The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3839
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#1

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:42 am

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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


cyphertext
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:31 am

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#2

Post by cyphertext » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:51 am

:iagree:

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2376
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#3

Post by Flightmare » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:04 am

Pelosi’s words, during a recent exchange with a reporter at a press conference on Capitol Hill about a proposed ban on bump stock gun add-ons: “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.”
https://www.usabreakingnews.net/2017/10 ... stock-ban/
Deplorable lunatic since 2016


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#4

Post by crazy2medic » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:20 am

My son can take my JRC carbine and bump fire it, no modifications, no special stock, it's just the way he holds it, he can dump 29rds out of it in a blink, so what or how do they propose to ban a technique?
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention


Topic author
Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3839
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#5

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:00 pm

crazy2medic wrote:My son can take my JRC carbine and bump fire it, no modifications, no special stock, it's just the way he holds it, he can dump 29rds out of it in a blink, so what or how do they propose to ban a technique?
It's the rate of fire they are worried about. And the only way to slow down his rate of fire is to limit mag capacity, or require that gun manufacturers modify their weapons to intentionally slow down the potential rate of fire somehow. Either that, or ban such guns entirely. This is precisely the type of logic path that Pelosi and her good friend Hillie will try to sieze upon once enough people are on record that no one needs a gun that is capable of firing "hundreds of rounds a minute".
Ding dong, the witch is dead


BBYC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#6

Post by BBYC » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:34 pm

The best way to slow down the rate of fire is banning civilian ownership of semiautomatic firrarms. A bolt action rifle is fast enough for hunting deer. Why does anybody need an AR15 any more than they need a bump fire device or a magazine that holds more than five rounds. You guys need to be willing to compromise on reasonable restrictions.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.


Topic author
Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3839
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#7

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:42 pm

BBYC wrote:The best way to slow down the rate of fire is banning civilian ownership of semiautomatic firrarms. A bolt action rifle is fast enough for hunting deer. Why does anybody need an AR15 any more than they need a bump fire device or a magazine that holds more than five rounds. You guys need to be willing to compromise on reasonable restrictions.
I'm assuming this post is intended to be sarcastic, but since you are new to the site, you might want to clarify that.

At any rate, this is exactly the type of argument that the gun grabbers will try to make.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


LTUME1978
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Alvin, TX

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#8

Post by LTUME1978 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:44 pm

BBYC - NO COMPROMISE! END OF DISCUSSION.

The Second Amendment was not put in place for hunting.


BBYC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#9

Post by BBYC » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:47 pm

Anybody willing to compromise on a bump fire ban should be willing to compromise on a semiautomatic ban and a five rounds limit. The arguments are the same.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.


parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#10

Post by parabelum » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:03 pm

The irony is that these bump-fire stocks were greenlighted under Obama's reign, and now that "we" have the control of both chambers plus the WH there's going to be a ban legislation on this. I would not be surprised to see an EA on this very shortly.

Yay! "We" won!!!!

Thank you NRA! Thank you Cornyn! Thank you Republicans!
Credendo Vides

User avatar

rbwhatever1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Paradise Texas

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#11

Post by rbwhatever1 » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:44 am

Banning this piece of plastic will surely put an end to all the actions of Evil. Just imagine. No more Evil on the planet from legislating away this one little piece of plastic. How about legislating away the morons in the Politburo Media and Washington...

SlideFire has temporarily stopped shipping their little piece of pricey plastic. While I personally think these devices are not accurate, a big waste of ammo and one can probably get off the same rate of fire more accurately by pulling the trigger without it, I have signed up to be notified if/when they start shipping them again. I'm going to buy 7 just because. I hope their sales go through the roof and they can all retire in 2 years. Nice stocking stuffer for my kids.
III


MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 534
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#12

Post by MaduroBU » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:04 am

The 3d printer is now part of the Axis of Evil. As is spelling.


imkopaka
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

#13

Post by imkopaka » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:56 am

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.
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. :banghead:
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”