Trump administration officially bans bump stocks

[apdst]

Define "the" rate of fire of an automatic weapon.

The law doesn't prohibit firearms that are "practically" a machine gun.

The cyclic rate of fire for an automatic AR platform is 700-900 rds per minute. A bump fired semi-automatic can't do half that.

 

[Deuce]

The law doesn't prohibit firearms that are "practically" a machine gun.

The cyclic rate of fire for an automatic AR platform is 700-900 rds per minute. A bump fired semi-automatic can't do half that.

So, anything below 700RPM isn't an automatic weapon, then?

 

[apdst]

So, anything below 700RPM isn't an automatic weapon, then?

No, any weapon that doesn't automatically loaded multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger isn't an automatic weapon.

 

[Todzilla]

I hate Trump, but I'll give him modest kudos for this gesture.

 

[Rucker61]

I hate Trump, but I'll give him modest kudos for this gesture.

So owning a bump stock stored on a shelf in a closet will be a felony, but attaching rubber bands to your AR-15 and bump firing that way will still be legal? "Gesture" is about all it is, and an egregious abuse of executive power, too.

 

[Deuce]

No, any weapon that doesn't automatically loaded multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger isn't an automatic weapon.

You brought up allegedly-different rates of fire as a rebuttal. Now you don't want to talk about it? Ok. See, the reason is that ROF on automatic weapons varies quite a bit. Bump stocks absolutely can get into the low-end of automatic weapons' ROF.

So, my point stands. The bump stock has the practical effect of bypassing the law.

 

[Rucker61]

You brought up allegedly-different rates of fire as a rebuttal. Now you don't want to talk about it? Ok. See, the reason is that ROF on automatic weapons varies quite a bit. Bump stocks absolutely can get into the low-end of automatic weapons' ROF.

So, my point stands. The bump stock has the practical effect of bypassing the law.

What semi-auto ROF do we use to compare to a firearm's cyclic rate to determine if something has the practical effect of bypassing the law? Does anything faster than that number get banned? Would it be illegal to fire a semiauto weapon faster than the basic semiauto rate? How long would that faster rate have to go on for to have the practical effect of bypassing the law?

 

[Deuce]

What semi-auto ROF do we use to compare to a firearm's cyclic rate to determine if something has the practical effect of bypassing the law? Does anything faster than that number get banned? Would it be illegal to fire a semiauto weapon faster than the basic semiauto rate? How long would that faster rate have to go on for to have the practical effect of bypassing the law?

You'll have to ask the guy who thinks specific rates of fire was so critical.

If your opinion is that automatic weapons should be legal to own, just say that.

 

[Rucker61]

You'll have to ask the guy who thinks specific rates of fire was so critical.

If your opinion is that automatic weapons should be legal to own, just say that.

They are legal to own. It will still be legal to bump fire tomorrow; the ATF even told us how. It won't be legal to own a bump stock. If bump stocks will be banned because they allow bump fire, and bump fire is too close to fully automatic fire to be legal, why did Trump ban bump stocks but not the act of bump fire?

 

[Deuce]

They are legal to own. It will still be legal to bump fire tomorrow; the ATF even told us how. It won't be legal to own a bump stock. If bump stocks will be banned because they allow bump fire, and bump fire is too close to fully automatic fire to be legal, why did Trump ban bump stocks but not the act of bump fire?

I don't pretend to understand the mind of Donald Trump, sorry.

 

[apdst]

You brought up allegedly-different rates of fire as a rebuttal. Now you don't want to talk about it? Ok. See, the reason is that ROF on automatic weapons varies quite a bit. Bump stocks absolutely can get into the low-end of automatic weapons' ROF.

So, my point stands. The bump stock has the practical effect of bypassing the law.

No, YOU brought up rates of fire. I'm still standing by the legal definition, the only legal definition, of a machine gun.

Let's outlaw abortion. It's practically murder.

 

[Maccabee]

They have the practical effect of doing so.

Still, it's rather useless to ban them. first off, in the states that gone ahead and banned them collectively confiscated a whopping 30 some odd stocks. Indicating that either hardly anyone has them in the first place or people are simply not complying. Second, bump fire can be done with rubber bands or even without any modification whatsoever.

 

[apdst]

You'll have to ask the guy who thinks specific rates of fire was so critical.

If your opinion is that automatic weapons should be legal to own, just say that.

You're the one that brought up rate of fire, cousin.

Machine guns aren't outlawed.

 

[Deuce]

Still, it's rather useless to ban them. first off, in the states that gone ahead and banned them collectively confiscated a whopping 30 some odd stocks. Indicating that either hardly anyone has them in the first place or people are simply not complying. Second, bump fire can be done with rubber bands or even without any modification whatsoever.

"Better not pass laws because people don't follow them" isn't... really a compelling argument.

 

[Deuce]

You're the one that brought up rate of fire, cousin.

Machine guns aren't outlawed.

You brought up a specific threshold. You said the rate of fire doesn't meet that of automatic weapons, as a rebuttal to what I said. (incidentally, an inaccurate statement)

Did you think the little terminology swap out of "machine guns" would go unnoticed? There's something relevant to this discussion that is illegal. Are you honest enough to tell that class what this is, buddy?

 

[Rucker61]

"Better not pass laws because people don't follow them" isn't... really a compelling argument.

What was the purpose of this EO again?

 

[Deuce]

What was the purpose of this EO again?

You'll have to ask the people who did it.

 

[Rucker61]

You'll have to ask the people who did it.

Do you support it?

 

[Maccabee]

"Better not pass laws because people don't follow them" isn't... really a compelling argument.

No, the argument is "why pass a law that is impossible to enforce without violating rights?"

 

[Deuce]

No, the argument is "why pass a law that is impossible to enforce without violating rights?"

Impossible to enforce? What, the police find out you have a bump stock and they just physically can't arrest you? What strange magic is this?

 

[Maccabee]

Impossible to enforce? What, the police find out you have a bump stock and they just physically can't arrest you? What strange magic is this?

How do police find out that you have a bump stock if you're not stupid enough to leave it in plain view of police?

 

[apdst]

You brought up a specific threshold. You said the rate of fire doesn't meet that of automatic weapons, as a rebuttal to what I said. (incidentally, an inaccurate statement)

Did you think the little terminology swap out of "machine guns" would go unnoticed? There's something relevant to this discussion that is illegal. Are you honest enough to tell that class what this is, buddy?

No, you brought up that threshold. You are acting if machine guns are defined by rate of fire. They're aren't. They're defined by function. It's either a machine gun, or it isn't. You can't be a little pregnant, or practically pregnant. The law doesn't say anything about firearms that are "practically a machine gun".

 

[apdst]

"Better not pass laws because people don't follow them" isn't... really a compelling argument.

Why do you oppose the border wall?

 

[Obscurity]

Trump has taken more action restricting firearm ownership than Obama.

Fail.

 

[exoplanet]

I
This guy can waste ammo (bump-fire) w/o any accessories at all:



Maybe he should be considered a machine gun and be banned as well.

I think this guy is going to win a Darwin award anyway.