GOA to Sue the ATF's Bump Stock Ban

[busybee01]

Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

There is no doubt the government's ban on machine guns is constitutional so there is no unlimited right to own a gun.

 

[Crepitus]

The fees are a bit restrictive, but the wait makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.

On the other end of things here in kansas I can walk into a pawn shop, sign the papers, and walk out concealed carrying with no phone or fees required. I can also have a compete arsenal in my basement. Again no permits or fees.

Some middle ground is needed.

Why is the wait not an issue? What are they waiting for? The whole purpose isn't to do a check, its to make the process so onerous people just quit.

How about we put a 10 day waiting period on abortions?

It's not to make people quit, it's to put a cooling off period between buying a pistol in a fit of anger/depression and offing yourself and you significant other.

And sure, put a ten day wait in abortions, I got not problem with that.

No, it's to make people quit the process. Will NYPD give me 24 hour protection while I am waiting for my revolver?

The whole process is to deny a right de jure if they can't deny it de facto.

And most abortion rights people go ballistic when I use that counter, have to admit, did not expect your response.

Why do you need 24 hours protection? And what harm could a ten day wait possibly do in either case?

What if exceptions could be made? Say for medical reasons on abortions and if you can show you are in immediate danger of the handgun.

Again, to me the wait is just a way to discourage people from going through with the process.

And if someone is really angry enough to go out and buy a gun and use it right away, one can easily get an illegal one.

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't know where to get an illegal gun. Would you? Really?

 

[busybee01]

Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.

I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.

But have no problem with them being banned. ...

Yeah, but that's just a foot in the door.

You do know the LV shooter had real automatic weapons, correct?

Several of them, and 1 of the ARs barrel melted.

I say don't give them an inch, no ban on anything!

I say you are cuckoo. There is no reason to own a bump stock.

its not about your feelings

I could say there is no reason for you to be allowed to speak in public

It is a fact. A bump stock is not required to use a rifle.

SO WHAT, THAT CHANGES NOTHING

YES IT DOES. IT MEANS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUMP STOCKS.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah, but that's just a foot in the door.

You do know the LV shooter had real automatic weapons, correct?

Several of them, and 1 of the ARs barrel melted.

I say don't give them an inch, no ban on anything!

I say you are cuckoo. There is no reason to own a bump stock.

its not about your feelings

I could say there is no reason for you to be allowed to speak in public

It is a fact. A bump stock is not required to use a rifle.

SO WHAT, THAT CHANGES NOTHING

YES IT DOES. IT MEANS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUMP STOCKS.

you need to learn the original intent of the 2nd before you make a bigger ass of yourself,,,

the government has machine guns which means the people can have machine guns, and only commies disagree with that

 

[Sunni Man]

the government has machine guns which means the people can have machine guns, and only commies disagree with that

The government has 175mm Howitzers.

So according to you, citizens be allowed to own them also? ...

 

[progressive hunter]

the government has machine guns which means the people can have machine guns, and only commies disagree with that

The government has 175mm Howitzers.

So according to you, citizens be allowed to own them also? ...

if they can afford them,,

and besides private citizens already own them,,,please try to keep up

 

[2aguy]

A journey of a thousand bans begins with but a single step Comrade.

If it was a gun they were banning, I'd be upset.

But is just a needless accessory. ....

How about when they craft the law and state anything that increases the rate of fire on a weapon is banned? That is the bait and switch that the anti gunners are going for with the bump stock ban...which will then make trigger upgrades, or any other upgrade illegal from your stock gun....

 

[progressive hunter]

NRA Says Current Owners Should Be Allowed to Keep Bump Stocks

 

[2aguy]

Why is the wait not an issue? What are they waiting for? The whole purpose isn't to do a check, its to make the process so onerous people just quit.

How about we put a 10 day waiting period on abortions?

It's not to make people quit, it's to put a cooling off period between buying a pistol in a fit of anger/depression and offing yourself and you significant other.

And sure, put a ten day wait in abortions, I got not problem with that.

No, it's to make people quit the process. Will NYPD give me 24 hour protection while I am waiting for my revolver?

The whole process is to deny a right de jure if they can't deny it de facto.

And most abortion rights people go ballistic when I use that counter, have to admit, did not expect your response.

Why do you need 24 hours protection? And what harm could a ten day wait possibly do in either case?

What if exceptions could be made? Say for medical reasons on abortions and if you can show you are in immediate danger of the handgun.

Again, to me the wait is just a way to discourage people from going through with the process.

And if someone is really angry enough to go out and buy a gun and use it right away, one can easily get an illegal one.

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't know where to get an illegal gun. Would you? Really?

If you know someone who smokes pot...you have access to an illegal gun supply chain.

 

[2aguy]

NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay around $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in my own apartment legally.

How reasonable is that?

The fees are a bit restrictive, but the wait makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.

On the other end of things here in kansas I can walk into a pawn shop, sign the papers, and walk out concealed carrying with no phone or fees required. I can also have a compete arsenal in my basement. Again no permits or fees.

Some middle ground is needed.

Why is the wait not an issue? What are they waiting for? The whole purpose isn't to do a check, its to make the process so onerous people just quit.

How about we put a 10 day waiting period on abortions?

It's not to make people quit, it's to put a cooling off period between buying a pistol in a fit of anger/depression and offing yourself and you significant other.

And sure, put a ten day wait in abortions, I got not problem with that.

No, it's to make people quit the process. Will NYPD give me 24 hour protection while I am waiting for my revolver?

The whole process is to deny a right de jure if they can't deny it de facto.

And most abortion rights people go ballistic when I use that counter, have to admit, did not expect your response.

Why do you need 24 hours protection? And what harm could a ten day wait possibly do in either case?

What if exceptions could be made? Say for medical reasons on abortions and if you can show you are in immediate danger of the handgun.

10 days can be life or death...

'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.

Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's not to make people quit, it's to put a cooling off period between buying a pistol in a fit of anger/depression and offing yourself and you significant other.

And sure, put a ten day wait in abortions, I got not problem with that.

No, it's to make people quit the process. Will NYPD give me 24 hour protection while I am waiting for my revolver?

The whole process is to deny a right de jure if they can't deny it de facto.

And most abortion rights people go ballistic when I use that counter, have to admit, did not expect your response.

Why do you need 24 hours protection? And what harm could a ten day wait possibly do in either case?

What if exceptions could be made? Say for medical reasons on abortions and if you can show you are in immediate danger of the handgun.

Again, to me the wait is just a way to discourage people from going through with the process.

And if someone is really angry enough to go out and buy a gun and use it right away, one can easily get an illegal one.

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't know where to get an illegal gun. Would you? Really?

If you know someone who smokes pot...you have access to an illegal gun supply chain.

sorry but thats just not true, most pot smokers couldnt care less about guns and I've never met a pot dealer that sells guns...and I've met a lot of them

 

[2aguy]

No, it's to make people quit the process. Will NYPD give me 24 hour protection while I am waiting for my revolver?

The whole process is to deny a right de jure if they can't deny it de facto.

And most abortion rights people go ballistic when I use that counter, have to admit, did not expect your response.

Why do you need 24 hours protection? And what harm could a ten day wait possibly do in either case?

What if exceptions could be made? Say for medical reasons on abortions and if you can show you are in immediate danger of the handgun.

Again, to me the wait is just a way to discourage people from going through with the process.

And if someone is really angry enough to go out and buy a gun and use it right away, one can easily get an illegal one.

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't know where to get an illegal gun. Would you? Really?

If you know someone who smokes pot...you have access to an illegal gun supply chain.

sorry but thats just not true, most pot smokers couldnt care less about guns and I've never met a pot dealer that sells guns...and I've met a lot of them

Not the pot dealer, but whoever they buy from is another step up the chain to get to an illegal gun seller....whoever sells the pot to the dealers uses guns to keep other sellers from taking their cash and drugs.

 

[martybegan]

Why is the wait not an issue? What are they waiting for? The whole purpose isn't to do a check, its to make the process so onerous people just quit.

How about we put a 10 day waiting period on abortions?

It's not to make people quit, it's to put a cooling off period between buying a pistol in a fit of anger/depression and offing yourself and you significant other.

And sure, put a ten day wait in abortions, I got not problem with that.

No, it's to make people quit the process. Will NYPD give me 24 hour protection while I am waiting for my revolver?

The whole process is to deny a right de jure if they can't deny it de facto.

And most abortion rights people go ballistic when I use that counter, have to admit, did not expect your response.

Why do you need 24 hours protection? And what harm could a ten day wait possibly do in either case?

What if exceptions could be made? Say for medical reasons on abortions and if you can show you are in immediate danger of the handgun.

Again, to me the wait is just a way to discourage people from going through with the process.

And if someone is really angry enough to go out and buy a gun and use it right away, one can easily get an illegal one.

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't know where to get an illegal gun. Would you? Really?

Every bar in NYC has a bookie, and that is usually your gateway to other nefarious individuals.

 

[Toronado3800]

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.

We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implemented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.

as usual when you cant defend your POV you resort to personal attacks


dont be so butthurt...its very unbecoming

That's right. I attacked you by skipping ahead and criticizing the 2nd Amendment and its reference to the militia?

I don't get it. I guess if you take the 2nd that personally but I didn't criticize your choice of socks or whatever.

 

[Toronado3800]

Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.

I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.

But have no problem with them being banned. ...

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

THIS!

Yeah, and you and I and others are generally going to argue and debate about what is reasonable.

 

[Sunni Man]

I've never met a pot dealer that sells guns...and I've met a lot of them

That explains a lot about your bizarre thinking and behavior. ....

 

[miketx]

Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.

I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.

But have no problem with them being banned. ...

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

Troll, there are already a boat load of regulations. Anything else infringes. You don't agree? No one cares what traitor gun banners like you think. Come get them/

 

[Toronado3800]

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.

We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implimented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.

The founders said that every able bodied male (actually it was every able bodied free male, meaning white, but I think we can adjust that to the modern interpretation of human unless you want to argue that women and minorities don’t have the same rights as white guys) was a member of the Militia and could be called up as needs the State. So everyone is already in the Militia.

That is the correct response.

One of the constitutionialists on here came back with an article about able bodied folks up to 45 years of age and this or that. It was pretty comical with its regulated vs unreglated and somewhat restrictive where I was waiting to read that sons of the Mayflowers, Trumps or Clintons did not need to join.

So yeah, join the National Guard and get your gun was my answer.

 

[Toronado3800]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

Troll, there are already a boat load of regulations. Anything else infringes. You don't agree? No one cares what traitor gun banners like you think. Come get them/

yeah, resort to a threat of violence. That makes you and those who agree with you seem entirely reasonable.

 

[miketx]

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

Troll, there are already a boat load of regulations. Anything else infringes. You don't agree? No one cares what traitor gun banners like you think. Come get them/

yeah, resort to a threat of violence. That makes you and those who agree with you seem entirely reasonable.

As usual you are GD liar. I didn't threaten your sorry ass. Come get them traitor.