CDZ Why was the fully automatic firing system banned?

[Stormy Daniels]

And really appeal 2 Semi insane super soldier/Isis wannabes.....

Then again, so the same could be said for clothing. Doesn't mean anyone in the government has a right to demand that I give mine up.

Okay maybe that wasn't the best example. Still...

 

[2aguy]

i know people can still get them if they pay a special tax, register and are willing to shuck out big dollars for one. But why did the federal government put all those infringements in the way of people bearing Thompson sub machine guns and other weapons withma fully automatic firing system? How has that infringement held up against court challenges all these years?

Prohibition and gangsters. Next!

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Not really......the court has already ruled on your lame attempt....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

 

[2aguy]

Prohibition and gangsters. Next!

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

They are almost impossible to get for good reason. This was before Fox and Rush and the now crazy bought off NRA brainwashed you morons into thinking you are Freedom Fighters.

They're not "almost impossible" to obtain, idiot. Maybe expensive, but that keeps the riff-raff and Democrats, and other criminals from owning them.

There are plenty of other regulations on them, or else you people would all have them. Meanwhile breaking... Trump to ban bump stocks and conversion kits to automatic.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw2kLM_2CLNID60ncz93htw-&ampcf=1

No moron, we don't "all have them" because fully automatic fire is stupid and wasteful........we let you keep your restrictions because those weapons are replaced by semi auto rifles........which, of course, you now want to ban and confiscate too....we know your plan and we will fight you every step of the way.

 

[JGalt]

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Are you for or against legalizing fully automatic machine guns?

Hello? They're already legal. They've always been legal, just regulated.

Manufacture of machine guns for sale to the public has been banned for a long time.

Would it be OK to regulate other types of guns the same way fully auto guns built before 1986 are regulated?

Nope.

Why? The 2nd doesn't make exceptions for fully auto guns any more than any other gun.

Then why are full-auto weapons restricted? That seems to me like a violation of the 2A

 

[2aguy]

i know people can still get them if they pay a special tax, register and are willing to shuck out big dollars for one. But why did the federal government put all those infringements in the way of people bearing Thompson sub machine guns and other weapons withma fully automatic firing system? How has that infringement held up against court challenges all these years?

Prohibition and gangsters. Next!

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Are you for or against legalizing fully automatic machine guns?

I am. If criminals wanted them they would have them and they would get them easier and cheaper than law abiding citizens can now....criminals on our side of the Mexican border prefer pistols....since they can hide them in their baby mommas purse....the Mexican drug cartels....in Mexico where they have extreme gun control...they have fully automatic military rifles.......

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you for or against legalizing fully automatic machine guns?

Hello? They're already legal. They've always been legal, just regulated.

Manufacture of machine guns for sale to the public has been banned for a long time.

Would it be OK to regulate other types of guns the same way fully auto guns built before 1986 are regulated?

Nope.

Why? The 2nd doesn't make exceptions for fully auto guns any more than any other gun.

Then why are full-auto weapons restricted? That seems to me like a violation of the 2A

Yet gun nuts and the NRA don't seem to care. Why?

 

[2aguy]

Nosmos, what you don’t get is they are not illegal. You just have to have the proper paperwork.

So it would be alright to require the same paperwork for some other guns?

Nope.....that would be unConstitutional...as is the ban on fully automatic rifles......see Heller....you twit.

 

[MPS777]

Are you for or against legalizing fully automatic machine guns?

Hello? They're already legal. They've always been legal, just regulated.

Manufacture of machine guns for sale to the public has been banned for a long time.

Would it be OK to regulate other types of guns the same way fully auto guns built before 1986 are regulated?

Nope.

Why? The 2nd doesn't make exceptions for fully auto guns any more than any other gun.

Then why are full-auto weapons restricted? That seems to me like a violation of the 2A

True, it's only a matter of time before a conservative court removes all arms restrictions.

 

[BULLDOG]

i know people can still get them if they pay a special tax, register and are willing to shuck out big dollars for one. But why did the federal government put all those infringements in the way of people bearing Thompson sub machine guns and other weapons withma fully automatic firing system? How has that infringement held up against court challenges all these years?

Prohibition and gangsters. Next!

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Are you for or against legalizing fully automatic machine guns?

I am. If criminals wanted them they would have them and they would get them easier and cheaper than law abiding citizens can now....criminals on our side of the Mexican border prefer pistols....since they can hide them in their baby mommas purse....the Mexican drug cartels....in Mexico where they have extreme gun control...they have fully automatic military rifles.......

You am what? Be specific. Are you for or against ending restrictions on fully auto guns?

 

[BULLDOG]

Nosmos, what you don’t get is they are not illegal. You just have to have the proper paperwork.

So it would be alright to require the same paperwork for some other guns?

Nope.....that would be unConstitutional...as is the ban on fully automatic rifles......see Heller....you twit.

You think the ban on fully automatic rifles is unconstitutional?

 

[JGalt]

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

They are almost impossible to get for good reason. This was before Fox and Rush and the now crazy bought off NRA brainwashed you morons into thinking you are Freedom Fighters.

They're not "almost impossible" to obtain, idiot. Maybe expensive, but that keeps the riff-raff and Democrats, and other criminals from owning them.

There are plenty of other regulations on them, or else you people would all have them. Meanwhile breaking... Trump to ban bump stocks and conversion kits to automatic.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw2kLM_2CLNID60ncz93htw-&ampcf=1

No moron, we don't "all have them" because fully automatic fire is stupid and wasteful........we let you keep your restrictions because those weapons are replaced by semi auto rifles........which, of course, you now want to ban and confiscate too....we know your plan and we will fight you every step of the way.

You are correct. I didn't waste a couple hundred dollars on a Slide Fire stock for my AK because I can bump fire the damned thing without it. Most any semi-auto rifle or pistol can be bump fired easily by hand.

But it's a waste of ammunition and wears them out fast. I have a Ruger P89 9mm pistol that I used to bump fire for shits and grins, with a 30-round magazine. It now has a crack in the frame but still works.

I can also empty a 75-round drum magazine bump-firing my AK-47 in about 10 seconds. But like I said, it's just a waste of ammunition. The ban on the Bump Fire and Slide Fire stocks is nothing more than a "feel-good moment." It won't stop school shootings, it won't stop robberies, murders, and other gun-related crimes.

But it will make the left feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[JGalt]

Prohibition and gangsters. Next!

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Are you for or against legalizing fully automatic machine guns?

I am. If criminals wanted them they would have them and they would get them easier and cheaper than law abiding citizens can now....criminals on our side of the Mexican border prefer pistols....since they can hide them in their baby mommas purse....the Mexican drug cartels....in Mexico where they have extreme gun control...they have fully automatic military rifles.......

You am what? Be specific. Are you for or against ending restrictions on fully auto guns?

Why not? If criminals can easily obtain them, should we be allowed to defend our lives and the lives of our families with them?

 

[francoHFW]

I don't own a bump stock but I am a range officer that have shot them and have supervised other people shooting them.

They are a range toy for the most part. They are not an effective weapon system by any means.

The only reason the shooter in LV was able to do damage with one was because he was shooting down upon a large group of thousands of people. Even at that t he bump stock caused the rifles to jam. He would been more effective with a real or converted full auto rifle.

Banning bump stocks will not stop one crime in the future from being done but it is taking freedom away from the people.

Idiot politicians.

Trump is Banning bump stocks and all conversion kits. Maybe that will do the trick.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw2kLM_2CLNID60ncz93htw-&ampcf=1

of course, being Trump he had to lie about Obama. Obama did not legalize bump stocks, the GOP blocked him from Banning them.

As usual, completely untrue.

More to story on NRA's claim that Obama approved bump stocks

Politico sometimes has to BS in order to say something against Democrats. Much like the LIE of the year which was total b*******. The GOP blocked everything he wanted.

Just because it's Politico doesn't mean it's not true.

Read the article. If you think Obama approved bump stocks, you are seriously brainwashed...

 

[depotoo]

They are not actually banned, simply more expensive to get.

Nosmos, what you don’t get is they are not illegal. You just have to have the proper paperwork.

So it would be alright to require the same paperwork for some other guns?

Nope.....that would be unConstitutional...as is the ban on fully automatic rifles......see Heller....you twit.

You think the ban on fully automatic rifles is unconstitutional?

 

[depotoo]

You are-
Did Obama administration approve bump stocks? | PolitiFact
www.politifact.com › statements › oct
Claim: "The Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions."
Claimed by: National Rifle Association
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

Trump is Banning bump stocks and all conversion kits. Maybe that will do the trick.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw2kLM_2CLNID60ncz93htw-&ampcf=1

of course, being Trump he had to lie about Obama. Obama did not legalize bump stocks, the GOP blocked him from Banning them.

As usual, completely untrue.

More to story on NRA's claim that Obama approved bump stocks

Politico sometimes has to BS in order to say something against Democrats. Much like the LIE of the year which was total b*******. The GOP blocked everything he wanted.

Just because it's Politico doesn't mean it's not true.

Read the article. If you think Obama approved bump stocks, you are seriously brainwashed...

 

[francoHFW]

Public safety.

Interesting precedent.

Even though they're still legal to own, only two crimes have been committed with a legally-owned full-auto weapon since the bill was passed in 1934.

You can draw your own conclusions.

They are almost impossible to get for good reason. This was before Fox and Rush and the now crazy bought off NRA brainwashed you morons into thinking you are Freedom Fighters.

They're not "almost impossible" to obtain, idiot. Maybe expensive, but that keeps the riff-raff and Democrats, and other criminals from owning them.

There is an extremely limited amount of machine guns legally available to own. Yes, they are hard to get.

Not hard to get. Maybe expensive, but why drive a beat-up Chevy if you can afford a Maserati?

Filling out some BATFE forms, being fingerprinted and photographed, and getting signed off by my local law-enforcement agency is the easy part. The hard part is the wait. The BATFE is slow.

Plus they they have not made any for 35 years at least LOL!

 

[francoHFW]

You are-
Did Obama administration approve bump stocks? | PolitiFact
www.politifact.com › statements › oct
Claim: "The Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions."
Claimed by: National Rifle Association
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

of course, being Trump he had to lie about Obama. Obama did not legalize bump stocks, the GOP blocked him from Banning them.

As usual, completely untrue.

More to story on NRA's claim that Obama approved bump stocks

Politico sometimes has to BS in order to say something against Democrats. Much like the LIE of the year which was total b*******. The GOP blocked everything he wanted.

Just because it's Politico doesn't mean it's not true.

Read the article. If you think Obama approved bump stocks, you are seriously brainwashed...

So PolitiFact had to lie to make it appear Obama did. Absolutely ridiculous. as I said and we'll have to repeat it a million times, there was a law saying they couldn't ban them, and of course the GOP would block Obama when he tried. How that is approving it I leave you total doops to believe. You people are ridiculous. Yeah Yeah sure Obama approved automatic weapons. What planet are you on?

 

[Flash]

Trump is Banning bump stocks and all conversion kits. Maybe that will do the trick.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw2kLM_2CLNID60ncz93htw-&ampcf=1

of course, being Trump he had to lie about Obama. Obama did not legalize bump stocks, the GOP blocked him from Banning them.

As usual, completely untrue.

More to story on NRA's claim that Obama approved bump stocks

Politico sometimes has to BS in order to say something against Democrats. Much like the LIE of the year which was total b*******. The GOP blocked everything he wanted.

Just because it's Politico doesn't mean it's not true.

Read the article. If you think Obama approved bump stocks, you are seriously brainwashed...

It is not that his administration approved them. It is that they refused to classified them as machine guns. Not much of a difference, is there?

One of the very, very few good thing that Obama did.

 

[westwall]

Here's a hint: the military doesn't even use weapons like that.

They don't? Could have fooled me....

 

[JGalt]

Trump is Banning bump stocks and all conversion kits. Maybe that will do the trick.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw2kLM_2CLNID60ncz93htw-&ampcf=1

of course, being Trump he had to lie about Obama. Obama did not legalize bump stocks, the GOP blocked him from Banning them.

As usual, completely untrue.

More to story on NRA's claim that Obama approved bump stocks

Politico sometimes has to BS in order to say something against Democrats. Much like the LIE of the year which was total b*******. The GOP blocked everything he wanted.

Just because it's Politico doesn't mean it's not true.

Read the article. If you think Obama approved bump stocks, you are seriously brainwashed...

Now we're playing word games? Obama's BATF and Department of Justice were the ones who gave the SlideFIre Company the go-ahead to manufacture and sell them.

How is Obama's BATF and DOJ not an extension of him? Do you think they circumvented Obama's wishes and legalized them on their own?

Hell. Even Snopes knows that the legalization and sales of bump fire stocks were on Obama's watch. They don't even want to touch the subject.