The Bump Stock Hill and Other Issues

No, I don't care about bump stocks. The bump-stock is not the hill to die on, and before we get on about slippery slope fallacies, please bear in mind a few questions and consider them carefully:

Is the bump stock required for the effective exercise of the 2nd Amendment? If it is, why? Be specific as to why the bump-stock is germane to the exercise of our rights, and how those rights will be affected by the absence of the bump stock.

Does the bump stock add a tactical advantage that you would otherwise not have? *There is a logic to this question beyond the obvious that I would also like to address, and that is:*

If we regularly tell gun grabbers that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or recreation, but then dance around what the Amendment and our firearms are for, does that make us cowards or hypocrites when it comes to the defense of the bump-stock?

Recreational use is the number one known application of bump-fire/slide-fire stocks, excluding competition(wonder why?). They provide no tactical advantage or fill any tactical gap that I can identify despite my best efforts, based on my experience and knowledge.

I don't know about other gun owners. But I carry Glock 19 Gen 4 with an RMR and suppressor height sights so I can put holes in the meatbag that thought I'd make a good victim.

I own and maintain an AR pattern rifle chambered in 7.62x39, also with some neat optics and accessories to make it easier for me to fill meatbags with holes for entering my home without an invitation, or fill foreign meatbags with holes for invading my home, and in the event my own government is taken over by meatbags that refuse to abdicate power, thereby threatening our security as a free people.

That's what I own weapons for. I'm under no illusions about what the Second Amendment is for.

So let's stop hanging our hats on the "Sporting use" garbage. Screw the bump-tock. That thing is going to go away whether we like it or not. If you want to tell people that you're no longer talking, that negotiations are over, and you've drawn a line in the sand, you'd better be willing to back it up. Because once you're done talking the only thing left is fighting. Is the bump-stock THE hill to die on? Certainly not for me.

If they banned pic rail nut sacks tomorrow or tried to, is this something you're gonna embarrass yourselves over?

I recently told a friend of mine in a debate that I want to stop focusing on what was and what could be, and focus on what is instead.

I recently wrote an essay(some of which was discussed here) about the Universal Basic Income and the automation issue. I argued quite hard against the UBI KNOWING that regardless of what I say, the UBI will happen. Not because it is a good idea, but because mob rule works regardless of the systems you put in place. It's what "They" want, and it is what they will get. Despite this, even "They" know there are problems with the system they want and are actively brainstorming methods of making the theory work.

Our problem is that we stopped critically thinking about Second Amendment issues(antis never started). It is absolutely NOT enough to say "All or nothing". We live in a country with people who disagree with us, and in any negotiation, you have to be willing to do two things in order to win, lose something you can live without and be willing to walk away. The latter of the two is reserved for situations where winning is a must, but you can't afford to lose anything. This is not the case with the bump-stock, and yet we are making it that.

I don't think I have to tell anyone on ATS what my positions are on the Second Amendment. So when someone calls me a shill for acknowledging what is the reality we live in, I have to wonder exactly where this is all going to go. The argument is that if I don't come out strongly for this useless hunk of # we call a bump-stock, then I don't care about the Second Amendment.

Why are we making this "The Stand"? How does this secure a victory for the Second Amendment? Why aren't we actually honest about the purpose of our right to arms? You can't win an argument without acknowledging truths. If we can't even be honest with ourselves, if we can't acknowledge the complex society we live in, if we can't critically think on these issues, we will lose the Second Amendment altogether.

I am not addressing liberals antis because I know where they stand and why even if they don't.

But, I'm not convinced my fellow gun owners and 2A advocates know WHY they stand so firmly on this issue.

a reply to: projectvxn

Bump stocks are useless and make your rifle less accurate. If we let them ban this, then they will start going after your magazines, then your optics, then your bi-pod. It makes no sense to allow them to ban an item that is merely an accessory. And probably the least dangerous thing you can attach to a rifle.

If people want bumpstocks, let apply for a special tax stamp to obtain them. Silencers/suppressors are done this way, and there's no problems with that.

My problem with the ban is it needs to be written as such that it only applies to devices that make a firearm full auto- not the tools or machinery involved.

