocks

So who is going to take the guns away? This seems to be the first step.

Most ignorant ban ever... anyone with a finger and a a simple understanding of physics... or mechanical engineering ... can do a bump stock or simulate the proper sear...

More stupid firearm legislation from incompetent fools.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: network dude

lawcenter.giffords.org...

It is legal for a state to do this, here it is illegal to own one. I know people who had them, both got caught and had them taken away and one of them lost his job as a cop because of that. The other guy spent some time in the country jail and lost the gun. He was not allowed to get a hunting license for quite a while after that either, probably because he was using it for hunting at the time.

From your source:

Note, however, that this prohibition does not apply to a person licensed by the federal government to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun.2 Federal law allows private citizens to obtain permission from the federal government to purchase or possess any machine gun lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986.

I'd wager your guys had some that weren't on the list.

I went into the USAF in early 1990, I was at Ft. Bragg when the first wave of Desert Storm came home. I was buying my first pistol from Jim's Pawn. While there, I watched a guy at the door, turning soldiers around who were trying to pawn what looked like AK-47's. If I was a thinking man, I'd have abandoned the pistol, and followed one of those guys to the parking lot and bought one to stash away. But amazingly enough, a fresh E-3 in 1991 didn't make a whole lot. So I had to take a pass.

Yeah...sure...as if the Feds are going to give a license to own a machine gun to a Yooper. The feds will probably ask if this is even part of the USA

LOL, no argument there. Anyone who would stay in that much snow by choice has to be a little kooky.

Few people got shot. Solution? Ban springs!

(Seriously though. I am an advocate for a world without springs).

a reply to: TexasTruth

I own one, or did, gave it away to a friend who was shooting it more than I was...

A bump stock is absolutely the last mod I'd attach to a rifle. Way too much wastage of ammunition.

This is "feel good" legislation that is, in the end, meaningless.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Now there's a thought.

That's right. Your government doesn't trust you with a giant spring. How does that feel? LOL

Pretty sure this whole "debate" just goes to show that the entire idea of civilization is completely absurd. If the average person cannot be trusted with devices that were invented over a hundred years ago, forget it.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
That's right. Your government doesn't trust you with a giant spring. How does that feel? LOL

Precisely what these idiots refuse to recognize.... Let's ban a 2" slinky...!!!!

a reply to: network dude

Like I said, I'm not the one sitting here defending one foundation while calling for the prosecution of another. They should be held to the same standards, that seems to be a foreign concept to many on these boards.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
That's right. Your government doesn't trust you with a giant spring. How does that feel? LOL

Precisely what these idiots refuse to recognize.... Let's ban a 2" slinky...!!!!

This is (sort of but not really) no laughing matter, however. Because what they have done here is that they have very cleverly selected a device that is functionally very similar to a high capacity magazine. It's worth pointing out that a magazine is (functionally) really just a big spring in a box. A high capacity magazine is just a larger one. And functionally, a high capacity magazine serves (kind of) the same purpose as a bump stock. It enables a high rate of fire at large capacity.

I haven't been following the gun control "debate" that closely but I am pretty sure high capacity magazines are still legal. If so, this could be a sneaky maneuver to set precedent.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: network dude

Like I said, I'm not the one sitting here defending one foundation while calling for the prosecution of another. They should be held to the same standards, that seems to be a foreign concept to many on these boards.

No

You are the one saying anyone like me that points out corruption by the intel community is me pushing msm narratives

While yourself pushing any msm narrative to make trump look bad

a reply to: Grambler

They're both part of the narrative, when have I ever denied that? Funny how both foundations are being investigated around the same time? Yeah, that's just a "coincidence".

Why the double standards? If one is worth looking into then so is the other. I personally don't care about either but I do see the hypocrisy on these boards as well as on the left.

There seems to be outrage towards one but not the other depending on what side is being discussed. It just so happens this board is mostly outraged about the CF but not the TF.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating that over and over. It's simple.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don’t have a double standard, I agree with you crimes are crimes no matter who commits them, and they ought to be taken seriously

Your hypocrisy isn’t in that area

It’s in how you correctly say all corruption should be looked at when a thread deals with possible trump corruption

Then when someone posts corruption from the intel community, you say that person is just pushing division from a msm narrative

That is where you are a hypocrite

It’s cool, we all are at times

It just is fun to call you out because you so want to call out other hypocrites and pretend you are unbiased, when it’s easy to see you are just as bad as anyone else