Let me float a few ideas here.  In truth, bump stocks are a novelty item, like putting playing cards in your spokes as kids.  Yeah, to a kid, it was great fun, and just like overkill of chrome on your car.  It may be gaudy to most, but it's your car to do with as you will, but does nothing for performance.

Let's look at bump stocks. For the amateur there's a learning curve, but for the expert, they can pick up any weapon and pretty much hit their target, but it takes quite a few rounds to start before you can pull it in and be consistent.  Once it's firing, you can pretty much mow down anything in your path, assuming you don't run out of ammo first.

Now, let's look at this in a war environment perspective. In a fire fight you need to conserve ammo, so full auto is pretty much worthless, unless you're being overrun in numbers.  It doesn't happen in real life very often, so what the military did was to go with a three round burst option.  It's an excellent idea because it keeps the weapon from crawling off target and conserves ammunition.

So here's the question: do you ever see a point in your life where you'll ever need a bump stock? Odds are, never, but does the government have the right to restrict them?

HELL NO!!!

The Bill of Rights wasn't given to us by the government.  It's a God given right, just like the First Amendment.  In fact, the Bill of Rights was a restriction on government, that these stated rights were not to be infringed upon in any way.  The government was barred from even entertaining the idea that they could regulate any part of the B of R/Second Amendment.
More~~~
https://conservativehardliner.com/bump-stock-ban-what-does-it-mean

Quote from: Solar on December 20, 2018, 04:11:32 PM
Let me float a few ideas here.  In truth, bump stocks are a novelty item, like putting playing cards in your spokes as kids.  Yeah, to a kid, it was great fun, and just like overkill of chrome on your car.  It may be gaudy to most, but it's your car to do with as you will, but does nothing for performance.

Let's look at bump stocks. For the amateur there's a learning curve, but for the expert, they can pick up any weapon and pretty much hit their target, but it takes quite a few rounds to start before you can pull it in and be consistent.  Once it's firing, you can pretty much mow down anything in your path, assuming you don't run out of ammo first.

Now, let's look at this in a war environment perspective. In a fire fight you need to conserve ammo, so full auto is pretty much worthless, unless you're being overrun in numbers.  It doesn't happen in real life very often, so what the military did was to go with a three round burst option.  It's an excellent idea because it keeps the weapon from crawling off target and conserves ammunition.

So here's the question: do you ever see a point in your life where you'll ever need a bump stock? Odds are, never, but does the government have the right to restrict them?

HELL NO!!!

The Bill of Rights wasn't given to us by the government.  It's a God given right, just like the First Amendment.  In fact, the Bill of Rights was a restriction on government, that these stated rights were not to be infringed upon in any way.  The government was barred from even entertaining the idea that they could regulate any part of the B of R/Second Amendment.
More~~~
https://conservativehardliner.com/bump-stock-ban-what-does-it-mean

The ban is just a stepping stone for liberals along with any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds on their way to banning all guns. Once the ban is in effect, watch for them to get a 9th judge to up hold it. I do not see Roberts picking this as an issue for the scotus to make a ruling on, if found unconstitutional so would be the ban on machine guns or he would have to explain it. Would I buy one, dont ever see that happening, I like my ar's too much as is.  One other issue that bothers me more, there are more bans being voted in ex. bans on 10+ mags that the scotus is not looking at. Does the roberts scotus know about the 2nd amendment?

Quote from: s3779m on December 21, 2018, 01:09:35 AM
The ban is just a stepping stone for liberals along with any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds on their way to banning all guns. Once the ban is in effect, watch for them to get a 9th judge to up hold it. I do not see Roberts picking this as an issue for the scotus to make a ruling on, if found unconstitutional so would be the ban on machine guns or he would have to explain it. Would I buy one, dont ever see that happening, I like my ar's too much as is.  One other issue that bothers me more, there are more bans being voted in ex. bans on 10+ mags that the scotus is not looking at. Does the roberts scotus know about the 2nd amendment?

But it wasn't libs, it was Trump, therein lies the issue.

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2018, 06:59:23 AM
But it wasn't libs, it was Trump, therein lies the issue.

well, slap me silly. Don't know, throwing the libs a bone? Hoping for a scotus review? Or does Trump feel this is best for the country ?
?

Quote from: s3779m on December 21, 2018, 08:42:44 AM
well, slap me silly. Don't know, throwing the libs a bone? Hoping for a scotus review? Or does Trump feel this is best for the country ?
?

Did you follow the link in the OP?

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2018, 08:46:01 AM
Did you follow the link in the OP?

did not see the word "more" thought it was a repeat

Quote from: s3779m on December 21, 2018, 09:32:24 AM
did not see the word "more" thought it was a repeat

As far as it goes, I can't think of a more plausible reason, because Trump has yet to sell out the base.
I could be wrong, but what did he have to gain by pissing off the base?

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2018, 09:44:37 AM
As far as it goes, I can't think of a more plausible reason, because Trump has yet to sell out the base.
I could be wrong, but what did he have to gain by pissing off the base?

I don';t think he pissed off his base, could be dead wrong but I just don't see bump stock as a red line, but that could also be because I do not see any value in them. Personally, I see magazine bans as a red line but don't see Trump going there in a positive or negative way. If they do get banned, hope to see Roberts take it up in the next scotus session.

Quote from: s3779m on December 21, 2018, 11:49:19 AM
I don';t think he pissed off his base, could be dead wrong but I just don't see bump stock as a red line, but that could also be because I do not see any value in them. Personally, I see magazine bans as a red line but don't see Trump going there in a positive or negative way. If they do get banned, hope to see Roberts take it up in the next scotus session.

This is why I ask the question. I agree, it's a useless piece in truth, but the real question is, why did Trump do this? Dims weren't clamoring for it, in fact, it was a dead issue, and Trump had to have been informed as to its unconstitutionality.
Case in point, everything he does is filtered through the Constitution.

Statement by the President
NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE

  Issued on: December 21, 2018


Today, I have signed into law H.R. 7213, the "Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018" (the "Act").  The Act redesignates the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office as the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD Office).  The CWMD Office will coordinate with other Federal efforts and develop a strategy and policy to plan for, detect, and protect against unauthorized chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials or devices in the United States.

The Act, however, raises constitutional concerns.

Section 2(a)(10) of the Act purports to require the Assistant Secretary for the CWMD Office, a position created by the Act, to consult with certain congressional committees before making any changes in the structure or requirements of the "Securing the Cities" program.  My Administration will treat this provision as advisory.  I hope that consultation will be possible, and I recognize the benefits of working with the Congress on the "Securing the Cities" program.  Nevertheless, the Act's mandatory consultation provision is not consistent with the Constitution's separation of powers.

Section 2(g)(6) of the Act purports to require the Secretary of Homeland Security annually to provide a report to the Congress that includes recommendations for any necessary statutory changes regarding the CWMD Office, or, if no statutory changes are deemed necessary, an explanation of that conclusion.  My Administration will treat this provision in a manner consistent with Article II, section 3 of the Constitution, which provides the President the discretion to recommend to the Congress only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 21, 2018.

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2018, 11:57:33 AM
This is why I ask the question. I agree, it's a useless piece in truth, but the real question is, why did Trump do this? Dims weren't clamoring for it, in fact, it was a dead issue, and Trump had to have been informed as to its unconstitutionality.
Case in point, everything he does is filtered through the Constitution.

Statement by the President
NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE

  Issued on: December 21, 2018


Today, I have signed into law H.R. 7213, the "Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018" (the "Act").  The Act redesignates the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office as the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD Office).  The CWMD Office will coordinate with other Federal efforts and develop a strategy and policy to plan for, detect, and protect against unauthorized chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials or devices in the United States.

The Act, however, raises constitutional concerns.

Section 2(a)(10) of the Act purports to require the Assistant Secretary for the CWMD Office, a position created by the Act, to consult with certain congressional committees before making any changes in the structure or requirements of the "Securing the Cities" program.  My Administration will treat this provision as advisory.  I hope that consultation will be possible, and I recognize the benefits of working with the Congress on the "Securing the Cities" program.  Nevertheless, the Act's mandatory consultation provision is not consistent with the Constitution's separation of powers.

Section 2(g)(6) of the Act purports to require the Secretary of Homeland Security annually to provide a report to the Congress that includes recommendations for any necessary statutory changes regarding the CWMD Office, or, if no statutory changes are deemed necessary, an explanation of that conclusion.  My Administration will treat this provision in a manner consistent with Article II, section 3 of the Constitution, which provides the President the discretion to recommend to the Congress only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 21, 2018.

The answer I am afraid of is that Trump feels as if the ban would do some good and the scotus would not take it up,thus leaving the ban in place.
The answer I would hope for would be that Trump hopes the scotus will take the case for review, will not uphold the ban and would strike down other bans which are unconstitutional. If this is the case, pretty smart of Trump. I do not think this ban will
matter too much to his base, do not think too many will get upset about it, but the end result could be huge. Only time will tell. I do know had any other president done this, I would have been pissed at the unconstitutionality of it, hope I am not trusting Trump too much.

Quote from: s3779m on December 21, 2018, 01:00:07 PM
The answer I am afraid of is that Trump feels as if the ban would do some good and the scotus would not take it up,thus leaving the ban in place.
The answer I would hope for would be that Trump hopes the scotus will take the case for review, will not uphold the ban and would strike down other bans which are unconstitutional. If this is the case, pretty smart of Trump. I do not think this ban will
matter too much to his base, do not think too many will get upset about it, but the end result could be huge. Only time will tell. I do know had any other president done this, I would have been pissed at the unconstitutionality of it, hope I am not trusting Trump too much.

I thought it was a low key issue till I saw a lot of people talking about it across the web, it's just that the media is mum on the subject.
I have no doubt someone will challenge this in court.

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2018, 01:10:35 PM
I thought it was a low key issue till I saw a lot of people talking about it across the web, it's just that the media is mum on the subject.
I have no doubt someone will challenge this in court.

It needs to be challenged in court on two faces. What Trump did was set a precedent that a president can ban weapons, and that such a ban violates the 2nd amendment.....and the 5th

Quote from: s3779m on December 21, 2018, 02:28:25 PM
It needs to be challenged in court on two faces. What Trump did was set a precedent that a president can ban weapons, and that such a ban violates the 2nd amendment.....and the 5th

Spot on, excellent point!

Since any law against the Second Amendment is technically Unconstitutional, doesn't that mean "Stand Your Ground" type laws are considered an extension of it and applicable to all U.S. Territories?

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 23, 2018, 05:44:27 PM
Since any law against the Second Amendment is technically Unconstitutional, doesn't that mean "Stand Your Ground" type laws are considered an extension of it and applicable to all U.S. Territories?

The legal experts will have to decide if this is a ban on the second amendment. The bump stock by itself is not a gun
or a part that a gun must have in order to function. Trump's ban does not ban the gun. My ar is just fine without one, and a bump stock without the ar is just a piece of junk. About all I can see that this ban did was put the liberals in a difficult position. Liberal could support the ban, which they do, but that would be supporting Trump's authority to ban them, (something I am against, I do not want any other President to be able to ban anything) or they could find a liberal judge to rule the ban unconstitutional (in order to limit Trump's power) which would open a while nother can of worms, mainly if a part that allows a ar to function like a m16 is unconstitutional, wouldn't the ban on the m16 be unconstitutional? If this case would make it to the scotus, could roberts pull his head out of his butt long enough to make a intelligent decision on it? Unfortunately, stand your ground has nothing to do with this ban and would not be helped by it.