If I need a tax stamp to buy a damn file, I'll be pissed. Same goes for cnc machines.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: projectvxn

Bump stocks are useless and make your rifle less accurate. If we let them ban this, then they will start going after your magazines, then your optics, then your bi-pod. It makes no sense to allow them to ban an item that is merely an accessory. And probably the least dangerous thing you can attach to a rifle.

Give an inch, they take a mile...

My guess is that pro 2A people feel (rightly or not) that if they give an inch, they’ll lose a yard.
I’ve owned bumpstocks and other “gadgets” long before Vegas, installed them and eventually uninstalled them, because they really serve no purpose.
That being said, I don’t see how banning them solves much, other than to make people feel good.

I try to not bring this up much, but you can buy long guns at 18 y/o, but can’t buy a handgun until 21?
Think about that.

originally posted by: projectvxn
No, I don't care about bump stocks. The bump-stock is not the hill to die on, and before we get on about slippery slope fallacies, please bear in mind a few questions and consider them carefully:

Is the bump stock required for the effective exercise of the 2nd Amendment? If it is, why? Be specific as to why the bump-stock is germane to the exercise of our rights, and how those rights will be affected by the absence of the bump stock.

Does the bump stock add a tactical advantage that you would otherwise not have? *There is a logic to this question beyond the obvious that I would also like to address, and that is:*

If we regularly tell gun grabbers that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or recreation, but then dance around what the Amendment and our firearms are for, does that make us cowards or hypocrites when it comes to the defense of the bump-stock?

Recreational use is the number one known application of bump-fire/slide-fire stocks, excluding competition(wonder why?). They provide no tactical advantage or fill any tactical gap that I can identify despite my best efforts, based on my experience and knowledge.

I don't know about other gun owners. But I carry Glock 19 Gen 4 with an RMR and suppressor height sights so I can put holes in the meatbag that thought I'd make a good victim.

I own and maintain an AR pattern rifle chambered in 7.62x39, also with some neat optics and accessories to make it easier for me to fill meatbags with holes for entering my home without an invitation, or fill foreign meatbags with holes for invading my home, and in the event my own government is taken over by meatbags that refuse to abdicate power, thereby threatening our security as a free people.

That's what I own weapons for. I'm under no illusions about what the Second Amendment is for.

So let's stop hanging our hats on the "Sporting use" garbage. Screw the bump-tock. That thing is going to go away whether we like it or not. If you want to tell people that you're no longer talking, that negotiations are over, and you've drawn a line in the sand, you'd better be willing to back it up. Because once you're done talking the only thing left is fighting. Is the bump-stock THE hill to die on? Certainly not for me.

If they banned pic rail nut sacks tomorrow or tried to, is this something you're gonna embarrass yourselves over?

I recently told a friend of mine in a debate that I want to stop focusing on what was and what could be, and focus on what is instead.

I recently wrote an essay(some of which was discussed here) about the Universal Basic Income and the automation issue. I argued quite hard against the UBI KNOWING that regardless of what I say, the UBI will happen. Not because it is a good idea, but because mob rule works regardless of the systems you put in place. It's what "They" want, and it is what they will get. Despite this, even "They" know there are problems with the system they want and are actively brainstorming methods of making the theory work.

Our problem is that we stopped critically thinking about Second Amendment issues(antis never started). It is absolutely NOT enough to say "All or nothing". We live in a country with people who disagree with us, and in any negotiation, you have to be willing to do two things in order to win, lose something you can live without and be willing to walk away. The latter of the two is reserved for situations where winning is a must, but you can't afford to lose anything. This is not the case with the bump-stock, and yet we are making it that.

I don't think I have to tell anyone on ATS what my positions are on the Second Amendment. So when someone calls me a shill for acknowledging what is the reality we live in, I have to wonder exactly where this is all going to go. The argument is that if I don't come out strongly for this useless hunk of # we call a bump-stock, then I don't care about the Second Amendment.

Why are we making this "The Stand"? How does this secure a victory for the Second Amendment? Why aren't we actually honest about the purpose of our right to arms? You can't win an argument without acknowledging truths. If we can't even be honest with ourselves, if we can't acknowledge the complex society we live in, if we can't critically think on these issues, we will lose the Second Amendment altogether.

I am not addressing liberals antis because I know where they stand and why even if they don't.

But, I'm not convinced my fellow gun owners and 2A advocates know WHY they stand so firmly on this issue.

History is littered with small gestures / compromises that were made that unleashed a genie that grows far beyond what was originally intended and will never be put back in a bottle. Think income taxes for one. Many entitlement programs.

I get what you are saying and I largely agree, but best believe it won't stop. It would be a symbolic win for the gun grabbers and then next year they will be coming after your scope. suppressors. magazines. It won't stop.

a reply to: projectvxn

I think bump stocks are stupid and useless. And banning them for any other reason than that, is a mistake. I think that banning them is going to silence those kids to a degree, and I don't want that. I don't want this argument to die the same death most of them have. We need to change something, but we need to change something that will matter. Bump stocks will not.

I may be in the minority among gun owners, but at this point, I am willing to listen to anyone who has good ideas, even if they don't go along with my current view. We cannot just do nothing. (IMHO)

a reply to: Edumakated

any news on the hearing protection thing? I have been hoping to be able to get a suppressor without a 2nd mortgage at some point.

a reply to: network dude

I may be in the minority among gun owners, but at this point, I am willing to listen to anyone who has good ideas, even if they don't go along with my current view.

You're not. Even the NRA put out a study that showed most of their members are okay with things like universal background checks and other measures, and are willing to listen to new ideas.

The problem is that those ideas are often couched in shrill, emotionally charged rhetoric and the more extreme gun rights activists are all too eager to meet like for like.

Honestly I didn't know what a bump stock was until Vegas....and I grew up around guns.

Ya just loop your thumb in a beltloop....so that is correct, no issue to fret....give em that one.......spoken as a peace maker....IN THE FINE TEXAS TRADITION

This is like arguing a smart phone isn't necessary to practice their first.

It comes down to choice.

If people want to spend their own money on a bump stock what business is it of anyone elses?

Out of the last decade Vegas is all the anti bump stock suspects have.

Not a valid justification for authoritarianism.

Agree with many here, banning an accessory IS a slippery slope.

Yes I agree bump stocks and not mentioned bump triggers and rotary devices used to manipulate a faster trigger action make accuracy suffer. See its not just bump stocks - it's any device designed to help manipulate a trigger that's getting banned.

Next it'll be red dot optics, night vision, front grips etc.....

Basically claims will be made "hunters" don't need, nevermind that's not anything do with second amendment rights.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: projectvxn

Bump stocks are useless and make your rifle less accurate. If we let them ban this, then they will start going after your magazines, then your optics, then your bi-pod. It makes no sense to allow them to ban an item that is merely an accessory. And probably the least dangerous thing you can attach to a rifle.

Give an inch, they take a mile...

I thought they effectively made a semi automatic weapon fully automatic, in a country where fully automatic weapons are illegal already?

If so, then should they have ever been legal?

"It's not heroin officer, it's legal codeine I just added some other legal chemicals to and made it work different.... and baked it in my home."

a reply to: Phoenix

Try living in New York State, where so-called "evil" features are unlawful to have on a rifle. No pistol grip is allowed, no muzzle brake or flash suppressor, no folding or telescoping stock and a limit to the number of rounds of ammo in a detachable magazine. On top of that I can't have more than seven rounds in my semi-automatic handgun magazine, even though a Chief U.S. District Judge struck down the component that had made it illegal for people to load more than seven-rounds of ammunition into a magazine capable of holding 10-rounds. Why? Because Cuomo's asinine "SAFE" Act Gun Laws are still on the books and a court ruling does not change the law. These are just examples of why politicans, who know NOTHING about guns, SHOULDN'T make gun laws. These "evil" features don't make a rifle any more dangerous...it's like saying racing stripes on a car makes it go faster. Since when does this law prevent a criminal from loading 10 or more rounds into their magazines before robbing a store, bank or person? Like a person stated earlier, it's just a form of authoritarianism, that impacts law abiding gun owners.