• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Anyhow, we are not actually talking about a well armed militia in any of these discussions.
Seems to me that the precedent set over the last hundred or so years has rendered the militia part completely irrelevant.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
In all honestly, i think it would be faster and better in the long run to come up with another classification of firearms based upon rate of fire.
Call them "buzz guns" or something and declare all fire arms that fire more than say 20 rounds a minute are buzz guns, then regulation it as they see fit.
Tina was prophet.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
The case centered on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a U.S. Justice Department agency, interpreted a federal law called the National Firearms Act, which defined machine guns as weapons that can "automatically" fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger."​

"We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a 'machine gun' because it cannot fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger,'" Thomas wrote. "And, even if it could, it would not do so 'automatically.' ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as machine guns."​

 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
After prolonged fire. OK.

This is the duration of firing that a weapon could be expected to realistically withstand or output in a realistic environment. On paper, the M134 is capable of firing up to 6,000 rpm. Realistically, firing the weapon for a continuous sixty seconds would likely melt parts of the weapon.​
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Firearms are not all equal in use, function, and purpose.

I live out in the boonies and carry a Taurus Judge loaded with 410 rodent loads.
No way would I want to try to hit a snake with my Desert Eagle 50.
Nor are users, 12 ga rifled slug is about the max for the local "country" and even at that someone "sighting" before deer season put one through my front wall from the valley below.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
That sounds fair. Bolt action or pump action make excellent alternatives without compromising the right to keep and bear arms. I would however argue in such a deal, that licensing and background checks be eliminated.
Keep the background checks or at least a waiting period, too many guns get used because they are available to people who do not intend to use them for reasonable purposes. A certain amount of inconvenience like seat-belts can be good for us and our loved ones even if temporarily annoying.
Besides you can take it off if you really want to hit that bridge abutment or suicide out, a few days won't make much of a difference in the long run.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Keep the background checks or at least a waiting period, too many guns get used because they are available to people who do not intend to use them for reasonable purposes. A certain amount of inconvenience like seat-belts can be good for us and our loved ones even if temporarily annoying.
Besides you can take it off if you really want to hit that bridge abutment or suicide out, a few days won't make much of a difference in the long run.
I'm not against the standard three day waiting period.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Seems to me that the precedent set over the last hundred or so years has rendered the militia part completely irrelevant.
Ah yup, and so we need to rethink the whole thing.
Maybe we can be big boys and girls, but international politics still says we have a way to go.
Better to start though than never attempt.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I'm not against the standard three day waiting period.
this really isn't that hard if we can stop throwing rocks at each other and arguing over whether gun formats whose only real purpose is to kill many people at once are to be discouraged.
:)
I'll make a socialist libertarian of you yet. :);):(:mad::confused::cool::p:D:eek::oops::rolleyes:
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
You can increase rapidity of fire for the machine gun effect but try hitting a target with it. Heh.
The Las Vegas shooter didn't have a problem hitting 400+ targets with it. There's a reason the bump stock was used. Increase fire rate.
All you're doing is repeating a typical conservative talking point. It's obvious a skilled person can aim just fine with a bump stock
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The Las Vegas shooter didn't have a problem hitting 400+ targets with it. There's a reason the bump stock was used. Increase fire rate.
All you're doing is repeating a typical conservative talking point. It's obvious a skilled person can aim just fine with a bump stock
Bull****. Its an odds game with high fire rates and density. But I will grant a high fire rate increases the odds someone can be struck.

It's not skill as no one is accurate with high fire rates which is why all machine guns by professionals are shot in short burst increments.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Bull****. Its an odds game with high fire rates and density. But I will grant a high fire rate increases the odds someone can be struck.

It's not skill as no one is accurate with high fire rates which is why all machine guns by professionals are shot in short burst increments.
Just fine should be replaced with sufficiently and you would be in agreement in regards to the shooters calculations.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.

This is the duration of firing that a weapon could be expected to realistically withstand or output in a realistic environment. On paper, the M134 is capable of firing up to 6,000 rpm. Realistically, firing the weapon for a continuous sixty seconds would likely melt parts of the weapon.​
Yep. alright then. So don't fire it for sixty seconds straight to be safe.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Bull****. Its an odds game with high fire rates and density. But I will grant a high fire rate increases the odds someone can be struck.

It's not skill as no one is accurate with high fire rates which is why all machine guns by professionals are shot in short burst increments.
You're ignoring the fact that a rifle can shoot more rounds with a bump stock than without. Which is the point of putting on a bump stock.
A bump stock can kill more people quickly than without a bump stock.
This isn't an accuracy debate.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
You're ignoring the fact that a rifle can shoot more rounds with a bump stock than without. Which is the point of putting on a bump stock.
A bump stock can kill more people quickly than without a bump stock.
This isn't an accuracy debate.
Assembled crowds haven't been acceptable targets since the Viet Nam whatever they called it instead of war at least so ex military may be unfamiliar with the concept.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
this really isn't that hard if we can stop throwing rocks at each other and arguing over whether gun formats whose only real purpose is to kill many people at once are to be discouraged.
:)
I'll make a socialist libertarian of you yet. :);):(:mad::confused::cool::p:D:eek::oops::rolleyes:
Heh heh. On a mission then!

Honestly you may find I agree probably more than you think on some subjects.

I will always protect second amendment rights, but I also realize that the government has an obligation to ensure a safe environment for its citizens, so there is definitely wiggle room where one could compromise on the matter of firearms and mass shootings. It's something I would like to see both Republicans and Democrats shake hands on something that is firm but fair and subservient to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Democrats look to introduce legislation to ban bump stocks. I support this idea. These modifications have no purpose except as entertainment for shooters playing with guns, so they can have the sensation of what a machine gun can do without having one. The threat this stock has is not worth the entertainment value for the few people who will want to waste hundreds of dollars a minute to simulate a machine gun.


Machine guns were banned for open sale to the public in 1934 for a reason, and that is because they can spray many hundreds of bullets a minute in an indiscriminate way. The semi-auto versions of guns were, and are, still available to the public. The ban is certainly justified since ithe stock mimics what full auto guns do on a gun that is semi-auto. Machine guns were banned because of the high rate of fire, not because they had a certain design. These stocks allow a shooter to fire many hundreds of rounds again, which is why the full auto guns were banned in the first place. Semi-auto guns are still very deadly, but the slower rate of fire does allow many innocent people a little time to flee from a mass shooting event. How many lives have been saved due to the ban on machine guns over the decades?

A semi-auto shooter can fire about 80-120 rounds a minute, which a bump stock allows a shooter to fire 400-800 rounds a minute. In a crowded space the death toll could be significantly higher. It's true that magazines can't hold 400 rounds, so it's irrelevant. But there are magazines that hold 100 rounds, and using a full auto gun in a crowded space will catch victims off guard and the immediate kill rate will be significant, and limit how many can escape.

I assert that the governments we elect have an obligation to ensure the safety to the public. Does anyone have an argument why these stocks shouldn;t be banned, and they serve some benefit to society that offsets the threat to life and liberty?
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Democrats look to introduce legislation to ban bump stocks. I support this idea. These modifications have no purpose except as entertainment for shooters playing with guns, so they can have the sensation of what a machine gun can do without having one. The threat this stock has is not worth the entertainment value for the few people who will want to waste hundreds of dollars a minute to simulate a machine gun.


Machine guns were banned for open sale to the public in 1934 for a reason, and that is because they can spray many hundreds of bullets a minute in an indiscriminate way. The semi-auto versions of guns were, and are, still available to the public. The ban is certainly justified since ithe stock mimics what full auto guns do on a gun that is semi-auto. Machine guns were banned because of the high rate of fire, not because they had a certain design. These stocks allow a shooter to fire many hundreds of rounds again, which is why the full auto guns were banned in the first place. Semi-auto guns are still very deadly, but the slower rate of fire does allow many innocent people a little time to flee from a mass shooting event. How many lives have been saved due to the ban on machine guns over the decades?

A semi-auto shooter can fire about 80-120 rounds a minute, which a bump stock allows a shooter to fire 400-800 rounds a minute. In a crowded space the death toll could be significantly higher. It's true that magazines can't hold 400 rounds, so it's irrelevant. But there are magazines that hold 100 rounds, and using a full auto gun in a crowded space will catch victims off guard and the immediate kill rate will be significant, and limit how many can escape.

I assert that the governments we elect have an obligation to ensure the safety to the public. Does anyone have an argument why these stocks shouldn;t be banned, and they serve some benefit to society that offsets the threat to life and liberty?
At the very least, it is worth the attempt to see who will stop it.

On another note, it has already been done and would sell better apparently if it wasn't semi-auto.
belt-fed-ar-uppers-not-being-in-the-new-product-vote-made-v0-ha2bz3fw17kc1.jpeg


And the belt 1600 rounds for only 1595$
SAW-M855-WW-MARKED.jpg
 
Top