This is the first argument for fighting bump stock regulation that I agree with. I would like to believe that if we allowed the regulation of bump stocks, that's where it would stop because (even though leftists would continue to push) conservatives would put their foot down and say, "that's enough." However, I suppose we've seen that isn't the case. I must say I agree with you. Now I suppose we'll have to wait and see if anyone with the power to dictate this sort of thing agrees with you.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here is the problem with the potential "bump fire" ban, IMHO. Others may disagree.
Bump firing is a technique, not a gun part. There are many, many, things that a person can use to facilitate the bump fire technique. Any investigation into a ban on one or two potential devices will quickly get to the discovery that you can't keep the technique from happening by banning a few after market gun parts. Rather, given the inate ability of a semi-auto rifle to be bump fired, the only way to effectively prohibit this evil technique is to ban semi-auto rifles completely. The Republicans and the NRA will likely get bothered enough at that point to push back against this new "bump fire" ban that effectively is AWB 2. A compromise might be to ban magazines that hold more than X rounds, and possibly limit the total number of magazines that one person can legally own at one time. The idea being that since there is no way to "ban" bump firing without banning semi-autos entirely, the rate of fire can be limited by making it necessary to frequently change magazines.
Once we open this Pandora's box, it ain't gonna stop at bump stocks.
Search found 1 match
Search found 1 match • Page 1 of 1
- Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:56 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban
- Replies: 12
- Views: 1340