• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

More Gun Nut Crazy - Forced Reset Triggers

 
 
 
Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
9,357
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
ATF just outlawed FTR's. The gun whackies are upset.

.....
MARCH 29, 2022 By David Maccar

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has taken another swipe at one of its favorite Second Amendment targets: forced reset triggers, or FRTs. These triggers, which the ATF is convinced are machine guns, have been a source of controversy and ongoing court battles with the company that pioneered the tech, Rare Breed Triggers, and its drop-in AR trigger, the FRT-15.

Last week, the ATF sent a surprising and vague letter to firearm retailers telling them that some FRTs are now considered machine guns under federal law and are therefore illegal to possess or sell under National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) regulations. But the agency never bothered to specify which ones.
.....

What are these.

 
Cheerful Charlie said:
ATF just outlawed FTR's. The gun whackies are upset.
Click to expand...
It does sound an awful lot like a machine gun, but in most situations it's not going to do much to increase the casualties. The only time we've seen a situation where such things were relevant was the Las Vegas shooting. Most of the time the result will be to cause the shooter to empty his magazine above his target and not accomplish much. I don't think machine guns are nearly as big a deal as they are made out to be--while I approve of stricter checks I think we've gone too far. (Keep the current NFA checks, but tie them to the person rather than the item and make them shall-issue.)

From what I see I do have a problem with it, though--it appears that the ATF said "some" are machine guns without indicating which ones. I don't care how good the purpose of your law is if you don't make it clear what is illegal!
 
It is vague on purpose. Because if they specify brands, slightly cosmetically models with new brands will pop up. A game of whack-a-mole. We do not want these things falling into the hands of lil gangbangers for more effective drive-bys. Or to arm the marijuana farming gangs in this nations's forests. Or arm homophobic crazies.

I linked to a short video that demonstrates how effective they are. Watch that one.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
It is vague on purpose. Because if they specify brands, slightly cosmetically models with new brands will pop up. A game of whack-a-mole. We do not want these things falling into the hands of lil gangbangers for more effective drive-bys. Or to arm the marijuana farming gangs in this nations's forests. Or arm homophobic crazies.

I linked to a short video that demonstrates how effective they are. Watch that one.
Click to expand...
That is clearly a machine gun in the video. I agree that the letter must be vague so that the law can apply as intended.
 
The Somme Valley, Northern France, July 1st 1916. One hour before dawn.

Brigadier Pechtel is reviewing the results of the seven day artillery barrage on the German defences with the commander of his observer corps, Captain Obvious.

Obvious: Sir, I am sorry to report that the enemy machine gun emplacements in this sector are apparently largely intact and undamaged.

Pechtel: Oh, don't worry about that Captain. I don't think machine guns are nearly as big a deal as they are made out to be. Send the men over the top with my blessing! See you in Berlin!

...


A3C8F303-D996-4A5C-8D3C-5B090E87EBE3.jpeg
 
Loren Pechtel said:
It does sound an awful lot like a machine gun, but in most situations it's not going to do much to increase the casualties.
Click to expand...

You obviously have evidence of this and I am completely sure you will share that with us in due time, but are you saying an increased volume of fire doesn't increase casualties?

I know you love some semantics so let's be clear; casualties involve killed and wounded and things like ricochets but you want to stick with "in most situations" so as to make this casual or typical?
 
I think LP is saying bullet spread would be more narrow with an automatic weapon. That probably isn't inaccurate, but it seems to be missing the point of people fleeing for their lives against a person armed with a weapon they have no chance in hell of defending themselves against. I think Loren is looking at this way too analytically and not putting himself in the school or Country Music festival.

He is leaning more towards trying to misplace the motives of people that don't think people should be getting mowed down by weapons that are way too dangerous to be in the hands of civilians.
 
Per
LoAmmo said:
Loren, would you be willing to run around in a field while I fire a machine gun at you?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...
perhaps the question would be if given a certain time to cross that field would he rather be fire upon by a fully automatic machine gun version or a standard AR-15
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
It is vague on purpose. Because if they specify brands, slightly cosmetically models with new brands will pop up. A game of whack-a-mole. We do not want these things falling into the hands of lil gangbangers for more effective drive-bys. Or to arm the marijuana farming gangs in this nations's forests. Or arm homophobic crazies.

I linked to a short video that demonstrates how effective they are. Watch that one.
Click to expand...

The problem is they didn't give a definition adequate to let someone consider any given item and decide whether it was legal or not. It feels to me that the concept inherently either is or is not a machine gun, how can "some" of them be machine guns?

As for effectiveness--effective at sending a lot of bullets downrange, yes. Effective at causing mass casualties, no. A mass shooter will be far more effective if they don't blast their whole magazine at a target or two. There's a reason soldiers have burst mode but not full-auto fire!
 
Patooka said:
Loren Pechtel said:
It does sound an awful lot like a machine gun, but in most situations it's not going to do much to increase the casualties.
Click to expand...

You obviously have evidence of this and I am completely sure you will share that with us in due time, but are you saying an increased volume of fire doesn't increase casualties?

I know you love some semantics so let's be clear; casualties involve killed and wounded and things like ricochets but you want to stick with "in most situations" so as to make this casual or typical?
Click to expand...
It's called overkill. Full auto fire means you really hammer one target, but you very quickly run out of ammo. Good if you want to be sure one target is really dead, not very good if you want to kill a bunch of people.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Per
LoAmmo said:
Loren, would you be willing to run around in a field while I fire a machine gun at you?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...
perhaps the question would be if given a certain time to cross that field would he rather be fire upon by a fully automatic machine gun version or a standard AR-15
Click to expand...
You're both looking at it wrong.

If you're one target, yes, a machine gun is a greater threat. However, the issue is mass shootings--and if you have many people on that field I'd prefer the shooter be armed with a machine gun. He's going to hit fewer targets that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom