Massachuettes orders residents to surrender bump stocks

[2aguy]

If they're not paying owners of such stocks fair market value for any such stocks turns in, then they are violating the Fifth Amendment prohibitions against taking private property without just compensation and without due process of law.

If they are giving such compensation, then they are fraudulently misusing taxpayer funds to do so.

Either way, even without taking into consideration the Second Amendment, Massachusetts is acting illegally, here.

Really? Link to the Amendment that says "the right of the People to stock up on accessories that allow mass slaughterers to mow down dozens at a time without pesky interruptions" is where again?

Do you have any clue at all of the vast difference between a Stephen Paddock arsenal, and the musket technology of the time of the writing of the 2A when the Minié Ball hadn't even been invented yet? Any clue whatsoever?

Ever heard of a mass shooting with a musket? That could be your first clue.

Hey....dumb shit....

He used 2 rifles, at least one with a bumpstock........out of the thousands in private hands......he fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo, which he could have done without the stock ,and would have actually hit more people with lethal accuracy, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people from a concealed position.....

He murdered 58.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France, using a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes wounding 458.

Which is deadlier, asshole.......the rifle with a bumpstock or the rental truck...?

Link to this patent for a truck designed for killing is where again?

Dumbass.

Doesn't matter.....a rental Truck....is only 19.95 for the first hour of killing if you rent it from a Home Depot....good rates for mass murder, don't you think?

 

[2aguy]

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

The second amendment never mentions a weapon type , nor excludes a single type...
“Shall not be infringed” sums it up nicely...

No it doesn't

Even Heller admits the Government has a right to restrict access to certain weapons

So you can't buy an RPG or a bump stock

Dangerous and unusual ones......

The most popular millitary rifle is not unusual, nor is it more dangerous in a unique way than any other firearm....and the Supreme Court has already ruled in other cases that guns cannot be considered uniquely dangerous....

A hand grenade is unusual, and dangerous in that it is an area effect weapon.....even though it too could be carried by an individual.

 

[Aba Incieni]

That's the same state that ordered everyone to hide in their homes during the bomber search. And they did.

 

[2aguy]

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

Nope...they already had repeating weapons at the time of the founding....and as Heller points out, your standard is not the standard they use when addressing Constitutional Rights.....

moron.

 

[2aguy]

Second amendment says nothing about bump stocks

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

You, truly are, a dumb ass....

From Heller, it would help if you would actually read it...

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

No, it doesn't. It affirms and recognizes what its authors considered to be an inherent right that exists with or without it, to possess and carry arms. Per the flawed 1939 U.S. vs. Miller ruling, the arms most protected would be those most suitable for military use, most especially those comparable to what we issue to soldiers in our Army. That would be true assault rifles, capable of fully-automatic operation.

Damn....there you go...citing facts, Supreme Court rulings and the truth.....

Isn't that cheating?

 

[Wyatt earp]

1st amendment says nothing about radio, television or the internet either, so what's your point?

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

You, truly are, a dumb ass....

From Heller, it would help if you would actually read it...

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia also said it was not an absolute right just like the 1st amendment is not an absolute right.

 

[DrLove]

WTF do bump stocks have to do with "grabbing people's guns".

Perhaps men from Massachusetts will miss their deft accuracy when they go hunting?

 

[2aguy]

The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they haven't been trying to take the guns.........They have been working on it since Obama and a little during Bush.
States are starting to wheedle away the peopel's rights.

What can happens in the disarmed US look Germany.
Merkel loves defenseless citizens and promotes her own Anti-White Agenda!

Germany wasn`t disarmed and Merkel is the leader of the free world.

It was disarmed in the 1920s...then they used the registration lists to disarm and then murder 12 million people......

They were disarmed after behaving badly from 1914-1918 and then Hitler rearmed them when he distributed hundreds of thousands of weapons and snappy looking uniforms to wear. Some folks were given tanks and flamethrowers.

No.....the left wing socialists were engaging in shootouts after the war.....the German government used the same arguments you use, stating that normal people did not need weapons of war....bolt action rifles and revolvers at the time......and that the police would protect them. They turned in most guns, registered everything else...in the 1920s....then, when the national socialist atheists took control, they used the registration lists to disarm their political enemies and Jews.....and murdered about 12 million of them in gas chambers, firing squads and other ways...

The national socialists allowed their own thugs to get gun permits so when they beat people up....like our antifa people are doing now.......their victims wouldn't be able to fight back.

 

[DrLove]

Scalia also said it was not an absolute right just like the 1st amendment is not an absolute right.

Who are you and what have you done with our bear513?

 

[2aguy]

Do you like it when the Constitution is ignored. This is how avalanches are started. Take away bump stocks and when that doesn't work move to ban the next "scary" item.

I wouldn't use a bump stock anywhere else but on a range they are not reliable enough for defensive or offensive use.

If it was just about bump stocks, with no further implications, I would have no problem with banning them. They seem to me like a device with no rationally-useful purpose, except to those who are in the business of selling ammunition, and who would therefore profit more, the more of it is wastefully fired to no effect. In any practical situation, any benefit to the higher rate of fire would be entirely lost in the lack of controllability and accuracy. There's no point in sending a lot of bullets into the air, if your gun is jumping around so much that you have little control over where those bullets are going.

My problem with any legislation against bump stocks is in the precedents that are thus set—precedents to further weaken the Second Amendment in general, as well as precedents that weaken the right of citizens under the Fifth Amendment not to be deprived of lawfully-acquired property without just compensation.

Actually, it is already worse than that....the anti gunners did their bait and switch....they put banning bump stocks in their legislation, and then switched in "any trigger improvement that would allow the weapon to fire faster." If you are a shooter you can see how that gives them the mile they wanted to prosecute law abiding gun owners....especially anyone who buys a gun that has a crappy, factory trigger........

 

[Rustic]

The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they haven't been trying to take the guns.........They have been working on it since Obama and a little during Bush.
States are starting to wheedle away the peopel's rights.

It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm, it will do no good for anybody. Actually it’s quite hilarious, progressives have no idea what bump stocks even are. They Have no common sense. Before all this crazy progressive bullshit I sold Next to no bumpstocks, Now I can’t even keep them in stock. Lol

 

[2aguy]

The point is you have no constitutional right to own a bump stock

Yea you do is 2 amendment

Second amendment does not give the right to an automatic weapon

.
Indeed at the time it was writ, the concept of weapons that would perform that way was literally inconceivable. Let alone nukes and "smart" bombs etc. Already made this point but these violence-porn addicts who jerk off to the Second Amendment as if they were reciting their rosary oughta go look up the Minié Ball.

You, truly are, a dumb ass....

From Heller, it would help if you would actually read it...

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia also said it was not an absolute right just like the 1st amendment is not an absolute right.

Yes.....and he specifically stated keeping felons and the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns......you guys always forget to state that part of what he said.....

He did not say it was not absolute for law abiding people.....here...read this good breakdown on that point...

Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns



As Second Amendment absolutists say, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Answer: “the right to keep and bear arms.”

Keep means have, as in possess. Bear means to carry on one’s person. And . . . that’s it. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the use of these arms. For example . . .

In Texas, a municipality can ban citizens from discharging a firearm on a tract of land smaller than 10 acres (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). Residents can keep and bearfirearms on a sub-10 acre plot, but cities can ban them from shooting those guns (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). That’s not unconstitutional.

In contrast, residents who want to carry (i.e. “bear”) a firearm in Texas have to get a government permission slip; requiring an application, fingerprinting, background check, four hours of training, a shooting test and a fee. That is clearly unconstitutional.



----

Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.

By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .

The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.

Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.

The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.

Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.

What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .

Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).

So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.

 

[Rustic]

Do you like it when people are slaughtered?

A bump stock can’t kill anybody, just like firearms… On their own. Dumbass

 

[2aguy]

The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they haven't been trying to take the guns.........They have been working on it since Obama and a little during Bush.
States are starting to wheedle away the peopel's rights.

It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm, it will do no good for anybody. Actually it’s quite hilarious, progressives have no idea what bump stocks even are. They Have no common sense. Before all this crazy progressive bullshit I sold Next to no bumpstocks, Now I can’t even keep them in stock. Lol

They don't need to understand what a bumpstock is....they just need to know that politicians will be more likely to sign anything that has "ban bumpstocks" in it, so they will load it up with all the other stuff they want to ban for law abiding gun owners....

 

[Rustic]

The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they haven't been trying to take the guns.........They have been working on it since Obama and a little during Bush.
States are starting to wheedle away the peopel's rights.

It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm, it will do no good for anybody. Actually it’s quite hilarious, progressives have no idea what bump stocks even are. They Have no common sense. Before all this crazy progressive bullshit I sold Next to no bumpstocks, Now I can’t even keep them in stock. Lol

They don't need to understand what a bumpstock is....they just need to know that politicians will be more likely to sign anything that has "ban bumpstocks" in it, so they will load it up with all the other stuff they want to ban for law abiding gun owners....

Yep, Gun control is all about controlling those they disagree with.

 

[Aba Incieni]

WTF do bump stocks have to do with "grabbing people's guns".

Perhaps men from Massachusetts will miss their deft accuracy when they go hunting?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Rustic]

Other than slaughtering people

Nobody has any need for a bumpstock

It’s not for you to say, you have no clue what a bump stock even is. Lol

People kill people not firearms. Dip shit

 

[DrLove]

Do you like it when people are slaughtered?

A bump stock can’t kill anybody, just like firearms… On their own. Dumbass

Their purpose other than inaccurately spraying large crowds of people?

Please be specific

 

[Rustic]

Socialism is just other peoples recycled shit… fact