Trump moved to "ban" bump stocks

"Liberty" is getting tossed around very loosely in this discussion.

One suggestion was that liberty is pursuing one's happiness and another was that liberty is the power to do as one pleases. Since we are discussing something we like (gun stuff), liberty is apparently boundless. But if we were to discuss pedophiles pursuing their form of happiness by doing as they pleased with children, the idea that liberty is boundless would instantly disappear.

Liberty is not anarchy. Since the dawn of time, all societies have placed limits on individual liberty. Regardless of whether an individual would like to kill or injure another person or take another person's property, such "liberty" has been limited for the good of the society.

What about the more refined definition of liberty as freedom from arbitrary control? No dictatorial or undemocratic decree has been issued banning bump stocks. Instead, a proposal is beginning to pass through due process procedures that our society has defined. And when that regulatory process is completed, we will still have recourse to legislative and judicial processes.
 
"Liberty" is getting tossed around very loosely in this discussion.

One suggestion was that liberty is pursuing one's happiness and another was that liberty is the power to do as one pleases. Since we are discussing something we like (gun stuff), liberty is apparently boundless. But if we were to discuss pedophiles pursuing their form of happiness by doing as they pleased with children, the idea that liberty is boundless would instantly disappear.

Liberty is not anarchy. Since the dawn of time, all societies have placed limits on individual liberty. Regardless of whether an individual would like to kill or injure another person or take another person's property, such "liberty" has been limited for the good of the society.

What about the more refined definition of liberty as freedom from arbitrary control? No dictatorial or undemocratic decree has been issued banning bump stocks. Instead, a proposal is beginning to pass through due process procedures that our society has defined. And when that regulatory process is completed, we will still have recourse to legislative and judicial processes.

Hobbes, Social Contract.
 
Perhaps they didn't teach you the meaning of the word "Liberty" in the public schools. Allow me to enlighten you:

Definition of liberty
plural liberties
1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see despot 1) control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Terry

This is meaningless in the context of bump stocks and guns. Evidently you were not taught logic in the schools you attended. Are you saying "liberty" means you have total freedom? What world are you living in :)
I suggest you ponder what you are saying here a bit more deeply. I am not sure we are talking about the same things. Your simplistic view is easily refuted by drivers licenses, CCW, minimum drinking age, stop signs, laws, taxes, oh just by everythign we call "society". Your argument holds no water.

V
 
Your simplistic view is easily refuted by drivers licenses, CCW, minimum drinking age, stop signs, laws, taxes, oh just by everythign we call "society".

Ah, but one CAN do all those and they are done all the time, even murder. One just needs to realise the penalty and be willing to pay it.

Added: I'm not condoning breaking any laws but am trying to make a point. Laws only stop the people who want to obey them.
 
Last edited:
"Liberty" is getting tossed around very loosely in this discussion.

One suggestion was that liberty is pursuing one's happiness and another was that liberty is the power to do as one pleases. Since we are discussing something we like (gun stuff), liberty is apparently boundless. But if we were to discuss pedophiles pursuing their form of happiness by doing as they pleased with children, the idea that liberty is boundless would instantly disappear.

Liberty is not anarchy. Since the dawn of time, all societies have placed limits on individual liberty. Regardless of whether an individual would like to kill or injure another person or take another person's property, such "liberty" has been limited for the good of the society.

What about the more refined definition of liberty as freedom from arbitrary control? No dictatorial or undemocratic decree has been issued banning bump stocks. Instead, a proposal is beginning to pass through due process procedures that our society has defined. And when that regulatory process is completed, we will still have recourse to legislative and judicial processes.

I wouldn’t have a bump stock, just don’t want one, but, your implied comparison of bump stocks for AR15s and pedophiles is intellectually dishonest.
 
Trump did not ban anything, he can't do that. He asked DOJ to study the bump stock, Sen Feinstein said BATF can't ban them,
it will end up in courts for years.

Trump signed a memorandum directing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to propose
new regulations that would ban devices that can effectively turn legal weapons into machine guns.

We all know any bump stock can't make a semi auto firearm into a machine gun, the internal parts to do that are not installed.
The rifle cycles no faster with or without the bump stock. You just have to have a fast finger to do it, a custom trigger job also helps.

Thanks for reinforcing the liberal logic that nobody needs a semiautomatic

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
They are a firearms accessory. Contrary to the sh*t that is spouted in the media and by politicians, they do not transform a semi-automatic rifle into one that is select-fire.

Jefferson was clear when he penned, "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unalienable adj - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

So, yeah, bump stocks are about the liberty of pursuing one's happiness, i.e. they ARE about liberty...lol.





Talk about "lol".




Exactly. They are an accessory for certain weapons. If we take what you've said and run with it, there should be no reason telescopic sights, trigger upgrades or external box magazines shouldn't be banned, right? After all, they're not firearms.





You can tote a rifle for Uncle Sam at 17 years of age, but, by all means...let's keep semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of those who haven't turned 21...or is it just ARs?





NO, they are not. They are clear abrogations of liberty and fly in the face of our Republic's bedrock...the rights of the individual citizen.





Yeah....because once they are forbidden to purchase a firearm, these shootings will cease. Meanwhile, they can scurry down to Lowes and buy a chainsaw, a machete at Home depot, an aluminum baseball bat at Academy or a 4000 pound weapon on wheels at an automobile dealership.





No, it's not. When free people, who put any value at all on liberty, are confronted with a direct attack on it, it is their duty to raise hell about it.


Way to gut stomp the Bill of Rights, there, honcho.:mad:

You know...keep thinking like you do and one day, they'll be coming after something you DO care for. Whatcha gonna do then? Don't whine/cry/scream/pitch a fit, because YOU asked for it.

Just occurred to me....if they do come for something you hold dear, there may be a lanky, 18 year old kid, with an AR in his hands and a gut full-o-liberty, that stands in the gap and says, "Nah..ain't happening."




Well said my Brother!!!
I second this.
 
Ah, but one CAN do all those and they are done all the time, even murder. One just needs to realise the penalty and be willing to pay it.

Added: I'm not condoning breaking any laws but am trying to make a point. Laws only stop the people who want to obey them.

Your confusing disparate issues, but i understand your point. We are not talking about whether a law is followed or not. The point is that - banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the liberty. Making a new law that states you have to be 21 to buy an semi automatic firearm is not an issue with liberty either. IF the law is passed that is the new rule. That doesnt mean semi-autos are banned. It just means reasonable people can justifiably claim that people under the age should not be able to buy this weapon. The precedent is alcohol or pistols.
 
I wouldn’t have a bump stock, just don’t want one, but, your implied comparison of bump stocks for AR15s and pedophiles is intellectually dishonest.
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that liberty in our country hinges on the future of an obscure firearm accessory that is being evaluated under our nation's longstanding due process procedures.
 
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that liberty in our country hinges on the future of an obscure firearm accessory that is being evaluated under our nation's longstanding due process procedures.

No, actually it is quite honest when you look back at the history of other nations and the progression of bans/grabs. Like I said, I don’t care for them nor do I want one but it’s ridiculous to attempt to ban them when most skilled AR shooters can duplicate the results with just their belt loop and thumbs.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
 
I could care less about bump stocks. I personally think they're a stupid and dangerous accessory. The issue I have with this is that it's a stupid accessory that once banned will leave the grabbers realizing that it's not even required to shoot that fast which leads them back to their next goal.of wanting to remove semi auto from society.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
I could care less about bump stocks. I personally think they're a stupid and dangerous accessory. The issue I have with this is that it's a stupid accessory that once banned will leave the grabbers realizing that it's not even required to shoot that fast which leads them back to their next goal.of wanting to remove semi auto from society.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Hey, we appreciate your words of wisdom here, but we really need you to get back in the cooking thread! :D
 
Last edited:
Your confusing disparate issues, but i understand your point. We are not talking about whether a law is followed or not. The point is that - banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the liberty. Making a new law that states you have to be 21 to buy an semi automatic firearm is not an issue with liberty either. IF the law is passed that is the new rule. That doesnt mean semi-autos are banned. It just means reasonable people can justifiably claim that people under the age should not be able to buy this weapon. The precedent is alcohol or pistols.

HA! That alcohol law is a ringing endorsement huh? Quite a success. I know I never had a drink before becoming legal age. :p

So it sounds like you are saying that if our government passes a law by that fact alone it is just and correct? We shouldn't question or fight anything that has been decided by the government?
 
Last edited:
Making a new law that states you have to be 21 to buy an semi automatic firearm is not an issue with liberty either.

In terms of the Constitution it actually is a liberty issue. The Constitution provides for the RTKBA for the sake of a militia capable of operating competently against those that operate at the behest of a potentially tyrannical government.

However, the government can and does issue whatever weapons they see fit to those in the service who are under 21. That the same armament cannot be accomplished under Federal law within the law-abiding civilian population is a direct violation of the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Trump upped the ante this morning, calling for 'comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health' and raising the age to purchase to 21. This whole thing is just one big circus. I've got an uneasy feeling about what Congress is going to spit out this time. Too many morons revealing their true colors.
 
Your confusing disparate issues, but i understand your point. We are not talking about whether a law is followed or not. The point is that - banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the liberty. Making a new law that states you have to be 21 to buy an semi automatic firearm is not an issue with liberty either. IF the law is passed that is the new rule. That doesnt mean semi-autos are banned. It just means reasonable people can justifiably claim that people under the age should not be able to buy this weapon. The precedent is alcohol or pistols.

To address your point I've highlighted, I would say @Matt.Cross and @Wahoo95 says it about right.

In terms of the Constitution it actually is a liberty issue. The Constitution provides for the RTKBA for the sake of a militia capable of operating competently against those that operate at the behest of a potentially tyrannical government.

However, the government can and does issue whatever weapons they see fit to those in the service who are under 21. That the same armament cannot be accomplished under Federal law within the law-abiding civilian population is a direct violation of the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

I could care less about bump stocks. I personally think they're a stupid and dangerous accessory. The issue I have with this is that it's a stupid accessory that once banned will leave the grabbers realizing that it's not even required to shoot that fast which leads them back to their next goal.of wanting to remove semi auto from society.
 
Last edited:
Your confusing disparate issues, but i understand your point. We are not talking about whether a law is followed or not. The point is that - banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the liberty. Making a new law that states you have to be 21 to buy an semi automatic firearm is not an issue with liberty either. IF the law is passed that is the new rule. That doesnt mean semi-autos are banned. It just means reasonable people can justifiably claim that people under the age should not be able to buy this weapon. The precedent is alcohol or pistols.

You can already purchase handguns at 18, just not from a federal dealer. And alcohol doesn't have a constitutional amendment barring Congress from infringing on it.
 
Last edited:
Trump upped the ante this morning, calling for 'comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health' and raising the age to purchase to 21.

I see the sense in this unless someone can present a good argument. These seem to concentrate on the person who has to physically use an object vs. an object. I do not support an AWB or magazine capacity restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I see the sense in this unless someone can present a good argument. These seem to concentrate on the person who has to physically use an object vs. an object. I do not support an AWB or magazine capacity restrictions.
It's still an infringement. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. And don't think for a second that 'comprehensive' doesn't mean for private purchases also.
 
Irrespective of the 2A issue itself (...shall not be infringed...)...here we go again with the federal government messing with the "legal rights" that are incurred when one reaches the age of majority in their respective state (most are 18, a few 19, and only one is 21).

Why 21 (same question I asked when the fed blackmailed the states to do this with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.)?

Are citizens somehow magically endowed at 21 with certain moral and ethical enlighteness (is that even a word?) that will inhibit them from abusing alcohol and firearms in nefarious ways?

Unicorn and fairy dung ten feet deep.

Firearms are our Liberty teeth...and we cannot allow any of them to be pulled.
 
Everyone who supports raising the age to 21, just remember that the leading psychologists are pushing the idea that minds aren't fully developed until 25. It won't be long until that's the next line in the sand.
 
Everyone who supports raising the age to 21, just remember that the leading psychologists are pushing the idea that minds aren't fully developed until 25. It won't be long until that's the next line in the sand.


If they can shoot fully automatic weapons in shithole countries for our government then they should be able to drink and buy whatever the **** they want at 18. Otherwise raise the enlist age to 21 also. Just saying.
 
This whole talk of banning bump stocks looks real silly when this can be done without one which leads them back to their original goal of wanting to take everything. I've shown this video to a few friends who were hard core on the bump stock ban idea till they saw this and immediately their position changed to what I predicted.




Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
If they can shoot fully automatic weapons in shithole countries for our government then they should be able to drink and buy whatever the **** they want at 18. Otherwise raise the enlist age to 21 also. Just saying.

Yes, but they go through a bunch of training and are supervised whilst having said automatic weapons... I think the argument for allowing serving military personnel to have a drink has always had merit. Always seemed stupid to me. If you have an ID saying you are enlisted in the military it should be exemption for walking into a bar and having a beer. Not everyone has TJ a train ride away to go get hammered :)

I have four kids, the older ones were fine drinking before 21 IMHO. I have met a lot of their friends over the years and i can say my kids ain't average though. A 19 year old Marine is also not an average 19 year old American. There should be exemptions for things. There should probably also be a way to have an exemption from the handgun purchase limit at 21 too. We get into this zero tolerance, one size fits all laws because of Lawyers. It is easier to say "this affects anyone regardless" than saying "hey we have to be nuanced" and then get sued for twenty years. This is the same crap that has led us down this pronoun horse shit. Thank God we are not Canadian.


