• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NRA opposes bipartisan bump fire stock bill in Congress

Tosyn_88

Member
Am I being stupid or am I the only one who thought the noise over gun stock seem like a dumb proposition to begin with.

I'm no firearm expert but I know a thing or two to know that gun stock does not make it change its rate of fire. Rate of fire has to do with the trigger mechanisms, the gas system all of which are in the upper receiver system of rifles.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

The real conversation should be regulating or outright banning all AR-15 variants all together.
 

CheesecakeRecipe

Stormy Grey
Am I being stupid or am I the only one who thought the noise over gun stock seem like a dumb proposition to begin with.

I'm no firearm expert but I know a thing or two to know that gun stock does not make it change its rate of fire. Rate of fire has to do with the trigger mechanisms, the gas system all of which are in the upper receiver system of rifles.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

The real conversation should be regulating or outright banning all AR-15 variants all together.

You might want to actually read up on what a Bump Stock is.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Am I being stupid or am I the only one who thought the noise over gun stock seem like a dumb proposition to begin with.

I'm no firearm expert but I know a thing or two to know that gun stock does not make it change its rate of fire. Rate of fire has to do with the trigger mechanisms, the gas system all of which are in the upper receiver system of rifles.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

The real conversation should be regulating or outright banning all AR-15 variants all together.
You're not stupid but you're also not well informed on these bump stocks:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...hose-bump-stock-turns-gun-machine-gun-n807576
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/0...s-enabling-automatic-gunfire-report-says.html
 
as a gun owner....the NRA is a bunch of douchebags. They morphed over the years to adopt a "you cant touch anything!" approach to common sense legislation. I understand the need for an advocacy group, but they have taken it to the absolute extreme of the spectrum and whats worse, its now what a lot of members expect them to do. They've become an absurdly powerful lobby group as well. They feed their members all sorts of crazy conspiratorial shit about politicians that cross them.

Where I’m at with them (as a fellow gun owner. My pal works over for one of the other big gun orgs and he’s got nothing all that great to say about them at all tbh.

Am I being stupid or am I the only one who thought the noise over gun stock seem like a dumb proposition to begin with.

I'm no firearm expert but I know a thing or two to know that gun stock does not make it change its rate of fire. Rate of fire has to do with the trigger mechanisms, the gas system all of which are in the upper receiver system of rifles.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

The real conversation should be regulating or outright banning all AR-15 variants all together.

You couldn’t take the time to look up what this stock is, so yes.
 

blackflag

Member
as a gun owner....the NRA is a bunch of douchebags. They morphed over the years to adopt a "you cant touch anything!" approach to common sense legislation. I understand the need for an advocacy group, but they have taken it to the absolute extreme of the spectrum and whats worse, its now what a lot of members expect them to do. They've become an absurdly powerful lobby group as well. They feed their members all sorts of crazy conspiratorial shit about politicians that cross them.

I'm in this same category. I think there is a liberal gun owner group, well there's a reddit at least, they obviously have no power but I'd rather associate myself with them.

NRA is racist dogwhistling trash.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
They supported stricter legislation. That does NOT mean they support an outright ban, and, again, the bill is so vague that it would ban far more than just bumpfire stocks.

It's not vague. It would ban more than just the stocks, it would ban anything that accomplishes the same thing - increasing a semi-automatic's rate of fire. Why would you just ban one device and leave everything else that can achieve the same end untouched?

The ATF could reclassify bump stocks and make them illegal - they are the arbiter of what is the line between semi-automatic and automatic. A legislative fix is the ultimate goal, but if they want something right this instant, the ATF is the way to do it.

ATF says they can't do it because it doesn't convert it to a full automatic. Are they wrong about that?

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/55744...ould-regulate-bump-stocks-its-not-that-simple
 

Piggus

Member
Class 3 which is an effective ban for most folks. Why is this hard? It was specifically designed to circumvent the AWB and it never should have been approved in the first place. Fucking ridiculous.

They were approved because, based on the legal definition of what a machine gun is and how it operatives, a bumpfire stock doesn't actually convert a gun into a machine gun. They obviously break the spirit of the law, but the ATF can only ban something if it explicitly violates existing law.

It's not vague. It would ban more than just the stocks, it would ban anything that accomplishes the same thing - increasing a semi-automatic's rate of fire. Why would you just ban one device and leave everything else that can achieve the same end untouched?

So someone who shoots in competitive events wouldn't be able to upgrade their trigger? Hell, even ammo type effects rate of fire. Under this law, the belt loop on your pants could be considered a device that increases rate of fire.
 

Tosyn_88

Member

Thanks for the article. I actually never thought one can cheat the recoil mechanism into resetting the trigger for you. That's a brilliant piece of tech but an appalling governance of such innovation. How can the government approve this for the consumer market when it clearly states it turned semi auto into auto effectively.

The overwhelming business and monetary drunkenness within the USA regarding firearms is disgusting. At this point, it seems no one can regulate guns without a strong kick back from those monetary interest screaming conspiracy government nonesense.

It's quite sad, we have had too many people, kids, teenagers, adults, talented people die from things like this and yet the conversation hasn't moved an inch. It took once for the UK and Australia to crack down on this yet the USA seem happy to let this become normal. It's not normal at all and is quite insensitive to the suffering of people who face consequences of these toys.
 

Piggus

Member
Thanks for the article. I actually never thought one can cheat the recoil mechanism into resetting the trigger for you. That's a brilliant piece of tech but an appalling governance of such innovation. How can the government approve this for the consumer market when it clearly states it turned semi auto into auto effectively.

Because you're still pulling the trigger every time the gun is fired, which means the gun is still semi-auto as the ATF defines it. You can achieve the same thing without the stock, but the stock just makes it a lot easier.

So they'll be working to get it right then? At this point I'll only believe it when I see it. I realise it wouldn't do much to solve the bigger problem but it would show that they were at least prepared to compromise on something.

Legislation really shouldn't be passed if it's ineffective and only designed to lull people into believing a problem has been solved when it hasn't. That's arguably more dangerous than doing nothing.
 

Jedi2016

Member
The problem is that there is no law that covers what a bump stock does. So a new law must be created. Simple as that.

Since everyone seems to agree that bump stocks were created specifically to circumvent current law and allow that which is otherwise illegal, I'm not seeing why there's even an argument here. If skirting the law like this becomes the norm, it's only a small step away from complete anarchy.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
So someone who shoots in competitive events wouldn't be able to upgrade their trigger? Hell, even ammo type effects rate of fire. Under this law, the belt loop on your pants could be considered a device that increases rate of fire.

We already went over this. The bill lists examples of what it means by device or accessory, and per esjudem generis interpreting that to mean ammo or a belt loop is covered would be unreasonable.

This is a typical NRA style objections - come up with some boogeyman interpretation of the law, no matter how implausible, and use it to cry gun grabber.
 
Legislation really shouldn't be passed if it's ineffective and only designed to lull people into believing a problem has been solved when it hasn't. That's arguably more dangerous than doing nothing.

How disingenuous of you, thats not what I meant at all. The bigger problem I was talking about was gun violence and a lack of regulations on gun ownership. That doesn't mean it's ok for devices explicitly designed to skirt around regulations to be on the market. What I was saying is if they can't even deal with something like that then theres no hope for addressing the bigger problem.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
It's not vague. It would ban more than just the stocks, it would ban anything that accomplishes the same thing - increasing a semi-automatic's rate of fire. Why would you just ban one device and leave everything else that can achieve the same end untouched?



ATF says they can't do it because it doesn't convert it to a full automatic. Are they wrong about that?

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/55744...ould-regulate-bump-stocks-its-not-that-simple


Ish. They banned something similar that didn't technically convert it to a machine gun, but used an electric motor to basically pull the trigger super duper fast.

We already went over this. The bill lists examples of what it means by device or accessory, and per esjudem generis interpreting that to mean ammo or a belt loop is covered would be unreasonable.

This is a typical NRA style objections - come up with some boogeyman interpretation of the law, no matter how implausible, and use it to cry gun grabber.

Well - wait, hold on. The bill text has no definition of device or accessory, at least the latest version proposed from the house. I posted the text above.
 

Akronis

Member
Am I being stupid or am I the only one who thought the noise over gun stock seem like a dumb proposition to begin with.

I'm no firearm expert but I know a thing or two to know that gun stock does not make it change its rate of fire. Rate of fire has to do with the trigger mechanisms, the gas system all of which are in the upper receiver system of rifles.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

The real conversation should be regulating or outright banning all AR-15 variants all together.

You don't know what a bump stock is, clearly.

ATF needs to just start banning this shit and start handing out hefty fines or jail time for first offenders.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Ish. They banned something similar that didn't technically convert it to a machine gun, but used an electric motor to basically pull the trigger super duper fast.



Well - wait, hold on. The bill text has no definition of device or accessory, at least the latest version proposed from the house. I posted the text above.

I didn't say it did. It does list examples - trigger crank, bump stock. It doesn't define "fire," "convert," or "manufacture" either. Not every word in a statute needs to be defined. As I mentioned, lawmakers presume people understand the usual definitions of English words.
 

Boston

Member
What do you guys think about Micheal Owens talking point?



"No amount of statistics or facts will sway either side in the gun control debate, because they are all looking for simple solutions to complex problems. The facts of those complex problems are uncomfortable and nobody really wants to come to grips with them.




