Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5203r$2n6c1$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:32:11 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 107 Message-ID: <v5203r$2n6c1$3@dont-email.me> 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> 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 21:32:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5f6723e81ced72bfe713efc1ebd17bbb"; logging-data="2857345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZWG/1XjrL6ZSLMJ4ERVYNfgq2FeyJ7tY=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:OkRf47UNdPiBtZ4In3kFOQxMG9Y= In-Reply-To: <atropos-696A04.09292320062024@news.giganews.com> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6719 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". And, note that for *either* gun the "finger" could be a rubber band.