quote:

Originally posted by StorminNormin:


Sounds like they sent an email without backing it up to actually pull ads. Only people such as you actually pulled it on their own. I assume you must have pulled it since many others still have theirs listed. I only ask because I am curious of what Gun Broker is actually doing about this.

Nope I didn't pull it. They pulled. I could not relist it if I wanted. They have completely removed from their system. My guess is because of the email I sent them.

"To whom it may concern,

You are chicken shits! The product in question is a legal product. I do not understand why you feel the need to make this decision. Did GunBroker ban AR15s after Sandy Hook?

The end of your email states"Thank you for your cooperation and continued support." I will no longer support a company that tucks their tale.

Regards,

Patrick McKinney aka AM94PM"

you can do the same thing with a rubber band

I think the ATF made the correct mechanical decision on the bump stocks. They NRA pissed me off with their acquiescence which will probably continue with the reexamination of things like stabilizing braces and who knows what else?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by rh:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Folks, it's time to flood the NRA with your view on this issue. Unbelievable cowards.

I guess that I should have posted the entire text of the NRA's recently released statement. (Prior post edited.) The NRA seems to want to trade banning bump stocks in exchange for passing a National Right-to-Carry bill.

JALLEN did state that deals were being made.

The deal that counts is the one that Congress might approve and the President sign.

To get there, the Congresscritters are surveying their supporters, who will support what. Various proposals and combinations will be floated to see what support there might be.


The NRA lobbyists will be active, as will every other group that has an interest or position to protect or advance. Lots of pressure!

Remember, a controversial position only costs you votes. A courageous one costs you re-election.

Exactly. Bump stocks are toast. They have made the decision.

I don’t think the “decision” is made. We haven’t really started the chest thumping and hollering yet.

If the NRA and its devotees are as powerful as they would have you believe, there is no chance of getting anything done.

OTOH, it may be that some wheeling and dealing will result in some sort of deal, as I speculated earlier. Everybody is seen to prevail.

I was just guessing from the headlines this AM, that the NRA decided to let bump stocks go. I am not saying that is good or bad.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
The ATF are people just like the rest of us with different reasoning and perspective. They obviously used a strict interpretation of what constitutes a full auto at the time of reviewing the bump stocks as many of you are mentioning.

full-auto = banned [NFA notwithstanding]

Bumpfire = semi-auto

but, if

Bumpfire = full-auto

Then:

semi-auto = full-auto

Therefore:

semi-auto = banned

Is this really a step you're willing to take?

What about triggers with really short resets?

Should congress mandate a minimum poundage and reset travel distance for all triggers?

You know what happened when Remington put lawyers in their Model 700 triggers? They became heavy and unsafe. I do not want a congressman, or all of congress, in my fire-control-group.

How about a rate-of-fire-law that leaves triggers, cranks, and bumpfire stocks alone, but makes it a crime to shoot more than 1 round every 3 seconds?

This was basically what I told someone today. Interpreting what is a semi-auto gun as a full-auto is a very bad idea. It opens up an entire can of worms.

I "get" there are other ways to bump fire other than a stock. Bump fire away all you want. It's just a goofy way of wasting ammo anyway but if you can do it safely and you enjoy it, knock yourself out. The stock however gives you a distinct advantage in rate of fire and control of the direction of fire that simulates the capability of a full auto rifle.

I "get" that the commonly accepted definition of a full auto weapon is a weapon that fires and cycles continuously when the trigger is held back as long as it has ammunition to fire. But the clear reason it is designed to function that way is because it fires at a higher rate of fire, with a minimal amount of effort, than what is physically possible if you had to physically manipulate the trigger. ATF already regulates full auto weapons. I support the fact they do this. Ergo, I support the regulation of devices that simulate the rate of fire of full auto weapons. Pretty cut and dry. This was my position before the shooting and this is my position now.

I would gladly trade ATF regulating bump stocks and the like for them deregulating suppressors and SBRs. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I "get" that some of you don't ever want anything to be touched or regulated when it comes to firearms because of the slippery slope and chipping away sentiments and point of views, and I generally agree, but not when it comes to full auto or simulated full auto fire due to a mechanical modification. I am NOT for any other restrictions. If God blessed you with a full auto finger, then so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I "get" there are other ways to bump fire other than a stock. Bump fire away all you want. It's just a goofy way of wasting ammo anyway but if you can do it safely and you enjoy it, knock yourself out. The stock however gives you a distinct advantage in rate of fire and control of the direction of fire that simulates the capability of a full auto rifle.

I "get" that the commonly accepted definition of a full auto weapon is a weapon that fires and cycles continuously when the trigger is held back as long as it has ammunition to fire. But the clear reason it is designed to function that way is because it fires at a higher rate of fire, with a minimal amount of effort, than what is physically possible if you had to physically manipulate the trigger. ATF already regulates full auto weapons. I support the fact they do this. Ergo, I support the regulation of devices that simulate the rate of fire of full auto weapons. Pretty cut and dry. This was my position before the shooting and this is my position now.

I would gladly trade ATF regulating bump stocks and the like for them deregulating suppressors and SBRs. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I "get" that some of you don't ever want anything to be touched or regulated when it comes to firearms because of the slippery slope and chipping away sentiments and point of views, and I generally agree, but not when it comes to full auto or simulated full auto fire due to a mechanical modification. I am NOT for any other restrictions. If God blessed you with a full auto finger, then so be it.

The wording of the proposed legislation doesn't support your argument.

If it said "any device [such and such] which, through recoil, assists pulling the trigger by a reciprocating action of the firearm in a sliding or "bumping" action with no movement of the trigger finger" I'd say it's pretty much just a bump fire stock and (although still stupid at the core) an easier pill to swallow to restrict a certain device.

But no. It says, basically, ANYTHING TO CREATE A FASTER RATE OF FIRE. Match triggers like Geissele competition models, binary triggers, gas block and bolt carrier combos to achieve faster lock times, tuned springs for faster follow-up shots, porting, compensators, shoulder stocks, vertical and angled foregrips, basically ANYTHING that some twatwaffle can try and demonstrate makes you more accurate at speed and thus "increase the rate of fire".

It's called a slippery slope because those slippery fuckers want to push us off of it.

Fuck. No.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I can respect passionate debate and discussion, even if I don't agree with it. Personal attacks and insults, not so much.

Well, I'm still not quite sure what exactly you're advocating here for because the issue--the real issue--is not bump stocks; it's semi-automatic firearms. So again, are you of the position that government should limit or regulate how fast I can pull the trigger, or do you simply want to ban semi-autos outright?

To both, those are yes or no questions.

1. With your finger, NO. Mechanically, with assistance of a device that simulates the rate of fire of a full auto. yes

2. NO WAY!

To number 1, it's either yes or no; can't be both. So by default, I'll mark you down for a "yes" for that.

^

Whatever helps you sleep.

I'm kidding, really.

Yours is an opinion I vehemently diagree with, but we all have controversial opinions on one thing or another. My primary problem with your opinion and desire is that is fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk of (someone else, later) conflating rate of fire with weapon type, as they most assuredly will do when you open this door. You, and those like you, and this... if it happens - we all face too high a risk of it being the crack that led to the levee finally collapsing in some way we can't even predict yet. You and this notion place the entirety of semi automatic firearm ownership at risk, carelessly, unnecessarily, uselessly, unintentionally, and worse of all - proudly and confidently.

When I said you're probably a great guy aside from this I meant it. I have zero beef with you in general, harbor zero ill feelings toward you separate of this topic, and have tried (and sometimes failed) to politely state how bad this idea and point of view is.

While you may only care about some marketed and sold mechanical assistance device, and I believe you do, those who make the laws and those who enforce the laws have a poor track record for doing things right, lean, specific, narrowly focused, and without unintended ill effects.

You're willing to risk far too much for far too little, and you're on *our* team. ? These are our rights, too, fundamental, already under threat, rights, and you advocate more control.

(shakes head)

I hope you change your mind, or at least stop advocating for this. Every positive word about it is a self inflicted poison that affects far more than you personally.

Do whatever you want, obviously, but please reconsider this POV.

I'm done talking about this.

Sorry for being long winded and too harsh at times, but this is a whopper of a problem.

I can't see the purpose of a bump stock. Sure, go ahead and ban them.

I can't see the point of a binary trigger and I think they're stupid. Sure, go ahead and ban them.

I think plastic guns are silly and AR-15s are for wimps. I don't care if you ban those. Gotta throw the libs a bone.

Military style semi autos? Yeah, I mostly shoot bolt guns and revolvers now so, you can have those also.

I guess I don't actually need a REPEATING rifle, right? A true marksman hits with his first shot.

.......

quote:

Originally posted by Rustpot:

It's called a slippery slope because those slippery fuckers want to push us off of it.

Fuck. No.

