Shot a bump stock AR today

[ScottS]

My take away is that man is awesome at wasting ammo. Look....I never said ban them. I don't give a shit if clowns want bump fire stocks.

Much like in the other holier-than-thou thread, so far everything you've said about bump-fire stocks can be said about FA, or even ARs in general.

I can only imagine that you must bitch loud and long against the NES car shoots, since that is an awesome waste of ammo, and are viewed negatively by the anti crowd, as well. ("Shooting up cars?!?! Why would they do that?!?") I'll do a quick search and see if I can find your many posts on the subject.

And while we're at it, what are your "acceptable" standards for accuracy and non-wasteful usage of ammo? I want to know, because it seems I have to comport to your ideas on both in order to be an "acceptable" gun owner.

Fact.

Important tip: Just because you write "fact" after spewing your opinion, it doesn't change your opinion into actual fact. Just thought you should know.

 

[drgrant]

So in your world everyone has already made up their mind to be a gun hater or a gun supporter?

There is nobody on the fence about it that reading a gun owners social media statements about shooting into crowds is going to change their mind to the anti side? Nobody on the fence that will see a guy mag dumping bump fire without a bump fire stock that will see that and want to ban semi auto?
Not everyone fits into the anti or pro 2a box already.

Look....I own a ton of guns. I own them for many reasons.......including full spitrit of the 2a. But we are not going to change people's opinions that are on the fence with that kindd off video and statement.

Nons aren't on the fence, most of them really aren't paying much attention, at all.

-Mike

 

[whacko]

Much like in the other holier-than-thou thread, so far everything you've said about bump-fire stocks can be said about FA, or even ARs in general.

I can only imagine that you must bitch loud and long against the NES car shoots, since that is an awesome waste of ammo, and are viewed negatively by the anti crowd, as well. ("Shooting up cars?!?! Why would they do that?!?") I'll do a quick search and see if I can find your many posts on the subject.

And while we're at it, what are your "acceptable" standards for accuracy and non-wasteful usage of ammo? I want to know, because it seems I have to comport to your ideas on both in order to be an "acceptable" gun owner.



Important tip: Just because you write "fact" after spewing your opinion, it doesn't change your opinion into actual fact. Just thought you should know.

You can shoot all the cars you want. Have fun. There should be no law against it. Buy a bump fire. Have fun. Should be no law against it.

As far as accuracy is concerned I'm sure you read about it or will when you "dig" into.my other posts. I'll take my full auto belt fed. The Army does too and for good reason. Shoulder fired rifles on fa leave alot to be desired on the accuracy spectrum.......hence why we call up the 249 or 240 when a suppressive fire application is needed.

Have fun at the car shoot.

 

[1jeep]

heres my take on the bump stock...like anyone really would care.

I never used one, don't own one and really don't care too. I dont own a d!ld0 or vibrator either and dont feel any of them should be illegal as long as your not using them on me!

 

[ISOTOX]

I dont own a d!ld0 or vibrator either and dont feel any of them should be illegal as long as your not using them on me!

 

[drgrant]

You can shoot all the cars you want. Have fun. There should be no law against it. Buy a bump fire. Have fun. Should be no law against it.

As far as accuracy is concerned I'm sure you read about it or will when you "dig" into.my other posts. I'll take my full auto belt fed. The Army does too and for good reason. Shoulder fired rifles on fa leave alot to be desired on the accuracy spectrum.......hence why we call up the 249 or 240 when a suppressive fire application is needed.

Have fun at the car shoot.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

heres my take on the bump stock...like anyone really would care.

I never used one, don't own one and really don't care too. I dont own a d!ld0 or vibrator either and dont feel any of them should be illegal as long as your not using them on me!

 

[W.E.C]

It's literally a number 5 shaped piece of tin. If you guys are that desperate, let's meet by Lowes or Home Despot, I'll bring tin snips and sheet metal. Today and everyday only, 50% off!!!

Emergency amendment to ban the # 5 from being made !

its Ben banned from biblical times.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

the language in 1998 act was "pre-1898" so even 200 years from now it would still be 1898. I'd expect any "loopholes" be extended like the copyright on MikeyMouse, i.e. indefinitely, because it has nothing to do reason other than not allowing public to own effective firearms that can be used against a repressive state, the very reason why 2a was created in the first place.



we should get away from the lunacy of trying to figure out uber cheap or common ways to circumvent ATF infringements. The argument that something is easy and therefore should be legal should become, it's legal because 2a says so. We have the right to bear arms not because guns are easy to make.

This detour gets away from discussion of fundamental reasons for 2a and into the race of ATF coming up with more bullshit rulings and the cottage industry that's coming up with even more ways around ATF's bullshit. ATF is an infringement.

You and others here are trying to 're-live' 1968 all over again. I'm sure President Johnson would LOVE to hear your 'oral arguments' as to why the Gun Control Act is unconstitutional....oh, wait, he's dead and that ship sailed a half-century ago. Way to live in the present, guys.

Look, if you want to argue if BATF is 'good/bad', fine. Until you create and pass legislation that makes this organization disappear, then I suggest you live in the reality of the moment and recognize that they have jurisdiction on this matter and get to decide such things. I do not - but I'm not naïve to believe that my 'beliefs' regarding the Constitutionality of the BATF's authority somehow provides a force-field of protection for me to go-out and start building machine-guns in my garage, or that I can ignore them and they will 'go away'. If you and others want to go that route, be my guest.....I ain't providing your bail money.

I'm familiar with the legal definition of a machine gun - at-issue is whether we're splitting-hairs over "a single function of the trigger". If I employ a motorized device, external to the firearm that interacts mechanically with my semi-auto trigger group that pulls the trigger FOR my finger at a rate of 1,000 trigger-pulls per minute, and I can actuate that mechanism with a button on the side of the device, am I or am I not circumventing the law?

 

[drgrant]

You and others here are trying to 're-live' 1968 all over again. I'm sure President Johnson would LOVE to hear your 'oral arguments' as to why the Gun Control Act is unconstitutional....oh, wait, he's dead and that ship sailed a half-century ago. Way to live in the present, guys.

Look, if you want to argue if BATF is 'good/bad', fine. Until you create and pass legislation that makes this organization disappear, then I suggest you live in the reality of the moment and recognize that they have jurisdiction on this matter and get to decide such things. I do not - but I'm not naïve to believe that my 'beliefs' regarding the Constitutionality of the BATF's authority somehow provides a force-field of protection for me to go-out and start building machine-guns in my garage, or that I can ignore them and they will 'go away'. If you and others want to go that route, be my guest.....I ain't providing your bail money.

I'm familiar with the legal definition of a machine gun - at-issue is whether we're splitting-hairs over "a single function of the trigger". If I employ a motorized device, external to the firearm that interacts mechanically with my semi-auto trigger group that pulls the trigger FOR my finger at a rate of 1,000 trigger-pulls per minute, and I can actuate that mechanism with a button on the side of the device, am I or am I not circumventing the law?

As usual, you're playing ball out in left field with one of these......

(nsfw)






Not sure what planet you're talking about, but BATFE ruled that motorized actuators were illegal about 9 million years ago because it effectively only required one press of the finger.

The thing is here, without changing the law, a bump stock isn't illegal. A bump stock, fundamentally, is no different than someone using a belt loop, or even their own technique to pull the trigger rapidly (like in those videos Xtry51 posted in here). Guys who are talented can practically "do the bump stock thing on demand" depending on the gun and trigger they have in play. Sometimes people even do it accidentally.

None of this matters anyways, because I doubt BATFE is going to ban them- they're going to punt and make the legislature do it (or attempt to do it, I should say).

-Mike

 

[W.E.C]

using the bump stock must have been a traumatic experience, you should use "common sense" next time

Hey, what’s with the blue in your avatar, high concentration of ebt? Or o.c addicted?

 

[jayhitek]

Full auto does suck to shoot. Just a waste of ammo.

 

[n1oty]

I have. And the fpf I was trained on took place with a belt fed system on a tripod set with a traversing and elevation wheel or a stake in the ground next to the muzzle when using a bipod. The purpose of that fpf was to allow for knee grazing fire on a specific azmuth that had multiple belt fed systems interlocking fire at a about 150 to 200 meters in front of a defensive position. Fpf used belt fed systems in.orde to allow for extended periods of suppressive fire. You bump stock is not going to provide what I just described.

Not really sure where a bump stock is going to have anything to do with final protective fire.

Where did you receive your training on fpf?

Don't get me wrong....not saying bump fires should be banned.....but let's not pretend that a bump fire stock is anything other than a toy.......your reference to bump fire and fpf is eluding to a bump fore serving a purpose other than a range toy.

I spent time in the Marine Corps and the Army. I went to West Point. FPF encompasses everyone/everything from rifleman to artillery. Everyone has their kill zone and shoots at maximum rate of fire.

 

[ScottS]

You and others here are trying to 're-live' 1968 all over again. I'm sure President Johnson would LOVE to hear your 'oral arguments' as to why the Gun Control Act is unconstitutional....oh, wait, he's dead and that ship sailed a half-century ago. Way to live in the present, guys.

