BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    I can vouch that he's not Frosh. He's entitled to his opinion, although I disagree with him. It's the principle of the matter regarding this piece of plasic. If they go after accessories, what's to stop them from going after other accessories? The optic angle has not been addressed, but with the new scopes, where you "tag" the target and it does the rest, that makes anyone a sniper in their eyes. This is just an excuse for infringement. I'm not a big shotgun fan, but I don't want them to be infringed just because I don't see a use for a shotgun accessory. Just because you don't see a need for an item, doesn't make it less of an infringement. That's where the anti-gun folks excel. They know the "Fudds" will support any legislation that doesn't affect their shotguns and hunting rifles. Divide and conquer. The last few mass shootings were with shotguns, seems interesting that no one is moving full tilt yet on banning shotguns....



    To some it may appear as a piece of plastic, but to others, it is an infringement. They just keep taking more of the cake away from us.



    Q
    Just one more bite.
     

    Attachments

    • Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.jpg
      Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.jpg
      51.2 KB · Views: 267

    GolfR

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 20, 2016
    1,324
    Columbia MD
    Sir. A plastic accessory is not a firearm. The fact that you inbreds don’t understand this is disconcerting.

    My personal view is that you are right, it is not a firearm. (The inbreads statement is inappropriate) What is not recognized here is that this piece of plastic is something that many here have legally purchased with hard earned money and the government has now determined to be illegal and is demanding that we turn in for no compensation. Additially, when and where does this stop? Can they make bolts illegal and confiscate them all? How about firing pins? What about guns with sights, are those illegal? A sliding stock or binary trigger DOESNT make a gun more dangerous in the hands of a law abiding owner.

    If a bad person wants to do a bad thing, they will find a way. Removing firearms or accessories from the hands of good people is not going to do a damn thing to prevent crime.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,989
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    My personal view is that you are right, it is not a firearm. (The inbreads statement is inappropriate) What is not recognized here is that this piece of plastic is something that many here have legally purchased with hard earned money and the government has now determined to be illegal and is demanding that we turn in for no compensation. Additially, when and where does this stop? Can they make bolts illegal and confiscate them all? How about firing pins? What about guns with sights, are those illegal? A sliding stock or binary trigger DOESNT make a gun more dangerous in the hands of a law abiding owner.

    If a bad person wants to do a bad thing, they will find a way. Removing firearms or accessories from the hands of good people is not going to do a damn thing to prevent crime.



    Stop with the facts, our friend has shown that he is perfectly content with the government banning pieces of plastic whether they be bump stocks or tv remotes or toothbrushes and will gladly lick the boot of his oppressors as they do it.
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    Sir. A plastic accessory is not a firearm. The fact that you inbreds don’t understand this is disconcerting.

    So, you support a system of government where everything is forbidden unless approved?

    You say you are “fully informed”.

    You do understand what system of government you are aligned with, correct?
     

    Abulg1972

    Ultimate Member
    Stop with the facts, our friend has shown that he is perfectly content with the government banning pieces of plastic whether they be bump stocks or tv remotes or toothbrushes and will gladly lick the boot of his oppressors as they do it.


    Sadly, my friend, America is no longer the Wild West. We now have laws. I am a citizen of this country and am subject to its laws, as interpreted by the courts. I have studied the constitution for a long time and simply cannot find a provision that guarantees my right to own a plastic accessory or remote control. If you know of that provision, I would be very happy if you could identify it for me.

    The problem in this country - and the reason for my tongue in cheek inbred comment - is that there are people driving on the gravel right median of the road and then there are people driving on the gravel left median of the road, and only a few of us want to drive within the white lines. The effect of that is that very few people want to conversate and negotiate. Everyone else wants to duel to the death. Thus, no progress can be had.

    To everyone, I say good night and Godspeed.
     

    GolfR

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 20, 2016
    1,324
    Columbia MD
    The problem in this country - and the reason for my tongue in cheek inbred comment - is that there are people driving on the gravel right median of the road and then there are people driving on the gravel left median of the road, and only a few of us want to drive within the white lines. The effect of that is that very few people want to conversate and negotiate. Everyone else wants to duel to the death. Thus, no progress can be had.

    This sir I can and do agree with. I will also agree with your statement that we are a country of laws. Regardless of the constitutionality of a piece of plastic, part of the problem is that the left gravel drivers are openly deciding which laws they want to obey (re immigration) and which ones they want to makeup to take away things from those driving on the right side of the road (gun control). It only drives the two drivers farther apart when one side blatantly ignores the law and simultaneously demands that the other side play strictly by the rules.
     

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,606
    White Marsh, MD
    It's a great sentiment but please name me one time "compromising" with those on the left shoulder on gun laws has actually been a true compromise?
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    So, you support a system of government where everything is forbidden unless approved?

    You say you are “fully informed”.

    You do understand what system of government you are aligned with, correct?

    You must fly the flag upside down. Goodnight.

    There are two kinds of people in the world, those who trust freedom and embrace it, and those who embrace regulation.

    “Oh that’s dumb”, so the time as come to regulate it...you know, because it’s “dumb”.

    Backyard fireworks are “dumb” when the government now sponsors shows. But those backyards dummies won’t stop—and this is not the 1800s— so let’s regulate (ban) it.

    You talk about the law as if your only interaction is traffic court.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    Sadly, my friend, America is no longer the Wild West. We now have laws. I am a citizen of this country and am subject to its laws, as interpreted by the courts. I have studied the constitution for a long time and simply cannot find a provision that guarantees my right to own a plastic accessory or remote control. If you know of that provision, I would be very happy if you could identify it for me.

    The problem in this country - and the reason for my tongue in cheek inbred comment - is that there are people driving on the gravel right median of the road and then there are people driving on the gravel left median of the road, and only a few of us want to drive within the white lines. The effect of that is that very few people want to conversate and negotiate. Everyone else wants to duel to the death. Thus, no progress can be had.

    To everyone, I say good night and Godspeed.

    Are you related to Lone Ranger, per chance? Interesting road analogy.

    "conversate and negotiate" got us nothin' in the history of gun control. The only thing we got is "it could have been worse". If we keep negotiating "could have been worse", then that's where we end up.

    Oh, and the Constitution doesn't spell out what we can do, but rather what the government can and can't do... And one of the things it can't do is infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, ANYTHING related to arms IS an arm and thus protected against government infringement - bumpstocks, optics, rocks, sticks, atlatl, aircraft carrier, machine guns, and especially things that go up.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    Sadly, my friend, America is no longer the Wild West. We now have laws.

    We had laws then, too. Though I'm sure you're inferring the opposite as a bit of lazy rhetoric, it suggests that you don't understand history. You also don't seem to understand where rights come from. Our culture's history establishes that rights exist, by the nature of our existence. Our crazily wise founders realized there would be people like you, and explicitly mentioned a few things in our charter so that you wouldn't be confused about exactly the sort of things about which you appear to be confused.

    While you're looking for the words outlining your constitutionally protected right to own a bump stock, you also won't find words laying out your constitutionally protected right to wear shoes, or eat carrots, or own a leather holster, either. But the guys who wrote that chartering document all owned guns, and certainly would laugh you right out of the room for suggesting that the second item in the Bill of Rights they'd written was meant to leave room for the government to take away the leather slings they used to carry their muskets. Or to leave them with their muskets, but take away their powder horns, or a bit of wire they might use to clean out the touch hole on those flintlocks.

    No, we're not in the Wild West any longer. We seem to have morphed into a place where even apparently smart, sharp-witted people have succumbed to the very misunderstanding that the founders went to great lengths to prevent. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it constrains the government - especially when it lurches in directions like those you favor.
     

    Mr. Ed

    This IS my Happy Face
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2009
    7,899
    Edgewater
    Without diving headfirst into the collective litter box, it occurs to me that never in the history of our country has the government acted so quickly to ban a legally produced, purchased and owned product that was misused by just one person in one event. Ever. Yes, that person did a lot of damage, but so did the Boston Marathon bombers with a pressure cooker.

    Sure, the government has the obligation and authority to regulate items that are hazardous to peoples' health. But at what threshold does this responsibility properly kick in? How many people need to be at risk before the government has the moral imperative to act? Fifty? A hundred? A thousand?
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    Modern firearms have progressed a long way since the Constitution was written when they used a ramrod to load and a piece of rock scraping across a frizzen to fire. The changes in firearm technology have come about incrementally over a long period of time and included many dead ends. Certainly you would not suggest the second Amendment only applies to smooth bore flint locks any more than you would say freedom of speech is limited to broadsides printed on a hand press set with moveable type.

    Banning a "piece of plastic" that enhances the operation of a firearm and may someday lead to the next advance in firearm technology is more akin to banning the fountain pen because quill pens write fast enough to express peoples thoughts.

    What an individual lawyer, no matter how brilliant he may be, thinks the Constitution means does not matter because ultimately it is what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means that matters. IIRC that court touched at least on the edge of question in at least one decision when something that was necessary to firearms was infringed by a ban or tax, possibly it was ammunition(?). Not being a lawyer with lawyer resources I can't look up the decisions and search the record but maybe someone else on the forum can supply a citation.
     

    aray

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 6, 2010
    5,294
    MD -> KY
    I have no use for bumps stocks either and would never own one. However having said that there is a larger principle at stake here.

    We seem to have morphed into a place where even apparently smart, sharp-witted people have succumbed to the very misunderstanding that the founders went to great lengths to prevent. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it constrains the government - especially when it lurches in directions like those you favor.

    Indeed, as "Constitutional scholar" President Obama himself once lamented.

    This reminds me very much of the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists when the Bill of Rights were being proposed. Many of the Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights and thought them dangerous. Why? Because they argued you don't need to say the people have freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly because nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to restrict that. You don't need to say the people have a right to keep and bear arms because nothing in the Constitution grants the power to the government to take arms away or infringe the free exercise thereof. And so on.

    They thought that by enumerating the rights of the people, that rights not on that enumerated list would one day be consumed by the government, and that this would set a bad precedence. Instead, the Constitution was meant to only enumerate powers to the government and if THEY weren't on that list then the government had no such rights.

    The compromise was to incorporate the 9th and 10th Amendments into the Bill of Rights, in order to ensure that such a listing of rights would never be misinterpreted as restricting rights of the people by the government. That is:
    "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    As much as I dearly love the Bill of Rights, I fear history has shown the concerns the Federalists expressed had great merit. The 9th and 10th Amendments have been completely emasculated by the courts over the years and by power-hungry politicians without ever actually repealing them from the Bill of Rights. Our educational system is almost completely silent on teaching this aspect of our history, and our culture has degraded to an acceptance of an ever-increasingly powerful governmental system, to the point almost half our population now exists in a full or partial state of generational-dependency on the government for their very sustenance.

    I don't prefer to live in a country where things are forbidden unless the government tells me it's OK. I want to live in a country where freedom and liberty are supreme, and the government's powers are limited and enumerated.
     
    Last edited:

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,351
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom