Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:32:04 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
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>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:29:24 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-696A04.09292320062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-V6Pl+sc2JM5rN3eP0CRlVO68/HSd3qlRyhtUDoV6f3qZLi2ZcH4Ft10FYff+g7ZIIPOaNnrGlflE+g0!qH0nLzT9bKlzDnB2WZeaNMk5WEzbujEU1ZkzomeOupoUHdVztWA2qkbaOb3cDk2jJPwgvDK47jm6!2LE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6361

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.