Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:32 AM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Remember the fun we have with the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle? There is a also a legit and legal difference between "gunpowder" and smokeless powder. If you load a blackpowder rifle with smokeless powder, you stand a good risk of killing or severely injuring yourself. If you load a modern rifle with gunpowder you will seriously fuck it up.

Words mean things but most folks don't care.
FWIW, according to wiki, "smokeless powder" is a uniquely American phrase. You learn something new everyday.

I used to work at one the biggest gun stores in the state and for grins, we would sneak small amounts of smokeless powder into ash trays. Big fun. Doing it with black powder could have been catastrophic.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #52  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:35 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Do you similarly believe that the FDA or the EPA should not be able to ban substances in food or water supplies?


Right. Regulatory delegation is the legislative saying, “look, people, we are NOT trained experts in ballistics/epidemiology/aquatic chemistry/aircraft control dynamics - we are hereby tasking the executive offices with being the ones who hire or consult with the trained experts and do the micromanaging; we trust they’ll do so in a manner that matches the constitution and law.” When the latter does not happen, or the executive just tries to pull power out of his fundament, then we should go back in and legislate the details.

That we allowed it to get to the point that the executive prefers the out-of-fundament method as their first recourse is the other branches’ fault.
  #53  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:40 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Remember the fun we have with the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle? There is a also a legit and legal difference between "gunpowder" and smokeless powder. If you load a blackpowder rifle with smokeless powder, you stand a good risk of killing or severely injuring yourself. If you load a modern rifle with gunpowder you will seriously fuck it up.

Words mean things but most folks don't care.
I know words mean things, that's why I asked. According to this Washington Hunter Ed Course, it shows two types of cartridges, both of which have nice little lines pointing to a substance called "gunpowder" inside the cartridge.
  #54  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nars Glinley View Post
FWIW, according to wiki, "smokeless powder" is a uniquely American phrase. You learn something new everyday.
....
Yes, that's mostly true: Smokeless powder is the name given to a number of propellants used in firearms and artillery that produce negligible smoke when fired, unlike the gunpowder or black powder they replaced. The term is unique to the United States and is generally not used in other English-speaking countries,[1] which initially used proprietary names such as "Ballistite" and "Cordite" but gradually shifted to "propellant" as the generic term.
  #55  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:00 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I know words mean things, that's why I asked. According to this Washington Hunter Ed Course, it shows two types of cartridges, both of which have nice little lines pointing to a substance called "gunpowder" inside the cartridge.
Meh, they're wrong. What are you going to do? Here is a good video discussing the difference:

https://youtu.be/yceuluh_pJE

Last edited by JXJohns; 07-12-2019 at 04:03 PM.
  #56  
Old 07-12-2019, 05:02 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Do you similarly believe that the FDA or the EPA should not be able to ban substances in food or water supplies?
Major case of apples and oranges on your part.

If the FDA banned a food that it deemed safe simply on the whim of the President, and then consumption or possession of such food became a serious criminal offense, damn straight Iíd oppose that.

What the BATFE did was make a device fit a definition that it doesnít, simply because Trump pressured them to. Previously, after much research, the same agency steadfastly maintained such devices did not fit the definition of machine guns. It is the manner in which this regulation took place that should frighten the living hell out of us.

What happened is not the equivalent of the FDA learning that a previously approved food was found to have toxic side effects. After being approved bump stocks did not change in function, and the definition of automatic weapons did not change. The bureau made the devices fit a definition that they actually donít fit only because the President insisted. This goes way beyond the scope of being a regulatory agency and more to the path of tyranny.

If congress had changed the definition of automatic weapons to one that somehow fit the function of what a bump stock does, then the bureau may have been within its rights to do what they did. But that didnít happen, did it?

Back to the OP, if this type of ban on a lump of plastic can happen so easily, what is to stop such a thing from happening to ammunition?
  #57  
Old 07-12-2019, 05:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I know words mean things, that's why I asked. According to this Washington Hunter Ed Course, it shows two types of cartridges, both of which have nice little lines pointing to a substance called "gunpowder" inside the cartridge.
Yes, sometimes, as i said, the term "gunpowder" is used as a colloquial expression for the layman.
  #58  
Old 07-12-2019, 05:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Major case of apples and oranges on your part.

If the FDA banned a food that it deemed safe simply on the whim of the President, and then consumption or possession of such food became a serious criminal offense, damn straight Iíd oppose that.

What the BATFE did was make a device fit a definition that it doesnít, simply because Trump pressured them to. Previously, after much research, the same agency steadfastly maintained such devices did not fit the definition of machine guns. It is the manner in which this regulation took place that should frighten the living hell out of us.

....

If congress had changed the definition of automatic weapons to one that somehow fit the function of what a bump stock does, then the bureau may have been within its rights to do what they did. But that didnít happen, did it?

Back to the OP, if this type of ban on a lump of plastic can happen so easily, what is to stop such a thing from happening to ammunition?
And of course the Dem House would be happy to pass such a ban, so why not ask for it?
  #59  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:42 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...What the BATFE did was make a device fit a definition that it doesnít, simply because Trump pressured them to. Previously, after much research, the same agency steadfastly maintained such devices did not fit the definition of machine guns. It is the manner in which this regulation took place that should frighten the living hell out of us.
It's clear that as long as it is not their ox being gored, people couldn't care less.
  #60  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:26 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
It's clear that as long as it is not their ox being gored, people couldn't care less.
I agree. The level of apathy over how our form of law making was bypassed is sickening. Even those in favor of banning bump stocks should be frightened at the manner in which the ban was put into place.
  #61  
Old 07-13-2019, 02:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Right. Regulatory delegation is the legislative saying, ďlook, people, we are NOT trained experts in ballistics/epidemiology/aquatic chemistry/aircraft control dynamics - we are hereby tasking the executive offices with being the ones who hire or consult with the trained experts and do the micromanaging; we trust theyíll do so in a manner that matches the constitution and law.Ē When the latter does not happen, or the executive just tries to pull power out of his fundament, then we should go back in and legislate the details.

That we allowed it to get to the point that the executive prefers the out-of-fundament method as their first recourse is the other branchesí fault.
It should have legislative approval anyways. Sure, you can say that Congress does not have expertise in pollution but instead of just giving the EPA a blank check, it should be that the EPA studies and recommends regulations which Congress then enacts into law or not. That way we, through the democratic process, can have a say in what laws restrict our freedoms.

Otherwise, your elected representative gets an out. He can claim it is not his fault that an endangered frog is the reason that you cannot build on your property, it is Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush's liberal/conservative government bureaucrats that are at fault. If Congress has to approve the regulation, then he is on record about how he voted.

These "experts" tend to be politically motivated anyways. If Trump's EPA is packed with people who say that climate change is a hoax, are you satisfied with regulations that come from that and satisfied with your Congress for simply kicking that can?

My plan also conforms with the Constitution in that legislative power is with Congress and not with "experts."
  #62  
Old 07-14-2019, 11:52 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Meh, they're wrong. What are you going to do? Here is a good video discussing the difference:
I agree they are wrong. Although as elsewhere mentioned 'propellant' is a more general term, probably IMO most correct and inclusive in case discussing the govt further regulating and restricting ammunition (propellants including black powder, modern black powder gun-compatible propellants and particularly smokeless powder would be things they'd have to also further restrict so DIY 'reloaders' couldn't very easily get around new restrictions on factory-made ammunition).

The case of the political term 'assault weapon' was brought up but that's a little different from this case. 'Assault weapon' though not a technically correct term has established itself as a political term.

With something like calling small arms propellant 'gun powder' it's IMO the more generic debate whether incorrect "layman's terms" should be corrected of if that's "elitist". Similarly with calling tankers "tanker ships" (a truck designed to carry oil is a tanker truck if it needs to be distinguished from a ship designed to carry oil which is a tanker). I think they should be corrected, and "laymen's term" if it just means "I can find examples of other people making this mistake" is not a counter argument, even if it's people who you would think knew better, like some hunting tutorial.

Last edited by Corry El; 07-14-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #63  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:31 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, sometimes, as i said, the term "gunpowder" is used as a colloquial expression for the layman.
Great, so gunpowder is good then.

Thanks!
  #64  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Great, so gunpowder is good then.

Thanks!
Not if you were writing a law to ban it.

I suppose "boom boom stick" is generally understood also.
  #65  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:54 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not if you were writing a law to ban it.

I suppose "boom boom stick" is generally understood also.
Maybe. But there are not 100s of cites that describe "boom boom sticks"

There are many, many sites that define, use, and describe "gunpowder"

Plus, at least one State education cite that shows graphically a round containing "gunpowder"

But sure, I guess you, a message board poster, are correct. Thanks!
  #66  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:10 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
This isn't the way such things are supposed to work. An agency (especially one who previously published that such devices were legal) should not simply be able to ban something simply because the POTUS wants it without an act of Congress. After physical and scientific review BATFE published that bump stock equipped firearms were not machine guns, and now suddenly they are because Trump says they are? That's horseshit and you know it. The way this took place should be more than just "a bit concerning" to you. The lack of due process comes from the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens are denied their lawfully acquired property without just compensation. A clear violation of the 5th Amendment. No grandfather clause, no registration option, no loop holes whtsoever.



The consumer versions of them have been around for almost 30 years. Prior to them people were making their own using about $4 worth of wood. There were also bump shot triggers dating back to the 70's and 80's. It hasn't been clear if they are included in the bump stock ban. Many of them work on the same principle.

There was an early version that got approved and then unapproved by ATF because it had a spring in it. The versions that are now banned are nothing more than a single piece of plastic. No springs, moving parts or other alterations to the rifle.

It's the manner in which the ban took place that should terrify anyone who cherishes their freedom and the mechanisms of our republic. There are several more lawsuits pending including a class action demanding just compensation. Myself and several of my customers are involved with that one. We stopped selling them last year. In February we had to post a sign instructing folks that we were not accepting returns of bump stocks, and they were not allowed on property after the ban deadline in March.

Several states have banned them, still a violation of the 2nd Amendment IMHO, but at least they created those bans in the legal manner in which law is to be created. While those laws seem redundant I believe they did so because they think the federal ban will be overturned by the courts eventually. Even Dianne Feinstein stated she believes that will happen. I bet that some people did not turn in or destroy their bump stocks. There are literally hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding Americans who are guilty of a serious federal felony because they are keeping a piece of plastic that just happens to be molded in a certain shape hidden in their attic, closet, or garage. A piece of plastic!

Now, if a piece of plastic can be banned so easily, what is to stop a ban on most ammunition? Most rifle ammo will defeat soft body armor. What's to stop them from using that as a reason to ban it? How about a ban on civilian possession of hollow points? Or do what many countries do and ban possession of ammo larger than .380? Or a ban on possessing more than 2 rounds of ammunition on your person. If the courts rejected or refused to hear your arguments, what exactly would you be able to do about it? If BATFE can ban a piece of plastic with no input from congress, what is to stop them from banning many kinds of bullets?
A piece of plastic whose only use is to turn your deadly weapon into a fully automatic deadly weapon.
  #67  
Old 07-20-2019, 01:46 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
A piece of plastic whose only use is to turn your deadly weapon into a fully automatic deadly weapon.

False. It did not turn a weapon into an automatic weapon and for decades the BATFE certified that.

And even if there was to be a ban, it’s the unconstitutional manner in which the ban was enacted that I protest. I don’t Care if it’s bump stocks or widgets. Having a government agency make possessing something a major felony simply by Presidential decree is tyranny!

Last edited by pkbites; 07-20-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #68  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:43 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
False. It did not turn a weapon into an automatic weapon and for decades the BATFE certified that.

And even if there was to be a ban, itís the unconstitutional manner in which the ban was enacted that I protest. I donít Care if itís bump stocks or widgets*. Having a government agency make possessing something a major felony simply by Presidential decree is tyranny!
*As I said earlier, if Trump took the same path and had the FCC ban twitter or something, I think we'd see a significantly different attitude here and in other places.
  #69  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:11 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
False. It did not turn a weapon into an automatic weapon and for decades the BATFE certified that.

And even if there was to be a ban, itís the unconstitutional manner in which the ban was enacted that I protest. I donít Care if itís bump stocks or widgets. Having a government agency make possessing something a major felony simply by Presidential decree is tyranny!
And itís particularly stupid given that the same thing can be accomplished with a pair of pants with a belt loop.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #70  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:36 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nars Glinley View Post
And itís particularly stupid given that the same thing can be accomplished with a pair of pants with a belt loop.
Or nothing at all. Just a little practice.

But that is irrelevant. The point is how the ban was put in place by Presidential fiat. That some on these boards consider the end to justify the means is frightening.
  #71  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:03 AM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Or nothing at all. Just a little practice.

But that is irrelevant. The point is how the ban was put in place by Presidential fiat. That some on these boards consider the end to justify the means is frightening.
The mere volume of things being done by Presidential fiat is frightening.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #72  
Old 07-24-2019, 09:19 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, sometimes, as i said, the term "gunpowder" is used as a colloquial expression for the layman.
Hereís a video I made with my nephew a few years back showing the different burn speeds of ďgunpowderĒ in open air, there were a few different smokeless powders followed by black powder...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/WgF8D3aziyPaBJcK8

And this one of a small ďfuseĒ of smokeless leading to a line of black powder...
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Nu61eo9RSQp5Fd5X7

As you can see, not only is BP very energetic, but produces a lot of white smoke (which stinks like rotten egg due to the sulfur released)
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #73  
Old 07-24-2019, 09:37 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
Comedian Chris Rock has said that we don't need to regulate guns, what we need to do is regulate bullets.
Pat Paulsen made the same joke in his 1968 Presidential campaign, IIRC.
  #74  
Old 07-25-2019, 03:01 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,130
When did Chris Rock become a constitutional expert?
  #75  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:12 AM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
.... The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
Paddock was wealthy, he could afford lots of ammo at $5 each.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #76  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:19 AM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
.... If you load a modern rifle with gunpowder you will seriously fuck it up.
Not really. Load for example a 30-06 with black powder and all you get is a smokey under-powered cartridge. Use it in your 5.56 or 7.62 AR, then in addition to the low power you get a fouled bolt carrier after a few rounds. But the fouling is water soluble and cleans right up; just don;t let it rust first.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #77  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:20 AM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nars Glinley View Post
And itís particularly stupid given that the same thing can be accomplished with a pair of pants with a belt loop.
Or holding at the shoulder with the trigger finger locked in place while pushing forward with the supporting arm.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017