Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated? - Page 16

Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated?

This is a discussion on Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated? within the Featured Topics forums, part of the Welcome To category; Originally Posted by baren Maybe a stiffer penalty if is used in a crime would be more appropriate then banning a legal device, IMO. Vt's ...

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16
Results 226 to 233 of 233
Like Tree809Likes

Thread: Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated?

  1. #226
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    In the Superstitions
    Quote Originally Posted by baren View Post
    Maybe a stiffer penalty if is used in a crime would be more appropriate then banning a legal device, IMO.
    Vt's carry law, being very liberal and open for people who want to carry, specifically addresses much stiffer penalties if a firearm is used in any criminal activity.
    baren likes this.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    The lion does not even bother to turn his head when he hears the small dog barking.

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  2. #227
    Ex Member Array BuckeyeMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Very little - fired a couple of mags through an MP5 once. I'll admit that you certainly have more knowledge of full-auto weapons than I do, if you admit that you have no idea whether this shooter's equipment did or did not malfunction, and did or did not contribute to the number of casualties, beyond speculation.

    But maybe you can help me on another point, given your experience. Some people are saying that weapons with a high rate of fire are so inaccurate and prone to malfunction that they probably result in fewer casualties than semi-autos fired normally. Then, in practically the same breath, they say that they must be unrestricted, because ownership of them helps give the people "military parity" with the government. That seems like cognitive dissonance to me. Which is it? Are they completely useless, or absolutely vital?
    Full automatic weapons designed to be full automatic weapons can be pretty accurate but not for long bursts and you STILL HAVE TO AIM !!!!! The muzzle starts to lift up and eventually the barrel will melt. That's one of the reasons why crew served weapons are so dam heavy, to an extent, you really don't want them to be light. The general rule of thumb is, the faster the rate of fire, the harder the weapon is to control.

    To prevent the barrel from melting and to ensure accurate fire, you shoot them using controlled bursts. 5 round bursts, 12 round bursts, ect...ect...ect...

    When the Army upgraded from the M-16A1 to M-16A2, they removed the full auto feature in favor of a 3 round burst feature, the reason being that the rifle is so light, on full auto no one can control the dam thing, it starts to lift up and to the right.

    Granted I've never used an M-4 but I'm pretty certain most modern AR-15's are lighter than am M-16A2 so I can't imagine how hard it would be to use it on full auto with any sort of accuracy.
    Low_Speed and Mike1956 like this.

  3. #228
    Senior Member Array patrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Slippery Slope...Why ban anything? After all you guys do know that fully automatic firearms ARE legal with a permit and yearly fee don't you? I can do the same thing with a large rubber band and my belt loop on any semi-automatic with the same effect. BAN NOTHING AND PASS NO LAW AT ALL. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. LAWS ONLY RESTRICT PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY OBEY THEM.
    Plus like I said, slippery slope. You will have a bunch of scumbag politicians passing vague laws the BATF can read into and enforce? Really? Remember morons like Diane Fienstein calling magazines "clips" etc those morons are the last people that should be making laws about firearm.
    If you can read this thank a teacher. If it is written in English thank a Marine.

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #229
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    "after all you guys do know that fully automatic firearms ARE legal with a permit and yearly fee don't you?"
    Not quite.

    It's not a permit...its a tax stamp. It's not a yearly fee...its a one time fee.

    And yes...they are infringements. Its just another tax scam invented by the Federal Goverment.
    OD*, Mike1956, Havok and 6 others like this.
    Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...

  6. #230
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    404 Page Not Found
    There is the real divide. We have a whole political movement holding the American people in near total contempt, but just as they were previously unwilling to admit that gun confiscation was the goal as of ten years ago, today

    their problem is getting popularly elected by the same people they openly distain
    . In order to do that the only way is to make their supporters totally different than "The American People". They have to divide us

    and make their supporters feel morally superior to "The Masses", or they can't get elected
    . They rushed to the microphones before this monster's barrel was even cool to proclaim their superiority (and the superiority of all

    their supporters)
    . I cannot see it getting any better when one side lumps us in with this maniac in Nevada. I can see it getting much worse. In fact, it may be inevitable at this point.
    Excellent. That explains exactly why they spew their divisive dogma.
    OD* likes this.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here

    "If we suppose them sincere, we must pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays." Alexander Hamilton

  7. #231
    New Member Array dsilverstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    I think it's EXTREMELY important that these devices not be banned. The law, as it is written, differentiates semi-automatic fire from automatic fire be whether or not the trigger is actuated for each round fired. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with fire rate. You could, with a tax-stamp, build a gun that fired 2 shots over the course of 5 minutes from one trigger pull. That would be an automatic gun and should be treated as such. In fact, that gun would be FAR more dangerous than a gun with a high cyclic rate, whether automatic or not. The problem is that non-gun owners do not concern themselves with the distinction between cyclic rate and a trigger that doesn't require a reset. If we allow non-gun owners' interpretation of concepts and words to define the laws, we are entirely at their mercy. A bump stock does nothing to the fire control group. It only allows the shooter to push forward on the stock, hold their trigger finger (not the trigger) still, and use the recoil of the rifle to allow the trigger to reset after each shot. Anyone with a minimal concept of HOW the gun works can do this with or without the bump stock. Nevertheless, any ban on the device would necessarily be written to include a whole range of potential products, none of which cause the gun to become an automatic gun.
    OD* likes this.

  8. #232
    New Member Array ElBadgerski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    New England
    For those suggesting banning the stock, because that will prevent all bumpfire, should we then also ban belt loops? They have the same effect and are WAY cheaper.
    Havok and Doghandler like this.

  9. #233
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    West Branch
    Keep the bump stocks. Take away the ammo. Ouch!
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
    Buck the donkey

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts