Not A Bump Stock

That made me chuckle, thanks for sharing

It seems like people just don't get it.

The AR pictured is capable of having a bump stock installed. That stock is considered a machinegun conversion since it lets you fire rapidly. This device also lets you fire rapidly, so it is a bump stock and machinegun conversion. Since it can be readily installed without modification, the standard AR lower assembly is considered readily convertible to automatic fire, amd t herefore a machinegun.

I doubt the stock will be treated a standalone conversion device like a DIAS, since it does not bypass the fire control group. It does not interact with the FCG, so it cannot be an autosear, either. Countless other devices can effect the same result, so the base device has to be regulated to prevent conversion (they didn't regulate the paperclips used to convert open-bolt semis, they bannes the open bolt semis). The AR15 itself will have to be ruled a machinegun.

I know what you're asking yourselves; does the Supreme Court have 5 pro-gun votes, or 4? So ask yourselves, do we feel lucky, punks?

The pictured device (an unlocked M4-type collapsible stock in combination with a trigger-finger rest) is a bump stock, although a really cheap and basic one. This won't get you off the hook if bump stocks are declared contraband machine guns.

Honestly, all these doo-hickeys do more harm than good.

Machine guns were outlawed decades ago. Either fight to make them legal again, or don’t. But any “clever” borderline legal device that makes a semi-auto mimic full auto, while full autos are illegal under most conditions, will only, inevitably, create a huge backlash and result in more regulation. All that for zero practical benefit for 99.999% of firearms enthusiasts.

They aren't clever, they are novel. As in, 'novel inventions.' Thumbhole stocks were a perfectly legal workaround to pistol grips in ban states, so they banned thumbhole stocks. Those goofy blade thingies were developed as a response to the ban on thumbholes.

Did these alternate stock options that allow people to retain ownership & use of their AR & AK pattern guns "do more harm than good?" If Californians had abandoned "assault style" guns based on the AR or AK entirely & gone to ground with bolt actions, would the march of restrictions ended? Would it have even mattered if it had ended?

Or did they illustrate just how arbitrary and ill-conceived the good intentions of anti gun politicians are? What about 80% gun builds that allow people to build non-rifle-non-pistols and skirt more shoddy restrictions? They get more ARs in the hands of people, who are naturally gonna be irritated at being so limited & desire an end to restrictions, so how can they "do more harm than good?"

Or is it just because bump fire stocks shoot "too quickly?" That's why machine guns were banned, after all. If so, make sure you realize that ALL semi-autos shoot "too quickly" for people working to have bump stocks banned, because ALL semi-auto designs can be bump fired even without a stock. ALL high capacity magazines can shoot "too quickly" for people working to have bump stocks banned, since they are the reason bump stocks are able to shoot significant strings of shots.

Don't tell the antis, but an AR-15 is more effective without a bump stock than with one.

A bumpfire stock does NOT make a semi-auto a full-auto. Ruling by the BATF over 10 years ago. Nothing "borderline" either. A clear statement from the government authority that these stocks are perfectly legal accessories, nothing else.

The "zero practical benefit" is the typical "argument" of the left wing anti-gunners that has less than zero value. Just because it has no benefit to a certain group does not mean that it has no value for the rest of the world.

Wanderling said:

Honestly, all these doo-hickeys do more harm than good.

Machine guns were outlawed decades ago. Either fight to make them legal again, or don’t. But any “clever” borderline legal device that makes a semi-auto mimic full auto, while full autos are illegal under most conditions, will only, inevitably, create a huge backlash and result in more regulation. All that for zero practical benefit for 99.999% of firearms enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

AlexanderA said:

Don't tell the antis, but an AR-15 is more effective without a bump stock than with one.

Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Terry Chadron said:

A bumpfire stock does NOT make a semi-auto a full-auto. Ruling by the BATF over 10 years ago. Nothing "borderline" either. A clear statement from the government authority that these stocks are perfectly legal accessories, nothing else.

The "zero practical benefit" is the typical "argument" of the left wing anti-gunners that has less than zero value. Just because it has no benefit to a certain group does not mean that it has no value for the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

A bump stock is clearly an attempt to mimic full auto mode. And as long as full auto remains illegal, a “legal loop gadget” is going to have huge negative PR value anytime it’s used in a crime. This negative PR will not change the minds of rabid anti-gun activists or dedicated gun owners, but it will sway the opinions of people in the middle - who carry the most weight and pretty much define how far the politicians are willing to go one way or another.

So yes, a huge liability with zero practical benefit.

I get what your concern is, however that "attempt to mimic full auto" is bottom line, simply shooting as fast as you can without having a full auto mode. Btw. - based on some input here on the forum, I tried to shoot "buympfire" with just the standard, fixed stock AR and (with some more practice) it can be fired as fast as with a bumpfire stock. So, where does it become a criminal act? 1000 rounds/minute? 500? 10? 2? and then - which criminal do you think cares? A BB gun causes "negative PR", hunting causes "negative PR" - ANYTHING the left wing superheroes don't like causes negative PR - why would anybody care about "PR" being pushed by the other side for supporting their own opinion? Does not make sense to me, it sounds like taking on their opinion because everything else might pi..s them off...

Wanderling said:

A bump stock is clearly an attempt to mimic full auto mode. And as long as full auto remains illegal, a “legal loop gadget” is going to have huge negative PR value anytime it’s used in a crime. This negative PR will not change the minds of rabid anti-gun activists or dedicated gun owners, but it will sway the opinions of people in the middle - who carry the most weight and pretty much define how far the politicians are willing to go one way or another.

So yes, a huge liability with zero practical benefit.

Click to expand...

There’s a difference between rapid shooting using a stock rifle and better skill, and rapid shooting using a device clearly designed exploit a loophole.

This is not about “at what point does it become criminal” but about “at what point would a layperson who’s neither anti nor pro 2A see this as an attempt to circumvent a long standing law”.

Wanderling said:

There’s a difference between rapid shooting using a stock rifle and better skill, and rapid shooting using a device clearly designed exploit a loophole.

This is not about “at what point does it become criminal” but about “at what point would a layperson who’s neither anti nor pro 2A see this as an attempt to circumvent a long standing law”.

Click to expand...

I have no need for any device that makes me miss faster. I also have no need for a Ferrari. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I hope everyone buys one. I am sick of tip toeing around what others don't like. Hoping they leave us some rights is a poor plan. I would rather we have this fight now, rather than kick the can down the road for our kids to try to fight.

Lnk

Except

LNK said:

I have no need for any device that makes me miss faster. I also have no need for a Ferrari. Doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I hope everyone buys one. I am sick of tip toeing around what others don't like. Hoping they leave us some rights is a poor plan. I would rather we have this fight now, rather than kick the can down the road for our kids to try to fight.

Lnk

Click to expand...

Except that “the others” are in control of your rights, and these ”others” consist of people who support your rights, people who hate you, and the largest group - people who don’t have strong opinions on the subject. So why would you want to pick a losing fight over a stupid loophole toy to help push that critical group towards the gun hating crowd? It’s not like the Constitution hasn’t been amended in the past.

If you want your children to enjoy their rights, you need to be politically savvy and not fight small losing battles over stupid loophole toys.

Wanderling said:

Except


Except that “the others” are in control of your rights, and these ”others” consist of people who support your rights, people who hate you, and the largest group - people who don’t have strong opinions on the subject. So why would you want to pick a losing fight over a stupid loophole toy to help push that critical group towards the gun hating crowd? It’s not like the Constitution hasn’t been amended in the past.

If you want your children to enjoy their rights, you need to be politically savvy and not fight small losing battles over stupid loophole toys.

Click to expand...

