Supreme Court strikes down Trump's federal ban on bump stocks

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, West said:

Who's the ignoramus that's stating a bump stock would allow you to fire 800 rounds a minute? 

Your rifle would melt down long before that happens. The hyperbole is ill informed and dishonest

https://thegunzone.com/how-fast-can-an-ar-15-fire-with-a-bump-stock/

So why doesn't a fully auto M16 melt down, it is essentially the same gun.

[User]

59 minutes ago, Aristides said:

An AR15 with a bump stock increases its rate of fire up to 800 rounds per minute. A M16 rate of fire on full auto is 700 - 800 rounds per minute. So yes, it does make it a machine gun.

No, that makes it function similarly to a machine gun. 

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

A gun can't can't drive you to work, your kid to school, yourself on vacation or to the store and it can't deliver your Skip the Dishes, Amazon purchases or get you an Uber or cab. It won't delver all the goods and services you need to live to the places you can get them. This absurd comparison is very tired. 

You were the one who said "The details of the mechanism don't matter when it comes to KILLING PEOPLE."

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

https://thegunzone.com/how-fast-can-an-ar-15-fire-with-a-bump-stock/

So why doesn't a fully auto M16 melt down, it is essentially the same gun.

It is not remotely the same thing. Which is why the army buys m16's and not ar 15's. 

[User]

9 minutes ago, West said:

Who's the ignoramus that's stating a bump stock would allow you to fire 800 rounds a minute? 

Your rifle would melt down long before that happens. The hyperbole is ill informed and dishonest

It's the rate of fire, not how much fire can practically be sustained. 

 

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, User said:

It's the rate of fire, not how much fire can practically be sustained. 

 

How can it be sustained with a fully auto rifle? 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

It's the rate of fire, not how much fire can practically be sustained. 

 

More importantly it's a theoretical rate of fire, not actual. 

It's the rate of fire in a completely static situation where you are not moving from one target to another and you do everything correctly - for a short period of time you can sustain that rate of fire but only for a very short time. And if you transition to other targets then most likely you'll get a failure. 

The actual real world rate of fire is actually probably better in most cases with a regular semi auto with a light trigger pull. 

 

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, User said:

No, that makes it function similarly to a machine gun. 

You were the one who said "The details of the mechanism don't matter when it comes to KILLING PEOPLE."

Yes it makes its ability to kill similar to a machine gun.

I never said that.  I'm not in favour of banning guns just sensible regulations surrounding them but I'll tell you what, I'll ban all guns where I live and you ban all motor vehicles where you live and we'll see who makes out better.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

How can it be sustained with a fully auto rifle? 

a) - they are built to an entirely different spec with different components that can take that kind of pounding. An ar is not an m-16.  They are very different guns

b) They can't.  Soldiers were trained to fire in short bursts because they'll burn the gun and the barrel out in a heartbeat otherwise.  in fact  M-16's now have 3 round burst settings and NOT full auto to prevent any such issues and keep from wasting ammo.  Turns out full auto isn't a terribly desirable feature in most cases. 

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes it makes its ability to kill similar to a machine gun.

 

No, it does not.  You can't transition from one target to another effectively. You can't 'Spray" an area.  It jams frequently. 

It's a toy for the range. 

Why are you repeating the same lie. 

[User]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Yes it makes its ability to kill similar to a machine gun.

I never said that.  I'm not in favour of banning guns just sensible regulations surrounding them but I'll tell you what, I'll ban all guns where I live and you ban all motor vehicles where you live and we'll see who makes out better.

Are you OK?

I know it is similar to a machine gun, I am the one who just said that. You are the one who wrongly claimed it made it a machine gun. 

Yes, you did in fact say exactly what I quoted you as saying. It had nothing to do with banning guns... 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Are you OK?

I know it is similar to a machine gun, I am the one who just said that. You are the one who wrongly claimed it made it a machine gun. 

Yes, you did in fact say exactly what I quoted you as saying. It had nothing to do with banning guns... 

It gives a rate of fire similar to a machine gun. Guns are built to fire bullets are they not?

I did not say anything of the sort. Maybe someone did but it wasn't me.

Stop comparing motor vehicles to guns and we won't have a problem. We need motor vehicles to survive. You have to pass a test and get a license to operate a motor vehicle and it has to be registered and insured. You don't want any of those to apply to firearms so stop comparing the two.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It gives a rate of fire similar to a machine gun. Guns are built to fire bullets are they not?

I did not say anything of the sort. Maybe someone did but it wasn't me.

Stop comparing motor vehicles to guns and we won't have a problem. We need motor vehicles to survive. You have to pass a test and get a license to operate a motor vehicle and it has to be registered and insured. You don't want any of those to apply to firearms so stop comparing the two.

Oh, my apologies. You jumped in on a response I made to robo. He said that. 

I did not compare motor vehicles to guns, I was responding to robo's logic. 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, User said:

Oh, my apologies. You jumped in on a response I made to robo. He said that. 

I did not compare motor vehicles to guns, I was responding to robo's logic. 

I compared them to guns, he just got confused.  He doesn't want to respond to me because he's very aware i know a lot about guns and ballistics and will have no problem showing that most of what he's posting is nonsense.  A bump fire gun is NOTHING like a machine gun. 

But to touch on the car thing again - the fact is that if they don't have guns bad guys have a host of other things they use to kill people with and FREQUENTLY do. So the argument that the specific tool is the important factor is kind of dumb, and that's the point. If you DON"T ban cars and knives and gasoline and aircraft and etc etc then they still have all the tools they need. 

The common denominator in all of those crimes is the person. You need to address the person, the tool doesn't matter And MOST serial killers or mass murderers can be caught and stopped earlier if the right things were done. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, User said:

You are still not being honest now. 

This:

"In REALTY a bump stock does convert a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun. "

Does not equal this:

"AR's with bumpstocks perform substantially the same as machine guns. "

In reality it DOES. And you can't even state a REASON for your disagreement, just a gratuitous CLAIM. LMAO

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

Who's the ignoramus that's stating a bump stock would allow you to fire 800 rounds a minute? 

Your rifle would melt down long before that happens. The hyperbole is ill informed and dishonest

Prove it. But even you do, it doesn't matter cause machine guns are not defined by their rate of fire which vary substantially..

[robosmith]

42 minutes ago, User said:

Oh, my apologies. You jumped in on a response I made to robo. He said that. 

I did not compare motor vehicles to guns, I was responding to robo's logic. 

You are confused AGAIN. I said nothing about motor vehicles.

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

In reality it DOES. And you can't even state a REASON for your disagreement, just a gratuitous CLAIM. LMAO

In reality it does not.  It allows a semi auto, under ideal conditions, very briefly to sort of feel like a machine gun. 

But you continue to lie about it to perpetuate your echo chamber nonsense

 

[User]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You are confused AGAIN. I said nothing about motor vehicles.

I did not say you did. 

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In reality it DOES. And you can't even state a REASON for your disagreement, just a gratuitous CLAIM. LMAO

No, it doesn't. You have not explained how it does beyond the assertion. 

Let me help you out: Machine gun is a specific term to describe a specific thing. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, User said:

I did not say you did. 

No, it doesn't. You have not explained how it does beyond the assertion. 

Let me help you out: Machine gun is a specific term to describe a specific thing. 

I gave you the reason why ARs with bump stocks are machine guns: they have substantive equivalent functionality. Duh

[gatomontes99]

12 hours ago, User said:

Now, you are back to the same original stupidity as before. That is not the definition of a machine gun. Functioning similar to a machine gun, doesn't make something a machine gun. Words have meanings. 

You can run people over with a car, too; that doesn't make a car a machine gun. 

Holly cow. This isn't rocket science. Does he not get it or does he just refuse to accept he didn't know what he's talking about?

[Aristides]

Machine guns are designed for a sustained rate of fire and generally use belt fed ammunition. Automatic rifles are not and have limited size magazines which must be changed. A bump stock gives an AR15 the ability to empty a magazine at about the same rate as a fully auto M16.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Holly cow. This isn't rocket science. Does he not get it or does he just refuse to accept he didn't know what he's talking about?

It's not rocket science. A car's primary function is not to kill people. It's an id*otic comparison. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Machine guns are designed for a sustained rate of fire and generally use belt fed ammunition. Automatic rifles are not and have limited size magazines which must be changed. A bump stock gives an AR15 the ability to empty a magazine at about the same rate as a fully auto M16.

No, it does not.  All it does is help you press the trigger fast. That is all it does. And it only works in very ideal circumstances and for very limited time. It's extremely unreliable. It does not increase the rate of fire to that of an M16.

But you have to continue the LIE again and again. You don't really care about the truth all you care about is your virtue signal.

[User]

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

I gave you the reason why ARs with bump stocks are machine guns: they have substantive equivalent functionality. Duh

Again, that is not a reason why they are machine guns, that is merely a point that they have some equivalent functionality. 

Go look up the legal definition and common definition of what a Machine Gun is. Educate yourself. 

 

 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

It's not rocket science. A car's primary function is not to kill people. It's an id*otic comparison. 

Smh...ok sunshine.

[gatomontes99]

It is clear to me that the gun banners don't have any understanding of firearms. That is why they want to ban them. Of course, no ban really harms those that would break the law. Bans only harm those that follow the law.