April 9, 2009
Until last week, I had never heard of bump stocks. I looked them up and was surprised what I found. First I am surprised the US patent office granted a patent on them, as the patent went around the barn so to speak on it being some sort of trigger aid so handicapped people could target shoot. Would be rather ludicrous to think the US government would give a patent so anyone could convert a gun to a machine gun. (like that would surprise anyone)
I also found, and not sure if it was a matter of interpretation, they claimed each one came with a certificate from the ATF, it was legal. And as you can imagine, sales requests have gone off the map since last Sunday, but the company has taken them down. The video shows one being used rapid fire, and we all could hear the sounds from the real attack. Someone I talked to said, they really do not work as well as shown, but obvious, you can tweak them to work, with a little ability.
The NRA started out by saying this had to be looked at, now say they are against any ban on them.
I'm am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, not a hunter, but love plinking at cans. The kid in me would love to fire one for fun, lets face it, every boy loves fireworks and firecrackers, and shooting guns, doesn't make you a nut. I'm real surprised tannerite is legal to sell.
But on the serious side, is there some common ground about these bump stocks, and those who are on the far left side of gun control? Like the AR15, millions of people have them, and in statistics are not used with the frequency of any number of other guns in crimes. The old argument a parked corvette never killed anyone, and we can't even stop drunk driving. Are we going to make every gun owner pay for this, what about those millions of responsible gun owners and millions own just a many guns when they are collectors. You could list any number of hunting rifles, that could do the same thing, they just do not look like a military weapon. We think about race cars on the street, but truth is the top 10 death rate cars include common everyday SUV's and some pickups, so it is not always the ones that have a certain look to them, that kill.
What is your opinion, personally I would not buy a bump stock, and do not think an accessory for any gun that is banned affects the 2nd amendment. What is the cost of defending any and all attempts to ban things. Some want the 2nd amendment abolished. What is the answer, this man passed all criteria to buy, had no mental or criminal record.
December 18, 2018
After hearing about the bump stock, then watching it in action I felt it was 'gimmicky' - just another attachment for someone to buy for their AR. Kinda' like buying a cigarette lighter for your fully customized Harley or Goldwing - I mean really, do ya need that? Of course not, but it's new, it's the latest and greatest and ya gotta have it. If that's your gig, go for it.
The use for full auto is to gain fire superiority and/or fire suppression - accuracy is not paramount. In Viet Nam, troops would shoot full auto and eat up ammo like a fat kid in a candy store - which could've led to the 3-round burst mode that is current on M4 carbines. Burst mode, better accuracy and ammo conservation - just an opinion.
I'm a 20 year combat vet, and I've yet to come up with any reasoning why someone would want a fully automatic weapon - or one that has 'accessorized' to shoot full auto, or some semblance thereof. If you add in the cost of ammunition and the rate at which one would/could expend it when shooting full auto - why would anyone want to 'spray and pray?' Dude … save that money and purchase that sweet HK semi-auto handgun that you had your eye on for few months. If ya want to do it for sh-ts and giggles, join the military, it's cheaper.
Though I have to say, I do get a kick out of those shooters who come to the range with their 5-11 tactical pants, contractor ball cap, sporting a beard and Oakleys and so many 'gear bags' that'd it take a Sherpa to carry it all … then pull out an AR platform that has multiple picatinny rails to which is attached a sundry of quick targeting sights and tact lights - the cost of everything being equal to the price of a good used car. Yet they don't know the difference between a tactical and critical reload, or how to quickly clear a double-feed - or how to adjust and zero their Eotech or ACOG. And then try to do a handstand and shoot because hey, that's what you have to practice for should you find yourself in zero gravity on the space shuttle.
While civilizations live, they may still aspire, and hope - as long as their legions can hold the far frontier. - T.R. Fehrenbach
April 9, 2009
I don't know much about big guns. I like .22s. On the news they interviewed a woman at a gun shop. She said they don't carry them. They're really expensive and the ammo is more expensive too. So, there just isn't much demand for them. I've also heard that they ruin your accuracy.
Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen... - Zbigniew Brezhinsky
April 9, 2009
As a gun owner myself, I never had heard of them either. I've never been against personal ownership of automatic firearms myself, but at the moment I find myself thinking that this is one of those accessories that should be a tad more regulated than others. You're from California as well, Greeney, so you know how our state handles regulations on AR-15s and other "assault" weapons; no pistol grip, no collapsible stock, no flash hider, etc. I think those things don't effect the actual function of the gun. I think that bump stocks do create a significant change in how a gun operates, though.
Don't outright ban them (yet), just make them difficult to procure - same as a suppressor or a short barreled rifle/shotgun.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.
Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.
Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.
War = Life