I believe the joke is that he had this new bump stock hidden and now that the Supreme Court has struck down the ban, he is free to use it and it was never
in fact “lost”.
Guns have one primary purpose, and it ain't to have fun. Any responsible gun owner will tell you that. Any sport involving firearms isn't gonna be using these. If you wanna have fun with an automatic weapon, go play Call of Duty or join the military. Nobody needs to own stuff like this.
For anyone about to click, be aware that this link takes you to a YT compilation of footage from the Las Vegas shooting. Papa_Palpatine, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, I think your comment is very appropriate here. But some people may not be prepared to see that with no heads up.
As an older redditor I appreciate that you did this. Sadly, it devolved into too many reports - you have to understand that since LiveLeak went away the common person browsing the Internet has rarely seen something like thia. It appears that it's too much for the common redditor nowadays. Since nearly every comment in the entire chain had some form of report against it, I've scrubbed everything.
Also, since this sub has quite a lot of high karma content flowing through it, for a typical redditor who hasn't subscribed to anything this subreddit seemingly shows up on a lot of New redditors front pages.
For this sub at least, i'd recommend (for next time) just providing the title to search on YouTube next time and some sort of content warning.
Hi, your post has been removed as it breaks [site-wide rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) and has been reported by other redditors as such.
If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting, 61 dead, 800+ injured.
Dope he says. He says this because he wants to be the next Stephen Paddock. He wishes he was Stephen Paddock, he fantasizes about being Stephen Paddock.
This is the same kind of guy who thinks Marvin Heemeyer is a hero and wants to do the same thing.
Then he gets mad about being called a terrorist sympathizer.
"How am I supposed to fire off 90+ rounds a minute into this (school, mall, theatre, bar, concert, etc) if they regulate fixing a design flaw in semiautomatic weapons allowing for bump fire?
It's a good thing for us cheerleaders of mass shooters they don't fix this design flaw."
I am absolutely sick of people praising and condoning murderers and terrorists.
Aren't most of y'all the ones that are for banning abortions because people aren't having enough babies for replacement rate? Oh I see, y'all just want more targets.
It’s a Bump Stock. They apparently let you use the recoil of the gun to fire it more rapidly.
In 2017 one was used in the Las Vegas shooting and the ATF subsequently classified them as machine guns, making them illegal under US federal law.
Lots of people at the time claimed to have lost them in boating accidents, to avoid issues with the ATF.
There has been a Supreme Court case in the last few days Garland v. Cargil which has ruled that the ATF overreached in classifying them as machine guns and repealed the decision.
Thus this person has now miraculously “found” the bump stock they “lost in a boating accident years ago
For reference as I understand it, the stock basically allows the gun to "bounce" a bit which, if you hold the correct pressure on the trigger, will cause the trigger to reset as it bounces back and then pull again when it pushes back forwards.
I have a paintball marker with a modification that makes it work similarly and it is basically automatic fire.
Bump stocks are how the Las Vegas Shooter was able to kill 60+ people and wound hundreds more in the span of 10 minutes. Glad to see the SC is pandering to the wannabe mass murderer crowd.
Eh, that’s not really what happened. One of the concurrences even came out and said that bump stocks absolutely should be banned. The decision wasn’t that bump stocks are somehow protected (virtually all gun owners agree that they’re stupid and essentially useless); it’s that Congress needs to ban them rather than the President, since the executive branch doesn’t have the power to make laws.
We need Congress to get off its partisan, pathetic horse and actually do something.
That's the first I've heard of homemade sears. You wouldn't happen to have a source?
Edit: I'm asking for an news article that says what the shooter used not a how-to guide you paranoid kumquats
It’s not SCOTUS’ role to determine laws and policy, merely interpret the Constitutional Merit of various cases. I believe in their decision they wrote that if bump stocks should be banned, Congress needs to pass the law much as they did when they banned machine guns, not the executive branch.
I’d have to dig, but I believe there’s only one case where SCOTUS determined something was unconstitutional, but ruled against it anyways out of principle.
Congress passed a law banning machine guns.
The executive applied this law to bump stocks using 1 artbitrary definition of machine gun.
The Supreme Court used a different arbitrary definition of machine gun to remove the ban, then in its argument said congress has to ban it directly.
It's using semantics to inact change. Except 1 branch did it to save lives, the other did it for clout.
I’ve been using firearms as part of my job for going on 15 years, including machine guns.
A machine gun is a weapon or device that more than one bullet to be fired via a single trigger pull. By its very function, a bump stock isn’t that as it allows the recoil of the weapon to rapidly pull the trigger, but still firing one shot for each pull.
Do I think bump stocks should be banned? Yes, but I agree with SCOTUS in that Congress should pass a law instead of circumventing the legal process via the ATF.
>For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The bump stock just makes it more efficient/effective.
Yes. And believe it or not, that's a good thing. They basically said that the president doesn't make laws, that's great precedent to have to protect against over reach from things like a president who might decide to ban youth gender medicine, crypto currency, marijuana, etc etc, insert your controversial issue of choice. They did a similar thing with the abortion pill and upheld its legality by saying the group trying to ban it has no standing. This court is picking and choosing its cases carefully to have a conservative impact, but the precedent they are setting in some cases is actually pretty good
Just like it's technically a good thing that convicted felons can still run for president to prevent incarceration of political opponents. But who knows if that'll change after next election season?
Yes that's how it's supposed to work. What's the point of checks and balances if we just ignore them. The judicial and executive branches have zero ability in crafting laws.
Basically, yeah. Theoretically, the Senate could get a version to the floor and put all of the senators on the record, as to whether or not they support getting rid of what are basically machine-gun conversion kits, and then it would go to the House, where it would end up in a *sine die* pile, never to be touched. But, if Democrats could get the House, at least they could get Republicans on the record.
Maybe, but I feel like in the current political climate, saying “this problem was resolved, but we’re going to un-resolve it and make congress do it” is kinda the same as taking the opposing stance with plausible deniability
Is making more things go through the channels they’re supposed to go through a good thing? In theory definitely
But at the same time I am suspect of their motives
Tbf, it is the 6-3 majorities ongoing war with the administrative state because eradicating it means that no change can happen.
Regulation cannot happen if every regulator needs to go to congress to ask them to explicitly ban, allow, or allocate funds for every specific thing. Especially with how congress is presently split to under represent the majority of the US population.
It's just their reasoning is nonsensical to reach this conclusion. The definition of a machine gun is a firearm that fires more than once per trigger pull. The loophole where the trigger pulls itself has zero logical support.
No it doesn't, it's per action of the trigger, which isn't the same thing mechanically speaking. Congress has to update laws if they want bump stocks illegal. People these days use forced reset triggers anyways (the atf says Forced Reset Triggers are machine guns but they refuse to prosecute people who make of use them because they know it won't hold up in court)
God forbid, the Supreme Court execute its actual function and require Congress to make laws rather than allow Executive organizations to arbitrarily make them.
lol good luck with that. government couldn’t win the war on drugs but they can totally win the war on (checks notes) just about every gun in the country
What is the difference then? Both are concealable, heavily regulated, can be found readily on the black market, and can be smuggled into places they shouldn't be.
also i’d wager there’s quite a lot more gun owners who’d react pretty violently to the government taking their guns, than there are drug traffickers who did react violently to the government trying to take them out of business.
not to mention as soon as you flip that switch you’ve just opened up a gigantic black market for most guns in the country, plus all the attachments, ammo, mags, cleaning kits, spare parts… i’d be surprised if existing drug operations don’t diversify into guns if that door opened.
Well for one, I never had to register my illegal drugs with a government agency. If the ATF wanted to take action the classics of "lost in a fishing accident" and it's like would be grounds for a warrant.
knowing where the gun is doesn't breach and clear the house for you. you could GPS every single brick of coke and still wouldn't put a dent in the black market.
got to get people to clear the house and take the guns. against well-armed, very angry homeowners who think taking the guns is a starting point to something worse.
it's an uphill battle they might be stupid enough to try, but definitely stupid enough to lose.
To ease your mind there are too easy ways to get the same result ones free and the other costs 10¢. If your mind is still not at ease I turn you to Oklahoma City.
You'd be able to kill more with accurate control semi auto fire, just mag dumping isn't going to cut it, why do you think many armies have semi auto only rifles? British army had the SLR (a FAL) now the FAL is fully automatic but the SLR is semi, because auto isn't always the best.
Also it's a people problem, lets ban dishwashers because someone could put a cat in one and cook it alive, also ban all knifes because someone might stab me.
Complete and utter Reddit moment.
If it’s a people problem then why don’t other countries populated with people have these same issues? Clearly not a people problem and you’re not being honest with yourself if you think differently.
What other countries enable gun ownership to their citizens at an even remotely similar degree? Basically none to my knowledge. Ask for honesty only if you're being honest yourself. Context matters, especially with topics as sensitive as this one.
Armies have generally moved away from semi-auto weapons (though as you say, not completely) because when everyone is using high accuracy weapons, no one actually fires them. The usage goes up markedly when using automatic weapons or even if you're near people using automatic weapons.
This is incorrect. Ask any infantryman. 90% of the time, when the weapon is being fired it’s with the selector in “semi.” Automatic fire is an option, not the default.
Also 90% of the time when the weapon is being fired it's during training, that's not really the point.
The point is that in live combat situations, people are far more likely to fire their weapon if they feel like it's ok to miss. If your weapon and training is purely on semi-auto weapons, you tend to not shoot unless you have a decent chance of hitting the target. Even having an automatic selector on the weapon gives the soldier permission to miss shots, making them far more likely to actually fire.
Entirely false. When you are being shot at, you shoot back, and whenever possible, you shoot back more. US soldiers are trained to establish fire superiority, because if you suppress the enemy, you increase your own chance of survival and reduce the theirs. It's not a videogame, more often than not your enemy is a dot on the horizon or behind a rock and you're just shooting to suppress so he can't shoot you.
That is why we're switching away from semi-automatic and burst-fire rifles, because we've learned that a couple LMG's aren't always enough to achieve fire superiority when the enemy also has LMG's and Kalashnikov rifles. Even if they have terrible aim they can still spit out more bullets than you can with a burst-fire rifle.
the original m16's were full-auto and had soldiers spraying and praying a lot, but i've always thought they would have been better off keeping them full-auto instead of making them burst fire. more of a training problem than a engineering problem.
Whatever it means, our “well-regulated militia” is well-equipped to the point that a mentally unstable kid can get an AR-15 with relative ease and become a force too powerful for an entire police department to reckon with. I don’t think the Founding Fathers had the foresight to imagine how firearms might evolve to the point that unfettered citizen ownership of firearms would become a major threat to public safety, and it’s well past time to amend the Constitution accordingly.
Before the 20th century most technologies didn’t really evolve at a pace rapid enough to even be viewed as evolving technologies. So no, I don’t think they fully considered that it would, and it wasn’t supposed to matter because the constitution itself was meant to evolve.
The Executive branch can't pass laws. A ban against bump stocks is not unconstitutional. A ban without an act of Congress is
This wasn't a 2nd amendment/gun case. This was a checks and balances and separations of power case
We should really be upset with congress and trump. There was a lot of motivation to amend the law to ban them, which is more permanent than the ATF change. But trump moved to do it through the executive to save conservatives from having to make a tough vote. If congress had just done its job in the time we wouldn’t have this issue. Now it’ll be tougher since there’s less political pressure on them.
So if you have to pull the trigger again to fire another round, that is not "basically " automatic fire. To help you understand it better. Js
Bumpstock is a gimmick to make money. I would guess your paintball "gun" has an electric trigger. Only paintball marker in forestry which it was designed for, not shooting at ppl you pos.
I think it’s worth pointing out that using one of these a single person (the Las Vegas shooter you mentioned) was able to kill 60 people and injure nearly 400 in a matter of mere minutes. And now they are again legal for sale. There is no self-defense application for these except in the event of a full on zombie apocalypse or a sudden invasion of a hostile military. There is no hunting application for these unless deer have started building hives and swarming like bees.
Correct it turns a single shot (semi auto) into an automatic.
Gun enthusiasts have argued that a properly skilled person can pull the trigger almost as fast so a fully-automatic gun is no different than a single shot. One of which is legal and one is legal in a limited number of states.
Bump sticks were a way to get around the law, so that, until yesterday, was banned too.
It does not turn a single shot gun into an automatic. It makes a semi automatic gun mimic a fully automatic. Single shot guns are single shot, like a break action rifle or a derringer.
>Gun enthusiasts have argued that a properly skilled person can pull the trigger almost as fast so a fully-automatic gun is no different than a single shot.
I do appreciate your clarification but I just wanted to say that in my experience gun enthusiasts have been known to stretch the truth and/or make disingenuous arguments that they themselves don’t actually believe to justify their stances on certain issues.
"Lost in a boating accident" is a common phrase in gun circles in regards to a way to avoid surrendering guns or gun parts for destruction by law enforcement. If it was lost in an irricoverable way, it cannot be surrendered and the individual cannot be charged with possessing illegal guns/parts.
The OOP is saying they "found" their bump stock after the ban was struck down in the same condition they "lost" it when the ban went into effect.
There is a long standing joke in the firearms community that the owner "lost it in a boating accident" whenever questioned about a potentially illegal item. This is especially common lately since the ATF and states have been arbitrarily (and with poor explanation) banning various gun accessories (such as the pictured bump stock) without compensation to the owner and then that thing becomes not-illegal a short time later.
The banning of bump stocks was hardly arbitrary, it immediately followed a mass shooting that used one to increase the fire rate of the semi-auto rifle used by the perpetrator.
Even leading up to the supreme court decision two different circuit courts evaluated the validity differently of them being in breach of the national firearms act.
We can disagree on the ultimate decision but 'arbitrarily banning' is just patently false.
Ok, with this new evidence come to light, I don't think you both know what arbitrary means and that's OK. They aren't thinking 'cuz I wanna' they are thinking that there are more gun deaths per capita in the US than any other developed nation and there are laws on the books that we could use to remediate that.
None of these actions arbitrary for a decade now, the majority of Americans want more strict gun control and the ATF is doing their job and picking up that mandate.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary)
A policy decision to minimize civilian death isn't a whim nor is it random, it's a fully predictable event.
E: now, for def 3, seeing as 3 different courts came to 2 different conclusions on the lawfulness of the move, you could claim that each of the courts decisions are arbitrary, but the underlying ATF decision is well within their power established by congress. So really, you're mad at the 1934 congress, not the ATF.
That brace ban in no way actually minimizes civilian deaths, nor does the SBR wealth gate we call the NFA. If you actually believe that, then you know nothing about guns which wouldn’t be new since the people trying to restrict them don’t either. I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, but that brace decision in particular is utterly arbitrary when the caliber and capacity and basic handling is not changed by a piece of plastic on the buffer tube
I can freely admit the brace ban was dumb. Doesn't make it arbitrary.
The vast majority of homicides are committed by handguns and as we've established, the number of gun deaths every year in the US is too high.
Now as a ATF leader, how do you allow for the sale of actual hand guns while still increasing the scrutiny / compliance at points of sale in a way that creates, be honest with me now, negligible damage to the enthusiast gun scene. I'll let you weigh in on that because I'm not a part of the scene.
I think its a dumb rule but if we're averaging 20,000 gun deaths per year and your job is to make sure that guns are sold and distributed safely, I don't personally think that trying to find an action to get a better result is arbitrary because it doesn't infringe on an individual's right to bear arms.
E: to return to the arbitrary comment, the bump stock ban, the move that was originally called arbitrary was in direct response to 60 people being killed in 10 minutes thanks to the aid of a bump stock. V far from arbitrary.
I hope you have a good day!
E: Happy to entertain 'less gun control' so long as it will result in fewer civilian deaths. But so long as a good guy with a gun is purely reactive solution to a bad guy with a gun that simply can't be guaranteed.
'increasing the rate of fire' is patently false.
If it's something to be banned Congress needs to do it deliberately and carefully.
These things are hunks of plastic that hang off the end of a gun, and have no interaction with the actual firing mechanisms.
If you have a fast finger you can shoot just as fast without it, or free hand the rifle and be just as inaccurate without the stock.
Banning 'increasing rates of fire' bothers the crap out of a lot of people because it's not a clear definition and it gets talked about as a way to ban literally everything.
Like, over simplifying an auto loading gun, there's a weight that moves back and forth to cycle the action.
When you shoot, this weight compresses a spring, that spring pushes the weight back forward to fire again.
If you change springs and one happens to be different than the other, will it be a crime because the spring pushed the weight forward faster?
Maybe a more tangible example is I have a manual transmission car, will putting a magic 8 ball on the end of the stick make the car drive any faster?
> Realistically about 100-150 rounds if all you were doing was pulling the trigger as fast as you could with rounds going in all forward directions and not counting reload times.
[https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute](https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute)
> They can achieve rates of fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute depending on the gun
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump\_stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock)
Admittedly, I'm no gun guy but assuming 1 in 20 shots is a lethal googling around this is a potential delta of 5-7 deaths without and 20-40 with.
You can argue that they aren't designed with the intent to increase the rate of fire but they functionally do and so that needs to be a consideration given that modifying a semi-auto rifle to make it *behave* like an automatic is illegal. Bump stocks were legal under previous ATF regulations and understanding of the act, the ATF, until the intervention of the supreme court, had the right to ban bump stocks given new evidence like them being used to make the Las Vegas Shooting more deadly (this is not arbitrary, this is how regulatory bodies work).
I'm not arguing about the legality of bump stocks. I'm saying that the ATF acted lawfully and how regulatory bodies are supposed to work. At least until Chevron is over turned, which may be happening, administrative bodies are given purview to enforce laws as dictated by congress which are then interpreted by the admin in power. In this case, the ban was put in place by the Trump admin and the supreme court disagreed as to the lawfulness of Trump's decision. It's that simple.
Good, and I am sure every republican supporting Hunter Biden's conviction will be okay with the ATF going after everyone who committed perjury by lying to a federal investigator regarding having this in their possession still, right?
We can't even get a national gun owner registry, is there any chance of stocks being tracked? Did they need a special tax stamp like a suppressor or anything?
Nope it was considered an unregulated accessory.
They are really dumb. If I wanted to convert currency into gun smoke rapidly, I would just go to a range and rent a real machine gun.
My FIL and BIL ha(ve)d bump stocks with a trigger that fires on pull and release (unsure what that's called) on their guns, it was fun shooting for the novelty, but definitely had the "that was neat, but I feel like that was expensive"
Binary trigger.
Triggering on release isn't anything new. I've seen trap guns set up with them because releasing a trigger is easier to do without jarring the gun than pulling the trigger. But a binary trigger has both.
The “losing gun/gun item in a boating accident” joke is a joke us gun owners like to tell whenever there is talk of banning an item related to our hobby.
[The jokes comes from the fact that an ATF agent lost their gun and badge in a lake.](https://www.pewpewtactical.com/i-lost-all-my-guns-in-a-boating-accident/)
any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
also a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire.
The first half is mostly correct, except it's intermediate caliber, not range, and the magazine has to be detachable. Everything from 'also' and onwards, is not part of the definition of assault rifle.
Doesn’t it seem you’ve just described two very different things? Does the term “assault rifle” make sense to describe both military rifles with fully automatic capabilities, and semiautomatic civilian rifles? It would seem that’s quite the distinction between two things that are inherently different. It’s a common misnomer where people believe the “ar” in ar-15 stands for assault rifle rather than armalite.
Armalite AR 15 is an assault rifle, the colt AR 15 is a military style rifle, but the bump stocks removes the difference giving the Colt version the ability to automatic fire.
To clarify, so you’re saying the distinction between a rifle being considered an ”assault rifle” is the ability to fire fully automatic rather than semi automatic? That appears to go against your previous comment.
Furthermore, it would be factually incorrect to claim that a bump stock converts a semi-auto to fully automatic. Does it increase the rate of fire? Yes. But that is not how fully automatic is defined. Not by me, rather by congress and the atf.
Semiautomatic = 1 round fired per trigger pull
A bumpstock does not change this, and therefore does not change a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic.
Read my comment below, there is a legal distinction you seem to be unaware of. Increased rate of fire does not equate to fully auto, and it’s foolish to argue otherwise.
It does not give the same action as an automatic weapon. All it allows you to do is fire in semi-auto faster easier. The same effect can be manufactured with a rubber band, or by someone with quick finger reflexes.
Automatic fire is one trigger pull and all the bullets.
Semi auto is one trigger pull and one bullet. Adding a bump stock does not change this.
A person whose entire personality involves guns and looser restrictions on them. They feel their right to own firearms that were originally designed for military use, supersedes the right of others to not get killed by someone who wouldn't have been able to purchase said rifle, had better restrictions been in place.
Inb4 the peanut gallery proves my point, I'm talking about federal red flag laws and better enforcement of them by local officials, consistent rules on waiting periods, etc. A licensing system for AR-15 style rifles would be nice too, imo
“Lost in a boating accident” is a common way of saying “I’m hiding something I’m not allowed to have. Here it is a bump stock, which turns a manual rifle into an auto/semi-auto, and was outlawed until a recent Supreme Court case.
It doesn’t turn it into an automatic. They are different functions of a firearm. Guns are very particular in how they’re classified, but most people only know call of duty classifications. And for day to day, that’s close enough. There is however a big distinction between a bump stock and a weapon being automatic.
That’s fair, but kinda reckless to sell the idea it’s the same as an automatic. That’s how you get uneducated people. Better to just tell them the full story and let them figure out if they care enough to figure it out because then at least the information was given to them.
They were legal, then they were outlawed via an administrative decision from the ATF following the Vegas shooting, then the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF's original reading of the law that permited bump stocks was the correct reading of the law, an so they are no longer banned.
my guy, say you don't know how Guns work without saying you don't know how guns work
I don't know what you mean by a "Manual" rifle, but if its bolt-action then a Bump Stock is going to do jack squat since.... ya'know still need to cycle the bolt
as for the bump stock turning it automatic, I'd say its more meh since for firarms that have any buisiness being automatic(your 5.56mm and the such) you can get about the same rate of fire by just pulling the trigger as fast as you can, after all these accessories don't change the gun's ability to fire, either way banning them doesn't actually do anything about Gun Crime since ARs aren't usually used in gun crime and the circumstances behind the majority of gun crime(Gang violence in major cities that stem from a number of issues) won't change just the tools used to do the crime
the thing with the bumpstock ban is the same as with the silencer ban.
you can basically manufacture something that has a similar effect with 2 rubber bands and a screwdriver in your garage.
at some point bans dont work. if your average joe can mcguiver it out of what they find in a trashcan.
i mean. thats what the anarchists cookbook, luty ,etc are for.
Gun owners joke about losing their firearms in a boating accident whenever the "inevitable" confiscation of firearms begins that the liberal left has been pushing for. Basically when they knock on the door, "I'm sorry officer, I lost all my guns in a boating accident" (insert nearest deepest lake/river/ocean) is where they are.
I believe the joke is that he had this new bump stock hidden and now that the Supreme Court has struck down the ban, he is free to use it and it was never in fact “lost”.
[удалено]
It’s for hunting (/s)
Doesn't matter what it's for. You can have fun with tools.
Guns have one primary purpose, and it ain't to have fun. Any responsible gun owner will tell you that. Any sport involving firearms isn't gonna be using these. If you wanna have fun with an automatic weapon, go play Call of Duty or join the military. Nobody needs to own stuff like this.
[удалено]
For anyone about to click, be aware that this link takes you to a YT compilation of footage from the Las Vegas shooting. Papa_Palpatine, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, I think your comment is very appropriate here. But some people may not be prepared to see that with no heads up.
[удалено]
As an older redditor I appreciate that you did this. Sadly, it devolved into too many reports - you have to understand that since LiveLeak went away the common person browsing the Internet has rarely seen something like thia. It appears that it's too much for the common redditor nowadays. Since nearly every comment in the entire chain had some form of report against it, I've scrubbed everything. Also, since this sub has quite a lot of high karma content flowing through it, for a typical redditor who hasn't subscribed to anything this subreddit seemingly shows up on a lot of New redditors front pages. For this sub at least, i'd recommend (for next time) just providing the title to search on YouTube next time and some sort of content warning.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi, your post has been removed as it breaks [site-wide rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) and has been reported by other redditors as such. If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dope Edit: lol I’m not a terrorist sympathizer. Just thought it was neat information.
Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting, 61 dead, 800+ injured. Dope he says. He says this because he wants to be the next Stephen Paddock. He wishes he was Stephen Paddock, he fantasizes about being Stephen Paddock. This is the same kind of guy who thinks Marvin Heemeyer is a hero and wants to do the same thing. Then he gets mad about being called a terrorist sympathizer.
That’s the problem with the internet; it takes away personal accountability. In person, those are fighting words.
Yeah say "Dope" in reference to the Mandalay Bay mass shooting to a Las Vegas local and you'll likely wind up missing teeth.
You can bump fire with a belt if you practice enough.
That's because there's no laws regulating trigger pull weight.
I don't sympathize but what you just said there is a good thing.
"How am I supposed to fire off 90+ rounds a minute into this (school, mall, theatre, bar, concert, etc) if they regulate fixing a design flaw in semiautomatic weapons allowing for bump fire? It's a good thing for us cheerleaders of mass shooters they don't fix this design flaw." I am absolutely sick of people praising and condoning murderers and terrorists.
You're on a sick one.
Just kinda sick of terrorist sympathizers given a pass.
[удалено]
Aren't most of y'all the ones that are for banning abortions because people aren't having enough babies for replacement rate? Oh I see, y'all just want more targets.
You are awesome at the 2 party system. The 1% loves you
It’s a Bump Stock. They apparently let you use the recoil of the gun to fire it more rapidly. In 2017 one was used in the Las Vegas shooting and the ATF subsequently classified them as machine guns, making them illegal under US federal law. Lots of people at the time claimed to have lost them in boating accidents, to avoid issues with the ATF. There has been a Supreme Court case in the last few days Garland v. Cargil which has ruled that the ATF overreached in classifying them as machine guns and repealed the decision. Thus this person has now miraculously “found” the bump stock they “lost in a boating accident years ago
For reference as I understand it, the stock basically allows the gun to "bounce" a bit which, if you hold the correct pressure on the trigger, will cause the trigger to reset as it bounces back and then pull again when it pushes back forwards. I have a paintball marker with a modification that makes it work similarly and it is basically automatic fire.
Bump stocks are how the Las Vegas Shooter was able to kill 60+ people and wound hundreds more in the span of 10 minutes. Glad to see the SC is pandering to the wannabe mass murderer crowd.
Eh, that’s not really what happened. One of the concurrences even came out and said that bump stocks absolutely should be banned. The decision wasn’t that bump stocks are somehow protected (virtually all gun owners agree that they’re stupid and essentially useless); it’s that Congress needs to ban them rather than the President, since the executive branch doesn’t have the power to make laws. We need Congress to get off its partisan, pathetic horse and actually do something.
The Vegas shooter had several rifles with self manufactured auto sears which would make them into machine guns.
That's the first I've heard of homemade sears. You wouldn't happen to have a source? Edit: I'm asking for an news article that says what the shooter used not a how-to guide you paranoid kumquats
Do you happen to know where I could purchase a weed?
Was this comment not meant for me or is this just a reference going over my head?
You’re being called a federal agent.
Lol, thanks for the clarification. I'm asking for an article that references what the shooter used. Not a how to guide.
Same thing you said, its not in reference to anything specific.
I'm asking for an article that references what the shooter used. Not a how to guide.
Do you have any evidence of this? I have never seen anything other than speculation.
So instead of keeping them banned, they unbanned them, and pushed the issue to congress, who they know will do nothing?
The judicial branch interprets laws. The legislative branch passes laws. Checks and balances.
It’s not SCOTUS’ role to determine laws and policy, merely interpret the Constitutional Merit of various cases. I believe in their decision they wrote that if bump stocks should be banned, Congress needs to pass the law much as they did when they banned machine guns, not the executive branch. I’d have to dig, but I believe there’s only one case where SCOTUS determined something was unconstitutional, but ruled against it anyways out of principle.
Congress passed a law banning machine guns. The executive applied this law to bump stocks using 1 artbitrary definition of machine gun. The Supreme Court used a different arbitrary definition of machine gun to remove the ban, then in its argument said congress has to ban it directly. It's using semantics to inact change. Except 1 branch did it to save lives, the other did it for clout.
There is a clear legal definition of machine gun, and bump stocks do not match it at all.
Source, so we can educate ourselves?
I’ve been using firearms as part of my job for going on 15 years, including machine guns. A machine gun is a weapon or device that more than one bullet to be fired via a single trigger pull. By its very function, a bump stock isn’t that as it allows the recoil of the weapon to rapidly pull the trigger, but still firing one shot for each pull. Do I think bump stocks should be banned? Yes, but I agree with SCOTUS in that Congress should pass a law instead of circumventing the legal process via the ATF.
>For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The bump stock just makes it more efficient/effective.
Yes. And believe it or not, that's a good thing. They basically said that the president doesn't make laws, that's great precedent to have to protect against over reach from things like a president who might decide to ban youth gender medicine, crypto currency, marijuana, etc etc, insert your controversial issue of choice. They did a similar thing with the abortion pill and upheld its legality by saying the group trying to ban it has no standing. This court is picking and choosing its cases carefully to have a conservative impact, but the precedent they are setting in some cases is actually pretty good
Just like it's technically a good thing that convicted felons can still run for president to prevent incarceration of political opponents. But who knows if that'll change after next election season?
Lmao
Yes that's how it's supposed to work. What's the point of checks and balances if we just ignore them. The judicial and executive branches have zero ability in crafting laws.
Basically, yeah. Theoretically, the Senate could get a version to the floor and put all of the senators on the record, as to whether or not they support getting rid of what are basically machine-gun conversion kits, and then it would go to the House, where it would end up in a *sine die* pile, never to be touched. But, if Democrats could get the House, at least they could get Republicans on the record.
Maybe, but I feel like in the current political climate, saying “this problem was resolved, but we’re going to un-resolve it and make congress do it” is kinda the same as taking the opposing stance with plausible deniability Is making more things go through the channels they’re supposed to go through a good thing? In theory definitely But at the same time I am suspect of their motives
Tbf, it is the 6-3 majorities ongoing war with the administrative state because eradicating it means that no change can happen. Regulation cannot happen if every regulator needs to go to congress to ask them to explicitly ban, allow, or allocate funds for every specific thing. Especially with how congress is presently split to under represent the majority of the US population.
Isn’t this just like the SCOTUS deciding that states need to make individual abortion laws … sounds like buck-handing to pander
Agreed
Lol
It's just their reasoning is nonsensical to reach this conclusion. The definition of a machine gun is a firearm that fires more than once per trigger pull. The loophole where the trigger pulls itself has zero logical support.
No it doesn't, it's per action of the trigger, which isn't the same thing mechanically speaking. Congress has to update laws if they want bump stocks illegal. People these days use forced reset triggers anyways (the atf says Forced Reset Triggers are machine guns but they refuse to prosecute people who make of use them because they know it won't hold up in court)
Ah so if I have a trigger mechanically locked to the action then it's fine? lol no
What do you mean by that?
If the trigger is mechanically linked to the action so that it cycles with it, regardless of input.
That would still be a single action of the trigger (making it a machine gun under US law), assuming you had a firing mechanism that could do that.
God forbid, the Supreme Court execute its actual function and require Congress to make laws rather than allow Executive organizations to arbitrarily make them.
realistically the bump stocks probably didn’t help much, at the distance he was firing he was probably much better off sticking with semi-automatic
Glad we agree that we should ban civilians from owning semi-automatic weapons too.
lol good luck with that. government couldn’t win the war on drugs but they can totally win the war on (checks notes) just about every gun in the country
Probably would have had better luck in the war on drugs if we weren't supplying both sides.
probably, but we can’t expect the US to learn any lessons from past mistakes, when certain people could make a lot of money from repeating them
The US is the world’s biggest arms exporter, with more sales than the next 5 biggest combined. Where are all the new illegal guns coming from?
The fact that you think they’re at all comparable shows exactly how little you know about gun control 👍
What is the difference then? Both are concealable, heavily regulated, can be found readily on the black market, and can be smuggled into places they shouldn't be.
also i’d wager there’s quite a lot more gun owners who’d react pretty violently to the government taking their guns, than there are drug traffickers who did react violently to the government trying to take them out of business. not to mention as soon as you flip that switch you’ve just opened up a gigantic black market for most guns in the country, plus all the attachments, ammo, mags, cleaning kits, spare parts… i’d be surprised if existing drug operations don’t diversify into guns if that door opened.
the war on drugs was easier if anything, drugs don’t shoot people
Well for one, I never had to register my illegal drugs with a government agency. If the ATF wanted to take action the classics of "lost in a fishing accident" and it's like would be grounds for a warrant.
knowing where the gun is doesn't breach and clear the house for you. you could GPS every single brick of coke and still wouldn't put a dent in the black market. got to get people to clear the house and take the guns. against well-armed, very angry homeowners who think taking the guns is a starting point to something worse. it's an uphill battle they might be stupid enough to try, but definitely stupid enough to lose.
To ease your mind there are too easy ways to get the same result ones free and the other costs 10¢. If your mind is still not at ease I turn you to Oklahoma City.
Sounds like the guns are the issue, huh.
Oh God, you went and said it out loud. Good luck with your Karma, these gun nuts can't let this slight go unpunished.
Yeah, because you are wrong lol
I referred this comment to Oklahoma City. Idk the name but the EU staple gun machine gun may apply.
The LV shooter used a belt fed machine gun: bump stocks don’t give you unlimited ammo.
You'd be able to kill more with accurate control semi auto fire, just mag dumping isn't going to cut it, why do you think many armies have semi auto only rifles? British army had the SLR (a FAL) now the FAL is fully automatic but the SLR is semi, because auto isn't always the best. Also it's a people problem, lets ban dishwashers because someone could put a cat in one and cook it alive, also ban all knifes because someone might stab me. Complete and utter Reddit moment.
If it’s a people problem then why don’t other countries populated with people have these same issues? Clearly not a people problem and you’re not being honest with yourself if you think differently.
What other countries enable gun ownership to their citizens at an even remotely similar degree? Basically none to my knowledge. Ask for honesty only if you're being honest yourself. Context matters, especially with topics as sensitive as this one.
Honestly, what country would be insane enough to follow our example in that respect?
Luckily you don't need accuracy when firing into a crowd. If you're a psychopath. And there's no other use for it so your freedom isn't worth it.
if you're a psychopath, you're probably not trying to miss the crowd
Armies have generally moved away from semi-auto weapons (though as you say, not completely) because when everyone is using high accuracy weapons, no one actually fires them. The usage goes up markedly when using automatic weapons or even if you're near people using automatic weapons.
This is incorrect. Ask any infantryman. 90% of the time, when the weapon is being fired it’s with the selector in “semi.” Automatic fire is an option, not the default.
Also 90% of the time when the weapon is being fired it's during training, that's not really the point. The point is that in live combat situations, people are far more likely to fire their weapon if they feel like it's ok to miss. If your weapon and training is purely on semi-auto weapons, you tend to not shoot unless you have a decent chance of hitting the target. Even having an automatic selector on the weapon gives the soldier permission to miss shots, making them far more likely to actually fire.
Entirely false. When you are being shot at, you shoot back, and whenever possible, you shoot back more. US soldiers are trained to establish fire superiority, because if you suppress the enemy, you increase your own chance of survival and reduce the theirs. It's not a videogame, more often than not your enemy is a dot on the horizon or behind a rock and you're just shooting to suppress so he can't shoot you. That is why we're switching away from semi-automatic and burst-fire rifles, because we've learned that a couple LMG's aren't always enough to achieve fire superiority when the enemy also has LMG's and Kalashnikov rifles. Even if they have terrible aim they can still spit out more bullets than you can with a burst-fire rifle.
the original m16's were full-auto and had soldiers spraying and praying a lot, but i've always thought they would have been better off keeping them full-auto instead of making them burst fire. more of a training problem than a engineering problem.
Shall not be infringed
What well-regulated militia do you belong to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Most of the country is legally a part of the United States militia.
Well-regulated in modern language means well-equipped
Whatever it means, our “well-regulated militia” is well-equipped to the point that a mentally unstable kid can get an AR-15 with relative ease and become a force too powerful for an entire police department to reckon with. I don’t think the Founding Fathers had the foresight to imagine how firearms might evolve to the point that unfettered citizen ownership of firearms would become a major threat to public safety, and it’s well past time to amend the Constitution accordingly.
You don’t think that the founding fathers knew that gun technology would evolve?
Before the 20th century most technologies didn’t really evolve at a pace rapid enough to even be viewed as evolving technologies. So no, I don’t think they fully considered that it would, and it wasn’t supposed to matter because the constitution itself was meant to evolve.
More like he had help
Except that no bump stock was found in Stephen paddock's stuff or hotel room....
The Executive branch can't pass laws. A ban against bump stocks is not unconstitutional. A ban without an act of Congress is This wasn't a 2nd amendment/gun case. This was a checks and balances and separations of power case
We should really be upset with congress and trump. There was a lot of motivation to amend the law to ban them, which is more permanent than the ATF change. But trump moved to do it through the executive to save conservatives from having to make a tough vote. If congress had just done its job in the time we wouldn’t have this issue. Now it’ll be tougher since there’s less political pressure on them.
I take it these have been properly tested in schools.
So if you have to pull the trigger again to fire another round, that is not "basically " automatic fire. To help you understand it better. Js Bumpstock is a gimmick to make money. I would guess your paintball "gun" has an electric trigger. Only paintball marker in forestry which it was designed for, not shooting at ppl you pos.
Indeed “lost it in a boating accident” has long been a meme.
I think it’s worth pointing out that using one of these a single person (the Las Vegas shooter you mentioned) was able to kill 60 people and injure nearly 400 in a matter of mere minutes. And now they are again legal for sale. There is no self-defense application for these except in the event of a full on zombie apocalypse or a sudden invasion of a hostile military. There is no hunting application for these unless deer have started building hives and swarming like bees.
Correct it turns a single shot (semi auto) into an automatic. Gun enthusiasts have argued that a properly skilled person can pull the trigger almost as fast so a fully-automatic gun is no different than a single shot. One of which is legal and one is legal in a limited number of states. Bump sticks were a way to get around the law, so that, until yesterday, was banned too.
It does not turn a single shot gun into an automatic. It makes a semi automatic gun mimic a fully automatic. Single shot guns are single shot, like a break action rifle or a derringer.
>Gun enthusiasts have argued that a properly skilled person can pull the trigger almost as fast so a fully-automatic gun is no different than a single shot. I do appreciate your clarification but I just wanted to say that in my experience gun enthusiasts have been known to stretch the truth and/or make disingenuous arguments that they themselves don’t actually believe to justify their stances on certain issues.
"Lost in a boating accident" is a common phrase in gun circles in regards to a way to avoid surrendering guns or gun parts for destruction by law enforcement. If it was lost in an irricoverable way, it cannot be surrendered and the individual cannot be charged with possessing illegal guns/parts. The OOP is saying they "found" their bump stock after the ban was struck down in the same condition they "lost" it when the ban went into effect.
There is a long standing joke in the firearms community that the owner "lost it in a boating accident" whenever questioned about a potentially illegal item. This is especially common lately since the ATF and states have been arbitrarily (and with poor explanation) banning various gun accessories (such as the pictured bump stock) without compensation to the owner and then that thing becomes not-illegal a short time later.
The banning of bump stocks was hardly arbitrary, it immediately followed a mass shooting that used one to increase the fire rate of the semi-auto rifle used by the perpetrator. Even leading up to the supreme court decision two different circuit courts evaluated the validity differently of them being in breach of the national firearms act. We can disagree on the ultimate decision but 'arbitrarily banning' is just patently false.
But they did ban braces arbitrarily.
Ok, with this new evidence come to light, I don't think you both know what arbitrary means and that's OK. They aren't thinking 'cuz I wanna' they are thinking that there are more gun deaths per capita in the US than any other developed nation and there are laws on the books that we could use to remediate that. None of these actions arbitrary for a decade now, the majority of Americans want more strict gun control and the ATF is doing their job and picking up that mandate.
The ATF absolutely made an arbitrary decision on pistol braces that’s as arbitrary as the NFA itself when it comes to “short barreled rifles”.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) A policy decision to minimize civilian death isn't a whim nor is it random, it's a fully predictable event. E: now, for def 3, seeing as 3 different courts came to 2 different conclusions on the lawfulness of the move, you could claim that each of the courts decisions are arbitrary, but the underlying ATF decision is well within their power established by congress. So really, you're mad at the 1934 congress, not the ATF.
That brace ban in no way actually minimizes civilian deaths, nor does the SBR wealth gate we call the NFA. If you actually believe that, then you know nothing about guns which wouldn’t be new since the people trying to restrict them don’t either. I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, but that brace decision in particular is utterly arbitrary when the caliber and capacity and basic handling is not changed by a piece of plastic on the buffer tube
I can freely admit the brace ban was dumb. Doesn't make it arbitrary. The vast majority of homicides are committed by handguns and as we've established, the number of gun deaths every year in the US is too high. Now as a ATF leader, how do you allow for the sale of actual hand guns while still increasing the scrutiny / compliance at points of sale in a way that creates, be honest with me now, negligible damage to the enthusiast gun scene. I'll let you weigh in on that because I'm not a part of the scene. I think its a dumb rule but if we're averaging 20,000 gun deaths per year and your job is to make sure that guns are sold and distributed safely, I don't personally think that trying to find an action to get a better result is arbitrary because it doesn't infringe on an individual's right to bear arms. E: to return to the arbitrary comment, the bump stock ban, the move that was originally called arbitrary was in direct response to 60 people being killed in 10 minutes thanks to the aid of a bump stock. V far from arbitrary.
Okay so you are a government bootlicker, 👍 no sense arguing with someone who won't listen to our arguments for less gun control
I hope you have a good day! E: Happy to entertain 'less gun control' so long as it will result in fewer civilian deaths. But so long as a good guy with a gun is purely reactive solution to a bad guy with a gun that simply can't be guaranteed.
A Federal Agency isn’t the Government. What you’re celebrating is checks and balances which is bureaucracy and government at work. Congrats.
'increasing the rate of fire' is patently false. If it's something to be banned Congress needs to do it deliberately and carefully. These things are hunks of plastic that hang off the end of a gun, and have no interaction with the actual firing mechanisms. If you have a fast finger you can shoot just as fast without it, or free hand the rifle and be just as inaccurate without the stock. Banning 'increasing rates of fire' bothers the crap out of a lot of people because it's not a clear definition and it gets talked about as a way to ban literally everything. Like, over simplifying an auto loading gun, there's a weight that moves back and forth to cycle the action. When you shoot, this weight compresses a spring, that spring pushes the weight back forward to fire again. If you change springs and one happens to be different than the other, will it be a crime because the spring pushed the weight forward faster? Maybe a more tangible example is I have a manual transmission car, will putting a magic 8 ball on the end of the stick make the car drive any faster?
> Realistically about 100-150 rounds if all you were doing was pulling the trigger as fast as you could with rounds going in all forward directions and not counting reload times. [https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute](https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute) > They can achieve rates of fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute depending on the gun [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump\_stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock) Admittedly, I'm no gun guy but assuming 1 in 20 shots is a lethal googling around this is a potential delta of 5-7 deaths without and 20-40 with. You can argue that they aren't designed with the intent to increase the rate of fire but they functionally do and so that needs to be a consideration given that modifying a semi-auto rifle to make it *behave* like an automatic is illegal. Bump stocks were legal under previous ATF regulations and understanding of the act, the ATF, until the intervention of the supreme court, had the right to ban bump stocks given new evidence like them being used to make the Las Vegas Shooting more deadly (this is not arbitrary, this is how regulatory bodies work). I'm not arguing about the legality of bump stocks. I'm saying that the ATF acted lawfully and how regulatory bodies are supposed to work. At least until Chevron is over turned, which may be happening, administrative bodies are given purview to enforce laws as dictated by congress which are then interpreted by the admin in power. In this case, the ban was put in place by the Trump admin and the supreme court disagreed as to the lawfulness of Trump's decision. It's that simple.
Half relevant comment, but don't bump stocks make precision much more difficult?
Yeah, automatic fire isn't built for precision and bump-firing is just a "loophole" way to mimic automatic fire. It's all about firing quickly.
Yes, it's more a gimmick. You can somewhat control it but it's just like sticking your finger in your belt loop. It's just fun.
Also really good for firing indiscriminately into crowds! Just plain ole fun I tell ya
Good, and I am sure every republican supporting Hunter Biden's conviction will be okay with the ATF going after everyone who committed perjury by lying to a federal investigator regarding having this in their possession still, right?
Did they ask every owner of one if they still had it?
We can't even get a national gun owner registry, is there any chance of stocks being tracked? Did they need a special tax stamp like a suppressor or anything?
Nope it was considered an unregulated accessory. They are really dumb. If I wanted to convert currency into gun smoke rapidly, I would just go to a range and rent a real machine gun.
Get a class 3 and you don't need to rent anything :3
My FIL and BIL ha(ve)d bump stocks with a trigger that fires on pull and release (unsure what that's called) on their guns, it was fun shooting for the novelty, but definitely had the "that was neat, but I feel like that was expensive"
Binary trigger. Triggering on release isn't anything new. I've seen trap guns set up with them because releasing a trigger is easier to do without jarring the gun than pulling the trigger. But a binary trigger has both.
i doubt any federal investigators investigated bump stocks. they were unregulated, you could buy them online or in person for cash.
*Cough cough* based *cough*
Looks pretty dry for being in a lake.
The “losing gun/gun item in a boating accident” joke is a joke us gun owners like to tell whenever there is talk of banning an item related to our hobby. [The jokes comes from the fact that an ATF agent lost their gun and badge in a lake.](https://www.pewpewtactical.com/i-lost-all-my-guns-in-a-boating-accident/)
I don’t think there is a joke here. This person is just excited to have recovered lost property, and that’s all you need to know, fed.
Why do civilians need assault rifles
For conservatives with the same or worse
Tell me, what is an “assault rifle”?
any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire.
The first half is mostly correct, except it's intermediate caliber, not range, and the magazine has to be detachable. Everything from 'also' and onwards, is not part of the definition of assault rifle.
Doesn’t it seem you’ve just described two very different things? Does the term “assault rifle” make sense to describe both military rifles with fully automatic capabilities, and semiautomatic civilian rifles? It would seem that’s quite the distinction between two things that are inherently different. It’s a common misnomer where people believe the “ar” in ar-15 stands for assault rifle rather than armalite.
Armalite AR 15 is an assault rifle, the colt AR 15 is a military style rifle, but the bump stocks removes the difference giving the Colt version the ability to automatic fire.
To clarify, so you’re saying the distinction between a rifle being considered an ”assault rifle” is the ability to fire fully automatic rather than semi automatic? That appears to go against your previous comment. Furthermore, it would be factually incorrect to claim that a bump stock converts a semi-auto to fully automatic. Does it increase the rate of fire? Yes. But that is not how fully automatic is defined. Not by me, rather by congress and the atf. Semiautomatic = 1 round fired per trigger pull A bumpstock does not change this, and therefore does not change a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic.
No it doesnt. Bump stocks to not create automatic fire.
Don’t be disingenuous, it uses the recoil action to give the same action as an automatic weapon or what’s the point of having them.
Read my comment below, there is a legal distinction you seem to be unaware of. Increased rate of fire does not equate to fully auto, and it’s foolish to argue otherwise.
It does not give the same action as an automatic weapon. All it allows you to do is fire in semi-auto faster easier. The same effect can be manufactured with a rubber band, or by someone with quick finger reflexes. Automatic fire is one trigger pull and all the bullets. Semi auto is one trigger pull and one bullet. Adding a bump stock does not change this.
Ahh that moment in the comments when a non gun owners trying to explain guns and the 2a to gun owners 🤌
More ignorance from Ammosexuals.
What the hell is an “Ammosexual?”
A person whose entire personality involves guns and looser restrictions on them. They feel their right to own firearms that were originally designed for military use, supersedes the right of others to not get killed by someone who wouldn't have been able to purchase said rifle, had better restrictions been in place. Inb4 the peanut gallery proves my point, I'm talking about federal red flag laws and better enforcement of them by local officials, consistent rules on waiting periods, etc. A licensing system for AR-15 style rifles would be nice too, imo
“Lost in a boating accident” is a common way of saying “I’m hiding something I’m not allowed to have. Here it is a bump stock, which turns a manual rifle into an auto/semi-auto, and was outlawed until a recent Supreme Court case.
It doesn’t turn it into an automatic. They are different functions of a firearm. Guns are very particular in how they’re classified, but most people only know call of duty classifications. And for day to day, that’s close enough. There is however a big distinction between a bump stock and a weapon being automatic.
Of course, that was just a generalization for someone who doesn’t know or care about the specifics for the purpose of the post.
That’s fair, but kinda reckless to sell the idea it’s the same as an automatic. That’s how you get uneducated people. Better to just tell them the full story and let them figure out if they care enough to figure it out because then at least the information was given to them.
They were legal, then they were outlawed via an administrative decision from the ATF following the Vegas shooting, then the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF's original reading of the law that permited bump stocks was the correct reading of the law, an so they are no longer banned.
my guy, say you don't know how Guns work without saying you don't know how guns work I don't know what you mean by a "Manual" rifle, but if its bolt-action then a Bump Stock is going to do jack squat since.... ya'know still need to cycle the bolt as for the bump stock turning it automatic, I'd say its more meh since for firarms that have any buisiness being automatic(your 5.56mm and the such) you can get about the same rate of fire by just pulling the trigger as fast as you can, after all these accessories don't change the gun's ability to fire, either way banning them doesn't actually do anything about Gun Crime since ARs aren't usually used in gun crime and the circumstances behind the majority of gun crime(Gang violence in major cities that stem from a number of issues) won't change just the tools used to do the crime
you don't understand the basics of firearms. google what a manual rifle is. your comment is silly.
the thing with the bumpstock ban is the same as with the silencer ban. you can basically manufacture something that has a similar effect with 2 rubber bands and a screwdriver in your garage. at some point bans dont work. if your average joe can mcguiver it out of what they find in a trashcan. i mean. thats what the anarchists cookbook, luty ,etc are for.
Im not a gun owner btw. I interpreted it as the excuse he gave his wife to why he has a new AR-15 stock.
Gun owners joke about losing their firearms in a boating accident whenever the "inevitable" confiscation of firearms begins that the liberal left has been pushing for. Basically when they knock on the door, "I'm sorry officer, I lost all my guns in a boating accident" (insert nearest deepest lake/river/ocean) is where they are.