Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Muslim who shot up the Gay night club didn't use a bump stock yet killed more and wounded plenty. But instead of going after the bad guy, it was the guns again.What would a bump stock ban accomplish?
The only guy I ever heard of that used one is dead, and unless you have the ability to raise him from the grave, there really isn't any more punishment you can dole out to the dude.
If you read my posting carefully, the issue is NOT the bump stock. Let me explain how the law works:
In the United States Constitution, Article I Section 9 states:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Notice what I said about ex post facto law is in bold. An ex post facto law is one where what was legal today can be become illegal tomorrow. EXAMPLE: In the Assault Weapons Ban, they could not make you give up or modify your firearms that you already owned. That would have been a violation of the ex post facto prohibition.
Jeff Sessions will change that with his bump stock ban. That means if you own one today, it can be illegal to own tomorrow. So, we think we can run down and buy some semi autos and mags - and presto, we're good to go.
Then the government outlaws high capacity magazines. We're thinking, so what. They're grandfathered in - just like the AR and the AK was during the Assault Weapon Ban. Not true. If Jeff Sessions makes ONE thing illegal (and it don't matter what it is) and it was legally owned before he issued his ban, then anything can be criminalized.
Anyway, if Sessions does what he says he's going to do and you owned say ten high cap magazines for your rifle. The government says they are now illegal. If you don't surrender them, each magazine you own becomes a separate felony count. Just ten high capacity magazines, in that scenario, would cost you the rest of your life in prison.
I understand completely, it is death by a thousand cuts.
This is all being done in such a speculative nature as to be laughable.
As I pointed out, the argument about bump stocks are disingenuous as there is not evidence that the death toll would not have been greater had bump stocks never been invented. It is insane to believe that a Mad Man, one with incredible wealth, could not have come up with the capability of a greater number of deaths if bump stocks and AR style rifles been unavailable.
We may actually been lucky that the idiot took a lazy path to mass destruction, the alternative could have been far worth.
Let me play the devil's advocate here:
I have tried, for years, to get people to give alternatives to gun control. My alternatives would get bogged down in legislative debates and never be passed, but as long as they were on the board, gun control would not be possible.
NOBODY wants to get involved in the strategy. They're happy thinking majority opinion will always favor gun rights - even as they are stripping us of our guns on an incremental basis.
Most mass shootings could be prevented without gun control. But, gun owners would rather lose their guns than to clog the legislature with alternatives to the gun bans, registration, etc.
I'm not the type that likes alternatives to problems that don't exist in the first place, or solutions that create even larger problems.
Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.It makes a semiautomatic fire like an automatic. Those are highly restricted and basically not for general civilian use. If you have an attachment that makes it look like a duck, quack like a duck and swim like a duck, it's probably a duck.You're opposed to outlawing bump stocks? LOL
Use your rubber band and be still about it.
What would a bump stock ban accomplish?
The only guy I ever heard of that used one is dead, and unless you have the ability to raise him from the grave, there really isn't any more punishment you can dole out to the dude.
Ban it. Since not many people own/use them, what skin is it off your nose if they are banned? One of the easiest things to agree on in gun control, I would think.
I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
For the gazillionth time, it takes a device off the market that should never have been legal.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.It makes a semiautomatic fire like an automatic. Those are highly restricted and basically not for general civilian use. If you have an attachment that makes it look like a duck, quack like a duck and swim like a duck, it's probably a duck.You're opposed to outlawing bump stocks? LOL
Use your rubber band and be still about it.
What would a bump stock ban accomplish?
The only guy I ever heard of that used one is dead, and unless you have the ability to raise him from the grave, there really isn't any more punishment you can dole out to the dude.
Ban it. Since not many people own/use them, what skin is it off your nose if they are banned? One of the easiest things to agree on in gun control, I would think.
I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
THEN WHAT DOES IT ACCOMPLISH!
i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:
“What are you prepared to do?
View attachment 191687
I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.
But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?
I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.
The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.
This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.
What are YOU prepared to do?
Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.It makes a semiautomatic fire like an automatic. Those are highly restricted and basically not for general civilian use. If you have an attachment that makes it look like a duck, quack like a duck and swim like a duck, it's probably a duck.What would a bump stock ban accomplish?
The only guy I ever heard of that used one is dead, and unless you have the ability to raise him from the grave, there really isn't any more punishment you can dole out to the dude.
Ban it. Since not many people own/use them, what skin is it off your nose if they are banned? One of the easiest things to agree on in gun control, I would think.
I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
An attachment like that should never have been allowed on the market to begin with.
The Muslim who shot up the Gay night club didn't use a bump stock yet killed more and wounded plenty. But instead of going after the bad guy, it was the guns again.If you read my posting carefully, the issue is NOT the bump stock. Let me explain how the law works:
In the United States Constitution, Article I Section 9 states:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Notice what I said about ex post facto law is in bold. An ex post facto law is one where what was legal today can be become illegal tomorrow. EXAMPLE: In the Assault Weapons Ban, they could not make you give up or modify your firearms that you already owned. That would have been a violation of the ex post facto prohibition.
Jeff Sessions will change that with his bump stock ban. That means if you own one today, it can be illegal to own tomorrow. So, we think we can run down and buy some semi autos and mags - and presto, we're good to go.
Then the government outlaws high capacity magazines. We're thinking, so what. They're grandfathered in - just like the AR and the AK was during the Assault Weapon Ban. Not true. If Jeff Sessions makes ONE thing illegal (and it don't matter what it is) and it was legally owned before he issued his ban, then anything can be criminalized.
Anyway, if Sessions does what he says he's going to do and you owned say ten high cap magazines for your rifle. The government says they are now illegal. If you don't surrender them, each magazine you own becomes a separate felony count. Just ten high capacity magazines, in that scenario, would cost you the rest of your life in prison.
I understand completely, it is death by a thousand cuts.
This is all being done in such a speculative nature as to be laughable.
As I pointed out, the argument about bump stocks are disingenuous as there is not evidence that the death toll would not have been greater had bump stocks never been invented. It is insane to believe that a Mad Man, one with incredible wealth, could not have come up with the capability of a greater number of deaths if bump stocks and AR style rifles been unavailable.
We may actually been lucky that the idiot took a lazy path to mass destruction, the alternative could have been far worth.
Let me play the devil's advocate here:
I have tried, for years, to get people to give alternatives to gun control. My alternatives would get bogged down in legislative debates and never be passed, but as long as they were on the board, gun control would not be possible.
NOBODY wants to get involved in the strategy. They're happy thinking majority opinion will always favor gun rights - even as they are stripping us of our guns on an incremental basis.
Most mass shootings could be prevented without gun control. But, gun owners would rather lose their guns than to clog the legislature with alternatives to the gun bans, registration, etc.
I'm not the type that likes alternatives to problems that don't exist in the first place, or solutions that create even larger problems.
You misunderstand me.
I can offer a solution that requires NO gun control of any kind; will require less government; will be much more efficient and stop mass shooters BEFORE the act happens. There is not really a downside to it. But liberals don't want to save lives - they want control.
Gun owners don't want to take preemptive steps. Why is beyond me.
For the gazillionth time, it takes a device off the market that should never have been legal.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.It makes a semiautomatic fire like an automatic. Those are highly restricted and basically not for general civilian use. If you have an attachment that makes it look like a duck, quack like a duck and swim like a duck, it's probably a duck.What would a bump stock ban accomplish?
The only guy I ever heard of that used one is dead, and unless you have the ability to raise him from the grave, there really isn't any more punishment you can dole out to the dude.
Ban it. Since not many people own/use them, what skin is it off your nose if they are banned? One of the easiest things to agree on in gun control, I would think.
I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
THEN WHAT DOES IT ACCOMPLISH!
No, the average guy's finger doesn't shoot that fast, or people wouldn't pay $200 for one of the things. However, since they're a worthless piece of plastic, I don't understand why anyone cares if they become illegal. I've never heard anyone say they're great and they would really miss it if they had to give it up. Zero. Nada.Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.It makes a semiautomatic fire like an automatic. Those are highly restricted and basically not for general civilian use. If you have an attachment that makes it look like a duck, quack like a duck and swim like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Ban it. Since not many people own/use them, what skin is it off your nose if they are banned? One of the easiest things to agree on in gun control, I would think.
I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
An attachment like that should never have been allowed on the market to begin with.
Bump stocks are garbage. I’m shocked the Vegas dude was even able to make it work. A finger works just as good as a bump stock and is 5 times as accurate.
Because it turns the action of a semi automatic into an automatic, which is for all intents and purposes ILLEGAL.For the gazillionth time, it takes a device off the market that should never have been legal.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.It makes a semiautomatic fire like an automatic. Those are highly restricted and basically not for general civilian use. If you have an attachment that makes it look like a duck, quack like a duck and swim like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Ban it. Since not many people own/use them, what skin is it off your nose if they are banned? One of the easiest things to agree on in gun control, I would think.
I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
THEN WHAT DOES IT ACCOMPLISH!
Why should it never have been legal in the first place?
And why take something off the market that makes an existing rifle less accurate?
i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:
“What are you prepared to do?
View attachment 191687
I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.
But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?
I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.
The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.
This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.
What are YOU prepared to do?
I’m to old for that shit and my best half and girl child can’t be put through that. But I do believe a bunch of young bucks woul break into my house and abscond with all the guns and ammo.
No, the average guy's finger doesn't shoot that fast, or people wouldn't pay $200 for one of the things. However, since they're a worthless piece of plastic, I don't understand why anyone cares if they become illegal. I've never heard anyone say they're great and they would really miss it if they had to give it up. Zero. Nada.Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
An attachment like that should never have been allowed on the market to begin with.
Bump stocks are garbage. I’m shocked the Vegas dude was even able to make it work. A finger works just as good as a bump stock and is 5 times as accurate.
No, the average guy's finger doesn't shoot that fast, or people wouldn't pay $200 for one of the things. However, since they're a worthless piece of plastic, I don't understand why anyone cares if they become illegal. I've never heard anyone say they're great and they would really miss it if they had to give it up. Zero. Nada.Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
An attachment like that should never have been allowed on the market to begin with.
Bump stocks are garbage. I’m shocked the Vegas dude was even able to make it work. A finger works just as good as a bump stock and is 5 times as accurate.
i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:
“What are you prepared to do?
View attachment 191687
I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.
But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?
I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.
The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.
This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.
What are YOU prepared to do?
Because it turns the action of a semi automatic into an automatic, which is for all intents and purposes ILLEGAL.For the gazillionth time, it takes a device off the market that should never have been legal.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.I have no intention on wasting time legislating something rarely used in criminal activity. I am sure somewhere a baseball bat was used to kill another human being, I oppose a ban on baseball bats. Your argument is disingenuous as it does not take into account that the killer, and lets be clear here, he was a millionaire, had the resources to do far more destruction if bump stocks and AR rifles were not available to him. Speculating that he might have killed far more had he ran into a ban on these items is just as valid as speculating the death toll would have been less. And neither should be used when creating good law.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
THEN WHAT DOES IT ACCOMPLISH!
Why should it never have been legal in the first place?
And why take something off the market that makes an existing rifle less accurate?
Is this a tacit admission that while the 2nd amendment may work for self defense it has not done anything since the revolution to keep anyone free?Really kind of waiting to see how your astute observations could possibly suggest removing someone's freedom is a protection of that person's freedoms.Got any examples how people like you have kept someone free?people like US have kept your stupid liberal ass free, shame that happened, because you sure do want to be a slave of the government...
Is this a tacit admission that while the 2nd amendment may work for self defense it has not done anything since the revolution to keep anyone free?Really kind of waiting to see how your astute observations could possibly suggest removing someone's freedom is a protection of that person's freedoms.Got any examples how people like you have kept someone free?people like US have kept your stupid liberal ass free, shame that happened, because you sure do want to be a slave of the government...
Really kind of waiting to see how your astute observations could possibly suggest removing someone's freedom is a protection of that person's freedoms.
No, the average guy's finger doesn't shoot that fast, or people wouldn't pay $200 for one of the things. However, since they're a worthless piece of plastic, I don't understand why anyone cares if they become illegal. I've never heard anyone say they're great and they would really miss it if they had to give it up. Zero. Nada.Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
An attachment like that should never have been allowed on the market to begin with.
Bump stocks are garbage. I’m shocked the Vegas dude was even able to make it work. A finger works just as good as a bump stock and is 5 times as accurate.
AR normal = 5 rounds per second and accurate
AR with bump stock = 7 rounds per second and not accurate
Fully auto = 15 rounds per second
And this by an expert, I would expect a slower rate in all but the fully auto by a non expert.
The bump stock is no where near the fully auto, not even close.
Really kind of waiting to see how your astute observations could possibly suggest removing someone's freedom is a protection of that person's freedoms.
The Patriot Act , totally orwellian in name, totalitarian and tyrannical in practice
All that's needed is a 'national emergency' for any sitting potus to essentially blow off the judicial and legislative branches
As well as throw our constitution under the bus
But you knew this....
insert Clint's iconic line as needed Mr. BlackSand....
~S~
It doesn't really make me feel all warm and fuzzy that you are watching those, but since the alternatives are out there and are apparently easy and accessible, bump stocks are definitely not essential to the gun owner's arsenal, are they?No, the average guy's finger doesn't shoot that fast, or people wouldn't pay $200 for one of the things. However, since they're a worthless piece of plastic, I don't understand why anyone cares if they become illegal. I've never heard anyone say they're great and they would really miss it if they had to give it up. Zero. Nada.Bump stocks make a semi automatic fire as rapidly as an automatic. You have conveniently ignored that in your reply saying I'm ignorant about guns. Therefore, it should never have been legal to begin with. You can throw whatever silly arguments out there that you want--bump stocks save lives, all I want is to control your life--but you missed the important part right from the get go.The way I look at it, bump stocks should have never been legal. DOJ or whoever let us down on that from the beginning. They passed the buck and it fell on the floor. No one picked it up until that a-hole in Vegas used one.
So to me it 's more like house cleaning.
No, it won't prevent mass shootings, but it's a by-the-way thing that needs to be done, now that we are aware of it.
You don't know much about guns, do you? The AR is much more accurate without the bump stock. If the shooter had used aimed fire, we'd have more deaths. The bump stock was simply a novelty item.
Bump stocks made the firearm LESS accurate; therefore, many lives were probably saved in Las Vegas. Besides, the gun controllers don't care about stocks. They just want CONTROL.
An attachment like that should never have been allowed on the market to begin with.
Bump stocks are garbage. I’m shocked the Vegas dude was even able to make it work. A finger works just as good as a bump stock and is 5 times as accurate.
It’s easy to mimic the action of a bump stock. There are at least two videos on YouTube showing how.
