Military court rules "Bump Stocks," are not machine guns.....duh.....

[M14 Shooter]

So he could have made 60 kill shots and several hundred wounded in 30 seconds without a bump stock?

I can think of any number of ways.
He had $30-40k of firearms in the room - more than enough to buy a water-cooled M1919 and 10,000rds of .30-06.
Oh - and a hose to run water to and from the bathroom.
Casualties would have been an order of magnitude higher.

 

[pknopp]

Only because of the political realities involved.
If they knew they could do it w/o causing the Democrats the house/senate, they would.
In a heartbeat.

So they can't do anything so it's not really a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So they can't do anything so it's not really a point.

They "do nothing" because they place their partisan political power over what they tell us is the right thing to do.
The fact thry have not done any of the things they say we need to do in no way means they will not.

 

[pknopp]

They "do nothing" because they place their partisan political power over what they tell us is the right thing to do.
The fact thry have not done any of the things they say we need to do in no way means they will not.

Other than you noting why they will not. It's been decades and nothing has been actually done. It's like Republicans and abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Other than you noting why they will not. It's been decades and nothing has been actually done.

The Democrats remember 1994 and 2010.

 

[pknopp]

The Democrats remember 1994 and 2010.

Yes and you are simply enforcing my point.

 

[whitehall]

I don't think the courts ever said that so-called "bump stocks" were classified as machine guns but they were ruled illegal under a similar statute that covered machine guns. Of course the Military judicial system would declare that the possession bump stocks alone wasn't the same as possessing a machine gun. Why does it come as a surprise to (mostly) the left?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think the courts ever said that so-called "bump stocks" were classified as machine guns but they were ruled illegal under a similar statute that covered machine guns. Of course the Military judicial system would declare that the possession bump stocks alone wasn't the same as possessing a machine gun. Why does it come as a surprise to (mostly) the left?

The ignorant are often surprised.

 

[woodwork201]

Bump stocks are not machine guns.....

US Military Courts Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

A Military three-judge panel agreed with the defense, unanimously ruled that bump stocks do not meet the definition of a machine gun.

www.ammoland.com

Yeah, as if those guys would know what a machine gun is. They don't even know what an assault rifle is..

 

[woodwork201]

Moron....a bump stock is not a machine gun, not by definition, not by function. A prius is not a Formula one racer...a bump stock is not a machine gun.

If a bump stock is a machine gun then we'll all have to get a stamp from the Federal Government to own shoes that are not slip-ons or Velcro secured.

 

[woodwork201]

Bump stocks are amusing toys for the most part. Most people recognize you can't aim whatsoever with one.
Having said that, it can be used to provide devastating mass injury if firing into a crowd as the shooter in Las Vegas did by killing 9 people in under 30 seconds and a total of 58 dead with 411 injuries.
Bump stocks are and should ALWAYS continue to be strictly forbidden.
And I am a gun supporter with 3 guns in my home.

You're not a gun rights supporter; you're not a supporter of the Second Amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

Yeah... and flying planes into people is not legal.
And driving car bombs into people is not legal.
Say what you want, but the Vegas man killed and injured more people than any other mass shooter in history. PERIOD.
I am a staunch supporter of gun rights. But I am not blindly stupid.
50 flying bullets in a wide area is more dangerous than 10.

You know, you make a great point. They should make killing people illegal; that would stop guys like that no matter what tool he was going to use.

 

[woodwork201]

Haha... you know nothing about me.
I have been around guns my entire 56 years of life.
The first time I shot one was with my grandfather when I was about 6 or 7.
When I turned 18, on that DAY - I went out and bought a Mossberg 20 ga. because I wanted to hunt with MY own gun I bought.
I gave that gun to my son on his 18th birthday.
I have 3 guns in my home, in fact, I have never lived in a home without multiple guns my whole life.

So enough of the assigning people to boxes you have no idea about.

You're an idiot. We know that much about you. Possession of a few guns does not at all make you knowledgeable.

 

[woodwork201]

There are limits to the second amendment. Did you know that Loony Bird? Scalia did. SCOTUS has confirmed a state's right to ban semi auto assault-style weapons.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​

​

Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.​

​

Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.​

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

In their misleading argument that the Second Amendment is in danger of repeal, the authors of the Your View ignored the 2008 Heller decision in which conservative Justice Scalia’s majority op…

www.mcall.com

Scalia was a gun controller. Scalia may support gun control but the Constitution does not.

 

[woodwork201]

Gun ownership more than any other right requires responsibility yet gun politics is almost entirely devoted to shielding gun nuts from consequences in the aftermath of tragedy. All the arguments of slippery slopes and ludicrous fantasies of civil war and the collapse of civilization are worthless. Just say you like to shoot guns and they make you feel safe. Be honest in your arguments and quit with the hyperbolic flights of fancy. No one wants to take your guns, they just want you to take responsibility.

That's just pure bullcrap. Gun rights defenders are the first to call for consequences for shooters who abuse the right and use their guns to illegally harm others. It is the Democrats who refuse to punish those who commit gun crimes. It is Democrats who avert their eyes, minds, and hearts from the dead children in Chicago and across America from gang shootings that go unpunished day after day. It is Democrats who emptied jails of dangerous criminals, putting them on the streets of America, so they would have room to lock up those who refuse to wear a mask for Covid.

 

[progressive hunter]

They are about the stupidest thing ever though.

seemed to work pretty good in las vegas,,,

maybe your the stupid one,

 

[progressive hunter]

Moron....a bump stock is not a machine gun, not by definition, not by function. A prius is not a Formula one racer...a bump stock is not a machine gun.

doesnt really matter cause the 2nd A was specific for military grade weapons that include machine guns,,

 

[woodwork201]

Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
You truly are a dumb fuk

Here's a guy shooting 4 mags, 120 rounds, in 60 seconds. And he's an extremely slow shooter and slow at changing mags. Imagine how many more could be killed by a guy just picking up another loaded gun or who knew how to rapid change a magazine.

 

[woodwork201]

60 people killed out of 22,000.......and you think with the bump stocks that meant he was hitting a lot of people? Again, you doofus.......the bump stock kept him from killing even more people.....you moron.

Shooting into a large mass of people, nearly half of the rounds fired hit no one. Your point is exactly correct.

 

[progressive hunter]

Shooting into a large mass of people, nearly half of the rounds fired hit no one. Your point is exactly correct.

that means more than half did hit people,, sounds like a useful weapon in the right hands,,