On Ben Shapiro’s podcast episode that aired on Tuesday, 3 October 2017, Ben goes through what a “bump stock” is, as well as his reasons for being willing to ban them. He does a phenomenal job describing it, as well as showing video of how it works. If you are unfamiliar with this device, or similar devices, please check out his podcast. I highly recommend checking out his podcast, even if you do know what these items are, because he lays out a lot of facts, and statistics regarding firearms in the United States. (ben's website is: dailywire.com)
Mr. Shapiro stated that he believes that ‘bump stocks’ should be illegal. I somewhat agree with him about why bump stocks should be illegal. I agree that if we have outlawed automatic weapons, then the purpose of the law is to ban high rates of fire. It logically follows that we should ban accessories or gloves, or bolt-on added configurations that allow the weapon to be fired above a certain rate.
However, we also need an established rate of fire which is illegal. For example, a simple law stating that you cannot add devices, accessories, internal or external parts, nor wear clothing, gloves, or in any way intentionally cause your firearm to fire above X/rpm (rounds per minute).
If we were going to do that, I would suggest 200 rounds per minute, for a period not greater than 15 consecutive seconds. I would then add a caveat for an event where the citizen is called to defend his City, County, State, or Nation from an armed entity that has committed an act that constitutes a declaration or act of war, as defined by the International Law of War. Which, I believe, are derived from various international conventions such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions. I’ll explain why.
Why 200 rounds per minute?
We all know the fun that we have at the range with our friends who have never shot a firearm before. What do we do? We load a full magazine (30 rounds, presumably), explain how to shoot safely, explain safety features of the weapon, firearm rules, make them put on eyes, ears, and hands, and tell them to let ‘er rip.
Inevitably, they are going to exceed the rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute, which breaks down to slightly more than 3 rounds per second. I’ve done that many times myself, not to mention all the competition shooters who do that daily.
Will people still break that law, intentionally and accidently? Yes. Should they be prosecuted if they are in a safe environment, acting in a safe manner? No, and I would add that to the law.
Why add a caveat that would allow people to modify their weapons, if at war?
If the second amendment is specifically related to defending the nation against a foreign entity, or the remote possibility of our government becoming so tyrannical that it needs to be put back in its Constitutional place, then you cannot argue that machine guns should be banned without readily admitting that you are setting yourself up for massive battlefield disadvantages, and potentially devastating losses.
As a Soldier, even without combat experience, nor extensive combat training, I have been trained about the importance of gaining fire superiority as quickly as possible in a firefight. Fire superiority, air superiority, force multipliers, are all terms you hear as early as day one of Basic Combat Training (BCT).
If you are fighting a well-equipped enemy, you will need to have a mass casualty producing weapon such as an automatic rifle to keep the enemy’s heads down to afford yourself freedom of movement.
The purpose of automatic weapons has never been, necessarily, to kill or maim massive amounts of people. Their purpose is to suppress enemy fire by sending so much super-sonic lead at them that they keep their heads down, stay hidden, and stop shooting at you. This allows you to call in an airstrike, indirect fire (IDF), reload, resupply, or tactically disengage and regroup and a pre-designated rally point. (See “Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks” Warrior Skills Level 1 STP 21-1-SMCT for more information.)
If US Citizens are not allowed to have the capability to suppress enemy fire effectively, EVEN under extreme circumstances such as we are discussing, that is a major checkmark against the civilian militia’s tactical legitimacy. It greatly hampers small unit tactics, as well as greatly increasing your probability of being out maneuvered, outgunned, overwhelmed, and utterly defeated.
You can mitigate the lack of an automatic weapon by having extra semi-automatic weapons deployed on your flanks, so that you have two (or more) semi-automatics suppressing fire. However, while this may be temporarily effective, the barrels on an AR15 (especially the lower-end non-mil-spec versions) are not engineered to handle the excessive heat that will be inevitable. Which means you’re going to greatly damage the barrel, and greatly reduce accuracy should you encounter such situations. Not to mention, the rare possibility that your barrel will become so hot, that it deforms to the point that the projectile is not capable of leaving the muzzle. Congratulations, you now have a rifle barrel turned grenade, I hope you’re wearing eye-pro.
This is the reason that the all effective military’s carry automatic weapons, because as effective as semi-automatics are, they don’t have the same battlefield effect as an automatic weapon.
What do I recommend?
Keep the current laws regarding automatic weapons and, what I would call, ‘modifications that produce a firearm capable of firing greater than 200 rounds per minute’. Add the caveat that would allow modifications to be made to any weapon to make it more combat effective, should be we legitimately need it. (Let the lawyers figure out the wording so that it can be impossible to understand, because, reasons.)
Why not write a similar law regarding semi-automatic weapons, that would require the gas or piston systems to be inoperable, unless we legitimately need it?
1. Semi-automatic weapons are useful for multiple situations, especially home defense. Semi-automatic pistols, such as the one I carry (Springfield XD Mod 2, 9mm subcompact, for all the nosy gun people) are the overwhelming majority of weapons used in self-defense shootings. Semi-automatic pistols are used all over the country at sporting events like USPSA, IDPA, and about 600,000 more.
2. Semi-automatic rifles are used for home defense all across the country, as well as hunting nuisance animals such as prairie dogs, wild boar, ground hogs, and coyotes. They are also used in multiple sporting events around the country such as Three-gun competitions.
3. The Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 variants are extremely popular, and it is simply unrealistic to assume that you could ban them, and get rid of them all. Especially considering the culture in which we live in the United States.
Mr. Rex I look forward to your thoughts, as well as everyone else's thoughts on this as well.
All you suggest is well intentioned, but wrong. It's slippery slope stuff. Also, the main purpose of the 2A was to ensure the citizens were as well armed as the military so that they would not become subjects or slaves subject to the whims of tyrants.
So are you advocating against regulating weapons or accessories of any kind? Or against the proposed allowable under wartime situations? I'm not sure how to read your comment.
Thank you for your input!
The restrictions are what I'm against. It's a slippery slope because anytime you voluntarily give up a right or allow it to be restricted you almost never get it back or it takes decades to do so. If you study the history behind why the right to keep and bear arms was included you will come to the same conclusion.
I certainly agree with you, and I'm not a fan of regulations either. This is intended to be a bit of a stepping stone to allowing civilians to modify their weapons as need by, codified in law. So essentially I'm doing a give and take. I'll take the legally capability to alter weapons should the reason arise, over a bump stock that I can design in 2 hours at home on a 3d printer.
I hear you though!
Your proposal is a feel good measure at best. And in reality, if we get invaded by enemy forces, all bets are off and there is no need for a law allowing us citizens to upgrade our arms to full auto. So like I said better to not give up anything than have to fight to get it back later. Or worse set a precedent that can be exploited. I can see your proposal be used to restrict guns to single shot for target purposes only as they could be converted to full auto during time of war. Or worse all semi and full auto guns would be kept in a government armory to be distributed during an invasion. And only target and hunting firearms will be allowed to be kept. You would be handing the anti gun crowd a gift beyond their wildest dreams.
tkneeds,
Not that I desire an automatic firearm, bump stock or binary trigger, but for those that have them, rock on! chris.stumpf is correct in his assesment. A slippery slope, topped with banana peels and Slcik50-or whatever that stuff is called.
Also, like anything else that requires some skill to be effective, how do you think most people would fare in the scenarios you envision by trying to defend themselves with a weapon that they just modified and have not trained with in any way? Or did they break the law and practice at some point?
And why would one place themselves in the position of having to defend themselves by explaining that they accidentally fired at a rate that was above some arbitrary number?
To paraphrase a rather famous saying, " The roads to Hell, Communism, Tyranny, and Enslavement were paved with stepping stones and good intentions".
Finally, I did not sign either the Hague nor Geneva Convention documents that you reference and shall not be bound by them if it becomes inevitable that I must defend me and mine from "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
I saw a good point raised on another website. The 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment definitions have been EXPANDED by the courts in recent years as technology has advanced in communications to accommodate unforeseen issues that simply did not exist when the Bill of Rights and Constitution were written. Why shouldn't the same principles apply to firearms and weapon technology? In 1790, the only firearms technology that existed involved a patch and ball. The left likes to hold this up as an example of what the 2nd Amendment actually applies to. I.E. it only guarantees your right to own a muzzleloader. They are completely missing the point here. Using this logic, then the government should have full unfettered access to all of your digital data/media/etc that is connected to the world outside your property. Only your physical home and items sent via post are covered by the 4th Amendment. Your car isn't covered either because they didn't exist when the 4th was written. Yet that is definitely NOT the conclusion reached by the courts. Can you imagine the conniption fit the left would throw if that were how we defined the 4th? As a former intelligence professional I can tell you for a FACT we could clean up the streets and win the "war on terror" QUICK if that were the case.
But it isn't. For good reason too. Don't think I need to explain why. Bill O'Reilly (much as a can't stand the guy) was spot on in his "price of freedom" remarks, albeit too soon and a bit insensitive.
The bottom line is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to put the populace on equal footing with the government. If governments need select fire weapons, so do the citizens. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
There was a greater disparity among weapon capabilities for those guns produced when 2A was written than there is today. Any arguments that bring up the fallacious bit about "muskets in the 18th century" are done out of ignorance for about what was actually there. When the Revolution started, all of the companies of militia soldiers were privately funded and supplied. If you wanted a mortar or howitzer you simply bought one and used it judiciously.
I'm with Rex 100% on this. The 2A is non-negotiable.
Not sure I agree with the Antifa angle on the shooter. I'm leaning hard on the side of he found Islam on one of his trips to the Middle East. Might he be a communist? Maybe. Was he collaborating with Antifa? Probably.
As an aside, the note that he left was actually his firing solutions and scope settings.
The NRA has asked BATf, not Congress, to look at the regulations. Take a moment to read the attached article...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/johannes-paulsen/nras-position-bump-fire-stocks-genius/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/imi-systems-quote-day-nancy-pelosis-gun-control-slippery-slope/
I generally agree with Mr. Paulson, but not this time.
The whole thing reminds me of Rex's podcast on Strategic Thinking and Avoiding Engineered Conflicts.
The only thing certain here is that forces who would try to force their way of life upon others are without a doubt trying to use this to their advantag
I may be wrong here, and it sure as hell wouldn't be the first time, but the Vegas shooting just REEKS of "Engineered Conflict". It just plays too perfectly into the hands of the anti 2A crowd. There's a rat in the woodpile here.
You can LEGALLY manufacture your own NFA items including machine guns without a waiting period. Not bump stocks, real machine guns. Get a type 7 manufacturing FFL through https://rocketffl.com . More affordable than a bump stock. $150 for first three years plus about $60 for the course. $500 per year for unlimited tax stamps with SOT (Special Occupancy Taxpayer). Knowledge is power!
It looks more like "renting' than "owning". I haven't made the time to follow up, but how does this fit into the picture? https://timeline.com/nra-second-amendment-1991-supreme-court-301597a56e50
This guy submitted a form 1 to make his own. Completely different than the laws that apply to a manufacturer. A type 7 FFL can make a machine gun and submit a form 2 to the ATF to notify them that you made a machine gun. A form 1 is a permission slip for a non FFL to make an NFA item. If you want more information, take the course.
Why we must prevent a bumpstock ban, this guy lays it out quite well.
Maybe this is how others already see it, and I'm just stating the obvious about the Second Amendment.
"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."
From what I can remember about the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time, the framers of the Constitution were highly distrustful of standing armies. Makes me see this phraseology in a different light.
How about this: "A well regulated Military is necessary for the defense of a free country. In light of this, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be restricted. So as to ensure the Military is employed exclusively in the defense of the country, and can not become an instrument of tyranny."