White House Petition to Reverse Bump Stock Ban

[Kevin5098]

From the petition:
"This month, President Trump took a bolder Gun Control step than Obama ever did.

Why Does the Bump Stock Ban matter? As famous shooter Rob Pincus would say: “There are many reasons to fight a bump stock ban… but, Bump Stocks themselves are not one of them!” The underlying concern is that this ban opens the door to the restriction of any and all gun PARTS on the basis that they can be misused by criminals. We can't afford to simply let this one go or look the other way.

The ban unconstitutionally rewrites existing law defining what constitutes a 'machine gun'. If anything can make a semiauto firearm shoot faster, will they ban all those things? Will they ban firearms altogether, since they can be bump fired without accessories??

RESTORE THE 2ND AMENDMENT, REVERSE THE BAN!"


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...kPNa0drBoHZQpCKPhns61ZFO7iJhNuQL_7wBasTC0DDew

 

[dogtown tom]

White House petitions.

 

[Kevin5098]

White House petitions.

Normally I would agree, but in this case the occupant of the White House is directly addressed in the petition. I would like to see him respond to 100K signatures.

 

[25-20 WCF]

Suppose he received a petition with ten million signatures demanding that he not build a wall......how do you think he would “respond” to that?


.

 

[jmr40]

This is one better left alone. In 1994 people were pulling their hair out over the AWB. It didn't ban anything, and in the long run led to more gun rights than before. Let them have the bump stocks and lets see where this goes.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Seriously? The agency followed their usual protocol on this and he has already signalled he would support it. Does anybody really think he’ll waffle on this?

 

[Kevin5098]

Suppose he received a petition with ten million signatures demanding that he not build a wall......how do you think he would “respond” to that?


.

I don't have a clue. I personally have no issue with him building a wall as it is Constitutional and in the best interest of National Security. I would like to see him explain how rewriting the law by redefining the word "machinegun" is Constitutional and not an over-reach of Executive powers.

 

[Kevin5098]

This is one better left alone. In 1994 people were pulling their hair out over the AWB. It didn't ban anything, and in the long run led to more gun rights than before. Let them have the bump stocks and lets see where this goes.

Sure. Let them have the bump stocks. Let them have the braces. We don't need those things. Let them have the semi-autos because they can be bump fired without a bump stock. We have given up too much already. I say we shouldn't give another inch. Maybe the feds should spend more time on the definition of "infringe" and less time on the definition of "machinegun"

 

[AlexanderA]

We should know by now that those White House petitions have no effect whatsoever.

 

[Tommygunn]

I agree we ought to fight this bumpstock ban (I don't like them, but there IS principle involved), but I do not believe this petition is a viable method to fight it.

 

[CLP]

From the petition:
"This month, President Trump took a bolder Gun Control step than Obama ever did.

Agreed. What I'm curious to know is how many people are actually surprised by this?

 

[Mousegun]

I am having a ongoing debate with a friend of mine who is a gunsmith by trade. He feels, let them have the bump stocks because of the controversy behind them so we can keep "other" things.

My stance it that if bump stocks are given, it shows a sign of weakness and makes an opening for other things to be had.

The problem is that the ATF is changing and enforcing the law defining machine guns. A law that congress made, not the ATF.

Very few, if anything can be done to satisfy the anti-gun crew short of taking away most of what we have struggled to get. Giving up bump stocks is just another loss to us.

 

[FL-NC]

The biggest problem I have is that this decision wasn't made by congress, and involves the personal property that was legally obtained (with approval of the regulatory agency) to be confiscated or forcibly destroyed with no compensation.

 

[FL-NC]

I guess this is a good time for me to be thankful that I am not deployed on active duty, or deployed as a contractor overseas, and the owner of one of these contraptions (I don't own one and have no desire to)- as the deployment would likely prevent me from achieving the 90 day limit on compliance, since the thing would be secured in a safe stateside. I would be breaking the law due to my service to the federal government.

 

[jar]

I don't have a clue. I personally have no issue with him building a wall as it is Constitutional and in the best interest of National Security. I would like to see him explain how rewriting the law by redefining the word "machinegun" is Constitutional and not an over-reach of Executive powers.

It may be Constitutional depending on how those whose lands are affected are compensated but at least along the Texas-Mexico border it is utterly stupid. Go to Google Earth and simply follow the border from Brownsville to El Paso then lay out the location of the "Wall".

 

[theotherwaldo]

The place that the bump stock ban will be fought is in court.
This will drive the Trump-haters nuts.
Which side to root for?

 

[theotherwaldo]

By the way, I live within a few miles of where the border wall will run.
Wall planning meetings with the public are held where I work.
Almost all of the locals (except the coyotes and some of the politicians) want a wall ASAP.

 

[CraigC]

I don't believe in compromise on the 2nd Amendment (or much else not directly related to marriage ) and I'm always conscious of the slippery slope but I really don't think we have a leg to stand on with the bump stock concept. Let's be honest, it was designed to work around regulations regarding machineguns. I'm surprised it was ever allowed in the first place but it was fine until the Las Vegas shooting. It was a dangerous game to be playing in the first place. I think this is one issue where we have to concede and it has nothing to do with emotion or guilt.

 

[cheygriz]

This is definitely NOT the issue to go FULL CHICKEN LITTLE on.

And the so-called "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy

 

[Tommygunn]

This is definitely NOT the issue to go FULL CHICKEN LITTLE on.

And the so-called "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

No, it isnt. It is quite real. If you want an example, study the history of the personal income tax.
It doesn't mean it necessarily applies to bumpstocks. The problem here is how this ban was accomplished. If it's allowed to stand, it could be used to eliminate other mechanisms.
You're right that bumpstocks aren't themselves worth a fight over, but it should be established that the method used is WRONG.

 

[Kevin5098]

I agree we ought to fight this bumpstock ban (I don't like them, but there IS principle involved), but I do not believe this petition is a viable method to fight it.

I agree the petition by itself will accomplish nothing, but I feel it is important for Second Amendment supporters to go on record with their beliefs. SILENCE IS CONSENT.

 

[CraigC]

And the so-called "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy

No it isn't. Unintended consequences abound. Every bit of legislation should be though through to its LOGICAL conclusion.

 

[cheygriz]

Craig, look up logical fallacies. Every philosophy course teaches about them. Google has good info.

You speak of "logical" conclusions. There is no logic to slippery slope. It's a fallacy. Look it up.

 

[Tommygunn]

Craig, look up logical fallacies. Every philosophy course teaches about them. Google has good info.

You speak of "logical" conclusions. There is no logic to slippery slope. It's a fallacy. Look it up.

The classic "slippery slope" concept fits exactly with how the income tax started as a couple percentage points on the wealthiest and now amounts to people in the upper half of income earners paying taxes, some working up to April or May to earn what they are required to pay.
Leave "logic" out of it, if humans were logical, we'd have pointed ears, slanty eyebrows, green blood, and we'd all "live long and prosper."


The slippery slope is not an even ride, often it's bumpy .... but often, it is quite real.
Philosophy classes won't teach you everything. The "school of hard knocks" is a lot better.

 

[cheygriz]

The "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Just like appeal to authority, and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No logical basis for it.

Of course, "Chicken Little" is not about logic!