Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

Looks like she’s trying to ban my left pointer finger, which when placed on top of my right trigger finger increases the rate of fire.

I hope she doesn’t want to cut it off.
 
If the bill needs to be written to be more specific to satisfy some of you so be it. I see the usual not one ounce of give and take.

Apparently some line has already been drawn? What line would that be by the way?

No solutions given just don't take out crap away. Nobody said anything about not trying other avenues such as stricter vetting process or more help towards mental health screening but that's not what this thread is about is it.

Gosh forbid they take away your bump stocks. We all know there will be loopholes for people to use anyway but maybe that will satisfy the political morons.

If there is no give or take from both sides then more than likely when something changes (and it will eventually) it may be way more drastic than compromising earlier. And don't give me that 2nd amendment stuff unless you can show be where it's written though shall have a right to bump stocks.

I'm sure this will trigger some of you.
 
Crazy people will always do crazy things.

Guys who have no problem with a ban, do you actually believe said ban would reduce crime, or do you simply find it acceptable for the government to ban things just because they feel like it?
Click to expand...
Oh course and not in the least. If there is one clear statement that should be noted, is that there is no amount of gun control laws that will ever stop anyone that wants to kill folks. This guy was crazy and we are always looking for sensible answers that just don't exist. The biggest problem is that the devil is "always" in the details. ..... :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
do you actually believe said ban would reduce crime,
Click to expand...

No but this isn't about reducing crime . The full auto restrictions are well established and seem to have survived constitutional muster . So banning basically the same thing that is already highly restricted and has become excepted to be so . seems to me to be a none issue .

I just heard a news reporter say the last administration legalized the bump fire stock . I believe that is inaccurate . What the BATF said was the current design of the bump fire stock was not breaking any laws , there's a difference . The first stocks that were designed actually had a spring in them pushing the gun forward . The spring was deemed a mechanical device that aided in the speed the trigger could be pulled . They said no way that past muster . The company then took the spring out and it now was only manipulated by the shooter only and was now legal because the shooter them selves controlled the rate of fire .
 
Last edited:
Knew proposals like Feinstein were gonna happen before long. This is propbably the first of many and not as inane or severe as some to come. Politicians cannot let a tragedy pass without attempting to use it for political gain. Stand by for more.
 
I'm have no problem with taking "bump fire" off the general market.
Click to expand...
I don't give a toot about bumpfire stocks but I'm not going to give them up unless the gun community gets something substantial in return. I'm ok with bumpfire going on the NFA as an AOW if suppressors come off the NFA, for example.
 
I think it is more than probable that the bump fire stocks will be banned or regulated like fully automatic parts.

I have watched guys using bump fire 223's at the range, and they could not keep all their shots on a 30 foot high berm at 50 yards. I was not impressed.
 
Stroge said:
The guy was a millionaire for christ sake, clearly would have had the means to make his own.
Click to expand...
No need as you said he was a millionaire.. Been a while since I priced any full auto's but Last I checked registered lightening link ran about 15k

Sure there is paper work but he had a clean background.. so that wouldn't have been an barrier.

He would have had an even higher rate of fire I think the news said they clocked him somewhere around 600rpm, I think a full auto ar15 will run 8 or 900 iirc.


Hell even if you confiscated every gun in the MG registry this guy had the resources he could have setup a sham FFL and gotten new product weapons at a fraction of the cost of the registry..

This guy was so abnormal for a mass shooter.. there is nothing on the gun control side that could have altered this exact plan and execution.. PERIOD.
 
Last edited:
zipspyder said:
If there is no give or take from both sides then more than likely when something changes (and it will eventually) it may be way more drastic than compromising earlier.
Click to expand...

You seem to be of the belief that if you compromise now, there won't be a drastic compromise down the road when "something changes" as you put it. What is your historic basis for that belief? Every single piece of gun control legislation ever passed is always declared "a good first step" as if the 20,000 previous steps had never happened. You are compromising on how far you'll voluntarily wade into the ocean with someone who intends to drown you in it.
 
I'm an avid hunter and firearm advocate and don't have a problem with this. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Click to expand...

We have to draw the line somewhere.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

We DID draw the line "somewhere". We drew it millennia ago, when, we decided that MURDER is a CRIME!!!!!

Let me repeat that,

MURDER IS A CRIME!!!

Let me be clear, I don't own a "bump stock" (and since it is a bump FIRE stock, doesn't "bump stock" sound stupid??)

I have no interest in owning one. I do not, however, think that some one who's only moral claim to legal authority was getting elected (winning a popularity contest) has the right to decide what people should and should not be ALLOWED to OWN.

I'm fine with laws regulating what you DO with what you own, and we have had that covered since the first written laws.

DO note, not one word has come from our legislators about increasing the penalty for committing murder...or for a penalty for committing suicide to avoid prosecution.... (not that those would do any good, either) no, lets make a law that targets people who have not committed any crime, so we can say to our supporters that we "did something".

Might it be that even those elected to Congress realize that while a law might discourage the casual, they do not stop the determined?

And yet, they will gladly pass law upon law, CLAIMING to cure the problem, while all the while knowing that they won't. They don't seem to care that the law they want ONLY affects people who haven't broken any other laws. They don't seem to care that the law will NOT do what they publically claim.

Why not increase the penalty for murder?? It will be just as effective, and won't bother anyone who hasn't committed, and isn't planning on committing murder. And lets include suicide as well (self murder), lets add an extra penalty, like, ...not allowing them to be buried in hallowed ground? Oh, wait, that's been done....:rolleyes:

SO, to be seen as doing something, they propose to PUNISH people who have done no wrong, because the people who did wrong are beyond their reach.

That's fair, isn't it??

isn't it??

Not in my book.
 
It’s actually called a slide fire stock which is pretty accurate . The news and others have using the term because it operates in the similarly as bump firing a firearm .
 
Nothing proposed would have stopped this guy. He was wealthy. He could have legally bought numerous machine guns if he so desired. A law against slide fire stocks would not have hindered him in any way. He had a pilot's license and a couple of airplanes. Think of the carnage he could have inflicted if he kamikazied into that crowd in an airplane filled with a fertilizer bomb. We must stop passing laws just so we can say we did something to feel good about ourselves.
 
Snuffy308 said:
He had a pilot's license and a couple of airplanes. Think of the carnage he could have inflicted if he kamikazied into that crowd in an airplane filled with a fertilizer bomb.
Click to expand...
OMG could you even imagine? as tightly clustered as they was? Isn't the airport RIGHT there?.. what the crash didn't get the splashing burning fuel would have burnt alive.. Horrific.

I'd rather be shot than burnt alive.

Everybody that's so willing to compromise. There's your compromise
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to register everything, including ammo sales if all the restrictions was lifted.. no anti will take you up on that deal.
 
This bill has been around in one form or another for years. It's not a good idea. If it had been a good idea it would have passed long ago.

A recent tragedy doesn't alter common sense or redefine logic.

The fact that a stupid idea sounds better after a tragedy doesn't mean it's suddenly "unstupid". It just means that people have a hard time thinking clearly when they're hurting. The dedicated antis understand that principle and never miss a chance to try to exploit it.
 
Lotta issues here . . . bottom line is . . .

Lotta issues here. Part of it is that those proposing to ban bump fire stocks don't understand how easy it would be to make one, nor that you don't need the stock to bump fire.

A second issue is the ambiguity of the language. Those above are correct. It could be interpreted that a trigger job increases the rate of fire.

Third and probably most important, there is a line in the sand where "gun control" starts and ends. The more that line moves toward the restrictive side, the less freedom we have. In other words, although banning bump stocks may not seem so bad, it moves the restrictions closer to banning semi auto all together.

Now, while it is unlikely . . . think about this. Suppose they do outlaw bump stocks and grandfather in the already existing bump stocks. That makes those bump stocks already owned worth a boat load of $$$$ ten years down the road. Unlikely and ridiculous . . . but stranger things have happened.
 
I am not sure if my post is a violation of the TOS. If so, plz delete.. send me a pm if you need to.

I'm going to try and word this very carefully. This is a highly complex situation.

It seems like the shooter, may have also wanted to ban bump stocks. To make that inference, plz read this article that I stumbled upon today: https://www.thenewamerican.com/cult...servatives-in-shooting-to-advance-gun-control

I do not believe gun control is the answer. I believe mental illness medical care - possibly anti-terrorism measures are the answer. I do not believe terrorism can be ruled out.

I myself have been terribly depressed all week. My heart breaks for the victims of the Las Vegas tragedy.
 
Personally, I don't feel the need to support any and all gun accessories and products just for the sake of supporting all things gun related. Prior to this shooting, I knew nothing about slide fire/bump stocks. Now that I've had the chance to research them, I see no reason why they should be legal. Their whole purpose is to circumvent the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. I think they should be banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top