A federal law has been passed that requires all bump stocks to be surrendered or to be destroyed. Does it not bother anyone that a person's property, something they bought when it was legal, is to be destroyed or surrendered without any compensation?
Note: Despite being a firearms rights supporter, I view bump stocks and other such devices as childish playthings for the immature.
However, seizing/destroying a person's property without compensation when they could have been "bought back" by the government, is a punitive measure against people who own a hereto before legal item. Few people actually own those devices inasmuch as indoor ranges generally forbid them...so only people with their own land or access to a wilderness shooting area would be able to use them.
It also begs the question, with the draconian five-year felony for possession of a bump stock, will there be 100% compliance or need we make even more room in our prison system for people who do not comply and were no real threat to society?
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I fully agree at least a buy back could have been implemented.
Fuzzy
Level 4
Dec 19, 2018
0
At last a voice of reason. It is not likely that there are that many bump stocks in circulation, a buy back therefore, would not be a significant expense relative to something like Trumps golf outings to date.
This was an add on piece for people to circumvent existing laws and you think these idiots deserve compensation. Perhaps you should ask the families of the Las Vegas shooter??
Under what circumstances would one ever need a bump stock?
Green_eyes
Level 8
Dec 19, 2018
3
Appeal to emotion...logical fallacy. Under what circumstances would you ever need a tattoo?
@dahermit it’s a logical reality. A tattoo doesn’t equate with the ability to kill hundreds of people in mere minutes.
That’s a ridiculous argument.
And.. you didn’t answer the question.
@Green_eyes Which question? "Perhaps you should ask the families of the Las Vegas shooter??" or, "Under what circumstances would one ever need a bump stock?" The first is an appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy). As to the second, no one "needs" a bump stock...but if you were a whole lot smarter you would understand from my original post that the post was NOT about bump stocks per sa, but the seizing of property without just compensation as per the Constitution...something you thought was booorrring, in high school. Now go away, adults are talking.
@dahermit lol.. typical rude conservative misogynistic American male. You don’t have the intellectual ability to answer a simple question so you lash out... so pathetic!
@dahermit you are a rude troll. As if you are the decider of who is an adult. That comment alone precludes said statement.
@dahermit, @Green_eyes he is a troll. His original post was on bump stocks. My apology for his childish rude behavior
[atf.gov] the announcement by the btf.
[justice.gov] the rule itself
there is no mention of agents' going door to door demanding owners turn over their bump stocks. this rule actually just adds bump stocks to the definition of machine guns, which it misspelles as machineguns (it misspelled device as devise, too! i did not proofread it; those things just caught my attention). there appears to be no plan yet as to how to get the bump stocks from folks who do not volunteer to turn them in, nor even how to track those who destroy them themselves.
people who insist upon owning bump stocks ARE a real threat to society.
g
genessa
Level 8
Dec 19, 2018
1
"people who insist upon owning bump stocks ARE a real threat to society" Just your biased opinion unless you can post a link to a study that shows a correlation between owning a bump stock and a tendency to do violent acts.
@dahermit it is my opinion but your opinion that my opinion is biased is biased. it's just logic. why would anyone need a bump stock? why would that need be so great that a law that in general keeps a bad, dangerous thing out of the hands of bad, dangerous people could be trumped by that need? do you need a bump stock to stop a burglar in your home, or kill a deer? the ONLY people who NEED bump stocks are people who intend to harm other people. it is not good for anything else. so no, my opinion is educated, and informed by common sense, NOT biased.
g
In this case I have no problem with the confiscation without compensation. The device was intended to circumvent the law against automatic weapons. Anyone who bought one was cheating, and they deserve at least the light slap of forfeiture.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Dec 19, 2018
7
Or, the device was intended to not circumvent the law, but to provide a range toy that simulated full automatic fire.
@dahermit
Nah, that's just a quibble. The weapons became automatic with the addition of the bumpstock.
@dahermit
Anyway, an assault rifle, automatic or not, is not a toy. It is a machine designed to kill people.
I wonder if there is any record of who owns bump stocks... If not, then how would the law be enforced against those who own them? Additionally, someone with building skills and a little ingenuity could make one.
But, I get your point and it is an interesting question that may end up in court, if someone was inclined to fight it.
sfvpool
Level 7
Dec 19, 2018
2
For society to work, citizens have to sometimes compromise their rights.
nicknotes
Level 8
Dec 19, 2018
2
Yes...even in a "free" society compromises have to be made to keep the peace @TheAstroChuck
I see you were in the Corp of Engineers....@Veteran229
"so only people with their own land or access to a wilderness shooting area would be able to use them."
Or psychos in Nevada....
itsmedammit
Level 8
Dec 19, 2018
0
An emotional and childish response as well as being a straw man logical fallacy (Or psychos in Nevada....). Of the thousands likely in circulation, only one has been used by a psycho in Nevada.
@dahermit That's all it takes. I don't see the straw man here.
@itsmedammit Go to college, take classes in forensics. Learn what Logical Fallacies are. But, until then, go away.
@dahermit Emotional response. Sorry for striking a nerve...not!
Because those things were Such a great idea in the first place! Should vicious stupidity be rewarded?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Dec 19, 2018
3
An emotional response. Only one bump stock was ever connected to a crime...all the others were were/are being used as childish toys, cars on the other hand kill about 40,000 a year.
@dahermit ignoring the intent & purpose, are we? Dragging in cars? Not impressed by your "reasonong"
Unless you are part of the "gun culture" your concept of a bump stock owner's "intent & purpose" of owning such is not valid. Are you part of the "gun culture?" Spend time at the range talking to other gun owners, bump stock owners perhaps? If not, do your get your impression of bump stock owners from anti-gun rhetoric?
@dahermit I was shooting for fun & vermin on the farm since age 11ish, married 33+ years to an avid hunnter with 13 long guns of various kinds. Who quit the NRA years ago as it became "nuts"...his words. Have continued to occasionally shoot pistols (my fav) over the years. So yeah, i do know about guns. Our dog Hunt Test/Field Trial Club had about 200 members, all had multiple guns. I also know a Heap of hunters & owners who think the NRA is Nuts, at best. "Bump stock" yer ass. Even a cute name ferpetessake
@AnneWimsey this guy is an absolute pig. He’s berated every woman on this thread that didn’t agree with his reasoning and given men a pass. Typical inferiority complex.
@Green_eyes I agree....ONLY someone in the "gun culture" can understand (whine).........
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.