Yep...this...as much as I personally think bump fire stocks are as stupid as shit and cater to "that" segment of shooters (my family included) this is a first step down a path I don't want to see gun owners go...you can't make "deals" with these people regarding the Constitution...no good will come of it. As far as "deal making" goes...just ask Europe how well that Chamberland "deal" work out 70 or so years ago?

I just e-mailed this to NRA-ILA:

"Please stand strong against restricting these devices! Whether these are useful or not, this is another attempt to deny our rights and tear down Donald Trump's Presidency. Nancy Pelosi's statement today shows the real intent of this push to restrict or ban the bump stock: another step towards the total ban of ownership despite the Constitution. Don't allow one more step, do not compromise hoping to gain something from the Left Wing. They won't give in. Nor should we!"

Please note that I never said I supported the initial proposal as written, only my personal position and perspective. I hadn't even read it yet. I expect that there will be differing proposals, discussions, and revisions of the wording over time and that it will specify that it only applies to devices that mechanically simulate full auto rate of fire like bump stocks and similar devices, not single pull triggers that simply lower the amount of force required to discharge the firearm or anything else that somehow improves reliability, accuracy, function, asthetics, etc. I absolutely would not support anything that would restrict common AR upgrades and parts because of the definition and wording being so vague and encompassing that it did. If it turns out that nothing comes of the discussions then so be it. It does make you think though that some people should be thinking more about should I, not just could I, when it comes to making certain products. Then again, ATF did approve it at the time so....

No worries 46 and 2 et al. I know that most people here are good, thoughtful, reasonable, fairly educated, passionate people with sometimes strong opinions and anyone can get angry, have a bad day, lash out in frustration when we don't see eye to eye, etc. but it is the way we handle those situations and differences that is important. I hold most folks here in high regard and actually do value your opinions, even when we don't agree. I'm even willing to forgive the occasional abrasive confrontations that occur because that is what we are supposed to do. I'm convinced we are all better people because of the interactions we have here.

What about the Winchester 22LR pumps that you could hold the trigger back and pump away?? Rattlesnakes and copperheads beware!

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
What about the Winchester 22LR pumps that you could hold the trigger back and pump away?? Rattlesnakes and copperheads beware!

Now you did it!!

I guess now I have to get rid of that 22 that I have had, and used a whole LOT, since buying it in the Frankfurt PX back in 1958.



I have a 12 ga that works the same way.

I've got it! See, one doesn't need any gizmos or gadgets or even a belt loop to bumpfire. When I first bought my AK I did it once, I just held the rifle away from my shoulder and pulled forward with my off hand, pulling the gun against my trigger finger. The recoil kicks the gun back to trigger reset, keep pulling forward and it keeps kicking back, until you've made a lot of smoke and noise.

So, what we do is, we make it illegal for one to fire a rifle unless it's held firmly against the shoulder! Like how it's illegal to hold a pistol with a "brace" against the shoulder! Or did they change their decision on that too?

I hope this doesn't offend because of the timing to the event, I certainly don't mean it to.

In your gun-guy imaginings, knowledgeable, experienced, thoughtful, can you imagine one of the lefts pet gun-grabbing fantasies, including the new one on bumb-stuff, having any significant change in the number of casualties of a motivated killer?

Just some examples as I've noodled it:

Enhanced background check? nope, this guy had em all.

Number of guns allowed to own? nope, Marysville Mall shooter had a 1022, also speaks to allowed caliber.

Capacity of magazines? Buy twice as many, nope

Bump stock? Do you seriously think that any of us that shoot an AR a dozen times a year can't get off one round a second, quickly, even marginally? And if not 50 a minute, aim closer and make it 30, the difference in mayhem won't be noticeable to the NY times.

Would having a silencer increased his hits? People ran when they saw others get hit not when they heard the 'fireworks', not to mention how silent he could get it.

And more. Pick your gun-grab and give it a fair run. Will it stop these things as long as the free range crazies and haters roam?

I'm not trying to build straw-men or exceptional cases. The only grabber law that will prevent a copy cat of this attack is confiscation and they know it. So should we.

Wishful Thinker is right, it doesn't matter what happeed or what was used, the hoplophobes always want more. If it wasn't bumpfire stocks it would be "large capacity magazines" or "assault weapons" or semi-autos in general, background checks, anything they can grab onto, they will. Don't toss them a line, because they'll use it to choke us.

Wait, seriously? GunBroker is skipping out on the chance to get their cut of a good fleecing?

This shit is getting serious.

Frankly, I think more people would've been killed had a bump-stock not been used. This douchebag was spraying bullets everywhere. I don't think he was aiming for those fuel tanks. I think those were just stray rounds which shows just how wild his shots were.