Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Your bottom paragraph there. I think a bump-fire product gives unnecessary ammunition (for lack of a better word) to the gun control zealots.
I think you are mis-understanding me a good bit here. I am NOT arguing that the word "arms" in the Second Amendment did not mean military weapons. But back then, military weapons were muskets and cannons and a few types of handguns for the most part. Things like battle tanks, attack helicopters, fighter planes, NBC weapons, etc...none of them existed yet. As such, due to all the new weapons technology since then, we've had to give a definition to what the word "arms" means. Legally, as a society, we have decided that machine guns, which under the law includes assault rifles, are not covered under the word arms in the Second Amendment. I'm not saying that's right, but that's how it is right now.
Regarding my being in New York, well regardless of where I live, I don't let that affect my political opinions, but I happen to live in upstate, NY in one of the most conservative districts in the state  |
"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