Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:42:01 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:42:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5f6723e81ced72bfe713efc1ebd17bbb"; logging-data="2773415"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+B3nxZ5A9AIt9gETW8ALYbZQT3e8eF5nc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/MLj8aoYs1Fs0+BIuVMSz25z4EI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6302 On 6/19/2024 11:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > shawn wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:28:26 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: >> >>> In article , >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/19/2024 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> And how does using a bump stock differ from a fully automatic >>>>>>>>>>>> machine gun? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> With a bump stock, for every round fired, a separate trigger pull >>>>>>>>>>> occurs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> With a machine gun, one one trigger pull is required to fire >>>>>>>>>>> multiple rounds. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, the rate of fire of a bump stock-equipped rifle is >>>>>>>>>>> significantly slower than a rifle firing on full-auto. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, this 15-sec. video is a lie? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrecvXhRVc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know what you're talking about. You can clearly see the >>>>>>>>> bump device using the recoil (and Newton's Third Law) to reset the >>>>>>>>> trigger after every round. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I'm seeing is a NOT "significantly slower" rate of fire. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bump device I used produce a fast rate of fire but not as fast as >>>>>>> full-auto rifle. Perhaps this is a different model that works more >>>>>>> efficiently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regardless, the law passed by Congress did not differentiate "machine >>>>>>> gun" from other guns by how fast it shoots, so the rate of fire is >>>>>>> actually irrelevant to the issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, we've already established that a determined judiciary can do an >>>>>> end-run around even the clearest legislative intent. >>>>> >>>>> They didn't end-run anything. They only reiterated-- since our >>>>> government seems to have lost its way and needs a reminder-- that >>>>> Congress is the only body granted the authority by the Constitution >>>>> to legislate in this country, not administrative agencies like >>>>> BATF, and if Congress wants to change the definition of "machine >>>>> gun" to incorporate bump stocks into it, it can do so at any time. >>>>> However, BATF has no authority to do it for them. >>>> >>>> Machine gun: >>>> >>>> "...any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily >>>> restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual >>>> reloading, by a single function of the trigger." >>>> >>>> Now, tell me again how either gun in my video doesn't qualify... >>> >>> Because with the bump stock, it's only firing one shot per pull of the >>> trigger. The trigger is just being pulled repeatedly really fast as a >>> result of rebounding recoil caused by the bump stock. The bumper rocks >>> the rifle back and forth against the shooter's trigger finger, causing a >>> separate trigger pull each time. The statute you quoted above clearly >>> says "by a SINGLE function of the trigger". If you shoot 100 rounds with >>> a bump stock, you've got 100 functions of the trigger, not a single >>> function of the trigger. >> >> Yes, you are definitely technically correct. (The best kind.) That >> said you can see why people consider the bump stock to be the >> equivalent of turning a weapon into an equal to a machine gun. It >> isn't a machine gun but it ends throwing lead down field much like >> one. > > I've seen people who can pull a trigger all on their own pretty damn > fast-- certainly at a speed that most hoplophobes would consider > "machine gun adjacent". > > Should we make it illegal for a human to pull a trigger faster than a > certain rate? Or force anyone who can do it accurately faster than a > certain rate to register their finger with the BATF as a "machine gun"? > >> I think eventually the law will be updated to include bump stocks >> but who knows how long that will take. As no one who was involved in >> writing the original act likely foresaw the possibility of a bump >> stock. Did you look at the 15-sec. video I posted? I submit that what you're seeing for *both* guns is a single function of the trigger *finger* -- i.e., "pull and hold until bodies reach a desired height". If you mean to say that the bump trigger *vibrates* more noticeably than the auto, I'd bet that boutique bump-stocks can mitigate that inconvenience...