this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
42 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10155 readers
337 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FWIW you can bump fire without a bump stock, It just requires a little bit of manual dexterity
I don't think that you can exercise such fine motor skills while you are shooting up a school or other mass gatherings - which was the whole point of the ban in the first place.
I don't understand the kind of sociopathy required (by the judges in question) to seek an excuse to pedantically redefine a device whose whole original purpose is killing people en-masse.
I'm not interested in discussing the first paragraph but for the second; as I understand it you have to define something before you can regulate it. The pedantry is over the definition of a machine gun in that a bump stock doesn't really apply because each bump is a separate action by the operator, and the court apparently agreed. The definition of a machine gun can be changed perhaps to define a maximum rate of fire instead of number of rounds fired per trigger pull or something.