# Military court rules "Bump Stocks," are not machine guns.....duh.....



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

Bump stocks are not machine guns.....









						US Military Courts Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns
					

A Military three-judge panel agreed with the defense, unanimously ruled that bump stocks do not meet the definition of a machine gun.




					www.ammoland.com


----------



## occupied (Sep 11, 2021)

They are about the stupidest thing ever though.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

So what control does a military court have over civilian courts? When will that have any effect whatsoever on civilian use of bump stocks? Any day now?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So what control does a military court have over civilian courts? When will that have any effect whatsoever on civilian use of bump stocks? Any day now?




Hey...dipshit.....

Here you go......as to our ongoing discussion of your desire for background checks as a means to get gun registration...versus democrats who keep releasing gun criminals....

*In Michigan, simply carrying a firearm without a concealed carry license can result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, but three teens who broke into a gun store in Saginaw could avoid prison time altogether despite pleading guilty to fifteen felony charges.*



*Remy M. Delgado, Preston W. O’Leary, and Travontis D. Miller are all adults now, but they were 17-years old when they broke into the Showtime Guns & Ammo store on August 2nd, 2019 and stole approximately 50 firearms. 

Most of those haven’t been recovered, though police have traced one of those guns to the murder of an 87-year old woman last December. 

Despite the laundry list of felony offenses and the violent crime associated with their theft, however, Judge Andre R. Borrello told the teens back in June that he would sentence all three of them under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows a judge to divert defendants to probation. If they successfully complete their probationary term, their record is wiped clean.
On Thursday, the three men appeared before Borello for sentencing, but the public isn’t allowed to know what sentences were actually handed down.*
------
*Judge Borello, who once chaired the Saginaw County Democratic Committee before he was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm,
=====

“In this case, the defendants stole 50 guns from Showtime Guns,” Stevenson said. “Fifty guns. Only 14 of those firearms have been recovered as of April 8 of this year. And no surprise, Judge, all of them have been found in the hands of convicted felons. In fact, one of those firearms was used in a homicide in December in which an 87-year-old grandmother was shot in the face and killed.”









						Teens Get Slap On Wrist For Gun Store Burglary, Theft
					

More than 50 guns were stolen in the burglary, but it looks like the defendants will avoid prison time.




					bearingarms.com
				




Do you think these teenagers would do a background check on the criminals they gave or sold the guns?

Saginaw County Jail records indicate only Miller remains incarcerated as of Friday morning.*


----------



## pknopp (Sep 11, 2021)

Then why did Trump ban them?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Then why did Trump ban them?




Trump isn't a gun person, he doesn't know about the 2nd Amendment.....once people like his son inform him, he makes the right decisions.......

He isn't an extreme gun grabber like every single democrat party politician is.....


----------



## pknopp (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Trump isn't a gun person, he doesn't know about the 2nd Amendment.....once people like his son inform him, he makes the right decisions.......
> 
> He isn't an extreme gun grabber like every single democrat party politician is.....



 Makes the right decision? He didn't rescind the ban.

 Democrats talk about bans but do nothing, Neither Obama nor Biden has banned anything. Now Trump, he did ban bump stops and called for people to have their rights stripped from them and then get their day in court.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Makes the right decision? He didn't rescind the ban.
> 
> Democrats talk about bans but do nothing, Neither Obama nor Biden has banned anything. Now Trump, he did ban bump stops and called for people to have their rights stripped from them and then get their day in court.



He banned a range toy.   Democrats appoint rabid, anti-gun judges......you are an idiot.


----------



## pknopp (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> He banned a range toy.   Democrats appoint rabid, anti-gun judges......you are an idiot.



 No judge has done anything.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

pknopp said:


> No judge has done anything.




You don't watch the courts then, the 4th, 9th, 2nd have all made anti-Heller decisions......you can lie about this, but the anti-gun judges and justices are doing their best to hamstring the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## pknopp (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You don't watch the courts then, the 4th, 9th, 2nd have all made anti-Heller decisions......you can lie about this, but the anti-gun judges and justices are doing their best to hamstring the 2nd Amendment.



 If you say so........ but there are no new restrictions other than banned bump stops.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...dipshit.....
> 
> Here you go......as to our ongoing discussion of your desire for background checks as a means to get gun registration...versus democrats who keep releasing gun criminals....
> 
> ...