Look, if you want to argue if BATF is 'good/bad', fine. Until you create and pass legislation that makes this organization disappear, then I suggest you live in the reality of the moment and recognize that they have jurisdiction on this matter and get to decide such things. I do not - but I'm not naïve to believe that my 'beliefs' regarding the Constitutionality of the BATF's authority somehow provides a force-field of protection for me to go-out and start building machine-guns in my garage, or that I can ignore them and they will 'go away'. If you and others want to go that route, be my guest.....I ain't providing your bail money.

I'm familiar with the legal definition of a machine gun - at-issue is whether we're splitting-hairs over "a single function of the trigger". If I employ a motorized device, external to the firearm that interacts mechanically with my semi-auto trigger group that pulls the trigger FOR my finger at a rate of 1,000 trigger-pulls per minute, and I can actuate that mechanism with a button on the side of the device, am I or am I not circumventing the law?

1. Your first comment: Really? Guess what? They don't. From the ATF’s former Director of Field Operations and current head of the Association for Former/retired ATF Personnel (ATFA) (Emphasis his):

The National Firearms Act of 1934, Title 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines a “machine gun” as any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. ATF also holds that any item that can cause a firearm to fire more than one shot by the single function of the trigger is also regulated as a machine gun.

The Las Vegas killer used a “bump slide” accessory that attaches to the stock of a semi-automatic rifle and enhances the rate at which the shooter can pull the trigger on the firearm. This increases the rate of fire close to that of an actual machine gun. However, under the current law, it does not make it a machine gun.

The bump slide, and several other similar after-market accessories that increase the rate at which a shooter can pull the trigger, are engineered to avoid regulation under Federal law. These accessories DO NOT cause the firearm to shoot more than one shot by the single function of a trigger pull. The notion that ATF chose not to regulate an item it had the authority to regulate is false. The law is very clear and it does not currently allow ATF to regulate such accessories.

The money shot is in red. The law does not allow the ATF for regulate bump stocks. Now, it's possible you know more about ATF authority than this guy, but I'm guessing he knows what he's talking about.

2. No. You're breaking the law. The ATF has ruled that any motorized device that aids pulling the trigger constitutes a machine gun under the current definition, as the "trigger" now becomes the switch to the motor. That's why a Dillion mini-gun is a machine gun but a hand-cranked Gatling gun is not.

You need to get out or maybe read more.

 

[whacko]

I spent time in the Marine Corps and the Army. I went to West Point. FPF encompasses everyone/everything from rifleman to artillery. Everyone has their kill zone and shoots at maximum rate of fire.

You went to West point? Nice. What'd you finish up at?

My concept of fpf in the army infantry was crew served fire the fpf, riflemen keep eyes out for any ****ers that are luckey enough to crawl under that fpf......and 203 gunners hammer the dead space.

 

[Lip]

Soo many fudds....

 

[Mountain]

I've met many people who own machine guns and bump stocks. You know who frequently points guns at me? Not those guys. Instead, it's always old FUDDs with double-barrel shotguns at the skeet field and tell you what, despite their eleven decades of experience and their non-scary two-round guns, it's a lot more nerve-racking than anyone shooting full-auto at the range.

You are literally making the same exact arguments as libtards make against semi-autos.

OMG, that must be a universal problem, LOL. Try putting a loaded Mark III in the hands of a fat old heavily mouth-breathing FUDD who proceeds to pistol sweep me three times in a few seconds.

Olympus, I hear ya. Bumpfire stocks not my cup of tea and I DGAF about them. I do care about the people who want to preserve the right to have them, thus my 'pro' support position.

 

[Bonesinium]

Whats he shooting at lol? Watch his right shoulder. What a ****ing clown. Vids like this are no helping the cause people.

If the cause is infringing on rights, then I'm quite glad it's not helping. What cause are you talking about?

 

[Mass-diver]

Full auto does suck to shoot. Just a waste of ammo.

I've only shot full auto a handful of times, but I thought it was a blast. If I were wealthy (and my town allowed green cards), I'd be into the full auto game fore sure.

 

[Lip]

I've only shot full auto a handful of times, but I thought it was a blast. If I were wealthy (and my town allowed green cards), I'd be into the full auto game fore sure.

I was a pig gunner, if I could afford one I'd get two.

 

[Uzi2]

Full auto does suck to shoot. Just a waste of ammo.

Remember that the next time someone offers you a couple of magazines at a range. Nobody ever left the firing line without an ear to ear smile when firing my machine guns.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You and others here are trying to 're-live' 1968 all over again. I'm sure President Johnson would LOVE to hear your 'oral arguments' as to why the Gun Control Act is unconstitutional....oh, wait, he's dead and that ship sailed a half-century ago. Way to live in the present, guys.

Look, if you want to argue if BATF is 'good/bad', fine. Until you create and pass legislation that makes this organization disappear, then I suggest you live in the reality of the moment and recognize that they have jurisdiction on this matter and get to decide such things. I do not - but I'm not naïve to believe that my 'beliefs' regarding the Constitutionality of the BATF's authority somehow provides a force-field of protection for me to go-out and start building machine-guns in my garage, or that I can ignore them and they will 'go away'. If you and others want to go that route, be my guest.....I ain't providing your bail money.

I'm familiar with the legal definition of a machine gun - at-issue is whether we're splitting-hairs over "a single function of the trigger". If I employ a motorized device, external to the firearm that interacts mechanically with my semi-auto trigger group that pulls the trigger FOR my finger at a rate of 1,000 trigger-pulls per minute, and I can actuate that mechanism with a button on the side of the device, am I or am I not circumventing the law?

 

[whacko]

OMG, that must be a universal problem, LOL. Try putting a loaded Mark III in the hands of a fat old heavily mouth-breathing FUDD who proceeds to pistol sweep me three times in a few seconds.

Olympus, I hear ya. Bumpfire stocks not my cup of tea and I DGAF about them. I do care about the people who want to preserve the right to have them, thus my 'pro' support position.

I'm actually in the same camp. I don't care about em
.......would not own one,.....but do not support a ban cuz.....2a

You'd think half of NES thinks I'm full on anti or a fudd because I think their just a toy. But hey........whatever.

 

[Uzi2]

I'm actually in the same camp. I don't care about em
.......would not own one,.....but do not support a ban cuz.....2a

You'd think half of NES thinks I'm full on anti or a fudd because I think their just a toy. But hey........whatever.

Its not the "stock" or any other "item" that needs caring about, its the principle.

 

[ScottS]

I'm actually in the same camp. I don't care about em
.......would not own one,.....but do not support a ban cuz.....2a

You'd think half of NES thinks I'm full on anti or a fudd because I think their just a toy. But hey........whatever.

Every post I've read agrees that bump-stocks are a toy. Guess what? 98% of my guns are toys. I'm willing to bet most peoples' are. Legal toys. And just because it's a toy does not mean it's subjected to less protections than...what? Essential guns?

There are a lot of your posts that indicate you're willing to throw a whole bunch of gun owners under the bus because you consider bump-stocks to be "toys."

 

[headednorth]

There are a lot of your posts that indicate you're willing to throw a whole bunch of gun owners under the bus because you consider bump-stocks to be "toys."

Afaic, this is no different than fudds being ok with other people having their shit took as long as they get to keep their over-under and their 38 revolver. None of us should want anything taken from anybody under any circumstances. Eventually it'll be your turn. They will never be satisfied and it will never end. See England.

 

[SMASHING MACHINE]

The boomer fudds in this thread are mind numbing. Worst generation ever... best music though, I will give you that.

 

[whacko]

Afaic, this is no different than fudds being ok with other people having their shit took as long as they get to keep their over-under and their 38 revolver. None of us should want anything taken from anybody under any circumstances. Eventually it'll be your turn. They will never be satisfied and it will never end. See England.

Where did I say anything about taking anything from.anybody

- - - Updated - - -

Every post I've read agrees that bump-stocks are a toy. Guess what? 98% of my guns are toys. I'm willing to bet most peoples' are. Legal toys. And just because it's a toy does not mean it's subjected to less protections than...what? Essential guns?

There are a lot of your posts that indicate you're willing to throw a whole bunch of gun owners under the bus because you consider bump-stocks to be "toys."

Tell me how I am throwing anyone under a bus? I've full blown said no ban.

Btw......your right about some guns being toys. We all probably own lots of toys.

I think a s and w governor is a toy.......I'd never own one.......no different in concept than my opinion that bump fires are toys......still not promoting a ban on anything.

For the record.....dildos are toys......I dont own any.......and I'm not promoting banning them or taking..... "Anyone's"......just sayin'

 

[namedpipes]

Our Constitution is a marvel of checks and balances.

The Second Amendment is a check on government becoming destructive to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

It allows for the people from whom it's power is derived, to effect corrections, should it ever become necessary.

The government, ATF, etc. therefore have no standing to ban, regulate or infringe the ownership of firearms or any of their components.

 

[Uzi2]