Why isn't a bump-fire stock an "assault weapon"?

This forum some days.....
5bc2e8c731e5609bc8b4f23f67e540cd.jpg

Battered wife syndrome is real.
 
What the **** is wrong with all of you?

This isn't an assertion that they *should* be (they shouldn't) and I never said or suggested anything of the sort.


This is a question about why the .gov hasn't already regulated them this way (they're stupid and uninformed?) and/or why now that they want to ban them, they're not using what looks like an obvious "don't have to pass laws" way to do it.

The way a bump stock works by allowing the rifle to slide on the stock, right? It slides on the stock by the buffer tube sliding *inside* the stock, right?

How is that not "telescoping" just as much as an M4 6 position stock is "telescoping"?

Nothing in the AWB says anything about how much a stock has to telescope to be an "evil feature"; therefore it seems like it would have been easy for them to just declare that the 3/4" or so that a bump stock telescopes on the buffer tube (at least for an AR) makes it a telescoping stock, and therefore banned (because it includes the second evil feature, the pistol grip)
 
A bump stock is essentially a collapsible stock with the adjustment locking mechanism left out. Since most post 94 guns that could use them already have detachable magazines and pistol grips, they are already effectively banned as a 3rd 'evil' feature by the existing AWB. Pinning a bump stock turns it into a conventional fixed stock by current law, but do that after the shit sandwich passes who knows.

By this logic any long-recoil action rifle or shotgun where the barrel moves rearward when fired would be considered "adjustable" because it changes the OAL of the gun. [rolleyes]
 
The point of collapsable stock is to reduce OAL of the rifle for various "assaulty" reasons, like concealment, transport, tight spaces and to irritate **** Mora.

That's not what the law says/said. "the point" is never mentioned in any definition of "assault weapon"

Just like the point of a flash hider isn't mentioned, and the point of a shoulder thing that goes up isn't mentioned.

The fact that the AWB was stupid law originally, and was written poorly, and bans cosmetic features, and is otherwise a waste of everyone's time (as demonstrated by the crime rate in '94-'04) doesn't change the fact that the law defined a "telescoping stock" as an evil feature.
 
That's not what the law says/said. "the point" is never mentioned in any definition of "assault weapon"

Just like the point of a flash hider isn't mentioned, and the point of a shoulder thing that goes up isn't mentioned.

The fact that the AWB was stupid law originally, and was written poorly, and bans cosmetic features, and is otherwise a waste of everyone's time (as demonstrated by the crime rate in '94-'04) doesn't change the fact that the law defined a "telescoping stock" as an evil feature.

Yet "telescoping stock" isn't defined in the law, is it?
 
It telescopes, right? Not much, but it does. The grip doesn't change length, but the length of pull (to the trigger) absolutely changes, or they wouldn't work.

So... why aren't bumpstocks already regulated under the '94 and '98 bans?

Wait...what now?

I guess everyone is giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that your thread title is just ridiculously stated. How could a stock be "an assault weapon?" That would be like asking "Why isn't an A2 flash hider an assault weapon?" That's just...silly.

I guess you're asking, "Wouldn't a bump stock be considered collapsible, in which case adding it would create another "evil feature," that might classify an otherwise ban-compliant rifle as an assault weapon?"

Jesus Christ, is that so hard?
 
Yet "telescoping stock" isn't defined in the law, is it?

Not that I know of. That's why so many people have length adjustable stocks that slide on rails, rather than telescoping like the M4.

You can't deny that a stock that slides over the buffer tube is telescoping (using plain English, not a legal definition). Just not much.


Wait...what now?

I guess everyone is giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that your thread title is just ridiculously stated. How could a stock be "an assault weapon?" That would be like asking "Why isn't an A2 flash hider an assault weapon?" That's just...silly.

You're absolutely right. The title was poorly written.[/quote]

I guess you're asking, "Wouldn't a bump stock be considered collapsible, in which case adding it would create another "evil feature,"
that might classify an otherwise ban-compliant rifle as an assault weapon?"[/quote]

That's what I should have written.

Jesus Christ, is that so hard?

apparently so.
 
A slide fire stock doesn't fold, collapse, or telescope.
Now if they offered one That offered diffent lengths, then yes in would be banned on post 1994 AW unless other features were removed.

As it stands now all slidefire stocks im aware of only lock in one FIXED position.

Its all irrelevant anyway even without "BUMP STOCKS" Which is a fake news buzzword.
You can bumpfire without a slidefire stock...so what is a law going to do when you can drill one hole in any ar15 and make an m16?
 
Back
Top Bottom