Posted on 10/12/2017 9:51:48 AM PDT by Red Steel
I suppose there are folks who might have valid skills as far as bump stocks, but I still wonder at the relevant utility of such. I would wager you are in the minority as far as those who have them.
Did you, “ suppose there are folks who might have valid skills as far as bump stocks” before or after you called them “idiots”, twice? What difference does it make what the “ relevant utility” is?
So what actual use do you see for them except for wasting ammo as a "party" trick or killing innocents?
I still don't think they should be banned - just have no personal use for such crap.
For the same reason people in other States (not mine, not allowed) purchase very expensive NFA select fire weapons, they’re fun to shoot. You apparently have a problem with that. I was at my gun store a couple of months ago, when they were delivering a towable, Colt reissue 1877 Gatling gun; 50-60K and 800RPM of .45-.70. Pretty expensive to buy and shoot. What’s the point?, the guy must be an idiot, hey, maybe I should check with the gun store to find out who he is, he probably wants to “strafe innocents”.
Thanks for the reply. You are correct of course. But most people, absent the imperatives of the military requirements to train, will not train sufficiently until forced to do so.
Even semi-auto proficiency requires this, but a normally proficient shooter can use a bump fire stock effectively too, with surprisingly little practice. The stock can also be locked, whereas it functions normally like any fixed stock does, but with the option to switch to bump fire very quickly.
“How about two round bursts?”
I just need a one round burst and a good scope.
I don’t care a whit about a bump stock but the proposal does not mention bump or stock, it is very vague and is meant to be vague. Under this legislation a wooden stick or a belt loop might be illegal, not to mention rubber bands or even human hands. It is a perfect example of how the left sneaks things past those who don’t read and don’t consider the implications. You can be certain they know exactly why they don’t want to outlaw only bump stocks but want to be so vague as to outlaw damned near anything.
Alas, you are right. I recant my non-opposition to the proposed bump stock ban, or any other ban of modifications that any damn fool with a few tools can make. Remember the Weavers. Gun-related bans kill, courtesy of the ATF.
The Second Amendment is intended to deter overreaching by the government. If an actual revolutionary resistance must be mounted, we’re all screwed, because the government has an air force, armor, artillery, nuclear subs and nuclear bombs, and extensive intelligence capabilities, just as examples.
But thanks to the 2nd Amendment, the government is on notice that the citizenry is capable of waging guerilla warfare and making themselves ungovernable, despite the government’s vast arsenal of expensive toys. So they don’t mess.
The question then is, do legally owned bump stocks contribute to that deterrent factor or not. I’d guess not, but the burden is on the government to convince the people of that, not on the people to convince the government that it does. They would want to minimize the deterrent effect of the 2nd, for obvious reasons. Legalize sawed off shotguns instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.