Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Bump fire stocks: A new definition of bureaucratic overreach

Published

on

Bump fire stocks A new definition of bureaucratic overreach

One would think that with the Right virtually controlling all levers of government, gun grabber demands to chip away at our common sense civil rights would be met with admonitions that they go play in the traffic. But alas, RINOs being RINOs they knuckled under to these demands and passed off this issue to unelected bureaucrats and the intended consequences of the slippery slope.

In the case of “Bump Fire” Stocks the bureaucracy that ostensibly handles Moonshine, Cigarettes and Firearms is going to hand down a ruling from on high to the great unwashed as to how our civil rights are once again going to be restricted as punishment for the actions of a lunatic.

In order to make this ruling the ATF bureaucracy is going to have to change the very definition of a machine gun from the function of the trigger to the arbitrarily vague rate of fire standard:

The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition.

[One may submit comments on the proposed rulemaking by identifying the docket number: 2017R-22 ]

Their proposed ruling references the definition of a machinegun as:

The NFA defines “machinegun” as 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.” The term also includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

Please note the phrase “by a single function of the trigger.” Anyone familiar with the issue of “Bump Fire” Stocks or those common place items that can perform the same function – Belt Loops, string, rubber bands and fingers – should realise that these items operate a firearm by multiple trigger pulls. Thus on the face of it, this proposed ruling contradicts itself. In order to make it work, this specific functional definition would have to be altered to something undefined, opening the door to regulating all semi-automatic firearms as “Machine Guns”. As several commentators have stated, it is a very dangerous precedent and bureaucratic overreach arbitrarily changing the technical meaning of the phrase “Machine gun” from that of the easily defined functioning of a trigger to that of an undefined rate of fire.

Just as the Socialist-Left loves to use undefined surrogates in place of actual civil rights such as the terms “Hate-Speech” or “Assault Weapon”, changing the definition of a “machinegun” from that of the function of a trigger to the vague and arbitrary metric of rate of fire is a slippery slope gun grabbers would love to exploit. As Nancy Pelosi expressed it a few months ago: “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.”

The Takeaway

A true machine gun has an internal mechanism to allow sustained fire with one pull of the trigger. To redefine mechanisms using repeated trigger pulls such as “Bump Fire” Stocks and anything else designed “to increase the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire”, could easily see this applied to ban any and all semi-automatic firearms.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Rich

    January 10, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    To enact ANY gun control law is to give in to the erroneous notion that an inanimate object is the source of evil and that we must allow government to exercise dominion over our liberties in the name of protecting us from that inanimate object—whatever it is. The entire presupposition is fatally flawed. How anyone who claims to believe in liberty and the fundamental right of self-defense can swallow this illogic defies common sense.
    Plus, the ever compromising National Rifle Association (NRA) is providing Trump all of the cover he needs to affix his signature to another gun control bill by coming out in support of legislation banning “bump stocks.” Check the record, folks, and you will discover that virtually every gun control bill on the books—going back to the 1920’s—was put there with the approbation of the NRA. Like almost every national special interest group, the NRA exists more for the benefit of the special interest group than it does for the benefit of the cause it claims to represent.
    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3664/They-Are-Coming-For-Our-Guns.aspx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Planned Parenthood necessitates rape culture

Published

on

Planned Parenthood necessitates rape culture

Often times leftism is very self-fulfilling. Implementing Obamacare as a halfway measure for single payer. Support DACA amnesty so to secure votes for many elections to come. They can even look at countries like Sweden and still support bringing in massive amounts of migrants. Sweden has by all means become the rape capital of the Europe, yet feminists would have us be more like them. They support letting illegal immigrants come in and commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, including rape. Why? Two reasons. The first one being feminism and leftism are essentially the same thing though feminism is more cultural. Just recall last year’s or this years Women’s March. It had more to do with Trump than women’s issues. The second reason is that rape culture advances feminism. Feminism despite its long history has become a leftist front in the third wave. First feminists wanted women to vote. Then they wanted women to work. Both of these succeeded but too often movements don’t end when the battle is won. Now feminists want women to have tax payer funded abortions with no social stigma. And their golden calf is Planned Parenthood.

At a Glance: The Abortion Industry

Systematically detailing how everything Planned Parenthood does is centered around the core competency of it’s nefarious business model is the subject of articles and books that would distract from the message I am getting to. Planned Parenthood does provide other services, but all of their services are designed to develop rapport with at-risk women and give them an abortion when they have an unwanted pregnancy. The National Review analyzed their yearly report, and Alexander Desanctis made this observation:

The report indicates that Planned Parenthood saw 2.4 million clients in the last fiscal year. But, as has been shown by the group’s own figures, it doesn’t provide those clients with very many actual health-care services. According to the report, the only significant services offered, besides abortion, are STI and HIV tests, contraception, and pregnancy tests.

Planned Parenthood is like the crooked mechanic who messes up your car so you keep returning to him. They target at-risk, especially minority at-risk, women, give them contraception which they likely won’t use perfectly resulting in unwanted pregnancies. Note: the pills effectiveness is in the low nineties. Planned Parenthood is the abortion industry, and more people are realizing that the 3% stat they boast is simply a myth as also pointed out by Desanctis.

Small Percentages Matter Most

Public perception is moving in the opposite direction of the Planned Parenthood dystopian dream. A recent poll spells trouble for the pro-abortion crowd. Townhall reported that:

(2) Just 12 percent of Americans support the Democratic Party’s radical abortion platform, which effectively favors restriction-free abortion-on-demand (some left-wing state legislatures have gone even further in their extremism).  Fewer than one-in-four respondents say abortion should be widely legal either throughout pregnancy, or at least through the first two trimesters.

(3) A lopsided majority — 76 percent — believe that legal abortion should be limited to the first trimester, permitted only in very rare circumstances (rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life), or barred entirely.  Support for these pro-life reforms includes 61 percent of Democrats and 78 percent of independents.  And even if you excise the ‘first trimester’ option, fully 50 percent of Americans believe abortion should only be legally allowed in a handful of narrow circumstances, or not at all.

Perceptions of abortion largely due to the efforts of pro-lifers raising the pro-life generation. With a growing anti-abortion sentiments, the pro-abortion arguments are more readily focusing on a tiny fraction of all abortions: health of the mother, rape, and incest. Often times these are the most agreeable grounds for an abortion, though my guess is that incest is thrown in there whether people agree with it or not as the pro-life movement has made gains in outlawing abortion based on special needs. Abortion due to incest, unless rape, is still with the overwhelming majority where a person aborts as “birth control”. There’s also threat to the mother which is highly subjective. Pregnancy affects a woman’s body. This much is obvious. But if a woman got an abortion due to morning sickness, should that really count under “health”? There are also ectopic pregnancies (outside the uterus) which are increasingly treatable, though in theory wouldn’t be born naturally anyway so is that really an artificial miscarriage? Yet these instances are rare and treatable. Otherwise threat to the mother would have a much more specific context. Woman should seek multiple opinions if one doctor recommends an abortion in a life threatening instance, especially as we better know how to treat high risk pregnancies.

So we are mostly left with rape, a fraction of the one percent.

The Pro-Abortion Hill To Die On

The fraction of the one percent has become one of the main focuses of the abortion debate. Stephen Crowder does a segment on his show called “Real Conversations” where he talks to regular people. He presents his viewpoint and challenges people to change his mind. In his second addition of “I’m Pro-Life: Change My Mind” every serious contender digs in at the subject of rape. Note: the person supporting partial birth abortion was not a serious contender seeing as she compared abortion to a c-section. It is this small percentage that makes people consider themselves “pro-choice”. But as Stephen Crowder rightly pointed out, being pro-life is pro choice. There are four choices: abstinence, motherhood, adoption, and contraception. We in the pro-life camp just don’t want killing babies to be one of the options. Planned Parenthood on the other hand is not very pro-choice seeing as they perform 83 abortions for every adoption referral, according to their own report.

A Symbiotic Relationship

Bernie Sanders once said that if men could have abortions, the issue would have been settled a long time ago. Better yet, if people didn’t rape, the abortion would be settled by now. Can you imagine how unsympathetic pro-abortion arguments would be if we achieved a rape-free society?

In nature, there are many instances of symbiont-host relationships. In mutualism both parties benefit. This would be like bacteria in our own bodies that helps us digest food. Then there is commensalism where only the symbiont benefits. This would be like the pilot fish to a shark. In order for Planned Parenthood, and by extension the pro-abortion argument, to stay its ground or even regain ground, it need a rape culture in America. A rape culture would accomplish two things vital to the movement. The first is the obvious unwanted pregnancies. Not every woman gets raped. Now not everyone who gets raped, gets pregnant. And not everyone who gets pregnant from rape chooses an abortion. This is a very segmented market (I’m speaking in business terms because that’s what PP is). More rapes, more abortions due to rape which would be good for Planned Parenthood. They already want to hide the fraction of 1% of abortion that is due to rape. The second benefit to Planned Parenthood rape culture would render is disempowered women. Planned Parenthood pretends to be the voice for women’s rights. A rape culture would, in practice, harm gender equality. Planned Parenthood’s waning influence on women necessitates women who need them to speak for them.

