Shot a bump stock AR today

[ScottS]

Let's be honest - if the ATF re-classified bump-stocks as needing a NFA Class III for ownership, this 'debate' would be over. This gimmick device, although fun, is basically a Mechanical Engineer's end-around in converting a semi-auto into a Title II firearm. There is no difference in performance and round-output between a bump-stocked semi-auto and a machine-gun, and everyone here knows it there's no 'brownie points' for being grossly disingenuous about it here. YouTube has plenty of videos showcasing round output and performance of side-by-side comparisons between bump-stocks and full-auto, there's no BS that's going to fool anyone that 'there's a difference'. The NRA knows the ATF mis-classified this device, and created this mess and has asked THEM to fix it. If you got lucky and bought one, good for you - 'in' before the ban it'll be a nice investment I'm sure. I've fired full-auto before, and the thrill is most-certainly there, but I was VERY glad I wasn't shooting my own ammo and forget about hitting anything. This isn't a hill worth dying-on, and if the ATF does what they should have done, we can avoid a lot of legal blow-back on things that we really DO care about - like the stupid, tacked-on magazine issue.

Please don't speak for me (or anyone else who hasn't asked you to). Whether or not there's a difference in rate of fire between FA and a bump-stock, there is a fundamental difference between an FA weapon (continuous fire with one trigger pull) and a semi-weapon (one round per trigger pull, no matter how rapid). Legal is legal, and when you start letting people talk about "getting around the law," it's the SAME argument Maura used to ban "copycat" ARs in her 7/20 Edict. SAME ARGUMENT. So, I guess you support that, as well. If not, then you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Also, your comments betray an ignorance of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986; there is no provision for non-licensee transfer or ownership of FA weapons made post 1986. That means, if bump-stocks are reclassified as Title II weapons, they will have to be turned-in or destroyed (or, realistically, both), just as the Akins Accelerators were. There will be no "grandfathering" to allow registration.

PS. Just because you can't hit anything FA, don't assume no one can. That's called "projection," and it's another argument anti's use, as well.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

Really think giving up anything is going to avoid anything else in the future? Think giving something up is going to make gungrabbers become satisfied and just pack up and go home? We should be fighting tooth and nail to protect everything. They'll never stop. Let them waste their time and money trying to take away bumpstocks. It will distract them from mag limits and semi autos.

The bump-stock bills being forwarded WILL get stuff tacked-on to them "just because" - then, you'll just hope-and-pray that the tacked-on stuff will force their demise in a Committee somewhere. If the ATF did their job, there would be NO BAN legislation moving around right now - but there is. Having something re-classified as Title II isn't "losing anything", you just need to get your Class III if you really want one. However, if you think you're going to maintain the 'moral high ground' in this debate by lying as to what bump-stocks do, and their performance result, the anti-gunners will see right through you - they might have already.

 

[not new guy]

However, if you think you're going to maintain the 'moral high ground' in this debate by lying as to what bump-stocks do, and their performance result, the anti-gunners will see right through you - they might have already.

So to you a semi rifle with a bumpstock on it is a machinegun?

 

[Lip]

So to you a semi rifle with a bumpstock on it is a machinegun?

It could be scary black too.

 

[wahsben]

Let's be honest - if the ATF re-classified bump-stocks as needing a NFA Class III for ownership, this 'debate' would be over. This gimmick device, although fun, is basically a Mechanical Engineer's end-around in converting a semi-auto into a Title II firearm. There is no difference in performance and round-output between a bump-stocked semi-auto and a machine-gun, and everyone here knows it there's no 'brownie points' for being grossly disingenuous about it here. YouTube has plenty of videos showcasing round output and performance of side-by-side comparisons between bump-stocks and full-auto, there's no BS that's going to fool anyone that 'there's a difference'. The NRA knows the ATF mis-classified this device, and created this mess and has asked THEM to fix it. If you got lucky and bought one, good for you - 'in' before the ban it'll be a nice investment I'm sure. I've fired full-auto before, and the thrill is most-certainly there, but I was VERY glad I wasn't shooting my own ammo and forget about hitting anything. This isn't a hill worth dying-on, and if the ATF does what they should have done, we can avoid a lot of legal blow-back on things that we really DO care about - like the stupid, tacked-on magazine issue.

I recommend you watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=kryIJIrD5eQ

 

[MichaelJames1971]

Please don't speak for me (or anyone else who hasn't asked you to). Whether or not there's a difference in rate of fire between FA and a bump-stock, there is a fundamental difference between an FA weapon (continuous fire with one trigger pull) and a semi-weapon (one round per trigger pull, no matter how rapid). Legal is legal, and when you start letting people talk about "getting around the law," it's the SAME argument Maura used to ban "copycat" ARs in her 7/20 Edict. SAME ARGUMENT. So, I guess you support that, as well. If not, then you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Also, your comments betray an ignorance of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986; there is no provision for non-licensee transfer or ownership of FA weapons made post 1986. That means, if bump-stocks are reclassified as Title II weapons, they will have to be turned-in or destroyed (or, realistically, both), just as the Akins Accelerators were. There will be no "grandfathering" to allow registration.

The 'intellectual dishonesty' is rate-of-fire output. Having one's "finger in the loop" as a human 'open-bolt' function might be fancy-speak around the water-cooler, or convince you that you're right, but any functioning system analysis will focus on the output result, because in the end that is ALL THAT MATTERS. The output result of a bump-stock is 400-600 rounds per minute (or more). My ear doesn't hear the difference, and the pace at-which a magazine is emptied also doesn't change much - are you going to use 'new math' to explain this to the uneducated? There are already Title II weapons with equal, or lesser, rates-of-fire on the books - good luck fooling anyone when those facts are laid-bare.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

So to you a semi rifle with a bumpstock on it is a machinegun?

I think the functional output, rounds output, the 'physics' of it, is going to make even smart people question why they're not. These things became over-the-counter available because of creative ATF application language - I don't think the ATF, or anyone else really studied them.

Let's compare this to a Gatling Gun - yes, you have to turn a crank and each barrel only fires once....but what's the system output? The net effect?

 

[wahsben]

I think the functional output, rounds output, the 'physics' of it, is going to make even smart people question why they're not. These things became over-the-counter available because of creative ATF application language - I don't think the ATF, or anyone else really studied them.

Let's compare this to a Gatling Gun - yes, you have to turn a crank and each barrel only fires once....but what's the system output? The net effect?

I recommend you watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=kryIJIrD5eQ They did review it.

 

[nstassel]

That there are gun owners in this thread chiming in to say that they agree with banning a device that helps pull a trigger more quickly is sad and sobering. They are buying the ridiculous lie of gun control that taking an innocuous item from the hands of the law abiding will protect anyone.

Bulldozers are amenable to misuse. Ban them.

https://youtu.be/ZXKAleVdp6s


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Uzi2]

I think the functional output, rounds output, the 'physics' of it, is going to make even smart people question why they're not. These things became over-the-counter available because of creative ATF application language - I don't think the ATF, or anyone else really studied them.

Let's compare this to a Gatling Gun - yes, you have to turn a crank and each barrel only fires once....but what's the system output? The net effect?

Creative application language??? Why would they have to be creative with their language?

They studied them enough to know that it didn't fall under any criteria that met their regulatory authority. They function tested the sample/s submitted in their lab and also wrote a two page letter to the company that sent the sample in for evaluation. A copy of that letter is included with every stock sold.

 

[ScottS]

The 'intellectual dishonesty' is rate-of-fire output. Having one's "finger in the loop" as a human 'open-bolt' function might be fancy-speak around the water-cooler, or convince you that you're right, but any functioning system analysis will focus on the output result, because in the end that is ALL THAT MATTERS. The output result of a bump-stock is 400-600 rounds per minute (or more). My ear doesn't hear the difference, and the pace at-which a magazine is emptied also doesn't change much - are you going to use 'new math' to explain this to the uneducated? There are already Title II weapons with equal, or lesser, rates-of-fire on the books - good luck fooling anyone when those facts are laid-bare.

No, it's not. The LAW is all that matters. We expect government to follow the laws as written and passed, not the functional analysis of the law.

BTW, your "functioning system analysis" bullshit just completely justified Maura's 7/20 ruling, since any "functioning system analysis" will show that a post-ban AR has the same output result as a pre-ban. So, good on you there.

But, that's why we have laws, written down in black and white, and not a "functioning system analysis."

Perhaps John Adams said it best: "We are a nation of functioning systems analysis, not men."

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think the functional output, rounds output, the 'physics' of it, is going to make even smart people question why they're not. These things became over-the-counter available because of creative ATF application language - I don't think the ATF, or anyone else really studied them.

Let's compare this to a Gatling Gun - yes, you have to turn a crank and each barrel only fires once....but what's the system output? The net effect?

note that a manually cranked Gatling Gun is NOT controlled under the NFA.

 

[xtry51]

Anyone can learn to fire a semi-auto magazine fed rifle at 400-600rpm by bump firing with a normal stock. It's not hard to learn and it's where the "bump stock" stole its name from. A bump stock just removes the 30 minutes it would take for you to learn to do it on a normal rifle.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

That there are gun owners in this thread chiming in to say that they agree with banning a device that helps pull a trigger more quickly is sad and sobering. They are buying the ridiculous lie of gun control that taking an innocuous item from the hands of the law abiding will protect anyone.

Bulldozers are amenable to misuse. Ban them.

https://youtu.be/ZXKAleVdp6s


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I didn't say bump-stocks should be banned - don't put words into my mouth. A bump-stock is NOT the gun, itself. It's an accessory that makes you shoot MUCH faster, that is all. My point is, had the ATF properly classified this 'accessory', there would be NO BAN HAPPENING right now. I blame this entire situation on the ATF and no one else.

You need a license to operate a bulldozer - and you don't have any 'right' to own or operate one AT ALL.

 

[Boris]

This type of thread is a great example of mental and completely pointless masturbation as if wood chuck can chuck wood how ...


2a, all civilians (including cops) must have equal access to arms.

even if one goes by the illegal rulings from the illegal ATF agency, there is no contradiction what so ever. One action, one bullet. OP, can you please elaborate why this should be illegal, what specific laws does creation/possession of BF stocks breaks, what liberty of other citizens does it violate. If you answer those questions, you will answer your OP.

 

[wahsben]

I didn't say bump-stocks should be banned - don't put words into my mouth. A bump-stock is NOT the gun, itself. It's an accessory that makes you shoot MUCH faster, that is all. My point is, had the ATF properly classified this 'accessory', there would be NO BAN HAPPENING right now. I blame this entire situation on the ATF and no one else.

You need a license to operate a bulldozer - and you don't have any 'right' to own or operate one AT ALL.

If you watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=kryIJIrD5eQ It is a former ATF agent that says it was properly classified.

 

[bill o]

I didn't say bump-stocks should be banned - don't put words into my mouth. A bump-stock is NOT the gun, itself. It's an accessory that makes you shoot MUCH faster, that is all. My point is, had the ATF properly classified this 'accessory', there would be NO BAN HAPPENING right now. I blame this entire situation on the ATF and no one else.

You need a license to operate a bulldozer - and you don't have any 'right' to own or operate one AT ALL.

Please quote where in the Constitution the people grant the ATF power to regulate rifle stocks.

 

[W.E.C]

This whole hysteria is total knee jerk Massachusetts horsepucky. that has been going on since Salem witch hunt days.

this is why I’m a shotgun guy,

hell, an 1897 PUMP ithica shotgun can match the rate of fire damn close to a bump fire.


With a pdx load, it’s a defense load for when you’re having more zombies than one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WgcXPx9M8zg

 

[richc]

OK, that leads to an interesting question. If a firearms over 100 years old is no longer considered a firearm, would modifying it to shoot full auto be OK?

This whole hysteria is total knee jerk Massachusetts horsepucky. that has been going on since Salem witch hunt days.

this is why I’m a shotgun guy,

hell, an 1897 PUMP ithica shotgun can match the rate of fire damn close to a bump fire.


With a pdx load, it’s a defense load for when you’re having more zombies than one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WgcXPx9M8zg

 

[W.E.C]

OK, that leads to an interesting question. If a firearms over 100 years old is no longer considered a firearm, would modifying it to shoot full auto be OK?

No need, nobody is going to be picking their head up when that shotty is singing..

 

[Uzi2]

This type of thread is a great example of mental and completely pointless masturbation as if wood chuck can chuck wood how ...


2a, all civilians (including cops) must have equal access to arms.

even if one goes by the illegal rulings from the illegal ATF agency, there is no contradiction what so ever. One action, one bullet. OP, can you please elaborate why this should be illegal, what specific laws does creation/possession of BF stocks breaks, what liberty of other citizens does it violate. If you answer those questions, you will answer your OP.

There are none other than psychological ineptness.

 

[Uzi2]

I didn't say bump-stocks should be banned - don't put words into my mouth. A bump-stock is NOT the gun, itself. It's an accessory that makes you shoot MUCH faster, that is all. My point is, had the ATF properly classified this 'accessory', there would be NO BAN HAPPENING right now. I blame this entire situation on the ATF and no one else.

You need a license to operate a bulldozer - and you don't have any 'right' to own or operate one AT ALL.

YOU need a lesson in Constitutional Law.

The ATF has no authority to regulate a benign piece of plastic, no matter how fast someone can shoot with it. What part of that sentence do you not understand?

If they could have regulated it, it would have been done when the samples were submitted to them for evaluation.

Read the letter they wrote regarding the stocks, its online and you can pull up a copy of it.

You don't need a license to operate a bulldozer if you are not in business with it. Plenty of people have dozers and operate them on their own property with no license.

We need laws to protect people from people like YOU. The laws are supposed to protect ME from YOU, YOU from ME and both of us from GOVERNMENT.

Understand?

 

[whatluck]

Scumbag commies

 

[ChevyGuy91]

This dude built a device that appears to be much better, does not require modification to the rifle, and costs $60 out of what looks like a piece of bent sheet metal. OP, do you see the futility of trying to ban the bump stocks yet?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...fire-gen2-mini-bump-fire-stock-without-stock/

 

[headednorth]

The bump-stock bills being forwarded WILL get stuff tacked-on to them "just because" - then, you'll just hope-and-pray that the tacked-on stuff will force their demise in a Committee somewhere. If the ATF did their job, there would be NO BAN legislation moving around right now - but there is. Having something re-classified as Title II isn't "losing anything", you just need to get your Class III if you really want one. However, if you think you're going to maintain the 'moral high ground' in this debate by lying as to what bump-stocks do, and their performance result, the anti-gunners will see right through you - they might have already.

They defined what constitutes a machine gun a long time ago. Bump stocks do not meet that definition.

 

[Jason Flare]

MichaelJames, what to you consider a reasonable rate of fire for a semiautomatic should be, above which you would consider the semiautomatic systemically full auto?

 

[tuna]

Was Ed McGivern recognized for being able to shoot FASTER than a Tommy Gun? I don't know if Miculek is faster, or as fast, but he's gotta be damn close. So, because of these two, we should ban fingers, since these two speed freaks (I mean that with the utmost respect for two men who's ability is exponentially better than my own) can shoot both fast and accurate, which means it is possible?

 

[MichaelJames1971]

MichaelJames, what to you consider a reasonable rate of fire for a semiautomatic should be, above which you would consider the semiautomatic systemically full auto?

It's not up to 'me' to decide, but if a Grease Gun is considered a SMG by ATF, as slow as it is output-wise, then there's already a goalpost there.

 

[Mesatchornug]

It's not up to 'me' to decide, but if a Grease Gun is considered a SMG by ATF, as slow as it is output-wise, then there's already a goalpost there.

it's sub-Machine-gun because it's a Machine gun chambered in a pistol caliber. that is, for one activation of the trigger, it fires multiple rounds. rate of fire has exactly nothing to do with it, friend.

 

[Uzi2]

It's not up to 'me' to decide, but if a Grease Gun is considered a SMG by ATF, as slow as it is output-wise, then there's already a goalpost there.

The rate of fire has nothing to do with whether a device is a machine gun or not. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Are you really stupid or just terminally stubborn?