The Threat is Real, very real.

[montana]

The point overlooked by everyone using the "need" argument is the 2A is not about every day needs. It is completely about ensuring that the population can defend against foreign and domestic (including overreaching government) enemies.

Our extensive sporting and recreational shooting opportunities are by-products of that protection.

You are absolutely correct. My post on democide was the reason we have the Second Amendment. People in government are just that, "people" with the same capacity of decency and evil as the population as a whole. When power is concentrated with a small group bad things seem to always happen. This is why we are suppose to have division of power. The Second Amendment is part of that division. No other nation has these freedoms. Saying homosexuality is a sin or Islam evil will get you jailed in the UK. Not exactly my idea of a free nation. Every tragedy is not a conspiracy yet rolling ones eyes when questioning the "official" story line is not logical either considering the history of many official story lines from the past.

[bj139]

Don't give up any gun related accessory, no matter how small. It just gets you used to giving up.

That is what they want; to chip away your rights a bit at a time till the only thing left is dust.

If I have to put on a tin-foil hat to say it, I will.

BTW, tin-foil hat (attacking the person) is a brainwashing technique to distract your attention from the real issue.

If you don't realize you are being brainwashed, you probably are.

[montana]

That's fine, that's the stance you take and I respect that. That is democracy in action. My thoughts are tat you conveniently misquoting me. I'm not saying that 'No one really needs to have a gun'. I believe not only that we need guns but we should have them. I'm saying, 'No one really needs to have a bump-stock'. If you want Full-auto then go through the process of being vetted by the authorities, for all our safety.

Klem, your going down a dark scary road when you use the word "need". Almost any freedom or choice can be destroyed by the word "need". Do you need a 400 horsepower car, donuts, beer, 3 children instead of 2, nightclubs, concerts, coffee, etc, etc. The Second Amendment is about division of power not sport hunting, target shooting or games. If going through the process of being vetted for full auto ownership was to keep others safe then a one time vetting would be enough for other full auto purchases. That is not the case. Banning firearms violated the Second Amendment so they made it into a tax. Owning antiquated firearms is not what the 2nd Amend is about and banning this device or that gun is a violation of the intent of the 2nd Amend.. Today case law is trumping Constitutional intent. This is criminal but it is working because of a purposeful misdirection of the intent of the Second Amendment has been spewing out of our educational system and media for decades. Our First Amendment is now under attack by the term hate speech. Never compromise on freedom.

[montana]

I've been asked about three times over the last several days my reaction to this shooting. My reply is always the same. "Thank God he didn't use a truck."

[BjornF16]

That's fine, that's the stance you take and I respect that. That is democracy in action. My thoughts are tat you conveniently misquoting me. I'm not saying that 'No one really needs to have a gun'. I believe not only that we need guns but we should have them. I'm saying, 'No one really needs to have a bump-stock'. If you want Full-auto then go through the process of being vetted by the authorities, for all our safety.

Klem

Minor but significant point. America is not a democracy...we are a Constitutional Republic. The whims of emotional people were purposely muted and our rights (allegedly) protected/enshrined against government encroachment with the Bill of Rights.

[bj139]

Klem

Minor but significant point. America is not a democracy...we are a Constitutional Republic. The whims of emotional people were purposely muted and our rights (allegedly) protected/enshrined against government encroachment with the Bill of Rights.

Yes. Good point.

[Drift]

Does anyone know if the NRA directors who want to curtail bump stocks have personnel access to fully automatic firearms themselves? Is this another instance of an elite few who want to ban usage, but not forgo the privilege themselves?

[howl]

I think you have to consider the business side of the NRA when considering actions. The lack of threat and loss of rights has not been good for business. That's where a lot of the internal strife has come from over the years.

[howl]

Well, it's all about the risk we all take living in a democracy where a small portion of gun owners want to misuse their guns. As a gun owner, do you want to live with the risk that someone will misuse a bump-stock to maximise carnage for continued access to them? I love my guns but don't particularly care about bump stocks. So, if it makes society a tiny bit more safe then sure, let's ban them. We've all got to live together and I also want live in a safe place.

As for encouraging the narrative that guns are the problem, well to be honest they are part of the problem. Obviously it is the nut behind the bolt that does the killing but you cannot deny that restricting civilian gun ownership lessens the likelihood of firearm misuse. But, this logic only holds true if the restrictions are across the board and cannot be circumvented. There are of course other issues at play here;

1. The definition of freedom in a country that valorises gun ownership.
   
2. The potential the guy will simply use a different means to kill others.
   
3. The likelihood that restriction will only target law-abiding citizens in a country where the authorities remain largely unaware of who has what.
   

and probably a bunch of other cogent arguments that with a little effort we can think of.

