Attempted murder at California campground

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Never saw the need nor had the desire for one. I'm not into blowing away $500 at the range just because I can throw rounds 10 times faster.

Me neither.

It's the argument that they're not "automatic". It's like saying a dual-clutch automatic transmission isn't an automatic. Might not be built the same as a hydraulic automatic, but it's still an automatic.
 
Never saw the need nor had the desire for one. I'm not into blowing away $500 at the range just because I can throw rounds 10 times faster.
I put a binary trigger (in NV, illegal here in CA, of course) in my 5.28 x 28 MM at my Reno house. I can switch from that expensive ammo to .22 LR by just changing the bolt in a few seconds when I want to waste ammo.

I put the rifle together myself starting with a blank AR15 lower receiver.

1718396568952.png
-Don- Auburn, CA
 
It's the argument that they're not "automatic". It's like saying a dual-clutch automatic transmission isn't an automatic. Might not be built the same as a hydraulic automatic, but it's still an automatic.
We also need to make rubber bands illegal.

See the YouTube below.


-Don- Auburn, CA
 
Me neither.

It's the argument that they're not "automatic". It's like saying a dual-clutch automatic transmission isn't an automatic. Might not be built the same as a hydraulic automatic, but it's still an automatic.
I'll have to go with the "a bump stock does not change the actual firing mechanism from semi to full auto" opinion. I can get the same bump stock effect with a semi auto by simply using my belt loop. No matter how quickly you can put rounds downrange, it still requires that the trigger mechanism completely cycle between each round, which itself requires the trigger to reset to it's original position.

Akin to those paddle shifters on an automatic transmission, like on my wife's Durango. They do not turn it into a manual, they only let people who don't know how to operate an actual manual transmission pretend that they are. It acts like it, it sounds like it, but it isn't.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to go with the "a bump stock does not change the actual firing mechanism from semi to full auto" opinion. I can get the same bump stock effect with a semi auto by simply using my belt loop.

Akin to those paddle shifters on an automatic transmission, like on my wife's Durango. They do not turn it into a manual, they only let people who don't know how to drive and actual manual transmission pretend that they are. It acts like it, it sounds like it, but it isn't.

It's not opinion, it's actual fact. But that also means bump stocks could be banned under other law because of the outcome they produce--congress still has the power to do that.

In my analogy, they've determined a dual clutch automatic transmission isn't an "automatic" by definition of the law because those are not built exactly like a hydraulic automatic. That leaves the door wide open to explicitly ban dual clutch automatics or instead devices that allow above a certain firing rate. Isn't that interesting...
 
I'll have to go with the "a bump stock does not change the actual firing mechanism from semi to full auto" opinion. I can get the same bump stock effect with a semi auto by simply using my belt loop. No matter how quickly you can put rounds downrange, it still requires that the trigger mechanism completely cycle between each round, which itself requires the trigger to reset to it's original position.

Akin to those paddle shifters on an automatic transmission, like on my wife's Durango. They do not turn it into a manual, they only let people who don't know how to operate an actual manual transmission pretend that they are. It acts like it, it sounds like it, but it isn't.
And you can effortlessly kill more people from an upper floor hotel window with a bumpstock.
 
I'm aware what Scalia wrote. It is in direct conflict with and repugnant to the 2nd.
If they want to make it right, gotta change the 2nd.
I feel no need to shoot big weapons myself. Been around guns my whole life, luckily never had to go shoot enemies. They are tools to a country boy, used to put food on the table and keep threats away.
It wouldn't bother me much if they changed the 2nd to say no fully auto. Bothers me that justices think they can walk all over it.
No offense but I think I'll go with the one who was on the Supreme Court.
 
It's not opinion, it's actual fact. But that also means bump stocks could be banned under other law because of the outcome they produce--congress still has the power to do that.

In my analogy, they've determined a dual clutch automatic transmission isn't an "automatic" by definition of the law because those are not built exactly like a hydraulic automatic. That leaves the door wide open to explicitly ban dual clutch automatics or instead devices that allow above a certain firing rate. Isn't that interesting...
That's a number that would be very hard to put an actual numerical tag on. Some folks who are really good with their semi autos and have tuned them to their preference can get off 120+ rounds per minute. That's pulling the trigger 2 - 3 times per second. It's not all that accurate, and it can't be maintained forever due to the physical limitations of the human hand, but it can be done. I cannot find any data on the rate of fire of any weapon using a bump stock.

One of the slower firing full auto firearms on the market is the H&K MP5SD, at 700 rounds per minute. I'm going to make an educated guess that there is no firearm using a bump stock that come come close to that.
 
Actually, yes. If you have a CCW then it's required that you have a certain amount of training to obtain said license. It was assumed one would know that this only applies to handguns. And see my post about Constitutional Carry aka permitless carry for clarification.

That's what I said. Some states require you to get a permit (And of course that requires you quailfy) Some do not anyone can carry .. What you call "Constitutional Carry" is not constitutional at all but that's an argument for elsewhere.
 
And you can effortlessly kill more people from an upper floor hotel window with a bumpstock.
It was all simple luck on the shooter's part. Spraying hundreds of rounds from a high position into a throng of closely packed people requires zero skill. If he would have been shooting down at an area that size with only a few dozen people spread randomly about the odds are he would have hit no one.
 
It was all simple luck on the shooter's part. Spraying hundreds of rounds from a high position into a throng of closely packed people requires zero skill. If he would have been shooting down at an area that size with only a few dozen people spread randomly about the odds are he would have hit no one.

Well, yeah, and if he didn't have access to a gun, he would have just thrown a car at them. 🥴
 
That's what I said. Some states require you to get a permit (And of course that requires you quailfy) Some do not anyone can carry .. What you call "Constitutional Carry" is not constitutional at all but that's an argument for elsewhere.
That's basically what I said. States that require a CCW require you to qualify. Constitutional Carry aka Permitless Carry aka Vermont Carry does not require you to qualify.

 
Never saw the need nor had the desire for one. I'm not into blowing away $500 at the range just because I can throw rounds 10 times faster.
Agree. I shot one a few times and was like "Ok been there, done that." Shot fully automatic weapons too with the same reaction. If I'm in combat then I'd see the need. But just to put lead downrange... meh.
 
It was all simple luck on the shooter's part. Spraying hundreds of rounds from a high position into a throng of closely packed people requires zero skill. If he would have been shooting down at an area that size with only a few dozen people spread randomly about the odds are he would have hit no one.
So let me see if I understand, you can get lucky and kill more people by rapidly spraying bullets into a large crowd than by rapidly spraying bullets into a small crowd?
 
That's basically what I said. States that require a CCW require you to qualify. Constitutional Carry aka Permitless Carry aka Vermont Carry does not require you to qualify.

I know they call it Constitutional Carry but that is only because they are preverting the constution. A WELL REGULATED Militia it is not.
 
And you can effortlessly kill more people from an upper floor hotel window with a bumpstock.
Sad but true It may not be a true Automatic but you bend your finger one time and the clip empties.. that's my definition of an automatic.. You bend your finger once then release and bend again. that's a Semi auto.
 
It's happened here in Reno a couple of times.

Here is one of them.

-Don- Reno, NV
And that's the same as using assault weapons with high capacity magazines and bump stocks, which, oh yeah btw, are not automatic weapons but enabled him to fire 90 rds in 10 seconds, to spray over 1000 rds into a crowd, taking an entire 10 minutes to kill 60 and wound over 400 people.
Now, not only can wannabees buy a weapon designed for no other purpose than killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time, they can legally enable it to fire 100 rds from a large capacity magazine in under 10 seconds. Any self respecting originalist will tell you the framers clearly intended "arms" to be broadly interpreted as including shoulder fired surface to air missile launchers, Claymore Mines, semi- automatic assault weapons with bump stocks, M101A1 Howitzer, Abrahms Tanks......
 
And that's the same as using assault weapons with high capacity magazines and bump stocks, which, oh yeah btw, are not automatic weapons but enabled him to fire 90 rds in 10 seconds, to spray over 1000 rds into a crowd, taking an entire 10 minutes to kill 60 and wound over 400 people.
Now, not only can wannabees buy a weapon designed for no other purpose than killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time, they can legally enable it to fire 100 rds from a large capacity magazine in under 10 seconds. Any self respecting originalist will tell you the framers clearly intended "arms" to be broadly interpreted as including shoulder fired surface to air missile launchers, Claymore Mines, semi- automatic assault weapons with bump stocks, M101A1 Howitzer, Abrahms Tanks......
This is exactly why they made it an amend-able document- as times change, the wording can also. Personally, I think they were concerned more rights would need to be protected, but the amendment process is also perfectly suited to removing or diluting rights if we are silly enough to do such a thing. Some smart guy once said something about those willing to trade freedoms for perceived safety/security will end up with neither.
Living in a free country is dangerous, goes with the territory.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
132,714
Posts
1,399,622
Members
138,350
Latest member
afshan
Back
Top Bottom