Bike shop boycott NRA?

[rick81721]

so i'm reading an article that says bump stocks can achieve firing rates of dozens per second. lets say 2 dozen qualifies for dozens.
24*60=1440 rounds per minute. well that is nice, it isn't happening. i have a hard time believing 10/second is achievable - but maybe.
given that the barrel of the gun is in motion, they are only good at shooting into a general space - which makes "target" shooting with them impossible.

i'll take a stand on this one. it is an unnecessary modification, that has little value other than the ability to quickly spray bullets.
mods to make a gun more reliable, accurate, comfortable, lighter - make sense. it's a hobby. fire more quickly with less accuracy? nah.

edit: Just to reflect @1speed's post below. What am i missing besides the "holy shit" factor. I didn't mean my post to seem like it was not open to discussion.

I see no need for bump stocks and have no issue banning them, which I've read Trump is going to do anyway

 

[SmooveP]

I don't want/need to own a Full auto gun because I don't want to spend the $15,000- $25,000 to legally purchase one. I don't need or want to own a bump stock because I personally don't find them fun. But I don't force my wants and needs on others. I would appreciate people not forcing their wants and needs on me.

This type of thinking could be applied to any law. The 2nd Amendment is pretty vague. Do you believe we should be allowed to own rocket launchers, bombs, and howitzers? All would qualify as "arms". Where exactly would you draw the line?

 

[Supermoto]

This type of thinking could be applied to any law. The 2nd Amendment is pretty vague. Do you believe we should be allowed to own rocket launchers, bombs, and howitzers? All would qualify as "arms". Where exactly would you draw the line?

the 2A isn't vague at all, "shall not be infringed" is pretty straight forward. You can own rocket launchers, bombs and howitzers now, lots of legal hurtles and very high cost, but it can be done. I draw the lines at chem, bio and nuclear.

 

[1speed]

Why would anyone need to own a bike? There's plenty of places you can rent one. Just because you can't justify a reason for someone to own something doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to. I get someone can use the gun to harm others but that's not the point.

I don't want/need to own a Full auto gun because I don't want to spend the $15,000- $25,000 to legally purchase one. I don't need or want to own a bump stock because I personally don't find them fun. But I don't force my wants and needs on others. I would appreciate people not forcing their wants and needs on me.

Okay, so it seems that in both your cases, this is fundamentally a concern for someone else telling you what you can or cannot do. I get that. I generally share the sentiment, and if I'm being honest, I can't say if I were a gun owner/enthusiast that I wouldn't apply that thought process myself.

I do, however, think there is a problem with equating owning a bike with owning an assault weapon. Independent of the user, the functional purpose of a bike is conveyance while the functional purpose of the latter is to shoot something with many, many rounds. I get the point you're making there, but I think it's a dangerous way to do it because it implies an equivalence that ignores the considerably higher destructive potential of one of them (which is the very basis of the national argument currently in play.)

 

[Patrick]

Why would anyone need to own a bike? There's plenty of places you can rent one. Just because you can't justify a reason for someone to own something doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to. I get someone can use the gun to harm others but that's not the point.

I don't want/need to own a Full auto gun because I don't want to spend the $15,000- $25,000 to legally purchase one. I don't need or want to own a bump stock because I personally don't find them fun. But I don't force my wants and needs on others. I would appreciate people not forcing their wants and needs on me.

i accept the concept that one should be able to choose how they live within the legal guidelines society has set. And depending on which boundary is crossed,
the penalty is commensurate (or supposed to be) - as we tend to view punishments of the past with current glasses, and laws/punishments evolve.
i'll also agree that we need constructionists for balance.

what is the point?

Isn't it a matter the greater good?

