What is it like to be Benedict Arnold?

I've noticed that in light of the new regulations against bump stocks being imposed by the POTUS that a lot of so-called 2nd Amendment "supporters" have not only failed to criticize or condemn the POTUS' or the NRA's actions but have been actively running interference for this new ban.

So my questions to these people are:

How does it feel to be on the other side?
Does it feel dirty allying with people like Feinstein and Bloomberg? Or does it feel like going home?

 

Things like this are why I have refused to accept being part of either political party. Too many people will accept any intrusion or violation of the Constitution so long as it comes from the party they have chosen to ally themselves with.

 

Thanks for acknowledging not all 2A “supporters” are the same. It’s a good point.

I was pretty vitriolic in my criticism of Trump in the bump stock thread.

Yep, I’d like to hear the answer to your question too.

 

Gun apologists are penny wise and pound foolish. They become so fixated on minor issues while not giving a rat's ass that the very nightmare that the Founders were trying to prevent when they wrote the Second Amendment has become a reality. The citizen militia is no longer the main military force of the nation. The federal government has become much more powerful than it was intended to be. It has a very large and powerful military.

 

Yeah. It's a tough one for me.

On the one hand, I think that I should be opposed to the ban, on principle because the government doesn't have the right to decide what people "should" own. On the other hand, I think that "bump stocks" are retarded, and are a blatant attempt to dodge the tax levied on the ownership of automatic firearms.

I think that if someone wants a "bump stock", they can and should pay the $200 tax.

 

You understand that it's not about a tax stamp but the Hughes Amendment, right?

 

Except the Hughes amendment sets a hard date for machineguns in the registry. A permanent cutoff if not papered before may 16 1986.
Is it currently before may 16 1986 when you're going to propose to add all these new "machineguns" to the registry?
Because that's what this new rule has done: modified the definition of machine gun to include bump stocks.

 

Don't confuse not raising hell about something with supporting something.

I see it as something we were able to compromise about. The GCers making a stink about 'oh you caved' is not going to engender future cooperation.

If Trump endorses a semi-auto ban, watch his support disintegrate overnight.

 

No, I don't. I'm not at all versed in the law(s) regarding automatic weapons. I took a glance a the Hughes amendment. It seems unclear that it sets a cutoff date.

I don't know anything about the Hughes amendment. What I just read claims that the so-called "cutoff date" is an interpretation of the law.

As always, interpretations are subject to change. If the Chief Executive can direct the ATF to change their interpretation of what constitutes a modification to fully automatic, he might direct them to re-interpret the Hughes ammendment.

But, like I said: I am not informed on the law regarding this issue.

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) interpreted the Hughes Amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986."

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/today-in-history-the-hughes-amendment/

 

Such is not the fault of firearm owners, however.

 

In this case it is a distinction without a difference since the end result is the same. It would be like our old friend Benedict saying not to confuse his military raids against Americans as support for the British. The point would have been lost on the Virginians he was slaughtering.

First, I'd appreciate it if you stopped compromising my rights. Second, what do you think you got in return for this?

I'm not a "GCer" but I'm "making a stink" about you and your ilk caving precisely because I want you to STOP COOPERATING with people who don't believe that you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Doubtful. Trump just unilaterally instituted an illegal ban on bump stocks and it didn't put even a minor dent in his cult of personality. The majority of his minions will follow him wherever he leads them, IMO, and will make excuses for any rights that are infringed along the way.

 

Approaching a particular subject in a manner indistinguishable from a rabid animal, that being attacking anything in sight without conscious thought or a plan of approach, is hardly the way for anyone to go about doing business if they wish to be successful in their endeavors.

 

18 U.S.C. § 922 to add subsection (o):

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

^^^ the subsection took effect on a certain day in may 1986.

Without congressional approval ie an amendment to the subsection, you dont get to register new machineguns. Bump stocks are now considered machineguns. Therefore you cannot register new bump stocks as machineguns without Congress amending the law.

What kind of bureaucratic, interpretive bullshit can you pull to change the date of the act?

 

So what did we get out of this exactly?

O.... less than nothing? Now the executive can simply rewrite laws and create felons at the stroke of a pen?
Great. Wonderful. Such 4dchess much wow.

 

Is this pretty much where the OP is coming from:

Gun control enthusiast: Gun owners are extremists, they won't accept any 'reasonable' gun control.

Gun owners reluctantly accept bump stock ban.

Gun control enthusiast: How do gun owners feel about being a traitor?

 

Dead wrong. I'm an ardent supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. I am wholly opposed to the gross overreach by the executive branch in unilaterally deciding to ban bump stocks. I am taking issue with the quislings and posers who claim to support the 2nd and then either turn a blind eye to or openly support these illegal actions.

 

Never imagined that Trump, who I voted against, was anything friendly to gun owners. I never believed him and watched in outrage as the NRA poured millions into supporting that con artist.

Of course Con Artist Trump initiated a gun control rule. He is not remotely a gun person. If he has guns or a permit for them in his NYC penthouse, it is no more because he's a gun person than his gold plated toilet makes him a plumber.

Trump does what he thinks will help his image. That's it, there is little more to him than that, his big fat combed-over small handed ego. Everything he does is a reflection of that. For whatever reason he thought this ban would help him, so he did it.

The bump stock should not have a rule against it. The trigger finger must work the trigger for each and every round fired. It is bad enough that the NFA 1934 and later legislation infringed so severely on the Second Amendment, but the Bump Stock clearly does not fall afoul of any of that. So has the ATF said multiple times, Trump's lies not withstanding.

Doesn't mean I like the thing.

The bump stock is a stupid toy. A means of wasting money and rapidly wearing out a gun never intended to be used so intensely. None of that is or should be against any law. You want to waste your money, well, it is your's to waste. Or it should be. Just as Trump's money is his to waste on gaudy gold personal hygiene fixtures.

Besides, the resulting fire is wildly inaccurate. If anything, the use of it by the madman in Las Vegas more likely reduced casualties than caused them. That's my greater worry, if a madman like that guy, with all the money he had, had actually known what he was doing? He would have chosen far more accurate and destructive weapons. The horror of it would have dwarfed all the mass shootings we have heard of. Scares me merely to think of it, how so far we have largely been lucky that mass shooters were more or less incompetent or of limited knowledge in the weapons they used.

Of the NRA, GOA and SAF, I donate to them all annually, within limits as I cannot afford much. Doesn't mean I like them or think they are going about defending the Second Amendment as they should be. Especially not Wayne LaPierre, who's leadership is more liable to lose us our rights than to protect them, in the long run.

 

In that case, I stand corrected. What I feel that is even worse is the no compensation part of it. Now there is a president that the government can ban something and then offer no compensation. States can now ban 'assault weapons' and give nothing in return.

 

The only other option the NRA had for a candidate to back was Hillary Clinton.

As has been said, numerous times previously, the united states did not vote for Donald Trump as president of the united states, so much as they voted against Hillary Clinton.

 

This isn't going to make it through the courts, one challenge and it will fall apart. I'm not overly concerned, so I'll not start disliking Trump just yet on this. On the other hand, Trump has been filling the bench with the very judges who won't allow this to stand...

 

The non-compensated aspect of this new Trump Gun Ban Rule is a big part of why I hope it will fail in court challenges. Taking away or destroying property that a government agency has previously and repeatedly stated is lawful to own, is a deeply Anti-American act. Trump, being a very piss-poor example of an American, naturally would not be aware of this or care very much about it if he were. This does not make him a traitor or a Benedict Arnold-like figure. It does, however, make him an ignorant and dangerous fool in a position to make terrible and consequential mistakes.

Now about that ban. To begin with, the full text of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Notice that property is mentioned twice, that a due process of law must be followed and that compensation must be made. The Supreme Court has ruled on this many times and fro many different angles. As recently as 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that taking personal property is no different from real property (land is real property).

In "Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture", Chief Justice John Roberts said this in the opinion of the court:
“The government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home,”, “This principal, dating back as far as the Magna Carta, was codified in the Takings Clause in part because of property appropriations by both sides during the Revolutionary War.”

So the stage is set for a slap-down. I only hope it helps that Trump has insulted so many Federal judges.

 

Has it ever been considered on the part of yourself, that Donald Trump potentially supported such a course of action because he knew from the start that it would ultimately fall apart when challenged in court, thus forcing the public to accept and concede that these devices cannot be removed from the equation?

 

I think we got precisely nothing.

The left got to ban a toy, and the right proved they're open to considering some gun control.

The bureaucratic creation of felons was established in the 30s with the ban of machine guns and marijuana.

 

It's not about liking or disliking anyone. It's about holding your guy's feet to the fire to engage in actions of which you approve. You can stand up for the second amendment and still like him afterwards.

And I agree that it should fall apart in court but experience has shown that "should" doesn't necessarily matter. Hell, the ATF should have decided, as they'd done in the past, that bump stocks are not machine guns, but they didn't. Trump should not have told ATF to ban bump stocks, but he did. It would help a lot if Trump's fans would let him know that they will not stand for this but honestly I don't see that ever happening.

 

That was at least done by legislators. This was done outside the prescribed process.