Posted on 10/05/2017 12:30:31 PM PDT by heterosupremacist
One thing that I have always adored about Free republic is the vast quantity of thoughtful and informed analysis and information about a multiplicity of subjects. I am EXTREMELY disappointed about much of the bumpfire stock controversy. much of it sounds has though it was promulgated by the ignorant gun grabbing left.
I am a 2 tour Vietnam infantry combat veteran, and a member of the Illinois National guard for 26 years, to include service in iraq and the first Gulf War. I was a certified Police Firearms and Defensive tactics instructor, and a member of Special Reaction and SWAT teams. I have fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through automatic weapons of all types, belt fed and shoulder mounted, ranging from .45 caliber M-3 sub machine guns up to M2A1 40 mm twin anti-aircraft guns mounted on an M-42 self propelled anti-aircraft gun.
I am retired and spend one day a month on the rifle range shooting my AR-15 rifles. When this slide fire device was first introduced, the low cost and novelty intigued me and I purchased one. it was a bit awkward to use at first, but in one afternoon, after a bit of practice I was able to get 90% of any length burst on a man sized target at 75 yards, which is close to the normal engagement ranges for truly effective full auto fire from shoulder mounted weapons. It is not has useful has a true selective fire assault rifle since it requires two hands to employ, but it DOES have some measure of limited tactical utility for anyone who practices with it. I never really considered this item to be a true tactical instrument, but I did appreciate the ingenuity and thought that went into turning “bump fire’ into has accurate a technique has I could use with a select fire rifle.
The battle has been joined. the anti-gun hysterics are in full cry. They will never satisfied until they achieve near total confiscation. The genie is out of the bottle. You cannot stop this unless you can repeal the laws of Newtonian physics. I realize that some sort of regulation will ensue in the wake of this horrific atrocity. But i don’t like it one damn bit.
If they do this, then they should compromise by repealing the 1986 Hughes Act which caused the prices of full auto weapons to skyrocket. There is NO REASON for a legally transferable M-16 to cost over 50,000 dollars. You can be assured that any such owner will be thoroughly vetted by the background check that would be required to purchase one.
(s)BAN STRINGS!!!!....it is for the children.....(/s)
GOA has come out and rejected banning bump stocks. It does seem inevitable however.
...
I would trade bump stocks for the deregulation of silencers.
Yeah but saying the shooter used an Obama ATF approved device that the NRA finds problematic has a nice ring to it.
....and draining the swamp too?
I think calling them silencers works against deregulation of them. People should get into the habit of calling them suppressors.
The Rino’s are folding like cheap chairs and now the NRA has their back. Diving down the slippery slope.
Just who do they think their fooling.
I’ve heard the arguments on Bump Stock and it is all BS!
Agreed. I think the ATF calls them silencers. People in the know call them suppressors. Factually, they reduce the sound. Silence is an inaccurate term.
Even so, that wouldn’t have prevented Paddock from having one.
I can bump fire hipshoot my M1 carbine with my thumb through the belt loop of my trousers. Shall we regulate belt loops? Trousers?
Sure, no problem...
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
They’re also sort of self-regulating in that they tend to ruin many tifles that use them
I googled bump stocks, went to Google images, and the first thing I saw was a thing to click on for homemade bump stocks. I doubt this would be effective in that case because a criminal will either get one off the black market or make one. I think they will be banned, though.
The article is misquoting the NRA statement.
“National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices [bumpstocks] comply with federal law.”
Later in the statement:
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”
I may be misinterpreting their (NRA) statement, but they never equate bumpstocks with full auto function.
NRA was never a fan of them and its odd they got approved under Obama admin. It’s all but certain to be banned with that press release. It will be an easy win for congress-critters on both sides, they can say they got something done.
NRA was never a fan of them and its odd they got approved under Obama admin. It’s all but certain to be banned with that press release. It will be an easy win for congress-critters on both sides, they can say they got something done.
From what I’d read, the people selling them after Hiram Maxim brought them to market called them silencers as a selling point. To increase their appeal to buyers.
Selling life insurance, gold coins and Wayne La Pierre the Poodle's books?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.