"For example, we don’t really have a single America with a moderately high rate of gun deaths. Instead, we have two Americas, one of which has very high rates of gun ownership but very low murder rates, very comparable to the rest of the First World democracies such as those in western & northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Korea. The other America has much lower rates of gun ownership but much, much higher murder rates, akin to violent third world countries.




"The tough questions are those like, why do we have these two Americas? But that’s an uncomfortable discussion to have. So instead those on the left favor simple minded restrictions that target first world America, with its high gun ownership but very low murder rate, but don’t address the root causes of third world America’s violence at all. Meanwhile those on the right correctly feel their civil rights are constantly threatened, so they are constantly in a state of “better stock up before they finally ban it” and the guns and ammo fly off the shelves. The left’s constant gun control rhetoric is the greatest thing ever for arms manufacturers.




"Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, while the number of guns in private hands has doubled, the murder rate has dropped by half. The left are constantly prattling about “assault weapons” which are almost never used to commit murders (about 1% of gun murders; all rifles combined are around 3%). More murders are committed with baseball bats than “assault rifles”; the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns, but it’s easier to sell restrictions that target “assault weapons”, even though such restrictions, even if 100% effective, would make no detectable change in the murder rate (especially because of substitution effects). They favor ridiculous measures such as bans on “high capacity magazines”, as if magazines weren’t cheap and easily swapped out in a fraction of a second.




"The uncomfortable fact is that roughly 80% of the US homicide rate is associated with the drug trade, and the drug trade is violent because the drug war reserves it for violent criminals. We have a system in place where the government subsidizes poverty in urban areas, imposes economic blight in those same areas through heavy taxes and regulations, renders the residents permanently unemployable via the “criminal justice” (sic) system, and creates a lucrative black market in drugs by restricting supply (not to mention increasing demand as people are desperate to escape their circumstances by getting high), meaning the only game in town is often entering the drug trade. The drug trade is violent because those in it have no access to courts to settle disputes. Powerful industries lobby to keep the drug war going; the top spenders are law enforcement unions, the prison industry, big alcohol, tobacco, and pharma.




"Guns are not the proximate cause of gun violence in the US. Childlike magical thinking and simple “fixes” to complex problems will not work. But it is comfortable, and self-righteousness feels so good. So I expect it to continue indefinitely."
 

lush

Member
What do you guys think about Micheal Owens talking point?

ynMCX1y.jpg

Seems like the standard talking points with a heaping serving of dog whistles. The mental health debate again as this administration is currently cratering our healthcare system. Blaming the left for fearmongering at that, lol. I wonder who is perpetuating the war on drugs?
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
I didn't say it did. It does list examples - trigger crank, bump stock. It doesn't define "fire," "convert," or "manufacture" either. Not every word in a statute needs to be defined. As I mentioned, lawmakers presume people understand the usual definitions of English words.

I'm staring at the bill, and neither trigger crank or bump stock are listed. It does say "rate of fire"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Prohibition on manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

(a) Prohibition.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—

“(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or

“(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”.
 

BatDan

Bane? Get them on board, I'll call it in.
as a gun owner....the NRA is a bunch of douchebags. They morphed over the years to adopt a "you cant touch anything!" approach to common sense legislation. I understand the need for an advocacy group, but they have taken it to the absolute extreme of the spectrum and whats worse, its now what a lot of members expect them to do. They've become an absurdly powerful lobby group as well. They feed their members all sorts of crazy conspiratorial shit about politicians that cross them.

Is one of those conspiracies "Democrats cause all mass shootings?"
I had a friend tell me that, I tried to tell them how bullshit that was but they didn't believe me.
 
Is one of those conspiracies "Democrats cause all mass shootings?"
I had a friend tell me that, I tried to tell them how bullshit that was but they didn't believe me.

Yes theres a not insignificant amount of people that believe mass shootings are false flag operations designed to take their guns.
 
They're taken seriously cause they have clout and money, but fuck this group of mass murderers.

We need to reevaluate as a country where they stand, cause there's shit like the KKK, Nambla, then there's the NRA. One of those three has been way more effective at pushing its poisonous agenda than the others.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Thanks for the article. I actually never thought one can cheat the recoil mechanism into resetting the trigger for you. That's a brilliant piece of tech but an appalling governance of such innovation. How can the government approve this for the consumer market when it clearly states it turned semi auto into auto effectively.

The overwhelming business and monetary drunkenness within the USA regarding firearms is disgusting. At this point, it seems no one can regulate guns without a strong kick back from those monetary interest screaming conspiracy government nonesense.

It's quite sad, we have had too many people, kids, teenagers, adults, talented people die from things like this and yet the conversation hasn't moved an inch. It took once for the UK and Australia to crack down on this yet the USA seem happy to let this become normal. It's not normal at all and is quite insensitive to the suffering of people who face consequences of these toys.
My understanding of how this was able to remain legal was that the law banning modifications that turn semi-automatics into automatics specifically only blocks "mechanisms" to do so, however these bump stocks have no moving pieces or mechanics so they were able to slip through.
He is actually not wrong, it does not change the maximum rate of fire of the machine.

