| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/09/17 6:11 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Today I talked to a friend of mine who worked a gun show in Augusta this weekend. She said it was much busier than normal. Also, if you want a bump stock you're already too late. A couple of people had them at the show and sold them at more than 10 times the price they were two weeks ago. If you try online or any gun store they're all sold out.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/09/17 9:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Today I talked to a friend of mine who worked a gun show in Augusta this weekend. She said it was much busier than normal. Also, if you want a bump stock you're already too late. A couple of people had them at the show and sold them at more than 10 times the price they were two weeks ago. If you try online or any gun store they're all sold out. |
You don't need special stock to bump fire. It's just a way to pull the trigger fast using the gun's natural recoil. The simplest way is to put your thumb through the belt loop of a pair of pants.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U-nUA52BS3c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Should we outlaw pants? |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/09/17 9:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Should we outlaw pants? |
Oh, come on now. Even if there is ways to create a similar effect, why is it at all controversial to outlaw a stock that makes it easier? There is no 2nd amendment right to a specific stock, and there is no reason people need it.
Sometimes common sense should just win out.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/09/17 10:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Should we outlaw pants? |
Oh, come on now. Even if there is ways to create a similar effect, why is it at all controversial to outlaw a stock that makes it easier? There is no 2nd amendment right to a specific stock, and there is no reason people need it |
Need is irrelevant. Nothing should ever be banned simply because someone thinks other people don't need it.
If I asked my gun show friend, she would say the purpose of people owning bump stocks, or any other similar things, is to protect against government tyranny.
Banning bump stocks is a symbolic action at best. Existing ones would be grandfathered in, just like pre-1986 fully automatic weapons. Only a handful of people are really interested in owning them and they all have them already. Such a ban would have zero effect on preventing another Vegas style shooting.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/09/17 10:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Such a ban would have zero effect on preventing another Vegas style shooting. |
That really is a weak standard. We pass regulations all the time on things that could be potentially dangerous. Allowing an item that is only designed to circumvent law by mimicking an automatic rifle is silly. Auto rifles were banned because we don't feel that citizens should have access to weapons that fire so rapidly. Bump stocks automate the firing of the weapon, just using a different mechanism. Bannig them is consistent with current law.
And the "need" of protecting us from our government is dumb. The idea that guns at all could protect us from tanks, drones, and nukes is laughable. We need protection from one another more than we need it from our government.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/09/17 11:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Bump stocks are likely not protected by the 2nd Amendment, they probably will be banned with a grandfather clause, and I personally don't care if they are.
However, it seems blindingly obvious to me under the common sense standard that such a ban will not stop bump firing and will have zero effect on the murder rate -- mass or otherwise -- in this country. But it will make some politicians and anti-gun nuts feel virtuous.
The only way to stop bump firing is to ban semi-automatic weapons. That was tried for 10 years and had no effect on gun crime. In addition, the government would have to confiscate the estimated 60 million semi-automatic guns that already exist in this country. Common sense says all of the above is impossible.
Effective gun control measures consistent with the 2nd Amendment, which will stop terrorist fanatics, criminals and the mentally disturbed from committing murders, likely don't exist, except at the barely perceptible margins. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves . . . ." In our broken culture, our broken families (with single parent rates of 75% in some communities), our broken Judeo-Christian religious heritage, our broken schools, our broken bonds of pan-tribal group spirit. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/17 6:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| And the "need" of protecting us from our government is dumb. The idea that guns at all could protect us from tanks, drones, and nukes is laughable. We need protection from one another more than we need it from our government. |
We've seen resistance work effectively against the US military, including tanks and drones, in places like Afghanistan with guerrillas substantially less well armed than the US public.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/17 10:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| And the "need" of protecting us from our government is dumb. The idea that guns at all could protect us from tanks, drones, and nukes is laughable. We need protection from one another more than we need it from our government. |
We've seen resistance work effectively against the US military, including tanks and drones, in places like Afghanistan with guerrillas substantially less well armed than the US public. |
Um, not really. Even with the logistics of fighting a guerrilla war in a foreign country with fairly strict rules of engagement, the fighters there would not be able to protect any citizenry from us. They can't really stop us, they can just try to make it annoying enough that we finally just give up. Plus, these fighters have access to actual military hardware like RPGs.
If the government turned into some oppressive force there is little we could do to fight back. I mean, if people are concerned with the government turning on them, I would be more concerned with the $700 billion we give them each year for the military. That is a bigger risk than whether or not we are allowed bump stocks (or even guns at all).
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/17 10:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| And the "need" of protecting us from our government is dumb. The idea that guns at all could protect us from tanks, drones, and nukes is laughable. We need protection from one another more than we need it from our government. |
We've seen resistance work effectively against the US military, including tanks and drones, in places like Afghanistan with guerrillas substantially less well armed than the US public. |
Um, not really. Even with the logistics of fighting a guerrilla war in a foreign country with fairly strict rules of engagement, the fighters there would not be able to protect any citizenry from us. They can't really stop us, they can just try to make it annoying enough that we finally just give up. Plus, these fighters have access to actual military hardware like RPGs.
If the government turned into some oppressive force there is little we could do to fight back. I mean, if people are concerned with the government turning on them, I would be more concerned with the $700 billion we give them each year for the military. That is a bigger risk than whether or not we are allowed bump stocks (or even guns at all). |
RPGs are legal to own in the US. They are Title II Destructive Devices, which require registration and are heavily taxed. But if you want one, can afford one, and can pass the Title II background check, you can get one. I know some people who own RPGs.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
|
|
