https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/bump-stocks-ban/index.html?no-st=1545160958
Not a very good precedent to be setting in my opinion. Still, it's interesting seeing those "2nd Amendment People" who voted for Trump trying to backpedal their support after this one.
It was the white man trying to take our guns this whole time
Being PRO 2A was the only thing I saw in this guy but of course he fucks up in this regard aswell. Not that i'm surprised anymore ofc.
Why are we angry? I thought people thought that bump stocks were unnecessary.
Which brings me to my next question, why are they considered dangerous?
Obama strikes again! Taking our guns away!
Can't wait for the next hacky method of enabling simulated automatic fire.
Its gonna be funny seeing the NRA and SCOTUS go against Trump.
I also feel this is bullshit, owners of bump stocks need to surrender or destroy them.
“Banning bump stocks is pointless, after all I can just stick my dick into the trigger well”
It's not going to hold up in court. I'm pretty sure requiring law abiding citizens to surrender something they lawfully purchased with no grandfather clause or reimbursement goes against a few different parts of the bill of rights.
It does, but it's been done before without being overturned, particularly in the realm of guns.
Does this mean the Obama admin was officially more pro-gun than the Trump admin?
The lawsuits are already being filed. We cannot allow this, as it sets a horrible precedent. If they wanted this so bad, pass a law through Congress, not by making bullshit regulatory changes beyond the scope of what the executive branch's power is. The gun community is getting extremely fed up with the NRA giving away our rights, and at the president for supporting unconstitutional measures. I certainly hope that this is the wake up call they need, but there will always be fudds and 4-d chess people making excuses.
They are unnecessary but we don't determine legality based on necessity. They don't meaningfully augment the lethality of a rifle, and more importantly, don't meet the legal definition of machine gun. Declaring them machine guns goes against both the legal definition of a machine gun and precedents where ATF examined them and specifically deemed them not machine guns.
We're angry because this ban has no legal basis - and I'll be surprised if it's overturned.
Ironic, but I see no issue with this.
Bump stocks are a fun way to turn money into noise. The way a bump stock works means you can't hold the weapon steady, only point it in the general direction of your target. Hit rates fall through the floor. For any practical purpose, controlled single fire is 10x more effective. That would apply to the Vegas scenario, too. The only reason the Vegas shooter had any efficacy at all is that his target was absolutely monolithic.
That makes alot of sense actually. Thanks a bunch for that explanation!
To add to this, had the Vegas shooter not used bump stocks the body count would've been exponentially higher. He'd've been able to aim at individual targets much more effectively which would've been a bad time for everyone involved.
Regardless of what you think about bump stocks, banning them through the ATF isn't the way to go.
Obama signed only two gun control bills and they both expanded rights for gun owners.
Stupid fuck literally cannot do anything right.
Why wouldn't it be? That's basically the legal way to do it, isn't it?
if you really wanted an automatic firearm can't you just pony up the extra $200 for a Title II weapon
No.
The ATF gets its power by "interpreting" a fairly vague law from 1934 called NFA (National Firearms Act). This law established restrictions on suppressors, machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and some other pigeonhole stuff. I will use a popular (and true) example of the ATF's thought process.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/M1_Garand_rifle_-_USA_-_30-06_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg/1200px-M1_Garand_rifle_-_USA_-_30-06_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg
This is an M1 Garand, America's primary battle rifle from WW2. It has a bolt handle directly attached to the bolt, which means it moves as the rifle cycles. What you can do is tie a shoe string to the bolt handle, wrap it around the stock just right, and tie the other end to the trigger, which will cause the bolt handle to pull the trigger as it fires. In the 80s this was a really popular way to waste 8 rounds of 30-06 in about half a second.
When the ATF caught wind of this, they determined that tying a string in this fashion converted the rifle to an illegal machine gun, which instantly nets two felonies (construction & possession). Additionally they ruled that the shoe string itself, being the "device" used to convert the M1 to a machine gun, was itself a machine gun if it was stored near an M1-type rifle, and you could be charged with constructive intent for simply having shoestrings and M1s in the same location.
This ruling was eventually walked back, but because of the way the ATF's power is allotted, they were able to declare shoe strings machine guns without any legal process and pin two felonies on anyone caught with a shoe string and an M1.
This is the most absurd and comedic example I can think of, but it's true, and there's more. They declared ALL open bolt, semi automatic weapons to be machine guns because they're "readily convertible" to full automatic. They have arbitrarily banned ordinary items like the SPAS-12 from commercial sale in the US on account of it not having a "sporting purpose". Attaching my 102 year old broomhandle Mauser's stock converts it to an illegal SBR (luckily for me, they arbitrarily decided this law doesn't apply to my specific gun, even though it should).
It's a mess. They are able to bend the extremely vague NFA around in a way that effectively makes them a legislator and enforcer with no oversight. This might not all sound like a big deal to you, but it's extremely tedious as both a gun owner and someone who specifically has an interest in antique and oddball guns. I could very easily run afoul of an arbitrary ruling and become a felon.
You could, but you'd also have to be ponying up the extra $20k+ to pay for the actual weapon itself as we're only allowed to by transferable pre-1986 automatic weapons, which are rare to say in the least. If you find me an automatic weapon for a more reasonable $1200, then I'll be happy to pay the extra $200 for that.
I'm not sure I quite follow the logic all the way through here. The hit rate drops because of the erratic movement of the rifle cause by the bump stock, right? Are you saying that having a monolithic crowd like in Vegas isn't enough to make up for the lost inaccuracy? Or is it the unreliability that did it?
Other than that, this makes a lot of sense to me and I'd go back on my stance of no issue with this after reading this and your other post about the ATF.
Probably because they allow a gun to fire unexpectedly, far faster than intended, and potentially allow one to fire out-of-breech if the bumpstock isn't fitted or made properly.
It makes the gun unreliable, thus having a semi auto rifle only makes more sense. The bumpstock is about twice as inaccurate as a conventional machine gun. So the Vegas shooter was effectively shotgunning into the crowd. Higher hit probability with a target that size, but not as effective with all the hiccups.
Had to change to my phone so lost the post I was writing up.
The monolithic crowd is the only way you could really get any kind of numbers with a bump stock attached, and that’s in spite of the bump stock’s short comings, not because it offers any advantage to the shooter.
Single fire is more effective per round fired, and he certainly had time to line up his shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgxTiMp0P5I
Ban belt loops, too, because that's all you need to bumpfire
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.