GirlChat #723292

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

A bump stock

Posted by Gimwinkle on Thursday, March 01 2018 at 06:07:10AM
In reply to Absolutely wrong! posted by Baldur on Sunday, February 25 2018 at 05:07:35AM

A bump stock makes a rifle a less effective killing machine



Shirley Surely, you made a typo.

(Gimwinkle clears his throat...)

The M16A2 fires 5.56 mm NATO cartridges and has a semi-auto and three-round burst fire selector. Semi-auto means it fires a round every time you pull the trigger. The three-round burst is, then, case in point.

Not quite a bump stock, but you get the point.

In an engagement with one or more targets that can and do shoot back at you, "excitement" is an understatement and, often, cause for emotional reactions such as not pointing the firearm in the needed direction to return fire. Thus, we have the three-round burst. The grouping created by such a feature is along the diagonal line up (and left or right depending on being left handed or right handed.) I can put a 3 round burst into a water filled ammo can at 25 meters. The military gets lots of experience practicing sending projectiles down range accurately. Thus, the three-round burst is very useful and often the mode of choice. The exception being snipers who would be always wasting two of a three-round burst. Bolt action rifles are often used for this task. For up-close and personal work, there is a saying: aim for the balls and pulled the trigger.This was to wound low with the first round, kill with the second round, and wound with the third. Even with a semi-automatic sidearm, we were taught the three round rule at close range. Bang, bang, bang, assess the next target.

There is nothing wrong with "infringing" on the right to bear arms. You don't want a pissed off 6-year-old spoiled brat shooting his parents for disallowing him a full course supper of just ice-cream. While I have known some emotionally very mature 6-year-olds and some very stupid 26-year-olds, you must draw a line somehow. Psychological tests, while definitely controversial and so damned convoluted and probably ineffective, I don't mind just assigning a guessed-at age (voting age?) to help cut down on the pissed off 6-year-old ice-cream addicts. But it should be assumed (with lethal consequences sometimes) that the age of majority is the age to permit the Second Amendment to apply to him (or her). Why?

There will always be that pissed off 6-year-old that comes smashing through your front door looking to satisfy his craving for ice-cream that he thinks you have. You need to be able to stop him, by threat or by action. Or, for that matter, what do you do when the "Man" comes to your Ruby Ridge, Idaho home thinking you're John Doe rather than the "you" that you know you are. They fear John Doe and, quite emotionally, begin shooting you, your dog, and your lawn mower. (Actually, the initial encounter near Naples, Idaho, between six US marshals and the people who lived there resulted in a shootout and the deaths of a Deputy US Marshal, a 14-year-old boy, and a dog named Striker. In the subsequent siege by the Federal Bureau of idiots, an unarmed 43-year-old woman was killed by U.S. sniper fire.) Anyway, the Second A. was meant to address this faux-pas of the Government of the People. And, what about those Canadians who want to forcibly control your American Bygod hockey rinks and start lobbing mortars at the Astrodome? The local constabulary do not have their own mortars to return fire and the U.S. Military cannot, by law, engage anyone on U.S. of A. ground. That's the job for the National Guard. Of course, there are now many semi-transparent or confusing lines drawn around things ever since Nine Eleven.

I'm being silly, a bit. But my point here is that modern weapons SHOULD be in the hands of those American citizens who believe in the intents of the founding fathers who thought long and hard about what was happening to them then, as well as what they thought would happen in the future. Remember the 1960s and the civil rights movements and their (I have a) Dream? All men are created equal... just some are created more equal than others. (Orwell? Animal Farm?) Do you think Ruby Bridges' parents would have had much difficulty in getting little Ruby into the all-white William Frantz Elementary School in Louisiana if they had proper defensive weapons to prevent Ruby's lynching? Young Bridges and her mother were escorted to school by four federal marshals during the first year she attended. But what if the Feds had declined to do so? You know there was a political fight about it, eh? And so on.

Yes, there are going to be those 26-year-olds who appear to be normal, sane, and responsible only to surprise everyone and begin shooting up local ice-cream stores. But, what if the ice-cream addict had no gun? Ammonium nitrate is legal to possess, isn't it? What about propane canisters? What about a hammer or kitchen knife? Mass destruction can occur in many forms.

You can't prevent 26-year-old ice-cream addicts. With a gun or kitchen knife. It's the price you pay for accepting the U.S. Constitution. Oh, as it was originally written, I mean. Not as it has been gutted today.

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?