Hoss said:

---

The biggest issue I have with this is that it could be a slippery slope. Other than the "fun factor" I can't think of a good reason for anyone to need to shoot full auto. Unless you're laying down cover fire or shooting into a large crowd of people or animals, it's wasteful, ineffective and in many cases even dangerous. I'm okay with the fact that you can't just go buy a full auto gun off the shelf.

---

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that shooting people is bad. Whether it be with full auto, semi, pump, or bolt.

ETA: it's a slippery slope I agree but I don't want to give an inch to these people.

powerbelly said:

---

I need to see the actual text of the memo, but I worry this will lead to unintended consequences.

---

memo

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/

My tools can turn a gun into a machine-gun. Guess those are about to be banned

Cen-Tex said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

I need to see the actual text of the memo, but I worry this will lead to unintended consequences.

---

memo

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/

---

Way too broad. Not surprised, but definitely not good.

I'll trade bump stocks for SBRs and suppressors.

Meaux92 said:

---

I'll trade bump stocks for SBRs and suppressors.

---

Unfortunately the GOP would never have the balls to make that trade.

We always give and never get.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

I'm kinda pissed that a republican president has suggested this ***** This is not ok.

---

Ah, c'mon, you all knew Trump is not a republican.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

But if at the end of the day, both vehicles did the same job, did it really matter?

---

So if you go out and pick up a dude cause you wanna explore the other side and you get donked, only it turns out to be a chick with a strap-on, it doesn't matter, right? She got the job done.

I'll let you guys keep arguing if you want. At the end of the day the rate of fire is what matters here. We had a great thread regarding the "gun show loophole" and how it wasn't a loophole and legal. The reality is bump stocks were specifically designed to circumvent the machine gun laws through creative technicality to achieve a high rate of fire on par with a class III weapon.

I've made it pretty clear where I stand on things politically and I won't support a ban on these either on principle unless it's an actual compromise and we get something in return. However, part of me is frustrated that we've allowed ourselves to be in this position. We often say the right things like expecting Aggies or other organizations police themselves, but we failed to do so here. Yah, it's cool and by technicality legal, but this is just one more thing we've allowed to be used against us for more gun control and that's frustrating. Just because they haven't figured out binary triggers doesn't mean that won't be next.

AgLA06 said:

---

I'll let you guys keep arguing if you want. At the end of the day the rate of fire is what matters here. We had a great thread regarding the "gun show loophole" and how it wasn't a loophole and legal. The reality is bump stocks were specifically designed to circumvent the machine gun laws through creative technicality to achieve a high rate of fire on par with a class III weapon.

---

I get what you are saying, but an AR with a bump stock is harder to manage and aim than an automatic AR. Like yourself, I've never had any desire to own a bump stock. However, I have a difficult time saying they are essentially the same as an automatic rifle.

I think Aggies do a good job of policing themselves. I haven't seen an article about them running out a killing a bunch of people.

Rexter said:

---

I think Aggies do a good job of policing themselves. I haven't seen an article about them running out a killing a bunch of people.

---

"Aggies" was an example. Just like Republicans or NRA members. Then again I didn't say anything about killing either or try to make an emotional argument.

AgLA06 said:

---

Yah, it's cool and by technicality legal, but this is just one more thing we've allowed to be used against us for more gun control and that's frustrating. Just because they haven't figured out binary triggers doesn't mean that won't be next.

---

WTF does this even mean?

Are you implying that because some deranged lunatic used a particular form or weapon to kill, that it is somehow "our" fault and we "let" him go off the reservation? Eff that thinking, it is just stupid.

Just like the mentality that we must grovel at the feer of libs so they will continue to let us have guns. It is a ****ty mentality based in zero fact.

This is one reason why i have entrenched myself firmly in the "F any compromise or give,in" camp.

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Yah, it's cool and by technicality legal, but this is just one more thing we've allowed to be used against us for more gun control and that's frustrating. Just because they haven't figured out binary triggers doesn't mean that won't be next.

---

WTF does this even mean?

Are you implying that because some deranged lunatic used a particular form or weapon to kill, that it is somehow "our" fault and we "let" him go off the reservation? Eff that thinking, it is just stupid.

Just like the mentality that we must grovel at the feer of libs so they will continue to let us have guns. It is a ****ty mentality based in zero fact.

This is one reason why i have entrenched myself firmly in the "F any compromise or give,in" camp.

---

This, any compromise I'd accept would net way more rights back than given away, so libs will never go for it. Therefore, I'm not going to give an inch. **** the gun grabbers and the horse they rode in on. No way would I ever support a hand over of rights like was just proposed. Gun grabbers are the enemy of America.

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Yah, it's cool and by technicality legal, but this is just one more thing we've allowed to be used against us for more gun control and that's frustrating. Just because they haven't figured out binary triggers doesn't mean that won't be next.

