quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There may be a deal in the works.

Is anyone ok with trading support for bump stock ban in return for freeing suppressors and maybe nationwide CCW?

Nope. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

. I was actually thinking of Congress, but you may be on to something.

There has already been mention of something like this. The Brady Bunch gets something it and supporters now want, and so do the 2d Amendment types.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There may be a deal in the works.

Is anyone ok with trading support for bump stock ban in return for freeing suppressors and maybe nationwide CCW?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read and take those words at face value. Rights are not something to ever be negotiated, traded, or compromised.

I'm buying stock in suspenders. Once they find out you can hook your finger in a belt loop and do the same thing say good by to those. Still need to hold your pants up!

And I'll never trade ANYTHING with the left. Nothing is EVER good enough, and won't be, until we are all disarmed.

quote:

Originally posted by Test1968:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There may be a deal in the works.

Is anyone ok with trading support for bump stock ban in return for freeing suppressors and maybe nationwide CCW?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read and take those words at face value. Rights are not something to ever be negotiated, traded, or compromised.

That train has already started rolling. There are cases that some regard as infringements that have been on the books for years, pretty much settled law.

There are a great many concepts in the law, and Constitutional law, that don’t work the way one might think.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There may be a deal in the works.

Is anyone ok with trading support for bump stock ban in return for freeing suppressors and maybe nationwide CCW?

Nope. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

. I was actually thinking of Congress,

As was I.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There has already been mention of something like this. The Brady Bunch gets something it and supporters now want, and so do the 2d Amendment types.

AFAIC, they can go climb up their collective ass.

I am typically not about banning firearms related products either, but it is clear where the law stands on full auto and burst fire capability for civilians. Some people thought it would be a good idea and the making of a quick buck to try and skirt the law, to the detriment of most gun owners and sadly for the victims in Las Vegas. Please don't take this to mean that I blame anyone or anything but the shooter for the evil act though. I don't agree with it being a quick, knee jerk reaction or about it being pushed through simply for the sake of passing something. I personally would gladly give up all the bump stock, multi-fire triggers, and trigger manipulation devices while removing the restrictions on suppressors and / or SBRs as a compromise.

Either pony up for the tax stamp, extreme cost, and the process involved of owning a pre 86 full auto or be content with owning a semi-auto rifle for all the reasons and rights that we do. The ability of rifles to be modified without the use of the afore mentioned products is irrellevant and is at least more challenging than simply installing an off the shelf product intended to get around the law. That's the way I see it. Having fired a full auto M4 configuration AR, I can personally say that the novelty wears off quickly and the daily or even occasional use would be both cost prohibitive and not at all attractive to me and I suspect most of my fellow gun owners. There are venues/ranges you can go to to scratch that itch if you really need to without having to buy or own one, if you really want to have the experience.

I wanted to see if single shots are possible , so I checked you tube , wow!
many new vids there

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bendable,

JAllen,

I understand what you are saying, and you are correct.

But in support of my position is you own signature line from Justice Brown.

Also,
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

― Benjamin Franklin

While Franklin's quote wasn't in the context of the 2nd Amendment, his words have the loud ring of truth.

Old laws are being interpreted, and new ones written that to me, erode individual liberties. And we now call that settled law.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I am typically not about banning firearms related products either, but it is clear where the law stands on full auto and burst fire capability for civilians.

And a bump stock does not, I repeat does not, convert a semi automatic into a machine gun. Period. It still fires one round with each pull of the trigger, no more. If that trash fired 1000 rounds, guess what, the trigger was pulled 1000 times. His guns WERE NOT FULL AUTO, I don't care how many rounds were expended. People are mixing "full auto", rate of fire, etc., with the mechanical properties, and legal definitions, of a machine gun.

If you are all for changing the definition semi-auto based on rate of fire, say good by to semi-auto's in general. There are machine guns with a lower rate of fire than a bump stock equipped gun. Guess what? They are still machine guns. Who decides how fast you can shoot? If you shoot too fast did you just commit a felony? Did you manufacture a machine gun?

Like them or not, banning bump stocks is a BAD idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I have no use for this stupid thing. A couple of years ago I asked about them on this very forum when I first learned about it. I quickly came to the conclusion that the bump stock is a gimmick and wouldn't want one on my rifle. I just wouldn't care if they ever existed to be honest.

But having said that, I still don't want them banned. I'll fight any new legislation that tries to do so. I don't want any new gun legislation, period. Bunch of useless, feel-good bull.

That is my view. I don't want one, but would resist banning them. Even if that were only to fight incrementalism.

I say "no deals" JAllen. A deal on damn near anything is a concession we can't afford, in my view. Concessions rarely, if ever, satisfy the person to whom they are granted. Give 'em an inch . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I am typically not about banning firearms related products either, but it is clear where the law stands on full auto and burst fire capability for civilians. Some people thought it would be a good idea and the making of a quick buck to try and skirt the law, to the detriment of most gun owners and sadly for the victims in Las Vegas. Please don't take this to mean that I blame anyone or anything but the shooter for the evil act though. I don't agree with it being a quick, knee jerk reaction or about it being pushed through simply for the sake of passing something. I personally would gladly give up all the bump stock, multi-fire triggers, and trigger manipulation devices while removing the restrictions on suppressors and / or SBRs as a compromise.

Either pony up for the tax stamp, extreme cost, and the process involved of owning a pre 86 full auto or be content with owning a semi-auto rifle for all the reasons and rights that we do. The ability of rifles to be modified without the use of the afore mentioned products is irrellevant and is at least more challenging than simply installing an off the shelf product intended to get around the law. That's the way I see it. Having fired a full auto M4 configuration AR, I can personally say that the novelty wears off quickly and the daily or even occasional use would be both cost prohibitive and not at all attractive to me and I suspect most of my fellow gun owners. There are venues/ranges you can go to to scratch that itch if you really need to without having to buy or own one, if you really want to have the experience.

Ugh...

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

That is my view. I don't want one, but would resist banning them. Even if that were only to fight incrementalism.

I say "no deals" JAllen. A deal on damn near anything is a concession we can't afford, in my view. Concessions rarely, if ever, satisfy the person to whom they are granted. Give 'em an inch . . .

Best get those cards and letters in to the terro.... err, Congressmen and Senators, then, because noses are being counted as we speak.

Full auto is ALL about the rate of fire of a weapon. Trying to hide behind the technical argument of what a semi-auto is and is not, is not a genuine or realistic argument. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is a duck whether you pull the trigger once or you use a device that pulls or assists in the pulling of the trigger multiple time really fast. There is no human that can pull a trigger that quickly. Even doing semi-auto mag dumps quickly will fatigue your finger in short order. Not to mention the products in question are specifically designed to get around the law. It's not about erosion of our rights, it is about what is already a guideline and the law.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
Full auto is ALL about the rate of fire of a weapon.

No, it's about the firearm being capable of firing more than one round with only one press of the trigger.

What do you think you're doing, man? You're going to try to sell this bunch that argument?

Jetry Miculek can fire a pistol faster than any bump stock and he's doing nothing illegal.

The BATFE approved the bump stock, in case you missed it. If you want to take the side of the antis and use their flawed arguments, go right ahead, but you are on your own.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
Full auto is ALL about the rate of fire of a weapon. Trying to hide behind the technical argument of what a semi-auto is and is not, is not a genuine or realistic argument. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is a duck whether you pull the trigger once or you use a device that pulls or assists in the pulling of the trigger multiple time really fast. There is no human that can pull a trigger that quickly. Even doing semi-auto mag dumps quickly will fatigue your finger in short order. Not to mention the products in question are specifically designed to get around the law. It's not about erosion of our rights, it is about what is already a guideline and the law.

Well, the law is that if it fires more than once per trigger pull it's a machine gun. Bump firing is still just one pull of the trigger, so y'all might wanna peddle that bullshit elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Test1968:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There may be a deal in the works.

Is anyone ok with trading support for bump stock ban in return for freeing suppressors and maybe nationwide CCW?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read and take those words at face value. Rights are not something to ever be negotiated, traded, or compromised.

ALL, and I mean all of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are limited in various ways. Even speech, which is the one that gets the most protection, is not unlimited. You cannot slander someone, for example. You cannot freely exercise your religion if you believe in tossing virgins into volcanoes, even if the virgin agrees.

So, claiming that no limitations can ever be applied is a non-starter. It simply isn't the way it is, and it never was.

What we are arguing about is what limitations are permitted.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I have no use for this stupid thing. A couple of years ago I asked about them on this very forum when I first learned about it. I quickly came to the conclusion that the bump stock is a gimmick and wouldn't want one on my rifle. I just wouldn't care if they ever existed to be honest.

But having said that, I still don't want them banned. I'll fight any new legislation that tries to do so. I don't want any new gun legislation, period. Bunch of useless, feel-good bull.

That is my view. I don't want one, but would resist banning them. Even if that were only to fight incrementalism.

I say "no deals" JAllen. A deal on damn near anything is a concession we can't afford, in my view. Concessions rarely, if ever, satisfy the person to whom they are granted. Give 'em an inch . . .

Dane-Geld (Rudyard Kipling)

A.D. 980-1016
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Bump stocks, bump fire devices, yada, yada. Everyone here's preaching to the choir and saying the same thing: the devices and stocks are worthless. The media hasn't yet globbed onto triggers that discharge in each direction (legal), but probably will.

No one is talking about the fact that this shooting, like all others, occurred in "gun free zones." The concert venue and the hotel were both "gun free zones." Clark Country, NV, has draconian firearm laws, requires registration, and much tighter restrictions on firearm ownership, use, and carry than the rest of the state of Nevada. None of that did a thing to impact the ability or will of the shooter, who was already in violation of numerous laws. Making laws to address what he did wouldn't have prevented him, and won't prevent anyone else, either.

We all know this.

Rate of fire is irrelevant and except for a great deal of training, faster rate of fire reduces accuracy. That doesn't matter much when firing into a crowd of 22,000.

What was needed in this case was insight into the mind of the shooter, and until we can legislate thought, that's not in the realm of possibility. What is needed is more carry and more who are willing to carry. The While this event would unlikely have ended with private carry, the fact is that such events nearly always take place in "gun free zones," against the unaware.

We can't determine the thoughts or intent of those who would do harm, but we can increase awareness and preparation. We don't see mass shootings at police and NRA conventions. We see them in schools, concerts, theaters, and night clubs where firearms are prohibited. Prohibiting firearms, whether concealed carry or a type of firearm or even a "bump stock" won't stop crime, it will increase it, because the prohibition only impacts those who follow the law. Those aren't the concern. Those aren't the bad guys. Those are the good guys.

Arm the good guys.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
Full auto is ALL about the rate of fire of a weapon......It's not about erosion of our rights, it is about what is already a guideline and the law.

You have NO clue what you are talking about. AT ALL. The LAW defines an automatic weapon, and it is NOT your definition. Period. Tell me, at what rate of fire does a semi-automatic become full automatic? 100 RPM? 200 RPM? Let's say 700 rounds per minute. Well a 45 caliber "grease gun" is slower than that, does that make it semi-automatic? Nope. It is a machine gun because the law says it is.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
Full auto is ALL about the rate of fire of a weapon. Trying to hide behind the technical argument of what a semi-auto is and is not, is not a genuine or realistic argument. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is a duck whether you pull the trigger once or you use a device that pulls or assists in the pulling of the trigger multiple time really fast. There is no human that can pull a trigger that quickly. Even doing semi-auto mag dumps quickly will fatigue your finger in short order. Not to mention the products in question are specifically designed to get around the law. It's not about erosion of our rights, it is about what is already a guideline and the law.

Well, the law is that if it fires more than once per trigger pull it's a machine gun. Bump firing is still just one pull of the trigger, so y'all might wanna peddle that bullshit elsewhere.

Yeah, exactly right.

I mean, Dtech, seriously, in your world what is the difference between semi-auto and auto? Just give us a number then. At what rate of fire has my finger suddenly become an item that must be registered with the ATF? It's frankly absurd the nonsense that you're trying to hawk to this crowd. Do we look like ignorant anti gunners to you?