Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:42:37 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <atropos-13D763.17305115062024@news.giganews.com> <v4s1kl$1c3jr$5@dont-email.me> <atropos-B5B6C7.14031818062024@news.giganews.com> <v4t1nu$1ig6v$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-5889D5.18473418062024@news.giganews.com> <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-C71DF5.19385218062024@news.giganews.com> <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-A285B6.12133319062024@news.giganews.com> <v4vh5f$258cf$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-35247F.16282619062024@news.giganews.com> <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com> <atropos-B140CA.20252519062024@news.giganews.com> <v51ik8$2kkd7$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-696A04.09292320062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-696A04.09292320062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 106
Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:42:37 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6072
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17daf5278b1b9186$518535$1616079$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6403

On 6/20/24 11:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v51ik8$2kkd7$2@dont-email.me>,
>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/2024 11:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com>,
>>>    shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:28:26 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <v4vh5f$258cf$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> 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* --
> 
> Even if true, the statute is silent on what the finger is doing, so it's
> irrelevant.


No, but you're lying is.