Quantcast

.Gov instructions on how to destroy your private property...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Trey Veston, Dec 22, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BlueHeelerFl

    BlueHeelerFl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    Treasure Coast, FL
    I want to say CA had a buyback program for older cars since they pump out more pollution.

    I could see CA banning all cars made prior to a certain date to save the planet
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  2. Fine Figure of a Man

    Fine Figure of a Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,332
    Location:
    Iowa
    My point is many things can be dangerous if misused and many are dangerous even when used properly but they aren't banned.
    What if a dozen people are killed in car accidents today caused by people texting on I Phone 7's. Would banning and requiring the destruction of I Phone 7's be reasonable?
    Nobody has to have an I Phone 7, the 6's and 8's work just fine.
    Nobody has to have a bump stock either. People with murderous intent can kill with lots of other weapons.
    Our government, requiring law abiding citizens to destroy their personal property or become criminals by default is a very scary thing.
     
    FROGO207, Demi-human, kheeka and 2 others like this.
  3. rskent

    rskent Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,528
    Location:
    The land of blue sky and sunshine
    I do get your point, and I agree that the government banning bump stocks is not likely to have any positive safety or security effect. And I agree that making something illegal without actually passing a law is a scary slippery slope.
    I just think its weird that you are using examples that could have a positive effect on peoples lives in general. I am not sure what the positives of bump stocks would be.
     
  4. Fine Figure of a Man

    Fine Figure of a Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,332
    Location:
    Iowa
    The positive is some people want them and have fun with them, I don't happen to be one of them.
    I see nothing positive in watching golf on TV, rap music, square dancing or tapioca pudding but others do and none of it should be banned.
     
    Demi-human and DeepSouth like this.
  5. OARNGESI

    OARNGESI Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,096
    Tapioca pudding does not need to be drug through the mud here
     
  6. Fine Figure of a Man

    Fine Figure of a Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,332
    Location:
    Iowa
    I support your right to eat disgusting food.
     
    Demi-human and OARNGESI like this.
  7. Trey Veston

    Trey Veston Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,061
    That was an Obama program that was nationwide called Cash for Clunkers. It was supposed to reduce emissions by encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. In reality, it destroyed thousands and thousands of clean, reliable, and cheap vehicles. It caused used vehicle prices to skyrocket, and hurt working families; just like all liberal nanny-state policies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

    The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), colloquially known as "cash for clunkers", was a $3 billion U.S. federal scrappage program intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle. The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways.

    The program officially started on July 1, 2009, processing of claims began July 24,[2] and the program ended on August 24, 2009, as the appropriated funds were exhausted.[3][4] The deadline for dealers to submit applications was August 25.[5] According to estimates of the Department of Transportation, the initial $1 billion appropriated for the system was exhausted by July 30, 2009, well before the anticipated end date of November 1, 2009, due to very high demand.[6][7][8] In response, Congress approved an additional $2 billion.[6][7][9][10]

    A study by University of Delaware researchers concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion.[11][12] A 2017 study in the American Economic Journal found that the program, intended to increase consumer spending, reduced total new vehicle spending by $5 billion.[13]
     
    FROGO207 and BlueHeelerFl like this.
  8. BlueHeelerFl

    BlueHeelerFl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    Treasure Coast, FL
    Ah yes! I remember that now.

    These programs never have the intended effect. That never matters as its the tought that counts when wasting tax payer money.
     
  9. stillquietvoice

    stillquietvoice Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,031
    Location:
    Upstate ny
    Maybe the bump stock manufacturers nerd to file suit for bankrupting their businesses.
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  10. John_R

    John_R Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    316
    Location:
    Florida
    I believe the effects are EXACTLY as intended, it’s just that they lie about the intentions. The effects aren’t what they tell us they’ll be, and we’re supposed to respond by demanding more of what didn’t work because we’re sheep who trust government to know what’s best. FDR exploited that to the fullest.

    It’s like when they tell us, “Socialism works, it just hasn’t been tried by the right people.” They’re lying through their teeth.
     
  11. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,810
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Christy Todd-Whitman tried to do that in NJ in the early 1990s.
     
    BlueHeelerFl likes this.
  12. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,052
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    Reminds me of when I was in the army- field manuals for sensitive items almost always included a chapter on destruction of that item- to prevent enemy use in the event of capture.
     
  13. Jack B.

    Jack B. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,631
    Location:
    Cocoa
    I wonder how many bump stocks will be lost in boating accidents. :):):););).
     
  14. badkarmamib

    badkarmamib Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,980
    If I had one, I am left wondering if I would 1) take the easy way out, 2) hold off and hope for legal injunction, or 3) "other". I am vehemently opposed to this rule, even though I have never even tried a bump stock. The NRA's "stance" (if they can even claim they have one) has me reconsidering where my next-year's donation money will be going.
     
  15. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    8,244
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    As others have said, I would hold off destroying your bump stock until the last moment. I've placed the ATF instructions in the resource area, for reference.
    There is not much more to be added here, we've started meandering.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice