# Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated?



## PrepperForums (Nov 21, 2014)

What are your thoughts about "bump stock". Should these devices be more regulated?

Why? Why not?



> After Cottle told the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that his invention was intended for people with limited use of their hands, the bureau approved the device, saying it did not turn rifles into machine guns, which are rare, highly regulated and can cost $20,000. *The Vet Whose 'Bump Stock' Turns a Gun Into a Machine Gun*


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

I say it should be regulated, since there are restrictions on ownership of automatic weapons. I just dislike folks who find loopholes to get around laws... like all these huge, rich corporations that pay less tax than my small business. I'm totally against any regulation on SBR & suppressors.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

If that's all that happens, I won't cry much.

However, I still live by the code, "until a person does something to violate the rights of another, leave them alone".
When we start playing this "pre-crime" game, trying to stop things before they happen, we begin tumbling down the slippery slope.

I believe dangerous people should be more regulated.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm against non-sensical regulations. The NFA is unconstitutional and should be abolished. If the government wants NFA to be enforced, it should be across the board. No full auto for police or any government agents, no exceptions.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

If it guaranteed we hold onto House & Senate in 18 then yes .


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

It's a fun toy, for normal sane people. However, for the disturbed it can be highly destructive, as we've seen. Any serious shooter would not use a bump stock for normal, long range, rifle type work. The only legitimate use for one, besides amusement, would be self defense or in a WROL situation. But if we ban "just this one thing", then what's next. Scopes? High cap magazines?

I go back and forth on this in my own mind. The entire country is going to have to decide through their legislators if they should be banned, I guess.


----------



## RUSH25 (Nov 20, 2015)

If they are determined to ban something after all this I say let the bump stock take the fall...


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

To my knowledge this is the only crime that has ever involved a bump stock. So no.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

I have one. It is a novelty to me. I used it several times for fun and then took it off and put it away. If they need to do something, let it be the stock. Again I personally feel it is a novelty to most people.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I don't want one, as I don't want an automatic weapon. Regardless of my personal wants, it is my opinion that neither should be regulated or banned. By doing so, the government is violating our right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment states that this right shall not be infringed. Infringed. No part or parcel is to be hindered.

That another person's action was criminal is no reason to infringe upon other people's rights.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Ban them! And it's ABOUT TIME we start background checks for UHaul rentals. But honestly folks, that won't fix the problems we have, can you believe that children, CHILDREN, can buy plastic cutlery in the country???spoons! Forks! KNIVES! The horror.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

same problem I have with opening the ''door'' a crack for any gun restrictions - because MFB liberals stick their foot in that door and wedge it open fuller .... I guarantee you ever single piece of regulation would also include magazine limitations and black rifle restrictions ....


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

How about we ban multi-story hotels?

For gawd's sake, ban this crap they call country music.

I personally don't own a bump stock, but if some wants one, fine. But if they do something stupid, zap their butt for it. Or maybe e we should ban motorcycles because there are mean people in bike clubs.

I know. Let's ban people. They are the root of the problem. (Start with the liberals.)


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I never saw the real purpose in bump stock except to waste ammo. Now I see there is a purpose. 
I don't think I'd be all the excited to see them banned, but then what is the next thing to be banned?


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

No! I am totally against anymore gun restrictions. In fact I think most things that are Class III items should come off the list short of Handgrenades, Bazookas, Mortors, Artillary and Nukes! And why you might ask?

1. I can assault you with a semi auto at about the same rate as a semi with a bump stock installed and probably do it more accurately and rack up a higher body count in the process, so that being the case what difference would banning them make?

2. Lets take a look at some of the more progressive countries that have for all intents and purposes outlawed private ownership of guns, like England.  Sure gun death went down considerably except now they are considering stronger Knife Control regulations than what they already have due to the explosion of violent crimes involving knives and machetes! In fact they are also considering regulations regarding sulfuric acid used for pool maintenance due to the number of people now being assaulted with acid being thrown in their faces.

3. Why are we regulating the tool and not the fool using said tool? Do we have Vehicle Control Regulations every time a innocent family is killed by a Drunk Driver who broke the DUI laws or do we punish the individual who committed the offense? Do we sue Budwiser becuase said drunk driver drank budwiser before plowing through a red light and killing people driving while intoxicated? No but then why is that he approach we take when it comes to fire arms and violence some commit with fire arms?

4. Whats does it matter if he had one gun or 30 however many he had. Can I not assault you just as effectively with one gun as I could with 30?

This yahoo in Vegas planned this evolution for a long time. Regardless of the method he used, he was going to cause death and mayhem regardless of what laws were on the books or steps we took to prevent it. If it wasnt with guns then it would have been some other method like maybe all the tannerite he had in his car that could have been made into a devastating car bomb. So please explain to me how outlawing a Bump Stock will effect human morality, or lack there of, and prevent another such incident. Im all ears...


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Ban bump stocks? Who buys crap like this? And why? To make you rifle less accurate, to waste ammo?

This just another way to chip away at the 2ND. We need to take away restrictions, not add more.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

He (reportedly) was also a private pilot. 

That means he had access to planes, . . . even if they were rental.

A large single engine plane, . . . loaded to the gills with plastic containers of gasoline, . . . doing a "kamikaze" into the crowd would have killed many more.

Personally, I believe he intended to use firearms, . . . and there was definitely a sinister reason for that decision.

But beyond that, . . . the "bump stock" is no more important to 300 million plus citizens than are mortars, artillery pieces, claymore mines, and hand grenades. We can and have gotten along well without them in the hands of the average citizen, . . . put bump stocks over in that pile, . . . and you won't hear me complain.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Don't madder what we think. It will be. Democrats will put the bill up and any GOP member that votes against it will be butchered in the press.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

WTF is the big problem?? You can do the same thing with a fricken rubber band. It shows your ignorance about firearms for Christ sake. 

Don't forget that Obammy and the liberals are the ones that OK'ed the stock for sale. But some how it's the gun owners fault.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

> Personally, I believe he intended to use firearms, . . . and there was definitely a sinister reason for that decision.


So how would Bump Stocks being illegal for the average citizen have lessened the carnage he was able to serve up? I could have maintained just about the same rate of fire just using my trigger finger and a AR-15. I have two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan (Gulf Wars Part II) and the only time I used full auto was in an ambush and when I had a M-249...and I am still here to tell about it. Just sayin'...

Im not a fan of "Bump Stocks" and I consider them to be more of a gimic than an asset to a fire arm, something I would use as a conversation pice or something I would score cool points with at the fellas at the gun range. You might feel the same way as I do about them, but the bottom line is you give proponents of Gun Control and inch they are going to take a yard and think they are now a ruler! Furthermore you can not legislate morality in human beings, only punish them after the fact of displaying immorality. How does making yourself feel good about doing something if the something you did, accomplishes no real benefit but only a perceived benefit to society? Its been illegal to drive while intoxicated for as long as I can remember, but we still have an incredible amount of people killed every year by drunk drivers. We have outlawed drugs for decades yet they are more widely available and more potent, cheaper and more readily available than ever. Heavy handed gun control in Chicago hasnt slowed down the Murder rate there has it? Tell me where I am wrong....


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Do what you want with them. There's always another way.

Like this.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NO!!!!!

here is the thing.... whenever something like this happens the cry starts "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"

which is bullshit.. name one law which would have stopped sandy hook, columbine, or any other shooting

what law would stop the shootings in chicago

don't buy into the WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING

ask what that something is and would it have stopped anything


the issue is not and never wil be the GUN,, the issue is the person, an evil heart

if you want to stop murder - ban guns, cars, knives, fertilizer, razor, hammers, axes......................

so NO regulating the bump stock will only make liberals feel like they DID SOMETHING


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

It’s not the guns that are the problem, it’s the crazies with their finger on the trigger, it’s always easier to blame an inanimate object for wrongdoing then it is the crazy......it’s a mental health issue, not a gun issue.....The Oklahoma bombing: lets outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel then too.....


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

This guy had 23 guns in the room.
How many had a bump stock? 2? 

Besides he could have legally bought full auto rifles if he wanted. He had the money and he would have met the requirements.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Absolutely positively no more gun control measures are needed in the USA. None.

The LAST thing we need is the government regulating our guns more. 

I've never used a bump stock, to me they sound stupid and pointless... but I don't want them regulated.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

They want to ban something firearm related thinking that will do some good. Holy crap Batman, they can't keep drugs out of the prisons which should be a controlled environment.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

NRA just called for a review to restrict them.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

******* said:


> NRA just called for a review to restrict them.


Now I know the reason I may not renew my membership


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Just an effort to appease the masses, NRA knows those stocks really don't matter to most. I do agree that its the camels nose under the tent.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I have tried to use a. BUmp stock. Best I could do was semi auto fire. I have seen others use them. I have also used regular full auto firearms. The bump stocks are way less accurate and reliable compared to a real full auto. This guy was only effective with it, if that was what he used because he was firing into a crowd. Hard to miss. Aimed semi auto would likely have been a more effective way and resulted in a higher body count. JMHO. 

I have to say no to regulating bump stocks because once the camel called gun control gets its nose under the second amendment tent, It will come in completely and destroy the tent. That utter destruction of the second amendment is the real intent. 

Want to do something? Have to do something? How about looking at psychotropic drugs, their effects and institutionalizing the insane as opposed to main streaming. How about ceasing the use of drugs that may react badly in an individual and make them a violent threat to others or themselves?


----------



## whoppo (Nov 9, 2012)

I actually owned a Slide Fire stock for a while... fun for a mag or two, but IMHO it was ultimately a waste of money and ammunition. Sold it after a few weeks.
Do I think they should be sacrificed to the liberal need to "just do something, even if it won't make a difference"? Nope.. Enforce the intelligent laws and get rid of the rest.


----------



## admin (Apr 28, 2016)

> The National Rifle Association (NRA) said in a statement Thursday that the device the Las Vegas shooter used to convert his semi-automatic weapons to fire automatic should be subject to additional regulations. *NRA says bump stocks, devices used by Las Vegas shooter, should be regulated*


The NRA said this?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Just for reference: It was the Obama admin. that approved the sale of bump stocks on at least two occasions.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Cricket said:


> The NRA said this?


Actually no. Their statement said they are open to discussion of regulation.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## admin (Apr 28, 2016)

Sasquatch said:


> Actually no. Their statement said they are open to discussion of regulation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


This is what I see on their site.
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/



> "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."


----------



## maine_rm (Jun 24, 2017)

I have never used a bump fire stock. I have "bump" fired on AK ones was quite sore after. Yeah it's fun to shoot off a few hundred rounds in a few minutes but I agree no real need for it. I believe that a man with a high-powered hunting rifle and a silencer could've done far more damage than this guy. Think about it top floor window open one shot at a time opposite sides of the crowd. It's unfortunate what happened but another law would not have prevented him.. them?


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

More than once I've been accused of having full auto while at the range. And I don't have anything special tacked on to any of my boomsticks.


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

I have used one a couple times. I do not like them. However, I am against any more limitations on 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

I believe the answer has a few parts.
.... Is the bump fire stock suitable, usable? The answer is no it's more of a novelty, unless your intent is to mass spray in the general direction of your target, at a rate you cannot sustain over time with your own finger.

----- does it currently comply with the NFA? Yes we all know this, but does it comply with the intent of the law, which is to limit ownership of full auto firing weapons? I do not think it does. Whether I agree with limiting full auto weapons or not, I do believe creating a device that essentially makes a semi fire as a full auto should be handled the same as the full auto weapon itself.

..... Could it be restricted? I think the cat is out of the bag on that idea? but you could make it illegal to possess one.

..... Should it be? Well here is where I agree with everyone, Automatic weapons are not the problem, sick people who think their thoughts and ideology is greater than others and believe its OK to engage innocent people are the problem.

Also I think its sad that they said this is not terrorism (I think the police said that) when they do not know the motive. Seems like we have lost the definition over time....here I'll remind folks:
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Until we know why he did it, we can't say it wasn't terrorism.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Looks like the NRA is going full retard on this one. NAGR has the right approach. https://www.nationalgunrights.org/p...opposes-nra-backed-ban-on-firearm-accessories


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Camel923 said:


> Looks like the NRA is going full retard on this one. NAGR has the right approach. https://www.nationalgunrights.org/p...opposes-nra-backed-ban-on-firearm-accessories


Well I guess that makes me a NAGR lover.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Cricket said:


> This is what I see on their site.
> https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/


Well okay, I got the wording a little wrong but they didn't call for regulation as the other quote stated.
Here's the actual line:


> the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately *review whether these devices comply with federal law*


----------



## admin (Apr 28, 2016)

Yeah, they kind of lumped it together on their site.
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/



> Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

(New Bumper sticker seen on Slippy's truck)

Ban GangBangers, Muslimes, ******** and Libtards Not Bump Stocks!

#SaveTheBumpStockPreserveThe2A


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Slippy said:


> (New Bumper sticker seen on Slippy's truck)
> 
> Ban GangBangers, Muslimes, ******** and Libtards Not Bump Stocks!
> 
> #SaveTheBumpStockPreserveThe2A


I wonder if that is what Mrs Inor was talking about last weekend when she asked "Is that a bump stock in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Not going along with any type of banning or government regulations for any firearms or firearms equipment period.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Restricting bump stocks will not restrict bump firing. I saw a guy on youtube bump fire an AR using nothing but the belt loop on his pants. Fast forward to 1:20.






Are we going to restrict men's pants?


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> Restricting bump stocks will not restrict bump firing. I saw a guy on youtube bump fire an AR using nothing but the belt loop on his pants. Fast forward to 1:20.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yep, don't even need a rubber band.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

Bump stocks seem like a fair enough sacrificial lamb to me. If the libs feel like they scored a win by banning them ... yay libs. It's a dumb or diabolical device depending on who's holding it. The slippery slope of gun control aside, I see no need and won't miss the opportunity to continue not to buy one.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Hemi45 said:


> Bump stocks seem like a fair enough sacrificial lamb to me. If the libs feel like they scored a win by banning them ... yay libs. It's a dumb or diabolical device depending on who's holding it. The slippery slope of gun control aside, I see no need and won't miss the opportunity to continue not to buy one.


Problem is, this would simply empower them.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Hemi45 said:


> Bump stocks seem like a fair enough sacrificial lamb to me. If the libs feel like they scored a win by banning them ... yay libs. It's a dumb or diabolical device depending on who's holding it. The slippery slope of gun control aside, I see no need and won't miss the opportunity to continue not to buy one.


Here's the reasons I am against it. 
#1 ...shall not be infringed. 
#2 ...shall not be infringed. 
To infinity. 
The sacrificial lambs were already slaughtered in the Revolutionary War. Any and all losses of any and all rights makes their sacrifices more and more futile.


----------



## White Shadow (Jun 26, 2017)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Problem is, this would simply empower them.


And the bill always includes much more than they say it does.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

White Shadow said:


> And the bill always includes much more than they say it does.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

This will be handled by regulation, and not statute.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The problem with sacrificial lambs is that the gods are never satisfied.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Bump stocks are only one of a dozen mechanisms that produce automatic-like fire. The "Hell-Fire" dates back +20 years, and there was a patent infringement case with another maker with a bump stock design.

Cranks date back probably 40 years, not to mention that an AR-15 can be altered with five parts by a gunsmith and converted to full auto.

The bump stock is just the bogeyman of the week because libtards don't know anything about gun or how they cycle.

You could dazzle a lib with Browning BAR Safari, and he marvel at the flawless wood and high-polish bluing. Then as he's gushing, drop the magazine and show him it's a semi-automatic, too.


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

Never was interested in owning a bump stock and still aren’t. That being said, one(?) person uses it for a terrible purpose and so it shoulvd be banned? 59 or 60 people were killed while in France 80 people were killed by a guy running a truck into a crowd and a bunch were killed in England by the same means. Obviously we need to ban trucks.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Here's the reasons I am against it.
> #1 ...shall not be infringed.
> #2 ...shall not be infringed.
> To infinity.
> The sacrificial lambs were already slaughtered in the Revolutionary War. Any and all losses of any and all rights makes their sacrifices more and more futile.


Since a bumpstock is not a firearm, what does it have to do with the 2A? How does not having one keep anyone from bearing arms? No different than restricting a full auto gun. Doing that doesn't keep anyone from bearing a firearm. Kinda like saying having a speed limit on a road infringes your ability to drive.

I think it important to understand intent. A truck used as a terror weapon is not designed or intended to be a weapon. A bumpstock on the other hand, is designed & intended to get around a law preventing auto fire weapons. There are no laws against trucks. There are laws against auto weapons.

The reason the BATFE allowed it was not because they were being nice to gun owners but because of the way the law was written. The law just needs to be fixed to close such loopholes... no different than our tax laws.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> Since a bumpstock is not a firearm, what does it have to do with the 2A? How does not having one keep anyone from bearing arms? No different than restricting a full auto gun. Doing that doesn't keep anyone from bearing a firearm. Kinda like saying having a speed limit on a road infringes your ability to drive.


There's that slippery slope again...

Restricting of full auto firearms was an infringement. If you don't believe so, then what argument do you have to stand on when they target semi-auto firearms next? You still have access to bolt guns, right? Therefore, you're still free to keep and bear arms, right? What happens when they want those next? You're still free to keep and bear arms with a single shot pistol, right?

Driving a car is not a right, nor is it in any way protected under the constitution. Let's try to keep the comparison to apples and apples.

As was said earlier, and paraphrasing Mark Levin on the radio last night, the bump stock is a glorified belt loop. You can get the EXACT SAME RESULT from either one with no practice whatsoever. How does banning/restricting a bump stock change this? In short, it doesn't. Because it doesn't, it makes any attempt to do so 100% worthless. It solves nothing.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> There's that slippery slope again...
> 
> Restricting of full auto firearms was an infringement. If you don't believe so, then what argument do you have to stand on when they target semi-auto firearms next? You still have access to bolt guns, right? Therefore, you're still free to keep and bear arms, right? What happens when they want those next? You're still free to keep and bear arms with a single shot pistol, right?
> 
> ...


But what does your argument have to do with the 2A? It is not a gun. That is why the BATFE let it pass. Since it is not a gun it is not protected by the 2A & it can be regulated... just like a car or any other consumer goods. And since when does logic enter into any law? You think our tax laws are logical or maybe driven by special groups with money to give to politicians? You think that healthcare shit we have & they are trying to pass is logical?

If we are comparing apples to apples, you can't compare regulating a non gun (bumpstock) to a firearm... be it auto, semi, bolt or pistol.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> But what does your argument have to do with the 2A? It is not a gun. That is why the BATFE let it pass. Since it is not a gun it is not protected by the 2A & it can be regulated... just like a car or any other consumer goods. And since when does logic enter into any law? You think our tax laws are logical or maybe driven by special groups with money to give to politicians? You think that healthcare shit we have & they are trying to pass is logical?
> 
> If we are comparing apples to apples, you can't compare regulating a non gun (bumpstock) to a firearm... be it auto, semi, bolt or pistol.


If it isn't a firearm, then the ATF should have no say in it, right? You can't claim that they have regulating powers over both firearms AND non-firearms under the same umbrella of authority. Of course, I'm sure it will just become another "we know it's not a firearm, but we're going to call it a firearm" issue, just like silencers. (our government is occupied by morons)
Why do you default to the government owning authority to regulate anything?
If the "public safety" argument is so easily defeated, then it shouldn't be assumed it's the government's responsibility to do anything.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> If it isn't a firearm, then the ATF should have no say in it, right? You can't claim that they have regulating powers over both firearms AND non-firearms under the same umbrella of authority. Of course, I'm sure it will just become another "we know it's not a firearm, but we're going to call it a firearm" issue, just like silencers. (our government is occupied by morons)
> Why do you default to the government owning authority to regulate anything?
> If the "public safety" argument is so easily defeated, then it shouldn't be assumed it's the government's responsibility to do anything.


That is the whole point. The BATFE passed on it & has no say. That is why if there is any regulation on it, that will come from Congress.

Of course our government can regulate. The Constitution gave them that ability to pass laws. Those laws have to be in accordance to the Constitution and if not, the third branch of government gets involved & can throw that law out. Now you might agree or disagree with any Supreme Court ruing regarding the constitutionality of any given law... but so what? That is the system of government we live under & what I served to protect.

And yes, our government, from top to bottom, is occupied by morons. Self serving, get rich off of you & me morons. Or does that make them smart & us morons?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> That is the whole point. The BATFE passed on it & has no say. That is why if there is any regulation on it, that will come from Congress.
> 
> Of course our government can regulate. The Constitution gave them that ability to pass laws. Those laws have to be in accordance to the Constitution and if not, the third branch of government gets involved & can throw that law out. Now you might agree or disagree with any Supreme Court ruing regarding the constitutionality of any given law... but so what? That is the system of government we live under & what I served to protect.


The articles I've been reading, as well as the NRA's stance, were all speaking to the administration pushing for the ATF to do the restricting. Not congress.
If that's not what you were supporting, then lines got crossed in this discussion. I agree that the ATF has no authority here, despite the NRA's idiocy on the matter.

You did not serve to protect the system of government. Please tell me you know that.
If a law is passed that violates the constitution, it is null and void upon arrival. No court battle is actually necessary for this to be true.
A court decision only makes it officially declared as such.
Congress DOES have the ability to pass laws, but ONLY insofar as the constitution dictates. They do NOT have unrestricted authority to dabble in any area they please.
If the constitution does not delegate the authority to them specifically, or to another branch of government, then it is NOT their role to do anything.
It must be handled by the states.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> The articles I've been reading, as well as the NRA's stance, were all speaking to the administration pushing for the ATF to do the restricting. Not congress.
> If that's not what you were supporting, then lines got crossed in this discussion. I agree that the ATF has no authority here, despite the NRA's idiocy on the matter.


My understanding is the BATFE already decided, the law as written, gives them no authority over it. That is why it is considered legal today. Only way to change that is thru legislation.



Kauboy said:


> You did not serve to protect the system of government. Please tell me you know that.


Let's not play semantics. All in the military take an oath to support & defend the Constitution. The Constitution is our system of government.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

Denton said:


> Here's the reasons I am against it.
> #1 ...shall not be infringed.
> #2 ...shall not be infringed.
> To infinity.
> The sacrificial lambs were already slaughtered in the Revolutionary War. Any and all losses of any and all rights makes their sacrifices more and more futile.


I get it. Hence, my mention of the slippery slope. That said, reality dictates compromise and a world without bump stocks seems fair enough to this 2A supporter.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> My understanding is the BATFE already decided, the law as written, gives them no authority over it. That is why it is considered legal today. Only way to change that is thru legislation.
> 
> Let's not play semantics. All in the military take an oath to support & defend the Constitution. The Constitution is our system of government.


I can't remember where I heard it first said, but I liked it... "Words mean things".
When we allow them to be confused or meddled with, they can be used to accomplish things never intended. I play semantics because semantics, especially from a legal POV, can make a drastic difference in the discussion.
The constitution establishes rules for our system of government.
Your previous reply seemed to imply that it was ok for congress to pass laws that violate the constitution, and that some court may someday decide that it was violated, and that you served to protect this type of system.
I am hoping you understand that your oath was to protect the document, and what it stands for. Not a flawed system derived from it out of misinterpretation.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

How about this:
All you people who want to give up your freedoms for some bastardized version of "common sense" go ahead and voluntarily do so. Be good little lapdogs and show us how it will be effective . Lead by example.

And leave citizens alone.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Coastie dad said:


> ...............And leave citizens alone.


_Law abiding _citizens. :vs_wave:


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Your previous reply seemed to imply that it was ok for congress to pass laws that violate the constitution, and that some court may someday decide that it was violated, and that you served to protect this type of system.


What I said was the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws and that the Supreme Court can determine if they are Constitutional. Any law, passed by Congress is lawful unless/until struck down by the Supreme Court... no matter if you or I agree with the law. And yes, I volunteered to protect such a system.

Is it OK for Congress to pass a law that is later deemed to be unconstitutional? Sure & has happened many times, as the only entity that can make that determination is the court & they can't make a judgement until a law is passed.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

******* said:


> What I said was the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws and that the Supreme Court can determine if they are Constitutional. Any law, passed by Congress is lawful unless/until struck down by the Supreme Court... no matter if you or I agree with the law. And yes, I volunteered to protect such a system.
> 
> Is it OK for Congress to pass a law that is later deemed to be unconstitutional? Sure & has happened many times, as the only entity that can make that determination is the court & they can't make a judgement until a law is passed.


Can't _any_ court strike an unconstitutional law?


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Can't _any_ court strike an unconstitutional law?


No. State court can't rule on constitutionality of federal law. The final say, is the SCOTUS. And when they don't say anything, they basically are saying yes they agree with the law or the rulings in lower courts.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

******* said:


> No. State court can't rule on constitutionality of federal law. The final say, is the SCOTUS. And when they don't say anything, they basically are saying yes they agree with the law or the rulings in lower courts.


Well, there's a line to be split here. Federal courts rule on federal laws, but state courts can rule on the constitutionality of state laws.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Done deal legislation will be introduced looks like Monday. It will go without debate fly through voted on and passed.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Can't _any_ court strike an unconstitutional law?


 Yes they can, however then The Supreme court has a chnace to tell them if they are right or wrong on the madder. Happens all of the time.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> What I said was the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws and that the Supreme Court can determine if they are Constitutional. Any law, passed by Congress is lawful unless/until struck down by the Supreme Court... no matter if you or I agree with the law. And yes, I volunteered to protect such a system.
> 
> Is it OK for Congress to pass a law that is later deemed to be unconstitutional? Sure & has happened many times, as the only entity that can make that determination is the court & they can't make a judgement until a law is passed.


As a matter of fact, no citizen is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no court is bound to enforce it. A little research will show you I didn't make that up.

As far as the courts, they have become political, rather than constitutional. We've seen case after case reflect this. This is tantamount to tyranny. We've lost what the founding fathers fought to give us, and we've lost it due to ignorance and the lack of willingness to pass it on to the next generation.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> What I said was the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws and that the Supreme Court can determine if they are Constitutional. Any law, passed by Congress is lawful unless/until struck down by the Supreme Court... no matter if you or I agree with the law. And yes, I volunteered to protect such a system.
> 
> Is it OK for Congress to pass a law that is later deemed to be unconstitutional? Sure & has happened many times, as the only entity that can make that determination is the court & they can't make a judgement until a law is passed.


No, it is not ok for them to pass an unconstitutional law. And no, the law does not have to be declared as such to be unconstitutional.
From the legal encyclopedia, American Jurisprudence:


> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and *not merely from the date of the decision so branding it*; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)


So, agree or disagreeing doesn't matter. The law can be unconstitutional from the moment the executive's signature is on it.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> No, it is not ok for them to pass an unconstitutional law............


But it happens every day. If they never did so, there would never be any court cases challenging the legality of the laws they've passed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> But it happens every day. If they never did so, there would never be any court cases challenging the legality of the laws they've passed.


It happening doesn't mean it's ok.
Murders happen every day too.
If we are all expected to sacrifice in order to keep one bad thing from happening, what can we demand from them to ensure the other bad thing stops happening?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

This is all typical Liberal knee-jerk reaction spurred by emotion. Emotions are fine but you can't legislate by emotion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> No, it is not ok for them to pass an unconstitutional law. And no, the law does not have to be declared as such to be unconstitutional.


So what mechanism does the Constitution provide to determine if a law is constitutional? Who makes that declaration? You? We all have opinions, so it surely wasn't left for an individual to make that determination. My understanding is, the final judge on any law's constitutionality is the SCOTUS. Most of the time, all of those judges don't agree.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> So what mechanism does the Constitution provide to determine if a law is constitutional? Who makes that declaration? You? We all have opinions, so it surely wasn't left for an individual to make that determination. My understanding is, the final judge on any law's constitutionality is the SCOTUS. Most of the time, all of those judges don't agree.


As I said, the courts are more political than constitutional, nowadays.

Who makes the declaration on what is constitutional? That is very easy to explain.

When you spend a few years researching the construction of our founding documents, it isn't hard to understand what is constitutional and what is not. Read the writings of the founding fathers, and read what they read, and it all comes into focus.

An ill-informed opinion is worthless and is based on one's own wants and biases. Spend a few years researching, and you'll find your personal opinions changing. I know mine did. You'll also come to realize this nation is so far off the rails, we'll never take back our government through the ballot box. As a matter of fact, I doubt it can be done at all.


----------



## White Shadow (Jun 26, 2017)

White Shadow said:


> And the bill always includes much more than they say it does.


Illinois had their first bump stock bill read in the house yesterday and it already has 18 sponsors. They threw in everything but the kitchen sink (which I expect to be added later). It has a copy & paste version of some other communist state's "assault weapons ban", state wide 10 round magazine capacity limits (must be permanent 10 rounders, nothing that can be undone), grandfathered rifles allowed but with extra fees, full registration and "proof" of some extra locking mechanism preventing it from being in a ready state, ban on .50 cal weapons, ban on pistols over a certain weight, ban on a variety of accessories with felonies for everybody not in full compliance. Bill to take effect immediately upon passage with 300 days to dump your existing property.

The DemonRat that lobbed this in of course claims it is to "protect people". I hate this damn state.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Denton said:


> ...... Read the writings of the founding fathers, and read what they read, and it all comes into focus.........


Have you read the Federalist Papers?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Have you read the Federalist Papers?


As well as the anti-Federalist Papers, as well as much more.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> So what mechanism does the Constitution provide to determine if a law is constitutional? Who makes that declaration? You? We all have opinions, so it surely wasn't left for an individual to make that determination. My understanding is, the final judge on any law's constitutionality is the SCOTUS. Most of the time, all of those judges don't agree.


The final judge is not SCOTUS.
The final judge is, and forever shall be, the people.
I know you're seeking a practical response, one that you can pin down and attack, and I get that. I would too.
The undying truth of it is...


> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.*


You see, as Denton has alluded to, the courts cannot be the final say. The courts can be corrupted. What type of system would the founders really have given us if the people(hundreds of millions) could be *controlled* by 435 reps, 100 senators, 9 judges, and 1 president? Should 545 people hold the full and total authority over the people, and leave only 9 of them to have the final say?

I realize this has diverted far off topic, but my point still stands. The government has no authority granted to it under the constitution to regulate firearms, or even non-firearms. The fact that they have done so does not change this truth. They have been given enumerated powers, and are expected to remain within the boundaries of those explicit powers.


----------



## KimJongsButtHole (Oct 2, 2017)

I don't really see the point in having one aside from personal amusement. I have really no interest in having a fully automatic weapon but I know a lot of people do. I think that it might be a slippery slope if they are completely banned. Nothing should be outlawed based on the actions of one person.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> It happening doesn't mean it's ok...........


Thing is....they don't care. They're called lawmakers, not constitutionalists.... so they have to _make _laws. Right or wrong.... gotta make laws. Do this. Don't do that. I doubt many really investigate whether what they're proposing is constitutional or not. They get re-elected because their constituents are usually as much in the dark about the Constitution as they are.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Thing is....they don't care. They're called lawmakers, not constitutionalists.... so they have to _make _laws. Right or wrong.... gotta make laws. Do this. Don't do that. I doubt many really investigate whether what they're proposing is constitutional or not. They get re-elected because their constituents are usually as much in the dark about the Constitution as they are.


You've never been more right about anything.
It's like they think they're business owners, and their product is pushing paper out the door. Throw it at the wall, see what sticks, send that to the desk of the POTUS.

Some of my best memories of happy times in America are during periods of gridlock between the houses (reps/senates/white).
Just getting to take a breather because they are on a bickering binge really helps to clear the mind and prepare for the next shovel full they will be sending at us.
They're SUPPOSED to squabble, by design. That's what "checks and balances" really means. This knee-jerk reaction to "compromise" when nothing has even been debated is NOT what the founders envisioned.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

GOAs point of view:

https://gunowners.org/bump-stock-ban-opposed-by-gun-owners-group-despite-nra-stance.htm

Springfield, VA - Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) Erich Pratt issued the following statement on GOA's position on bump stocks:

"Gun Owners of America opposes a ban on bump stocks. Bump stocks were approved by the ATF during the Obama administration to help gun owners with disabilities fire their weapons. Any type of ban will be ignored by criminals and only serve to disarm honest citizens. Perhaps that's why 91 percent of police believe a so-called "assault weapons" ban will have no effect or a negative effect on crime. And given that 95 percent of cops think that a ban on large capacity magazines would be ineffective in reducing violent crime, it's hard to imagine they would regard bump stocks any differently.

It's sad to see some Republicans quickly call for a vote on gun control, while delaying a vote on concealed carry reciprocity, H.R. 38. This is bipartisan legislation which will protect concealed carriers while they travel and which has been cosponsored by 212 law makers. If law makers want a vote on bump stocks, they should vote on reciprocity as well."

Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over 1.5 million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA's Newsroom.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

And The RINOs in bed with the Progressives:

https://gunowners.org/alert100617.htm


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Shall not be infringed.....


----------



## SGT E (Feb 25, 2015)

Right now you cant find a bumpfire or slidefire stock....Right now the Binary trigger systems that were $299 last Friday that fire on pull and release (LEGAL) have went to 500$ and nobody has said anything about them yet.

A few years back I bought a Bumpfire stock for my nephews and they had a blast for a day.....fun but too expensive...Later my nephew gave me his because he couldnt afford to shoot it....I had a friend sell me one for 25$ that he couldn't afford.

This morning on Bidgunner they were selling up to $1250.00 with some having a dozen or so bids....They will sell so many before the ban goes into effect that it defeats the purpose of restricting them! Bidgunner later banned listing them for sale.

I'm thinking I'll unload mine this week...Got about 100$ in 3 of them....It's Time!!


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Restricting bump stocks will not restrict bump firing. I saw a guy on youtube bump fire an AR using nothing but the belt loop on his pants. Fast forward to 1:20.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


probably 20 years ago I saw someone at the range do the same thing, lets ban belt loops and fingers.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

As a matter of fact, no citizen is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no court is bound to enforce it. A little research will show you I didn't make that up.

I may be wrong on this but believe its called jury nullification. Have read where lawyers are prohibited from telling jurors this, they call that justice??!!


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

I do not own an AR, and have no plan to do so.
I bump stocks are outlawed, I would not care.

Having said that, I do not support the banning of any lawful firearm or firearm accessory.

And infringement on the 2nd is to be fought with most vigor.
Any concession we make to anti gunners is a loss of our rights.
Never give in!!


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

So congress pushes the bump stock ban through. The deal with the devil having been made, what do we sacrifice the next time? ( Make no mistake, there will be a next time. )


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Nature abhors a vacuum, someone will devise something else that does the same thing. Those dems are not too bright. did I really need to say that? Nope.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

So they ban the bump fire, will that restrict anyone from building one for themselves? Just as you can build an AR as long as its not for resale? I guess they'll start banning CNC machines, drill presses, etc.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

And 3 D printers too


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

OK, so you ban bump stock.... What do you do with bump fire? How do you ban that?


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Why are so many getting their blood pressure up over a stupid novelty item that hardly works anyway? If you really are ready to have round 3 on select-fire, fully automatic firearms, then let's go for it! I am FULLY in favor of repealing both the 1986 law as well as the 1935 law and if that is what we are debating, I will do everything in my power to make it happen. Those two are the real affront to the 2A. But to get excited about a dopey bump stock? Really?!? That's like kissing your sister.


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

6811 said:


> OK, so you ban bump stock.... What do you do with bump fire? How do you ban that?


Shhhh


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Inor said:


> Why are so many getting their blood pressure up over a stupid novelty item that hardly works anyway? If you really are ready to have round 3 on select-fire, fully automatic firearms, then let's go for it! I am FULLY in favor of repealing both the 1986 law as well as the 1935 law and if that is what we are debating, I will do everything in my power to make it happen. Those two are the real affront to the 2A. But to get excited about a dopey bump stock? Really?!? That's like kissing your sister.


You forgot 1968


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> Why are so many getting their blood pressure up over a stupid novelty item that hardly works anyway? If you really are ready to have round 3 on select-fire, fully automatic firearms, then let's go for it! I am FULLY in favor of repealing both the 1986 law as well as the 1935 law and if that is what we are debating, I will do everything in my power to make it happen. Those two are the real affront to the 2A. But to get excited about a dopey bump stock? Really?!? That's like kissing your sister.


I'm with taking back everything on the regulated list.

What, exactly, would happen if I were able to carry a MAC-11 instead of a 1911? Would I be more likely to go nuts and shoot up WalMart? I don't think so. If I had a short barrel rifle or a sawed off shotgun. Would I then decide to kill a president? It's silly. 
So, with these weapons not sold over the counter, is the country a safer place? Are criminals less determined and are evil people less evil? Nope.

I'm not a criminal, and I'm not evil. Stop telling me what I can and can't have. Now, how do we get those in power to understand we want back our banned or controlled weapons?

As far as bump stock, I don't want one, but then again, I am able to operate my AR-15 without assistance. Does that mean I think they should be banned just because some idiot shot up some people? NO! HELL NO!

The Hell, brother? What say we stop stupid where it is, now? Yeah, I don't like paying 200 bucks extra for a freaking suppressor, but will allowing the idiots take bump stocks make things better? Do you think they'll give us back the other parts of the 2nd amendment if we allow them this?


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

No. Before last week hardly anyone knew what it was! I have several and I too look at it as a novelty but
sure enjoy going to the farm several times a year and blasting thru several thousand rounds!

We don't need to give up anything right now!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> The Hell, brother? What say we stop stupid where it is, now? Yeah, I don't like paying 200 bucks extra for a freaking suppressor, but will allowing the idiots take bump stocks make things better? Do you think they'll give us back the other parts of the 2nd amendment if we allow them this?


No we won't. But what I am saying is... If we are going to open a debate (again) on the 2nd, at least frame the debate so we get something worthwhile (like repeal of the 1986 and 1935 laws) if we win.


----------



## ghostman (Dec 11, 2014)

While I don't like gun control, if this is the only thing they are going after I am not going to lose sleep over it, right now I am more concerned with any kind of proposed assault weapon bans or magazine restrictions. My state is in elections for governor and the dude running for dems is proposing adding ridiculous restrictions to the already tight ass laws, so I am kind of freaking out more over that then this range toy. My condolences to those who maybe owners of bumpstocks but I just don't see it as a hill worth dying on.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

ghostman said:


> While I don't like gun control, if this is the only thing they are going after I am not going to lose sleep over it, right now I am more concerned with any kind of proposed assault weapon bans or magazine restrictions. My state is in elections for governor and the dude running for dems is proposing adding ridiculous restrictions to the already tight ass laws, so I am kind of freaking out more over that then this range toy. My condolences to those who maybe owners of bumpstocks but I just don't see it as a hill worth dying on.


The ONLY reasons they're 'only' after the bump stock right now is:

1.) it's in the news. It's a hot-button topic. You can't swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting a story about bump stocks.
2.) they are completely ignorant of all the other methods and devices that accomplish the exact same thing.

And you can bet your sweet bippy they won't stop at bump stocks.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Inor said:


> Why are so many getting their blood pressure up over a stupid novelty item that hardly works anyway? If you really are ready to have round 3 on select-fire, fully automatic firearms, then let's go for it! I am FULLY in favor of repealing both the 1986 law as well as the 1935 law and if that is what we are debating, I will do everything in my power to make it happen. Those two are the real affront to the 2A. But to get excited about a dopey bump stock? Really?!? That's like kissing your sister.


I am right there with you on this. I could care less about the bump stock thingy. I am more worried that it throws a bone to a dog who will never be satisfied. I guess it's my "never give an inch, I don't trust the bastards" approach to life. :tango_face_grin:


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

There are many devices out there that will fall under this category. The Fostech trigger and other binary systems that cause the weapon to discharge when the trigger is released as well as pulled will be in the mix. Personally, I feel like bump-fire is prohibited at ranges for a very sound reason. It is inherently inaccurate. The slide fire stock and other bumpfire devices intentionally cause a runaway condition in a semi-automatic weapon. When they were introduced the word reckless immediately came to mind. Banning them or placing them under the NFA is no sweat of my back. It will probably be one of those "you can own one, but as soon as you attach it to a weapons system it is a violation punishable by ten years imprisonment."

I have fired many fully automatic weapons in my life. That was using someone else's ammo. I prefer controlled, semi-automatic fire. Full auto is loads of fun. It is short lived and bump fire just isn't and never was the same.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

tango said:


> And 3 D printers too


How did I not think of this???

Anybody got the dimensional specs on these things? I've got a fresh roll of ABS just waiting to become a new toy.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

PrepperForums said:


> What are your thoughts about "bump stock". Should these devices be more regulated?
> 
> Why? Why not?


It will be banned, it is certainly on the fast track towards that. After Las Vegas, Congress won't put up with it; because in America's mind, it will always be associated with a slaughter.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Give and inch and they will take a mile. Like people said, it's a novelty and no skin off anyone's back but if they ban it what is next... It's a slippery slow to go down and I am not in favor of it. No Ban.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Piratesailor said:


> Give and inch and they will take a mile. Like people said, it's a novelty and no skin off anyone's back but if they ban it what is next... It's a slippery slope to go down and I am not in favor of it. No Ban.


People call gun owners crazy every time we say "that's a slippery slope", and that we're just being paranoid.

Here's Chief Nutbar, in her own words...
Pelosi Hopes Ban on Bump Stocks Is a 'Slippery Slope' to More Gun Control | Fox News Insider

I'm ready to join my brothers and sisters in opposition to this.
Not just "No", but "*HELL NO!*"

On a side note, I just downloaded the 3D model to 3D print my own bump stock. I have no use for the thing, but I will stick a thumb in the eye of these fear-mongers just out of principle.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

PrepperForums said:


> What are your thoughts about "bump stock". Should these devices be more regulated?
> 
> Why? Why not?


Where can a person buy one? Thanks. Asking on behalf of a friend.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

Don't think any to be found at price! You can do do the same damn thing with rubber bands arranged behind the
trigger and in front of the trigger guard. Takes a mag or to to get the hang of it!


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I was at a gun range a few years ago with a friend who had a bump stock on an ar15. Didn't take long for me to get the feel of it, and shoot it in what amounts to full auto. Just a waste of ammo in my opinion, I've never wanted one. If the evil horde are so numberson that I can't pull the trigger fast enough, thats some pretty deep do-do, I'll take my chances. I'd say bump stock should fall under the full auto regulations.


----------



## maine_rm (Jun 24, 2017)

Sidebar your honor


I'm sure I could Google it but is there is an actual fire rate that is considered automatic? Rounds per minute/seconds? Or is it just the mechanism. I do not own an AR. Not yet anyways. Just curious I can pull the trigger pretty quick and keep them in a pretty small group if the hordes you speak of come raining down on us I guess that'll be something to deal with then.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> So congress pushes the bump stock ban through. The deal with the devil having been made, what do we sacrifice the next time? ( Make no mistake, there will be a next time. )


How about Wayne LaPierre for selling us out?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

For those that wish to negotiate with the devil in regard to bump stocks here is your bill. Dangerously ambiguous and open ended. Hell, they don't even mention bump stocks. Put a bullet in the devils head and walk away from the table.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text?r=7



> H.R.3999 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

And next we put a mechanical reset device on the trigger that creates a 3 second waiting period between each shot.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Coastie dad said:


> And next we put a mechanical reset device on the trigger that creates a 3 second waiting period between each shot.


Exactly right. Binary triggers, competition triggers, standard rounds per minute, WTF?, and on and on. When will people understand it's not gun control or common sense gun control or any other damn thing the liberal socialists puke out. It's the guns they want. This POC bill opens the door wide to *their* interpretation.


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated? 

NO. What else is there to say


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

preppermyA said:


> Should Bump Stock Be More Regulated?
> 
> NO. What else is there to say


*Hell *no.


----------



## Grinch2 (Sep 12, 2016)

Basically what sideKahr said; it's an accessory so what's next high power scopes? I know in neighboring NY high cap mags are a big no-no, but I mean where do they stop? when we get back to muskets? 

Liberal gun grabbers do not show any sense of control when you give them an inch. 

It's truthfully not a question of just bump-fires, it a question of where should the line be drawn. 

I mean we all know that if they ban bump-fires then sales of echo triggers or hell fire trigger groups will skyrocket. 

In the end criminals always find a way around any law, hence criminals. 

For me personally I like " the " bump fire, does it serve as tactical purpose other than waking the neighbors? Not really, but who cares, if we give them bump fires then its hard to tell what's next semi automatics entirely? Because say you remove the " full auto style enabling device " from the stock, companies will move to the triggers, when they get banned then they'll move to the bolts or something. From there its hard to tell what would happen ( hopefully we'll never find out ) but I mean weapon mounted lights possibly the list goes on and on and as I said they won't stop until we get back to muskets maybe bows. 

At the end of the day we have to step back and see the bigger picture, they got SBR's, SBS's, AOW's and suppressors already, truthfully they got some ammo too. It's not whether you like bump fires, it's whether or not you stand behind your rights.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Grinch2 said:


> ............... It's not whether you like bump fires, it's whether or not you stand behind your rights.


I make a motion that this be nominated for the Forum Post of the Month.


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

While I have no use for bumps stocks, the ATF says nothing about bump stocks...only "rate increasing devices" which is way too broad. Kiss your trigger mods goodbye, as well as anything else they want.
The ATF should be doing nothing. If the politicians want them put into the NFA then they need to pass something that takes care of it. The ATF should not be making law for something they have already deemed legal according to the laws on the books.
This would be a slippery slope that will end our rights under the 2A. JMHO

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I doubt that anything serious will come of this. They have been trying measures like this to no avail for quite a while. What you hear is the MSM, many liberals and indoctrinated high school students following the script.

There are too many honest, gun owning Americans out there and they vote. 

What COULD happen is another scare. What that means is ammo price will increase and some will be sold out and back-ordered for a long time. Some guns will be scarce and some back-ordered for months or longer.

This could stop the bankruptcy of Remington and put them back in the black.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Anyone ever see a Hellfire All NEW "HELLFIRE GEN2"

Ban bump stocks, but are they also banning these?????


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

EFF the ATF. I give not 1 shat about what they think write or say.

Eliminate this waste of government waste immediately.

...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. SIMPLE.

Now lets get back to deporting all illegals, building a wall for border security, eliminating generational welfare, protecting our citizens first and lowering our taxes/shrinking government/reducing regulations and living FREE!

Carry on...


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Regulate the MSM to bump firing Phalluses; They have experience at that and know the "up and downs"!:vs_laugh::tango_face_grin::vs_smirk:


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

slippy said:


> eff the atf. I give not 1 shat about what they think write or say.
> 
> Eliminate this waste of government waste immediately.
> 
> ...


*Best Post Right There !!!!!*


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't have nor do I care to have a bumpstock. But, its my right to have one.
I don't have a watch, much less a rolex or expensive watch, but its my right to have one.
I don't believe this defacto govt should have any say so in weather my shotgun barrel is 18 and half inches or 12 inches.
Someday, the American patriots will step to the front of the line, and the politicians will "fear" the people, as it should be.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice formally submitted a regulation on Saturday to ban "bump stocks," a modification to high-capacity rifles that lets them fire like an automatic weapon.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-files-regulation-ban-bump-stocks-143159866.html


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Slippy said:


> EFF the ATF. I give not 1 shat about what they think write or say.
> 
> Eliminate this waste of government waste immediately.
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!!!
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms sounds like the makings of a great weekend... but the government has NO BUSINESS being involved with or regulating ANY of these commodities.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

RedLion said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-files-regulation-ban-bump-stocks-143159866.html


_Grrrrrr...._


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

MountainGirl said:


> _Grrrrrr...._


I have heard some talk that it is outside the authority of DOJ and the POTUS to ban. I guess that we shall see.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

If it would do any good then I might be talked into getting behind it but given the number of them that are already out there along with the fact that you can accomplish the same thing without one ultimately its just more useless legislation.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> If it would do any good then I might be talked into getting behind it but given the number of them that are already out there along with the fact that you can accomplish the same thing without one ultimately its just more useless legislation.


My good friend NTPTH,

This is exactly what has gotten this once great republic in the shit storm that we now find the republic...weak minded people voluntarily being coerced into giving up rights and allowing ridiculous laws to rule our lives. 
@Coastie dad posted an excellent diatribe on another forum, I don't think he would mind if I printed itbelow;

From Coastie;

_*Nope. It's over.

We as a nation have allowed this cancer of socialism and liberalism to spread because we as a nation like to be entertained, pampered, and relieved of consequences for our decisions. Instead of thinking for ourselves we allow actors and sports players, those removed from the reality of life, to influence our thoughts.

How many laws have been passed we are opposed to without our input? How many laws that are constitutionally questionable have been pushed upon us by politicians more concerned about appeasing the squeaky wheel of the day and keeping their jobs rather than doing what is morally correct and following our guidelines set out by the founders? And yet we stand by, grumbling, talking quietly about stopping the abuse, yet we whisper because we fear the reprisal of our overlords.

We have submitted, and we continue to submit. We cloak ourselves in the banner of patriotism, yet we do notbing except appeal to the same people who bear the mantle of overlord. We have no cohesion amongst ourselves. We have no strong organization. We have been called deplorable, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and told the world would be better off as soon as we die.

And here we sit, complaining to people we have, for a great part, never seen face to face. Here we sit with all the comforts and luxury afforded to us by our beloved guardians so that we will be fat, happy, and content in our guilded cages. The largest act of legerdemain in the world has been perpetrated before our very eyes, and we, as an audience, have participated. Our freedom, our honor, and our self respect have vanished before our very eyes to be replaced with false security and lies.

We still are allowed the freedom to complain, just as the sheep bleat, the cows bellow, and the pigs squeal as they are pushed through the chutes to slaughter.

Welcome to the new America we allowed to be created.*_


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

True words @Coastie dad. Thank you for sharing @Slippy

The question is what do we do about it? Does it do any good to contact those that are supposed to represent us, but only take care of themselves? Do we start for the local level up or the Fed level down?

I am asking in all earnestness...where should we start? I will not be the one that gives up...

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

Bump stocks are not a very good to begin with . trump has had his DOJ start the process to take them off the market. 

Contact your elected folks if you want it is the American way but I would not. 

I think the better thing to do is to stay or go grey on this topic. You have your arms keep quite and keep your head down. Stop letting folks know what or how many you have. 

Why if you have your weapons do you want others who may not be friendly to you get weapons? 

I think the bump stocks will go - may take passing a law but they will be gone soon.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Know this.

Eliminating bump stocks accomplishing absolutely nothing that will insure mass shootings will be reduced. The same effect on a semi-automatic rifle an be achieved with a rubber band or your belt loop on your pants

If this seemingly small concession is given to the gun grabbers, it will most certainly set a precedence. As in most things with the progressive movement, a one step at a time methodology will be undertaken to completely strip you of your 2A rights.

I understand that no one cares about bump stocks, but your upper and lower will be next.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

RJAMES said:


> Bump stocks are not a very good to begin with . trump has had his DOJ start the process to take them off the market.
> 
> Contact your elected folks if you want it is the American way but I would not.
> 
> ...


Molon Labe


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

Yes...by all means, let us remain quiet. It is the preferred method the liberals approved years ago whereby submission would be easier accomplished.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

I think democrats shouldn’t own bump stocks.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Not a question of if they should be. They will be.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

In a word "NO". What part of DO NOT INFRINGE don't people understand.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

NO! - This may or may not be me shooting!


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Bump stocks are an easy target no pun intended. It allows the people in power to give a "victory" for all the protestors while doing nothing to address the hard issues like why are there hundreds of gun crime victims every year in places like chicago.

Like I said before, if I thought it would do any good I'd be open to listening to it but I just don't think a bump stock ban is going to do anything to prevent crime or further public safety in any way.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

No. It is just a step toward the ultimate goal. Any one and I mean ANYONE who suggests that we be quiet, be gray, and not stand up for our rights as outlined in the Constitution of These United States is advocating for the infringement if not the dissolution of those rights guaranteed to us by the founders of this Nation.
To be told to hide, be quiet, and not draw attention is the way of those not free. Free men should not need to hide. Free men should not fear their government. And those who advocate hiding as if we are common criminals are themselves the criminals, as they would see our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness taken from us. These people are not to be trusted. They are the enemy within, the wolves in sheep's clothing, who would see our nation destroyed. 
Many of us swore an oath, possibly more than once, to protect this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. Yet we have allowed many of our own people to listen to falsehoods and claims of an utopia that has never existed. We have allowed these people to spread sedition and hate, dividing these once United States, and they do so by blaming their enemies of the very acts they themselves perpetrate. 
We will need to put a halt to this hateful advancement of a cause that runs counter to the ideals upon which this country was founded. We will need to stop the spread of lies and twisted half truths that mark us as unworthy citizens because we dare to believe in what the so called liberals and progressives consider to be an archaic document.
We cannot defeat these seditious acts and the people who commit them if we continue to be silent. They want us to remain silent so they may continue, unscathed, without opposition, to complete their goal of destroying the United States of America and rebuilding it into a socialist entity. They will persist u til they have destroyed from within what other nations through outright acts of war were unable to accomplish.
And if they do so, it will be due to the internet patriots, those who will talk, will plan, but will, as one member here recommended, be silent so as not to draw attention to themselves. And if we each look into the mirror we will see the guilt in all of us for allowing this movement to advance to this point.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

I'm making a new flag, WILL NOT BE TREAD ON.
There sure are some weakass people on here.
Sit down, shut up, be grey, be silent..HELL NO.
My local sheriff was instrumental in me getting my gun rights back, and I will be DAMNED if I let some bullshit slimeball politician slowly eat away at my right.
I made a mistake, I paid my dues, and I'm a LEGAL FIREARM OWNER. I will gladly and PROUDLY show my firearms (there not weapon, there tools), and I will fight for the rights of my brothers and sisters, in hope that they "wake the FUQ UP" and stand beside me.
Jeez, some yellow bellied people amaze and piss me off.


----------



## Rick (Nov 5, 2016)

I have to agree with Denton on this one. I don't particularly need or want a bump stock, but they should not be banned because one criminally insane individual used one to vent his frustration with society. It's ridiculous to talk about banning them anyway because they are not only easy to build, but they are unnecessary to bump fire most semi-auto rifles. I have bump fired an SKS without using a bump stock. It's ridiculously easy to do; you just put your thumb through the trigger guard and hook it in your front jeans pocket, and then pull forward on the forearm of the weapon and if you do it just right, it will bump fire just as though you had a bump stock on it. I say this simply to illustrate that there is almost always a way to do things like this. And the only thing it proves is what everyone with a brain already knows which is: "There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, there are only dangerous people." And until we can control dangerous people we will always have these crimes with us, because it simply comes with the right to keep and bear arms, and the most important thing that comes with this right is responsibility! The responsibility to make sure that arms are used at the appropriate time and for the right reasons.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Deebs is an American Patriot and I would be honored to stand by him in any situation whatsoever.

This, I shit y'all not.



Deebo said:


> I'm making a new flag, WILL NOT BE TREAD ON.
> There sure are some weakass people on here.
> Sit down, shut up, be grey, be silent..HELL NO.
> My local sheriff was instrumental in me getting my gun rights back, and I will be DAMNED if I let some bullshit slimeball politician slowly eat away at my right.
> ...


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Today is looking to be a good day for dems.....



> Trump Pushes DOJ To Ban Bump Stocks


After Passing Disastrous $1.3 Trillion Omnibus, Trump Pushes DOJ To Ban Bump Stocks


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

This is starting to piss me off...even MORE! Sorry to yell .. 🤤

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------

