Bump stocks

[ARCOgraphite]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.... And never did. Show me anywhere it mentions it, and I'll gladly stand corrected.

And as far as your deep concern and worry about the heavy cloud of danger you seem to think bumpstocks are placing you under, read the letter from the ATF I posted. (Post #28 above).

You would be far better entertained worrying about the asteroid.

I mention hunting for practical use. So this thing has no good use.

So why even yap about it.

Reminds me I should clean and oil my .45. It's of no use if it don't run good.

 

[Danh]

The upside of the decision is that the administrative entity has been properly limited; the ATF does not have the authority to make such declarations.
The downside is that some day, the Congress may take action; that would be the Constitutional approach.

The misunderstanding of the topic centers around a false belief that bump-stocks enable "machinegun like" rates of fire. That is patently wrong.
The rate of fire (RoF) is governed by the design of the components in combination with the ammunition used. The weight of the bolt, buffer (if present), the recoil spring force, the gas porting (if present), and the pressure of the cartridge all play into the RoF.
Bump-firing is completely possible (and done fairly easily with practice) irrespective if a bump-stock is present or not. (see any YT video on the topic of bump firing) ... Bump-stocks do NOT make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Rather, bump-stocks merely enhance a recoil-driven process where some people lack skill to manipulate the arm without such aid. To be clear, bump-stocks do NOT alter the RoF the arm is capable of. What they do is enhance the ability of the shooter. Those are very distinct and important differences.

So, as an accessory, the bump-stock merely allows the user to more closely approach the full potential of bump-firing; bump stocks do not, in and of themselves, make bump-fire exist in the absence of anything else. Bump-stocks are a tool for those who do not have the skill to bump-fire.

Could they be banned by Congress in the future? Sure. But would that not be a dangerous precedent? After all, don't we have a slew of other accessories that allow the user to enhance the useful nature of the arm?
- Scopes help increase identification of a target at distance. Scopes do not make the rifle shoot further, but they do improve the odds of hitting the target at longer distances.
- Grips help improve the control of the item. Grips allow one to get a more comfortable purchase of the arm, and control it in rapid fire, and reduce flinching, etc.
- Slings can be used as a control aid. Slings, when used properly, are not just for carrying the arm; they can be a tool to steady one's posture, thereby reducing poa (point of aim) variation when trying to acquire a target
- support devices (bi-pods; tri-pods) help steady the point of aim also; these enhance the ability to put the round on target. They don't make the gun more accurate, but they do improve the shooter's ability to maximize the arm's potential.
These are all accessories that improve the shooting condition. They do nothing to alter the maximum potential of the arm. These accessories enhance the skill (or lack thereof) of the shooter.

If bump-stocks as accessories are banned, what's next???

To be fair, no sensible person seems to object to the idea that rifles can be used for recreation, e.g. target practice and hunting, and the examples cited are used for just that. Bump stocks don’t remotely fit into that category.

 

[oil pan 4]

As Joe citizen, I do not want Joey Moron or Joe Mental to have the ability to easily enhance the rate of fire of their semi-auto.

No need in hunting. And sorry, you can't have it for enjoyment either because of (above).

Leave the M4 and other enhanced weaponry to the Military and State/County tactical units.

And before it comes up as an example, I might also propose a ban on motor vehicles that have less than eight pounds curb weight
per lb-ft torque at 4000 rpm. These cars are ridiculously unnecessary and unsafe. Got that FCA?

This from an old hotrodder and rabble-rouser of all people

This is not an unincumbered free country, but one of laws and statutes for the common good of it's people; res publica!
___________________________________________________________

It's already illegal for virtually everyone to make a machine gun.
They work great as far as hunting. Some how anti gun mental defectives have the AR-15 as useless for hunting while at the same time only good for killing. I can never get a rational or coherent explanation as to how that works.
The US government is the largest perpetrator of at least the top 2 largest mass shootings. Cops are civilians too and if the general population can't have them the cops don't need them either. Lone mentals are the least of our worries, it's mentals with a badge or a title we need to worry about.

 

[burbguy82]

As Joe citizen, I do not want Joey Moron or Joe Mental to have the ability to easily enhance the rate of fire of their semi-auto.

No need in hunting. And sorry, you can't have it for enjoyment either because of (above).

Leave the M4 and other enhanced weaponry to the Military and State/County tactical units.

And before it comes up as an example, I might also propose a ban on motor vehicles that have less than eight pounds curb weight
per lb-ft torque at 4000 rpm. These cars are ridiculously unnecessary and unsafe. Got that FCA?

This from an old hotrodder and rabble-rouser of all people

This is not an unincumbered free country, but one of laws and statutes for the common good of it's people; res publica!
___________________________________________________________

Freedoms have never been without risk. They must be commensurate with each other.

As to the hunting rifle reference, would either of these be ok in the hands of Joe Citizen?

The top above is a Remington 700 in 300 win mag ( as very powerful round). Complete with telescopic rangefinding scope, wooden stock, very popular in states with dangerous game like Alaska. The bottom above is a Remington 700 in 308 win ( as less powerful round), but it is called the M24 SWS, or Sniper Weapon System, a rifle that I have quite a bit of experience with.

They are mechanically the same.

 

[billt460]

I mention hunting for practical use. So this thing has no good use.

That isn't for you to make that determination. Let alone determine it for someone else. And who are you to determine what a, "good use" is or isn't?

Or that you should be convinced it is before it can be sold. I can say much the same about a lot of products on the market today. But it's none of my business to. I simply don't buy them.

And besides, you'll have a pretty difficult time convincing anyone who knows anything about guns, that a bumpstock increases the danger of you being shot by the gun it happens to be installed on.

 

[billt460]

To be fair, no sensible person seems to object to the idea that rifles can be used for recreation, e.g. target practice and hunting, and the examples cited are used for just that. Bump stocks don’t remotely fit into that category.

No one buys a bumpstock for, "target shooting or hunting" because they aren't manufactured or sold for either purpose. And why should they have to fit into a "category" in order to be legally sold?

 

[billt460]

As per usual, whenever the word "need" starts appearing in these conversations, they usually proceed to go downhill quickly.

 

[Pablo]

Any rights are not defined or denied by need by the very definition of RIGHT

 

[ARCOgraphite]

That isn't for you to make that determination. Let alone determine it for someone else. And who are you to determine what a, "good use" is or isn't?

Or that you should be convinced it is before it can be sold. I can say much the same about a lot of products on the market today. But it's none of my business to. I simply don't buy them.

And besides, you'll have a pretty difficult time convincing anyone who knows anything about guns, that a bumpstock increases the danger of you being shot by the gun it happens to be installed on.

Oh, I can make the determination. But I am not a lawmaker - our "friendly" administration made that determination at the time.
Maybe a daughter's pleading whisper. Who knows.

On the last point, it's simple probability in a certain circumstance. No convincing intended.
____________________________________________________

Maybe we need to change the subject to those sweet Ford 385 Lima engines!
That's another thread altogether.

 

[Pew]

As Joe citizen, I do not want Joey Moron or Joe Mental to have the ability to easily enhance the rate of fire of their semi-auto.

 

[Astro14]

Let’s take a break.