My argument is that gun restriction is a politically convenient and clumsy way of mitigating the problem. If it works then let democracy in a population decide the extent of restriction, but we all know it doesn't really work.

I'd rather they used a bump stock than a truck loaded with diesel and fertilizer. If these wackos have to get serious about killing, serious enough to use things other than guns, survivability of Joe Q. goes way down. That is the message to the public so they understand guns are not the problem.

And follow up with that we lose 100+ per day to traffic accidents. Why is there no outcry for those people as there is with gun control? Because reducing traffic accidents does not expand control of the people the way disarming them could.

I watched Eric Pratt use almost the above argument against an anti-gunner on tv yesterday. He owned the poor disarmer so bad the hostess gave up trying to help him out. This is plain as day. Don't concede unnecessary defeat.

Edited to add this quote: "And then, of course, there's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who when it was pointed out to her that banning bump stocks could lead to further gun control, shot back: "So what? ... I certainly hope so.""

[JASmith]

Please forgive my naivete, but what is the difference between the rate of fire and convenience of use between a bump stock and firearm fitted to be full auto?

My impression is that the functionality is very mich the samefor the two types. That similarity creates a contradiction in the regulations if one is freely permitted and the other requires a long approval and tax process.

That might might the cause for the NRA request for an ATF review. The request also makes it seem tihat the NRA has some flexibiltiy.

[Klem]

Please forgive my naivete, but what is the difference between the rate of fire and convenience of use between a bump stock and firearm fitted to be full auto?

My impression is that the functionality is very mich the samefor the two types. That similarity creates a contradiction in the regulations if one is freely permitted and the other requires a long approval and tax process.

That might might the cause for the NRA request for an ATF review. The request also makes it seem tihat the NRA has some flexibiltiy.

I'd say the difference you are pointing out is only relevant if someone wants to access full-auto legally. Paddock could have purchased full-auto parts legally and just been careful about having them lying around in case of 'Constructive intent'. Bought a drill press and removed some meat in the lower and drilled a hole for the auto sear. You can buy jigs for the hole or just measure the spot and do it manually.

Or, he can take the path of least resistance and buy a bump stock legally and practise using it to make it work. Both ways don't involve any contact with the authorities.

As for all the other arguments here...You all know I am a gun owner and because of that I am selfish in my own want to own and use guns. I am not overly worried if someone opposes my suggestion that some restriction is good for the rest of society because it will affect me as well. Where I come from in the southern hemisphere the population all seems to agree in gun restriction, including gun owners. Talk to any gun owner and they all strongly agree there should be some checks and balances for the greater good. Here there is no right to have firearms, only privileges. Our culture is less defined by the individual imperative to have the means to protect your family, less individualistic and with less emphasis on individual entitlement. We have never had a civil war and so while sometimes people groan about being over-governed there is less community suspicion of the government. Not saying it is a better culture but just different. I have legal access the guns I want in a society that restricts them so it's not the end of the world, just the bottom of the world....

[Texas]

Please forgive my naivete, but what is the difference between the rate of fire and convenience of use between a bump stock and firearm fitted to be full auto?

My impression is that the functionality is very mich the samefor the two types. That similarity creates a contradiction in the regulations if one is freely permitted and the other requires a long approval and tax process.

That might might the cause for the NRA request for an ATF review. The request also makes it seem tihat the NRA has some flexibiltiy.

I maintained a Class 10 Firearms license and manufactured legally M42, SBRs, M16s and M2s. We played with bump fire stocks when they first came out and determined rather quickly that they really did not serve a useful purpose other than burning up mass quantities of ammunition quickly. If you are not WELL trained in the use of a fully automatic weapon, then you will use the spray and pray method, which was used in Las Vegas. When you have 22,000 packed together, then as long as you can keep the rounds in the couple of acre area, then it can be effective. It would not suprise me for them to find out that the rounds which hit the fuel tanks will have some rounds in front of them between the target area and the fuel tank, ala muzzle rise.

My favorite M4 was a 10.5 inch SBR, and it would empty a 30 round magazine in about 2.6 seconds, and a 60 round magazine in about 5. Again if one is not WELL trained in most cases after the third round one is shooting at tree tops and buzzards.

The scenario used in Las Vegas was optimal for the weapon system he had.

On another note, I have heard that the assailant was a pilot and owned two aircraft of which one is a business jet/turboprop. If he wanted to maximize the carnage, he could have fueled the aircraft, taken off and declared an emergency. They would have given him the choice of runways. and on final he could have turned into the crowd which would have killed/injured significantly more.

[Klem]

On another note, I have heard that the assailant was a pilot and owned two aircraft of which one is a business jet/turboprop. If he wanted to maximize the carnage, he could have fueled the aircraft, taken off and declared an emergency. They would have given him the choice of runways. and on final he could have turned into the crowd which would have killed/injured significantly more.

Texas,

Now that is a damn good point!

You're absolutely right...it would have taken way less effort than what he did. Makes you wonder the mindset of the nutter and why this particular way to check-out was so important. A plane crash into a crowd is no less dramatic that's for sure.

[montana]

I'd say the difference you are pointing out is only relevant if someone wants to access full-auto legally. Paddock could have purchased full-auto parts legally and just been careful about having them lying around in case of 'Constructive intent'. Bought a drill press and removed some meat in the lower and drilled a hole for the auto sear. You can buy jigs for the hole or just measure the spot and do it manually.

Or, he can take the path of least resistance and buy a bump stock legally and practise using it to make it work. Both ways don't involve any contact with the authorities.

As for all the other arguments here...You all know I am a gun owner and because of that I am selfish in my own want to own and use guns. I am not overly worried if someone opposes my suggestion that some restriction is good for the rest of society because it will affect me as well. Where I come from in the southern hemisphere the population all seems to agree in gun restriction, including gun owners. Talk to any gun owner and they all strongly agree there should be some checks and balances for the greater good. Here there is no right to have firearms, only privileges. Our culture is less defined by the individual imperative to have the means to protect your family, less individualistic and with less emphasis on individual entitlement. We have never had a civil war and so while sometimes people groan about being over-governed there is less community suspicion of the government. Not saying it is a better culture but just different. I have legal access the guns I want in a society that restricts them so it's not the end of the world, just the bottom of the world....

I'm a little taken aback with your opinion of owning firearms as being selfish or an entitlement. This is definitely a difference in our cultures.
Every place I have purchased full auto parts I have been asked for a copy of my NFA tax stamp. It is illegal to own full auto parts without a registered firearm to put them in. There are laws already on the books against modifying a firearm into full auto and they are quite severe. Nobody is against keeping firearm out of the wrong hands but even the military and police has had it's share of kooks misuse their firearms, even after their vetting. We have many checks and balances for the greater good LOL. We don't have entitlements with firearms,"perish the thought" but as much legal right as the authorities to be armed, sadly this is becoming less and less with these idiotic gun bans proposed by a warped change in the intent of our Second Amendment by corrupt politicians and their uneducated supporters. If people don't like this law it can be changed through the amendment process but they have side stepped it,"knowing full well it would not pass" by changing the meaning and the intent. A full auto is described by law as a firearm which will shoot more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. The bump fire stock fires only one time per pull of the trigger. They have been able to ban other firearms and shot guns stating it has no sporting purposes which has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amend. I understand why the NRA is doing what they are doing for political reasons but I completely disagree with it. It is a never ending battle keeping our Constitutional rights and compromising on them is poor strategy.

[Drillboss]

This may have been answered, but I'll ask anyway.

Does a bump fire stock allow a shooter to empty a magazine any faster than simply pulling the trigger? I'm asking because I don't know.

Either way, this guy probably wasn't aiming and firing, he was only dumping rounds into the crowd.

[montana]

This may have been answered, but I'll ask anyway.

Does a bump fire stock allow a shooter to empty a magazine any faster than simply pulling the trigger? I'm asking because I don't know.

Either way, this guy probably wasn't aiming and firing, he was only dumping rounds into the crowd.

Not if you are Jerry Miculek and he is very accurate unlike the bump fire stock. Perhaps they will ban his finger!

[Drillboss]

Not if your Jerry Miculek and he hits what he is aiming at. Perhaps they will ban his finger!

I was going to include Jerry in my post, but this guy seemed to be just shooting into a mass of people. I shot at the top, right of a flock of dove once and killed one in the the lower left. The bird boy was still impressed.

[stanc]

This may have been answered, but I'll ask anyway.
Does a bump fire stock allow a shooter to empty a magazine any faster than simply pulling the trigger?

See for yourself.

[video=youtube;cm7GkBT1Gew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7GkBT1Gew[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7GkBT1Gew

[stanc]

Please forgive my naivete, but what is the difference between the rate of fire and convenience of use between a bump stock and firearm fitted to be full auto?

Insignificant difference. Compare this full-auto to the bump-fire in post #97 above.

[video=youtube;nFXj1gyEghQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFXj1gyEghQ[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFXj1gyEghQ

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

I've been asked about three times over the last several days my reaction to this shooting. My reply is always the same. "Thank God he didn't use a truck."

(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/45...urder-risk)