Slide Fire Panic Buying Has Begun

[Telum Pisces]

If bannning bumpfire stocks pacifies the anti gun crowd fine. It's a novelty item to most anyway.

... (I) should have the freedom to own whatever semi auto legal example I'd like.

.....

I didn't spend over a decade using the finest small arms my country offers against the enemies of my country tour after tour so some politicians that never served can dictate what I should own.

Umm, you can't have your cake and eat it too! The whole point is to not give one inch. Because they will eventually take more and more! You can't in one sentence say you're willing to give up this and that and then say you should be able to own what ever you want in the next sentence.

Firearms are a tool. Nothing more and nothing less! Politicians should not be able to tell me which tools I can and can't own!

 

[Ross7]

I saw a reporter on HLN today (yes HLN, I was at a friend's house) who was talking about the bump fire and referred to this picture and said "there on the floor by the column you can see the bump fire stocks neatly stacked". Idiot.

 

[Red]

Umm, you can't have your cake and eat it too! The whole point is to not give one inch. Because they will eventually take more and more! You can't in one sentence say you're willing to give up this and that and then say you should be able to own what ever you want in the next sentence.

Firearms are a tool. Nothing more and nothing less! Politicians should not be able to tell me which tools I can and can't own!

Umm, yeah its politics. And to have successful responsive legislation that achieves goals on both sides of the aisle cause Its not just guys like us that enjoy guns and know how to use them, there are those that hate guns and would want to see them all gone. So yeah sometimes you have to give a bit.

Have we given in a lot already? Oh hell yes we have, but we all know that we will create a an even bigger bipartisan divide. As much as the majority of us are responsible gun owners and should have not have the legal crap to go thru to get a suppressor or a full auto firearm, us trying to convince them of that fact is like repeatedly banging your head on a brick wall.

They say they want better background checks. Umm ok well we have those already so what else do they want going into them? Screening for mental illness? Ok makes sense right? You don't want the guy with a make believe friend whispering in his ear to buy a gun probably. At the same time where is the line drawn? Like you said you can't have your cake and eat it too. Supposedly 3/4 of combat veterans have "PTSD" of some sort. That being said, are we going to prohibit those that have served our country from owning firearms? You can argue that the main symptoms of hyper vigilance, hyper aggressiveness, blackouts etc, would be a pretty good reason to not let someone own a gun right? I may get hated on but I have known guys that have real PTSD and seen the fakers and it's always the fakers that tell you within the first 2 min of meeting them that they have PTSD or were a Navy Seal. Point is where is the line drawn. What illnesses can be a dis qualifier for gun ownership?

CCW I feel this is a federal issue and every citizen has the right to protect themselves. At the same time I believe in proper training of not only the firearm but applicable laws concerning the use of force. You are no longer allowed to be a tuff guy when you carry. No longer allowed to flip that guy off that cuts you off. Why? cause though you might not be at fault of the slight, you are escalating a situation that could potentially force you to engage and kill a fellow citizen. That doesn't make you a competent gun owner, it makes you a shit talking murderer. Just my opinion of course.

I'm ranting like usual but to get to the original point. Politics will always be a give and take. Yes they have taken a lot more and we have conceded a lot more than they have, but if we can get some stuff back and give up some others that just make sense then hey that is politics. Lets get rid of 922r and we will give you bump stocks. Simple stuff like that man. Picking your battles and intelligent debate makes for positive change for both parties. Digging in heals on both sides and refusing to compromise an inch does nothing to bridge the divide.

 

[Zeroed in]

I saw a reporter on HLN today (yes HLN, I was at a friend's house) who was talking about the bump fire and referred to this picture and said "there on the floor by the column you can see the bump fire stocks neatly stacked". Idiot.

That had to been the Hillary's Lying Network (HLN) news channel. :crazy:

 

[JohnAL]

Research Universal Background Checks. Included is registration and banning private sales.

 

[fl57caveman]

Fl. Senator Bill Nelson said he "will be sponsoring legislation that would Outlaw the device".

bill nelson would ban grandma's if he could get some serious votes out of it...

 

[FLT]

Bill Nelsons mind is still in outer space .

 

[shadeogray]

But you don't need a bump stock to get it to fire like that... When people figure that out who spent 500.00 on a 99.00 hunk of crap, there are gunna be some pissed off people

 

[JohnAL]

How about a Garand

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo

 

[shadeogray]

LOL
Wow

 

[wildrider666]

I don't have or want a bump/slide fire stock (BF). However, we must not throw it under the bus because of the further restrictions that can be based on what it does (Legally). Open the door and you have no idea what else gets dragged in.

Lets guestimate BF rate of fire is 600 RPM compaired to avg user unassisted at 300 RPM. If it becoms a Destructive Device; a avg user/firearm is then "half as destructive" and that clearly leaves a correlation to also ban the other lesser but still destructive devices. Further, the BF or lesser destructive devices could not have reached a destructive level pushing changes the Laws without large capacity feeding devices. Same as above: 60 round and larger magazines directly contribute to the destructive devices sustained rate of fire. Magazines below 59 rds are subject to lower rates of sustained fire but are still destructive with a diminished capacity. Since the common denominator between them is the firearm: it alone is a destructive device regardless of magazine capacity. Now ban them all.

Don't forget how the process works, all they need is a go ahead for a Committee! They wil the work the assigned issue Maybe BF Stocks but the will turn it into a gun gabbers utopia dream list of bans, restrictions registrations, universal background checks, et al. They may even sell it with "Grandfather Provisions" but we saw in CAs Grandfather of large capacity mags was later rescinded and CA residents have to get rid of them! They will use the recent bloodshed as a club to publically bash opposion. Anything that get cut in Committee will resurface in the House or Senate as ammendments or Riders. Same blood bath politics will be used.

Don't give a damn inch, you will loose much more then you gave!!!!

We saw this before and it will come again soon. And you can bet the bank their will not be a Sunset provision either.

 

[flyandscuba]

Tannerite will be targeted for ban as well. The only problem - you can make it yourself.

The lame stream news and the LVPD is calling it an "explosive" rather than a binary reactive target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TURTLE]

I bet they will be banned or will require a fm4 within the year, but realistically within 6 months.

From the first time I ever saw a video of a guy shooting one I knew it had a very short lifespan. Too be honest unless you have a ton of property and money to burn on ammo and parts you break on weapons designed to fire at a much slower rate it's useless! And yes, IMO it's easy enough to bumpfire without one. I was doing it as a kid with a 10/22 long before the stock came out.

 

[TURTLE]

I don't have or want a bump/slide fire stock (BF). However, we must not throw it under the bus because of the further restrictions that can be based on what it does (Legally). Open the door and you have no idea what else gets dragged in.

Lets guestimate BF rate of fire is 600 RPM compaired to avg user unassisted at 300 RPM. If it becoms a Destructive Device; a avg user/firearm is then "half as destructive" and that clearly leaves a correlation to also ban the other lesser but still destructive devices. Further, the BF or lesser destructive devices could not have reached a destructive level pushing changes the Laws without large capacity feeding devices. Same as above: 60 round and larger magazines directly contribute to the destructive devices sustained rate of fire. Magazines below 59 rds are subject to lower rates of sustained fire but are still destructive with a diminished capacity. Since the common denominator between them is the firearm: it alone is a destructive device regardless of magazine capacity. Now ban them all.

Don't forget how the process works, all they need is a go ahead for a Committee! They wil the work the assigned issue Maybe BF Stocks but the will turn it into a gun gabbers utopia dream list of bans, restrictions registrations, universal background checks, et al. They may even sell it with "Grandfather Provisions" but we saw in CAs Grandfather of large capacity mags was later rescinded and CA residents have to get rid of them! They will use the recent bloodshed as a club to publically bash opposion. Anything that get cut in Committee will resurface in the House or Senate as ammendments or Riders. Same blood bath politics will be used.

Don't give a damn inch, you will loose much more then you gave!!!!

We saw this before and it will come again soon. And you can bet the bank their will not be a Sunset provision either.

I agree 100% Most people out there think that a bill is about one specific topic, ban, or whatever. NOT true. If you look at the ACA, there is stuff in there about taxes you pay when you sell a house! These Greasy Congress people are always making back door deals and saying stuff like " I'll get behind your bill if you throw this in on the back" BS!!!!

 

[Telum Pisces]

NRA has come out to say that bump fire stocks should be reviewed again for legality!!!!

Wow!!!!

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[wildrider666]

NRA is giving the politicians they donated to some wiggle room. The NRA does not want to be on the wrong side of the final outcome and as they have done in the recent past by issuing no comment responses. Clearly the response should be "Every commercial product can be abused through improper or criminal acts." For the NRA to say "BFSs should be reviewed again for legality" they are making a major shift from user criminal accountability to assigning responsibility to the object! It was a very dangerous statement and those same implications can be leveled at a AR, Shockwave style 12ga firearms, or whatever is used to commit the next major firearms attack.

What if the result is a change to the definition of machinegun to kill the BFS and it reads: Any type of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, firearm) that with or without accessories (includung all types of ammo feeding devices) is capable of firing more then 11 consecutive cartridges. ?

In real world terms a firearms cyclic rate of fire of 800 RPM can't be acheived without belt feed. But it can ba slowed down significantly with low capacity magazines. BFS is the horse gun-grabbers will ride to the table, it will turn into a stampede demanding everything they ever wanted. Of course there will be compromise and they will get much more then just killing the BFS.

 

[flyandscuba]

It will be funny as hell if the ATF technical branch comes back and states that they are completely legal - because it is one shot for one trigger pull...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Telum Pisces]

It will be funny as hell if the ATF technical branch comes back and states that they are completely legal - because it is one shot for one trigger pull...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The way the law is written and the way the regulations are written, that is why it is legal. If they try to make this illegal, you are going to open up pandora's box when it comes to making accessories and add ons to firearms that somehow change the look and function beyond what is coded in law.

 

[donr101395]

It will be funny as hell if the ATF technical branch comes back and states that they are completely legal - because it is one shot for one trigger pull...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without changing the legal definition I don't see how they could come to a different conclusion. The NRA can pound sand with that amateur play they just made.

 

[JohnAL]

better sell them while you can.
This is a sold item on Gunbroker.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/705047603

quite a few are bringing $700-$800.