Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree91Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:14 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
a) I'm EXTREMELY grateful for your attempt at correction. So let's take the methodical approach, please.

What "no such things" is it you allege it does not do?

b) Please define your terms.
I've read the same reports you have.
Most of them say "simulated auto-fire".

To determine whether it's merely "simulated", or whether there's actually projectiles exiting the muzzle, we may benefit from defining precisely what "auto-fire" is, and then distinguishing BY DEFINITION what the difference between "auto-fire", and "simulated auto-fire" is.

Again, I'm enormously grateful to you for offering this important education / correction. Please proceed.

The shooter seems to have had enough range experience to have learned that, thus the arsenal he brought with him.
If one failed, he had numerous spares.

Yes, less accurate.
That's extremely typical of the auto-fire vs semi-auto contrast.

I strongly suspect you have a point here. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what it might be.

Question: how many weapons did the Las Vegas shooter fire in his massacre?

BTW
Lest you pretend I'm some sort of ignorant noramus, I'm an honorably discharged United States military Vietnam era veteran. I've qualified with multiple weapons both semi-auto, and auto-fire, & the 12 ga. pump.
While you may have qualified in the military with military weapons, you need to have an M16 with a AR equipped with a bump stock at the same time to evaluate the difference. I did and never laid out the money.

I keep going back to Omar Mateen with an AR (a single weapon) NO bump stock and much smaller number of targets, yet he killed 49 people. How much ammo did Paddock expend and how many of his weapons did he fire versus what Omar Mateen fired?

At some point, you may get the message. Had Paddock invested in two rifles, a lot of mags and the right optics, he could have more than doubled his kills with aimed semi-auto fire. We're only talking about cosmetic features.

If the NRA gets reciprocal carry out of the deal, then it's not a total loss; however the principle is that the government thinks they grant you Rights. Under the Constitution, they do not.
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:14 PM   #22
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 698
TD #17

Thanks.
I've got Q on ignore, so I don't see his ad hom unless someone not on ignore quotes him.

If I ever err I'll admit it with tenacious and urgent eagerness, and I'm attempting to do in #18.

But it's difficult to deal rationally with those that contradict, but do not reason.

I know how to define "auto-fire".

ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION a bump-stock equipped weapon functioning as intended fires automatic: one sustained pull of the trigger empties the magazine, as long and until the magazine empties, or malfunction.

I eagerly await dc - 12.
titan is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:16 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
TD #17

Thanks.
I've got Q on ignore, so I don't see his ad hom unless someone not on ignore quotes him.

If I ever err I'll admit it with tenacious and urgent eagerness, and I'm attempting to do in #18.

But it's difficult to deal rationally with those that contradict, but do not reason.

I know how to define "auto-fire".

ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION a bump-stock equipped weapon functioning as intended fires automatic: one sustained pull of the trigger empties the magazine, as long and until the magazine empties, or malfunction.

I eagerly await dc - 12.
Of course you do, you got put in your place.
Quigley is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:17 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
The fourth amendment died with the advent of the Patriot Act
Having nearly lost my life due to that one, I can attest to the truthfulness of that statement.

IF the average American realized how far we've gone from Freedom and Liberty, they would be up in arms (both literally and figuratively) before the sun went down today (that's another hour or so from now.)
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:20 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Having nearly lost my life due to that one, I can attest to the truthfulness of that statement.

IF the average American realized how far we've gone from Freedom and Liberty, they would be up in arms (both literally and figuratively) before the sun went down today (that's another hour or so from now.)
Very few pay attention anymore.
Quigley is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:29 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
TD #17

Thanks.
I've got Q on ignore, so I don't see his ad hom unless someone not on ignore quotes him.

If I ever err I'll admit it with tenacious and urgent eagerness, and I'm attempting to do in #18.

But it's difficult to deal rationally with those that contradict, but do not reason.

I know how to define "auto-fire".

ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION a bump-stock equipped weapon functioning as intended fires automatic: one sustained pull of the trigger empties the magazine, as long and until the magazine empties, or malfunction.

I eagerly await dc - 12.
The laws require that the firearm be modified so that the firearm itself must be doing the full auto fire. The bump fire stock relies on the operator whose physical actions are responsible for the rate of fire. You can go about as fast simply pulling the trigger rapidly.

As the manufacturer explains it:

"The SSAR-15 is a rifle stock, and the muscular application of force to create forward movement of the firearm defines the will of the shooter to discharge each individual round of ammunition. Each discharge requires a separate decision by the operator to exert his or her body strength to move the firearm back to a firing condition."

The bump fire stock does not make an AR into a military weapon any more than painting your car will make it a true race car. The inherent capability of the AR in semi does not change with the addition of the bump fire stock.
discollector is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:31 PM   #27
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 698
Quote:
"While you may have qualified in the military with military weapons, you need to have an M16 ... " dc #21
Ordinarily I'd not mention it. But as you seem to be such a stickler for accuracy, the combat carbine I repeatedly qualified with was not the M-16, but the M-16-A1, a substantially improved, superior combat weapon.
[quote] "with a AR equipped with a bump stock at the same time to evaluate the difference." I've done comparison tests before, as recently as less than two hours ago.
No need to 'splain it to me.

You're projecting. YOU would need to do that.
But I've studied ergonomics, and other aspects of engineering at college level.

While the live fire range experience wouldn't be an intrinsic detractor, it wouldn't help with the math, unless I had a stopwatch, and lots of ammo.
Simply comparing rates of fire would cover that key performance contrast parameter.
The ergonomic issue; external vs internal mechanism; that's a matter more for the preference of the shooter.

The Las Vegas shooter didn't seem to mind. He had over a dozen, reportedly.
Quote:
"I keep going back to Omar Mateen"
I've noticed.
Quote:
"with an AR (a single weapon) NO bump stock and much smaller number of targets, yet he killed 49 people. How much ammo did Paddock expend and how many of his weapons did he fire versus what Omar Mateen fired?"
To whom would that matter, and why?
The human perspective is the casualty count.
The rest is anecdote, rather than statistic.
Quote:
"At some point, you may get the message."
I shrug off, ignore things I've already learned, and long known.

If you have some new information for me, I eagerly await it.
If you think I don't know, why not pose it in the form of a question?
Then you will learn my degree of ignorance on this issue, and any other.
Quote:
"the government thinks they grant you Rights. Under the Constitution, they do not." dc #21
The government doesn't think. But apart from that glaring error, I vehemently agree; for you echo a point Thomas Jefferson made in paragraph #2 of his DOI.
Thanks from imaginethat
titan is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 01:46 PM   #28
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 698
Quote:
"The laws require that the firearm be modified so that the firearm itself must be doing the full auto fire." dc #26
And thus you make a distinction in law, rather than fact of physics.
Quote:
"The bump fire stock relies on the operator whose physical actions are responsible for the rate of fire. You can go about as fast simply pulling the trigger rapidly."
If it were that simple, the marketers of the bump-stock devices would have gone broke.

It's obviously not.
Theoretically your comment would apply to any auto-fire weapon.
There's a reason auto-fire has been added.
It's very difficult in combat conditions to sustain sufficient trigger control to manually semi-auto-fire at auto-fire rate of fire.
Particularly difficult to sustain it, and may lead to RSI, and other risks.

As a friendly reminder, titan previously posted:
Quote:
Please define your terms.
... we may benefit from defining precisely what "auto-fire" is, and then distinguishing BY DEFINITION what the difference between "auto-fire", and "simulated auto-fire" is." titan
If you refuse, the courteous thing to do is to formally decline. But making the claims you have, and then refusing to provide any means to correct YOUR errors is rude, and cowardly.
YOU made the assertions.
Please back them up, or admit your errors.

Thanks.
titan is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 03:13 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I would not support the idea of doing any kind of ban on cosmetic features, but the trade would be better than nothing. IF such a bill passes, praise God that we don't have the line item veto the Republicans always harp on.

If you ban one cosmetic feature, then the door is open for any and all cosmetic features... and ultimately the weapon itself.


"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree...

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


Not in the smallest degree....

imaginethat is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 03:37 PM   #30
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I would not support the idea of doing any kind of ban on cosmetic features, but the trade would be better than nothing. IF such a bill passes, praise God that we don't have the line item veto the Republicans always harp on.

If you ban one cosmetic feature, then the door is open for any and all cosmetic features... and ultimately the weapon itself.


"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree...

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
Oh, so sometimes black robes legislating from the bench is OK after all. And of course only you get to choose when.
RNG is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bumpstock, gambit, good, idea, nra, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A good idea, but ... ericthered World History 2 April 15th, 2016 01:15 PM
Not a good idea? roastpork Housing Market 3 October 29th, 2014 02:30 AM
A good idea? roastpork Education 0 April 9th, 2014 12:56 PM
Anybody have any idea how this might work... Dude111 Science and Technology 6 January 31st, 2010 01:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.