V
 
No, actually it is quite honest when you look back at the history of other nations and the progression of bans/grabs. Like I said, I don’t care for them nor do I want one but it’s ridiculous to attempt to ban them when most skilled AR shooters can duplicate the results with just their belt loop and thumbs.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
You are confusing and conflating different issues.

Bump stocks have been questioned.
There is no regulatory solution because no underlying law exists (Trump reminded us that Obama failed repeatedly to find a basis for a regulation).
A new law could be passed if the President and majorities in both houses of Congress agreed; that is just the way our country functions.
Even if a new law was passed, it's constitutionality would be subject to judicial review.​

Are bump stocks a liberty issue? Only if "liberty" means doing anything you want OR our country's regulatory, legislative, and judicial processes are arbitrary.

Should we resist efforts to regulate or ban bump stocks? Certainly; we should never simply surrender because that only encourages the gun grabbers.
 
Irrespective of the 2A issue itself (...shall not be infringed...)...here we go again with the federal government messing with the "legal rights" that are incurred when one reaches the age of majority in their respective state (most are 18, a few 19, and only one is 21).

Why 21 (same question I asked when the fed blackmailed the states to do this with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.)?

Are citizens somehow magically endowed at 21 with certain moral and ethical enlighteness (is that even a word?) that will inhibit them from abusing alcohol and firearms in nefarious ways?

Unicorn and fairy dung ten feet deep.

Firearms are our Liberty teeth...and we cannot allow any of them to be pulled.




AMEN!!!
 
I'd like to see NICS have access to mental health records that HIPPA is currently blocking. That's the major issue that nobody is talking about
I am not familiar with this issue. What records does HIPPA block from NICS?
 
Irrespective of the 2A issue itself (...shall not be infringed...)...here we go again with the federal government messing with the "legal rights" that are incurred when one reaches the age of majority in their respective state (most are 18, a few 19, and only one is 21).

Why 21 (same question I asked when the fed blackmailed the states to do this with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.)?

Are citizens somehow magically endowed at 21 with certain moral and ethical enlighteness (is that even a word?) that will inhibit them from abusing alcohol and firearms in nefarious ways?

Unicorn and fairy dung ten feet deep.

Firearms are our Liberty teeth...and we cannot allow any of them to be pulled.

EXACTLY. I'd trust my 17 year old daughter with a concealed firearm right now given a little more training. Maturity wise and mentally she would be fine. I also have adult friends over 50 that I'd rather not see owning a weapon. Age is a truly subjective thing at a certain point.
 
HIPPA prevents doctors from releasing your medical records to anyone without your approval.
I am aware that HIPPA protects personal medical records. But what part of personal medical records (as opposed to public court records and decisions) should be reported to NICS?
 
Yes, but they go through a bunch of training and are supervised whilst having said automatic weapons... I think the argument for allowing serving military personnel to have a drink has always had merit. Always seemed stupid to me. If you have an ID saying you are enlisted in the military it should be exemption for walking into a bar and having a beer. Not everyone has TJ a train ride away to go get hammered :)

I have four kids, the older ones were fine drinking before 21 IMHO. I have met a lot of their friends over the years and i can say my kids ain't average though. A 19 year old Marine is also not an average 19 year old American. There should be exemptions for things. There should probably also be a way to have an exemption from the handgun purchase limit at 21 too. We get into this zero tolerance, one size fits all laws because of Lawyers. It is easier to say "this affects anyone regardless" than saying "hey we have to be nuanced" and then get sued for twenty years. This is the same crap that has led us down this pronoun horse shit. Thank God we are not Canadian.


V

A 19 year old Marine should be exempted from certain things? So we should have separate laws for different citizens? Or different classes of citizens? Up to now this was good banter. But you just made my head hurt. :(
 
I am aware that HIPPA protects personal medical records. But what part of personal medical records (as opposed to public court records and decisions) should be reported to NICS?
If you're crazy.
Mental health records are part of personal medical records and should be a part of the NICS check. It's part of NC CCW process and our Pistol Permit process. As much as I hate our permit process it really is one of the few options that helps weed out the crazies while not infringing too much on 2A since there's no registration like many other proposals are wanting.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom