Important information about bump stocks

[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.

[stanc]

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.

Maybe this will answer your questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEXIa9xCXA

[montana]

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.

This is what the lawyer was concerned about. : The ATF former assistant chief and acting chief firearms technology branch expert stated in 2010: If they come out today and band the slide fire or binary trigger by name, they will have to make illegal, the operating principle. "Meaning semi auto".

[grayfox]

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

Your statement concerning his gun-free zone comment presents an over-assumption/false choice. You do not have to assume that "...most people would carry guns..." You only need to assume, or grant, that more people would be carrying than do now, and that there is more probability that someone or ones would have been present to fire back at those assaults, thus likely deterring or reducing casualties. In fact, you only need to observe that massacres certainly seem to be perpetrated in "gun-free"zones... therefore with fewer of those zones there would likely be less mass-shootings. OTOH, admittedly, if there were indeed still as many GF zones under the "more people carry scenario", then the # of carrying citizens might not help as much. Even Dodge City in the old west was, at times, entirely a GF zone (if some history is to be believed)... which (in fairness) may have helped, or maybe not. Even so, allowing more carry can be a rational attempt to reduce massacres in public.

I don't see how such a comment from Montana is emotional as it can be shown to have a fairly rational basis as I explained.

To be fair, let's not over-assume or offer up over-stated strawmen counters.

The Ruby ridge, M60 or Apache issues, I will leave to y'all to discuss.

[LR1955]

Your statement concerning his gun-free zone comment presents an over-assumption/false choice. You do not have to assume that "...most people would carry guns..." You only need to assume, or grant, that more people would be carrying than do now, and that there is more probability that someone or ones would have been present to fire back at those assaults, thus likely deterring or reducing casualties. In fact, you only need to observe that massacres certainly seem to be perpetrated in "gun-free"zones... therefore with fewer of those zones there would likely be less mass-shootings. OTOH, admittedly, if there were indeed still as many GF zones under the "more people carry scenario", then the # of carrying citizens might not help as much. Even Dodge City in the old west was, at times, entirely a GF zone (if some history is to be believed)... which (in fairness) may have helped, or maybe not. Even so, allowing more carry can be a rational attempt to reduce massacres in public.

I don't see how such a comment from Montana is emotional as it can be shown to have a fairly rational basis as I explained.

To be fair, let's not over-assume or offer up over-stated strawmen counters.

The Ruby ridge, M60 or Apache issues, I will leave to y'all to discuss.

GF:

I do not agree with the notion of 'Gun Free Zones' in the least. They invite crime in my opinion. However, I doubt eliminating them would result in more people carrying guns. It is an assumption and no one has any way of proving it one way or the other.

Ruby Ridge was a crime committed by the government. Not because they wanted to arrest that guy but because they used excessive force and in my opinion committed murder. I seriously doubt it would have ended any better if that guy had a MG or two on his property. In fact, logic says it would have ended way worse. But I am speculating based on a society that is allowed to buy any weapon of their choice aside from nukes, and the way that LEA would probably have to respond under such conditions.

I wonder what our country would be like today if the NFA had never been enacted. There are only two things that I am sure of. First, our society would be very different than it is now. Not sure if it would be better or worse but it would be different. Second, I would own a bunch of sub-machineguns.

One thing about the bump stock and Vegas thing. Lets say that none of the weapons he had with bump stocks were used in the act of terror and murders he committed. The reality of today indicates that we as gun owners would be handed two choices. First we could accept that bump stocks be banned and keep our semi automatic rifles. Or the rifles would be banned and we could keep the bump stocks. Lesser of two evils? Slippery Slope? Doesn't matter what you call it, given the political and social condition of our country right now, those are probably the choices we would be handed.

LR55

[grayfox]

I agree with you on par 1 and 3, only that Ruby Ridge par 2, I'm not studied up upon so I'll listen - sounds plausible.
I'm not a fan of gunfree zones either. The point I was proposing is only that more carry is a rational proposal for dealing with public massacres, (certainly making more GF zones hasn't helped) - will that help in fact, hard to say. We won't know unless it is tried. But as you say, it might not help. The true source of the evil comes from inside a person's heart...

My statements about the bump stocks in Vegas is from a legal "not what you know but what can you prove in court" standpoint. A key element in rulemaking is whether it has a complete analysis behind it; I see weaknesses in that analysis. So the best hope in this present scenario is the thoroughness of the legal team that filed the complaint and the fairness of the judge/appeals court/Scotus.

And for the 2 choices, you might be right on that. But even the ban on current weapons might end up like the "ban all hi-cap mags" law in NJ: apparently according to the NJ St police, no hi-cap mags have been surrendered, zilch. -- they are showing once again that it doesn't accomplish much for you to pass a law that you cannot enforce.

[grayfox]

I also think that we should be pointing out, loudly, the hypocrisy of the anti-gunners... like Feinstein who carries a handgun even in Calif b/c she might get attacked, you know... or that the Senators from the Left (among others) have armed guards protecting their children's schools. Or all the armed guards they use while out and about, why their own "personal space" should be a gun-free zone like they advocate for others!

Hypocrisy in the lust for power over others, and they are exempt from any law, that sums up their motivation. And we should not let the public forget that, it is as much a part of the 2A debate as anything else.

[stanc]

One thing about the bump stock and Vegas thing. Lets say that none of the weapons he had with bump stocks were used in the act of terror and murders he committed. The reality of today indicates that we as gun owners would be handed two choices. First we could accept that bump stocks be banned and keep our semi automatic rifles. Or the rifles would be banned and we could keep the bump stocks. Lesser of two evils? Slippery Slope? Doesn't matter what you call it, given the political and social condition of our country right now, those are probably the choices we would be handed.

That may be how the NRA and the President viewed it, with bump stocks being sacrificed in an attempt to save semi-auto rifles.
If that is indeed the reason bump stocks were banned, it's a ploy that will not work, because it will not prevent mass shootings.
The next shooting rampage with an AR15 will cause efforts to impose a ban on semi-auto rifles to resume as intensely as before.

[LR1955]

That may be how the NRA and the President viewed it, with bump stocks being sacrificed in an attempt to save semi-auto rifles.
If that is indeed the reason bump stocks were banned, it's a ploy that will not work, because it will not prevent mass shootings.
The next shooting rampage with an AR15 will cause efforts to impose a ban on semi-auto rifles to resume as intensely as before.

Stan:

You appear to believe the leftists care about mass shootings, killings via bombings, killings via running cars or trucks into people, etc. They want all guns banned and mass shootings are simply a easier way for them to get public support. If they really cared about safety, they would do more than just shrug their shoulders about the cop who got murdered by the illegal over the weekend in California. The last leftist I heard talk about it said something to the effect of 'well, being a policeman is a dangerous job'.

They are quick to shout that saving even one life by banning firearms is worth anything, but apparently saving one cop's life by closing the border and aggressively seeking out and deporting illegals who are criminals would be a violation of the Constitution (their version of the Constitution).

So, the debate is not about bump stocks being used in mass shootings. It is a pretty simple debate. Those who have wished to destroy the Constitution since the mid 60's and impose their totalitarian vision of 'social justice' on America (a country they believe is evil), want to disarm those they believe will oppose them. It is that simple.

Stopping mass shootings is not something the left wants. It deprives them of ammunition.

LR55

[stanc]

Stan: You appear to believe the leftists care about mass shootings...

I don't know how you took that meaning from my post. I was addressing the idea that banning bump stocks could prevent a ban of semi-autos. It won't. Future mass shootings will renew public and political pressure to ban semi-autos.

Gun owners gained nothing from the bump stock ban. In ordering the ban, the President handed the anti-gun crowd a victory without a fight, got no concessions in return, and further eroded the Second Amendment in the process.

[montana]

I don't know how you took that meaning from my post. I was addressing the idea that banning bump stocks could prevent a ban of semi-autos. It won't. Future mass shootings will renew public and political pressure to ban semi-autos.

Gun owners gained nothing from the bump stock ban. In ordering the ban, the President handed the anti-gun crowd a victory without a fight, got no concessions in return, and further eroded the Second Amendment in the process.

I agree, and this may have opened the door for a legal gateway for a semi auto ban. Time will tell if the ATF former assistant chief's statement in 2010, "if they come out today and band the slide fire or binary trigger by name, they will have to make illegal, the operating principle" was prophetic or not. LR55 is absolutely correct when he stated

So, the debate is not about bump stocks being used in mass shootings. It is a pretty simple debate. Those who have wished to destroy the Constitution since the mid 60's and impose their totalitarian vision of 'social justice' on America (a country they believe is evil), want to disarm those they believe will oppose them. It is that simple.

Stopping mass shootings is not something the left wants. It deprives them of ammunition.