The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

To begin, a bump stock is such a ridiculously simple "device" that even if you banned its manufacture, any moron with a small workshop could simply make his own bump stocks in his back yard. It really boils down to just having a spring and a regular stock you can work with.

Many proposed laws also add in the idea of banning "other fire-rate altering devices" without explicitly naming what the aforementioned "devices" are. This then brings us to the conundrum of what is the "Average" fire rate of a semi automatic firearm? Who is the arbiter of this "average" fire rate? Is the "Average" fire rate 100 rounds per minute, or 10 rounds, or 1 round?

If I can pull the trigger more often in a certain time frame than a 10 year old can, would my finger be considered a "fire-rate altering device?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gICeZJ4TaY

As seen in the video, this man bump fires a semi-automatic AK with nothing other than his finger and a special style of hip-firing. He fires 75 rounds in under 30 seconds while clearly not trying to be as expedient as humanly possible.

The sheep are now starting to reveal themselves as the wolves they really are; these laws accomplish nothing more than to simply drive gun control efforts towards the eventual banning of all semi-automatic firearms.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Luftwaffe said:

To begin, a bump stock is such a ridiculously simple "device" that even if you banned its manufacture, any moron with a small workshop could simply make his own bump stocks in his back yard. It really boils down to just having a spring and a regular stock you can work with.

Click to expand...

So let him do that and break the law, in which he would be accountable.

Your premise appears to be to argue that people speed anyway, so having speed limits is just dumb. This is not a good argument. I mean, people can make bombs in their basement with store bought products. Is the argument that we should just go ahead and sell C4 in Walmart and Target?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Your premise appears to be to argue that people speed anyway, so having speed limits is just dumb. This is not a good argument.

Click to expand...

If you ignore the rest of the post then sure that's the entirety of my "premise" :roll:

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Luftwaffe said:

If you ignore the rest of the post then sure that's the entirety of my "premise" :roll:

Click to expand...

No, I read your post. That seems to be the premise. That, and a senseless fear of slippery slopes.

Why is it that the first thing so many people do when a mass killing happens is bolt their doors because they think the government is going to mobilize the Active Duty to assist the National Guard and police force in searching through their houses to confiscate their guns, sling shots, blow darts, and spit wads? It's quite ridiculous.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

So let him do that and break the law, in which he would be accountable.

Your premise appears to be to argue that people speed anyway, so having speed limits is just dumb. This is not a good argument. I mean, people can make bombs in their basement with store bought products. Is the argument that we should just go ahead and sell C4 in Walmart and Target?

Click to expand...

If someone is planning to shoot up a crowd of innocent people, he isn't going to worry about rate of fire altering devices being illegal.

It's a useless law that is nothing more than a step towards banning guns.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

apdst said:

If someone is planning to shoot up a crowd of innocent people, he isn't going to worry about rate of fire altering devices being illegal.

It's a useless law that is nothing more than a step towards banning guns.

Click to expand...

You should really set the ideology aside and actually think about that...

1) In order to "ban guns," they would have to strike out an Amendment. Good luck. Even Democrats like to hunt, collect, and shoot on ranges.

2) After accomplishing the impossible, they would then have to somehow confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns in the country, plenty of which, would enter into a created black market. Think about what banning alcohol created.

The sheer logistics of "banning guns" is so enormous and impractical that the argument itself is foolish. We should also consider that even in a time when these mass killings are becoming ever more high profile, Republicans are actively trying to make silencers and armor piercing rounds legal for purchase. This petrified mood that conservatives always seem to embrace is nonsensical. The first thing any conservative should do when some liberal floats out the idea of "banning guns" is roll his eyes, not hunker down with his guns pointed out.

The problem is not our guns. It's our irresponsible culture. The next time you see a truck with a sticker in the window that shows a pistol pointed at you and expresses his love for his truck, or a bumper sticker that declares his love for his "Bible, his wife, and his guns"...think about what I mean. It is quite revealing when we consider that we will accept the law to wear seat belts (not ban cars), but can't bring ourselves to make gun ownership responsible in this country because anything and everything is argued as an attempt to "ban guns."

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

No, I read your post. That seems to be the premise. That, and a senseless fear of slippery slopes.

Why is it that the first thing so many people do when a mass killing happens is bolt their doors because they think the government is going to mobilize the Active Duty to assist the National Guard and police force in searching through their houses to confiscate their guns, sling shots, blow darts, and spit wads? It's quite ridiculous.

Click to expand...

so you are unaware of the law california passed that but for one judge, would have criminalized the possession of 15 round magazines that had perhaps been bought from the US government decades ago?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

You should really set the ideology aside and actually think about that...

1) In order to "ban guns," they would have to strike out an Amendment. Good luck. Even Democrats like to hunt, collect, and shoot on ranges.

2) After accomplishing the impossible, they would then have to somehow confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns in the country, plenty of which, would enter into a created black market. Think about what banning alcohol created.

The sheer logistics of "banning guns" is so enormous and impractical that the argument itself is foolish. We should also consider that even in a time when these mass killings are becoming ever more high profile, Republicans are actively trying to make silencers and armor piercing rounds legal for purchase. This petrified mood that conservatives always seem to embrace is nonsensical. The first thing any conservative should do when some liberal floats out the idea of "banning guns" is roll his eyes, not hunker down with his guns pointed out.

The problem is not our guns. It's our irresponsible culture. The next time you see a truck with a sticker in the window that shows a pistol pointed at you and expresses his love for his truck, or a bumper sticker that declares his love for his "Bible, his wife, and his guns"...think about what I mean. It is quite revealing when we consider that we will accept the law to wear seat belts (not ban cars), but can't bring ourselves to make gun ownership responsible in this country because anything and everything is argued as an attempt to "ban guns."

Click to expand...

they don't have to confiscate guns to accomplish their goals of killing off legal gun ownership. all they have to do is make it too expensive and too much a hassle for honest people to own or more importantly use guns in a legal fashion

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:

so you are unaware of the law california passed that but for one judge, would have criminalized the possession of 15 round magazines that had perhaps been bought from the US government decades ago?

Click to expand...

I am unaware of most laws in our country. I don't know what your point was.

Had the law passed, would Californians still have their guns? Because you have to wear a seat belt, their next step is to take your car away? It is absurd how scared people get over this issue.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:

they don't have to confiscate guns to accomplish their goals of killing off legal gun ownership. all they have to do is make it too expensive and too much a hassle for honest people to own or more importantly use guns in a legal fashion

Click to expand...

Sure, as soon as gun companies want to stop making money, they will go ahead and do this.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

You should really set the ideology aside and actually think about that...

1) In order to "ban guns," they would have to strike out an Amendment. Good luck. Even Democrats like to hunt, collect, and shoot on ranges.

2) After accomplishing the impossible, they would then have to somehow confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns in the country, plenty of which, would enter into a created black market. Think about what banning alcohol created.

The sheer logistics of "banning guns" is so enormous and impractical that the argument itself is foolish. We should also consider that even in a time when these mass killings are becoming ever more high profile, Republicans are actively trying to make silencers and armor piercing rounds legal for purchase. This petrified mood that conservatives always seem to embrace is nonsensical. The first thing any conservative should do when some liberal floats out the idea of "banning guns" is roll his eyes, not hunker down with his guns pointed out.

The problem is not our guns. It's our irresponsible culture. The next time you see a truck with a sticker in the window that shows a pistol pointed at you and expresses his love for his truck, or a bumper sticker that declares his love for his "Bible, his wife, and his guns"...think about what I mean. It is quite revealing when we consider that we will accept the law to wear seat belts (not ban cars), but can't bring ourselves to make gun ownership responsible in this country because anything and everything is argued as an attempt to "ban guns."

Click to expand...

Yet in 1986 democrats were successful in "banning" new machine guns for civilian ownership.

In 1994 democrats were successful in banning what they called assault weapons for 10 years.

In 2005 the chief of police along with the Mayor of New Orleans confiscated weapons after hurricane Katrina flooded the city.

In 2016 California legislature passed a law banning the possession of high capacity mags (no grandfathering) Luckily it was stopped by a judge.

In 2016 Obama by EO, banned firearm ownership from veterans suffering from PTSD, who were getting federal funds. Stepping on their 4th amendment right.


Don't give me the BS line that government would have to get rid of the second amendment in order to ban or confiscate firearms. Democrats try it all the time!

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

You should really set the ideology aside and actually think about that...

1) In order to "ban guns," they would have to strike out an Amendment. Good luck. Even Democrats like to hunt, collect, and shoot on ranges.

2) After accomplishing the impossible, they would then have to somehow confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns in the country, plenty of which, would enter into a created black market. Think about what banning alcohol created.

The sheer logistics of "banning guns" is so enormous and impractical that the argument itself is foolish. We should also consider that even in a time when these mass killings are becoming ever more high profile, Republicans are actively trying to make silencers and armor piercing rounds legal for purchase. This petrified mood that conservatives always seem to embrace is nonsensical. The first thing any conservative should do when some liberal floats out the idea of "banning guns" is roll his eyes, not hunker down with his guns pointed out.

The problem is not our guns. It's our irresponsible culture. The next time you see a truck with a sticker in the window that shows a pistol pointed at you and expresses his love for his truck, or a bumper sticker that declares his love for his "Bible, his wife, and his guns"...think about what I mean. It is quite revealing when we consider that we will accept the law to wear seat belts (not ban cars), but can't bring ourselves to make gun ownership responsible in this country because anything and everything is argued as an attempt to "ban guns."

Click to expand...

