“There’s no law enforcement application for a bump stock. There’s no military application for a bump stock. There’s no self-defense application for a bump stock. These devices are tailor-made for mass shootings. Ban them.” – Sen. Martin Heinrich
It is exasperating and exhausting to keep seeing statements like this.
The non-aggression principle, the rule that determines objective right and wrong, states that people have the right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. This means that, unless owning a bump stock violates the rights of someone else, each person has the right to own a bump stock.
Does owning a bump stock violate anyone’s rights? No, it does not.
Does owning a bump stock, in and of itself, hurt anyone? No, it does not.
Therefore, each person has the right to own a bump stock. It really is as simple as that.
Why does Heinrich care about the fact that bump stocks (allegedly) have no law enforcement, military, or self-defense applications? Why does he think this fact is relevant to the question of whether or not bump stocks should be banned?
It isn’t.
There is no moral rule stating that if something has no application, then it should be banned. There is no requirement that something have an application in order to be allowed to exist. The only requirement is that the thing not violate the rights of others. Bump stocks meet that requirement. Therefore, people have a right to own them. They cannot be banned.
Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people are not required to prove to him that their possessions have an application in order to be allowed to own those possessions.
Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people do not have a right to do only those things that he has deemed useful or necessary.
People have a right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. That includes owning bump stocks.