I’ve been involved with weapons all my long life (1st .22 at 12 years old) and have been a licensed gun dealer and inventor. Clean record. I am OK with getting rid of “bump-stocks”. I never heard of them until Obama approved them as legal about 2015. Background checks? Sure, why not, just so they are fair and keep out criminals and crazies and aren’t used to arbitrarily keep the public unarmed. Twenty-one years old to buy a gun? No way!!! Old enough to go to war (18), is old enough for everything else.
Agreed on bump-stocks. Some people who really like them will disagree and feel betrayed, but maybe they should inspect these words closely.
Attention to good marksmanship is distracted for a person using one. They leave a little more chance for putting rounds over the backstop and a little more chance of a fumble. And from experience on Army ranges, they would be nearly always useless.
Real automatic fire isn’t much good except in extremely rare instances for very close range defense, when no innocent bystanders are present (firefights in very unusually heavy concealment like jungle—not our terrain, clearing, that is, exterminating rooms in urban warfare, etc.). It’s more often used by soldiers by accident than on purpose on ranges.
Automatic fire for those of us who’ve used it on ranges is really boring and most often not as effective. A soldier will most often use it in short bursts on a range, like using a shotgun (muzzle rise, scatter). Hitting silhouettes with semi-auto fire becomes more interesting and reallly quick.
To sum it up, bump-stocks are probably a pretty neat toy, momentarily, for those dying to experience auto fire. I would expect that excitement to fade quickly. They add a little more unnecessary danger to firing, and they’re useless for serious defense and even offense.
What’s next, fidget stocks, sending an AR spinning round and round real fast all by themselves, firing in all directions? Heh. Okay...hyperbole and slippery slope there. Anyway,..silly thought.
On background checks, too many people have been denied their Second Amendment right because of errors in the system with reasonable remedies unavailable. There’s no sure or efficient system for correcting a federal error involving firearms possession (good citizen put on no-fly list, veterans denied arbitrarily by clerks or psychs.,...). Some people have doubtless been made defenseless in dangerous situations, and such a systemic problem could be used to violate the rights of many.
Solution? Solve the problems with people using drugs or otherwise mentally impaired *locally*( (”incompetence”—goes way back). The *state and/or local governments* should take care of those problems while providing ways for any affected people to resume their rights after getting off the drug, getting mentally healthy or otherwise getting themselves clean.
Agreed on the age restriction. *No* age restriction against people who are 18-20 years old. First, they have the Second Amendment right. They have a right to defend themselves. There’s no sense in exposing them to thugs who know their age.
Violating any group’s Second Amendment right for the sake of compromise or social spite would be wrong. Violating it would turn yet another group against conservative political efforts in general.
What I was trying to say about bump-fire stocks, is that they are not a part of a “well regulated” American with respect to the Second Amendment. Equipment that is “well regulated” is more accurate and more effective at what it can be used for.
If our U.S. military forces’ heavy weapons somehow didn’t prevent a foreign invasion on our country, rest assured, that bump-fire stocks would be banned for those of us enlisting and taking orders (yes, from our government and some of our more experienced neighbors) to defend our country. We would not want to make the duty of our next General Washington more difficult than it would already inherently be (see couch potatoes, ragbags, blowhards punished,...).