These little devices could really help massacre lots of school children quickly.
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Rapid-fire-gun-triggers-now-in-cross-hairs-4237454.php?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:07099ca2-a548-4f7f-8db8-10afe9be32f4
Rapid-fire gun triggers now in cross-hairs
WASHINGTON - For gun enthusiasts, the Slide Stock is an exciting add-on that enables shooters to unleash bursts of machine-gun-like fire from semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15. Online videos show exultant gun owners spraying targets, including ones depicting zombies, with what appears to be fully automatic fire at rates of 400 rounds per minute or better. On its website, the Slide Stock's manufacturer, Slide Fire Solutions Inc. of Moran, Texas, tells its prospective customers: "Prepare to change the way you play." . . . For Slide Fire Solutions, the sweetest part may be the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2010 said the Slide Stock is perfectly legal under current law.
But for gun control advocates, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., bumpfire devices (as they're known generically) are a nightmare waiting to happen. "With practice, a shooter can control his rate of fire from 400 to 800 rounds per minute," Feinstein said on Wednesday, speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns. With such devices, she said, mass shooters gain "tremendous killing power" that can "tear young bodies apart."
An updated ban -- Along with other Democratic lawmakers, Feinstein introduced an updated assault weapons ban last week in response to the Newtown, Conn., shootings. In addition to 157 named assault weapons, Feinstein's measure specifically outlaws bumpfire stocks. "Fully automatic weapons are illegal, and I strongly believe that devices allowing shooters to fire at similar rates should also be outlawed," Feinstein said in a statement.
For Steve Sposato of Lafayette, Calif., such devices are a nightmare that did, in fact, happen. Gian Luigi Ferri used an earlier incarnation of bumpfire, the Hellfire trigger, on the Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols he fired during the July 1, 1993, shooting rampage in San Francisco. Among the eight people murdered that day was Sposato's wife, Jody Jones-Sposato. "These devices have no purpose at all in our society, period, end of story," Sposato said. "People think it's fun, but people think it's fun to throw grenades, and they're illegal. Tradeoffs have to be made." Sposato called manufacturers of these products "dirtbags out to make a buck, and they don't care who gets hurt."
An expensive habit -- Gun enthusiasts offer rave reviews but warn bumpfire can be an expensive habit. "Fun? Yes indeed, the Slide Fire Stock is uber fun," said David Fortier, writing in Shotgun News last September. "It will put a smile on your face just as quick as it empties your wallet as you burn through copious amounts of ammunition."
David Koresh, the Branch Davidian cult leader in Waco, told law enforcement authorities that he used Hellfire triggers on semi-automatic weapons, according to "No More Wacos," a 1995 book by gun-rights advocate David Kopel. Koresh and his followers killed four ATF agents during a 1993 raid before setting their compound ablaze during an FBI assault. At least 74 people, including 25 children, died.
02 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969[/b]Do you have any idea of how expensive .223 ammo is? And just how few of these novelty devices get sold? Nobody uses 100 round drum magazines, or these rapid fire triggers. If you depend on a firearm to work, every time, when your life depends on it, you don't play around with screwball inventions.
These little devices could really help massacre lots of school children quickly.
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Rapid-fire-gun-triggers-now-in-cross-hairs-4237454.php?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:07099ca2-a548-4f7f-8db8-10afe9be32f4
[b]Rapid-fire gun triggers now in cross-hairs
WASHINGTON - For gun enthusiasts, the Slide assault. At least 74 people, including 25 children, died.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by normbenignSo you wouldn't be bothered if the manufacture and sale of these "screwball" devices were banned.
Do you have any idea of how expensive .223 ammo is? And just how few of these novelty devices get sold? Nobody uses 100 round drum magazines, or these rapid fire triggers. If you depend on a firearm to work, every time, when your life depends on it, you don't play around with screwball inventions.
By the way, I do not think the mentally-ill shooters are worried too much about cost of ammo when shredding the bodies of school of school children with .233 ammo.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by moon1969It would bother me only that it isn't government's role to protect consumers from themselves. I will not buy either a 100 round drum, or a rapid fire trigger device. Even the US military has eliminated the full auto feature on their battle riffles, the M4.
So you wouldn't be bothered if the manufacture and sale of these "screwball" devices were banned.
By the way, I do not think the mentally-ill shooters are worried too much about cost of ammo when shredding the bodies of school of school children with .233 ammo.
Mentally ill thieves aren't going to be altered by laws that prohibit sane people from doing normal and legitimate things.
Do a little searching, and you'll find that .223 ammo in any kind of magazines is a low percentage of the rounds used in American homicides. The more popular are .22, 380, 9mm, and .40SW. Some drug gangs like .45ACP because the pistols can be saved, and the barrel replaced if the gun "has too many bodies on it". These 1911 .45s have 7 round magazines.
A high percentage of gun homicides are black and brown youngsters killing other black and brown youngsters in gang and drug related fights. A major cause of this is young men growing up without fathers.
Listen to this interview with Larry Elder on WJR radio in Detroit.
http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=1461&c=6781&f=1028551
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by normbenignDoes that mean you would prefer not to have an FDA and that if a thalidomide style drug made it to market today, its better to allow people first to be in danger and then let market forces spring into action to punish the irresposnible company?
It would bother me only that it isn't government's role to protect consumers from themselves.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by WajomaMeanwhile, back in reality...
The FDA should be privatised, those that seek it's approval before eating something can then check that the food has been passed by the FDA and also pay any test and certification costs as part of the price of that particular food.
03 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87The key difference between your drug example and gun control is that guns, or Arms, are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution whereas drugs or noxious substances are not mentioned. Because the Constitution explicitly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed upon," legislation burdening gun rights must be analyzed differently then other legislation that regulates other dangerous things (like drugs). The Supreme Court has interpreted "keep and bear" to mean that a person has the right to possess guns which are in common use at the time, and to use those guns for self-defense. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated in dicta in District of Columbia v. Heller that the government may prohibit felons and some mentally ill persons from possessing firearms. Therefore, legislation must not prevent people, who are not felons or mentally ill, from possessing firearms, which are in common use at the time, for purposes of self-defense.
Does that mean you would prefer not to have an FDA and that if a thalidomide style drug made it to market today, its better to allow people first to be in danger and then let market forces spring into action to punish the irresposnible company?
As for the Hellfire Triggers, it is going to be difficult to argue that they aren't in common use at the time since they have been around for at least twenty years (by just looking at the article, that is). There are probably numerous gun enthusiasts already in possession of those triggers (I am speculating, of course).
Anyways, that is the gist of the current framework concerning the Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms. Under the current framework, I am not sure whether gun control advocates can pass regulation that will effectively prevent guns from reaching the hands of crazy people who haven't been officially deemed to be mentally ill.
In the meantime, enjoy this video of Arnold Schwarzenegger driving his personal tank:
03 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThis is what the second ammendment says.
The key difference between your drug example and gun control is that guns, or Arms, are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution whereas drugs or noxious substances are not mentioned. Because the Constitution explicitly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed upon," legislation burdening gun rights must be analyzed differently than other legislation. ..........................
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now I am no legal scholar but it seems to me the right to bear arms was an ammendment with a specific purpose. ie, to arm a militia that could defend the security of a free state. There is a communal responsibility enshrined in the spirit of that legislation that seems to be undermined by the paranoi that assumes the state to be suspect and then promotes a terrified vigilanteeism that equates firepower and rate of fire, as bulwarks of freedom.
If guns dont kill people, then neither can guns defend freedom!
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMikemuskets
The key difference between your drug example and gun control is that guns, or Arms, are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution whereas drugs or noxious substances are not mentioned. Because the Constitution explicitly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed upon," legislation burdening gun rights must be ana ...[text shortened]... nold Schwarzenegger driving his personal tank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FYayUBEuk
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by kmax87It ought to be obvious that the FDA does little to prevent bad drugs from getting to market. It does provide a false sense of security to the public.
Does that mean you would prefer not to have an FDA and that if a thalidomide style drug made it to market today, its better to allow people first to be in danger and then let market forces spring into action to punish the irresposnible company?
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by kmax87The introductory clause cites a single reason for the action clause, but that hardly negates all secondary reasons for the action clause. Yes a militia is the primary reason for RTKBA, but not the only one.
This is what the second ammendment says.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now I am no legal scholar but it seems to me the right to bear arms was an ammendment with a specific purpose. ie, to arm a militia that could defend the ...[text shortened]... fire, as bulwarks of freedom.
If guns dont kill people, then neither can guns defend freedom!
As to the reasons for "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" these are not elaborated on, but knowing the recent history explains why no elaboration was deemed necessary. The assembled convention knew that they did not want a large standing army, and had just a few years earlier ousted their previous government with a large part of their success due to the operation of militias with privately owned arms.
The argument is often put forward that we have a massive military and no longer need the militia. In 1775 we had the most powerful army in the world, the British so nothing is different. But the naysayers argue that a militia could never defeat the regular army today. That was also true in 1775.
It is the hope of every Patriot I know and supporter of the 2nd amendment that we never have to repeat our revolution, but we also know that the minutemen of 1775 didn't want that conflict either.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by moon1969Muskets, specifically the English brown bess, was considered the state of the art military weapon of the time, primarily due to its high rate of fire. A trained Englishman could fire and reload about 4 times a minute. They were .75 calibre that is 3/4 of and inch diameter lead ball projectile a devastating load, but their effective range in the typically smooth bore was only about 50 yards.
muskets
It was suicidal to stand in the field muzzle to muzzle with the Redcoats as their three ranks would send volleys downrange however inaccurately every 15 seconds or less. Massachusetts minutemen had privately owned arms, smaller bore, and rifled barrels that enabled them to aim shots up to 200 yards from cover, and they knew British tactics from being allies in the French and Indian war.
Warfare and arms have always changed, as have tactics, so the 2nd amendment was not about muskets, although until the civil war muzzle loaders were still in vogue, the Henry Rifle was invented, as were muzzle loading revolvers like the Army1860 .44 which many cavalrymen carried, often as many as five of them. Still the primary cavalry weapon in 1860 was the sabre as it was in the revolutionary war.
We may think that warfare is all about Abrams tanks and electronic drones. A modern enemy could with an EMP totally wipe out American electronics capability, and with it all our hi tech weapons. Who would then defend America?
The 2nd amendment and militias are for defence against internal and external enemies.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by kmax87The introductory part of the Second Amendment about the Militia merely states the purpose of the Amendment and it does not limit the latter clause of the Amendment in anyway. The Second Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
This is what the second ammendment says.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now I am no legal scholar but it seems to me the right to bear arms was an ammendment with a specific purpose. ie, to arm a militia that could defend the ...[text shortened]... fire, as bulwarks of freedom.
If guns dont kill people, then neither can guns defend freedom!
As for the word "Militia," the Constitution and the Second Amendment assume that the Militia is already in existence. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the powers to "raise...armies" and to "provide...a navy." But Article I, Section 8 treats militias differently than armies and the navy. It states that Congress has the power to "[call] forth the militia," which assumes that the militia is already in existence.
Who is part of the Militia? The Federalist Papers and case law state that all able-bodied men make up the Militia. Of course the Second Amendment is gender neutral, so textually there is no reason why women don't have a the right to keep and bear Arms too.
You can make fun of "vigilantism" all you want, which is easy to do in peace time. However, the first thing a tyrannical government does is to disarm its citizens. In fact, Southern States engaged in a systematic disarmament campaign against African-Americans after the Civil War.