GOA to Sue the ATF's Bump Stock Ban

[jon_berzerk]

And , i am a member of both the NRA and GOA and i'll be sending GOA a Hundred bucks to fight the Bump Stock Ban today . And others should do the same !!

not going to offer a lot of support for a device designed to get around automatic weapons being illegal.

you could do what most who really care will do - use a rubber band.

under the original intent of the 2nd full auto is perfectly legal

yes indeed more so then a bump fire stock

it is time to revisit Miller

 

[pismoe]

And , i am a member of both the NRA and GOA and i'll be sending GOA a Hundred bucks to fight the Bump Stock Ban today . And others should do the same !!

not going to offer a lot of support for a device designed to get around automatic weapons being illegal.

you could do what most who really care will do - use a rubber band.

----------------------------------- full auto or machine guns are not illegal in a large number of states and making them illegal in the states that they are illegal in is an 'INFRINGEMENT' Iceberg .

 

[iceberg]

And , i am a member of both the NRA and GOA and i'll be sending GOA a Hundred bucks to fight the Bump Stock Ban today . And others should do the same !!

not going to offer a lot of support for a device designed to get around automatic weapons being illegal.

you could do what most who really care will do - use a rubber band.

----------------------------------- full auto or machine guns are not illegal in a large number of states and making them illegal in the states that they are illegal in is an 'INFRINGEMENT' Iceberg .

i stand corrected.

if you're willing to have the FBI live up your ass for the rest of your life, please feel free to apply for a fully automatic weapon.

 

[pismoe]

agree , but there are lots of 'full auto' people around and many buy 'full auto' as an investment . And some have fun . --- ---

 

[pismoe]

plus there are lots of machine gun shoots with private owners shooting and just having fun .

 

[iceberg]

agree , but there are lots of 'full auto' people around and many buy 'full auto' as an investment . And some have fun . --- ---

no argument there. most who have full autos are gun clubs anymore and they rent them out to people to shoot for the afternoon so they don't have to get the license themselves.

 

[pismoe]

anyone can buy a full auto in certain states . Many guy that i have met are hundred percent gun culture people with money . --- National Firearms Act Weapons FAQs | Double Tap Firearms | Double Tap Firearms --- just some info .

 

[OnePercenter]

WHERE'S THE NRA???

Infiltrated by a Russian spy.

 

[OnePercenter]

Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.

I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.

But have no problem with them being banned. ...

A journey of a thousand bans begins with but a single step Comrade.

You must be one of those that are against securing your weapon.

 

[OnePercenter]

I of course hope that GOA is successful in its lawsuit . I do not own a 'bump stock' but I have no problem with their use and people owning and using them .

Why don't you let the 560 injured survivors and the families of the dead of October 1st make the call.

 

[progressive hunter]

I of course hope that GOA is successful in its lawsuit . I do not own a 'bump stock' but I have no problem with their use and people owning and using them .

Why don't you let the 560 injured survivors and the families of the dead of October 1st make the call.

thats just a dumb idea

 

[OnePercenter]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

 

[iceberg]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well regulated meant the Governors could Commission Officers. To call up the Militia, what happened is an officer rode into town. The Census showed 100 able bodied free men in town. They were calling up twelve percent. So the Levy on the town was 12. More than that could volunteer, but the town was responsible for at least 12. If enough men did not volunteer, the men were “pressed” into service. Drafted to use the current term. These men had rifles, they were not issued firearms. Much like the Minutemen, they were already armed and had sufficient powder and shot for the deployment.

If the Militia was never activated in your town you were still counted as an able bodied free man.

The National Guard is not the modern equivalent to the Militia. It is more like the modern equivalent of the Armies of the 1850’s. They were part of the 20th Maine. Volunteers for a term of service.

Seems very liberal this calling folks with unregistered weapons a militia.

But yeah, liberally this makes some sense

One of the biggest mistakes we can make in trying to study, and truly understand History is application of modern language and norms to the era. If we are to truly understand what someone was saying, we must take their words as they were used in the era spoken, not in the way modern interpretations would have us believe.

Yeah. Every single able bodied man was in fact, according to the Militia Act of 1792, a member of the militia. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

The first Militia Act was passed in May of 1792, six months after the Second Amendment had been ratified. If anything is going to give us a clue as to what the Founders really intended with the Second Amendment, the law they passed to define what the word Militia meant, six months later, is about as close as you can get.

Today, we call the National Guard the Militia, but that isn’t the case at all in History. Further, it doesn’t mean that only the National Guard can have weapons, as again, the original intent, as expressed by the Congress and the Nation, was that the Militia was every able bodied free man.

You say Unregistered Weapons. Do you know when Serial Numbers on Civillian Weapons became the norm? When it became required? For most weapons, it was not until 1934, although I have an inherited rifle from my Father, that he got when he was 16, a .22 rifle, that has no Serial Number, because it wasn’t mandated for those weapons until 1968. How could you register a weapon without any means of identification? Weapons at the time of the Revolution were generally made in small shops, by talented Gunsmiths, some more talented than others. In other words, anyone could make a weapon. Including in their own back yard if they had the skills.

In fact, you could purchase cannon, and yes, I mean exactly what you think I do. Those big black powder cannon firing an iron ball weighing several pounds. Private ownership of Machine Guns was also fine and dandy. Teddy Roosevelt when he led the charge up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders did so supported by two Machine Guns that had been purchased privately, and donated to the unit. Seriously. Look it up.

The issue isn’t complicated, but to really discuss it you have to know the history. The brief overview of the history would take you thirty minutes or so to cover. If you think I’m making this up, then look to the writings of the era. The famous book Last of the Mohicans. The beginning of the book shows the British marching into the village and announcing that the Militia is being activated. This predates the Constitution and the Revolution. Yet the Militia was all the men in the town able to fight. Yes the book is a work of fiction to tell the story of the French and Indian wars. But why would they put a scene in there that no one would possibly believe if it wasn’t common practice?

Veterans of that war would provide the backbone, the experience the American Army needed to fight the British a few years later, for our Independence.

Everyone was armed, and everyone was ready to fight to protect their homes, their farms, their families, and the same of their neighbors. We did a lot of things wrong in History, but the Militia wasn’t one of them IMO.

And I am not saying it was a mistake.

Well regulated meant something else then?

Well Regulated. OK. We have to start with some basic history. The Militia act codified the standard practice. All able bodied males were in the Militia. Automatically. The way the Militia was activated is that an officer would ride into town, and announce they were activating the militia and the town was responsible for ten percent. If the town had one hundred able bodied males, that meant that at least ten had to go and fight. If they had more than ten, that was fine. But at least ten had to go.

If ten men did not volunteer then the leaders of the town would “Press” the men into service. That is what the Draft was called before we had the Draft. You were Pressed into service. This is where Well Regulated comes in.

The Governors of the newly established States could Commission Officers. That is to say they gave you a piece of paper that said you were a General. Generals could Commission officers to ranks below them. You derived your authority from the senior officer, who derived his authority from the political leadership. Clear so far?

Well Regulated meant that the Officers were in command, and followed the laws of war, and the Militia who were serving, including those who were volunteers as well as those who were Pressed into Military Service, were subject to the Orders and military discipline. In other words, if you as a soldier, a Private, were given an order, you had to follow it or be subject to Courts Martial for your disobedience.

Well Regulated did not mean restrictions on weapons. But clear chains of command, and subject to military discipline. Recognizing the authority of the Officers and the Political Leadership to carry out their duties.

Again, this is all covered under the Militia act, and writings of the era. I would ask if you ever read the book, but perhaps it is better to start with the Movie Last of the Mohicans. The British march into the village and announce that the Militia has been activated. Hawkeye says no, but enough other men say yes so there is no need to Press the men into service. BTW that is where the term Pressed into Service originated. Often the Militia would place conditions on their service. They would go for a set time, providing they could return to plant the crops or bring the crops in. The terms were often negotiable, as while the Militia was activated, they were also the responsibility of the convening authority to feed and house and care for. It gets really expensive to feed a hundred men three meals a day to no purpose. Most often the Militia were rounded up to fight a defensive action, to counter a larger force marching on one of the local towns. Or they were activated to participate in an attack, to give a larger advantage to the attacking force. After those events were taken care of the Militia was often released to return home.

The Militia was as I linked to and showed above, every single able bodied free man. Not according to the Supreme Court, but the actual laws of the era defining what they meant by Militia, and what Well Regulated meant. It meant that when you fought in a conflict, you were subject to the orders of the Officers.

One of the two biggest mistakes we make studying history is using modern definitions for words. The famed “Throw another ****** on the fire” is not a homophobic call to destroy a gay man by burning him at the stake in context. It is an instruction to throw a small piece of wood onto a fire, feed fuel to the fire in other words.

Once you understand the language in context, how it was used in the era, then sometimes it really is as bad as it sounds today, and other times it isn’t. The founders did not envision any restrictions on the type and number of firearms anyone could own.

So where did the Supreme Court get the idea that any restrictions were exactly what the Founders intended? Because to me, it sounds like they should have struck down the very first Gun Control legislation because it obviously goes against the very plainly stated desires and intent of the Founders.

Your points make very good sense sir.

Even with your definitions of the era examples, and they were good, it seems a bit contrived but perfectly plausible.

I'll change my stand to one where poorly written portions of the Constitution like the 2nd necessitate interpretations so never make fun of a liberal.

There is also something to be said for being eligible for the draft and being able tobown a gun.

Thanks for taking the time to type all that.

I’ve explained this before. By Georgia standards, I am a Liberal. By San Francisco standards, I am a radical right wing lunatic.

The Second Amendment was not poorly written in the era it was done. Militia was a common and well understood factor even before the Revolutionary War. As Twitter is today, where everyone knows what it is, the terms used were understood by the people.

It is why I said we need to understand context when we look at anything historical. FYI. The second handicap to understanding history, is we know what happens. We know the results and want to scream. You idiots! What is wrong with you. Didn’t you know that was going to happen?

Oh. And the next time they tell you the founders couldn’t imagine something. Remember that Ben Franklin foresaw Paratroopers invading the enemy territory. More than a century before the first airplane.

 

[OnePercenter]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

If as AK and AR can be so easily modified, shouldn't they be banned?

 

[iceberg]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

If as AK and AR can be so easily modified, shouldn't they be banned?

why? just because they can?

list me some cases of people doing this for the purpose of mass shootings. if people want fully auto they buy them illegally.

no laws are going to change that.

 

[SavannahMann]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

If as AK and AR can be so easily modified, shouldn't they be banned?

Anyone can illegally modify a car. From NOS to Blowers, the number and type of illegal mods are unimaginable. Do we ban cars because someone can remove an airbag and put a TV screen in the steering wheel?

 

[OnePercenter]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

If as AK and AR can be so easily modified, shouldn't they be banned?

why? just because they can?

list me some cases of people doing this for the purpose of mass shootings. if people want fully auto they buy them illegally.

no laws are going to change that.

If automatics are so readily available, why didn't Paddock who easily had the means to do so by them.

 

[SavannahMann]

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

If as AK and AR can be so easily modified, shouldn't they be banned?

why? just because they can?

list me some cases of people doing this for the purpose of mass shootings. if people want fully auto they buy them illegally.

no laws are going to change that.

If automatics are so readily available, why didn't Paddock who easily had the means to do so by them.

He did. Fully automatic weapons found in gunman's hotel room in Las Vegas

Ignorance has a cure, but you have to want to find it.

 

[OnePercenter]

YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter

Get a grip.

A bump stock is basically a toy. ...

Toys don't allow mass shootings.

banning bump stocks won't stop them either. a rubber band will do the same thing.

i don't care one way or the other about bump stocks. i just find it funny the "ban" is making some people think something productive has been done.

If as AK and AR can be so easily modified, shouldn't they be banned?

Anyone can illegally modify a car. From NOS to Blowers, the number and type of illegal mods are unimaginable. Do we ban cars because someone can remove an airbag and put a TV screen in the steering wheel?

Puerile.

I take it you believe that anyone can buy any amount of Ammonia Nitrate.