How long before Paul Ryan caves on gun control?


Or you can just download this one. And it will work.

Or whatever file this kid used.

3d printers require far less upfront knowledge, or actions, on the part of the user. The most complicated parts involved are handled by the machine, not “you” as the user.

The most complicated things you’ll do yourself are likely the steps in installing the stock, which you’d have to do even if you had bought it off the shelf.

You do have to build a titration rig to make the meth, which is going to raise questions. It’s far more specialized than a 3D printer.

You also have to assemble it; something that isn’t off the shelf, and you’ll only know you did it right if it doesn’t explode.


Ok, so we’re debating making laws based on how difficult carrying out a particular act is? Is that your argument?

That’s it’s so easy to do, there’s no point in creating consequences for doing it?


When we’re speaking laws concerning prohibitive policies? Yes, as those polices; no matter what it is you are banning have certain preconditions they need in order to be effective:

  • Overwhelming consensus that the law is necessary.
  • Cultural notions that reinforce that consensus.
  • Ways to gate access, or at least one key component of production from the general population.

When you enact a law without those preconditions present, the result is either the Prohibition, or an awkward case like we have with music piracy where the law basically isn’t enforced.

In either scenario, nothing of use is accomplished, and the rule of law loses.

There’s no point in using law for something that will effectively harm it. Conserve the law for the things it can change; use other tools for what it can’t. Or use law strictly in a mitigation role, rather than a prohibitive one.


An interesting point of view I’ll give some thought. Would you mind sharing some other areas where you think this is the case, unrelated to firearms?


Under what circumstances? Any where rounds are going downrange. When ammo is low, you go semi auto, maybe.

Your second question is irrelevant.


Alcohol. Marijuana as well, as the cultural consensus against it is pretty much dead, and it’s a crop farmers will grow in their fields when nothing else will. Law can be used to mitigate its harms, but prohibiting it is futile. If Americans smoke more of it per person than the Netherlands, the law clearly has no useful impact on it, while doing quite a bit to encourage organized crime.


This article from seems to disagree with your “when you’re firing down range”.

My understanding based on the people in my life that have served have told me that full auto is most effective:

  • Multiple targets at short range.
  • Emergency suppressive fire, for example, when breaking contact
  • Other forms of suppressive fire
  • using bipod, tripod or other mount.

But one thing most of the people I know that have served agree on is that full auto is, outside of a few specific conditions, a waste of ammunition and discipline.


My point is, of course, that if full-auto has few uses on the modern battlefield, it has even fewer uses off the battlefield.

So I can’t see the justification for protecting bump stocks as impeding your ability to defend yourself, from other people or “the government”.


Whatever. The three round burst came about not because of burning ammo up. It was because beyond that the M16 became less and less accurate. It has a low recoil, but when fired in full auto it quickly becomes near impossible to maintain accuracy. Three to five rounds is about the most you’ll be able to hold on target beyond 10 yards or so.

Tactically speaking, you employ full auto (which three round burst falls into because it is more than one cycle per trigger pull) as suppressive fire. You keep their heads down by throwing a lot of lead at them.

Your article sounds nice on paper. In reality semi auto is not as effective in a fire fight. That is why police swat teams, and military units still issue full auto capable weapons, and we haven’t gone back to single shot weaponry.

Accuracy is a wonderful thing. One shot, one kill. Still, that’s not what happens in battle. Typically you spray lead to avoid exposing yourself for too long.


Like I said, on the battlefield, perhaps, but for civilian use? I don’t see the justification.

AS makes an interesting argument. I don’t know what I agree, but it is more compelling then claiming you need bump stocks and any attempt to take them is violating your rights. IMO.


Ok. That’s where we get back to The 2nd Amendment.

By the way, I’m not advocating for “everyone gets full auto” although I do believe that if the gov’t can have it, so should I. Currently we are limited by having to have a Class III FFL, which is expensive and a royal PITA to get. Beyond that, we are limited by cost. Full Auto weapons are expensive. Very expensive. By far out of my reach. There are a crapload of laws and regulations already in place that regulate ownership, trade, sale, and what not of fully auto weapons.

What I am disputing is the coming attempts to ban “external trigger manipulators.” These are objects of any type that I have previously described as a way to manipulate the trigger. There are already laws that punish someone for messing with the fire control mechanisms. Banning anything that manipulates the trigger has much further meaning. This will affect anything that aids the handicapped, it will affect precision bench rifles, it will affect many, many things.

That is bad, and it’s designed to be. That’s what liberals like. Little seemingly innocuous laws that can be woven into the fabric to build blanket bans.


I’m being completely serious when I ask if there is any limit to this. Does it stop at firearms, or extend to any type of weaponry, such as stinger missiles or even military helicopters?


But the second amendment says “shall not be infringed.” That says “unrestricted” to me.


I’m curious. WHY would you object to your neighbor owning “a helicopter or stinger missile” if he didn’t threaten YOU with them? Or, do you believe that your neighbor merely owning one of them IS a threat?


The 2nd Amendment specifically states and protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not define arms.

If you can afford it, buy it. However I believe there are numerous judgments from the SCOTUS that have upheld the regulations.

Are you done with your silly exercise now?


1 Since they are a component of the firearm (even if aftermarket; so are scopes, and sometimes bipods and slings), it would fall under 2nd Amendment protection.

2 Lots. The reduced emphasis on full auto in the military I suspect has a lot more to do with the deteriorated quality of discipline in the modern soldier (compared to decades gone by) than with pure tactical issues. The only reason they went to the three-shot mechanism on the M16s in the late ‘80s was lack of fire discipline.
3 There is, at present, no constitutional line. The 2nd Amendment says “arms” period, which means everything up to and including nuclear missiles. That’s not to say that I want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a nuke (I’m not thrilled with the idea of governments having them when they can point them at their own citizens); but the 2nd Amendment was written in English, in spite of the gun grabbers’ attempt to portray it otherwise. Don’t like it? Seek an amendment, not an end run.

4 Since an important function is to protect the citizenry against governmental oppression, and since that would involve making America a battlefield, I can see plenty.

That’s bad English on your part. “Arms” isn’t vague; it just isn’t limiting. Yes, it does ensure any type of weapon.

I’m familiar with that, and a device with a secondary trigger mounted outside the trigger guard. Like the rotary device, it used a cam mechanism to trip the trigger; in this case, for a three-shot burst. I also saw a device called “inertia trigger” which I imagine functions somewhat similarly to the bump stock.

That’s one that we have Reagan to thank for; the Gun Control Act of 1986, which precluded selling any more new full-auto weapons to private citizens.


Full Auto. FA is the result of pulling the trigger ONE time and being able to fire consecutive rounds until you run out of ammo or decide to stop. The 'Bump Stock and other similar devices do not qualify as Full Auto. The Law states that is is ILLEGAL to alter the internal firing components to provide a Full Auto capacity, hence the Bump Stock, Slide or the rotary cam based external systems that achieve high rates of fire are not illegal.

That said they don’t achieve rates of fire that are equal to FA or even close. As for whether or not they should be outlawed…I personally see no use for them, they are but a poor man’s FA that mostly jams which is why the Las Vegas shooter had a room frull of them, since they jammed and the Police found many that were.

Full Auto can be and is a valuable tool on the battlefield:

Full Auto Fire: SOP in 1st Cav Vietnam 67-68: Walking Patrol, first 3 guys. #1 point man, some guys used a 12 ga, some a M 16, but we walked far enough out front to make early contact and yet have fire support from those behind us. Also a good gap to preculde killing everyone if you tripped a ‘bouncing betty’ land mine (slight delay, then pop out of the ground and explode in the air). That gap saved lives if you did not bunch up…ask me how I know!

#2 and #3 man move almost side by side, their job was to go FULL AUTO when point man yelled, hit the dirt or whatever and or they heard/saw something bad forward. Man on right sprayed forward and to the right usually at least 2 full mags, man on left sprayed forward and to the left same same in about a 30 degree forward L or R fan. The SOLE PURPOSE was to force the enemy down and to stop firing for a few moments giving time for the rest of the patrol to gain cover and concealment and identify where and begin to return accurate fires. Those in other terrains might employ a different tactic.

FA is used for SUPPRESSIVE fire, meaning it suppresses the fires by the bad guys. Outside of the Browning BAR and large firing platforms that use FA its has at best doubtful accuracy unless you are shooting at waves of charging soldiers in the tactics of WWI and the Germans/Japs of WWII. If NoKo attacks SoKo then it will be NEEDED to kill them off and not even sure that will an Army of millions we can FA enough to do it.

As for banning it, I see no practical use for it and since FA is not accurate fire, using this Rube Goldberg system does NOT improve its accuracy at all. Banning it will not save the 58 lives lost in Las Vegas and in fact IMO result in the potential to take more lives. Give one a good quality target grade rife, night scope and a suppressor and he could have taken out far more people then he did just by picking them off one at a time. If they ban it will not affect me and I suspect we will be better for it, but its to late for that as there are a lot out there already and bad guys will use it banned, outlawed or not!!

FA weapons are very expensive and they are due to demand and so few available. A FA M 16 Vietnam era will sell for over $25,000. Buying one is not difficult if you have the coin AND can get thru the Federal paperwork. I have some gun buddies that have several, not sure why??? I see it as a waste of ammo unless I am in combat.

Pelosi and Schumer can portray me anyway they want, coming out of their mouth, one only needs to consider the source…stupid chit. Of course they are protected by armed guards 24x7 and like typical libtards they they only care about themselves and your personal defense is your problem.


I can accomplish the same thing with an ordinary rubber band!

Just another Illegal chipping away of the second amendment is all this is!


I still haven’t figured out how to quote from articles so please ignore the [quote] thingies.


The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.

History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

Adolph Hitler

A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army:


As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

(Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?

Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

(Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)


A fascinating read on this relatively unknown Secondary Founder at the PDF link below.


I’m wondering when it is you decided you don’t like me and started being constantly hostile? I don’t even recall getting into any major disagreements with you in the past.

I was asking for your position, and not rendering judgment. I actually think a position that says “Yes, I can own a tank and have a private army” is a logically defensible one. Though I do like to see such arguments developed.

Because it depends on the definition of “arms”. If “arms” includes only hand held weapons, then restricting a tank does not violate that. When it comes to infringement, it’s a similar situation. It’s reasonable to argue that it means there can be no restrictions of any sort. You can own machine guns, you can own rocket launchers, you can develop your own personal nuclear arsenal. Infringement means any type of limitation on any type of weapon.

It’s also reasonable to argue that if they have arms, then the right itself has not been infringed. As they don’t have a right to a particular type of arm. Thus automatic weapons can be restricted as can other other measures. So long as there are no particular limitations to general access to guns.

We have about a million Muslims living in the U.S. right now. And they may well be 5+% by the end of the century. How comfortable are you with your Islamic neighbor living a mile from the airport stockpiling stinger missiles?