• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

JLee1977 said:
It has denied my right to bear automatic weapons, by pricing them beyond my reach. A M16 that once cost $600 today, is now $30,000 for a transferable one.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't have the right to bear automatic weapons. You have the right to bear arms. But why would you want an automatic weapon anyway? Cuz...fun? This would be my point about the irresponsible gun culture of America. You want an M16? Enlist. In the mean time, settle for an AR-15 and bear arms.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
We are talking about guns, not books. Perhaps this is a part of the irresponsible gun culture that we cling to. A book on a shelf, gun in the closet, meh. All just objects to entertain us.

Your Constitutional right to bear arms is as strong as it was before they "banned" automatic weapons. This is a tired and senseless argument.
Click to expand...

you're lying If I am prohibited from buying any type of firearm, my rights have been infringed.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
that's idiotic because again you don't understand the concept of negative restrictions on the federal government.

once again, is it OK for the federal government to ban several Christian denominations as long as you can attend others? see what you apparently are unable to understand is that the creation of additional weapons or books doesn't somehow empower the government to then ban others
Click to expand...

This is not about religion. This is about an object. The problem is that far too many gun owners wrap their identities up into the 2nd Amendment and believe that their toys define them.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
Well, you don't have the right to bear automatic weapons. You have the right to bear arms. But why would you want an automatic weapon anyway? Cuz...fun? This would be my point about the irresponsible gun culture of America. You want an M16? Enlist. In the mean time, settle for an AR-15 and bear arms.
Click to expand...

two idiotic claims there

1) civilian police are routinely issued automatic weapons as being seen as suitable for self defense in a civilian environment. If civilian cops are issued them, other civilians ought to be able to own them

2) the same people who pushed the automatic weapon ban (even though there have been almost zero cases of automatic weapons legally owned and then used illegally in 80 years), are trying to ban AR 15s for the same stupid argument you have made about select fire carbines.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
This is not about religion. This is about an object. The problem is that far too many gun owners wrap their identities up into the 2nd Amendment and believe that their toys define them.
Click to expand...

that's both stupid and not relevant to this argument

calling guns toys disqualifies your arguments from being taken seriously.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
you're lying If I am prohibited from buying any type of firearm, my rights have been infringed.
Click to expand...

You are not permitted to buy any type of weapon you want. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you that right. You have the right to bear arms. That is all. Lacking the ability to purchase a rocket launcher or the latest military tech does not hurt your right.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
that's both stupid and not relevant to this argument

calling guns toys disqualifies your arguments from being taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Not relevant to the argument? This is about guns. You are the one trying to make it about books and religion.

And they are toys to the civilian population. The fact that you want to buy anything you want makes them mere toys.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
You are not permitted to buy any type of weapon you want. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you that right. You have the right to bear arms. That is all. Lacking the ability to purchase a rocket launcher or the latest military tech does not hurt your right.
Click to expand...

I said firearms. anything the police use in terms of firearms is both in common use and not unusually dangerous. Rocket launchers are neither in common use or not unusually dangerous. BTW Civilian cops don't have rocket launchers (yeah I am quite familiar about the secret service's SAMs at the White House)
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
Not relevant to the argument? This is about guns. You are the one trying to make it about books and religion.

And they are toys to the civilian population. The fact that you want to buy anything you want makes them mere toys.
Click to expand...

I suspect I have been involved in more shootings in a civilian environment than you have
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
two idiotic claims there

1) civilian police are routinely issued automatic weapons as being seen as suitable for self defense in a civilian environment. If civilian cops are issued them, other civilians ought to be able to own them

2) the same people who pushed the automatic weapon ban (even though there have been almost zero cases of automatic weapons legally owned and then used illegally in 80 years), are trying to ban AR 15s for the same stupid argument you have made about select fire carbines.
Click to expand...


1) You want to have the privileges of a cop? Become a cop and earn it. Cops have the power to restrain too. Not fair, right? I think that is also a part of the problem. Inheriting rights that haven't been earned has made many Americans spoiled about what they think they rate.

2) So let them ban them. I already have mine.
 
Last edited:
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
I suspect I have been involved in more shootings in a civilian environment than you have
Click to expand...

Um...and? The funny thing is that you don't see the irony in what you just stated.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
1) You want to have the privileges of a cop? Become a cop and earn it. I think that is also a part of the problem. Inheriting rights that haven't been earned has made many Americans spoiled about what they think they rate.

2) So let them ban them. I already have mine.
Click to expand...

privileges cops have-they can carry that stuff into courtrooms and police stations

why do you think cops lives are more valuable than other civilians? that is what you are saying.

your last comment demonstrates the stupidity of your argument

this crap about "earning rights" is more fascist nonsense
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
privileges cops have-they can carry that stuff into courtrooms and police stations

why do you think cops lives are more valuable than other civilians? that is what you are saying.

your last comment demonstrates the stupidity of your argument

this crap about "earning rights" is more fascist nonsense
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight...you place your value on the type of guns you get to buy? Because cops have a job to do and require certain hardware sometimes, you should have that hardware just because you need value?

We are right back to the irresponsible gun culture of America. These are weapons, not toys to twirl around so that we can show off our value.

And it is funny that we have to earn a driver's license, but only have to have an eighteenth birthday to start buying deadly weapons. Do you know what that means? It means that we place more value on making responsible drivers than we do towards weapons.
 
Last edited:
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Luftwaffe said:
To begin, a bump stock is such a ridiculously simple "device" that even if you banned its manufacture, any moron with a small workshop could simply make his own bump stocks in his back yard. It really boils down to just having a spring and a regular stock you can work with.

Many proposed laws also add in the idea of banning "other fire-rate altering devices" without explicitly naming what the aforementioned "devices" are. This then brings us to the conundrum of what is the "Average" fire rate of a semi automatic firearm? Who is the arbiter of this "average" fire rate? Is the "Average" fire rate 100 rounds per minute, or 10 rounds, or 1 round?

If I can pull the trigger more often in a certain time frame than a 10 year old can, would my finger be considered a "fire-rate altering device?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gICeZJ4TaY

As seen in the video, this man bump fires a semi-automatic AK with nothing other than his finger and a special style of hip-firing. He fires 75 rounds in under 30 seconds while clearly not trying to be as expedient as humanly possible.

The sheep are now starting to reveal themselves as the wolves they really are; these laws accomplish nothing more than to simply drive gun control efforts towards the eventual banning of all semi-automatic firearms.
Click to expand...

Guys make bombs in their backyards too, but they're not legal are they.

Why do you gun guys out guns over people? I don't get that.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
You are not permitted to buy any type of weapon you want. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you that right. You have the right to bear arms. That is all. Lacking the ability to purchase a rocket launcher or the latest military tech does not hurt your right.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah!!

can I get a witness
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
So let me get this straight...you place your value on the type of guns you get to buy? Because cops have a job to do and require certain hardware sometimes, you should have that hardware just because you need value?

We are right back to the irresponsible gun culture of America. These are weapons, not toys to twirl around so that we can show off our value.

And it is funny that we have to earn a driver's license, but only have to have an eighteenth birthday to start buying deadly weapons. Do you know what that means? It means that we place more value on making responsible drivers than we do towards weapons.
Click to expand...

private citizens are usually the first responders to criminal attacks upon themselves. they usually don't have backup or a radio on their person that connects them with backup. They almost never choose when they are confronted by violent criminals. and you want them to have less suitable firearms that the second responders?

if you cannot figure out that a driver's license has no relevance here I cannot help you. you don't need a driver's license to own a car or keep and use it on private property.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

jet57 said:
Hallelujah!!

can I get a witness
Click to expand...

yes, Jet supports anyone who wants to limit the rights of Americans in the same way California has limited Jet's
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

jet57 said:
Guys make bombs in their backyards too, but they're not legal are they.

Why do you gun guys out guns over people? I don't get that.
Click to expand...

why don't you admit your entire purpose on gun threads is to argue that other people should live under the same limits you do?
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
So let me get this straight...you place your value on the type of guns you get to buy? Because cops have a job to do and require certain hardware sometimes, you should have that hardware just because you need value?
Click to expand...

Under what circumstances have the police ever ever had a requirement to use an AR-15 loaded with 30 rounds, with another 6 x 30 round magazines on their person?
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
You have the right to bear arms. A ban on select rifles does not void that constitutional right. Go buy a pistol or choose from the many splendid selection of other rifles you can purchase.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the second part of my comment and ultimately the rebuttal to your original point. If they can ban select fire rifles, using your logic they could also ban semiautomatic weapons because being able to own a shotgun or revolver would not infringe on your right to bear arms. Basically banning 80% or 90% (not sure the exact number) of firearms without having to change the amendment. So given the history of people circumventing the constitution in order to encroach on the rights of US citizens it is a legitimate fear.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
There is no infringement as long as you can still bear arms.
Click to expand...

Can we ban "hate speech" without infringing on free speech?

Can we ban "troublesome" religions without infringing on the right to freely exercise one's religion?

Can we ban pro-Communism rallies without infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government?
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:
private citizens are usually the first responders to criminal attacks upon themselves. they usually don't have backup or a radio on their person that connects them with backup. They almost never choose when they are confronted by violent criminals. and you want them to have less suitable firearms that the second responders?

if you cannot figure out that a driver's license has no relevance here I cannot help you. you don't need a driver's license to own a car or keep and use it on private property.
Click to expand...

A 9mm, a Glock 40, or a .45 isn't enough for you to protect yourself? That's all the violent criminal would have.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
You are not permitted to buy any type of weapon you want. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you that right. You have the right to bear arms. That is all. Lacking the ability to purchase a rocket launcher or the latest military tech does not hurt your right.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that the 2A grants certain rights. That isn't the case. It protects the people from having the government take away certain of their rights.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Lutherf said:
Can we ban "hate speech" without infringing on free speech?

Can we ban "troublesome" religions without infringing on the right to freely exercise one's religion?

Can we ban pro-Communism rallies without infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government?
Click to expand...

he demonstrates a rather disturbing ignorance of constitutional rights and how the founders intended the bill of rights would operate. He apparently disagrees with the founders and their beliefs and commands that the people have all rights that are not specifically limited by an enumerated delegation of power to the federal government.
 
Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:
A 9mm, a Glock 40, or a .45 isn't enough for you to protect yourself? That's all the violent criminal would have.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it enough for the cops to protect themselves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom