I'm not a fan of full auto weapons. Obtaining one requires buying from a finite supply and paying the cost of a car in addition to the stamp.
The bills under discussion now would make my Browning Cynergy illegal. They are poorly written and overbroad. A narrowly tailored bill would merit far less opposition, but as the finger analogy illustrates, the bills ultimately seek to ban a technique and attempt to do so by banning a virtually unlimited class of firearms, including double shotguns.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “John Cornyn of Texas is focused on bump-stocks”
- Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:41 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: John Cornyn of Texas is focused on bump-stocks
- Replies: 120
- Views: 28845
- Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:59 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: John Cornyn of Texas is focused on bump-stocks
- Replies: 120
- Views: 28845
Re: John Cornyn of Texas is focused on bump-stocks
Have they confirmed that he only used bumpfire and not a modified lower? I thought that was still up in the air.
- Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:07 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: John Cornyn of Texas is focused on bump-stocks
- Replies: 120
- Views: 28845
Re: John Cornyn of Texas is focused on bump-stocks
I shot a full auto M16 at a local indoor range once just to see what it's like. I found that even at 20 yards, I was over the target's left shoulder by the 3rd round. I didn't fire more than a 3 round burst as 3 was my limit for safe, controlled fire (not accurate mind you, just just sufficently accurate to be safe).
I assume that by preemptively leaning into it you could counteract the recoil, but that's essentially deliberate flinch. I left the experience with the strong impression that for light weapons, a more powerful semiautomatic battle rifle is better than a full auto (e.g. a semi .308 vs an auto .223). I think the technique changes with a heavier weapons like an LSW or GPMG (think an M249 or M240 all the way up to an M1917 or Vickers), but as I can't envision myself fending off massed infantry, I have little interest in such a weapon.
The bottom line is that full auto weapons have serious limitations when used in the platforms that civilians could reasonably utilize, and that the larger platforms where their attributes shine (even assuming a military user whose goal is to produce casualties among massed infantry) have essentially always been properly banned from civilian ownership as light artillery pieces.
The shooter in Vegas really seems like he committed a Federal crime under a law that nobody disputes by producing a machine gun. The real coup might be in forcing prosecution of firearms laws, which the NRA strongly endorses.
I assume that by preemptively leaning into it you could counteract the recoil, but that's essentially deliberate flinch. I left the experience with the strong impression that for light weapons, a more powerful semiautomatic battle rifle is better than a full auto (e.g. a semi .308 vs an auto .223). I think the technique changes with a heavier weapons like an LSW or GPMG (think an M249 or M240 all the way up to an M1917 or Vickers), but as I can't envision myself fending off massed infantry, I have little interest in such a weapon.
The bottom line is that full auto weapons have serious limitations when used in the platforms that civilians could reasonably utilize, and that the larger platforms where their attributes shine (even assuming a military user whose goal is to produce casualties among massed infantry) have essentially always been properly banned from civilian ownership as light artillery pieces.
The shooter in Vegas really seems like he committed a Federal crime under a law that nobody disputes by producing a machine gun. The real coup might be in forcing prosecution of firearms laws, which the NRA strongly endorses.