If that were true, then how could the ban on select fire rifles be constitutional? If they can ban those, then how are semiautomatic firearms(something like 80% or 90% of firearms) safe?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Sure, as soon as gun companies want to stop making money, they will go ahead and do this.

Click to expand...

you apparently aren't even on the same page as the issue is. the real push for gun control-other than to pander to weak minded sheep who want something DONE about crime, is to kill off pro gun voting blocs

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

JLee1977 said:

Yet in 1986 democrats were successful in "banning" new machine guns for civilian ownership.

In 1994 democrats were successful in banning what they called assault weapons for 10 years.

In 2005 the chief of police along with the Mayor of New Orleans confiscated weapons after hurricane Katrina flooded the city.

In 2016 California legislature passed a law banning the possession of high capacity mags (no grandfathering) Luckily it was stopped by a judge.

In 2016 Obama by EO, banned firearm ownership from veterans suffering from PTSD, who were getting federal funds. Stepping on their 4th amendment right.


Don't give me the BS line that government would have to get rid of the second amendment in order to ban or confiscate firearms. Democrats try it all the time!

Click to expand...

Yet...you still have your guns. The "BS" is the argument. Democrats have never introduced legislation to strip the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. The shame of it all is that people didn't learn from Obamacare. Obama Care was the half-assed result of Republicans refusing to hold the talks on Universal Health Care. What do you think a refusal to look at how irresponsible we are with guns will result in one day?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Nap said:

If that were true, then how could the ban on select fire rifles be constitutional? If they can ban those, then how are semiautomatic firearms(something like 80% or 90% of firearms) safe?

Click to expand...

You have the right to bear arms. A ban on select rifles does not void that constitutional right. Go buy a pistol or choose from the many splendid selection of other rifles you can purchase.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

YET...you still have your guns. The "BS" is the argument.

Click to expand...

uh and some don't. do you claim there is no infringement until every gun is banned?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

You have the right to bear arms. A ban on select rifles does not void that constitutional right. Go buy a pistol or choose from the many splendid selection of other rifles you can purchase.

Click to expand...

that's a moronic argument-its like saying its ok to ban books that ridicule Trump because you can still buy books that ridicule Hillary or its OK to ban the practice of Roman Catholicism because you can still attend Lutheran services

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:

that's a moronic argument-its like saying its ok to ban books that ridicule Trump because you can still buy books that ridicule Hillary or its OK to ban the practice of Roman Catholicism because you can still attend Lutheran services

Click to expand...

Um...it is not a moronic argument. Did a ban on automatic weapons deny you the right to bear arms? Pretty simple answer. I still have my guns. If so inclined, I can buy more.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:

uh and some don't. do you claim there is no infringement until every gun is banned?

Click to expand...

There is no infringement as long as you can still bear arms.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Um...it is not a moronic argument. Did a ban on automatic weapons deny you the right to bear arms? Pretty simple answer. I still have my guns. If so inclined, I can buy more.

Click to expand...

did a ban on say all books criticizing the GOP prevent you from having other books

sadly, you just don't understand the concept of constitutional rights and the negative restriction imposed on the federal government by various parts of the bill of rights

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Yet...you still have your guns. The "BS" is the argument. Democrats have never introduced legislation to strip the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. The shame of it all is that people didn't learn from Obamacare. Obama Care was the half-assed result of Republicans refusing to hold the talks on Universal Health Care. What do you think a refusal to look at how irresponsible we are with guns will result in one day?

Click to expand...

Because they can get the same result by legislating away the 2nd amendment by enacting laws. Death by a million paper cuts.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

There is no infringement as long as you can still bear arms.

Click to expand...

that's idiotic because again you don't understand the concept of negative restrictions on the federal government.

once again, is it OK for the federal government to ban several Christian denominations as long as you can attend others? see what you apparently are unable to understand is that the creation of additional weapons or books doesn't somehow empower the government to then ban others

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

JLee1977 said:

Because they can get the same result by legislating away the 2nd amendment by enacting laws. Death by a million paper cuts.

Click to expand...

the creeping crud of collectivist confiscation

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Um...it is not a moronic argument. Did a ban on automatic weapons deny you the right to bear arms? Pretty simple answer. I still have my guns. If so inclined, I can buy more.

Click to expand...

It has denied my right to bear automatic weapons, by pricing them beyond my reach. A M16 that once cost $600 today, is now $30,000 for a transferable one.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

TurtleDude said:

did a ban on say all books criticizing the GOP prevent you from having other books

sadly, you just don't understand the concept of constitutional rights and the negative restriction imposed on the federal government by various parts of the bill of rights

Click to expand...

We are talking about guns, not books. Perhaps this is a part of the irresponsible gun culture that we cling to. A book on a shelf, gun in the closet, meh. All just objects to entertain us.

Your Constitutional right to bear arms is as strong as it was before they "banned" automatic weapons. This is a tired and senseless argument.