I'm torn on the issue as well. Banning full auto for civilian use is not the cure but the placebo however I can't see why anyone would want or need to have one but, for now, I'll remain neutral. I will not support the continued possession of ANY device that changes the intended operation of any firearm, in this case bump stocks . Never have, never will. There has to be a reasonable limit to this madness. Flame suit on and ready.....

Agreed, banning full auto and bump-fire won't stop these people from violent.

As I see it, civilians owning full auto is not really much of an additional deterrent against an oppressive government so I don't think we need it on those grounds. Now if it were semi-auto in question it definitely would factor as a deterrent.

Full auto just has so much more power to commit such a violent act and banning such devices could make a significant change in the body count.

If they can build and sell vehicles (cars and motorcycles) that far exceed the speed limit why not have full auto?
How many people are killed speeding? There's no purpose in going that fast.
Here's an example and its not a sports car for that matter http://khon2.com/2017/10/06/crash-closes-monsarrat-ave-near-kapiolani-park/

Car enthusiasts have their full cake and its not a Constitutional right to drive a car.
We have a slice of a right given to us by our most sacred document.
I want a full cake. Give it back.

I have heard from people who thought cars should be limited though.

Honestly it boils down to how the person chooses to use the guns for. Restricted or not restricted, it won't stop criminals for accessing them. As for crazies being denied of firearms with extensive background  checks, I still highly applaud to that. But firearms are still firearms. I don't think bumpfires and binary should be banned. Logically,  rapid fires are known to be less accurate than semi-autos but has higher chance of crowd hits with spray: it vice versa with the accuracy of semi auto hits one target guaranteed with accuracy but with more control, still get less hits in the crowd because of moving target and having make shots count. I've experience binary are more accurate than bump/slides with control. I've notice 80% of mass shooters suck at shooting the other 20% somewhat knows how to control their fire. It honestly won't make too much of a difference except more ban pushing by the left thinking automatics are deadly. Increase of death by fully automatic I am guessing is by pure spray and pray luck. Except if you have 249 on a bipod, the belt feds are pretty intense. But no one wouldn't go crazy lugging those around or even hip fire unless they are in fact that over the crazy line.

In terms of defense against foreign threats, I would be all for 3 round burst or full. Bump/Slide and binary bans are pointless. Normally for home defense, I would stick with a buckshot from a Bennelli or a simple semi. But having a option for 3 burst or more is better advantage in one, a simple m16a4 would be a great general counter against domestic home invasion and foreign. Sorry if my chatter is all out of place but mobile typing is hard on long words.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If FA was legal, no doubt I'd be first in line to buy one.  I see the bad side where more people could potentially get killed like in Vegas.  On the Constitutional side it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line.  If we ban these because of it's potential for harm, then it's like antigunners saying semiautomatics should be banned because they can kill more people than bolt actions.  Focus on the person and not the gun.

One day firearms will become obsolete and we'll have lasers or phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range and we'll be trying to figure out if the 2nd amendment protects those.

If FA was legal, no doubt I'd be first in line to buy one.  I see the bad side where more people could potentially get killed like in Vegas.  On the Constitutional side it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line.  If we ban these because of it's potential for harm, then it's like antigunners saying semiautomatics should be banned because they can kill more people than bolt actions.  Focus on the person and not the gun.

One day firearms will become obsolete and we'll have lasers or phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range and we'll be trying to figure out if the 2nd amendment protects those.

hundreds of years of firearm ownership and this one off event is magnified
there are millions of gun owners with millions more firearms
there's Bubba bump stock making out there - a couple pieces of sheet metal, some time and not a whole lotta knowledge required

My annealer is fully operational and is capable of dispensing 30 second hundred cases in a .223 caliber...again 30 hundred 223 calibers in half a brass case - no magazine change necessary....

Yeah, I was trying to fit in my words to explain that about it's the person. But because it is the person and we don't know if he/she knows how to accurately handle a firearm and is mentally ill for crime can make a huge difference difference using both Semi or Full. That can also be used against us owners. So it is down to  preventing idiots from purchasing and owning guns, that part is the most leaky hard part apperently. There is no easy way around to convince that FA shouldn't be banned but very grey with a lot of loopholes if going into details. I think it is a great idea to own for against foreign and domestic threat period. The people trying to acquire it for murder or criminal activity is the back and forth arguments since everyone knows criminals don't follow laws and banning something won't stop them either. The ban does infringe our rights, it hurts to know as I earn my official citizenship from 2014. I understand class 3 exists for these FA weapons but still. It really shouldn't be banned because one idiot out of the blue decided to go on a rampage. It is clearly a big excuse just to push the ban. If one makes stupid choice or mistake that includes firearms, they always blame firearms. Its weird compared to that people would blame the Mustang driver for crashing the Mustang instead of the Mustang itself. In shooting, I understand a firearm is a firearm, but an object is just an object.

They either have to do better at preventing mentals from purchasing guns or do better job at seeking out potential threats, either way its just still slowly taking away our rights.

If FA was legal, no doubt I'd be first in line to buy one.  I see the bad side where more people could potentially get killed like in Vegas.  On the Constitutional side it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line.  If we ban these because of it's potential for harm, then it's like antigunners saying semiautomatics should be banned because they can kill more people than bolt actions.  Focus on the person and not the gun.

One day firearms will become obsolete and we'll have lasers or phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range and we'll be trying to figure out if the 2nd amendment protects those.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If it were up to me full auto would be legal everywhere. I tend to see things as black and white. Or how about full auto only at home? Just in case of zombie invasion.

Ask people who live in Australia, where violent crime has been steadily on the rise since guns were banned.  Yeah, they haven't had mass shootings since that, but you're now way more likely to be robbed at knife point in your own home without any legal options to defend yourself.

Hmm, if banning guns there actually worked to eliminate mass shootings and reduce armed home invasions, I would actually say it achieved what it was supposed to. (This still doesn't mean I would agree with the ban, as I side with firearms rights via libertarian and not republican principles).

I would much rather be robbed by someone with a knife than someone with a gun. It would not be unreasonable for some folks to defeat such intruders by hand, knife, sword, baseball bat, or golf club.

If it were up to me full auto would be legal everywhere. I tend to see things as black and white. Or how about full auto only at home? Just in case of zombie invasion.
Hmm, if banning guns there actually worked to eliminate mass shootings and reduce armed home invasions, I would actually say it achieved what it was supposed to. (This still doesn't mean I would agree with the ban, as I side with firearms rights via libertarian and not republican principles).

I would much rather be robbed by someone with a knife than someone with a gun. It would not be unreasonable for some folks to defeat such intruders by hand, knife, sword, baseball bat, or golf club.

Look up self defense laws in Australia. . .

Reasonable?  Unreasonable? 

I'd have no problems if the anti's banned full auto/bumpstock to pass National reciprocity, get rid of the stupid 10rd limit, remove SBRs/SBS's and suppressors from the NFA list but they refuse to even compromise its all or none when it come to the 2A. So shall not be infringed is where I stand. It's like anything people could care less if they feel a regulation doesn't affect them. i.e "I'd never own a full auto or bumpstock so meh."

http://www.theonion.com/article/nation-schedules-recurring-monthly-benefit-concert-57180

that's so self-serving for the entertainment industry

I gotta say I think full auto has always been my line in the sand.

A lot of experience with it, you have? 

Do tell.

I have heard from people who thought cars should be limited though.

but there hasn't been ANY kind of legislation to limit the speed of cars - not even a resolution

but there hasn't been ANY kind of legislation to limit the speed of cars - not even a resolution

They tried it with bikes some decades back, euro-weeines did, at least for a while.   Too bad I am too old now to enjoy the new performance available.  My old 88 FZR-1000 was enough spice, but I miss that liter-bike rush.

Carter even was trying to promote a "backward steering" bike.  Some liberal genius decided since most bike crashes were in the front, that maybe steering from the back would fix things.

Never underestimate liberal stupidity.

A lot of experience with it, you have? 

Do tell.

Yoda you speak like, you do. 

A lot of experience with it, you have? 

Do tell.

Not needed for one to form an educated opinion about this.

Not needed for one to form an educated opinion about this.

If you've never fired a full auto weapon, your "education" is purely academic.

Unrestricted.
The Boston bomber didn't use an automatic weapon to inflict mass casualties.

The M-16 they gave us in BT in the 80s only had the 3-shot option. I thought it made more sense in an AR rather than the spray and pray option.

I fired a full auto M16 a bit over a year ago. 

Number one thing that surprised me about a mag dump was how much blow-back gets in your eyes. 

That residue that gunks-up the receiver on direct impingement ARs is thrown back in your face round after round.  Eye protection glasses help, but without goggles, you don't have enough protection to keep your eyes from burning.

Don't know if Paddock was wearing glasses or not, but he might have had to pause to clear his vision after the first/each mag.  It really messes up your eyes!

I imagine if you didn't have the stock touching your cheek, this wouldn't be a big problem.