Bump Stock Ban Legislation

originally posted by: Nickn3
I spent a few years in my spare time, working for a FFL shop, . I don't think a crapy bump stock will fire 70 rounds without Some sort of stoppage,

As for banning a bump stock, I see no effect, it's just a photo opportunity for a tin horn politician.

I agree, if your forward pressure is off at any moment, it stops "bumping".
Also, there are cheaper alternatives to the bump stock.

rapidfiretriggers.net...

ETA, It seems they can be put on any semi auto.

I suppose THIS is a bad time to bring up a trigger system that shoots when pulled AND on release..www.classicfirearms.com...


BUT,I BOUGHT one and couth is LOST on me...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I suppose THIS is a bad time to bring up a trigger system that shoots when pulled AND on release..www.classicfirearms.com...


BUT,I BOUGHT one and couth is LOST on me...

Notice the line at the bottom of the site...
"As of 10-5-2017..."
Demand is up.
Just like every other time they talk about banning something, the price rises and in the end there are more in the hands of the public than there would have been otherwise.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: alphabetaone

Your an idiot if you can think if any reason someone needs to use a bump stock. The whole idea was to make a semi auto seem like a full auto. Yeah this is something needed shoot 1000 rounds to attempt to kill a deer. This manufacturer should be sued by the Victims and they would win by arguing this device was designed to dot nothing but cause carnage. You can't aim with them so no target shooting you cant hunt with them and expeCT to hit anything g look at the security guard 200 + rounds and he only hit him in the leg. And apparently not eBen a severe enough injury to prevent him from clearing guests out of the floor.

Fools like you want to clain there was some practical use for this but guess what there isn't. I say no need to ban just let the people injured and killed fluke a law suit and bankrupt the company.

Did anyone sue the truck manufacturer after Nice?

They didn't intend for the truck to be used as a weapon that caused carnage killing 80+ people.

a reply to: butcherguy

ONE can't even AIM a bumpstock,they're toys that will chew THE SH#T out of any semi rifle.
I wouldn't use that crap,remember that OTHER trigger they made?
I can't remember SUREFIRE I think?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Slidefire if I am not mistaken.

a reply to: face23785


Millions of them out there. Ban what dumb asses?

Anyone hear Ryan running his chops about being an "avid" something or another? And never heard of them? Avid Dip Slizzel is more like it.

And flash "suppression" lol makes it harder to locate the shooter. Yea thats what they are for and have been around for 60+ years oh great investigators of all things evil about weapons.

a reply to: Wardaddy454


Same old crap popping up. And I must ask what side the precedent would be to litigate for damages when in fact thousands of these are owned and one nut case uses them in such a way.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Invalid comparison a van can be used for practical purposes. A bump stock has no pupose other then to skirt the law. You can't use it for target shooting game hunting or for that matter even recreational since it destroys your rifle.

It only has one purpose an attempt to cause mass casualties. A law suit could easily make this case and put them out of business. I'm all for the 2nd amendment but I don't see a need for providing a mass killing machine to the public. Even in the military we learned how ineffectual full auto is after 3 rounds your so far off target as to be useless. The only time it's effective is withing 50 meters.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Don't tell them people can bumpfire with no special stock required.

Haha, you're right, I had to see for myself found this...

youtu.be...

a reply to: dragonridr

well on its face your comparison holds validity however in this country, with the 2nd amendment to constitution your argument is well below the philosophy of.....we the people ect. We are not talking about a practical functional mechanism, a conveyance, a van......but a specific lethal devise, a weapon of war certified as usefull for the protection of our rights.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: butcherguy

ONE can't even AIM a bumpstock,they're toys that will chew THE SH#T out of any semi rifle.
I wouldn't use that crap,remember that OTHER trigger they made?
I can't remember SUREFIRE I think?

I did not enjoy shooting the bumpfire that I tried.
To be honest, I wouldn't own an automatic weapon. I am happier shooting a semiauto.
I have been lucky enough to fire a fairly wide assortment of full auto weapons and it was enjoyable, but it isn't what I would prefer to use for self defense, as I doubt that I will ever find myself in need of suppressive fire.
Watch now, I will end up wishing I had it. Life is like that.

a reply to: butcherguy

All average gun owners should have at least one automatic or conversion semiautomatic/automatic assault rifle as preparation for the inevitable zombie apocalypse.

Am I right?

a reply to: ausername

Bump stocks are a waste of ammo.
They are fun to shoot.
I can fire a round about every three seconds out of my single shot 12 gauge.
More than enough to hold ground.

a reply to: butcherguy

Meh,get a Black aces shotgun.

Do you realize the NRA said we should lookin to regulating these as well. They have no purpose other then to allow some idiot who cant shoot hurt alot of people. With 30000 people as a target one sniper rifle would have gotten more kills. But that requires shooting skills something he didnt have. His lack of skill was made up for by the number of rounds he fired. Though i wonder if he didnt shoot himself by accident seems he had no experience with shooting. Cant even find a range he attended.

So why shold we allow a device that allows an idiot tocause mass casualties?

PS im all for the second amendment i have guns and wouldnt part with them.But i cant think of one reason someone needs full auto or something that simulates it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Do you realize the NRA said we should lookin to regulating these as well. They have no purpose other then to allow some idiot who cant shoot hurt alot of people. With 30000 people as a target one sniper rifle would have gotten more kills. But that requires shooting skills something he didnt have. His lack of skill was made up for by the number of rounds he fired. Though i wonder if he didnt shoot himself by accident seems he had no experience with shooting. Cant even find a range he attended.

So why shold we allow a device that allows an idiot tocause mass casualties?

PS im all for the second amendment i have guns and wouldnt part with them.But i cant think of one reason someone needs full auto or something that simulates it.

This is a great point, however, I have a hard time believing he hadn't practiced at all with the bump stock. From the moment he started shooting he already had the hang of it. That tells me he practiced at some point, and many ranges won't allow you to practice rapid fire for safety reasons, so he probably just drove out in the middle of the desert somewhere to fire it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Invalid comparison a van can be used for practical purposes. A bump stock has no pupose other then to skirt the law. You can't use it for target shooting game hunting or for that matter even recreational since it destroys your rifle.

It only has one purpose an attempt to cause mass casualties. A law suit could easily make this case and put them out of business. I'm all for the 2nd amendment but I don't see a need for providing a mass killing machine to the public. Even in the military we learned how ineffectual full auto is after 3 rounds your so far off target as to be useless. The only time it's effective is withing 50 meters.

False. It's one purpose is to be a novelty item that makes money.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Zarniwoop

I do believe this wouldn't have happened, at least not to the degree it did, in Vegas if the mafia was still running the show. Those boys ran a tight ship and were a threat to nobody who was in Vegas for legitimate reasons, didn't attempt to cheat the system, and minded their own business.

joe pesci for president


i hear he is a good fella