Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens says Second Amendment should be repealed

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grimmley

I thought Trump had already banned bump stocks? Or am I mistaken?

TheRedneck

He called for it, but then had a private meeting with the NRA and backed down.

Uhmmm... ok

Tru mp takes executive action to ban bump stocks that increase weapons' firepower

WASHINGTON – President Trump signed a memorandum instructing the attorney general to regulate the use of bump stocks, effectively banning the use of the devices that can allow rifles to mimic automatic weapons.

Trump made the announcement at a Medal of Valor ceremony at the White House for firefighters and police officers — some of whom had intervened in shooting incidents.

Trump told Attorney General Jeff Sessions, seated in the front row of the East Room, that he expects new federal guidelines to be finalized “very soon.”

click link for full article

a reply to: Grimmley

And with bump stocks you have no accuracy and are a waste of money.

Accuracy is not the point of an assault rifle. Assault Rifles are NOT sniper weapons. They were originally designed to support troops allowing them to essentially provide their own cover fire, firing 'from the hip' (i.e. not from the shoulder) as they assaulted a held position.

No fully automatic weapon is 'accurate'. That's why they put tracer rounds in machine gun loads, so you can get some kind of idea where your bullets are ending up.

Certainly AR15's are a waste of money - what is the line about more money than sense?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your link doesn't say that Trump has banned bump stocks - and he has not banned bump stocks. What he has done is push the issue onto the "don't you worry, I won't betray my NRA buddies cause I got only the best people working for me and there won't be any action on this stuff under my watch" pile.

Your link says that Trump has instructed Jeff Sessions to promulgate regulations that will ban bump stocks. It also says that the BATF doesn't believe that it has the authority to do so because of the very precise definition contained in law - a definition that the NRA has steadfastly refused to allow the GOP to change.

Trump has written twice the number of Executive Orders than any President in history, he could issue one more. He could issue an EO to ban bump stocks now instead of waiting for regulations to be hacked out that everyone concerned can be assured that they will be rejected as unlawful. But he won't because he "wants to do this one right" - so nothing will be done.

That is a dog whistle for "see this is what I want to do, but Congress won't let me - its not my fault" and that will lead to "the Democrats (who have been trying to get this law changed for years) are blocking my efforts to get this change through the GOP controlled Congress" which will lead to "Muellar is on a witch hunt - fake news - Judge Judy is a rat fink" twitter barrage.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Grimmley

And with bump stocks you have no accuracy and are a waste of money.

Accuracy is not the point of an assault rifle. Assault Rifles are NOT sniper weapons. They were originally designed to support troops allowing them to essentially provide their own cover fire, firing 'from the hip' (i.e. not from the shoulder) as they assaulted a held position.

No fully automatic weapon is 'accurate'. That's why they put tracer rounds in machine gun loads, so you can get some kind of idea where your bullets are ending up.

Certainly AR15's are a waste of money - what is the line about more money than sense?

None of what you just said is true.
The M16, Ak-47, FN Scar, etc... are all highly accurate weapons there are even rifles that designated marksmen use that have been adapted off of the m16 (AR) platform

A fully automatic rifle is useful in war because a infantry company if attacked or ambushed can gain fire superiority faster by sending down a large amount of rounds in a short period of time. No infantry training school in the US teaches soldiers or marines to “fire from the hip” when assaulting a position, you can good well aimed shots and make every single round count.

As for no fully automatic weapon being accurate again, false. The M240 and M2 browning .50 cal are both highly accurate and effective on the battlefield. The reason for tracer rounds are for spotting rounds at night or low light situations, and if need be direct fire from one gun crew to another gun crew.

a reply to: rnaa

Trump doesn't have the authority to ban them. There's a reason they weren't banned under Obama. He had DOJ and ATF investigate the possibility and they told him they couldn't do it. They are legal the way the law is written. The President and his agencies have no authority to change the law. The law would have to be changed by Congress. If Trump tries to ban them, he's gonna get sued and lose.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for the link. I'll believe it before I will believe someone who obviously just likes to hate Trump.

The last I had heard, Trump had said he was unilaterally banning bump stocks, but I had not heard confirmation that the ban was in effect. As I understood the legality of the issue, any ban would have to be either legislative or based on the intent of the original ban on fully automatic weapons. Not backing away from my previous position that the fully auto ban itself was unconstitutional, I can see logic in the legal argument that a bump stock equipped firearm IS a fully automatic mechanism and should be included.

Come to think of it, didn't I hear a rumor that the recent Omnibus bill also banned bump stocks? If so, that would render Trump's memorandum moot.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Come to think of it, didn't I hear a rumor that the recent Omnibus bill also banned bump stocks? If so, that would render Trump's memorandum moot.

Yes.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Wardaddy454

An oath to the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution can't be changed though, if the 2nd were changed it would be completely legal, in which case threatening the government or the citizens would be acting against the Constitution.

Luckily its extremely hard to make changes.

a reply to: TheRedneck

CNBC March 8th 2018 - Trump: 'We're almost finished with the legal papers' for a ban on bump stocks

President Donald Trump said Thursday his administration is in the final stage of crafting regulations to ban the use of bump stocks, devices that enable semi-automatic guns to fire at fully automatic speeds.

"Bump stocks — we're almost finished with the legal papers," Trump told reporters at the start of a Cabinet meeting at the White House. "Bump stocks are just about finished from the standpoint of getting the legal work done."

Despite procedural hurdles, he added, "bump stocks are going to be gone."

Click link for article...


Why couldnt the ATF do anything about bump stocks?

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms had previously determined that it did not have the authority to regulate bump stocks because they were merely an accessory for guns, and not an actual weapon.

Finally - To- give the NRA's position, since the left is constantly lying about them.

The bump stock ban, once it is enacted, will be the most significant new federal gun control measure in recent memory. But unlike other recent gun control proposals, regulations for bump stocks have the backing of the National Rifle Association, the country's largest gun-rights lobbying group.

Following the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, in Las Vegas in October, the NRA quickly issued a statement saying that "devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." The gunman used a bump stock in killing 58 people.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz came out today announcing a bill that would require background checks just to purchase ammunition. Even more disturbing is the fact she claims she was shocked to learn anyone could purchase ammunition without a background check, calling that discovery a massive loophole. I find it extremely disturbing when the people who are sent to Congress dont have a fu**ing clue as to what they are talking about.

Once again Democrats are trying a back door attempt to strip the 2nd amendment.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Wardaddy454

An oath to the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution can't be changed though, if the 2nd were changed it would be completely legal, in which case threatening the government or the citizens would be acting against the Constitution.

Luckily its extremely hard to make changes.

I share that thought to an extent. A way to bypass Congress to get what the left wants is to bring people into the country to illegally vote at the state level. If Democrats can pull off what the Republicans did at the state level (gaining control of legislatures / governorship) then they could force changes through a constitutional convention.

Even then I still dont think Democrats completely understand what the reaction will be should they try to ban guns. If anything it further demonstrates just how out of touch they, Dems, are with reality.

As an example the Democrats constantly bitch about a national popular vote for Presidential elections. Knowing they have no support to change the constitution they instead are pushing, at the state level, a national popular vote bill. Any state that adopts the law (11 so far but it needs a minimum threshold of state for it to go into effect), regardless of how the citizens of the state voted, would award their electoral votes to the person who wins the national popular vote.

In this scenario, had it been in effect for the last election, would have seen every single state Trump won have their electoral college votes awarded to Clinton, nullifying the intent of the citizens of the states.

Since Democrats import illegals to get Democrats elected we can see where this is going. Frankly I am surprised how Democrats blatantly violate our election laws by knowingly and willfully conspiring with foreign nationals to interfere in our elections.

So they ban guns.
Back door a national popular vote.

If people cant see where this is going then you are part of the problem and if you support what Democrats are doing you are complicit in their crimes.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

A smart man, quite insightful. Too bad you people can't learn from your wiser elders.

a reply to: Plotus

Guns are doomed in America. You gun nuts are to blame. Even if I was a twisted gun lover I would admit to myself the end is near. Why? Of course you are too dumb to figure this out but when the next slaughter happens and then the next and the one after that, outrage only grows among smarter people and then one day we will have had enough and no more ridiculous 2nd amendment by popular demand. You will have only the NRA and yourselves to thank. I will thank you for letting our kids finally feel safe.

a reply to: Plotus

When guns are finally banned there will be no revolt, only rejoicing. As someone pointed out here (he had some sense clearly) you cant beat the military. You dont stand a chance with what the govt. has in its arsenal. Even your local cops would all be conscripted into putting your so called revolt down. Not a chance. And the notion that govts. round up weapons before they totally take over is also a myth. Long claimed, never proven, just the typical paranoia of the far right and nothing more.

a reply to: idoubtmore

Actually, gun nutz one and all voted in Mad King Donald, now looking like the worst prez this country has ever been burdened with. The Mad King was once a bleeding heart liberal if you recall, only a decade ago praising immigrants and Hillary. Then he became a fascist because in his lust for adoration discovered gun lovers et al had finally found someone who spouted the nonsense they always wanted to hear. To have voted for this beast therefore makes you complicit in all his evil. Nice going.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Poor guy is 97.
Poor guy is not a justice
It's an opinion piece

Can people still have opinions?

They can, but the man is calling for groups to demand it be repealed. At that point he is not just having an opinion.

If he is still getting a check from taxpayers, it should be cut.