TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:17 pm I've seen many videos of soldiers in Iraq running full auto. Nobody can say full or semi is better; each has its own applications. If I stepped around a corner in Fallujah and there were 3 or 4 ISIS fighters standing right in front of me raising their weapons, I'd darn sure want to be on full auto. Another good example is this scene from the movie "Sicario." Of course, it's a movie, but it makes the point.

Everything has its place.

"On the internet, everybody is an expert."

Speaking solely from my personal experience, I was completely unable to accurately control my fire beyond a 3 round burst while firing my M16A1 on full auto. This is back when they actually had full auto, and I always thought that was the reason why the later M16 versions switched from an automatic setting to a "burst" setting.

If I am facing 3 to 4 bad guys, I'll need to fire 3 to 4 accurate, aimed, shots while switching from one target to another. I am going to go out on a limb and say that, for me, that will be easier to do quickly if I am on semi-auto mode, instead of also having to deal with muzzle rise before acquiring each of the next targets.

Maybe others are better able to fire accurately on automatic mode.

I always thought that the point of automatic fire from a rifle was primarily for suppressive fire, not to increase the amount of people you hurt or killed with that rifle. I agree that an automatic rifle or one equipped with a bump stock is generally less effective at killing people. As an aside, if our true goal is to reduce the number of people killed in school shootings, we should require, not ban, automatic weapons / bump stocks.

They don't really have a purpose if we are hunting, or defending our home against 1-2 home invaders. But they definitely will have a purpose if we are ever in the situation that our founders faced where their government had become destructive of the very reasons for it's existence.

That said, I personally would be OK with TAM's proposal to give up bump stocks in exchange for both the HPA and national reciprocity purely from a tactical, pragmatic, perspective. But these need to be in the same piece of legislation. I do not trust our political opponents enough to give up anything based on hopes and promises of gaining something else in the future.

rm9792 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I wondered what a bump stock is and how it works so:

After watching this, I don't see myself needing or wanting one. If this video is real, these things should fall under the same restrictions as do full automatics, IMO.

Wow. You have no idea what the 2nd amendment is about do you? The NFA act is a massive violation of the intent of the 2nd if you read the words of the framers when they discuss it.

Those who say they are "staunch supporters" of the 2nd Amendment, and then say that military style weapons should not be owned by citizens have zero understanding of the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place. It is not there to protect our right to hunt, to have fun, to collect, or even to defend ourselves from criminals. A simple read of the founding documents should make this very clear. Our founders believed that we have the right to overthrow any government that becomes destructive of our God given rights. They then explicitly guaranteed that this new government they were forming would not interfere with our right to free speech, to organize, to be free from unreasonable searches, to have due process, and to keep and bear arms. Anyone who reads these documents and honestly concludes that the founders did not want us to own weaponry that was on par with that available to our government controlled military forces is, at best, deluding themselves.

This does not mean that I think anyone should overthrow our government. That would be a tragedy and I sincerely wish that never happens. I also know that the fact that a citizenry possesses the means to put up a meaningful resistance against government military forces makes such a result less likely, not more.

If we, as a people, believe that we have moved past the point where we need to be wary of government overreach, then we can, and should, change the Constitution. Maybe we no longer need guarantees against unreasonable government searches. Maybe we no longer need to be concerned that the government will use the FBI to investigate political opponents. Personally, I think we need all of these guarantees now more than ever before, but my point is that there is a process for We the People to make changes to how we are governed. And if we believe we need to make changes, we should follow the process that is outlined in the Constitution so we never have to follow the process that is outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Richbirdhunter wrote:Where can I buy one in DFW? I didn’t want one until I was told I couldn’t have one.

Slidefire's system is down, but you can find them on TGT and other sites. Looks like folks are asking around double what they were going for a couple weeks ago.

philbo wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Is there anything on Trump actually signing a ban? Or is this just an order to develop regulations?

No direct ban at this time, but as "expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns."

There will be time for due process perhaps, but the intent seems clear to ban bump stocks and similar devices. What they will do with those already on the market is a good question, but I expect that what happened in Massachusetts this month might provide an example of what may unfortunately happen.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ma ... 2682ffa243

Bump stocks do not "turn legal weapons into machineguns." Machine gun is a defined legal term, and a semi-auto rifle with a bump stock does not meet this definition. So unless we change the law to redefine a Machine Gun based on maximum potential rate of fire, or some such, this would not do it. The intent may be to ban bump stocks and similar devices, but even then do you think his intent is to ban devices that are similar in appearance, or similar in function, like neck ties, shoelaces, belt loops, etc.? I'd guess appearance. Just not sure how he plans to go about this.

And I think Massachusetts changed their law, not their interpretation of an existing law like we are seeing here.

Oldgringo wrote:

roadkill wrote:
{snip}

Looks to be just a continuation from the Vegas shooting and he’s not seeking a specific ruling just to issue a final ruling on the issue

Look again, that memo bears today's date. You also may note the use of the word "immediately'?

The only "immediate" I see is "for immediate release". Is that what you are referring to?

jason812 wrote:I think bump stocks and binary triggers are a waste of ammo but if they are going to become illegal, I might have to buy one. And I was saving my allowance for something else

Do I have to cut my belt loops off now?

Apparently stock analysts and big investors don't believe anything will actually come of this since Ruger's stock is down almost 4% today. I can also find entry level AR's for sale at just over $500 on Buds. If there is any truth to the hysteria, it hasn't led to panic buying. Yet.

philbo wrote:Trump orders regulations drawn up to ban bump stocks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1G42T1

Is there anything on Trump actually signing a ban? Or is this just an order to develop regulations?

If they are just drawing up regulations, then we will need to wait to see what this means. Are they going to ban everything that could be used for bump firing, or just a specific type of stock? How do I register a piece of plastic with the ATF? Do I get a tax stamp for it? Is it only an issue once it goes on a firearm? What will the process be for getting an NFA stamp? When is this effective? Is it retroactive? If it is retroactive, am I required to dispose of legally owned bump stocks in a specific manner or can I just toss them into a lake somewhere? Is this the end of legal shoe laces, string, belt loops, etc., or can I continue to bump fire all I want using things other than a specifically designed stock?

Enforcement will be another can of worms altogether. If this includes "all" devices that could be used to facilitate rapid fire, then how do I get Pelosi arrested when she shows up on TV wearing something that meets the definition? That might actually be fun.

philip964 wrote:President signed today

And you got nothing for it.

Fox News going all anti gun with the announcement.

Pro gun people did not get in front of it and now loses.

I can't find this anywhere. Can you link to a source?

I'm curious to know the specifics like bump stocks only, or any "rapid fire devices" like clothing / ties, also is this retroactive / confiscation?