Meanwhile feminists are trying to create the idea that we have a rape culture in America. In truth we don’t. If you want to see a rape culture go to a country that doesn’t give women equal testimony in court, so an Islamic country. That’s an actual rape culture. Instead feminists would rather tout international crime data which puts the US around the top without any consideration for countries that don’t consider women equal therefore the rape convicted is highly misleading. The US pales in comparison to an actual rape culture.

Enter MeToo

Perhaps it’s not the end game, but Hollywood is pressing for our society to change the definition of consent. The term “enthusiastic” is thrown in their definition. Now this isn’t Hollywood’s creation. I recall talking to a liberal colleague of mine who lightly refers to today as sort of a “Age of Consent” where consent matters more now than say a generation ago. But this is likely some crap out of an anthropology class. In other words, Hollywood and feminists via Twitter will argue that society needs consent training to go with it’s hookup culture. For instance, nothing Aziz Ansari did was legally rape or sexual assault, but because his accuser regretted it, this new definition of rape the left is trying to craft would consider this an offense. Ansari wasn’t acting deviant from a hookup cultural perspective. If society changes the definition of sexual assault far from what the legal definition is, more people would have been “assaulted or harassed.” The result of more women being convinced they have been sexually assaulted or harassed is a divide between the two genders.

The End is Nigh

If Planned Parenthood can’t have the rape culture they need, they will likely have to settle for the pseudo-rape culture feminists are trying to convince us we have. In the short term, it’s great for donations which the abortion cartel was not short on during year one of Trump. But in the end, it’s sort of like how Voldemort was drinking unicorn blood in the Sorcerer’s Stone. Pro-life is making gains and could ban abortion after twenty weeks on a national level with new legislation. And who knows, by the time such a law is challenged in the Supreme Court there may be a fourth conservative judge sitting among the nine. And what if the GOP actually defunds Planned Parenthood at a federal level like they have been on a growing state level. The future doesn’t look bright for Planned Parenthood. Their government money is under siege, and once the siege is broken it will be politically unlikely for them to recover. And while were fielding political unlikelihoods, the Democrats could change their tune on abortion because they need to win seats. Pro-life victories are sure to come especially when the (likely also) pro-life Gen Z will start voting to make things worse for the pro-abortion movement. Such are the times for the lingering abortion giant.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Facts beat emotions in the gun debate as long as we get our ground game going

Published

on

Facts beat emotions in the gun debate as long as we get our ground game going

When the gun debate can be fought in a war of facts, the 2nd Amendment will win every time. When surface emotions are brought into the equation, it’s possible for hearts and minds to be swayed in the wrong direction.

Iowa Gun Girl Pat Nicklaus lays down the facts and gives advice to fellow 2nd Amendment advocates as we push to defend our right to defend ourselves.

Follow Pat on Facebook and Twitter.

Continue Reading

Democrats

DOJ to retry Menendez

Published

on

DOJ to retry Menendez

Senator Bob Menendez had hopes his day in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons was over after a jury failed to reach a verdict in his federal corruption case late last year. Those days away from the spotlight may soon be over for the Democrat as the Department of Justice announced their intentions to retry him and his co-defendant Salomon Melgen.

Feds intend to retry Menendez and Melgen ‘at the earliest possible date’

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/bob-menendez-retrial-justice-department-350904“The United States files this notice of intent to retry the defendants and requests that the Court set the case for retrial at the earliest possible date,” reads the one-paragraph notice signed by AnnaLou Tirol, acting chief of the department’s public integrity section. “Defendants Robert Menendez and Salomon Melgen have been indicted for bribery and corruption by two separate grand juries properly impaneled in the District of New Jersey. The first trial ended in a mistrial with a deadlocked jury. An early retrial date is in the best interests of the public, and the United States is available to schedule a retrial at the Court’s earliest convenience.”

My Take

I’m no lawyer, but the evidence against Menendez is pretty clear cut. An unfavorable jury and bungling by prosecutors made it hard for the jury to reach a verdict while mainstream media essentially ignored the story until the verdict. I hope to see justice served.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.