quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I understand some people want to take a stand regarding the technical definition of what constitutes a full auto but it doesn't change the truth of the similarity of the end result with these devices.

What end result is that?

Folks, it's time to flood the NRA with your view on this issue. Unbelievable cowards.

quote:

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

Doesn't have to be semi auto either.



Sure Jerry is superhuman when he does this with revolvers, including micro-second reloads, but it is still a trick, an emulation of full auto. And that is what a bump fire stock system is, a trick, a toy, an emulation of auto fire. If it was anything more, everyone here would have purchased one years ago. But of course not. And banning a toy, a trick is just plain silly.

If the shooter had a lot of practice in long range precision shooting, and with the right equipment as far as rifle, optics, etc, he could have killed a lot more than 58 people in those 10 minutes, without auto fire. Full auto has nothing to do with the tragedy in Las Vegas.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
And banning a toy, a trick is just plain silly.

Of course it is. But the Dems are champions of 'feel-good' legislation.

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.

Not sure I get the NRA strategy in putting out their statement. If they are trying to get a deal where they give up bump stocks to get National CCW, then I think this is a poor way to go about it. They have basically given their support and cover to Republicans to support bans on bump fire stocks while getting nothing in return. When the Dems inevitably refuse to go along with National CCW or suppressor legalization or whatever other thing the NRA wants, it will be too late to withdraw support for the bump stock ban. I expect this kind of mis-step from the GOP politicians, but not from the NRA.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
No one is calling you the "enemy", here, Dtech. That's just your emotion talking. A lot of us just happen to disagree with you about this issue. We are not "eating our own".

No, no one used the word "enemy," but you're not being very civil, in my opinion. And did you read the post by 46and2? Was that "emotional"? You're actually being very sarcastic, which is common with emotional people as well.

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?

Exactly LLD!!! They did NOT think it through.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Why is the stock different from shooting fast?

Exactly.

What is DTech's plan / perspective regarding this?

Every one here (beyond perhaps someone with advanced age, arthritis, or a disability) can burn through a 30+ round magazine faster than they can shoot accurately, every damn one of us, more or less, and if not today, I'm certain they could with a weekend of practice at most, just by cramming two fingers in the trigger guard and twitching them back and forth a bunch, or with just your regular trigger finger. With a FINGER, sir. ??????

How do you reconcile this?

What's to stop this from turning into a "need" for mechanical safetys in all semi auto firearms that somehow limit rate of fire?

How fast IS too fast? Says who? Based on what?

Even if we accept that you're not crazy or dumb or an enemy in disguise (and I'm sincerely sure that's true despite contentious discussions), how do you account for these issues?

Think it through, spell it out... follow the idea to its conclusion, and answer to the concerns.

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.

We're not eating our own.

We're being destroyed from within by our own - whose notions and suggestions mirror those of our actual enemies - even if well intended and politely spoken, and some folks here are vigorously resisting it and encouraging a less emotional, less reactionary, less pointless approach and that also may not bite us in the collective ass later, and yes, it may come out rude and need to be tempered, but this is vitally important business...

I don't think DTech is actually an enemy, but he's channeling them, even if accidentally, and he's helping them, and hurting the rest of us, even if that's not his goal, and though he's free to think it, these are decidedly dangerous thoughts, legally / rights wise. I've no doubt he is sincere, believes his ideas are sound and reasonable, but he is dangerously mistaken, and in emotional times such as this the need to stand firm and specifically NOT make any such changes is of vital importance. This is a colossal failure by the NRA, et al.

If DTech were my in-person friend and I were there I'd shake him like you might a hysterical person who needs to wake up, in a friendly and loving way.

This is serious...

...and he is wrong.

Probably a great guy, but wrong, and there's no real way to cushion that statement much.

(I do apologize if I was too rude earlier)

Time to call the NRA. I am against national CCW and the banning of anything bump fire.

Both of those things will lead to nothing but draconian bans and restrictions in the future.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

Bumpfire = full-auto
semi-auto = full-auto
semi-auto = banned

BINGO!

We KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT THIS IS HOW IT WILL GO!

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

Bumpfire = full-auto
semi-auto = full-auto
semi-auto = banned

BINGO!

We KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT THIS IS HOW IT WILL GO!

I believe that the NRA has decided that Bump Stocks are "widgets" that could be banned, w/o compromising the overall 2A agenda. They have decided that Bump Stocks are not actual components of firearms, and they have decided to "throw that maiden into the volcano" to head off any future claims. Bump stocks are toast, IMO.

I just sent the NRA-ILA an email in protest of their statement via their website.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
No one is calling you the "enemy", here, Dtech. That's just your emotion talking. A lot of us just happen to disagree with you about this issue. We are not "eating our own".

No, no one used the word "enemy," but you're not being very civil, in my opinion. And did you read the post by 46and2? Was that "emotional"? You're actually being very sarcastic, which is common with emotional people as well.

That's funny, because Dtech, not anyone else, was the one who brought up "enemies". And, [sarcasm]I could be wrong[/sarcasm], but I never said I was not an emotional person. The point here was that Dtech's view on NFA restrictions was based on emotion, and not logic. Kneejerk, emotional responses, calling for banning this and regulating that are classic tactics of the gun grabbers. They should not be ours.

Anyway, do you have anything meaningful to add to the real discussion about the bumpfire? Sarcasm, I know. May not even be civil.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
No one is calling you the "enemy", here, Dtech. That's just your emotion talking. A lot of us just happen to disagree with you about this issue. We are not "eating our own".

No, no one used the word "enemy," but you're not being very civil, in my opinion. And did you read the post by 46and2? Was that "emotional"? You're actually being very sarcastic, which is common with emotional people as well.

That's funny, because Dtech, not anyone else, was the one who brought up "enemies". And, [sarcasm]I could be wrong[/sarcasm], but I never said I was not an emotional person. The point here was that Dtech's view on NFA restrictions was based on emotion, and not logic. Kneejerk, emotional responses, calling for banning this and regulating that are classic tactics of the gun grabbers. They should not be ours.

Anyway, do you have anything meaningful to add to the real discussion about the bumpfire? Sarcasm, I know. May not even be civil.

Well said!

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
No one is calling you the "enemy", here, Dtech. That's just your emotion talking. A lot of us just happen to disagree with you about this issue. We are not "eating our own".

No, no one used the word "enemy," but you're not being very civil, in my opinion. And did you read the post by 46and2? Was that "emotional"? You're actually being very sarcastic, which is common with emotional people as well.

That's funny, because Dtech, not anyone else, was the one who brought up "enemies". And, [sarcasm]I could be wrong[/sarcasm], but I never said I was not an emotional person. The point here was that Dtech's view on NFA restrictions was based on emotion, and not logic. Kneejerk, emotional responses, calling for banning this and regulating that are classic tactics of the gun grabbers. They should not be ours.

Anyway, do you have anything meaningful to add to the real discussion about the bumpfire? Sarcasm, I know. May not even be civil.

See that Dtech, your opinion couldn't possibly be based on thought-out logic. You should assume that whenever your opinions differs from 12131.