doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Bump Stock Ban Effective Today

if I may give my opinion from far away - Europe :

quote
'if a machine gun fires multiple rounds with the single manipulation of the trigger'
unquote
is a clear statement

But - if this 'bump stock' by the forward movement of the action 'impinges' on the trigger finger and thereby
makes the gun fire again, in rapid succession, thereby producing in effect a 'continuous rate of fire', then I fear
that the 'anti gunners' might well be able to get a popular vote!
Is it worth giving the opposition a probably easy 'fear' argument against 'war' weapons?
Does anyone actually need (or want) 'fully auto' (or bump) guns -which have been outlawed for civilian use for some time already?

Don't misunderstand - my interest is in the continuation of the NRA and all it stands for.

As a reader of the American Rifleman every month I follow the discussion avidly and of course am on the side of the NRA!
But, the times we live in now (anti-gun mostly!) we have to be careful and believable.

Silly little things can and have swung popular votes! Beware!

G�nter
NRA Life 1974

If it effectively mimics full auto...that's what people will see. All the anti's need to do is show a video of someone doing this, with the audio nice and loud, and the general public's reaction will be visceral. I can practically hear Leslie Stahl asking someone, "Why would someone need this?" as they show the smoking barrel on the scary black gun.

It's a media culture we live in, like it or not. The "optics" game cuts both ways. And this one won't look good to most people. And there are MUCH better battles to fight.

Better to negotiate it away and be reasonable by our OWN standard...than be forced into the Left's definition, having wasted an opportunity to fight on something which really doesn't matter.

See the Left knows this. They know that most of us don't use or care about something like this. So they want us to be in the awkward position of feeling like we have to defend something difficult merely to keep from losing ground.

Nudge

Brent D, Gunther, Nudge,
The objection is because they have included it in a class that doesn't fit the function of the gun. A stock by it self is not a gun, much less a machine gun. As far as "negotiating it away and be reasonable by our own standard": I said I don't care about bump stocks, but others do, and I do care about other things that other people don't. I don't want someone else negotiating away my civil rights and I will not negotiate someone else's away. As far as "reasonable" is concerned, it is very subjective. I can remember when "separate but equal" and "poll taxes" were considered reasonable. We have since learned that taking someone else's civil rights is not reasonable and it is not reasonable to make people pay to be able to exercise their civil rights. If they take the bump stocks they need to do it under the law, not by playing a trick. You can do the same thing as a bump stock does with a shoe string and a key ring( google : ATF shoe string letter). Maybe next they will come for shoe strings and key rings. There is nothing in any of the amendments about "need", regardless of what "Leslie Stahl" thinks.
Mike

Der Ami,

I promise you, as a matter of principle we're not far from each other. I just feel battles are best fought in places where you have the best ground under you. Otherwise, remove, and look for a better place to make a stand.

Nudge

Before the turn of the 20th century, after noticing the grass being deflected far beyond his muzzle while target shooting, John Browning successfully converted a Winchester lever action rifle to fire full automatic in less than one day.



Ed McGivern was able to fire double action revolvers at a cyclic rate of 750 rounds per minute... a faster rate of fire than many machine guns.

There were several full-auto conversions of bolt action rifles to fire full-automatic, including the Pederson device (Springfield 1903, the Charleton (SMLE), the Huot (Ross)

A couple days ago, Brian related other ways full auto fire can be mimicked without use of a bump-fire stock. And it is highly unlikely that any criminals who own bump-fire stocks will now turn them in. Any terrorist or mentally ill criminal with access to a 3D Printer will be able to make one or more because the technology is still available.

The Las Vegas shooter was a multi-millionaire who passed numerous Background checks, and could have easily afforded to buy full auto firearms which would have been even worse for the victims. But nearly an identical number of people were killed in 2016 when a terrorist drove a 19 ton cargo truck into a crowd in Nice, France. Imagine the devastation and death toll if he had stolen a gasoline tanker truck rigged to explode.

Better to NEVER negotiate anything with the anti-gun Liberal Left, because they have stated their position against the private ownership of firearms in the U.S. The antis already show inaccurate videos and use deception to achieve their goals of disarming us. It is far better to expose that fact, and to demonstrate that there are many things that kill far more people annually than bump-fire stocks or AR15 type rifles... for instance, opiate overdoses kill 200 times as many Americans as all rifles annually, yet Liberal Democrats refuse to fund a Wall to secure the Southern Border from drug smuggling. But too many FUDD's would rather remain meek and silent until it is too late to fight back.

Keith,

Now, you've brought up something that is one of the components of how we attack them when they argue this stuff.

Opiods.

In 2017, 48,000 people in the U.S. died from just PRESCRIPTION opiod overdose. The number does NOT include such things as heroine, crack, etc.

Consider that the Left nearly tore this country apart for the better part of a decade during the Vietnam conflict. And a TOTAL of roughly 52,000 American died in that war. Over the entire time!

We need to turn the argument on the Left, and question THEIR priorities every time they go bananas because some overly medicated paranoid schizophrenic blows a gasket and kills a handful of people. (A) It pales in comparison to the number dying from opiods, and (B) it's a drug and mental illness problem, not a firearms problem.

Nudge

I've been saying that for several years here Nudge. And I've not just been preaching to the choir either. I've been writing, emailing, and calling my Representatives in the U.S. House and Senate, and I've continued to donate to the NRA to get the message out that infringing upon the Constitutional Rights of law abiding citizens is not the answer to stopping criminal acts by mentally ill criminals and terrorists.

Most important of all... no gun owner who values his or her gun rights should give their vote to those who are most likely to infringe upon those rights. That unfortunately includes my RINO Republican Senator Pat Toomey. He needs to be replaced.

I've also asked people to consider the FACT that far more kids die annually due to texting while driving than from school shootings... and there is no Constitutional right of kids to text while driving.

Just as many people die from medical mistakes every year in this country as from opiate drug overdoses, yet the anti-gun AMA lobbies for more gun laws instead of cleaning their own house.

Gun sales have increased over the last 30 years, yet murder rates have dropped considerably. This is due to higher incarceration rates for violent felons. Yet the Liberal Left whines that we should parole or release many of these violent repeat offenders.

You are right... we need to turn the argument back on the Left and keep it there. We should understand that they will never give up on attacking our rights.

Amen!

laws are all about technicalities. legal shotgun barrel is 18". an illegal one is 17.999". talk about splitting hairs but they will arrest you for 17.999.
hell, they killed randy weavers wife over 1/4"!

I think there's a medical journal research report out just a couple of weeks ago that concludes some multiple times increase in psychotic disorders in regular marijuana users. All the dem hopefuls want national legalization and all will claim the use is victimless. Point being, I wouldn't kid myself that an intelligent argument is remotely possible if an issue is given talking point status by the left.

Take here for example, the facts and figures of decades of legal and criminal firearms use has been presented and it's all swept under the rug by switching the subject to the nuances of civility. I think the effort might be better put into winning an election rather than an argument.