.Gov instructions on how to destroy your private property...

[BlueHeelerFl]

Imagine the reaction if the object that has to be destroyed were different; cell phones, vehicles that don't meet emissions standards, tobacco products, prescription opiates............

I want to say CA had a buyback program for older cars since they pump out more pollution.

I could see CA banning all cars made prior to a certain date to save the planet

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Weird analogy.

Cell phones used countless times every day to make peoples lives better. At least my phone makes my life easier. But I don’t talk on it while I’m driving, so I hope I am not making your drive to work any longer.

Emission standards, they tried annual testing here and found out that most cars passed and the few that didn’t, weren’t worth the cost of the program. They dropped the program after a few years.

Tobacco products, I personally don’t get why anyone would use tobacco. Do you think cancer is fake news? I do get that it isn’t anyone’s business but yours.

Prescription opiates, in my state they lawmakers passed new regulations on pain killers. I have no idea if they are working, but there is starting to be a lot of pushback. It seems like when people are in pain and can’t get their medications they tend to look to illegal means or suicide. OK, there might be a lesson here. Lawmakers are convinced there is a new crisis. They feel that they must do something. They screw it all up and make peoples lives worse.




I’m not sure how any of this relates to bump stocks. I am also not sure how banning bump stocks makes any one any safer.

My point is many things can be dangerous if misused and many are dangerous even when used properly but they aren't banned.
What if a dozen people are killed in car accidents today caused by people texting on I Phone 7's. Would banning and requiring the destruction of I Phone 7's be reasonable?
Nobody has to have an I Phone 7, the 6's and 8's work just fine.
Nobody has to have a bump stock either. People with murderous intent can kill with lots of other weapons.
Our government, requiring law abiding citizens to destroy their personal property or become criminals by default is a very scary thing.

 

[rskent]

I do get your point, and I agree that the government banning bump stocks is not likely to have any positive safety or security effect. And I agree that making something illegal without actually passing a law is a scary slippery slope.
I just think its weird that you are using examples that could have a positive effect on peoples lives in general. I am not sure what the positives of bump stocks would be.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I am not sure what the positives of bump stocks would be.

The positive is some people want them and have fun with them, I don't happen to be one of them.
I see nothing positive in watching golf on TV, rap music, square dancing or tapioca pudding but others do and none of it should be banned.

 

[OARNGESI]

Tapioca pudding does not need to be drug through the mud here

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Tapioca pudding does not need to be drug through the mud here

I support your right to eat disgusting food.

 

[Trey Veston]

I want to say CA had a buyback program for older cars since they pump out more pollution.

I could see CA banning all cars made prior to a certain date to save the planet

That was an Obama program that was nationwide called Cash for Clunkers. It was supposed to reduce emissions by encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. In reality, it destroyed thousands and thousands of clean, reliable, and cheap vehicles. It caused used vehicle prices to skyrocket, and hurt working families; just like all liberal nanny-state policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), colloquially known as "cash for clunkers", was a $3 billion U.S. federal scrappage program intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle. The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways.

The program officially started on July 1, 2009, processing of claims began July 24,[2] and the program ended on August 24, 2009, as the appropriated funds were exhausted.[3][4] The deadline for dealers to submit applications was August 25.[5] According to estimates of the Department of Transportation, the initial $1 billion appropriated for the system was exhausted by July 30, 2009, well before the anticipated end date of November 1, 2009, due to very high demand.[6][7][8] In response, Congress approved an additional $2 billion.[6][7][9][10]

A study by University of Delaware researchers concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion.[11][12] A 2017 study in the American Economic Journal found that the program, intended to increase consumer spending, reduced total new vehicle spending by $5 billion.[13]

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

That was an Obama program that was nationwide called Cash for Clunkers. It was supposed to reduce emissions by encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. In reality, it destroyed thousands and thousands of clean, reliable, and cheap vehicles. It caused used vehicle prices to skyrocket, and hurt working families; just like all liberal nanny-state policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), colloquially known as "cash for clunkers", was a $3 billion U.S. federal scrappage program intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle. The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways.

The program officially started on July 1, 2009, processing of claims began July 24,[2] and the program ended on August 24, 2009, as the appropriated funds were exhausted.[3][4] The deadline for dealers to submit applications was August 25.[5] According to estimates of the Department of Transportation, the initial $1 billion appropriated for the system was exhausted by July 30, 2009, well before the anticipated end date of November 1, 2009, due to very high demand.[6][7][8] In response, Congress approved an additional $2 billion.[6][7][9][10]

A study by University of Delaware researchers concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion.[11][12] A 2017 study in the American Economic Journal found that the program, intended to increase consumer spending, reduced total new vehicle spending by $5 billion.[13]

Ah yes! I remember that now.

These programs never have the intended effect. That never matters as its the tought that counts when wasting tax payer money.

 

[stillquietvoice]

Maybe the bump stock manufacturers nerd to file suit for bankrupting their businesses.

 

[John_R]

These programs never have the intended effect. That never matters as its the tought that counts when wasting tax payer money.

I believe the effects are EXACTLY as intended, it’s just that they lie about the intentions. The effects aren’t what they tell us they’ll be, and we’re supposed to respond by demanding more of what didn’t work because we’re sheep who trust government to know what’s best. FDR exploited that to the fullest.

It’s like when they tell us, “Socialism works, it just hasn’t been tried by the right people.” They’re lying through their teeth.

 

[P5 Guy]

Christy Todd-Whitman tried to do that in NJ in the early 1990s.

I want to say CA had a buyback program for older cars since they pump out more pollution.

I could see CA banning all cars made prior to a certain date to save the planet

 

[FL-NC]

Reminds me of when I was in the army- field manuals for sensitive items almost always included a chapter on destruction of that item- to prevent enemy use in the event of capture.

 

[Jack B.]

I wonder how many bump stocks will be lost in boating accidents. .

 

[badkarmamib]

If I had one, I am left wondering if I would 1) take the easy way out, 2) hold off and hope for legal injunction, or 3) "other". I am vehemently opposed to this rule, even though I have never even tried a bump stock. The NRA's "stance" (if they can even claim they have one) has me reconsidering where my next-year's donation money will be going.

 

[Odd Job]

As others have said, I would hold off destroying your bump stock until the last moment. I've placed the ATF instructions in the resource area, for reference.
There is not much more to be added here, we've started meandering.