Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

37. Does 24 aimed shots in under 15 seconds meet your definition of rapid fire?

Reply to Doreen (Reply #32)

Thu Oct 5, 2017, 07:29 AM

Oct 2017

Link:

FYI, the firearms used, while modern manufacture, function identically to guns used in 1875.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you favor banning "bump stock" devices? (Which enable a semi-auto be used almost like an auto) [View all] CreekDog Oct 2017 OP

I feel like there should be a third (and maybe fourth) option better Oct 2017 #1

Bravo CreekDog Oct 2017 #3

I dunno about that... better Oct 2017 #4

Yes tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #2

And even beyond it not being unlimited... better Oct 2017 #5

I agree with part of your post... tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #6

A very fair point better Oct 2017 #7

tip your servers people! this kind of entertainment isn't free! CreekDog Oct 2017 #10

And your point is? tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #12

you don't seem to think it's ok to ban it simply on the basis of how fast and much it can fire CreekDog Oct 2017 #15

Why would you ban fully automatic weapons? tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #18

My point is extremely simple: he's trying to make his position sound thoughtful and reasonable CreekDog Oct 2017 #19

I'm ok going on record recommending banning these entirely. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #8

Thanks, AC tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #13

This would actually help a great deal with my retirement plans if they did. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #23

are you for real? CreekDog Oct 2017 #33

WTF is your problem? tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #35

Put them under NFA regulation. Straw Man Oct 2017 #9

if you vote yes in this poll, i'll eat my hat CreekDog Oct 2017 #11

Why would I vote "yes" to a total ban ... Straw Man Oct 2017 #20

Next up pistol braces... ileus Oct 2017 #14

Pistol braces don't give ARs more firepower... they just give them more stupidity. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #17

I voted Yes discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #16

Belt loops and sticks too Alea Oct 2017 #21

Your post reminded me of an old McGyver clip... yagotme Oct 2017 #22

Well there are youtube videos of people using rubber bands to bump fire. n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2017 #26

Yup. n/t yagotme Oct 2017 #29

I notice stacks of the Surefire 60 or 90 round magazines in the leaked pics. ileus Oct 2017 #24

The slide stock is only useful on guns with an external, detachable magazine. Kaleva Oct 2017 #25

At the VERY LEAST... Zoonart Oct 2017 #27

I favor banning ALL militaristic weaponry. Doreen Oct 2017 #28

ALL " militaristic weaponry" oneshooter Oct 2017 #31

I meant anything that has rapid fire. Doreen Oct 2017 #32

The Winchester M70 uses the same locking bolt action as the bottom rifle. oneshooter Oct 2017 #34

This is the "Mad Minute " drill 30 shots in 3 minutes or less oneshooter Oct 2017 #38

Does 24 aimed shots in under 15 seconds meet your definition of rapid fire? Lurks Often Oct 2017 #37

I'm not opposed or for such a ban. SomethingNew Oct 2017 #30

I'll join a few others and say I have no problem going on record in favor of banning these. Decoy of Fenris Oct 2017 #36

No. I won't even consider supporting any new HeartachesNhangovers Oct 2017 #39

I generally oppose the passage of ineffective legislation Kaleva Oct 2017 #40

Terms have meaning Always Right Oct 2017 #41

Ban? Kang Colby Oct 2017 #42

Of course you don't CreekDog Oct 2017 #44

Gun Related Research Survey cmhfnd Oct 2017 #43