The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

armoredman · October 6, 2017, 05:01 AM

Mr Pond, I value your input and outsider perspective, as always well written and articulate, but I have to agree that to allow the anti rights crowd to ban an item because someone misused it once, is a bad thing, when untold numbers of civilians use this item without issue. I personally have less than no use for a bump fire stock. I will never own one - I prefer to be sure of where very bullet I fire is going. Most military I talk to say full auto on a rifle is wasteful and uncertain at best, and tend to keep rifles on semi auto so they can get as much out of each round as possible. Automatic fire is best kept to light and heavy machineguns. Having said that - full auto in a rifle or sub machine gun for civilian use is fun. Practical usefulness is very limited, but it is a lot of fun for those who can afford the toys and I don't begrudge them that fun. Bump fire stocks have the same lack of practical usefulness, but neither does my kid's game console. The ONLY use I could see for a bump fire stock in a defensive situation is in a militia style response to turn a heavier caliber rifle, such as an FAL into an ersatz LMG. That's it, under the 2A. Other than that, as useless as my wife's 80th pair of shoes in the giveaway box in the garage. But I will defend the right of people to keep a lawful product, despite it's usefulness, ( Kult of Athena sells lots of functional swords - I don't think they have much modern usefulness?), because it is lawful, the actions of one lone nutjob notwithstanding. IF it was true that an item once misused to cause death and destruction should be banned, then all box cutters would have been tightly regulated after 9/11.
As for people here quite comfortable with banning semi auto rifles, banning normal capacity magazines, I'm sorry, fair weather friend and sunshine patriots is not what we need now. As stated above, these things are often rushed through as fast as possible so cooler heads will not prevail, the calm cool logic overwhelmed with heated emotion, "DO something NOW"...regardless of what good or harm it may do.
For those with the militia argument, Heller divorced the clearly stated right from service in the militia, so that holds no water, nor the assentation that the National Guard is the militia - it isn't. But it also doesn't matter.
However this goes, it is going to be fast, bumpy, loud and shrill on all sides, with much heat and smoke being cast about. I, for one, am glad Mrs Clinton is not in the White House, because the end of this would be far, far worse for everyone. The quote about riflescopes in Australia is spot on, when you remember that she openly admired the Australian style of unilateral personal disarmament.
I would be happy to avoid that. I may dislike your bump fire stock, but I will defend your right to legally own and operate it.

October 6, 2017, 05:01 AM	#141
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	Mr Pond, I value your input and outsider perspective, as always well written and articulate, but I have to agree that to allow the anti rights crowd to ban an item because someone misused it once, is a bad thing, when untold numbers of civilians use this item without issue. I personally have less than no use for a bump fire stock. I will never own one - I prefer to be sure of where very bullet I fire is going. Most military I talk to say full auto on a rifle is wasteful and uncertain at best, and tend to keep rifles on semi auto so they can get as much out of each round as possible. Automatic fire is best kept to light and heavy machineguns. Having said that - full auto in a rifle or sub machine gun for civilian use is fun. Practical usefulness is very limited, but it is a lot of fun for those who can afford the toys and I don't begrudge them that fun. Bump fire stocks have the same lack of practical usefulness, but neither does my kid's game console. The ONLY use I could see for a bump fire stock in a defensive situation is in a militia style response to turn a heavier caliber rifle, such as an FAL into an ersatz LMG. That's it, under the 2A. Other than that, as useless as my wife's 80th pair of shoes in the giveaway box in the garage. But I will defend the right of people to keep a lawful product, despite it's usefulness, ( Kult of Athena sells lots of functional swords - I don't think they have much modern usefulness?), because it is lawful, the actions of one lone nutjob notwithstanding. IF it was true that an item once misused to cause death and destruction should be banned, then all box cutters would have been tightly regulated after 9/11. As for people here quite comfortable with banning semi auto rifles, banning normal capacity magazines, I'm sorry, fair weather friend and sunshine patriots is not what we need now. As stated above, these things are often rushed through as fast as possible so cooler heads will not prevail, the calm cool logic overwhelmed with heated emotion, "DO something NOW"...regardless of what good or harm it may do. For those with the militia argument, Heller divorced the clearly stated right from service in the militia, so that holds no water, nor the assentation that the National Guard is the militia - it isn't. But it also doesn't matter. However this goes, it is going to be fast, bumpy, loud and shrill on all sides, with much heat and smoke being cast about. I, for one, am glad Mrs Clinton is not in the White House, because the end of this would be far, far worse for everyone. The quote about riflescopes in Australia is spot on, when you remember that she openly admired the Australian style of unilateral personal disarmament. I would be happy to avoid that. I may dislike your bump fire stock, but I will defend your right to legally own and operate it.