CDZ This is why I am now against the bump stock ban, we must fight the bump stock ban....

[2aguy]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

 

[JoeB131]

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

And that would be a bad thing, why?

 

[2aguy]

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

And that would be a bad thing, why?

Because people use semi automatic weapons.....close to 600 million of them, to defend themselves 1,500,000 times a year against violent criminals that democrats keep letting out of jail, over and over again...

Those are rapes, robberies, murders, kidnappings, beatings that are stopped and do not happen because the most popular guns, semi automatic rifles and pistols, are in the hands of law abiding people......

More people are killed by lawn mowers each year than by mass shooters.....more people are killed by knives, clubs and empty hands each year than by mass shooters, and by these rifles........

 

[Toronado3800]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

uncompromising

Against the spirit of existing regulations

Half the 2nd is gone, I can't buy and arm even an obsolete F4 Phantom.

Fight for something reasonable like conceal and open carry in all 50 states. Give something reasonable like a 5% completely random chance of death penalty sentence everytime a gun is used in a crime.

 

[OldLady]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

National Firearms Act

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.

While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Gun Control Act of 1968
This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, "prohibited persons", and licensing provisions.

Assassinations and Gun Control
After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act.

Incorporated Acts of the GCA

• Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
• NICS Improvement Act of 2008

Gun Control Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Brady Law
On November 30, 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Law imposed as an interim measure a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual. The waiting period applies only in states without an acceptable alternate system of conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. The interim provisions of the Brady Law became effective on February 28, 1994, and ceased to apply on November 30, 1998. While the interim provisions of the Brady Law apply only to handguns, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law apply to all firearms.

Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

So, in short, in 1934 it became very expensive to buy machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
In 1968, it became illegal to sell guns to felons and regulated selling bombs and mines.
In 1993, a waiting period was imposed on selling handguns if no background checks were in place.

Which, of all those terrible restrictions on your freedoms, is an actual problem for you?

 

[PredFan]

It’s death by 1000 paper cuts.

 

[Faun]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

Bumpstocks are just the beginning. The Parkland kids are not stopping there and they’re actually making progress.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill - CNN

... more to come as this movement has legs.

 

[2aguy]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

National Firearms Act

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.

While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Gun Control Act of 1968
This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, "prohibited persons", and licensing provisions.

Assassinations and Gun Control
After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act.

Incorporated Acts of the GCA

• Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
• NICS Improvement Act of 2008

Gun Control Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Brady Law
On November 30, 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Law imposed as an interim measure a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual. The waiting period applies only in states without an acceptable alternate system of conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. The interim provisions of the Brady Law became effective on February 28, 1994, and ceased to apply on November 30, 1998. While the interim provisions of the Brady Law apply only to handguns, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law apply to all firearms.

Brady Law | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

So, in short, in 1934 it became very expensive to buy machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
In 1968, it became illegal to sell guns to felons and regulated selling bombs and mines.
In 1993, a waiting period was imposed on selling handguns if no background checks were in place.

Which, of all those terrible restrictions on your freedoms, is an actual problem for you?

All of them.

If you want to stop gun violence, or reduce it greatly, then you simply have to lock up violent gun criminals when you catch them.....but the democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail...where they go on and murder people.....

 

[2aguy]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

uncompromising

Against the spirit of existing regulations

Half the 2nd is gone, I can't buy and arm even an obsolete F4 Phantom.

Fight for something reasonable like conceal and open carry in all 50 states. Give something reasonable like a 5% completely random chance of death penalty sentence everytime a gun is used in a crime.

I support law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun in all 50 states, open or concealed as determined by the law abiding citizen. I also support the death penalty for murder and attempted murder and would be willing to give it to anyone using a gun to commit a rape, robbery since they are threatening murder to get their way....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Anyone using a bump stock to "defend" themselves is an idiot.
Your more likely to shoot birds in the tree above your assailant, your neighbors house and a car parked down the street than luckily hitting the target.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

uncompromising

Against the spirit of existing regulations

Half the 2nd is gone, I can't buy and arm even an obsolete F4 Phantom.

Fight for something reasonable like conceal and open carry in all 50 states. Give something reasonable like a 5% completely random chance of death penalty sentence everytime a gun is used in a crime.

I support law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun in all 50 states, open or concealed as determined by the law abiding citizen. I also support the death penalty for murder and attempted murder and would be willing to give it to anyone using a gun to commit a rape, robbery since they are threatening murder to get their way....

Ey, we could write a bill together there and call it conceal carry 50! (I'm not really for open really excitedly. My friends who conceal carry are an ok bunch. The people I know who have a gun on their hip just seem off and to create off centered situations. maybe if everyone did it).

But yeah, I love imposing adult rights and responsibilities on people. We can write a bill on allowing everyone to conceal carry and making the death penalty a real random option.

Can we say "no carrying if you are drunk or stoned"?

 

[2aguy]

Anyone using a bump stock to "defend" themselves is an idiot.
Your more likely to shoot birds in the tree above your assailant, your neighbors house and a car parked down the street than luckily hitting the target.

Yep...but that isn't the point......the point is that any semi auto weapon is now in danger.....

 

[2aguy]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

uncompromising

Against the spirit of existing regulations

Half the 2nd is gone, I can't buy and arm even an obsolete F4 Phantom.

Fight for something reasonable like conceal and open carry in all 50 states. Give something reasonable like a 5% completely random chance of death penalty sentence everytime a gun is used in a crime.

I support law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun in all 50 states, open or concealed as determined by the law abiding citizen. I also support the death penalty for murder and attempted murder and would be willing to give it to anyone using a gun to commit a rape, robbery since they are threatening murder to get their way....

Ey, we could write a bill together there and call it conceal carry 50! (I'm not really for open really excitedly. My friends who conceal carry are an ok bunch. The people I know who have a gun on their hip just seem off and to create off centered situations. maybe if everyone did it).

But yeah, I love imposing adult rights and responsibilities on people. We can write a bill on allowing everyone to conceal carry and making the death penalty a real random option.

Can we say "no carrying if you are drunk or stoned"?

You can get ticketed for that now.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Anyone using a bump stock to "defend" themselves is an idiot.
Your more likely to shoot birds in the tree above your assailant, your neighbors house and a car parked down the street than luckily hitting the target.

Yep...but that isn't the point......the point is that any semi auto weapon is now in danger.....

No they aren't.
There are too many out there. It would be a humongous endeavor to even attempt to retrieve guns already sold. As well as it would drag out in courts for years.
It is not going to happen. Not now, not in the foreseeable future.
There have been guys around here and everywhere else saying "any day now" for decades. Decades.

 

[2aguy]

Anyone using a bump stock to "defend" themselves is an idiot.
Your more likely to shoot birds in the tree above your assailant, your neighbors house and a car parked down the street than luckily hitting the target.

Yep...but that isn't the point......the point is that any semi auto weapon is now in danger.....

No they aren't.
There are too many out there. It would be a humongous endeavor to even attempt to retrieve guns already sold. As well as it would drag out in courts for years.
It is not going to happen. Not now, not in the foreseeable future.
There have been guys around here and everywhere else saying "any day now" for decades. Decades.

No...this is how they would do it...pass the law, then every encounter with the police is a potential felony offense...

Scott Morefield - Think They’ll Never ‘Come and Take’ Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again

Consider: If rational minds on the Left know all this, to what end are they still pushing for such laws, especially when it’s obvious that they don’t care whether ANY gun control laws are actually enforced. Not yet anyway. (Remember, it’s always conservatives, not liberals, pushing for enforcement of existing law.)

And yet, they do want more and more laws on the books, and the more draconian, obscure, and hard to keep track of, the better. But why?

Here’s the answer, and it should scare every gun owner in the country:

They want to make de facto criminals out of the majority of the gun owning population.

That way, they can essentially pick us off, one by one.

Without necessarily meaning to, Mehta hits on this critical point in his piece: “A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals,” he wrote. “Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws … Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.”

If liberals are able to pass any sort of “assault weapons” ban, buyback or no buyback, they know they will make criminals out of several million currently law-abiding gun owners. And even if the majority of those gun owners don’t follow the law now, that won’t make them any less a criminal. They just haven’t been caught yet.

But when the ‘right people’ control the levers of power and the ‘right laws’ are all in place, make no mistake - they will be caught.

Here’s the rub. It’s one thing to hold up your rifle and shout “come and take it,” à la Charleton Heston, before thousands of like-minded people. The Feds aren’t going to come to a National Rifle Association convention and start arresting people, at least not yet. And they aren’t going to conduct door-to-door house searches, arresting gun owners and confiscating their firearms, either. Not yet.

But believe me, under the right circumstances and with the right laws in place, the arrests will come. They’ll come when you’re going to work, or to the bank, or to the park with your kids, or a thousand other places. They’ll come after you’ve used your now-illegal AR-15 to defend yourself against a home invader, or if they spot it during a “routine” home search.

Never, ever underestimate these people and the depth of their evil. Remember, the Cheka managed to fill the Soviet gulags to the brim, and yet they did it quietly, with little fuss and even less armed revolt.

And they won’t need to arrest everyone to make the majority obey. No, they only need a few, and word will spread quickly.

So what will you do, dear AR-15 owner, when the ‘Cheka’ comes for your neighbor, and you know the laws are on the books to prosecute? Will a “buyback” and “amnesty” be enough to convince YOU to acquiesce? You’ve got a job, a wife, kids to raise. When they “come and take it,” is your family worth risking?

No, when they take your guns there will be no civil war. There will be no large-scale revolution, because liberals are experts at pushing that Overton Window enough not to shock the system. Like frogs in water that’s about to boil, people won’t jump until it’s too late.

 

[JoeB131]

Because people use semi automatic weapons.....close to 600 million of them, to defend themselves 1,500,000 times a year against violent criminals that democrats keep letting out of jail, over and over again...

Okay, guy, you can pull all these fanciful numbers out... but an America without guns would be a good thing.

If you want to stop gun violence, or reduce it greatly, then you simply have to lock up violent gun criminals when you catch them.....but the democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail...where they go on and murder people.....

We lock up 2 million people, more than any other country in the world including Communist China which has four times as many people. If locking people up was an answer, we'd be there already.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

 

[JoeB131]

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

Absolutely, I want you guys to call these kids who survived a horrific attack "nazis", it shows who you really are.

 

[Mac1958]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.

Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.

The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.

 

[2aguy]

I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....

But....

This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......

As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....

Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”


From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...

Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?

Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.

The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.

Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.

every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.

The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.

Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.

The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.

And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........

You don't know what you are talking about.....