Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:06:41 -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> <atropos-4D6141.22022320062024@news.giganews.com> <v56q4g$3qg7n$1@dont-email.me> <lfmdnR_OQrVsbOv7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <v572pb$3rn1f$3@dont-email.me> <v57agt$3tgec$3@dont-email.me> <17db9a2aa8acb743$240$3767249$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <v59h58$dics$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <v59h58$dics$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 137
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:06:42 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 6423
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17dbe2357e005282$1360$1016857$4cd50660@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6803

On 6/23/24 11:05 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 6/23/2024 6:06 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 6/22/24 3:00 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2024 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> BTR1701  <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <v52n7s$2v630$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/24 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <v52ki8$2qv7o$2@dont-email.me>, FPP 
>>>>>>>>> <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/24 9:10 PM, shawn 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both still require the same action. A single trigger pull, with
>>>>>>>>>> constant pressure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which isn't the standard under the law. The law's standard is a 
>>>>>>>>> "single
>>>>>>>>> function of the trigger". As I said above, if you shoot 100 
>>>>>>>>> rounds with
>>>>>>>>> a bump stock, you've got 100 functions of the trigger, not a 
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> function of the trigger.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A semi-auto rifle physically can't fire more than one round with a
>>>>>>>>> single function of the trigger. It's impossible for a semi-auto 
>>>>>>>>> rifle to
>>>>>>>>> meet the definition of "machine gun" under the NFA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep glossing over the fact that both machine guns and bump 
>>>>>>>> stocks
>>>>>>>> require the same action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm focusing on the one thing that legally matters: a single
>>>>>>> function of the trigger. It's literally impossible for a 
>>>>>>> semi-auto rifle
>>>>>>> to fire more than one round with a single function of the 
>>>>>>> trigger. The
>>>>>>> trigger mechanism must complete a full cycle of function for 
>>>>>>> every round
>>>>>>> that leaves the barrel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is what the bump stock facilitates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it facilitates multiple trigger functions in rapid succession, 
>>>>> and
>>>>> since it's multiple functions, not a single function, it falls 
>>>>> outside the
>>>>> definition of machine gun in the Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuck what they decided on bump stocks. They turn single shot guns 
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> machine guns
>>>>>
>>>>> The Court didn't turn anything into anything. They clearly said 
>>>>> Congress
>>>>> can regulate machine guns and can even include bump stocks in the
>>>>> definition if it collectively so desires. But the Court clarified that
>>>>> Congress is the *only* body that can do this. BATF can't do it for 
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Congress can write such a law without it being unconstitutional under
>>>> the Second Amendment. That's the message from Alito's concurrence.
>>>>
>>>> The message to the idiots with massive reading comprehension problems:
>>>> It is possible to carefully draft laws regulating firearm use and 
>>>> possession
>>>> that are constitutional.
>>>
>>> No.  Against a determined judiciary, it's *not* possible.
>>>
>>> (And the present instance may eventually become a textbook example.)
>>
>>
>> Speaking of comprehension problems here's a video of Trump babbling 
>> about not being able to get enough water.  And yet Adam H. Verman 
>> doesn't seem to be talking about him.
>>
>> https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1804664764200615936/pu/vid/avc1/640x360/fPg6JQ7WOjHA5_wp.mp4?tag=12
> 
> I think MAGA doesn't actually listen, but just watch for applause cues.


Maybe they're just in it for the entertainment value.