Blood on their hands:bump stocks sold after 6/14/2024

[303squadron]

Every death from a gun fitted with a bump stock sold after 6/14/2024 is blood on the hands of the 6 PRO LIFE conservative justices.

And we as citizens should take the time to write letters to them reminding them of that fact.

I certainly will.

[sop]

1. AR-15s with bump stocks were used in the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

The shooter used rifles outfitted with bump stocks to fire into a crowd at a music festival, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500. It was the most lethal mass shooting in the US (so far).

There are several youtube videos posted clearly stating the use of bump stocks made such a high casualty number possible. We will see more of these bump stock devices used by mass shooters in the future.

[JanMichael]

6. "so far" yep. It is only a matter of time before 58 is in 10th place

[paleotn]

9. As though semi-auto and high capacity magazines wasn't bad enough.

[Hieronymus Phact]

14. semi autos aren't the boogey-man people think

A revolver leaves no evidence behind, a semi auto ejects spent cartridges for later collection.
Semi autos are more complex, the mechanism can jam more easily on cheap ammo or a simple misfire will stop the gun until its cleared. A revolver is cheaper, more dependable, used in more street crimes, It can keep right on going after a misfire, and lets remember it also "automatically" prepares the gun for the next shot so you just squeeze the trigger again, just like a semi-auto.

I'm saying this to educate, so efforts can be focused better on the aspects that could really make an impact, like you mentioned high capacity magazines are a much bigger threat than basic semi autos. I think semi autos get an outsized reaction because "look it has "automatic" right in the name: its got to be almost as bad as a full automatic". but that's flawed logic passed off as pseudo-common sense.

I think focusing on this dilutes the energy for things that would have a more measurable impact on the issue, and that's the only reason i bring it up.

Just my $0.02

[Attilatheblond]

17. Oh, goodie. More people will be mowed down faster, but at least there will be evidence left behind for the clean up crew

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2024, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

NOT a great policy selling point.

My husband passed and I have to figure out what to do with his hunting rifles (he used to live in a 'line cabin' in a remote area of the Rockies, where bears and wolves don't always play nice with grazing cattle and humans).

A couple years after spouse passed, I took the list of guns and sights, all very good ones, to a gun dealer. He read the list over and offered an insanely low amount for the lot of them, saying, "Nobody buys these anymore, they want fast guns with big magazines".

This was in the area we retired to, an area with WAY too many right wing nutz. I did not return to that dealer, and got the same response from others I called.

They want 'fast guns' and bumpstocks. Those are NOT defensive weapons, nor are they what skilled hunters use. Those are 'spray & pray' weapons, the kinds mass murderers prefer and cops stay back from while hearing small children being torn to shreds in mass shootings.

So, we currently have a SCOTUS that includes justices (with spouses) who seem to favor those who actively seek insurrection, and now bump stocks are back in play. What could possibly go wrong. At least Meal Team Six will be happy.


Just my $0.02

[paleotn]

19. Thank you.

[paleotn]

20. Oh please. I don't need an education. I don't need gunzsplaining.

I've been around firearms literally my entire life, both in private life and in the service. It's not about "look." It's all about firepower. Number of rounds down range in a set amount of time. The most important metric for mass murderers. The key to that as how rapidly one can fire and how many rounds one has before you have to take the time to change clips. And they don't jam all that often. That's complete bullshit.

[Attilatheblond]

21. And with 'spray & pray' weapons, one doesn't even need to spend time at the range

Any idiot can do a mass murder with those things.

Thank you for your post!

[MOMFUDSKI]

30. The Uvalde coppers were outgunned by

an AR-15. NOW all cops are totally outgunned by bumps. Great. Gunsplain THAT

[Straw Man]

36. The Uvalde cops were not outgunned.

They had rifles on the scene within 20 minutes of the first call. They just fucked up. It was a failure of command.

You can call that "gunsplaining" if you want. In fact, it's simply the truth.

[MOMFUDSKI]

40. I saw it as the cops being too afraid to go in

because of the type of weapon they were up against.

[Paladin]

42. Unforgivable chickenshit behavior by well-armed law enforcement personnel.

Pray for your loved ones, because the Thomas Bump Stock Decision is going to make things much worse.

[Straw Man]

47. That's not the same as being "outgunned."

I saw it as the cops being too afraid to go in

because of the type of weapon they were up against.

As I said before, there were cops with rifles on the scene within 20 minutes. There was no attempt at entry until almost an hour later. There was no excuse for that.

A cop with a pistol who doesn't engage an assailant with a rifle is being prudent. A cop with a rifle who doesn't engage an assailant with a rifle is a different story altogether. Somebody fucked up.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

53. In Uvalde's case

Rifle or not, the cops were supposed to go in immediately, alone if necessary. Standard active shooter protocol for decades now is for the first arriving officers to enter and hunt down the shooter as soon as they arrive. Doesn't matter what the cops are armed with or what the shooter is armed with. You go in and confront the shooter. The reason being is 90% of the time the shooter will kill themselves as soon as they encounter credible resistance. For the 10% that don't, the focus of the shooter is then shifted to the officers.

[sarisataka]

49. I saw it as moral cowardice

I think the higher up more more worried about who was going to take the blame than anyone's fear of a weapon.

[Hieronymus Phact]

24. not sure why you think i mentioned 'look' of anything

I was speaking about Actions.
I'm pretty sure a revolver can put 6 down range just as fast as a semi auto maybe even faster.
if you think it doesn't take just as much practice to speed swap a magazine vs a speed loader, you may not know as much as you think.
if you think they don't jam all that often that's a lack of experience. Many are quite finicky about their ammo requirements and the slightest under pressure will cause a malfunction, cheap ammo will often cause feed problems, and I've never seen a brand that hasn't had a misfire. Not bullshit at all. The military uses top shelf stuff that's matched for the gun, because misfires are life and death. Civilian assholes get what's on sale.
FYI a jam saved lives on this one:
Colorado shooting spree could have been worse; shooter's gun jammed, official says.


Apparently people are upset I'm not in on the group think. It doesn't mean i want to live in a shooting gallery. It's a matter of focusing on the effective doable things not the hot-button things, sorry.
Oh, and screw these bump stocks just make them illegal when we have the congress next year.

[paleotn]

25. Not upset about "group think" just the complete bullshit of your responses.

Lack of experience my ass. Jams in auto and semi auto weapons are relatively rare. Or maybe every military on the fucking planet should just swap their autos for bolt action. You know...the "inevitable" feed jams in combat. And why doesn't law enforcement continue to carry revolvers? To match the firepower they're up against perhaps? And the fact that semi-auto is reliable...i.e. relatively jam free. But hey, if you want to spout bullshit in defense of weapons designed to kill lots of humans as efficiently as possible, feel free. But remember, some of us know for a fact you're full of shit and wonder why you would even go there.

[Hieronymus Phact]

28. I'm overwhelemd

by your expertise and persuasiveness.

[paleotn]

29. I'm underwhelmed by your lack of good sense.

[Hieronymus Phact]

31. You seem to be

pretty good at slinging those insults.
I "lack good sense", my "responses are bullshit"
I stated good-faith facts from experience and example.
Apparently a thoughtful response was too much to expect.

[paleotn]

34. My good faith facts and experience don't jive with yours.

To the point of completely dismissing virtually anything you type out of hand. AND wondering why you're typing it.

I'm pretty sure a revolver can put 6 down range just as fast as a semi auto maybe even faster.
if you think it doesn't take just as much practice to speed swap a magazine vs a speed loader, you may not know as much as you think.

Pretty sure? A speed loader is just another 6 rounds and you have to do it again, and again, and again. I'd pit my 20 round mag against you any day as you fumble with your speed loader for the umpteenth time. Dropping a spent mag and loading a fresh one in an M-16 was a piece of cake. A child could do it. They certainly do with the ubiquitous AK's. And apparently with the multitude of AR knockoffs. And you still haven't explained why law enforcement gave up their revolvers decades ago if they can actually match the firepower of a semi auto.

if you think they don't jam all that often that's a lack of experience. Many are quite finicky about their ammo requirements and the slightest under pressure will cause a malfunction, cheap ammo will often cause feed problems, and I've never seen a brand that hasn't had a misfire.

Guess all that money spent on autos by militaries across the globe was a complete waste since they're so...finicky. And never seen a brand that doesn't have a miss fire? Even mil grade? Alas! They jam!!! They misfire!!! The humanity!!! If they only had revolvers! Think of it!

As for lives saved by jams.....I guess the Sandy Hook shooter splurged on ammo or the kids were just unlucky.

Which brings me to why you're wasting so much time defending the indefensible?

[Hieronymus Phact]

39. tired of insulting me outright?

Do you even listen to yourself?
What am i defending that "indefensible" Exactly?
bump stocks? no.
AR's? no
extended magazines? no.

Oh the horrors! i stated the opinion from experience, that the giant category of 'semiautomatic' might not be the primary boogeyman in our firearms mayhem.

Clearly that was worth your stream of insults, and derision.
I apologies for my errant thoughts, I'm a monster.

[sop]

32. You got a lot of your phacts wrong, Hieronymous.

Maybe Jerry Miculek could put 6 down range with a revolver as fast as a semi-auto, but even Jerry couldn't put 30 down range as quickly as an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine. And the stuff about swapping speed loaders and magazines is nonsense.

The vast majority of AR-15s don't jam often and they're not finicky about ammo. The 5.56 NATO rounds most AR-15 shooters buy on sale is good military surplus stuff, and anyone can buy the exact same M855A1 5.56 ball ammo the US miltary uses. It's not top shelf stuff matched to the gun.

[Hieronymus Phact]

33. Respectfully accepted

As an honest, reasoned, knowledgeable, non-insulting response.
Thanks

On edit you know i never mentioned ARs at all, i was speaking of semiautomatics in general. I also never mentioned magazine capacity but i think that's the better choke point for regulation.
And as upset as people get over it, they forget cheap revolvers are what's shooting up my city streets not ARs.

[BoRaGard]

2. Bumpstock Thomas (R) will live in infamy

#BumpstockThomas going viral.

For all the souls about to be cut down by reason of republicans pissing all over the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not murder.

[Paladin]

15. PERFECT nickname!

I hope it follows him around for the rest of his miserable, billionaire-blowing life.

[Hugin]

3. Thomas seems to be pandering to micro minorities now.

Although, I believe that ultimately, this ruling is a sick sadistic continuation of twisting the knife on the revocation of Roe. Emphasizing that these people who have a right to own a bumpstock have more control over their guns than women have over their own bodies.

I am willing to bet that more people have been killed or maimed by bumpstocks than those who actually own them.

[Irish_Dem]

4. Alito and Thomas have sadistic streaks.

So does Kavanaugh.

All three of them are angry and controlling.
Feel entitled.

They will kill, punish and control to their hearts content.

[BlueTsunami2018]

5. And they're just fine with it.

They couldn’t care less. It’s impossible to shame these people.

[niyad]

7. I'm sorry. Are you under the impression that they care? If they had

anything resembling integrity, we would not be where we are today.

[paleotn]

8. They're not pro life. Never have been.

One of the greatest lies of our time. Second only to "the check is in the mail."

[elocs]

10. They. Don't. Care. n/t

[40RatRod]

11. Need their address...

...so I can send them my thoughts

[orleans]

13. here's the best i could do...

1. U.S. Mail: Supreme Court of the United States. 1 First Street, NE. Washington, DC 20543.
2. Telephone: [phone]. TTY: 202-479-3472. (Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)
3. Contact the Public Information Office by U.S. Mail: Public Information Officer. Supreme Court of the United States. 1 First Street, NE.

supremecourt.gov

[40RatRod]

41. Thanks!

I plan to use it.

[orleans]

12. billboards nt

[DemocraticPatriot]

16. It has been said that they may be a little hard to come by,

since they've been banned for a number of years, manufacturing was likely halted...

but regardless, this is a bad thing.

[sop]

23. There are probably a handful of manufacturers already shipping bump stocks to gun stores to meet demand.

In the gun world nothing drives demand like federal bans. Bump stocks will be flying off shelves at inflated prices over the next few months, every MAGA yahoo with an AR-15 will want one.

Also AR-15s outfitted with bump stocks burn through ammunition really quickly. Everyone knows the only reason these devices exist is to fire off as many rounds as possible, in as short a time as possible. Prices on 5.56/.223 rounds will go up from the increased demand.

Happy times for the gun industry!

[sarisataka]

18. I prefer to not waste my time on empty gestures.

Instead I wrote my Representative and Senators asking for legislation to change the laws. Correct the wording so bump stocks are included in the definition of a machinegun.

I wonder how many others have taken positive action?

[Think. Again.]

27. Let's hope we won't have to write never-ending new laws...

...every time a rightwing justice delberately misinterprets perfectly clear statutes.

[Straw Man]

37. The problem is ...

Let's hope we won't have to write never-ending new laws...

...every time a rightwing justice delberately misinterprets perfectly clear statutes.

... that the statute is perfectly clear, but not in the way that you think it is. According to the statute, a bump stock is NOT a machine gun. It does not fire multiple rounds with a single action of the trigger, as the current statutory definition states. The trigger must perform its function for each round to be fired. A bump stock merely simplifies that task for the shooter. He holds his finger still, and the bump stock provides the movement by providing spring action against the recoil of the rifle.

The law needs to be rewritten to account for bump stocks. It's a relatively simple task if the political will is there. That's a big "if," though.

[Think. Again.]

38. No,...

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2024, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

...the statute is perfectly clear in the way that I and the three honest justices who dissented think it is.

A bumbstock turns the gun into a machine gun by allowing the gun to fire multiple bullets with the single "manual" function of one trigger pull, just as the statute's definition of a machine gun decribes.

The problem is the rightwing (dishonest) justices, and yourself, want the definition (edit to add: and intent) to be something that it isn't for their, and your, own personal reasons.

The law is written correctly, it's just that some people want to oppose our laws when it suits them personally.

[Straw Man]

46. Yes.

This is the ATF definition of a machine gun:

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. ​

This is your version:

A bumbstock turns the gun into a machine gun by allowing the gun to fire multiple bullets with the single "manual" function of one trigger pull, just as the statute's definition of a machine gun decribes.

A "single function of the trigger" is a mechanical definition. Your version, with the insertion of the word "manual" before function changes the meaning completely. If this is the desired change, it needs to be written into the statue. Don't write to the Supreme Court; write to your congresspeople.

The problem is the rightwing (dishonest) justices, and yourself, want the definition (edit to add: and intent) to be something that it isn't for their, and your, own personal reasons.

Don't presume to tell me what I want and for what reasons. I would be happy to see bump stocks disappear tomorrow, for ever and ever. It's not going to happen by pretending that laws say what they don't really say.

[Think. Again.]

48. If the "single function of the trigger" referred to...

....a single mechanical function, no gun would be defined as a machinegun, not even machineguns.

[sarisataka]

51. You don't understand how an actual machinegun works

They fire continuously by the trigger not engaging the sear until it is released. The trigger functions once.

With a bump stock the trigger does reengage the sear. It transfers recoil energy to the trigger, releasing the sear at a rate faster than a person can do without assistance. There are multiple functions of the trigger thus is not a machinegun per the definition.

[Think. Again.]

54. The single function of the trigger...

...is the single pull, same with machine guns, that one function releases multiple bullets.

Look, I understand from your posts you have a passion for guns and a deep desire to defend rightwing rulings, and I'd like to say I respect that, but it's obvious to anyone what the intent of the statute was, pulling the trigger once to release multiple bullets makes it a machine gun.

[sarisataka]

55. Nice dig, but don't worry i don't alert

I do have some knowledge of guns from several decades of experience. I know how machineguns operate from having taught courses on them. When I encounter ignorance I try to educate.

I am also aware our legal system, while giving consideration to intent, looks at what the law says. If there is a dispute between the intent and letter of the law, the letter of the law will carry the day. I can accept such a ruling regardless if it comes from the right or left.

Another thing I do not do is play chess with a pigeon.

Good day

[Think. Again.]

56. It's a bullshit ruling that will get people killed.

[Straw Man]

61. It's the letter of the law.

As much as you want it to say something different, that's not what it says. It's the law that needs to change.

You apparently don't know the difference between a trigger and a sear. The sear is what holds back the hammer, striker, or bolt -- the mechanisms that actually strike the cartridge, causing it to fire. An automatic sear is the distinguishing component in a machine gun. Pulling the trigger releases the sear, and the gun will continue to fire until the trigger is released and re-engages the sear. In a semi-automatic firearm, even one with a bump stock, the trigger has to re-engage the sear for every single round fired. That makes it by definition not fully automatic and therefore not a machine gun.

These are technical distinctions that are well understood by designers of firearms. This is why it's important for the drafters of regulatory legislation to get technical advisors fully on-board for the process. Otherwise you get sloppy laws that get overturned.

Will this get people killed? More than would have been killed without bump stocks? I don't know. I have to ask: How many bump stock killings have there been since Las Vegas in 2017? As I said, I'd be happy to see bump stocks disappear forever. However, I find it somewhat ironic that bump stocks are currently banned nationwide, while people who will jump through the proper paperwork hoops and fork over massive amounts of cash can legally own fully functioning automatic weapons -- actual machine guns.

[Straw Man]

58. Wrong again.

"A single function of the trigger" means the trigger moves once: it is pulled by the shooter. In a fully automatic weapon, this activates an automatic sear, which causes the weapon to continue to fire until the trigger is released. If the trigger is not released, the weapon will fire repeatedly until all the ammunition has been expended.

With a bump stock, the trigger is pulled and released over and over again. The difference is that the gun moves and the trigger finger remains stationary, as opposed to the trigger finger moving and the gun remaining stationary, as in normal semi-auto functioning. The trigger must be activated for every single shot fired, unlike the current ATF definition of a machine gun.

The statute must be rewritten. As it currently stands, a bump stock does not create a machine gun.

[Think. Again.]

59. The ruling is bullshit and people will be killed by it.

[Straw Man]

64. See link.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19040415

[sarisataka]

43. Not going to waste time debating what is "perfectly clear" either.

Besides what we think is irrelevant as we are not SCOTUS justices and the ruling has been issued.

Given that reality, have you or do you plan to take any action to change the situation? Besides posting your opinion on a message board?

[Think. Again.]

44. Yes.

[sarisataka]

50. Good.

[republianmushroom]

22. You can e-mail them see link below

https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx

[Think. Again.]

26. K&R

[live love laugh]

35. They like blood 🩸.... they're bloodthirsty and want bloodshed

as long as they are excluded.

[Kaleva]

45. Who did we blame when bump stocks were made legal in 2010?

From what I recall, hardly anyone here cared

[captain queeg]

52. The paranoid side of my brain sees this as part of their coming coup.

[Think. Again.]

63. You're not alone in that.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

57. People will die due to this ruling

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

60. 400 to 800 rounds. PER MINUTE. But not a machine gun, say the MAGAs.

Link to tweet

[Straw Man]

62. Cyclic rate of fire vs. actual rate of fire.

Let me preface this by saying the I would be happy to see bump stocks disappear forever. That said, the much-quoted 400 to 800 rounds per minute figure merely measures the mechanical efficiency of the firearm. There are no 400-round magazines, much less 800-round ones. Assuming a standard AR-15 mag size of 30 rounds, firing 400 rounds in minute would require 13 magazine changes, and firing 800 would require 26 magazine changes. Even with very fast magazine changes -- let's say 2 or 3 seconds -- the magazine changes alone would approach or exceed a minute, not to mention the fact that the excessive heat generated by sustained rapid firing would render the weapon inoperable before the minute was up.

[Kaleva]

65. Yes, most semiautos would be destroyed.