United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:17 am

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ATF, not congress.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
USN_Hokie wrote:
ATF, not congress.


I understand the ATF has previously ruled the devices legal. So it appears to be an implicit call for legislation to me. Though you are correct that the statement referred to the BATF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:44 pm
Posts: 1200
yes, they want Trump to overrule the Obama decision in 2010 to allow bump stocks.

_________________
Image

COMMUNISTS NEVER WIN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ATF, not congress.


I understand the ATF has previously ruled the devices legal. So it appears to be an implicit call for legislation to me. Though you are correct that the statement referred to the BATF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What part of regulations don't you understand? The ATF has made technical rulings and changed their minds years later a hundred times. That's what this is about.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:08 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8448
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:16 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8448
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult


Thanks for post. I respectfully disagree with the notion that regulations that are presently called for should not be implemented because one could speculate that they may prove difficult to enforce in the future.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5670
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult

Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult

Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.


Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.

Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ATF, not congress.


I understand the ATF has previously ruled the devices legal. So it appears to be an implicit call for legislation to me. Though you are correct that the statement referred to the BATF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What part of regulations don't you understand? The ATF has made technical rulings and changed their minds years later a hundred times. That's what this is about.


I'm not familiar with how the ATF has operated in the past, so I will gladly defer to you on that. In my experience with administrative law, once a governmental body has interpreted their own regulation, either a court must rule that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious, or Congress generally has to act in order to get the agency to change their position and codify the preferred view as law. But my experience is limited to one particular governmental agency.

Do you find the distinction between requesting (ordering perhaps in this case) that an agency's interpretation of a regulation be changed, and having Congress make this clear in a public forum to be meaningful? It seems that the NRA would have difficulty criticizing a legislator for enacting, as law, the same position that it advocated before the BATF. I do understand that laws can contain other provisions, but the general point remains.

Also, it appears to me that there is a strong argument against taking away a "right" from the public (i.e, the right to purchase bump stocks) without Congressional approval. Congress is accountable to the public, governmental bureaucrats not as much. It seems the NRA posture here would conflict with this general principle.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 4924
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult

Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.


Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.

Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marginal gains means less freedom for the law abiding......that is the point you are missing.

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.

Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to protect you from any bad outcome. The purpose of the second amendment is to not infringe on peoples' ability to protect themselves. You're arguing for rational basis scrutiny, which you should know isn't applicable to fundamental rights.

As with abortion, this issue really comes down to a simple question. In this case: Do you believe in the individual right to personal self-defense? You appear to disagree with the 2nd Amendment. For those who disagree, a more honest argument would be to re-write/erase the 2A.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieHam wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.

Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marginal gains means less freedom for the law abiding......that is the point you are missing.


It's obvious that the board's lawyer, like Obama, does not believe in the BoR.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
HokieHam wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
[quote="ip_law-hokie"]NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult

Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.


Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.

Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marginal gains means less freedom for the law abiding......that is the point you are missing.[/quote]

No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

What part of regulations don't you understand? The ATF has made technical rulings and changed their minds years later a hundred times. That's what this is about.


I'm not familiar with how the ATF has operated in the past, so I will gladly defer to you on that. In my experience with administrative law, once a governmental body has interpreted their own regulation, either a court must rule that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious, or Congress generally has to act in order to get the agency to change their position and codify the preferred view as law. But my experience is limited to one particular governmental agency.

Do you find the distinction between requesting (ordering perhaps in this case) that an agency's interpretation of a regulation be changed, and having Congress make this clear in a public forum to be meaningful? It seems that the NRA would have difficulty criticizing a legislator for enacting, as law, the same position that it advocated before the BATF. I do understand that laws can contain other provisions, but the general point remains.

Also, it appears to me that there is a strong argument against taking away a "right" from the public (i.e, the right to purchase bump stocks) without Congressional approval. Congress is accountable to the public, governmental bureaucrats not as much. It seems the NRA posture here would conflict with this general principle.


Below is what I'm talking about. A case-by-case review by the ATF Technical Branch for each product. This is the one for the stupid slidefire "bump fire" stock the killer used:

Image

It's not a new regulation, just a technical review of the product and a determination of whether it meets the technicalities of the law.

As a small government proponent like myself, I'm sure you would agree that the best laws/regulations are made at the lowest/most local level possible. We don't need a law written by an 84yr old jewish lady from California which just creates another mess for the ATF to try and interpret.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 4924
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Quote:
No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.


And that's where I vehemently disagree, because you empower the law breakers.

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The government can't use rational basis to infringe upon a fundamental right. Not even the 9CA would argue that.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9532
Location: New York, NY
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The government can't use rational basis to infringe upon a fundamental right. Not even the 9CA would argue that.


Owning an automatic weapon is not a fundamental right. Owning a bump stock is not a fundamental right. Just as owning a surface to air missile is not a fundamental right. We are just arguing the margins - not a constitutional question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5670
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult

Laws are intended for the law abiding and for those on the edge. Laws have no meaning to those beyond the fringe.


Laws can help reduce the availability of products to those beyond the fringe. That is the point that several of us are missing.

Also, with respect to gun control in particular, I don't understand the notion that because a law will not be 100% effective, one cannot consider the marginal gains that can be achieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The unlawful can always get what they want.

And past experiences have shown little or no gains on tge margins. So you have to way your rights vs.marginal, if any, benefits. That's a no brainer since no law works 100%.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18843
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
No, I appreciate that point. I just think the marginal gain justifies the less freedom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The government can't use rational basis to infringe upon a fundamental right. Not even the 9CA would argue that.


Owning an automatic weapon is not a fundamental right. Owning a bump stock is not a fundamental right. Just as owning a surface to air missile is not a fundamental right. We are just arguing the margins - not a constitutional question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


An AR is not an automatic weapon. An AR with a "bump stock" is not legally an automatic weapon. An AR-15 is constitutionally protected based on the definition provided in Heller v. DC. You have argued for banning ARs. You don't need that stupid stock to bump fire an AR-15 (or almost any semi-auto...which are constitutionally protected). You are trying to apply rational basis against a fundamental right.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9316
The NRA is a civil rights organization.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 2492
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand the explanation of what they are, most handy folks can make one in about 10 minutes, thank god for regulation.

I just want to know how they are going to regulate 3d printed AR-15's with a freaking bayonet, or sharks with laser beams on their heads!!!


Sorry, I'm not following your last sentence, cwtcr.


it is already possible to 3d print a one shot pistol, only a matter of time until the nerds figure out how to print an actual machine gun, full auto, with a bayonet and a bump stock.....how do you regulate that since the printer is in some private place and nobody knows what is being created? enact any and all stupid regs and laws, the moron in vegas had bombs in his car, so if the gun plan failed I think he had an even more deadlier back up plan. Good luck trying to stop someone that is hell bent on killing, it is very difficult


If I recall correctly, you have the same stance on drugs? Good luck trying to stop someone from using drugs so what's the point of regulation. I'm too lazy to search the boards, but I'm sure that's your opinion. I commend your consistency and logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 2492
ip_law-hokie wrote:
NRA Backs Additional Regulations on Rapid-Fire Gun 'Bump Stocks' - NBC News
https://apple.news/A8WbkH_13RUu_oznHZwa3rw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fake news. Remember, it's too soon to talk about gun control. Or is it, it's not the right time to talk about gun control? Regardless, that's despicable for anyone to use a tragedy to try and force gun regulations. I'd imagine member in the NRA are irate over this.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!