"Arms" to the Fathers, meant all weapons of military application and included the most dangerous weapons of the day, cannons. Further, men of means could raise their own units and equip them as they saw fit.

IMHO, the Founding Fathers of this country would come much closer to understanding machine guns and small arms of all types than they would TVs, cable, satellites, computers, the internet, etc.

Please show me where we have decided that automatic weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. I may have missed that news flash. All I am aware of is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the Federal government may tax NFA items, and the basis for that back in 1934 was very shaky, legally. The 1986 FOPA restricted manufacture of new automatic weapons for private ownership, but did nothing to outlaw the transfer and possession of existing weapons.

Machine guns are not assault weapons, though by the real definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but an M-16 is.

A bump fire stock is manually operated, just like a hand crank. Jerry Miculek's finger is faster than either of those. Any device that would permit the firing of multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger would be restricted by the NFA.

The BATF has demonstrated the power of semi-autos repeatedly in the past by using full-auto weapons. The media laps that shite up and coos about how dangerous these weapons are spraying bullets all over the place and killing dozens of people. Truth is that one marksman with a 100 year old rifle at any real distance could kill more people than five gangsters with full-auto AKs. And a tractor trailer or a tank of gasoline could kill even more. Who knew unarmed planes were capable of bringing down huge structures before 9/11?

You may want to do some more research before posting your opinions as facts.

TR

"The shooter used a device called a bump fire stock, a device that easily allows one to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun..." I mean the media would lap it up and so would all the gun control types.[/QUOTE]



Because I do not live my life based on what if's the media might say or not say. Your worry about anti gun nuts and the media is about pointless, they already wing out mindlessly regardless of whether their facts are correct or not. Should the 2nd amendment be needed for such purpose as to overthrow a tyrannical Government, there will be no doubt what 'arms' means.

Why create Mortgage Back Securities?

Entrepreneurship? Capitalism? Wealth creation? Jobs? Freedom of Choice?

Creating a device or vehicle and putting that device or vehicle on the market are two different things. I am not an inventor, but I would suspect the inventor had to put his creation through a lot of government red tape and legalese before even thinking about putting a for sale sign on it.

I guarantee you that more lives have and will be adversely affected by MBS than this bump fire toy, a EBR, a Pistol Grip or a Hi-Cap Mag.

The whole evil gun discussion is a folly when you consider that our ticking time bomb of a financial system and the mentally ill that run it have the potential to devastate millions and scorch the earth for future generations.

[QUOTE=Broadsword2004 .... why create a device that just helps add fuel to the fire? If some nut decides to shoot at people with a weapon that has a bump-fire stock, I could imagine the media reports:

"The shooter used a device called a bump fire stock, a device that easily allows one to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun..." I mean the media would lap it up and so would all the gun control types.[/QUOTE]

Jesus that scares the hell out of me...why would you say a statement like that? Yes, I accept your point of it would upset the media. But really? Do you sincerely believe that there should be no freedom of thought because it might upset someone else?

"...Dont let the bullys know that they upset you little Johnny, and they will just go away..."

No, that does not happen in real life. Its thinking like that, that has brought cultures and countries to their knees to forces of greater power that wish to exploit such thoughts. People die thinking that way, societies fall claim to extinction. Essentially giving up to surrender to the greater forces. That is not the right answer. There will always be some force greater than your own morals, beliefs, ethics, or religion. It is up to you to hang onto those beliefs. That small piece of culture that you carry, that sacred piece of society should never be forgotten. If you lose that, we are all screwed.

Frankly, I don't care what the MSM thinks. I will NEVER however, give up who I am and tell someone not to invent something, or think something, because it upsets someone else. Yes there are reasonable limits to this, which I will let you consider. There is a time and place to be politically correct, but even at that, it is your own discretion. Sometimes your point cannot be communicated clearly when trying to speak at someone else's "sensitivity" level.