should bump stock be regulated or banned?

[dilbert firestorm]

this is what a bump stock looks like.

this was the accessory that was found on 12 of the rifles used in the Las Vegas Massacre.

a point of note: Obama administration approved it for market sale as they determined that it was not a firearm.



should it be banned, regulated or left alone as it is not a firearm?

vote ends on 11-8-2017.

[IIFFOFRDB]

fuckem!

[bamscram]

They were designed for the handicapped, if you are handicapped then get one.

[Trey]

That handicap nonsense was lame cover. It's made for what it was used for. It worked pretty well one man kills or injured like 500.

They need to ban anything that allows more than one round to be fired with one pull of the trigger.

[dilbert firestorm]

I'm ok with it if they permitted a rifle with a 3 round burst.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by bamscram

They were designed for the handicapped, if you are handicapped then get one.

Bam. I've heard that said several times now, that they were designed for handicapped people.. HOW and why? What was their purpose when it comes to the handicapped?

[Guest123018-4]

Tough call for me as I believe the restrictions on fully automatic firearms is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It is a damn shame that the criminal element fucks it up for everybody with the assistance of the anit-gun nuts.

When it comes to bump stocks:
I personally do not own one and have no desire to own one. There is a reason the government made the M-16 and M-4 have only a 3 shot burst on auto.

[gnadfly]

The reason mainly for the 3 round burst is to keep folks from emptying their 20 round mags as quick. Last update from my vendor says my order is on hold because they can't get the bump fire stocks from slid fire.

[WTF]

No ban and start selling grenades and rocket launchers and SAMS.

Not sure why we can not buy any and all weapons if in fact the 2nd Amendment was to protect our self from an oppressive government. We will need all the arms we can get our hands on.



.

[Trey]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Tough call for me as I believe the restrictions on fully automatic firearms is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It is a damn shame that the criminal element fucks it up for everybody with the assistance of the anit-gun nuts.

When it comes to bump stocks:
I personally do not own one and have no desire to own one. There is a reason the government made the M-16 and M-4 have only a 3 shot burst on auto.

So whats the stopping point? Should i be able to freely buy a fully auto belt feed machine gun no restrictions? Can i go as far as a operating tank? Maybe you should think back to why they were made illegal in the first place.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The reason mainly for the 3 round burst is to keep folks from emptying their 20 round mags as quick. Last update from my vendor says my order is on hold because they can't get the bump fire stocks from slid fire.

the other part is better accuracy when firing 3 shots per trigger.

I'm reading that the military did away with the burst mode and went with FA. reasoning behind that it didn't help with ammo logistics and burst mode actually used up more ammo. the only group that made use of burst mode was spec ops in any significant use. they went with better training to using FA.

I don't know if that is true.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Trey

So whats the stopping point? Should i be able to freely buy a fully auto belt feed machine gun no restrictions? Can i go as far as a operating tank? Maybe you should think back to why they were made illegal in the first place.

there are people who own tanks.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

there are people who own tanks.

Now why did you go and tell him that?

He'll just start fretting over "anti-tank" weapons.

That'll be the next "roundup" after "bump stocks"!

[GlobeSpotter]

regulated at best....it's still your finger pulling the trigger for every shot.

suppressors should be lowered down the ladder.

too much hype about that. I'd like to shoot outdoors with my students without muffs.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Trey

So whats the stopping point? Should i be able to freely buy a fully auto belt feed machine gun no restrictions? Can i go as far as a operating tank? Maybe you should think back to why they were made illegal in the first place.

There are classifications of weapons by the Feds just like there are schedules of illegal drugs. You can actually own a fully automatic .50 cal "Ma Duce" and operate it. For some owning a M16 it takes a $200 tax stamp and passing an ATF interview. You can literally go to Vegas and shoot many rented automatic weapons legally. Same (generally) with tanks.

You know there's more on the internet than eccie, hookers and porn, right?

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the other part is better accuracy when firing 3 shots per trigger.

I'm reading that the military did away with the burst mode and went with FA. reasoning behind that it didn't help with ammo logistics and burst mode actually used up more ammo. the only group that made use of burst mode was spec ops in any significant use. they went with better training to using FA.

I don't know if that is true.

It's not. Part of it is psychological. No right thinking individual wants to go out into the line of fire if a machine gun sounds like a buzz saw for 30 seconds. An assault rifle emptying the mag means a soldier has to carry a lot more ammo. But who knows. I was reading an account of some soldiers in Iraq not having grenades issued and having to call in officers when one was needed.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

there are people who own tanks.

There are people who own tanks. There are people who own tanks with fully operating main guns and there are people who own tanks with fully operating main guns and proper ammunition.

All those people are called "rich."