Page 1 of 1

The problem with the potential "bump fire" ban

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:42 am
by Soccerdad1995
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.

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:51 am
by cyphertext
:iagree:

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:04 am
by Flightmare
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/

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:20 am
by crazy2medic
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?

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:00 pm
by Soccerdad1995
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".

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:34 pm
by BBYC
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.

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:42 pm
by Soccerdad1995
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.

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:44 pm
by LTUME1978
BBYC - NO COMPROMISE! END OF DISCUSSION.

The Second Amendment was not put in place for hunting.

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:47 pm
by BBYC
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.

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

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:03 pm
by parabelum
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!

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

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:44 am
by rbwhatever1
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.

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

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:04 am
by MaduroBU
The 3d printer is now part of the Axis of Evil. As is spelling.

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

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:56 am
by imkopaka
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: