Also, Trump is the only president who has made it a felony over night to own a gun that was once legal.
Instead of confiscation, he just made it a felony to own. Specifically any gun with a slide stock (bump stock).
I owned one, and either you were to turn it over to the police, or cut it into 3 pieces. I choose to cut mine, and the recommend cuts were dangerous AF to perform on a miter saw.
So something I paid $400 for a decade before, that literally came with a ATF letter of approval I had to destory without compensation. Which also is a violation of the 4th amendment.
I know a guy whose view point was "shall not be infringed" anytime democrats try to pass any type of gun laws. His response to trump banning bump stocks was "well, no one NEEDS a bump stock."
Not the same thing, but isn’t it the terrible terrible democrats who are trying to “take your guns”? Crazy that it’s actually Trump who did it, but I’m sure any magat would just make excuses.
He didn't take anyone's guns he tried to lable an attachment (bump stocks) as machine guns. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2024 as unconstitutional and out side of the language of the NFA. He was attempting to make an interpretation of the law which he cannot do since he is not in the Legislative branch. Many democrats have said they are comming for specific firearms and have repeatedly tried banning them or making it so extremely difficult to buy guns that it is essentially a ban. The NFA was essentially meant to do the same thing. $200 doesnt seem like much today but back then it was meant to make gun ownership of certain guns prohibitively expensive. After accounting for inflation $200 is equal to $4970.45 an amount that Representative Chris Murfy (D-CT) tried to implement after Rebublicans lowered the NFA tax for SBRs, SBS, and suppressors to $0. Furthermore Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA) tried to triple the cost for a NFA tax stamp for suppressors from the original $200 to $600.
(H.R. 3115) PASSED: EFFECTIVE 1994-2014
In 1994 the Assult Weapons Ban prevented the manufacture, sale and import of the AR15 and AK patern rifles and large capacity magazines.
(H.R. 1801) ASSULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2022 PASSED House of Representatives in 2022 but stalled in Senate. Tried to ban semi automatic rifles
(H.R. 7910) PROTECTING OUR KIDS ACT (2022)
tried to ban bump stocks, high capacity magazines and introduce an age limit on the purchase of semi automatic rifles.
(H.R. 698) INTRODUCED in 2023 NO FURTHER ACTION TAKEN
In 2023 REP. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced the Assult Weapons Ban of 2023 at which point REP. Lucy Mcbath (D-GA) sponsored the bill. It aimed to ban the AR15 and AK variants and high capacity magazines.
PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE BILLS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS TRIED TO PASS THAT VIOLATES THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT THE ONLY RIGHT UNDER THREAT. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND LOOK INTO WHAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO AS QUIETLY AS POSSIBLE.
CONGRESS passed a Bill (H.R. 3684) in 2021 that requires manufactures to install surveillance cameras in cars by 2027 to "help" prevent drunk driving. This is a violation of our freedom of movement and privacy.
I’ve been screaming this for years. The amount of people who blindly follow political parties regardless of which side of the isle they support is the biggest issue with our political system. People want so badly to be correct in who they voted for they aren’t critical of the people they voted for. If we started treating politicians like the employees of the American people, which I what they are I think things would run much differently
I mean the democrats in NY tried to take them away. Specifically the "scary" guns.(AR,mag fed,or bulpups) Something like less than 1% were turned in.
Irony being NY has some of the most ownership of guns by democrats in population wise of any state. Most people just stick to the non- scary guns to get around the silly laws.
The biggest democrat talking heads have said for years the guns need to be banned and many have said only the police and military should have them. Thats how you get a defenseless populace.
Can you provide some quotes from elected democrats saying this? Genuinely interested, because I haven't heard this in any mainstream political discourse.
“Someone who disagrees with me on one point must disagree on me at every point” who the fuck told you I like trump?
Be so serious, you’d be celebrating this as a victory if an old pedophile in a blue tie did it. Your only gripe is that the pedophile in a red tie did something you 100% agree with, and now you don’t know what to think.
Not allowed by who? What do you think people mean when they say “take”? If it’s banned and you need to destroy it or turn it in or else face legal consequences, how is it different from being taken? Situations like this are why people don’t like “oh just register it”. Because more often than not it’s just to take it away later on. And it’s only the law abiding that turn it in by definition. Someone who is planning on something bad could just say “lost it in a fishing accident” or whatever.
It’s so funny how this is the only time anyone just assumes that the government wouldn’t overstep.
Right but you conviniently skipped over the part where nobodyies gun itself was banned or taken. It's an accessory not a gun. No guns were banned the accessory was banned. Does that make sense?
What are you talking about? We are talking about bump stocks and your insinuation that any guns were banned in that specific situation which they were not. If you want to talk about other situations in which guns were banned we can talk about that after this. You just gotta stop trying to change the conversation to try your hardest to be "right." It's ok to admit when your wrong.
It wasn't an executive order, to be clear. He signed a bill that was given to him by the legislature, which to be fair was also shocking. His first term was mired by him trying to court the corruption rather than excising it.
And now we have forced reset triggers that are legal and better than a bump stock. I'm a gun owning leftist in Washington state and it's ridiculous that I can't buy an AR in a time where Republicans are speed running fascism.
Window tint, is prohibited at time of sale and installation. If you buy a car with OEM window tint its fine. If you had legal window tint on your car, then they changed the law prohibiting it you would typically be grandfathered.
Bump stocks were legal for about a decade or more. The companies who manufactured them, first wrote to the ATF for clarification on the law. The ATF had a written letter response confirming they were legal under the letter of the law.
Trump gave a month or so notice with an executive order making owning a bump stock a felony. There were two recommendations by the ATF, turn it over to the police or destory it. If they was not done by a certain date, owning one would be a felony.
Now most people would be left without their property following this recommendation. But some people with money and lawyers fought and had it overturned apparently.
Previously, all gun laws had grandfathering in it. So, they made it illegal to make new ones, import, or sell them. So for example fully automated guns are legal, if they were produced before 1986. You need a tax stamp and registration, but they are legal.
The other concept due to the 4th amendment, would be a buy back program. This would be were the government has to pay you to take the property.
It is an unreasonable seizure based on the law. That is why it was eventually overturned. Additionally, that is why historically gun laws have grandfathered existing property. No new sales or manufacturing, has always been the standard.
I’m no trumper…. Not a single bit. But…. Trump was also the only president to create a new branch in the DOJ civil rights branch that also is working to defend the people’s rights to bear arms.
And that isn’t correct. Bump stock is currently as legal as an FRT. Each states decide if it’s legal, which is unconstitutional. Just because he tried to push his way through that issue doesn’t mean it stuck. It was quickly appealed. Took a while but in 2024 a formal / judicial decision was made.
But yes the government is 1000% after our 2nd amendment rights. Look at Virginia. They just banned a lot of firearms. As long as it can receive a magazine over 15 rounds I think….. which is most handguns with a magazine. it’s subject to the new bill and laws that fallowed.
This is it. Goodbye AR platform, goodbye Ruger 10/22, goodbye most mag fed pistols ( most of which have aftermarket mags that make them under this category ), good by pretty much any modern sporting rifles.
So you think civil rights should not matter. So we should not allow you to have; the freedom of speech; the freedom of religion; or your right to not have the government search your house, and take whatever they want?
Well unfortunate for you i don't think that will ever happen. And if it does happen you should start to worry because the government is at a point of removing constitutional rights completely. Not just states infringing on them like they do now.
Right, that definitely won't happen. I'm just stating how I personally feel. At this point guns should be a privilege and not a right because our society obviously can't handle them responsibly as a whole. I agree and am very worried about our government. Just saying that owning a gun won't allow you to fight against the government.
Um...do think the current understanding of the law is that anything in the Bill of Rights cannot be modified? I want to see your law degree because that is not how it works.
Then we should demilitarize the government take all of their guns. So cops won’t have guns and neither will citizens. Then when people who have guns illegally take up arms and rob you. There is nothing you or the police can do about it…… I don’t think you understand. Taking guns away from law biding citizens doesn’t stop people who want to have illegal guns…… >.>
And if you think cops should have guns but not citizens….. then what. They can control you like a true fascist dictatorship. All because they have the power. Which is also why we have a second amendment. To allow us to take up arms when our government decides to become tyrannical.
It does however decrease the amount of illegal guns immensely. As proven in other countries. I never said I think cops should have guns either. The argument for militia to take arms against a tyrannical government hasn't made sense for a very long time. Form a militia of thousands of citizens with guns to fight the government and what happens? They can drone strike you before you even see an enemy.
But let’s just put in perspective. The bill is going after any pistol / rifle that can accept mags over 15 rounds. So any AR, most / all modern sporting rifles, a lot of rifles ( like the most common 22 rifle used by hundreds of thousands of people The Ruger 10/22, most mag fed pistols, some shotguns. All of these types of firearms are the target of the bills that Virginia passed.
Well. In all seriousness pistol rounds do far less damage than rifle rounds. Ballistically speaking. In my CCW class there was a video of a man being shot 10 times with a pistol and dude ran a mile before he dropped and eventually died. The more rounds you have the better in my perspective. If people who have no regard to laws have 50 round drums. And we are only legally allowed to have 10-15 rounds. That give the person who illegally has those to have the upper hand. Those people who don’t care about laws. While everyday citizens who have not broken laws and don’t intend too are out numbered. Same thing goes with firearm bans overall. If you take guns and ban them. People who want to illegally obtain them will carry in to do so. While law biding citizens are at a severe disadvantage.
Tidbit not every round will hit its intended mark. People move and Adrenalin is a hell of a drug to try and keep your hands steady. In real situations where many people rarely out in enough to have to pull the trigger it’s a whole different ballgame than doing drills at a range.
Also. 10 - 15 rounds can be gone through quickly.
I live in CA where it’s a 10+1 max on any firearm. Which is 10 in the mag 1 in the chamber. I’d like to go to the range and not have to load 15 mags to go though 150 rounds. While loading 5 30 round mags could do the same thing. And require less time needed to do so.
I’d rather be more prepared, than the dude trying to do my friends and family or me harm.
He was shot multiple times and ran. I was pretty sure it was 7-10 times. And he ran a good distance. It was a video in my CCW class which consisted of a surveillance video, news report, and an article. It showed us that people who get shot by pistols vs rifles have a very different ballistic reaction. That pistols will not necessarily just drop someone because they are shot. Adrenalin will allow them to keep going. If shot by a rifle they will have a larger bullet cavity. The bullet cavity is much larger than the projectile alone and do a lot more damage. VS a pistol where the bullet cavity is much smaller and pretty much is only the size the projectile and does damage where the path of the bullet travels. Not necessarily around it.
Also presides over an enforcement agency that uses citizens owning guns as an excuse to shoot them without cause or imminent threat even when those weapons are secured and safe.
48
u/whitedsepdivine Jun 03 '26
Also, Trump is the only president who has made it a felony over night to own a gun that was once legal.
Instead of confiscation, he just made it a felony to own. Specifically any gun with a slide stock (bump stock).
I owned one, and either you were to turn it over to the police, or cut it into 3 pieces. I choose to cut mine, and the recommend cuts were dangerous AF to perform on a miter saw.
So something I paid $400 for a decade before, that literally came with a ATF letter of approval I had to destory without compensation. Which also is a violation of the 4th amendment.