--here is where it gets interesting - it isn't just the people who have been or will be attacked,​

it is also the people who fear they or their own may be attacked, and those who are responsible to defend.​

to lift some of that burden, by limiting the rights of the few that might exercise them.​

Why isn't full auto available? Why is modifying an ar or ak to full auto illegal? (the answer is to eliminate street wars with them)
i posit that the only justifiable use for an accessory like a bump stock is to attack/defend against a mob, say the militia from north carolina attacks the militia of south carolina.
(yes, i see others where an individual is besieged by a group - but it always seems to be a turf war, or payback)
---
i'll provide better example than the bike one, cause i'm not sure that applies.

Why are there street cars that can exceed 100mph? 200mph? at no time is sustaining these speeds needed on a public road in the USA. We have tracks for that. yes, the power might be needed to accelerate into traffic, but then it should be electronically limited to something reasonable. Instead we have a law about reasonable that everyone breaks. And one can't say it doesn't have repercussions because every once in a while a corvette goes air-born and lands in the side of a church bus.
problem is, that is the result of negligence. not a premeditated mission to harm. Cars used in attacks is not a valid counter - think about the example.
---
automatic weapons, or those modified to act as such, provide two battlefield advantages that come to mind.
hit a moving target with more efficiency (a less skilled marksman) or quell an advancing group.

what is the bump stock beyond holy-shit and the battlefield advantages?
---
here is the me part: i try to put this in these posts to get a feeling of context.

i can't remember when i found out about bump stocks - maybe early last year?
Didn't really give it much thought, as i assumed black-market kits were available to modify many of these guns to auto -
just like 150 cartridge magazines can probably be 3d printed, or created with minimal metal shop skills.

I do not live in fear - but i'm hearing more-and-more kids do. they are identifying the outlier in class that may go off.
they are worried about the doors being locked. they worry about line-of-sight. i hear parents wanting to more security at
football and basketball games -
i just thought the cops were there to break up fights, and confiscate weed.

I think i'll wrap-up my participation in this thread, unless someone asks me something directly.
Not sure i have anything else beyond the application of the framework outlined here.

Will keep reading if Norm sees fit to keep it open.

---
misc:
info about obtaining automatic weapons and the process.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...cult-and-especially-expensive/article/2636302

from a similar article -
About 391,000 machine guns were listed in the national firearms registry as of November 2006, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates stricter gun laws. That same year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seized 1,280 unregistered machine guns.

 

[I Ride Bikes]

.
Why are there street car that can exceed 100mph? 200mph? at no time is sustaining these speeds needed on a public road in the USA. We have tracks for that. yes, the power might be needed to accelerate into traffic, but then it should be electronically limited to something reasonable.

As a car guy my response is I hate you.😉 You know dam well everyone should be driving a car with more than 600hp and a top speed of 200mph+. Because America

 

[jnos]

I don't want/need to own a Full auto gun because I don't want to spend the $15,000- $25,000 to legally purchase one. I don't need or want to own a bump stock because I personally don't find them fun. But I don't force my wants and needs on others. I would appreciate people not forcing their wants and needs on me.

I think Jim Jeffries say's it best:

“Why should I have my guns taken off me? I’ve done nothing wrong.” Look, I agree with you. If you’re a responsible gun owner and you don’t fuck around with them, then you should be allowed your guns. You really should. But that’s not how society works. We have to play to the 1% that are such fuckwits they ruin it for the rest of us. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society fucking moving, right? I take drugs like a fucking champion, right? [Audience cheering] We should all be allowed to take fucking drugs, but we can’t, can we? Because Sarah took drugs and she stabbed her fucking kids. Oh! “Oh, thanks, Sarah. You fucked it up for everyone.” Right? Everyone should be allowed to drive their car as fast as they can do it, right? But we can’t because Jonathan got drunk and ran over a family. “Thanks, Jonathan! Now I have to drive at 30, you fucking idiot!” See, that’s the thing. “Why should I have my guns taken off me, I’m responsible, just because that guy’s crazy?” Who’s to say you’re not crazy? That’s the thing about crazy people. They don’t know they’re crazy. That’s what makes them crazy. The only thing you know for sure on this Earth is, “I think, therefore I am.” You know that you exist.

 

[Supermoto]

i

what is the point?

Isn't it a matter the greater good?

--here is where it gets interesting - it isn't just the people who have been or will be attacked,​

it is also the people who fear they or their own may be attacked, and those who are responsible to defend.​

to lift some of that burden, by limiting the rights of the few that might exercise them.​

.

We both live in fear of getting attack
Here is the fundamental difference. I believe I should have the best tools available to defend myself from an attacker. I want everyone to be able to choose what tools they want and to take personal responsibility for that. Any restriction is on only those that choose to obey the laws. Which by definition, criminals won't do. So by limiting my rights, it does not "lift that burden", it only restricts my ability to protect myself and my family. It increases my burden to be able to protect my family effectively

 

[Supermoto]

I think Jim Jeffries say's it best:

He would ban Mtn biking access because 1% rode in the mud

 

[SmooveP]

the 2A isn't vague at all, "shall not be infringed" is pretty straight forward. You can own rocket launchers, bombs and howitzers now, lots of legal hurtles and very high cost, but it can be done. I draw the lines at chem, bio and nuclear.

Vague in that it doesn't define the scope of what constitutes "arms" and the meaning of the word "infringed". Vague enough that it's been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court and is still debated by legal scholars and common people to this day.

Glad to hear that you draw a line somewhere. Most debates of this nature are about where to draw them. Everyone has a different place, I suspect.

 

[Monkey Soup]

I see no need for bump stocks and have no issue banning them, which I've read Trump is going to do anyway

Full auto is a relic of the Rambo era, and is perpetuated by Hollywood. They can go ahead and ban bump-stocks, theres no advantage to having a full auto light rifle. The military version of the AR15, the M4, isn't even issued as fully automatic. It fires semi and 3-round burst. The military learned that full auto is just a waste of bullets. And when you run out of bullets, your rifle is only good as a bat, and bats are no good in a gun fight. Soldiers don't have unlimited ammo like in the movies. Heavier weapons like the M249 are issued as full auto, and even then burst fire is preferred. Full auto is good under a set of specific and limited conditions where suppressive fire is required. Our soldiers and Marines are taught marksmanship, not point and spray. Military weapons, even the heavier ones, are issued with advanced optics to facilitate precision marksmanship. Shooting full auto is fun for a second, to get it out of your system at a rental place. Honing skills and hitting with precision at variable distances is way more fun, you need to train your mind and body together. Just look at those guys in the biathalon, what they do is insane.

 

[rick81721]

the 2A isn't vague at all, "shall not be infringed" is pretty straight forward. You can own rocket launchers, bombs and howitzers now, lots of legal hurtles and very high cost, but it can be done. I draw the lines at chem, bio and nuclear.

I'm waiting to buy a phased plasma rifle in the 40W range

 

[rick81721]

Full auto is a relic of the Rambo era, and is perpetuated by Hollywood. They can go ahead and ban bump-stocks, theres no advantage to having a full auto light rifle. The military version of the AR15, the M4, isn't even issued as fully automatic. It fires semi and 3-round burst. The military learned that full auto is just a waste of bullets. And when you run out of bullets, your rifle is only good as a bat, and bats are no good in a gun fight. Soldiers don't have unlimited ammo like in the movies. Heavier weapons like the M249 are issued as full auto, and even then burst fire is preferred. Full auto is good under a set of specific and limited conditions where suppressive fire is required. Our soldiers and Marines are taught marksmanship, not point and spray. Military weapons, even the heavier ones, are issued with advanced optics to facilitate precision marksmanship. Shooting full auto is fun for a second, to get it out of your system at a rental place. Honing skills and hitting with precision at variable distances is way more fun, you need to train your mind and body together. Just look at those guys in the biathalon, what they do is insane.

Agreed. The range of sniper kills these days is remarkable - this probably isn't even the record anymore: