Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Clarence Thomas' Opinion Legalizing Bump Stocks Is Indefensible [View all]yagotme
(4,135 posts)43. Well, I'll try again:
It's prohibited to the vast majority of citizens.
You said yourself, 37 states allow it. IL, my state, doesn't allow direct civilian ownership, but if you get a dealer license for Class III weapons (machine guns, etc.), you CAN own one in IL. So, 37 isn't a solid number, it's actually a bit higher, if you count the Class III dealers.
without further intervention of your finger,
Your finger intervenes. It has to. Otherwise, it won't work. You have to have forward pressure on the forearm also, to make it work. Bump stocks are a 2-handed operation, to get the rifle to recoil and reset properly.
emerge with a weapon that can be made functionally fully automatic
Bump stocks DO NOT make a weapon functionally fully automatic. That's why we have the judgement we have today.
if it delivers rounds like a duck, and requires the same effort to shoot as a duck, then it might very well be a duck
Well, 2 things wrong here, so it must not be a duck. Full auto is faster than bump fire. Full auto, you merely have to hold the trigger back, and the weapon does ALL the work. Bump stock, you have to hold it a certain way, allow the recoil to work a certain way, and apply a certain, specified amount of forward pressure to the forearm. If you tweak any of these things too far out of spec, then it doesn't work. Bump stocks take some practice, full auto doesn't.
maybe you should wonder why the lower courts got it so wrong
Sometimes courts get things wrong, sometimes right, and when 2 lower courts disagree, it's up to the USSC to make a final judgement. That's how our system works, like it or not.
What list? What are you even talking about? Technically you can own one? Come on
List of states that allow ownership of MG's. See above for my IL explanation.
"Two of your count, four of mine." Can you give me that in English?
Sure. You counted 2 "errors" in my post, and stated why should you believe anything I have to say, and I counted 4 in yours, with the same response you gave me.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What is your goal here? Do you think your arguments will persuade people this is okay?
Nevilledog
Jun 2024
#8
And yet, DU has at least one very busy gun aficionado defending Clarence today...
Hekate
Jun 2024
#31
Where in the Constitution does an Orginalist see reference to gun ACCESSORIES?
PeaceWave
Jun 2024
#35