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: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 12:05:59 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <v59h58$dics$1@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:06:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ba2c2d3ce561632f359d9cd1548a403";
	logging-data="444828"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2M422Dj4lHDP8px3k3rCvNGuvObnjXss="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TMHEAQu/yVsFYjr+HDvyKV/bjvM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <17db9a2aa8acb743$240$3767249$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 6658

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.