---

WTF does this even mean?

---

Take a breath. You're going to stroke out one of these days jumping to conclusions. Next time, try stopping here and I'll elaborate if you aren't sure.

I said that I feel we (responsible gun owners) partially have ourselves to blame (on these suggested regulations) for not policing things like bump stocks and binary triggers. Their entire purpose is bypass the current machine gun laws by technicality. We've given the left easy targets to continue to sway the middle against us. That's it.

So, if I understand you correctly, we should do away with a legal item because someone used it to commit murder. Applying that logic, why isn't Koolaid banned? Jim Jones used it to kill 900 plus people. He talked them into it. You can't say it was all self-induced because the kids that were there probably didn't know better.

That logic also applies to knives, hammers, etc.
"Getting around" the law doesn't apply, since bump stocks and binary triggers are legal.

Rexter said:

---

So, if I understand you correctly, we should do away with a legal item because someone used it to commit murder. Applying that logic, why isn't Koolaid banned? Jim Jones used it to kill 900 plus people. He talked them into it. You can't say it was all self-induced because the kids that were there probably didn't know better.

That logic also applies to knives, hammers, etc.
"Getting around" the law doesn't apply, since bump stocks and binary triggers are legal.

---

I'll say this to you one last time. My comment has nothing to do with killing or any mass murders (as I already said once). I am saying we have given the left another opportunity to attack us as gun owners because we have supported products that specifically circumvent current laws.

Ok. Almost every motor vehicle sold circumvents the maximum speed limit in the US. What should be done there.

Rexter said:

---

Ok. Almost every motor vehicle sold circumvents the maximum speed limit in the US. What should be done there.

---

Not going to respond because this has nothing to do with my comment.

AgLA06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Yah, it's cool and by technicality legal, but this is just one more thing we've allowed to be used against us for more gun control and that's frustrating. Just because they haven't figured out binary triggers doesn't mean that won't be next.

---

WTF does this even mean?

---

Take a breath. You're going to stroke out one of these days jumping to conclusions. Next time, try stopping here and I'll elaborate if you aren't sure.

I said that I feel we (responsible gun owners) partially have ourselves to blame (on these suggested regulations) for not policing things like bump stocks and binary triggers. Their entire purpose is bypass the current machine gun laws by technicality. We've given the left easy targets to continue to sway the middle against us. That's it.

---

I take plenty of breaths and am nowhere close to stroking out, tha ks for the concern though. It is nice to know you care.

Again, you are literally blaming the entire spectrum of gun owners because an infinitesmally small percentage choose to use one object or another for nefarious purposes.

So i ask you this- how exactly are "we" supposed to police each and every individual? That is just a silly statement and mentality.

"We" have no method to police every individual, if you do, by all means educate me as I am all ears.

You can debate the merits of bump stock or binary triggers all you want, but as pointed out - they are within the confines of established regulation and thus are perfectly legal. They exist soley because of, in my opinion, stupid regulation. If the regs were different, they might not exist or would exist in a different form. That has always been the case, it will always be the case. Where a vacuum exists, invention will fill the void.

So no, i did not jump to conclusion because you doubled down on your statement - and I vehemently disagree with that mentality. The left does not grant us our rights, they never have and never will. Taking the mentality that we must appease them or that when one person breaks a law that all of us have collectively failed to police ourselves and given them ammo is, frankly, flat wrong. I call a spade a spade, and in this case - that mentality is decidedly a spade.

That circumventing the law line is BS. It is either law, or it aint. Libs are mad because people found a way to obtain a faster fire rate legally, and despite thousands to hundreds of thousands of these devices available (bump stocks and trigger cranks and binary triggers) incredibly few have been used in crime. When people realize these tools arent actually the boogie men, just like with tannerite and suppressors, government lovers fear their half baked laws on guns may be repealed or modified to allow less gun restrictions.... and they throw their righteous fit for all to see.

BreNayPop said:

---

That circumventing the law line is BS. It is either law, or it aint. Libs are mad because people found a way to obtain a faster fire rate legally, and despite thousands to hundreds of thousands of these devices available (bump stocks and trigger cranks and binary triggers) incredibly few have been used in crime. When people realize these tools arent actually the boogie men, just like with tannerite and suppressors, government lovers fear their half baked laws on guns may be repealed or modified to allow less gun restrictions.... and they throw their righteous fit for all to see.

---

I never said guns nor any tool or instrument was the cause of any of this. You guys keep trying to defend your stance in relation to shooting and mass outrage. That has nothing to do with my comment.

We supported these intelligent designs that got us around laws or closer to the illegal things we want. Why? Because we don't believe the laws are legitimate (because they generally don't make sense). Instead of doing something about the laws, we just gave them something else to outlaw. It's why we're going to lose the long game. We're not committed as a lobby the way the left is. Until we figure that out we'll keep wasting our efforts on short term work arounds and gimmicks while they continue to play the long game.

Don't give an inch / dig in your heels sounds great, but we're most likely going to see it proven once again that we aren't in the congress or the senate and it ultimately is saber rattling that continues to screw us.

I'm sure the same crew will try to twist this into whatever they want to argue and ignore what I'm saying once again. That won't change that the left is more committed to taking our guns than we are as a group to educate the masses, change things for the better, and ultimately champion the 2nd amendment in a way that actually works.

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Yah, it's cool and by technicality legal, but this is just one more thing we've allowed to be used against us for more gun control and that's frustrating. Just because they haven't figured out binary triggers doesn't mean that won't be next.

---

WTF does this even mean?

---

Take a breath. You're going to stroke out one of these days jumping to conclusions. Next time, try stopping here and I'll elaborate if you aren't sure.

I said that I feel we (responsible gun owners) partially have ourselves to blame (on these suggested regulations) for not policing things like bump stocks and binary triggers. Their entire purpose is bypass the current machine gun laws by technicality. We've given the left easy targets to continue to sway the middle against us. That's it.

---

I take plenty of breaths and am nowhere close to stroking out, tha ks for the concern though. It is nice to know you care.

Again, you are literally blaming the entire spectrum of gun owners because an infinitesmally small percentage choose to use one object or another for nefarious purposes.

So i ask you this- how exactly are "we" supposed to police each and every individual? That is just a silly statement and mentality.

"We" have no method to police every individual, if you do, by all means educate me as I am all ears.

You can debate the merits of bump stock or binary triggers all you want, but as pointed out - they are within the confines of established regulation and thus are perfectly legal. They exist soley because of, in my opinion, stupid regulation. If the regs were different, they might not exist or would exist in a different form. That has always been the case, it will always be the case. Where a vacuum exists, invention will fill the void.

So no, i did not jump to conclusion because you doubled down on your statement - and I vehemently disagree with that mentality. The left does not grant us our rights, they never have and never will. Taking the mentality that we must appease them or that when one person breaks a law that all of us have collectively failed to police ourselves and given them ammo is, frankly, flat wrong. I call a spade a spade, and in this case - that mentality is decidedly a spade.

---

Lot's of words that have nothing to do with what I said. Not once have I said anything about reacting to any broken laws or murders that have taken place. Try to focus and stop worrying about polishing your soap box.

You and Rexter's response have been perfect examples. You're too busy trying to prove me wrong even though I agree with your goal. Wake up. What you feel the left should or shouldn't grant is irrelevant in this conversation. This isn't philosophy, this is reality. What matters is while you try to puff your chest, they're once again going to pull in one direction to outlaw one more thing. Rinse repeat. Grandstanding isn't going to change that, but your will to argue and divide your own party definitely will.

If i am so wrong (i am not, read your own words), please correct me.

Because 2x you have said that "we failed to police our own" (or thereabouts) amd 2x you have said we have done nothing but given the left ammo to use gainst us.

Both are patently false, and both are a very i,correct mentality.

So please, educate me as apparently i am incapable of reading your words. Twice.

BreNayPop said:

---

That circumventing the law line is BS. It is either law, or it aint. Libs are mad because people found a way to obtain a faster fire rate legally, and despite thousands to hundreds of thousands of these devices available (bump stocks and trigger cranks and binary triggers) incredibly few have been used in crime. When people realize these tools arent actually the boogie men, just like with tannerite and suppressors, government lovers fear their half baked laws on guns may be repealed or modified to allow less gun restrictions.... and they throw their righteous fit for all to see.

---

Come on now, you know exactly what he means, the bump stock exists because it attempts to imitate a fully automatic rifle. You can't say "that's BS because it's legal" and then throw a fit about people wanting to ban it, it has to be legal before it can be banned.

If you just don't want it banned because you don't believe in any form of gun control, that's fine, but trying to argue that the purpose of the bump stock is not to essentially get around the automatic weapons ban is just stupid.

Some good points here:


What Conservatives Get Right About Guns

https://www.gq.com/story/what-conservatives-get-right-about-guns/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Quote:
When I actually dug into the data, I was shocked by how little evidence there was behind some of the most prominent gun control policies. Here are some basic facts that gun rights advocates already knowand that liberals who want to reduce gun violence need to understand.

Other than Las Vegas, have these been used in any other shooting?

*I have serious questions about what really happened in Vegas, but that's another topic.

DatTallArchitect said:

---

Other than Las Vegas, have these been used in any other shooting?

*I have serious questions about what really happened in Vegas, but that's another topic.

---

You and me both. And what really happened at Sandy Hook, while we're at it.

Average Joe said:

---

I'll give them bump stocks and cranks if they take SBRs and suppressors off the NFA.

---

This is effective politics.

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

What other gun laws could we compromise on? As in what would you guys like repealed that are on the books? I see nfa items and I'd kinda like to not have to **** with chl licenses but here in texas, we are seem to be pretty unrestricted. I can't think of any restrictions aside from nfa ****, licencing a d background checks. Prpbably a lot I'm not aware of since I don't utilize them.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't think of a good reason for anyone to need to shoot full auto. Unless you're laying down cover fire or shooting into a large crowd of people or animals, it's wasteful, ineffective and in many cases even dangerous. I'm okay with the fact that you can't just go buy a full auto gun off the shelf.

---

I can't think of any good reason to buy a 6.5CM or .300 BLK and think it fills a niche and problem that doesn't exist. I also think that having my AR15 is largely a giant waste of money and resources that produces no useful advantage over any other weapon I own. I think bump stocks are ******ed and a great way to burn up a lot of ammo and do it without any accuracy. And I think YOU are completely wrong. I am NOT ok with not being able to own fully auto weapons. I am not OK with knowing my government has better weapons availability than I do. And I think that if you want to own AR15's and take out a second mortgage to do it AND have multiple weapons in the calibers I listed above, then you, by all means, should be able to do exactly that. I also think you should be able to waste your money and ammo with a bump stock.

My opinion of what YOU can do is of zero consequence to anyone else. You are missing the entire point here.

We should not, under any circumstances, support or generate legislation 'just to appease'. We are readily admitting we will give up rights for no other reason than to make someone else feel better.

Thats not cool.

---

Speaking of missing the point, you took a portion of what I said...quoted it out of context...and completely ignored the actual "point" of my post.

If you'll actually go read what I said, you'll see that I don't support this legistration either.

They're so amped up to defend the 2nd amendment, they aren't even reading the post before crafting their next great proclamation.

Have a conversation about what's actually said? Nah. I'm here to argue even if we're on the same side. Genius.

1939 said:

---

BreNayPop said:

---

That circumventing the law line is BS. It is either law, or it aint. Libs are mad because people found a way to obtain a faster fire rate legally, and despite thousands to hundreds of thousands of these devices available (bump stocks and trigger cranks and binary triggers) incredibly few have been used in crime. When people realize these tools arent actually the boogie men, just like with tannerite and suppressors, government lovers fear their half baked laws on guns may be repealed or modified to allow less gun restrictions.... and they throw their righteous fit for all to see.

---

Come on now, you know exactly what he means, the bump stock exists because it attempts to imitate a fully automatic rifle. You can't say "that's BS because it's legal" and then throw a fit about people wanting to ban it, it has to be legal before it can be banned.

If you just don't want it banned because you don't believe in any form of gun control, that's fine, but trying to argue that the purpose of the bump stock is not to essentially get around the automatic weapons ban is just stupid.

---

The very existence of bump stocks is an issue that was created by pro gun control Democrats. If they had not used very questionable tactics to pass the Hughes Amendment banning the transfer of new FA firearms after 1986, there would be no reason for bump stocks, trigger cranks, etc. to exist. The Hughes Amendment caused prices for transferable machine guns to skyrocket to the point that the average firearms owner can't afford them. Without the Hughes Amendment, people who wanted FA firearms would be able buy actual FA firearms at a reasonable price, and those people would be subjected to the increased scrutiny of an NFA background check. Instead, the average person who wants to experience something like FA fire buys a bump stock, which has no background check whatsoever.

In my opinion, the logical political compromise would be to add bump stocks to the NFA while repealing the Hughes Amendment. This would ensure that FA (and simulated FA) firearms purchases receive the increased scrutiny of the NFA purchasing process, while ending the ridiculous and Unconstitutional infringement of the Hughes Amendment.

As for the validity of the rest of the NFA (supressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc.), it really isn't germane to this specific discussion. Personally, I'd like to see supressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs removed from the NFA registry completely and regulated like normal firearms (4473 to purchase). I can accept DD's and explosives staying on the NFA list, provided that manufacture isn't banned.

BreNayPop said:

---

Hey lib, go back to pol where your ilk belongs. You are correct in that something needs to be legal before it can be banned. Incorrect in that it 'immitates full auto', one trigger pull is still one bullet out the barrel. It is a high rate of firing that you want banned. How fast is to fast? Gonna ban jerry miculecs (sp?) Fingers next? There are thousands of 'full auto immitators' out there that cause no harm. If you limit round rate per minute with this tragedy , then the next psycho who shoots some school up maybe you can dance on those dead bodies to limit mag size...

---

Mature. Perfect example as to why we push those in the middle away that we should instead be influencing.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone say anything should be banned. We're discussing them on their merit. Name calling doesn't prove your point.