Military court rules "Bump Stocks," are not machine guns.....duh.....

[M14 Shooter]

No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.

The LV shooter did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.

490 yards.

 

[DrLove]

The LV shooter did.

Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?
Wouldn't have happened my friend.

 

[BULLDOG]

ATF rules a 14 inch shoe string is a machine gun:

Shoestring Machine Gun

In September 2004 the ATF decided that a 14 inch long shoestring was considered a machine gun: Here is an official letter stating the facts: In 2007 the ATF decided the shoestring alone was not a machine gun. It was

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

A rubber band is a machine gun:



In fact, you can rapid fire a gun simply by how you hold it to your shoulder



So, please provide a list of all things to be banned to prevent rapid fire of any gun. Start with bellies, hips, shoulders, and fingers, because any of those can be used to do it.

The reason gun rights supporters object to the banning of a relatively useless range toy is that it is just one more meaningless, feel-good-only, ban from the left. It's that pattern of banning these that have no effect on the murder of babies in Chicago and other cities that worry us because bump stocks are just one in a long history, and longer plan going forward, of meaningless, ineffective, bans that are designed, in the end, to remove our ability to exercise our natural right to the tools of defense.

That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?

Look at you, changing the conditions of the test.
His rifle fired 9 rounds/sec because he pulled the trigger 9 times/sec

Fact is, when it comes to killing as many people as he could, he chose his weapons poorly.

 

[westwall]

Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?
Wouldn't have happened my friend.

Proving once again that you don't know a damned thing about firearms.

 

[westwall]

That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.

Good luck with that. John Browning turned a lever action rifle into a gas operated machinegun in a day. Legislation will never keep up with innovation. Smart people are smarter than you idiots. Just admit it and leave them alone. The violent predators that you support will do just fine. You don't need to help them commit their crimes.

 

[BULLDOG]

Good luck with that. John Browning turned a lever action rifle into a gas operated machinegun in a day. Legislation will never keep up with innovation. Smart people are smarter than you idiots. Just admit it and leave them alone. The violent predators that you support will do just fine. You don't need to help them commit their crimes.

Again, that was my point. The purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.

 

[woodwork201]

No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.


Chris Everett - Quora
Chris Everett
Gun owner, extensive knowledge in technical and legal issues related to guns.
Answered 5 years ago · Author has 9K answers and 53.4M answer views

The rate of fire number is fairly misleading. From an engineering perspective, yes, the rate of fire could be classed as 180 rounds per minute, or even higher. But just because that’s the rate, doesn’t mean that you can actually fire 180 rounds in a minute.
The rate of fire is going to be slowed by the fact that you have to do mag changes every 30 rounds or so, by the fact that your finger won’t be keeping up for that long, and probably even by heat in the rifle.
Realistically, an experienced shooter can probably fire 3 rounds a second, at least to start. But every 30 rounds (ten seconds) they need to stop and reload. That reload will take about five seconds, unless you are VERY fast. So that’s 30 rounds in 15 seconds (effective fire rate of 120 rounds per minute, not 180). Few people will retain that fire rate through the a full minute, probably slowing to closer to two rounds per second by the end. My guess is that an experienced shooter (though not a professional) is probably looking at around 90 rounds a minute of effective fire. You might be able to speed it up a bit if you sacrifice all accuracy and normal use of a firearm.

8 rounds from a revolver (much heavier trigger) in 1 second:



Here's a binary trigger shooting 20 rounds in 2 seconds.



I'll concede on the 9 rounds per second - for now. The fastest video I can find is 7 rounds on a standard trigger. With a slide-fire stock or even simple bump firing with a standard AR, you can easily achieve that kind of fire rate, though, in short bursts.

 

[woodwork201]

Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.

And, yet, he missed about half of the time.

 

[woodwork201]

thats a situational issue,, if my house is attacked by hundreds of antifa I would love to have a bumpstock instead of a single shot semi-auto,,,

If you shoot the front 3, the rest run. If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you shoot the front 3, the rest run.

Shoot the guy with the megaphone and the rest run.

If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.

And statndard-capacity magazines.

 

[progressive hunter]

No....as I told the other two idiots, the bumpstock pushed the muzzle up and likely jammed the rifle...saving lives.

Sooo....you are an idiot too...

in only that one scenario,,

at least I'm not an anti 2nd shill trying to take away your right to own weapons,,

 

[progressive hunter]

If you shoot the front 3, the rest run. If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.

you hope the rest run,, rather not take that chance,,,

not sure how you miss when they are shoulder to shoulder,,

 

[woodwork201]

Again, that was my point. The purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to prevent such bans. In Miller, the Court ruled explicitly against such bans. The Constitution guarantees our right to own one of these:

door gunner with minigun - Gunship Helicopters

Experience the thrill ride of a lifetime on this adventurous shooting experience with the infamous minigun from an open-door helicopter! The minigun, AKA an

gunshiphelicopters.com

 

[woodwork201]

you hope the rest run,, rather not take that chance,,,

not sure how you miss when they are shoulder to shoulder,,

Easily: use a bump stock or any bump fire technique.

 

[BULLDOG]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to prevent such bans. In Miller, the Court ruled explicitly against such bans. The Constitution guarantees our right to own one of these:

door gunner with minigun - Gunship Helicopters

Experience the thrill ride of a lifetime on this adventurous shooting experience with the infamous minigun from an open-door helicopter! The minigun, AKA an

gunshiphelicopters.com

Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.

 

[progressive hunter]

Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.

they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,

 

[BULLDOG]

they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,

They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?

 

[progressive hunter]

They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?

no I dont,, the 2nd was so the people to be as equally armed as any threat they may face and that includes full auto,,,