Your thoughts on bumpfire stocks

[TexasR.N.]

Everything has a limit and this is no different. Bump fire has been around but to make a stock that gets around a restriction is a dangerous thing to put on the open market you can flam me all you want but nothing will change. some things are not ment for the public. Your 2a allows you to bear arms but with everything there is a limitation

The bump fire is only dangerous in a criminals hands, but criminals don't tend to get their guns on the open market (unless it's the ATF allowing the sell to the criminals), and they probably have access to automatic weapons and wouldn't need to mess with a bump fire. Law abiding citizens like us on this site are not a threat to anyone.

Just curious which firearms the 2A restricts us law abiding citizens for possessing?

 

[Texan2]

 

[Younggun]

Funny that this should be illegal even though it's legal to own a MG, besides the fact that the company has a letter from the BATF stateing that this stock is fine and is perfectly legal to use , this from an organization that considers a shoe string to be an MG.

 

[Rum Runner]

some things are not ment for the public.

your 2a allows you to bear arms but with everything there is a limitation

Everything should be available to the public and ther should be no limitation on my right to bear arms. The whole reason that the federal government was allowed to raise an army was because the public would easily outnumber and outgun it.

Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

We have lost our way and strayed far from the path that our founders intended. I hope we do not come to regret it.

 

[Texan2]

I am ok with certain restrictions, but they have to be for EXTREME WMDs. I dont advocate for people to own their own personal suitcase nuke or supply of VX gas. As far as firearms, I wish most of the restrictions would go away. They serve no purpose.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

There's 3 groups mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights when recognizing rights and defining roles:

1) Federal branches (L/E/J)
2) States
3) The People

When you read it these are specific roles/groups.

The "People" ARE the militia, not the States and not the Federal government. When rights are reserved or recognized for the "People" it speaks specifically, and very clearly, of individual citizens...not States and not the Federal government.

Read the 1st and 4th amendments. Examine the language and you can clearly see that if gun rights are "collective" then so are the press, religion, etc.

People, including officials, spout off without having read the Supreme Law of the Land. Just because a politician, or the Supreme Court, wants things to be illegal or "reasonable" doesn't make them so. Even the Supreme Court is bound by the restraints of the Constitution. They sometimes rule on issues where they have no legal jurisdiction.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I am ok with certain restrictions, but they have to be for EXTREME WMDs. I dont advocate for people to own their own personal suitcase nuke or supply of VX gas. As far as firearms, I wish most of the restrictions would go away. They serve no purpose.

I agree completely. We should pass a Constitutional amendment to make that illegal. The 2nd amendment as it is now speaks to ALL arms, not just firearms.

 

[barstoolguru]

Everything should be available to the public and ther should be no limitation on my right to bear arms. The whole reason that the federal government was allowed to raise an army was because the public would easily outnumber and outgun it.

I am all forowning and enjoying firearms but you just can't allow any new gadget that comes out that has implications of abuse all over it to be sold to the public. This bump fire stock is just that. It is a clear way of getting around a regulation to protect the public. You want to shoot autos go and get a class 3 permit.

2A was wrote200+ years ago and if they had the foresight to see what the future would bring I am sure it would have been wrote different because it was wrote to protect the people and not allow someone to come up with a weapon to kill them.

I want to do 60mph in a school zone but I can’t because the law is setup to protect the people. Same here if it’s harmful to the public why allow it because someone wants it?

 

[barstoolguru]

The bump fire is only dangerous in a criminals hands, but criminals don't tend to get their guns on the open market

sometimes theydo, most of the time they just steal them from someone else but what is to stopthem from going out and buying a bump stock for a stolen gun and improving it'skilling powers
no one ever though 33 round mags were bad until someone went on a rampage with them

 

[Texan2]

I am all forowning and enjoying firearms but you just can't allow any new gadget that comes out that has implications of abuse all over it to be sold to the public. This bump fire stock is just that. It is a clear way of getting around a regulation to protect the public. You want to shoot autos go and get a class 3 permit.

2A was wrote200+ years ago and if they had the foresight to see what the future would bring I am sure it would have been wrote different because it was wrote to protect the people and not allow someone to come up with a weapon to kill them.

I want to do 60mph in a school zone but I can’t because the law is setup to protect the people. Same here if it’s harmful to the public why allow it because someone wants it?

You are making an illogical argument that can not be supported by most clear thinking individuals. Speed laws and the 2nd amendment are apples and oranges.

I am shocked that you are:
1. A gun owner
2. On this forum
3. Trying to argue a point that you are ill equipped to back up.

Simply because YOU think it should be illegal does not make it so. I could go on to destroy most of the rest of your posts but find that it would probably be a waste of my time.