It let's the operator get closer to that max rate of fire.

Arguing technicalities like this while ignoring the realistic applications of a device (and damn near equivalent end state) is an endearing debate technique.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
Arguing technicalities like this while ignoring the realistic applications of a device (and damn near equivalent end state) is an endearing debate technique.
Well then let me state that I am against the second amendment before you think I am debating you.

Edit: And technicalities like the one I pointed out would be very important in trying to enforce this legislation.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
I'm staring at the bill, and neither trigger crank or bump stock are listed. It does say "rate of fire"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text

I'm looking at Feinstein's version which explicitly mentions trigger cranks and bump-fire devices.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

I know it says rate of fire. But it doesn't define them. My point is that simply because certain words are not defined does not render a bill unacceptably vague.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
I'm looking at Feinstein's version which explicitly mentions trigger cranks and bump-fire devices.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

I know it says rate of fire. But it doesn't define them. My point is that simply because certain words are not defined does not render a bill unacceptably vague.

Ahhh Feinstein's version is clearer than the House one I was looking at. They should still clean up some of the verbiage about "combination of parts". The other half of the solution is to require gun manufacturers to state (and for the gov't to validate) a default rate of fire. That seems like a fairly obvious solution (just like there is an official "miles per gallon" test for cars).
 
Is one of those conspiracies "Democrats cause all mass shootings?"
I had a friend tell me that, I tried to tell them how bullshit that was but they didn't believe me.


Eh, sort of. Most of their rhetoric the last few years is pushing the idea that the only way to stop a "bad guy" with a gun is a "good guy" with a gun. Im sure you could follow down the path of regulation keeps guns out of good guys hands, and thus, they are unable to stop the bad guy.

Most of their shit is pushing the idea of an extreme slippery slope towards confiscation.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Banning bump stocks doesn't matter. If a psycho wants to hurt people with automatic fire, all they had to do is lookup a YouTube video on how a simple modification can make a rifle full auto.

Terrorists will always find a way around laws and use whatever they can to inflict massive damage. Look at what happened in France, Germany etc. Guns were illegal yet look what happened. Look at the damage a truck can do. The focus shouldn't be on laws. They don't care about them.
Let’s legalize drunk driving, some people are just gonna do it anyways. Let’s legalize heroin, some people are just gonna do it anyways. Let’s legalize explosives, some people are just gonna get them anyways.

Fuck your bullshit talking point.
 

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
How shocking. The NRA, a group that exists solely to benefit the gun industry, pretended to come out against bump stocks, which sent sales through the roof making their patrons happy as a pig in shit. And then they just reversed course once the money was made. So very shocking.
 

Boston

Member
Let’s legalize drunk driving, some people are just gonna do it anyways. Let’s legalize heroin, some people are just gonna do it anyways. Let’s legalize explosives, some people are just gonna get them anyways.

Fuck your bullshit talking point.

You just proved my point. You can easily do all those things even though they are highly illegal and yet people still do it. Everything you just listed kills way more people than bump stocks or automatic rifles as well.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
You just proved my point. You can easily do all those things even though they are highly illegal and yet people still do it. Everything you just listed kills way more people than bump stocks or automatic rifles as well.

I think it's easier to buy bump stocks than it is to buy c4.

You might have to look up to see the point that you missed.
 

SeanC

Member
You just proved my point. You can easily do all those things even though they are highly illegal and yet people still do it. Everything you just listed kills way more people than bump stocks or automatic rifles as well.

I can easily go into a store and buy some heroin?

Ok...
 
You just proved my point. You can easily do all those things even though they are highly illegal and yet people still do it. Everything you just listed kills way more people than bump stocks or automatic rifles as well.

By your logic, if criminals will just ignore the laws anyway, then Australia's gun ban would have had no effect on gun crimes. Which it did, by the way. And also led to a lower suicide rate.
 
Not c4, but it's easy to buy ingredients to make explosives.

Maybe small IEDs or frag grenades, but the type of bomb making materials that Timothy McVeigh used are now tightly regulated and controlled. There's a reason we haven't had another bombing of that scale. The most recent mass bombing I can think of (the Boston Marathon) was more of the frag type than the building leveling that used to be possible.
 

Boston

Member
By your logic, if criminals will just ignore the laws anyway, then Australia's gun ban would have had no effect on gun crimes. Which it did, by the way. And also led to a lower suicide rate.

Australia doesn't have the population the U.S. has.

Australia doesn't have more guns than people.

Australia doesn't have the second amendment.

Australia didn't have a civil war.

They are not comparable and I am for tighter gun control (To a certain extent).
 
Top Bottom