Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:22:06 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v52kju$2qv7o$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>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 03:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="135701bad7255964217cc25f17b69a9f";
	logging-data="2981112"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EeeluISW3VvNNeTrgS5Wc"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1FHWXj/VlX6c+PVekJuTtISQVJU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-B140CA.20252519062024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 6327

On 6/19/24 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"?

The law says nothing about regulating human evolution, it defines the 
mechanics.


-- 
On May 30, 2024 Donald J. Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 felony 
counts in New York City... so I took this picture in my side yard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0