Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:49:05 -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> <v51ik8$2kkd7$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-696A04.09292320062024@news.giganews.com> <v5203r$2n6c1$3@dont-email.me> <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 115
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:49:06 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6385
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17daf581ed94787b$518539$1616079$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6767

On 6/20/24 4:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:32:11 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/20/2024 12:29 PM, 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.
>> A human finger is implied by "a single function of the trigger".
> 
> No, it's the functioning of the trigger that's at issue, not what causes it to
> function. 


That's so weird since its the bump stock causing it to function.  What's 
with the lying right asshole bit?