Do you favor banning "bump stock" devices? (Which enable a semi-auto be used almost like an auto)

for supporting or opposing regulating them, similarly to how we regulate select-fire or full-auto weapons.

I generally don't support blanket bans, but I would certainly agree with regulating them more stringently than their unmodified host firearms. That being said, though I can't speak from experience with them, I could potentially support banning them on the basis of safety, in that the weapons to which they are retrofitted may not necessarily be engineered to be capable of sustaining such a rate of fire safely, and it does at least intuitively seem like it would substantially decrease the shooter's control over the weapon, even beyond what merely the increased rate of fire does.

The folks at AR15.com will be proud of you for that.

I do strongly oppose clearly stupid gun laws (like my 10-shot Ruger 10-22 magically becoming an assault weapon if I put it in a thumbhole stock), but I think I'm way too supportive of gun laws that do make sense for much of that crowd. For example, I think background checks should be not just universal, but also recurring.

I'm truly on the fence about banning bump stocks. Definitely in support of regulating them like a class III at a minimum, and maybe even banning outright on the basis of inherent detriment to safe operation. I don't know enough to say for sure that they pose that much of a detriment, but I can certainly see how they might, even without any diligent study of the topic.

The law forbids ownership of automatic weapons except under very strict conditions. There is no earthly reason to allow the sale of modifications that effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle in to one capable of being fired at a rate comparable to that of a select-fire weapon? And as far as I'm concerned, this should apply to ANY modification that, when installed, ends with a weapon that is capable of multiple rounds expended for each single trigger pull. (Please don't try to say that bump stocks are multiple trigger pulls - that is semantics, and frankly after watching my city get shot up by a maniac with a death wish, I'm in no fucking mood to put up with that bullshit...)

For anyone who wants to argue that this falls under infringement, all I can say is that, after the carnage witnessed in Las Vegas Sunday evening, we are in danger of having our second amendment rights curtailed dramatically if we can't agree to at least this change. (Think loss of the ability to carry a weapon outside your home, either open or concealed) Besides, when it really comes down to it, Even Scalia agreed that the 2nd was not an unlimited right.

something being a right means neither that it is inviolate nor that it is without qualifications by which one must earn and retain it.

Take our hallowed right to Liberty, for example.

It is absolutely not an unqualified right. No one in their right mind should disagree with that.

I would say, however, that it is indeed inviolate in that it can't be taken away from those who have not, through actions of their own, forfeited that right. I realize that sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I feel it's important to make that distinction.

And given the ease with which we can and do find ourselves screwed by insufficiently articulated language especially in legislation, you are all too correct that noting such distinctions is important.

are you here all week?

I'm glad we were able to entertain you...although I have no idea what is so funny.

the laughable part is it doesn't appear your reasoning would support banning fully automatic machine guns at all.

Legally owned automatic weapons have been used in 3 crimes involving homicides since 1934. I don't think that represents a burning issue that needs to be addressed forthwith. Maybe you do...

but his position is neither.

he can't even oppose making a semi automatic operate like a fully automatic and he wants credit for hiding his extremist position amongst a lot of BS words.

he's new and most who come here to try that nonsense get themselves banned soon enough even though they think they're clever as a many time member of MIRT, we have seen this M.O. more times than we can count.

I've been and always have recommended people not purchase them for a couple reasons:

1. Inaccuracy
2. Mechanical failure
3. One BATFE opinion letter away from classifying your semi-auto as an unregistered NFA machine gun. Forever.

I agree 100% with your line of reasoning.

The 3rd reason is the scariest one, although I doubt many people will catch it. I know I hadn't even considered that. What's to stop them from declaring that ANY AR-15 platform capable of being fitted with a bump stock is therefore capable of being modified to be full-auto (or the equivalent)? Which means that unless it was built before 1986, it would be illegal to own.

I realize that sounds like a stretch, but in the current climate, all bets are off.

Suddenly that in-fired Olympic Arms AR would have a LOT more value, being pre-86.

Right now it's just a stinking OLY arms AR.

two days after 59 people were killed and 500 more were wounded you say the "scariest thing" is that the AR-15 might get banned?

Have you lost it?

Is your main purpose in life to troll this forum? Because that's what you appear to be doing.

Yes, I think it's scary that they might ban an entire class of firearm. Because once they find a way to ban one class, they will be encouraged to gin up justifications to use for other classes:
Semi-auto pistols have to go away because it possible to buy 30-round magazines (or larger), thus turning them into killing machines.
Bolt-action centerfire rifles can be used to shoot people more than a mile away, so they need to be banned.
Shotguns use mostly lead pellets, and lead can poison critters who feed on carrion, so either ban lead or shotguns in general.

Is this far-fetched? Maybe. OTOH, all of what I've written here has been brought up in one form or another in the gun-control debate.

There is the reason behind my post. What's your reason for being a sarcastic douche?

But that would require opening the registry, wouldn't it? Would that qualify as a compromise?

... right after I suggested a compromise solution? How would you feel about regulating them via NFA? Do you know the stats on crimes committed with registered NFA firearms?

I have no interest whatsoever in your diet, nor in your little "gotcha" games.

