Bump stock

Grandpa · Oct 9, 2017

I need to qualify something first. I am an uncompromising advocate for the Second Amendment, I just don't think the anti-gun crowd are honest negotiators. They are not interested in "reasonable gun control" or "gun safety." Their end game is an outright ban. With every shooting, they clamor for more and more so called "reasonable" restrictions and if unchecked will incrementally result in no more Second Amendment rights. Their tactic is kinda like water eroding a boulder. It will take a long time, but eventually the water will win and there will be no boulder. Thus, I am in the "no compromise" crowd on gun control.

However, when it comes to the so called "bump stock" that allows a semiauto rifle to fire in a simulated full-auto mode; I am willing to support a ban on that device. I had always thought they were of questionable legality. I find it ironic that the Obama administration ruled them legal in the first place. IMHO.

kingfhb · Oct 9, 2017

Grandpa said:
I need to qualify something first. I am an uncompromising advocate for the Second Amendment, I just don't think the anti-gun crowd are honest negotiators. They are not interested in "reasonable gun control" or "gun safety." Their end game is an outright ban. With every shooting, they clamor for more and more so called "reasonable" restrictions and if unchecked will incrementally result in no more Second Amendment rights. Their tactic is kinda like water eroding a boulder. It will take a long time, but eventually the water will win and there will be no boulder. Thus, I am in the "no compromise" crowd on gun control.

However, when it comes to the so called "bump stock" that allows a semiauto rifle to fire in a simulated full-auto mode; I am willing to support a ban on that device. I had always thought they were of questionable legality. I find it ironic that the Obama administration ruled them legal in the first place. IMHO.

If the legislation they are trying to pass named one specific device, I don't think I would have an issue with it (considering it's an antiquated garbage device anyway). However, they used blanket wording... which, if they wanted to, could EASILY be used to make ANY modification to a firearm ILLEGAL. If you polish a trigger bar, add a lighter trigger or drop in, spring upgrade, hell, even if you TRAIN too often or use a finger exercise device... it states ANYTHING that increases the rate of fire of the firearm. That could literally be ANY modification if argued properly.

Gator 45/70 · Oct 9, 2017

I don't know were to begin? One cannot fully support the 2nd amendment and then want to make concessions with the Anti's
I'm baffled by this statement?

DBMJR1 · Oct 9, 2017

Grandpa said:
I need to qualify something first. I am an uncompromising advocate for the Second Amendment, I just don't think the anti-gun crowd are honest negotiators. They are not interested in "reasonable gun control" or "gun safety." Their end game is an outright ban. With every shooting, they clamor for more and more so called "reasonable" restrictions and if unchecked will incrementally result in no more Second Amendment rights. Their tactic is kinda like water eroding a boulder. It will take a long time, but eventually the water will win and there will be no boulder. Thus, I am in the "no compromise" crowd on gun control.

However, when it comes to the so called "bump stock" that allows a semiauto rifle to fire in a simulated full-auto mode; I am willing to support a ban on that device. I had always thought they were of questionable legality. I find it ironic that the Obama administration ruled them legal in the first place. IMHO.

Well thank you Grandpa for advocating the confiscation of my personal property. How about those with binary triggers? Geissele trigger systems?

Those are going to be banned as well, don't you know.

So how does it feel over there on the Left?

whitsend · Oct 9, 2017

Grandpa said:
I need to qualify something first. I am an uncompromising advocate for the Second Amendment, I just don't think the anti-gun crowd are honest negotiators. They are not interested in "reasonable gun control" or "gun safety." Their end game is an outright ban. With every shooting, they clamor for more and more so called "reasonable" restrictions and if unchecked will incrementally result in no more Second Amendment rights. Their tactic is kinda like water eroding a boulder. It will take a long time, but eventually the water will win and there will be no boulder. Thus, I am in the "no compromise" crowd on gun control.

However, when it comes to the so called "bump stock" that allows a semiauto rifle to fire in a simulated full-auto mode; I am willing to support a ban on that device. I had always thought they were of questionable legality. I find it ironic that the Obama administration ruled them legal in the first place. IMHO.

Whether you like "bump stocks" or not is one issue. Banning them is another.

Why were they ruled legal? Because they are. One action of the trigger, one shot fired. There is not a question of their legality under current law.

If you read back over your first paragraph, you will see why your second paragraph doesn't make sense.
You are agreeing to take a shovel to help speed up the erosion process. I don't believe that is you intention, it is just the affect it will have.

RustyHammer · Oct 9, 2017

First bump stock, then mags that hold more than 10 rounds, (i.e. "high cap mags"). Slippery slope.

Grandpa · Oct 9, 2017

Sorry guys. I voiced a personal opinion. I have no problem with differing opinions. Still friends, I hope?

I do have to agree with the "slippery slope" argument.

wcweir3 · Oct 9, 2017

I don’t like them I think they are a waste of money to buy and then blow through a few hundred dollars worth of rounds, but if that turns your crank then go for it.
Wingate

nolaradio · Oct 9, 2017

Grandpa said:
I need to qualify something first. I am an uncompromising advocate for the Second Amendment, I just don't think the anti-gun crowd are honest negotiators. They are not interested in "reasonable gun control" or "gun safety." Their end game is an outright ban. With every shooting, they clamor for more and more so called "reasonable" restrictions and if unchecked will incrementally result in no more Second Amendment rights. Their tactic is kinda like water eroding a boulder. It will take a long time, but eventually the water will win and there will be no boulder. Thus, I am in the "no compromise" crowd on gun control.

However, when it comes to the so called "bump stock" that allows a semiauto rifle to fire in a simulated full-auto mode; I am willing to support a ban on that device. I had always thought they were of questionable legality. I find it ironic that the Obama administration ruled them legal in the first place. IMHO.

Doesn't seem like you are truly "uncompromising".
:dunno:

Metryshooter · Oct 9, 2017

Why does anyone NEED a firearms that uses cartridge ammunition? Muzzle loaders work just fine. Same with smokeless powder, it'd make it easier to see when someone fires a shot if only black powder was available. It's not NEEDed.

Keep up the concessions for things that don't affect you now and this will be a "reasonable" concession in years to come.

Brawny · Oct 9, 2017

Yeah I'm not giving an inch when they've already taken a mile

SMR412 · Oct 9, 2017

OP, do you understand that the regulation of full auto firearms is a direct erosion of the rights you don't want eroded?
They were not always regulated and FREE people could FREELY buy/own them.
So you are OK with THAT erosion of FREEDOM in addition to "bump stocks" but claim to be uncompromising.
I think you are contradicting yourself.

MALIBU12 · Oct 9, 2017

Gator 45/70 said:
I don't know were to begin? One cannot fully support the 2nd amendment and then want to make concessions with the Anti's
I'm baffled by this statement?

THIS!

DBMJR1 · Oct 9, 2017

For those who don't understand what the value is in a Bump Fire type stock, I'll try to explain, as I own one.

In the military, we were taught that FA rates of fire were useful for suppressive fire. - (Making Ivan keep his head down.) It was only to be used in short bursts, as FA rates of fire will cause considerable muzzle climb. This allows others in your team to perform activities, while exposed from cover, in relative safety.

That is, what I was taught, the reason for FA on your battle rifle, and FA should only be used for this, as aimed semi auto fire is often more effective at actually hitting the enemy. Plus, a Soldier can't carry enough ammo to feed the beast that is FA. A typical load out for me was seven thirty round mags, a 240 round battle pack in my ruck, and four grenades, (Generally M-67s.) That's not a lot of firepower. Infantry carries much more. I was an Engineer. (Essayons).

So this same purpose is the value of a Slide Fire Stock. It can be locked for Semi Auto, and is actually a comfortable fixed stock. It can also be used to simulate FA rates of fire, valuable for laying down suppressive fire.

Now some of y'all are going to ask why I need the ability to provide suppressive fire. To this I will simply ask: What is the purpose of the Second Amendment?

kingfhb · Oct 9, 2017

DBMJR1 said:
For those who don't understand what the value is in a Bump Fire type stock, I'll try to explain, as I own one.

In the military, we were taught that FA rates of fire were useful for suppressive fire. - (Making Ivan keep his head down.) It was only to be used in short bursts, as FA rates of fire will cause considerable muzzle climb. This allows others in your team to perform activities, while exposed from cover, in relative safety.

That is, what I was taught, the reason for FA on your battle rifle, and FA should only be used for this, as aimed semi auto fire is often more effective at actually hitting the enemy. Plus, a Soldier can't carry enough ammo to feed the beast that is FA. A typical load out for me was seven thirty round mags, a 240 round battle pack in my ruck, and four grenades, (Generally M-67s.) That's not a lot of firepower. Infantry carries much more. I was an Engineer. (Essayons).

So this same purpose is the value of a Slide Fire Stock. It can be locked for Semi Auto, and is actually a comfortable fixed stock. It can also be used to simulate FA rates of fire, valuable for laying down suppressive fire.

Now some of y'all are going to ask why I need the ability to provide suppressive fire. To this I will simply ask: What is the purpose of the Second Amendment?

LOL... when you're leapfrogging out during a hot extract... I would certainly "trust" and reach for a Slide-Fire. Great reasoning!

Saintsfan6 · Oct 9, 2017

SMR412 said:
OP, do you understand that the regulation of full auto firearms is a direct erosion of the rights you don't want eroded?
They were not always regulated and FREE people could FREELY buy/own them.
So you are OK with THAT erosion of FREEDOM in addition to "bump stocks" but claim to be uncompromising.
I think you are contradicting yourself.

Exactly, the fact that FA have essentially been banned is a perfect example of a limitation of 2A freedoms. Through the NFA and GCA, they essentially set a fixed number of transferable FA firearms and devices. This created a inflated market for old, used firearms while only allowing new, modern FA firearms for military and LE use. In the 1930s, the NFA $200 tax stamp exceeded what the vast majority could afford, especially since the firearms themselves cost a small fraction of that. Most individuals nowadays cannot afford (or justify) purchasing FA firearms due to the inflation caused by the GCA. That process is an exact contradiction to the spirit and reasoning for a second amendment, and anyone that understands why we have the second amendment should oppose the NFA and GCA.

Request Dust Off · Oct 9, 2017

Grandpa said:
Sorry guys. I voiced a personal opinion. I have no problem with differing opinions. Still friends, I hope?

I do have to agree with the "slippery slope" argument.

I have no use for several things in the shooting world. I won't name them as that is not the point. It would be no different for me to throw bump fire stocks under the bus than for some hunters throwing my AR under the bus. No different than me throwing hunters under a bus because I don't hunt anymore. When it comes to gun rights and other rights we must be very fundamental in our thinking.

DBMJR1 · Oct 9, 2017

kingfhb said:
LOL... when you're leapfrogging out during a hot extract... I would certainly "trust" and reach for a Slide-Fire. Great reasoning!

No hot extracts for me. I was chauffeured in a heavily armored 5-Ton dump truck. :squint:

I was just a Combat Engineer. Never claimed to be an operator, or to have super secret training in how to kill with an MRE spoon.
I was on the ground during the Gulf war, and did see some action.

Saintsfan6 said:
Exactly, the fact that FA have essentially been banned is a perfect example of a limitation of 2A freedoms. Through the NFA and GCA, they essentially set a fixed number of transferable FA firearms and devices. This created a inflated market for old, used firearms while only allowing new, modern FA firearms for military and LE use. In the 1930s, the NFA $200 tax stamp exceeded what the vast majority could afford, especially since the firearms themselves cost a small fraction of that. Most individuals nowadays cannot afford (or justify) purchasing FA firearms due to the inflation caused by the GCA. That process is an exact contradiction to the spirit and reasoning for a second amendment, and anyone that understands why we have the second amendment should oppose the NFA and GCA.

Exactly. How many here know that handguns were supposed to be on the NFA list in 1934 ? We came very close to losing the ability to easily own pistols.
Would y'all view THAT as an infringement ?

You can't start a sentence with ' Nobody Supports the Second Amendment More than I Do, . . . , But, . . . '

You can't qualify it. If you are willing to give up slide fire stocks today, what about Sure-Fire 100 round magazines tomorrow? The murderer in Vegas used them too. They WILL come for them, trust me. How about 30 round magazines? Who really needs 30 rounds ? In fact, Bill Ruger himself told Congress that nobody needs more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
The shooter had Bi-Pods as well. Let's ban them.

I've got an idea, . . . , Let's ban MURDER. That would have stopped the shooting, and it'll solve all of the problems in Chicago too.

While we're at it, . . . , Let's ban drugs like heroin. I hear from LEO's that heroin use is reaching epidemic proportions. People are dying. It should be illegal to buy, sell, and use heroin. That'd probably save more lives than banning my plastic AR stock.

Request Dust Off said:
I have no use for several things in the shooting world. I won't name them as that is not the point. It would be no different for me to throw bump fire stocks under the bus than for some hunters throwing my AR under the bus. No different than me throwing hunters under a bus because I don't hunt anymore. When it comes to gun rights and other rights we must be very fundamental in our thinking.

Wisdom from a wise source.

Stonehenge · Oct 9, 2017

Been having this debate way too much lately. But if anything does happen to them the ATF should be the ones to do it, not congress. If anything were to happen to them the NFA list is where they should go if anything changes.

But honestly I think we could just solve these issues by finally making murder illegal, we are first in the first world after all, the wild west days are gone.

Bump stock

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Well-Known Member

NRA & USCCA INST. w/ LSP#

Well-Known Member

Madame Mayor's Fiefdom

-Global Mod-

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

lol

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Madame Mayor's Fiefdom

NRA & USCCA INST. w/ LSP#

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Madame Mayor's Fiefdom

Well-Known Member

Log in

Forum statistics