The Las Vegas Massacre - The RAT Angle, Vol II - The “Bump Stock” Gambit

By WILLIAM MAYER

October 5, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – As referenced in Vol I of this series, we remain uncomfortable speculating about the tragic act of [apparent] left-wing savagery perpetrated by Stephen Paddock who on Sunday evening killed over 50 people and wounded ten times that many in a crazed 10 minute shooting spree from the killer’s multi-room sniper-hide near the top floors of Las Vegas’ Mandalay Bay casino.

However, given the swift nature of the Democrat party’s [and its minions] call for increased and draconian “gun control” legislation we feel it necessary to continue to address [and raise] salient points that the legacy media are genetically challenged to even understand, let alone honestly report on

That the quasi-right [for example House Speaker Ryan, Texas Senator John Cornyn and others including sadly the NRA it appears] seems to be willfully allowing itself to become dragged into a never-ending series of negotiations/concessions, a rabbit hole, that will only draw us all towards an America where the Second Amendment will effectively be dead only heightens the need to thoroughly examine critical aspects of Paddock’s Vegas lefty jihad.

First up, “bump-fire” stocks.

These and similar devices are designed to work with a rifle’s recoil to increase the rate at which the weapon can be discharged. Though they do actually work, to a degree, some of the claimed cyclic rates [how fast they can be fired] are ridiculously over-stated, so let’s be clear from the get-go that “bump fire” stocks do NOT turn a self-loading rifle into a machine gun.

That Obama’s ATF designated these devices to be entirely legal [ruling that they did not turn rifles into machine guns] in 2010 should demonstrate the fallacious nature of claims to the contrary.

In this same realm [and we apologize to the majority of our readers who full well know the issues surrounding this matter] we need to discuss recoil when combined with rapid fire.

Newtonian physics demands that a projectile leaving a barrel will exert an equal and opposite amount of force that will tend to drive a rifle backwards and the muzzle upwards, the stock pivoting on the shoulder, redirecting some of the force into what is called “muzzle rise.”

The faster one fires, the more pronounced this effect will be and depending on the cartridge, if fired quickly enough one might well find the muzzle pointing straight up, despite the best efforts to control the motion.

There is a rather infamous example of this phenomenon that took place with the deployment of the M14 .30 cal battle rifle which was considered a total failure [only produced for 5 years, 1959-1964]. The M14 was really a modernized [primarily by adding a box magazine] Garand which was the [superb] United States’ World War II semi-automatic battle rifle. However in their haste to develop a full-auto rifle to meet the demands of the Pentagon, the engineers had either overlooked or ignored the rifle’s uncontrollability when fired full-auto.

It was essentially impossible for the average serviceman to stop the muzzle of the M14s from quickly assuming a vertical and very dangerous position.

This led to the development of what remains our standard battle rifle, the M16/now M4 [chambered for 5.56 x 45mm/.223 cartridge] which though it still had a great degree of potential for muzzle rise, the much lighter weight of the projectile [less than 1/3 of the M14’s .308 cartridge] made full-auto fire somewhat controllable.

Regardless of the improvement, full-auto fire remains marginally controllable; making shooting for groups an absurd proposition.

Now that the reader has a better understanding of the matter we can go back to the “bump-stock” which introduces more complexity to the equation of faster fire. To make these [often quite unreliable] devices even more problematic the operator essentially has to “pump” the fore-end of the stock to make it work. So, with each discharge of the weapon the direction the barrel will be pointing will further deviate from a straight line, added to - of course - the deflection cause by rapid fire and recoil.

Now to a neophyte/newbie, regardless of the disadvantages of using an augmented stock to increase the rate of fire it might seem that the advantage of rapid fire outweigh its defects…not so fast.

In the real world when trained marksmen, civilian or military alike pick up a semi-auto anything, the speed with which the weapon can be fired is directly proportional to the level of training and the prepping of the rifle or pistol.

This means that your standard modern sporting semi-auto rifle, in the hands of an experienced shooter can be fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled, over 150 rounds per minute [RPM].

In the hands of a bad guy that is more than adequate to wreak devastation when the fire is concentrated into a densely packed group of people. To make it even clearer, standard 6 shot revolvers in the hands of an expert can discharge all of its projectiles in a matter of seconds.

As a matter of fact, sitting right next to me at this moment is a Smith & Wesson model 629 [Performance Center V-Tac model] .44 magnum revolver that I just dry fired, using one hand, 25 times in 10 seconds!

The bottom line of this part of the controversy is that if some sub-human is intent upon causing mayhem by murdering a lot of people with a firearm, the relative degree of rapidity of fire is really a non-issue. One can sling enough lead with just about any weapon to cause a mass casualty event if the shooter is willing to shoot into a crowd and die in the process. In the same vein, one could just as easily slice and dice a crowd through skillful use of a tactical folding knife or a 10-ton flat-bed truck…a weapon is a weapon is a weapon.

So the “bump-stock” controversy is a diversionary tactic, a trick entirely encompassed witin basic game theory. One starts a negotiation upon a reasonable sounding but meaningless assertion so that once joined the party seeking concessions holds all the cards, since his first gambit is accepted [to the detriment of the second party] a priori.

Let that paragraph sink in, these kind of ruse negotiations are exactly like Islamic “faith sharing,” it’s entirely a one way street, a zero sum transaction where the aggressive party walks away with all the marbles because “the reasonable one” gave away the store by merely entering the negotiation.

That settled, we turn to the correct way to approach these matters.

This country already has tens-of-thousands of laws affecting the ownership of firearms; they are the most regulated commodity imaginable, yet all of those laws did nothing to stop “3,550 shooting incidents…4,331 shooting victims [resulting in] 762 murders,” in the city of Chicago in 2016 alone which has among the most draconian firearms regulations in the nation. [source, CNN].

The circumstances are essentially the same in every Democrat run big American city…massive carnage 24 x 7 which is entirely ignored by the media.

We know that this isn’t hard to understand, it’s just that because of a lack of critical reasoning skills among the doltish near-majority, the left and the squishy right [yes, the disgraced “conservatives - the “Keks” in 4Chan speak] are using this incredibly transparent ruse to slowly move the United States towards a society of government dependent serfs, incapable of self defense because they have allowed themselves to be disarmed.

This same donkey and pony show gets trotted out every time some perp pulls a trigger; it’s the classic Lucy and Charlie Brown football trick played over and over and over again.

The real players of course know this and despise the weaklings, equivocators, Quislings etc., even more knowing how childish these people are and how easy it is to rope them into slavery.

The American Constitution is a singularly unique document, there is nothing like it anywhere in the world. It was written precisely to circumscribe government into as small an entity as possible.

As to the Bill of Rights, the freedom to speak “truth to power” [for example, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are both communists] to own and carry a firearm for personal defense, to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure etc., do not derive from this rider like addition to the Constitution. They were added at the demand of the most acute thinkers among the Founders in 1791.

No, all of these rights have been bestowed by our Creator, they are the birthright of a free man - and because of the nature of their source - are unalienable, meaning they cannot be given, taken, negotiated or voted away.

It is time to stop the madness.

The left clearly wants serfdom for us, baronial status for themselves. Ditto, the current iteration of GOP conservatism which is the philosophy of people who are spineless weaklings with no moral center…natural losers who simply want their little piece of the pie…at your expense.

We stand at a crossroad; if we relinquish our most important right, the right to defend the Western way of life with lethal force if necessary, it will be our own undoing.

Refuse to be disarmed, instead, legally buy more weapons and more ammunition than you can count. If it floats your boat buy “bump-stocks” if u wish, no matter how foolish the concept.

Above all invest in professional training, visit your local range regularly, make sure you store your weapons responsibly and that every member of the family who has even marginal access to them damn well knows how to handle them safely and if necessary deploy them in defense not only of their lives but the spirit of a nation that will NEVER come along again if we allow it to slip away.

Consider yourselves informed, go ye forth and spread the word, we will never surrender, nor will be bow to the craven few.

Molon Labe…with your shield or on it.

©2017 PipeLineNews.org LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.