Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:15 am

salttee wrote:
That's just a rhetorical trick you're using. There is no official definition or arbiter for this "technical definition" you guys are postulating. This "technical definition" is all your own invention, it doesn't exist as fact.

salttee wrote:
Now you want to use legal definitions and it is obvious that you have zero legal training.

:roll:

Words have meanings

I still don't get what you are mad about. I agreed with you in almost every regard and even "colloquially" in saying that they replicate automatic fire and should be banned or severely regulated. I disagreed with some particular wording (because it's wrong,) you get all mad and say there is no official definition, I quote the official (according to BATFE) definition, then you go on about me using official definitions (?) and that I can't use them since I have no official legal training (ok I guess no one but lawyers should talk about anything) and that no one solicited my opinion (I didn't see where anyone solicited your or anyone else's opinion, you do know what a forum is right?)

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree (or maybe you can just disagree to agree to disagree just to be petty) but now we are clogging this thread, we should probably stop quabbling or continue via PM (which I'm sure neither of us want/care to do) but I'll let you have the last reply if you want, fire away bro
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:36 am

I'm not "mad"; that's another of your inventions. I just wiped the floor with you as far as debate logic goes, but you don't know it. I imagine that telling people they're "mad" works pretty well for you in face to face conversations (tell em they're butthurt and then tell em they're mad). You must be a real delight to know in person.

I'll pass on any personal communication with you.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:16 am

salttee wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
Hmm, I'm gonna disagree slightly with saltee, they aren't technically automatic......

That's just a rhetorical trick you're using. There is no official definition or arbiter for this "technical definition" you guys are postulating. This "technical definition" is all your own invention, it doesn't exist as fact.

When someone who pretends to be nothing other than a neophyte asks the simple question that Seb146 asked above, that person deserves a honest answer, not a rhetorical gimmick. The honest answer is that a bump stock converts a semi automatic rifle into a fully automatic weapon.


This was what I was talking about before. When a domestic terror attack happens like in Orlando or Las Vegas or San Burnardino or Aurora or Sandy Hook, the gun nuts come out and start complaining that people don't know the technical specifications and definitions when those technical specifications and definitions are used.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
stratclub
Posts: 1372
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:08 am

seb146 wrote:

This was what I was talking about before. When a domestic terror attack happens like in Orlando or Las Vegas or San Burnardino or Aurora or Sandy Hook, the gun nuts come out and start complaining that people don't know the technical specifications and definitions when those technical specifications and definitions are used.

Huh? I think your post just gave me a brain tumor. :eyepopping:
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:44 pm

This is pretty hilarious to read.

Literally no one here is in disagreement yet everyone still finds a way to get their panties in a bunch.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10411
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:10 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Literally no one here is in disagreement yet everyone still finds a way to get their panties in a bunch.
This is a micro version of the problem with the USA right now.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
AA747123
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:15 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:31 pm

Very sad that Trump caved to the left on this one.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:53 pm

AA747123 wrote:
Very sad that Trump caved to the left on this one.


Were you planning on committing a mass shooting? That's about the only reason one would oppose this.
 
AA747123
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:15 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:14 pm

bagoldex wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
Very sad that Trump caved to the left on this one.


Were you planning on committing a mass shooting? That's about the only reason one would oppose this.


No its an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. Remember "shall not be infringed?" The 2nd amendment is one of the most valuable rights.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11277
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:18 pm

AA747123 wrote:
bagoldex wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
Very sad that Trump caved to the left on this one.


Were you planning on committing a mass shooting? That's about the only reason one would oppose this.


No its an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. Remember "shall not be infringed?" The 2nd amendment is one of the most valuable rights.


So you have a machine gun ?
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:25 pm

AA747123 wrote:
bagoldex wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
Very sad that Trump caved to the left on this one.


Were you planning on committing a mass shooting? That's about the only reason one would oppose this.


No its an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. Remember "shall not be infringed?" The 2nd amendment is one of the most valuable rights.


Valued by what metric, life insurance payouts?
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:06 pm

seb146 wrote:
This was what I was talking about before. When a domestic terror attack happens like in Orlando or Las Vegas or San Burnardino or Aurora or Sandy Hook, the gun nuts come out and start complaining that people don't know the technical specifications and definitions when those technical specifications and definitions are used.

Look, let's cool the temperature down. It's got heated here, definitely more than it should have been. I was a part of the raising of the rhetoric, I'll leave it at that.

Seb, my friend (love ya man even if we often disagree,) I feel you whenever there is a shooting and there are often rhetorical, semantic arguments. You probably aren't really super familiar with guns I imagine? I know your aim, you want to see the deaths reduced.

I do too. I get a lot of grief from my gun owning comrades about what I'd do if I could pass laws... but often times, the details do matter. The best example I can think of is an assault weapons ban, which I'm almost positive you're in favor of. I know you hate the semantics and nitty gritty and just want the deaths to stop, but unfortunately, the details matter. "Assault weapons" is a broad, often misused term. What is an assault weapon? It can't be automatic weapons/machine guns... Those are already banned/highly regulated. You can speak vaugely about them, but when you get down to it, you're probably talking about magazine fed semi automatic rifles, probably of a certain caliber (which honestly gets problematic too). Defining it like that opens the door on a large range of weapons... and you seem reasonable on not banning too many guns. But like I said, a certain level of knowledge on firearms is required. Come to Florida sometime and I'll take you shooting ;)
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:18 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This was what I was talking about before. When a domestic terror attack happens like in Orlando or Las Vegas or San Burnardino or Aurora or Sandy Hook, the gun nuts come out and start complaining that people don't know the technical specifications and definitions when those technical specifications and definitions are used.

Look, let's cool the temperature down. It's got heated here, definitely more than it should have been. I was a part of the raising of the rhetoric, I'll leave it at that.

Seb, my friend (love ya man even if we often disagree,) I feel you whenever there is a shooting and there are often rhetorical, semantic arguments. You probably aren't really super familiar with guns I imagine? I know your aim, you want to see the deaths reduced.

I do too. I get a lot of grief from my gun owning comrades about what I'd do if I could pass laws... but often times, the details do matter. The best example I can think of is an assault weapons ban, which I'm almost positive you're in favor of. I know you hate the semantics and nitty gritty and just want the deaths to stop, but unfortunately, the details matter. "Assault weapons" is a broad, often misused term. What is an assault weapon? It can't be automatic weapons/machine guns... Those are already banned/highly regulated. You can speak vaugely about them, but when you get down to it, you're probably talking about magazine fed semi automatic rifles, probably of a certain caliber (which honestly gets problematic too). Defining it like that opens the door on a large range of weapons... and you seem reasonable on not banning too many guns. But like I said, a certain level of knowledge on firearms is required. Come to Florida sometime and I'll take you shooting ;)


This is the kind of discussion this country needs to have. But, definitions, splitting hairs, and semantics makes it impossible. We actually had an assault weapons ban. It reduced the number of mass shootings. But, we can't go back to that because so many weapons could be classified as assault weapons. No matter what anyone lists, gun nuts will scream "that is not an assault weapon" until nothing is taken away but we still have domestic terror attacks.

There is a way to keep domestic terror attacks from happening and let people still have guns. But, to many gun nuts, that means a total and complete ban. That is the other thing that frustrates me: a huge majority do not want a total ban. That is a lie still circulating around gun crowds and needs to stop.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
stratclub
Posts: 1372
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:41 am

AA747123 wrote:
bagoldex wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
Very sad that Trump caved to the left on this one.


Were you planning on committing a mass shooting? That's about the only reason one would oppose this.


No its an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. Remember "shall not be infringed?" The 2nd amendment is one of the most valuable rights.

You need to stop drinking the NRA Cool-Aid and actually read and understand what the 2nd Amendment says. The NRA's version of the 2nd Amendment is a lie by omission.

The 2nd Amendment as written:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The 2nd Amendment as the NRA fraudulently represents it:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
 
mrmilom1990
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:46 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
"The regulation was signed Tuesday by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. It will take effect 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen Friday.

Bump stock owners will be required to either destroy them or surrender them to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a senior Justice Department official said. "

https://www.apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af


It would be better if those bump stocks will be surrendered to BATFE. Destroying those is just wasting resources, instead it could be recycled.

Having said that, I am a fan of collecting and using shotguns for hunting. I love to read this as reference: https://gunnewsdaily.com/best-semi-auto-shotguns/.

Again, we are blessed with knowledge and the power of technology to use it in right way possible, it's either for defense or competitive shooting. Always remember that we must held liable and responsible to everything we do. We don't need to blame government or pointing someone, it worsen the situation.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2148
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:23 pm

bennett123 wrote:
I did not expect that.


Beneath the tweets, lies and stupidity that is killing his Presidency, Trump has actually pulled off a shit load of work that will reap major benefits down the road. It’s unfortunate the media wants to focus on the other crap like a bunch of children because they still can’t get over election night and their gross and blatantly obvious liberal bias.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:39 pm

DL717 wrote:
blatantly obvious liberal bias.



Normally I tune out some of the rhetoric surrounding liberal bias in the media (mostly because, well we all show our biases in everything we do - whether we know it or not).

But I was particularly stricken by the coverage of Nancy Pelosi's decision to inform the President that the SOTU should be rescheduled or done in writing, vs the way the media covered Trump's decision to not allow the Speaker, and other lawmakers the ability to travel over seas on C-32s. The former was lauded as brilliant statesmanship, the later, childish and petty. Personally, both are petty, but I at least understand the premise of both. Probably shouldn't give a SOTU address while federal workers are furloughed. And probably shouldn't be traveling overseas for seven days when you just chastised the other side in regards to the furloughed workers. You can't pass anything if you're overseas afterall.

Edit: sorry I know this was off topic on a necro'd topic but I wanted to get that off my chest.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2148
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:16 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
blatantly obvious liberal bias.



Normally I tune out some of the rhetoric surrounding liberal bias in the media (mostly because, well we all show our biases in everything we do - whether we know it or not).

But I was particularly stricken by the coverage of Nancy Pelosi's decision to inform the President that the SOTU should be rescheduled or done in writing, vs the way the media covered Trump's decision to not allow the Speaker, and other lawmakers the ability to travel over seas on C-32s. The former was lauded as brilliant statesmanship, the later, childish and petty. Personally, both are petty, but I at least understand the premise of both. Probably shouldn't give a SOTU address while federal workers are furloughed. And probably shouldn't be traveling overseas for seven days when you just chastised the other side in regards to the furloughed workers. You can't pass anything if you're overseas afterall.

Edit: sorry I know this was off topic on a necro'd topic but I wanted to get that off my chest.


I’m especially fond of Acosta’s border reporting. The guy is unbelievable. Him getting outed on his lies by the locals is hysterical:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/14/jim- ... r-twitter/
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11277
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:21 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
blatantly obvious liberal bias.



Normally I tune out some of the rhetoric surrounding liberal bias in the media (mostly because, well we all show our biases in everything we do - whether we know it or not).

But I was particularly stricken by the coverage of Nancy Pelosi's decision to inform the President that the SOTU should be rescheduled or done in writing, vs the way the media covered Trump's decision to not allow the Speaker, and other lawmakers the ability to travel over seas on C-32s. The former was lauded as brilliant statesmanship, the later, childish and petty. Personally, both are petty, but I at least understand the premise of both. Probably shouldn't give a SOTU address while federal workers are furloughed. And probably shouldn't be traveling overseas for seven days when you just chastised the other side in regards to the furloughed workers. You can't pass anything if you're overseas afterall.

Edit: sorry I know this was off topic on a necro'd topic but I wanted to get that off my chest.

Why are you posting it in the bump stocks thread?
This belongs on shutdown thread.
While you can claim both are petty, both are also politically gold for the bases. Unfortunately neither gets us closer to the shutdown ending.

I saw liberal sources that laid the claim that both were petty , so it wasn't just the Russian flagships of fox news and the like carrying Trump's water.
Where ever you go, there you are.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, ArchGuy1, casinterest, Charles79, Google Adsense [Bot], Kent350787, WarRI1 and 66 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos