GOA to Sue the ATF's Bump Stock Ban

[progressive hunter]

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. ...

Yeah, but that's just a foot in the door.

You do know the LV shooter had real automatic weapons, correct?

Several of them, and 1 of the ARs barrel melted.

I say don't give them an inch, no ban on anything!

I say you are cuckoo. There is no reason to own a bump stock.

its not about your feelings

I could say there is no reason for you to be allowed to speak in public

 

[bodecea]

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. ...

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

Nonsense.

As is the case with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment isn’t ‘unlimited.’

Speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, for example.

Likewise, the Second Amendment is subject to restrictions consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – the banning of ‘bump stocks’ doesn’t interfere with the right of citizens to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

To support the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment case law – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

And there’s nothing in that case law which renders the banning of ‘bump stocks’ as un-Constitutional.

Lol
I could not even sell bump stocks until the left-wing asswipes like yourself lit your hair on fire about them... Now I can’t even keep them in stock

Fools and their money are soon parted.

 

[miketx]

Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

yes it does,,,

why dont you commies move back to russia or china where you would be happy

why you gotta poop in our post toasties

Why don't you go **** yourself?

 

[SavannahMann]

Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

 

[Marion Morrison]

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. ...

Yeah, but that's just a foot in the door.

You do know the LV shooter had real automatic weapons, correct?

Several of them, and 1 of the ARs barrel melted.

I say don't give them an inch, no ban on anything!

do you have anything to back up that he had full auto???

I havent heard that before

Aw geez, I just read it the other day..can't find the same article now.

It was a legit article. Maybe by LVPD?

 

[progressive hunter]

Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

 

[progressive hunter]

Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

yes it does,,,

why dont you commies move back to russia or china where you would be happy

why you gotta poop in our post toasties

Why don't you go **** yourself?

so since you cant defend your position you cry like a baby

I won you lost

 

[Toronado3800]

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. ...

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.

We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implimented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.

 

[progressive hunter]

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.

We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implimented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.

as usual when you cant defend your POV you resort to personal attacks


dont be so butthurt...its very unbecoming

 

[Crepitus]

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. ...

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

 

[SavannahMann]

No need to muddy the waters.

This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...

No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?

The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.

The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.

A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?

I dont see that in the 2nd amendment

the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple

you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have

Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.

We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implimented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.

The founders said that every able bodied male (actually it was every able bodied free male, meaning white, but I think we can adjust that to the modern interpretation of human unless you want to argue that women and minorities don’t have the same rights as white guys) was a member of the Militia and could be called up as needs the State. So everyone is already in the Militia.

 

[martybegan]

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. ...

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay around $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in my own apartment legally.

How reasonable is that?

 

[Sunni Man]

I won you lost

What are you,10 years old?

You sound like Peewee Herman. ... ...

 

[progressive hunter]

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. ...

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

thats commis talk

and the regs are already there..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

[Crepitus]

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay around $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in my own apartment legally.

How reasonable is that?

The fees are a bit restrictive, but the wait makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.

On the other end of things here in kansas I can walk into a pawn shop, sign the papers, and walk out concealed carrying with no phone or fees required. I can also have a compete arsenal in my basement. Again no permits or fees.

Some middle ground is needed.

 

[progressive hunter]

I won you lost

What are you,10 years old?

You sound like Peewee Herman. ... ...

WHEN YOU CANT REFUTE go to personal attacks

 

[Crepitus]

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

thats commis talk

and the regs are already there..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

You are the reason the rest of us will end up with nothing.

 

[SavannahMann]

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. ...

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

What I keep asking is what are those reasonable regulations? What are they? Everyone who is OK with the banning of the Bump stocks all say that it is a Reasonable Regulation. I see it as a Constitutional Violation.

Why? Not just the Second Amendment. You can not be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. Due Process of law is not an announcement of turn it in and lose the money, or destroy it yourself, or go to jail. If we handled any other items that way the people would be outraged.

We object to Judges legislating from the Bench, why should we accept a man who is not even a Judge deciding what the law says, and announcing that we will have tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of new criminals based upon his whim?

If you want to ban them, then you have to pass a law doing so. Not just make an announcement and tell anyone who objects to shut the hell up. There will be a Stay in place by some Federal Judge before the New Year is here.

This is actually the sort of thing that Trump said was wrong with Washington.

 

[Crepitus]

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

This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.

Let's not be ridiculous.

It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.

I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.

Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.

I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.

What I keep asking is what are those reasonable regulations? What are they? Everyone who is OK with the banning of the Bump stocks all say that it is a Reasonable Regulation. I see it as a Constitutional Violation.

Why? Not just the Second Amendment. You can not be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. Due Process of law is not an announcement of turn it in and lose the money, or destroy it yourself, or go to jail. If we handled any other items that way the people would be outraged.

We object to Judges legislating from the Bench, why should we accept a man who is not even a Judge deciding what the law says, and announcing that we will have tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of new criminals based upon his whim?

If you want to ban them, then you have to pass a law doing so. Not just make an announcement and tell anyone who objects to shut the hell up. There will be a Stay in place by some Federal Judge before the New Year is here.

This is actually the sort of thing that Trump said was wrong with Washington.

Bump stocks are toys. Only fools spent money in them to start with.