Important information about bump stocks

[montana]

https://it-vision.org/detail/bump-stock-...Oa_Vk.html

https://www.gunowners.org/

[LR1955]

Please tell us what important information is contained in these two things that we don't already know?

[montana]

Please tell us what important information is contained in these two things that we don't already know?

If everyone already knows not to destroy their bump stocks yet because of the counter suites and Gun Owners of America's support, then please feel free to disregard. What all members know or understand about any subject is beyond my ability. I was just trying to be helpful by passing along relevant information about 2ndA issues for those interested. If you wish for me to stop, I'll be more than happy to comply.

[LR1955]

If everyone already knows not to destroy their bump stocks yet because of the counter suites and Gun Owners of America's support, then please feel free to disregard. What all members know or understand about any subject is beyond my ability. I was just trying to be helpful by passing along relevant information about 2ndA issues for those interested. If you wish for me to stop, I'll be more than happy to comply.

Montana:

Who said anything about stopping?

I actually listened to the female screeching and bitching about bump stocks until she said there was no evidence that bump stocks were at the crime scene, and then speculated that the murderer wasn't the murderer. Basically though, I could not take her screeching anymore.

The GOA article didn't contain anything I don't think we are already aware of but of course the guys ought to read it to become informed about the lawsuit.


LR55

[montana]

Montana:

Who said anything about stopping?

I actually listened to the female screeching and bitching about bump stocks until she said there was no evidence that bump stocks were at the crime scene, and then speculated that the murderer wasn't the murderer. Basically though, I could not take her screeching anymore.

The GOA article didn't contain anything I don't think we are already aware of but of course the guys ought to read it to become informed about the lawsuit.


LR55

What she stated was, law enforcement gave no evidence bump stocks were even used in the Los Vegas shooting or bump stocks were used in any criminal activity. Since the catalysis for banning bump stocks was the Las Vegas shooting, I would contend this is very relevant to the bump stock ban. She gave pertinent information how bureaucrats, "not the legislature" is creating laws, as 52 expressed concern for in his post. She also explained the actual law describing the definition of a machine gun and the inconsistency and danger the bump stock ban could be for other Constitutional rights. She gave compelling evidence for, "the slippery slope you had asked for before" which seems to be building a foundation for semi auto bans. She also stated concern for taking of private property with out compensation and the lack of due process. I never thought she was screeching or bitching, but gave a very concise and thorough case for threats against our gun and Constitutional rights.

[LR1955]

What she stated was, law enforcement gave no evidence that bump stocks were even used in the Los Vegas shooting or that bump stocks were used in any criminal activity. Since the catalysis for banning bump stocks was the Las Vegas shooting, I would contend this is very relevant to the bump stock ban. She gave pertinent information how bureaucrats, "not the legislature" is creating laws, as 52 expressed concern for in his post. She also explained the actual law describing the definition of a machine gun and the inconsistency and danger the bump stock ban could be for other Constitutional rights. She gave compelling evidence for, "the slippery slope you had asked for before" which seems to be building a foundation for semi auto bans. She also stated concern for taking of private property with out compensation and the lack of due process. I never thought she was screeching or bitching, but gave a very concise and thorough case for threats against our gun and Constitutional rights.

Do you actually believe that the shooter did not utilize the bump stocks found on the weapons that were used in the crime?

LR55

[montana]

Do you actually believe that the shooter did not utilize the bump stocks found on the weapons that were used in the crime?

LR55

What I believe is irrelevant to what can be proved. If she is not wrong, then why withhold provable evidence? The Randy Weaver debacle made me very cautious when believing the "official explanation". I have worked with government most of my life and the truth vs government truth can be light years apart. Call me a skeptic, but shall not infringe should have ended most restrictions on guns right there IMO. Discussing such things can emotionally compromise some people ,so I'll end it here.

[LRRPF52]

There are a lot of photos of Paddock's hotel room in Vegas. I don't subscribe to the use of a weapon in a crime equals it should be banned, but from all the evidence we've seen, there were several of the devices at Paddock's room. I'm suspicious of what was actually going on there with the amount of weapons he had, but have not heard that he didn't have bump stocks. Some people initially reported that the report they heard sounded like full auto, but I could clearly hear the telltale sounds of the initial stutter typical with bumpstocks, followed by settling into a cyclic rate with them.

I have heard a lot of full auto fire within urban environments in many different instances, to include where it resonates off of other structures and sounds very deceptive as to the location of the shooter.

If the premise is that Paddock didn't have bumpstocks, it at least doesn't seem consistent with the evidence we've been presented or the multitude of cellphone video footage and audio I've listened to.







The bumpstock ban is more of a distraction from the real problem with what happened in Vegas, which was a breakdown of the 2 separate EMS systems:

* One for VIPs built and maintained by the Mob and their Vegas Metro PD
* The normal 911 EMS

If it ever gets out that the reason LE was not able to hone in on where the shooter was because of the backdoor 911 Paddock exploited (Jesus Campos and other security notifying on the back-door system), then you're looking at major investigations and class-action lawsuits the casinos would love to avoid.

It only makes sense that your bumptsocks be confiscated or banned because of this mess...if you don't stop and think about it.

[stanc]

There are a lot of photos of Paddock's hotel room in Vegas. I don't subscribe to the use of a weapon in a crime equals it should be banned, but from all the evidence we've seen, there were several of the devices at Paddock's room. I'm suspicious of what was actually going on there with the amount of weapons he had, but have not heard that he didn't have bump stocks. Some people initially reported that the report they heard sounded like full auto, but I could clearly hear the telltale sounds of the initial stutter typical with bumpstocks, followed by settling into a cyclic rate with them.

If the premise is that Paddock didn't have bumpstocks, it at least doesn't seem consistent with the evidence we've been presented or the multitude of cellphone video footage and audio I've listened to.

Concur.

[LR1955]

What I believe is irrelevant to what can be proved. If she is not wrong, then why withhold provable evidence? The Randy Weaver debacle made me very cautious when believing the "official explanation". I have worked with government most of my life and the truth vs government truth can be light years apart. Call me a skeptic, but shall not infringe should have ended most restrictions on guns right there IMO. Discussing such things can emotionally compromise some people ,so I'll end it here.

So far what can be proved is that the shooter used bump stocks on the semi automatic rifles that he used to slaughter innocent people.

If there were no restrictions on gun rights, the shooter would have probably used a M-240 or two.

Yes, getting emotional loses arguments and makes someone look like a complete lunatic. Living proof is the woman in the video.

LR55

[montana]

So far what can be proved is that the shooter used bump stocks on the semi automatic rifles that he used to slaughter innocent people.

If there were no restrictions on gun rights, the shooter would have probably used a M-240 or two.

Yes, getting emotional loses arguments and makes someone look like a complete lunatic. Living proof is the woman in the video.

LR55

I see we have moved from moderator to critic. OK I will play. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps most of the innocent people that have been slaughtered in gun free zones would still be alive because they would not have been fish in a barrel. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps the thousands of rapes, car jackings, muggings and home evasions would not have resulted as most do in places that restrict guns. Perhaps the hundreds of millions murdered by democide would have never been so pervasive since people in government would not have had the exclusive of the tools of force. If there were no restrictions on firearms, there would have never been any Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, or Oklahoma city bombing. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps there would have never been any 911, and the longest war the US has ever been in. Perhaps John Adams was correct when he stated our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Perhaps what I just wrote is pure bunk, I guess that depends on the most basic of human rights, having an opinion. Conjecture is just that, conjecture. I agree, getting emotional loses arguments. Getting emotional over an attorney defending gun rights on a 2ndA forum, "who has worked as both prosecutor and defender for many decades" by slinging insults based solely on personal, opinionated, emotions does not strengthen ones case.

[grayfox]

Contrary to '55's statement, I do not see where it has been proved "...that the shooter used bump stocks on the semi automatic rifles that he used..." that's a conclusion of a fact that I do not see being made by the agencies, at least in the stuff I have seen. ATF was not even allowed nor consulted on the bump-stock determination nor exam of the crime scene, if the suit is correct.

From what I read, the only conclusion made (and that was from public media, not from ATF or even FBI technical analysis) -- and correct me if I am wrong -- was that some firearms at the scene appeared (and that is an operative word for bureaucrats) to have bump-fire stocks attached. No analysis, no conclusions of fact, no ATF determinations, were made as to those being used, or that they in fact were bump-stocks, or that in fact, those bump-stocks used in the attack.

I'm not an especial fan of the bumpstock but do appreciate when an agency goes beyond its statutory authority, having been in a regulatory federal agency for some years before I retired. And this does appear to be a faulty reg to me. Any reg, if allowed to stand, becomes a precedent that could be upheld or extended in the future.

Additionally, having read the complaint, the only other thing I would add is that if no technical analysis was done (by recognized federal authority, ie ATF), and the regulatory analysis applied was faulty (improper/incomplete justification for overthrowing a 15-year precedent and rule), there is also a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (may not seem like a lot but this basis is the one that throws out a bunch of rulemakings every year). This complaint I think should be amended to add this APA violation to its complaints section and its claims for injunctive relief. Improperly constituted regs can be voided expressly because of this defect.

[grayfox]

One more thought. IF the history of ATF rulings on auto vs non-auto for bumpstocks, an early version had a spring which allowed spring compression to continually re-fire once the trigger was pulled (one time). This would definitely fall under the automatic version, which ATF seemed at the time to so indicate. Not having a spring or other device, makes the rifle semi-automatic.
O, well 2 thoughts. As far as I can tell, any bump stock cannot actually increase the rate of fire beyond design as the trigger-sear-reset firing group activity happens still at the same speed and those are the actual limiting factors, speed-wise; the shooter's finger-rate is limited by his/her own strength, endurance and dexterity, so most likely slower than that max-rate of the design itself. Since none of those firing group pieces have been redesigned, the actual max rate of fire is still tied to them and the next shot can only occur after proper reset -- I may not have all the terminology but I think the principle here is valid.
Therefore it would be incorrect to say that a bump stock can allow an AR to fire faster than it is designed to. The real truth is that normal finger-firing is typically slower than max design rate. Anyway, I think I have that right, not being an AR expert... a bump stock may allow a person to fire faster than their normal finger-rate can but it is not beyond max rate for the AR and if their fingers/muscles were stronger they could possibly achieve that max-trigger-design firing rate...
So "increasing rate of fire" is an incorrect rationale upon which to base anything in this issue.

[stanc]

I see we have moved from moderator to critic. OK I will play. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps most of the innocent people that have been slaughtered in gun free zones would still be alive because they would not have been fish in a barrel. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps the thousands of rapes, car jackings, muggings and home evasions would not have resulted as most do in places that restrict guns. Perhaps the hundreds of millions murdered by democide would have never been so pervasive since people in government would not have had the exclusive of the tools of force. If there were no restrictions on firearms, there would have never been any Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, or Oklahoma city bombing. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps there would have never been any 911, and the longest war the US has ever been in.

Good points, all, but somewhat overstated.
If there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear, many of those events would've undoubtedly had better outcomes.
However, it is a safe bet that no restrictions would almost certainly have undesirable outcomes which are conceivably worse.
As LR55 noted, imagine how much worse the carnage would've been in Las Vegas if the shooter had a belt-fed machine gun.

Perhaps John Adams was correct when he stated our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

LOL. What moral and religious people?

The religious people of Massachusetts and Connecticut who jailed and executed people for witchcraft?
The religious people like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others who enslaved generations of black people?
The religious people who killed many of the indigenous people, then confined the survivors on reservations?

Our Constitution was written primarily for the white male population. The Founders may have been religious, but they sure weren't moral.

[stanc]

Contrary to '55's statement, I do not see where it has been proved "...that the shooter used bump stocks on the semi automatic rifles that he used..."

All you need do is listen.

[video=youtube;hAULgl6Kja0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAULgl6Kja0[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAULgl6Kja0

[montana]

Good points, all, but somewhat overstated.
If there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear, many of those events would've undoubtedly had better outcomes.
However, it is a safe bet that no restrictions would almost certainly have undesirable outcomes which are conceivably worse.
As LR55 noted, imagine how much worse the carnage would've been in Las Vegas if the shooter had a belt-fed machine gun.


LOL. What moral and religious people?

The religious people of Massachusetts and Connecticut who jailed and executed people for witchcraft?
The religious people like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others who enslaved black people?
The religious people who killed many of the indigenous people, then confined the survivors on reservations?

Our Constitution was written primarily for the white male population. They may have been religious, but they sure weren't moral.

Stan, I'm not saying bump stocks were not used in the Las Vegas shooting, but that the lawyer claims bump stocks were never officially purported to have been used in that shooting by any law enforcement. My main point for posting the video were the lawsuits pending and "her concern with the way this ban was enacted" which could have some very nasty consequences . I have my own personal opinion on required training for owning firearms that others would vehemently disagree with. I believe there needs to be restrictions or we would have nukes going off every 4th of July. Finding the balance we all can live with, "for true public safety rather than government power grabbing" is the real problem. Opinions are like certain body parts, we all have one. In the end it matters very little what we think, as it is much bigger than anyone on this forum lol. This has gone way farther than I intended, but it is interesting the different take people can have from one video.

[stanc]

Stan, I'm not saying bump stocks were not used in the Las Vegas shooting, but that the lawyer claims bump stocks were never officially purported to have been used in that shooting by any law enforcement.

Yeah, she did. She also made the absurd statement that "there is no evidence...that bump stocks have been used in criminal activity" despite the published photographic and video/audio evidence that makes it clear -- to anyone but an obfuscating lawyer -- that bump stocks were indeed used in Las Vegas.

My main point for posting the video were the lawsuits pending and "her concern with the way this ban was enacted" which could have some very nasty consequences.

I wholeheartedly agree that it could have nasty consequences.

[LR1955]

I see we have moved from moderator to critic. OK I will play. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps most of the innocent people that have been slaughtered in gun free zones would still be alive because they would not have been fish in a barrel. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps the thousands of rapes, car jackings, muggings and home evasions would not have resulted as most do in places that restrict guns. Perhaps the hundreds of millions murdered by democide would have never been so pervasive since people in government would not have had the exclusive of the tools of force. If there were no restrictions on firearms, there would have never been any Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, or Oklahoma city bombing. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps there would have never been any 911, and the longest war the US has ever been in. Perhaps John Adams was correct when he stated our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Perhaps what I just wrote is pure bunk, I guess that depends on the most basic of human rights, having an opinion. Conjecture is just that, conjecture. I agree, getting emotional loses arguments. Getting emotional over an attorney defending gun rights on a 2ndA forum, "who has worked as both prosecutor and defender for many decades" by slinging insults based solely on personal, opinionated, emotions does not strengthen ones case.

Montana:

Talk about emotional arguments that are purely speculative, read your own paragraph. The one about the gun free zone has to top the list. You are assuming falsely that most Americans would carry guns if there were no restrictions placed on them. That wasn't even true in the 'Old West'. You actually think that things would have been different if the Ruby Ridge blaster had a M-60 MG instead of his pistol or shotgun? Maybe so. That would have been resolved with one pass from an Apache.

One other thing. I surely will criticize stuff when I see it. Nothing saying as a mod I can't take part in things.

LR55

[grayfox]

I don't own a bump stock, so therefore a question: which action or operation initiates the first round to fire? In a plain semi-auto it is the "trigger" finger pulling the trigger back that causes the firing sequence to initiate.
--
For the bump stock, is it that same finger? or is it the forward press of the slide/bumpstock (I guess by the other, non-"standard" trigger hand) that initiates the first firing sequence? i.e, for a right-handed person, is the first round initiated by the left hand pulling the slide forward, or is it the right hand trigger finger somehow pulling the trigger?

Maybe someone who knows how these things work can answer.

[montana]

Montana:

Talk about emotional arguments that are purely speculative, read your own paragraph. The one about the gun free zone has to top the list. You are assuming falsely that most Americans would carry guns if there were no restrictions placed on them. That wasn't even true in the 'Old West'. You actually think that things would have been different if the Ruby Ridge blaster had a M-60 MG instead of his pistol or shotgun? Maybe so. That would have been resolved with one pass from an Apache.

One other thing. I surely will criticize stuff when I see it. Nothing saying as a mod I can't take part in things.

LR55

To assume people would not carry is just as speculative as assuming they would.

Some people carried guns in the old west when needed. Some didn't. I cant imagine people crossing the open prairie in a covered wagon, "family in tow" without a firearm but I'm sure it happened.

Things would have been different at Ruby Ridge since there would have been no reason for the assault in the first place. How Apache helicopters became an issue is for you to answer.

You can criticize as a mod with no problem from me, just don't expect anything different from me when I see it.