Not planning on losing. You need to read up on Sun Tzu. Never interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake. They are going all in. Which will cause them to lose. If we give up on bump stocks, they will accept that infringement and pause. I want them to go for the whole enchilada. Trust me, that will cause them to lose.

Lnk

So, if the "others" already are in control, it would not matter anymore. I personally doubt that as most attempts by cities and states trying to restrict 2A rights have been shut down by local courts and the supreme court. There are many grass root organizations working on keeping firearms ownership as intended by the writers of the Bill Of Rights and so far I think they are pretty successful.

I am not a fan of giving up ANY of my freedoms just because it might hurt other people's feelings (dope smoking socialists aren't my thing either, but they clearly don't care about my feelings either, so I assume it is a two-way street...)

Wanderling said:

Except that “the others” are in control of your rights, and these ”others” consist of people who support your rights, people who hate you, and the largest group - people who don’t have strong opinions on the subject....

Click to expand...

Terry Chadron said:

So, if the "others" already are in control, it would not matter anymore. I personally doubt that as most attempts by cities and states trying to restrict 2A rights have been shut down by local courts and the supreme court. There are many grass root organizations working on keeping firearms ownership as intended by the writers of the Bill Of Rights and so far I think they are pretty successful.

Click to expand...

As I said, the biggest part of "the others" are people who are not gun right advocates but generally don't want an overall ban. Just like in politics, the people who matter the most and the people who sway the elections are not on the right or left, but center. Because they are unaffiliated with either side and are unpredictable.

If the majority of population ever supports banning guns, 2A is out the window the next election cycle.

Terry Chadron said:

I am not a fan of giving up ANY of my freedoms just because it might hurt other people's feelings (dope smoking socialists aren't my thing either, but they clearly don't care about my feelings either, so I assume it is a two-way street...)

Click to expand...

Neither you nor the dope-smoking socialists can afford to lose the support of the people in the middle.

LNK said:

Not planning on losing. You need to read up on Sun Tzu. Never interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake. They are going all in. Which will cause them to lose. If we give up on bump stocks, they will accept that infringement and pause.

Lnk

Click to expand...

So how do you see "not giving up on bump stocks", exactly ? For the majority of moderate people in the middle, it's an evil device designed to circumvent the law. How much of a fight are you willing to put up to defend it, and how much political capital / reputation are you willing to spend on it ? What public image do you want us to project ?

Winning is knowing when to dig in and fight, and when not fight a battle that's not worth it.

LNK said:

I want them to go for the whole enchilada. Trust me, that will cause them to lose.

Click to expand...

If they do it now, sure.

If they wait until there's a Democratic president and Democratic majority, they may succeed - if enough politicians feel that there will be no repercussions. Not necessarily in reversing 2A, but in severely curtailing it.

And this really depends on what the Joe In The Middle thinks. Thanks to that Joe, we today have far better gun laws than we did 20 years ago. Do you really want to push him the other way ?

drnknpchr said:

Acquiescing to ignorance is not an option when our rights are at stake.

Click to expand...

The famous last words...

Wanderling said:

As I said, the biggest part of "the others" are people who are not gun right advocates but generally don't want an overall ban. Just like in politics, the people who matter the most and the people who sway the elections are not on the right or left, but center. Because they are unaffiliated with either side and are unpredictable.

If the majority of population ever supports banning guns, 2A is out the window the next election cycle.



Neither you nor the dope-smoking socialists can afford to lose the support of the people in the middle.



So how do you see "not giving up on bump stocks", exactly ? For the majority of moderate people in the middle, it's an evil device designed to circumvent the law. How much of a fight are you willing to put up to defend it, and how much political capital / reputation are you willing to spend on it ? What public image do you want us to project ?

Winning is knowing when to dig in and fight, and when not fight a battle that's not worth it.



If they do it now, sure.

If they wait until there's a Democratic president and Democratic majority, they may succeed - if enough politicians feel that there will be no repercussions. Not necessarily in reversing 2A, but in severely curtailing it.

And this really depends on what the Joe In The Middle thinks. Thanks to that Joe, we today have far better gun laws than we did 20 years ago. Do you really want to push him the other way ?

Click to expand...

I absolutely think they believe they have the political capital "now" to push the issue. If we fight on Bump Stocks now, they will have to run on getting rid of them, and that is a bad move and they know it. We'll have to ask for some more info on the only known supposed use, we don't even know if one was really used in Vegas. The way they shut that one down really has me scratching my head. No motive that we know of, and when questions started to get asked, under the rug it went. Most people I know of are on to the failed narrative. They don't believe politicians, they don't believe the news. Most people in my relatively small sample are not buying the BS. My sample covers the whole spectrum of labels, R's, D's, Centrists, Independents. Even a couple commies. No-one trusts the Gov or the Media. Sure, the child protests are in the news, and people are sick of it.

Sometimes having a fight is better than sacrificing. Unless you want to give another inch. I'm all out of inches.

LNK

Well, for me it is not about the bumpfire stock itself, but about the idea of having yet another totally useless regulation put on top of me that does not make any sense whatsoever. Today it may be the bumpfire stock, the next round, it will be about magazine capacity (who needs more than one rounders anyhow...), then it will be about caliber restrictions (who needs a .500 or .308? Anything can be done with a .22 or bb gun), then it will be "who needs shooting sports at all? and self protection? Nobody needs that.... I am, just like many others, not moving a single bit voluntarily - I am more than happy to educate the people in the middle and assume that there is common sense left in them to understand how useless additional restrictions and laws are. I have not heard a single argument from the left wing team that anybody with a few brain cells and common sense would not simply take apart and laugh about it.

I assume we are all on the same page, just with a different willingness to give in on demands from the anti-gunner community. With that, I will rest my case ;-)

Wanderling said:

As I said, the biggest part of "the others" are people who are not gun right advocates but generally don't want an overall ban. Just like in politics, the people who matter the most and the people who sway the elections are not on the right or left, but center. Because they are unaffiliated with either side and are unpredictable.

If the majority of population ever supports banning guns, 2A is out the window the next election cycle.



Neither you nor the dope-smoking socialists can afford to lose the support of the people in the middle.



So how do you see "not giving up on bump stocks", exactly ? For the majority of moderate people in the middle, it's an evil device designed to circumvent the law. How much of a fight are you willing to put up to defend it, and how much political capital / reputation are you willing to spend on it ? What public image do you want us to project ?

Winning is knowing when to dig in and fight, and when not fight a battle that's not worth it.



If they do it now, sure.

If they wait until there's a Democratic president and Democratic majority, they may succeed - if enough politicians feel that there will be no repercussions. Not necessarily in reversing 2A, but in severely curtailing it.

And this really depends on what the Joe In The Middle thinks. Thanks to that Joe, we today have far better gun laws than we did 20 years ago. Do you really want to push him the other way ?

Click to expand...

Terry Chadron said:

Well, for me it is not about the bumpfire stock itself, but about the idea of having yet another totally useless regulation put on top of me that does not make any sense whatsoever. Today it may be the bumpfire stock, the next round, it will be about magazine capacity (who needs more than one rounders anyhow...), then it will be about caliber restrictions (who needs a .500 or .308? Anything can be done with a .22 or bb gun), then it will be "who needs shooting sports at all? and self protection? Nobody needs that.... I am, just like many others, not moving a single bit voluntarily - I am more than happy to educate the people in the middle and assume that there is common sense left in them to understand how useless additional restrictions and laws are. I have not heard a single argument from the left wing team that anybody with a few brain cells and common sense would not simply take apart and laugh about it.

I assume we are all on the same page, just with a different willingness to give in on demands from the anti-gunner community. With that, I will rest my case ;-)

Click to expand...

Good for you Terry. Give no more ground.