Seriously... just fill out the forms, get the stamp, shoot a better rifle.
Braces are lame as hell. Had one, sold it, turned in my SBR paperwork.

I don't care whether they are banned or are added to NFA registry like a machine.



Note: I don't think this really make a difference. If these items were banned a year ago many would still exist on the black market. Folks with machine skills can build their own. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you could download what you to print one on a 3D printer. You can't ban information. If your endgame is suicide, you won't worry about possible prison time.


That said, these items aren't firearms and don't serve a very useful self-defense purpose so ban them, make them double secret illegal. Knock yourself out. In reality it will make it more difficult for loons to get these things, so I'm happy there.

Trigger finger is part of the bump fire process so ban it too.

After San Bernardino the press focused on the bullet button. Most of the reporters were saying it made the weapon fire full auto. I've heard more on the news today about bump stocks than the shooting itself, and trump, Puerto Rico, and North Korea combined. They have a new thing to talk about.

where he suspended a rifle (AR-15, if I remember correctly) from a tree, barrel down, and tied a string to the trigger, so the weight of the rifle pulled the trigger, and the recoil reset it, so it went off continuously on it's own. Basically, bump-firing. Better ban string, too.

Don't know if there is a 90 round mag, but I know they have 60's, and believe there is a 90.



So dare I say bump stocks are ATF banned, and then I see "extended capacity" magazine ban coming up with other features thrown in for good measure.

Maybe the whole "assault weapons ban" revived.

You are not going to gain much putting a slide stock on a M1 Garand or SKS with internal, fixed magazines.

A National Registry, so that when someone is aquiring a military arsenal the Govt. is aware of it.

There is absolutely NO reason why the public needs those weapons.

Including this rifle?




Which is based on this rifle.

Anything that can kill many people in mere minutes. The public does not need machine guns and the like. I did not know the military still used guns that seem more like guns to hunt for game with.

That is a KaR 98 Mauser rifle used by Nazi Germany during WW2.
The problem is that what you described would mean more than you apparently wanted it to. THAT is why a little knowledge goes a long way to better understanding between the groups represented here.

Good evening.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&p=mad+minute+shooting#id=82&vid=a2939b7690735eb964bb4985ccb63cdd&action=view

Targets are 300 meters away

Link:

FYI, the firearms used, while modern manufacture, function identically to guns used in 1875.

The devices are stupid and nobody needs one. I would bet that all responsible and proficient gun owners see them as ridiculous nonsense. The reason I'm not "for" such a ban is that I don't think it would do anything.

They serve no purpose other than high-volume output. I'm a pretty die-hard Constitutionalist, but banning these would not violate either the spirit or legal standards of the second amendment, I think.

That said, I don't think a ban would do jack or shit outside the realm of the self-congratulatory Gun Control Circle Jerk. It might even start a bit of a slippery slope towards future potential Constitutional infringements, but that'd be an acceptable risk for no immediate loss. I doubt much harm (or effect) would come from banning these devices.

restrictions until all the bad laws are swept away: no "may issue" CCW, no local restrictions (e.g.: Portland OR requires that magazines NOT in handguns be emptied while transporting through the city, even when locked in a trunk), no BATF regulation of suppressors, SBRs or anything else, no CA "safe gun" roster, etc, etc, etc. Gun control has been a one-way street for too long.

BTW, the current proposal for the bump-fire ban is overly-broad. It not only applies to these devices by name, but also anything else that "increases a rifle's rate of fire". If this passes, then the gun-hating states will interpret this to mean no aftermarket triggers or trigger jobs on rifles.

On a practical level, banning the devices would not affect me.

Truthfully, I don't really care that much one way or another so I vote for the 3rd, unlisted, option.

A Semi-automatic means one shot per trigger pull.

An Automatic means the gun files more than one shot, typically continuous fire until empty (but in some guns, it can mean 2 or 3 shots, not continuous fire).

Bump firing a gun means that rather than pulling your finger towards the trigger, you are pulling the trigger towards your finger. The principal being that the recoil of the gun moves the gun back away from your finger so your continuous pulling of the gun towards your finger causes the gun to repeatedly bang into your finger. Its the same type of thing that happens when you first learn to drive a manual transmission and you let out the clutch too fast, jerking the car forward with you going back into the seat so when you lean forward, you hit the gas again, which then jerks you back into the seat and so on.

A bump fire stock is just a regular stock but one which can slide back and forth to make the process a bit easier. It takes a bit of practice to actually do because you can't push too hard or too soft.

HOWEVER, a bump fire stock is not necessary to bump fire. As some prior people mentioned, it can be achieved with a rubber band. In fact, the rubber band isn't needed at all, though it does make the process a bit easier.

Really, bump fire can be achieved using nothing but your finger, see the video below. How are you going to ban fingers?
(Jump to 1:44 in the video below for a demonstration.)

No thanks.

Your posts on DU show that you only joined in order to post against gun control.

I mean, when someone almost always posts on one narrow topic, one can infer that this is all they are here to advocate for, no?

Here's a comprehensive survey that may be of interest to members of this forum:

[link:https://missouri.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ewYYLFRM9OJF349|


It needs respondents from both gun-rights and gun-control advocates.