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 DefensiveCarry.com 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.
October 27th, 2017 11:59 AM
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.
Originally Posted by baren
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
October 29th, 2017 12:51 AM
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.
Originally Posted by maxwell97
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.
November 10th, 2017 07:03 AM
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.
November 10th, 2017 08:19 AM
"after all you guys do know that fully automatic firearms ARE legal with a permit and yearly fee don't you?"
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.
December 2nd, 2017 09:22 AM
Excellent. That explains exactly why they spew their divisive dogma.
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
. 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.
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
December 14th, 2017 12:53 PM
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.
January 24th, 2018 03:32 PM
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.
January 25th, 2018 01:15 AM
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