 

[Texan2]

sometimes theydo, most of the time they just steal them from someone else but what is to stopthem from going out and buying a bump stock for a stolen gun and improving it'skilling powers
no one ever though 33 round mags were bad until someone went on a rampage with them

You shouldnt own a car...you might run someone over.
You shouldnt own a knife, you might stab someone.
You shouldn't own a hunting rifle with a scope. no one needs to kill stuff 400 yards away.
You shouldnt own a baseball bat, someone might steal it and crack a skull with it.
You shouldnt be able to buy alcohol, you might get drunk and drive.

Where does it stop? Your screen name fits you well as your logic seems to be deduced in on a barstool.

 

[Younggun]

It may not be legal to drive 60 in a school zone but the car will still do it, It may be illegal to shoot inside city limits but a gun can still do it, it's the operators responsibility. You are basically saying people don't kill people, guns do. I do agree that if the writers of the bill of rights could see what was to come they would have done things differently. They would have made sure the 2nd amendment was written much more clearly to prevent the infringments we are dealing with today.

 

[scap99]

I am all forowning and enjoying firearms but you just can't allow any new gadget that comes out that has implications of abuse all over it to be sold to the public. This bump fire stock is just that. It is a clear way of getting around a regulation to protect the public. You want to shoot autos go and get a class 3 permit.

2A was wrote200+ years ago and if they had the foresight to see what the future would bring I am sure it would have been wrote different because it was wrote to protect the people and not allow someone to come up with a weapon to kill them.

I want to do 60mph in a school zone but I can’t because the law is setup to protect the people. Same here if it’s harmful to the public why allow it because someone wants it?

While we're banning stuff, how about this:
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits. Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks. Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S. Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

hnoes:

It's funny how responsibility and moderation can render water inert.
Stop looking at how one idiot will handle an item, and focus on the whole of the nation. You're no different than the any of the socialists in DC if you think punishing the masses will control one would be asshole.

 

[Younggun]

You shouldnt own a car...you might run someone over.
You shouldnt own a knife, you might stab someone.
You shouldn't own a hunting rifle with a scope. no one needs to kill stuff 400 yards away.
You shouldnt own a baseball bat, someone might steal it and crack a skull with it.
You shouldnt be able to buy alcohol, you might get drunk and drive.

Where does it stop? Your screen name fits you well as your logic seems to be deduced in on a barstool.

I guess now we know what he means by ''COME TO THE DARK SIDE''

 

[Acera]

Ok, how long before this thread gets locked for:

a) veering way off subject

b) getting political

c) question answered

d) personal attacks

???

 

[TexasRedneck]

sometimes theydo, most of the time they just steal them from someone else but what is to stopthem from going out and buying a bump stock for a stolen gun and improving it'skilling powers
no one ever though 33 round mags were bad until someone went on a rampage with them

What's to stop them from converting a semi-auto to full-auto?

33 round mag? IF I want to do someone in badly enough, all it takes is some compressed-gas cylinders and an igntion source.

"If the founders knew"? Really? They DID know, which is why (if you'd bother to read the Federalist Papers) you'd realize that their INTENT was that the average citizen have the ability to have access to the same weapons as any regular military member - to enable them to defend themselves from an over-reaching government.

Do something wrong, and I wanna be on the jury - but until then, LEAVE THEM ALONE. I've got many, MANY firearms - NONE of which have EVER been used to harm an innocent. Why, then, should I have to jump through hoops to own another? Because YOU say so? Based on your posts here, I'd have to say that you are NOT someone with the judgement to evaluate what's "safe". I'll go even further - and say that you have a poor grasp of the Constitution itself.

 

[shooterfpga]

Ok, how long before this thread gets locked for:

a) veering way off subject

b) getting political

c) question answered

d) personal attacks

???

it should be deleted now. fwiw, there was a recent thread on this very discussion about ohhhhh nooooesssss its dangerous we must save the chilgrenzzzzz. this was on another forum, but the brady supporters sure showed themselves in that thread. the problem with our sort of thinking is that we are on a firearms forum and lifestyle, because we love our guns and enjoy and support our rights and defend it to continue. they, enjoy firearms because its cool, everyone is/was getting them and because 50 cent raps about glocks.

 

[scap99]

Ok, how long before this thread gets locked for:

a) veering way off subject

b) getting political

c) question answered

d) personal attacks

???

I vote: NEVER

to keep the subject matter on topic, my thoughts on bump fire stocks has changed from the first post until this one.
At first, I was thinking, "Meh, I'll never own one, they're silly, waste of ammo, not accurate, blah, blah, Beer! Yay, I need a beer."
Now, I'm thinking, "Hmm, if it rattles the bleeding hearts down to their core, how much are they, where can I get some?!"

I, personally, have no use for one. I feel a good semi auto trigger is better for me. If anyone else wants one, have at it!

 

[SIG_Fiend]

This thread is going downhill fast.

 

[SC-Texas]

sometimes theydo, most of the time they just steal them from someone else but what is to stopthem from going out and buying a bump stock for a stolen gun and improving it'skilling powers
no one ever though 33 round mags were bad until someone went on a rampage with them

Seriously?