"Holy Shit! That's Full Auto!"Well, yes and no. It was a conversion (bump fire; never heard of it). But it was still full auto.
Later, I grew angry with the NRA because it wouldn't make a statement about bump fire. I was torn for two reasons:
- I never fully agreed with the severe restrictions on private ownership of Full-Auto weapons because I think that any weapon available to the average infantryman should be available the the law-abiding citizen. Because Second Amendment.
- I also realize that is unrealistic, because this world is full of crazy people ... and yes, the rest of us ARE penalized unfairly. Because crazy people are all over and we know we can't predict who is going to do a crazy thing. *(apologies to Minority Report; it just ain't happening)*
Today the NRA's Past President Marion Hammer made a statement:
An open letter to NRA board of directors from past-president Marion Hammer - The Gun Writer:
If you listened to an audio recording of the shooting during that horrific massacre, you must have concluded that it was full-auto fire. You were not alone, many firearms experts and law enforcement professionals came to the same conclusion. It was not until later that information was released disclosing that bump-stocks had been used to convert semi-automatic firearms to perform like full-auto firearms.and:
Do you have any idea how many people were shocked out of their minds when ATF decided bump-stocks were not subject to regulation and APPROVED them for sale and use? That was under the Obama administration for crying out loud. Your mind is forced to run wild wondering why.
Once the ruling was made, what would you expect NRA to do? Do you think NRA should have said, Oh! No, ATF is wrong, ATF made a mistake?
It doesn’t matter what laws the NRA doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like, the NRA must abide by the law. For decades, over and over again when the enemies of the Second Amendment have tried to capitalize on tragedies by calling for more gun control, NRA has called for enforcing existing law. That is exactly what we are doing now.
On the other hand, there's this:
NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill
Bill's language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks
A woman's work is never done.
3 comments:
"Shooting Sports and Other balderdash."
With the emphasis on "balderdash."
"Well, yes and no. It was a conversion (bump fire; never heard of it). But it was still full auto."
Two points: Bump-fire is not full auto; you still pull the trigger for each shot. While the media focus is on bump-fire, please recall that the cops specifically reported bump-fire stocks AND at least one full auto rifle.
Please consider that the NRA is basically demanding that the ATF seize the power to unilaterally place items on the NFA list regardless of definitions in law. "Machineguns" are defined; bump-firing with a sliding stock -- or with bare hands -- does not even approach that definition.
If you ban (or restrict/register/tax) an item because someone misused it once, you'll need to ban baseball bats, cars, microwave ovens, telephones, sand paper, and pretty much any material item.
Anonymous Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger said... "If you ban (or restrict/register/tax) an item because someone misused it once, you'll need to ban baseball bats, cars, microwave ovens, telephones, sand paper, and pretty much any material item."
Isn't that what they ultimately want?
Full auto/bump fire with those rifles is not as accurate at approx. 400 yards as controlled, aimed semi-auto fire.
Post a Comment