Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Bump (the stocks, not the internet reminder)

If you want to ban something fine, but I hate to tell you, I'm not paying money for something only to have someone not give me my money back and just turn it in or destroy it.
 
This one may either be recoiled from like a hot flame - or end up with 327 posts.......................................
 
So what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

The regulation of firearms is a well established constitutionally valid form of governing the implementation of the second amendment. The talking point of "shall not be infringed" to mean that there should be no regulation of firearms is a strawman that doesn't withstand scrutiny. Here's what Antonin Scalia had to say about the issue: https://www.newsweek.com/antonin-sc...rt-orlando-shooting-newtown-sandy-hook-472460

I'm fine with banning bump stocks, although I think it's up for legal challenge as the BATFE had found previously that these were not considered modifications to make the gun fully automatic, and therefore would be deemed an accessory. The courts will decide this one, and while I applaud the effort, I question the outcome.
 
I’ve never owned or desired to own a bump stock, but to have the regulatory agency approve them and allow them under a previous administration and now to ban them with zero change in the law is ridiculous. Then again, the idea that some where there is a person who could become president that I would never have a serious disagreement with is equally ridiculous. That’s why I’m for the least amount of government that is possible within reason. Noone other than myself can manage my life the way that I want my life to be managed.

I find the bumpstock thing to be a bit of a loophole in the NFA and honestly think that as long as the NFA stands, that the bumpstock loophole should be closed. On the other hand, I would be in favor of getting rid of the NFA. Of course that will never happen.
 
Last edited:
So what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

Name any constitutional right (speech, religious liberty, double jeopardy, etc, etc) that allows for no regulatory restrictions? There are NONE. So, a constitutionally relevant answer in my view allows for those infringements that are "narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest." (which is actually a more restrictive (pro-right) standard than the apparent (lesser protective) current standard for 2nd amendment which is "substantially related to an important governmental interest")

All rights are constrained, so what constraints are going to stand is the question. Seems like our society and courts are comfortable with constraints on who can have guns (felons etc), types of guns (sawed off shotguns, fully automatic machine guns, etc.) and how guns can be transferred (cross border sales via FFL, etc.). For me all this is doing is restoring the status of bump stocks to components that convert semi-autos to fully autos and are thereby subject to long standing rules regarding fully auto.

Assuming basic administrative processes were followed, this regulation is almost certain to meet constitutional muster. But of course each of our 300+ million citizens can form their own personal opinion on the topic.
 
Last edited:
Bump stocks are losing proposition and makes us look silly in the defense of them
 
Bump stocks are losing proposition and makes us look silly in the defense of them

This sums it up best for me. I don't care to own one and almost couldn't care less what happens with bump stocks. But overall, it's an argument that we'll never win. And we may lose other, more important items while fighting for them.
 
If you want to ban something fine, but I hate to tell you, I'm not paying money for something only to have someone not give me my money back and just turn it in or destroy it.

Laws/regulations change all the time, and there is no requirement that regulators/legislatures "grandfather" or reimburse those who have value destroyed by the law/regulation.


IMBillT said:
but to have the regulatory agency approve them and allow them under a previous administration and now to ban them with zero change in the law is ridiculous.

Agencies cycle back and forth on regulation all the time following presidential elections. Every incoming president has a list of rules they reverse upon entering the office. Dozens of early Obama and Trump executive orders and initiated rule making processes are ample evidence of this. It is the norm, not the exception.
 
I just think they are dumb idea. I have tried several different models on my musket and can still only get it to fire once. Its no skin off my back if they want to do away with them. :hump:
 
Oh? A 2A public forum "discussion"?

I believe such topics are intended for Democrats to manipulate Tide Pod eating children to determine 2A topics such as bump stocks, Don Lemon versions of AR and "Auto vs Semi-Auto", etc.
I jest...
That bit of public forum brilliance shared for free. Off to pop some kernels for reading pleasure.
 
Seems it could be banned under the NFA. Won't hurt my feelings.

I'd like to see legislation that places modern sporting rifles in the same type of classification as, say, SBRs (with existing owners grandfathered somehow, maybe by serial numbers on the lowers though not sure what this would work for the 80% lower crowd). In exchange, suppressors would no longer be restricted. The gun control crowd complains that we aren't willing to compromise and the gun owner crowd rightly knows compromise means rights are restricted. Well, let's trade one right for another! MSRs could still be owned but "restricted" like SBRs. Suppressors could be obtained more easily and affordably.
 
Oh? A 2A public forum "discussion"?

I believe such topics are intended for Democrats to manipulate Tide Pod eating children to determine 2A topics such as bump stocks, Don Lemon versions of AR and "Auto vs Semi-Auto", etc.
I jest...
That bit of public forum brilliance shared for free. Off to pop some kernels for reading pleasure.

So much for your past comments regarding something like "extreme partisanship, etc." Funny shit......
Kettle Corn or low sodium?......
 
Last edited:
Kettle Corn or low sodium?......

It comes in some form of non partisan packaging though says, "Pop Secret Movie Theatre Butter".
Low sodium popcorn gives an eerie vibe. About as disheartening as "low sodium bacon"... A violation of my Constitutional right to artery lube prepared, greasy spoon, breakfast counter, pork bacon!
I jest... Well, maybe not regarding life altering, God given, tasty bacon. :)
 
Laws/regulations change all the time, and there is no requirement that regulators/legislatures "grandfather" or reimburse those who have value destroyed by the law/regulation.




Agencies cycle back and forth on regulation all the time following presidential elections. Every incoming president has a list of rules they reverse upon entering the office. Dozens of early Obama and Trump executive orders and initiated rule making processes are ample evidence of this. It is the norm, not the exception.

I agree things change...just like people in MN who have no clue in bad weather they are required to have their light on...does not mean they do it :)

I personally don't see the need for these and never have, heck, I don't even see he need for the AR platform, lets ban those as well and see how many people just turn them in....LOL
 
"Pop Secret Movie Theatre Butter".

Good call - It's all about mimicking the fake (and partially rancid) movie theater butter flavor -- after 5 decades of theater going, I think actual fresh butter on popcorn would make me gag.
 
I just think they are dumb idea. I have tried several different models on my musket and can still only get it to fire once. Its no skin off my back if they want to do away with them. :hump:

I just had to explain to a coworker why I started literally laughing out loud.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,062
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top