You're so pathetic. Can't you even try to keep up with the subject of your own thread?  I asked 

" what control does a military court have over civilian courts? When will that have any effect whatsoever on civilian use of bump stocks? "

Trump banned bump stocks. Let that sink in for a minute gun nut.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're so pathetic. Can't you even try to keep up with the subject of your own thread?  I asked
> 
> " what control does a military court have over civilian courts? When will that have any effect whatsoever on civilian use of bump stocks? "
> 
> Trump banned bump stocks. Let that sink in for a minute gun nut.




He banned a range toy.   You shitheads want to gut the 2nd Amendment......Trump can be educated, you are forever stupid.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Bump stocks are not machine guns.....


Nah, their not machine guns. They don't sound a thing like machine guns either


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Nah, their not machine guns. They don't sound a thing like machine guns either




Hmmm...I saw your quote from Jimmy Fallon......isn't he one of the guys in the democrat party who does black face?


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hmmm...I saw your quote from Jimmy Fallon......isn't he one of the guys in the democrat party who does black face?



Yes - 20 years ago he did a Chris Rock impersonation on SNL that didn't offend Chris Rock - Care to comment on the bump stock fire in Vegas, or does it sound totally different to you than machine gun fire?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yes - 20 years ago he did a Chris Rock impersonation on SNL that didn't offend Chris Rock - Care to comment on the bump stock fire in Vegas, or does it sound totally different to you than machine gun fire?




Moron....a bump stock is not a machine gun, not by definition, not by function.  A prius is not a Formula one racer...a bump stock is not a machine gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yes - 20 years ago he did a Chris Rock impersonation on SNL that didn't offend Chris Rock - Care to comment on the bump stock fire in Vegas, or does it sound totally different to you than machine gun fire?




You quote, happily. a racist who wore black face.....


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You quote, happily. a racist who wore black face.....


I wouldn't comment if I were you either.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> I wouldn't comment if I were you either.




Again...please, define "machine gun."  

That way we can all discuss the topic on the same note..........

Please...define machine gun.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

Bump stocks are amusing toys for the most part. Most people recognize you can't aim whatsoever with one.
Having said that, it can be used to provide devastating mass injury if firing into a crowd as the shooter in Las Vegas did by killing 9 people in under 30 seconds and a total of 58 dead with 411 injuries.
  Bump stocks are and should ALWAYS continue to be strictly forbidden. 
And I am a gun supporter with 3 guns in my home.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Again...please, define "machine gun."
> 
> That way we can all discuss the topic on the same note..........
> 
> Please...define machine gun.



_Machine gun: an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
"machine-gun fire"_

And the difference is? Oh wait, there is no difference in the rate one can spray bullets with a bump stock. So the only difference is that one is considered fully automatic and the other a semi-automatic which has been turned into a fully automatic.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> _Machine gun: an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
> "machine-gun fire"_
> 
> And the difference is? Oh wait, there is no difference in the rate one can spray bullets with a bump stock. So the only difference is that one is considered fully automatic and the other a semi-automatic which has been turned into a fully automatic.




A bump stock does not work that way, hence, you dumb fuck, it is not a machine gun.

It is not fully automatic you dipshit.....each pull of the trigger fires only one bullet......that means it is a semi-automatic tool.  

It is also a range toy.....only amateurs play with them...you moron.

Again.....you have a racist in your quote page... a racist who liked to appear in black face.........in any other context you would be called a racist.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> A bump stock does not work that way, hence, you dumb fuck, it is not a machine gun.
> 
> It is not fully automatic you dipshit.....each pull of the trigger fires only one bullet......that means it is a semi-automatic tool.
> 
> It is also a range toy.....only amateurs play with them...you moron.



Only amateurs like this who want to inflict mass casualties. Tell it to the Paddock and the 60 dead people and 867 injured in Vegas. Then get back to me.


----------



## Desperado (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Bump stocks are not machine guns.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only idiots thought they were


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Only amateurs like this who want to inflict mass casualties. Tell it to the Paddock and the 60 dead people and 867 injured in Vegas. Then get back to me.




Since you are an idiot......I will explain it to you....the bump stock kept him from killing and injuring even more people...you dumb ass.  Had he simply fired the rifle without the bump stock he would have kept more bullets going into the crowd, hitting more people...the out of control recoil caused by the bump stock caused the muzzle of the rifle to rise with each burst....that meant bullet flew over the  crowd and didn't hit people...you dumb ass.......

Had he simply used a rental truck, like the muslim terrorist in France. he could have killed more people...that muslim terrorist murdered 86 people people, not 60 and wounded 434....

Or, had he simply flow a private plane into the audience he would have killed more...since he also had a private pilots license and the money to rent a plane...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Only amateurs like this who want to inflict mass casualties. Tell it to the Paddock and the 60 dead people and 867 injured in Vegas. Then get back to me.




The wounded were 411 by gun fire...you dumb ass.....the muslim in France wounded 434 with his truck...


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The wounded were 411 by gun fire...you dumb ass.....the muslim in France wounded 434 with his truck...



Well that changes everything - Dumbass


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Well that changes everything - Dumbass




No, it doesn't, but it does show you are a dumb ass, who doesn't understand the topic you are discussing...


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No, it doesn't, but it does show you are a dumb ass, who doesn't understand the topic you are discussing...



You still haven't answered my question. Could Stephen Paddock have killed that many people without bump stocks? Clearly the answer is no, which shows me that you don't understand the topic you stupidly brought up.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> You still haven't answered my question. Could Stephen Paddock have killed that many people without bump stocks? Clearly the answer is no, which shows me that you don't understand the topic you stupidly brought up.




Yes....in fact, he could have killed more.....he was firing from a concealed and fortified position into a crowd of over 22,000 people, who were trapped in a confined space with limited exits......where the initial attack was masked by the noise of the concert...had he not used the bump stock he would have killed more people and wounded more people....you doofus.

You obviously didn't get the part where the muzzle rise caused by the bump stock forced bullets to completely miss the people in the stadium...bullets that would have killed or wounded more people...you dumb ass.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Since you are an idiot......I will explain it to you....the bump stock kept him from killing and injuring even more people...you dumb ass.  Had he simply fired the rifle without the bump stock he would have kept more bullets going into the crowd, hitting more people...the out of control recoil caused by the bump stock caused the muzzle of the rifle to rise with each burst....that meant bullet flew over the  crowd and didn't hit people...you dumb ass.......
> 
> Had he simply used a rental truck, like the muslim terrorist in France. he could have killed more people...that muslim terrorist murdered 86 people people, not 60 and wounded 434....
> 
> Or, had he simply flow a private plane into the audience he would have killed more...since he also had a private pilots license and the money to rent a plane...


Yeah... and flying planes into people is not legal.
And driving car bombs into people is not legal.
Say what you want, but the Vegas man killed and injured more people than any other mass shooter in history. PERIOD.
I am a staunch supporter of gun rights. But I am not blindly stupid. 
50 flying bullets in a wide area is more dangerous than 10.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yes....in fact, he could have killed more.....he was firing from a concealed and fortified position into a crowd of over 22,000 people, who were trapped in a confined space with limited exits......where the initial attack was masked by the noise of the concert...had he not used the bump stock he would have killed more people and wounded more people....you doofus.
> 
> You obviously didn't get the part where the muzzle rise caused by the bump stock forced bullets to completely miss the people in the stadium...bullets that would have killed or wounded more people...you dumb ass.



Obviously he didn't need to be accurate. Any loon can spray bullets from above into a crowd of 22,000 and hit people with nearly every bullet. Your contention is ridiculous. Go surf porn and stroke your barrel.


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So what control does a military court have over civilian courts? When will that have any effect whatsoever on civilian use of bump stocks? Any day now?




You are confused Moon Bat.

These were three reasonable judges that looked at the evidence and decided that bump stocks were not machine guns.

I am a certified firearms instructor and range officer.  I have seen hundreds of bump stocks in use.  I have used them myself.

I know more about them than anybody working with the ATF or in any other branch of the filthy government.

They are nothing but a silly ass range toy that has no tactical use whatsoever.  They can do rapid fire sometimes when they don't jam but they ain't machine guns by the ATF's own definition.

To ban them because of what that deranged asshole did in Las Vegas is nothing more blatant infringement on the right to keep and bear arms and is despicable.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Yeah... and flying planes into people is not legal.
> And driving car bombs into people is not legal.
> Say what you want, but the Vegas man killed and injured more people than any other mass shooter in history. PERIOD.
> I am a staunch supporter of gun rights. But I am not blindly stupid.
> 50 flying bullets in a wide area is more dangerous than 10.




Shooting people, from my understanding, is not legal as well...right?

*Say what you want, but the Vegas man killed and injured more people than any other mass shooter in history. PERIOD.

But he did not kill more than the muslim terrorist with the rental truck.....rental trucks don't require any form of background check to rent...

Las vegas shooter...60 killed

Muslim Truck run over people...86.

Can you tell which number is bigger?

But I am not blindly stupid.*


But you are kinda dumb, for playing along with with a gun grabber and their faux outrage...

He is the only shooter with that count, not because of the bump stock, but because of the target he chose.  The bump stock kept him from killing more people.  Had he not used the bump stock he likely would have killed and injured even more people.

22,000 people in a tightly packed space, attacked by surprise with loud noise distracting them, with limited exits for the panic that happened is why there were more dead...had he fired into any other venue he wouldn't have been able to hit even that many people..

target choice is the main determinate of how many people the shooter can kill....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Obviously he didn't need to be accurate. Any loon can spray bullets from above into a crowd of 22,000 and hit people with nearly every bullet. Your contention is ridiculous. Go surf porn and stroke your barrel.




No...it isn't, and if you weren't a) stupid, and be b) an unhinged, anti-gun extremist without the common sense of a gnat, you would understand what I posted.......

The muzzle rise caused by the bump stock caused the bullets to miss human beings......you dumb fuck..........

So no....that particular loon did not hit as many people with the bump stock as he could have had he simply fired the rifle normally.....you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> These were three reasonable judges that looked at the evidence and decided that bump stocks were not machine guns.
> 
> ...




I will ask this then....

The recoil is caused by the motion of the bolt and the explosion of the gunpowder...does the motion of the bump stock add to that motion?  I am thinking that it does.....


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bump stocks are amusing toys for the most part. Most people recognize you can't aim whatsoever with one.
> Having said that, it can be used to provide devastating mass injury if firing into a crowd as the shooter in Las Vegas did by killing 9 people in under 30 seconds and a total of 58 dead with 411 injuries.
> Bump stocks are and should ALWAYS continue to be strictly forbidden.
> And I am a gun supporter with 3 guns in my home.






Had the asshole used simple aimed fire he would have killed far more.

The fact he used a bump stock SAVED lives.

But you are ignorant of how guns work so spew ignorant twaddle.


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Only amateurs like this who want to inflict mass casualties. Tell it to the Paddock and the 60 dead people and 867 injured in Vegas. Then get back to me.




You dumbass Moon Bat

There were significant casualties at Las Vegas because the shooter held the high ground and it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Since you don't know anything about bump stocks and I do let me explain a few things to you.

According to the police report the bump stocks caused the rifles to jam thus reducing the damage that could have been done.

Given his tactical position he would have been more effective with directed semi auto fire.  If you ever would shoot a bump stock you would know that it spews out very inaccurate fire.  He missed a lot of targets because he was using the dumbass bump stocks.

He would have inflicted much more damage if he had real F-A fire.  Either from legally purchased Class III weapons or by illegally purchased or modified weapons.

He could have bought a legal double tap trigger and it would have put out more accurate and reliable fire power than bump stocks.

The guy was rich so he could have just bought illegal AKs or M-16s on the black market that would have been  much more accurate and reliable.

As convoluted as it seems the fact that he chose to use bump stocks probably prevented more deaths than any other choices the nut case could have made.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are ignorant of firearms and it is pathetic to see you spout your stupidity.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shooting people, from my understanding, is not legal as well...right?
> 
> *Say what you want, but the Vegas man killed and injured more people than any other mass shooter in history. PERIOD.
> 
> ...


I don't understand your comparison?
It is a strawman
Nuclear bombs kill more people than grenades. So we should legalize grenades?
What terrorist did with a truck is not related to the guy in Vegas.
There are, and always will be, insane people among us. And bad people.
There would be no need for ANY laws if everyone did only what they are supposed to. 
But that isn't the case.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

westwall said:


> Had the asshole used simple aimed fire he would have killed far more.
> 
> The fact he used a bump stock SAVED lives.
> 
> But you are ignorant of how guns work so spew ignorant twaddle.


Haha... you know nothing about me.
I have been around guns my entire 56 years of life.
The first time I shot one was with my grandfather when I was about 6 or 7.
When I turned 18, on that DAY - I went out and bought a Mossberg 20 ga. because I wanted to hunt with MY own gun I bought.
I gave that gun to my son on his 18th birthday.
I have 3 guns in my home, in fact, I have never lived in a home without multiple guns my whole life.

So enough of the assigning people to boxes you have no idea about.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I don't understand your comparison?
> It is a strawman
> Nuclear bombs kill more people than grenades. So we should legalize grenades?
> What terrorist did with a truck is not related to the guy in Vegas.
> ...




I am pointing out that a gun isn't a death ray and that focusing on the gun is stupid.    The other idiot focuses on the gun because he wants to ban them.   The real focus should be on the location of the attack, since it is the location and the defenseless people in that location that determines how many people the killer can murder.

The moron in the other posts attacks the gun.....while the bigger killer is a rental truck......


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Haha... you know nothing about me.
> I have been around guns my entire 56 years of life.
> The first time I shot one was with my grandfather when I was about 6 or 7.
> When I turned 18, on that DAY - I went out and bought a Mossberg 20 ga. because I wanted to hunt with MY own gun I bought.
> ...






I know enough to know that you are ignorant of guns, and how they work.  You are discussing, what we in the collecting world call "farmer guns".  In other words, guns that are not interesting.  They serve a useful purpose, but are not interesting from a mechanical, historical, or aesthetic reason.  I have in my home well over 200 guns at the moment.  Most are quite old and too valuable to shoot.  But I also have around 50 that I use on almost a weekly basis.  I will hazard a bet that I shoot more in one month, then you have in your entire life. 

Remember, junior, it's not how many you have, or how long you have had them, but how much you USE them.  I use mine all of the time.

Oh yeah, I do have one farmer gun.  An old Winchester Model 67 that I taught my daughter how to shoot on.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> You dumbass Moon Bat
> 
> There were significant casualties at Las Vegas because the shooter held the high ground and it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> ...



Hey Loon Fuck - Did you have evidence that Paddock's gun jammed? Me neither, but even if it did, he had an entire arsenal of AK's outfitted with bumps. 

There were 5 second pauses between machine gun-like fire and that's about it. He needed no accuracy. NONE. You and 2a should get a room and leave us normal gun owners the hell alone!


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...it isn't, and if you weren't a) stupid, and be b) an unhinged, anti-gun extremist without the common sense of a gnat, you would understand what I posted.......
> 
> The muzzle rise caused by the bump stock caused the bullets to miss human beings......you dumb fuck..........
> 
> So no....that particular loon did not hit as many people with the bump stock as he could have had he simply fired the rifle normally.....you idiot.



You sir, are full of shit. 
And to be clear, I'm a proud gun owner. 
So beat it


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> You sir, are full of shit.
> And to be clear, I'm a proud gun owner.
> So beat it






No, you're not.  You're a computer gaming fruit who dreams you could afford a gun.

Now beat it.  Loser.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Hey Loon Fuck - Did you have evidence that Paddock's gun jammed? Me neither, but even if it did, he had an entire arsenal of AK's outfitted with bumps.
> 
> There were 5 second pauses between machine gun-like fire and that's about it. He needed no accuracy. NONE. You and 2a should get a room and leave us normal gun owners the hell alone!







Had the asshole actually aimed, he would have killed far more.  Thank Mother Nature that his gun knowledge was about as good as yours.


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Hey Loon Fuck - Did you have evidence that Paddock's gun jammed? Me neither, but even if it did, he had an entire arsenal of AK's outfitted with bumps.
> 
> There were 5 second pauses between machine gun-like fire and that's about it. He needed no accuracy. NONE. You and 2a should get a room and leave us normal gun owners the hell alone!


You are really confused aren't you Moon Bat?

First of all have you ever even seen a bump stock in real life?

Have you ever fired one?

I have seen hundreds and I have fired them.  I know what I am talking about.  You don't know jackshit. 

They are notorious for not being accurate and for being unreliable.  I don't think I have ever seen one fire more than two magazines without jamming some way or another.

Pollack had 23 firearms and only one of them was a bumpstock.

He fired over 1000 rounds and it would impossible to fire much more than a couple dozen rounds with a bump stock without it failing.  The ATF said in their investigation that some of the guns that had been fired had jammed.

Semi auto or legal or illegal full auto would have been substantially more devastating.  It takes precise mechanical timing to reliably shoot rifles at rapid fire.  Bump stocks don't do that.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats demand to infringe upon us Americans Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms but you don't know a damn thing about what you want to infringe upon.

A bump stock is nothing more than a silly range toy.  Most of the guys that bring them to the range are young kids just looking to hear a bang-bang-bang.  No serious shooter would ever consider a bump stock to be a viable tactical firearm.

If Pollock had used semi auto or a real F-A there would been many more hits.  He was a dumbass and you stupid Libtards idiots jumped on his dumbass wagon.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

westwall said:


> I know enough to know that you are ignorant of guns, and how they work.  You are discussing, what we in the collecting world call "farmer guns".  In other words, guns that are not interesting.  They serve a useful purpose, but are not interesting from a mechanical, historical, or aesthetic reason.  I have in my home well over 200 guns at the moment.  Most are quite old and too valuable to shoot.  But I also have around 50 that I use on almost a weekly basis.  I will hazard a bet that I shoot more in one month, then you have in your entire life.
> 
> Remember, junior, it's not how many you have, or how long you have had them, but how much you USE them.  I use mine all of the time.
> 
> Oh yeah, I do have one farmer gun.  An old Winchester Model 67 that I taught my daughter how to shoot on.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

As I said... in my original post... bump stocks are primarily toys. 
No serious gun enthusiast would use one, except to fire into a pond or something to see splash.
 But they are, and should remain strictly outlawed. 
Why? Because someone, someday, if not already, designed and engineered one that actually works. Of course they will.
And then you will have a bunch of idiots and street thugs walking around with a working somewhat automatic weapon.
No


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> As I said... in my original post... bump stocks are primarily toys.
> No serious gun enthusiast would use one, except to fire into a pond or something to see splash.
> But they are, and should remain strictly outlawed.
> Why? Because someone, someday, if not already, designed and engineered one that actually works. Of course they will.
> ...






Bump stocks are a toy.  No less.  Banning them is as useless as banning drugs.  Bans never prevent the commission of a crime.  Otherwise there would be no drug crimes, no rapes, no murders etc.  Thus banning a part, like a bump stock, only affects the law abiding, and merely prevents someone from having fun.  People experiment with gun parts ALL of the time.  So your argument is specious.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> He banned a range toy.   You shitheads want to gut the 2nd Amendment......Trump can be educated, you are forever stupid.


You seemed to think it was important enough to start a thread about the device he banned. Make up your mind you batshit crazy gun nut.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> These were three reasonable judges that looked at the evidence and decided that bump stocks were not machine guns.
> 
> ...


Not sure what you being a firearms insructor has to do with if or when a military court takes precedence over a civilian court. Is that something a firearms instructor is usually required to know?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> I wouldn't comment if I were you either.


Firing rate sounds a lot like a machine gun.


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Not sure what you being a firearms insructor has to do with if or when a military court takes precedence over a civilian court. Is that something a firearms instructor is usually required to know?




Not sure why you are confused that three military judges have come to the conclusion that bump stocks are not machine guns.  That really begs the issue of why those idiots in the ATF didn't come to that conclusion themselves.

Actually they did but then changed their minds.

ATF personnel are the Dufus Branch of Federal law enforcement.  Just like we expect Joe Dufus to get everything wrong as President we can expect those turkeys in the ATF to be idiots.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 11, 2021)

Why is this even an argument?
You guys seriously want Bump stocks to be legal??
And if you have absolutely no interest in one, like all normal people, than why do you care?
Slippery slope maybe?


----------



## miketx (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So what control does a military court have over civilian courts? When will that have any effect whatsoever on civilian use of bump stocks? Any day now?


Your stupid ass doesn't even realize you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> Not sure why you are confused that three military judges have come to the conclusion that bump stocks are not machine guns.  That really begs the issue of why those idiots in the ATF didn't come to that conclusion themselves.
> 
> Actually they did but then changed their minds.
> 
> ATF personnel are the Dufus Branch of Federal law enforcement.  Just like we expect Joe Dufus to get everything wrong as President we can expect those turkeys in the ATF to be idiots.


Perhaps you aren't reading what I wrote. I am fully aware that the military courts determined bump stocks are not machine guns. However, military courts and civilian courts are totally seperate. A military court ruling has no effect on our civilian courts. The ruling discussed in this thread has no bearing on our judicial system that was set up under our constitution. The military court ruling has no effect on you and me, unless you are in the military. Even if you are in the military, bump stocks are still banned by our US court system..


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps you aren't reading what I wrote. I am fully aware that the military courts determined bump stocks are not machine guns. However, military courts and civilian courts are totally seperate. A military court ruling has no effect on our civilian courts. The ruling discussed in this thread has no bearing on our judicial system that was set up under our constitution. The military court ruling has no effect on you and me, unless you are in the military. Even if you are in the military, bump stocks are still banned by our US court system..




You don't know what the fuck you are talking about most of the time and this is no different.

The ATF did not make their filthy determination based on facts. The military judges put that issue to rest.   It was some stupid political decision to deprive Americans of our right to keep and bear arms.  Even if the arm is a stupid ineffective range toy.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are really confused aren't you Moon Bat?
> 
> First of all have you ever even seen a bump stock in real life?
> 
> ...



The baby Jesus hates it shen you lie 



			https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/10/01/year-after-vegas-shooting-atf-emails-reveal-blame-alarm-over-bump-stocks/1432137002/p


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...dipshit.....
> 
> Here you go......as to our ongoing discussion of your desire for background checks as a means to get gun registration...versus democrats who keep releasing gun criminals....
> 
> ...



How ridiculous. What a dumb comparison.


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> The baby Jesus hates it shen you lie
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/10/01/year-after-vegas-shooting-atf-emails-reveal-blame-alarm-over-bump-stocks/1432137002/p




Have you ever even touched a bumpstock?  Do you even know what they are?


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> Have you ever even touched a bumpstock?  Do you even know what they are?


Yes and yes , u a fuckin idiot


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Bump stocks are not machine guns.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What idiot is equipping our military with that crap?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> Have you ever even touched a bumpstock?  Do you even know what they are?


They're ridiculous pieces of garbage that let you do an initiation of the third world "spray and pray" shooting technique without an actual full auto rifle.


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yes and yes , u a fuckin idiot




I think you are lying Moon Bat.  I don't think you have ever even a bump stock and little pussy Moon Bats like you would sure as hell would too chickenshit to ever fire a rifle with one.

If you ever have used a bump stock then you would know that they are a joke and are not serious tactical tools.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> Have you ever even touched a bumpstock?  Do you even know what they are?


Does it matter? I'm sure you have never been an attending physician in an emergency room, yet you and countless other conspiracy theory nuts just like you  constantly rant about your evaluation of medical procedures..


----------



## Flash (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Does it matter? I'm sure you have never been an attending physician in an emergency room, yet you and countless other conspiracy theory nuts just like you  constantly rant about your evaluation of medical procedures..




To understand that there was no need to ban bump stocks you need to know what the things really are.  They are not tactical equipment.  They are range toys.  I doubt they will ever be used in a crime again.

The asshole Pollack caused a tremendous amount of damage due to his elevated position.  The bump stock provided no advantage and probably was a determent.  There were certainly more devastating equipment he could have used.  As somebody that has actually shot a firearm in combat and one who  is very very familiar with shooting I honestly think he could have done more damage with normal semi auto fire.   Since the guy had money he could have afforded real F-A firearms, both illegal and legal.

Like I said before, as a Range Officer I have supervised people using bump stocks many times.  Very seldom could anybody get through even one magazine without some kind of jamming.  They were fun toys when they worked but that was a rare time.  I seriously doubt very many of those 1000 rds that Pollack fired was from the rifle that had a bump stock.  Based upon my experience I doubt he got through more than a couple of magazine.  Certainly not the 30+ magazines that he used. 

A double tap trigger will put out about the same RPMs and be a lot more reliable.  For a few dollars any AR or AK can be (illegally) modified to shoot F-A and if timed right will be a million times more reliable and accurate than a bump stock.   Pollack was rich enough he could have bought plenty of military grade F-A weapons on the black market.

The problem we see from you filthy ass Libtards is you jump on any anti RTKABA bandwagon any chance you get and you never really understand what the hell you are doing.  This is a great example.

I would never own one the silly things.  I have no use for them.  I have a legal Class III M-16 and plenty of AR-15s.  However, it is wrong for the filthy oppressive government to ban them based upon what happen in Las Vegas.  That would be stupid.   The military officers got it right.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> What idiot is equipping our military with that crap?




They aren't.  Read the story.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Does it matter? I'm sure you have never been an attending physician in an emergency room, yet you and countless other conspiracy theory nuts just like you  constantly rant about your evaluation of medical procedures..




No....not our evaluation, the evaluation of actual Doctors who aren't pushing a political agenda.

But please, stay on topic this time.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You seemed to think it was important enough to start a thread about the device he banned. Make up your mind you batshit crazy gun nut.




Shithead......I didn't bring up Trump, you fucking moron........the other anti-gun extremist brought in Trump....you dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Why is this even an argument?
> You guys seriously want Bump stocks to be legal??
> And if you have absolutely no interest in one, like all normal people, than why do you care?
> Slippery slope maybe?




We care because there is no reason to ban them.   One of out the 10s of thousands was used illegally to murder people...we do not make laws based on that.

The slippery slope is real, why people like you deny it is just crazy.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps you aren't reading what I wrote. I am fully aware that the military courts determined bump stocks are not machine guns. However, military courts and civilian courts are totally seperate. A military court ruling has no effect on our civilian courts. The ruling discussed in this thread has no bearing on our judicial system that was set up under our constitution. The military court ruling has no effect on you and me, unless you are in the military. Even if you are in the military, bump stocks are still banned by our US court system..




That ruling can be used in an Amicus brief to a civilian court...you fucking dipshit.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> To understand that there was no need to ban bump stocks you need to know what the things really are.  They are not tactical equipment.  They are range toys.  I doubt they will ever be used in a crime again.
> 
> The asshole Pollack caused a tremendous amount of damage due to his elevated position.  The bump stock provided no advantage and probably was a determent.  There were certainly more devastating equipment he could have used.  As somebody that has actually shot a firearm in combat and one who  is very very familiar with shooting I honestly think he could have done more damage with normal semi auto fire.   Since the guy had money he could have afforded real F-A firearms, both illegal and legal.
> 
> ...


All that is very intereting, and has nothing to do with the OP.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shithead......I didn't bring up Trump, you fucking moron........the other anti-gun extremist brought in Trump....you dumb ass.


In a discussion about whether the device will continue being banned, Who banned it and why they did that is relevant, even if you don't want it to be. Define your subject more carefully next time idiot.  However, I don't think you can define out all the information you don't want to hear.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That ruling can be used in an Amicus brief to a civilian court...you fucking dipshit.


Yes, and anyone else can present amicus brief's too. An amicus brief is nothing more than unasked for advice.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> Have you ever even touched a bumpstock?  Do you even know what they are?



Yes asshole .. I played with one on the range. True that they are not accurate. But Stephen Paddock didn’t NEED to be accurate.

Now change your diaper and go the fuck to bed.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> In a discussion about whether the device will continue being banned, Who banned it and why they did that is relevant, even if you don't want it to be. Define your subject more carefully next time idiot.  However, I don't think you can define out all the information you don't want to hear.



Again, dumbass, I didnt mention Trump, you idiot, the other anti-gun extremist brought him up_.  Read the first post you ignorant moron._


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, and anyone else can present amicus brief's too. An amicus brief is nothing more than unasked for advice.



And you know what, the civilian courts may actually pay attention to the military court in any ruling they make since thwy are still a court of law you dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yes asshole .. I played with one on the range. True that they are not accurate. But Stephen Paddock didn’t NEED to be accurate.
> 
> Now change your diaper and go the fuck to bed.



moron you are the one who said the bump stock helped him, not us.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you know what, the civilian courts may actually pay attention to the military court in any ruling they make since thwy are still a court of law you dumb ass.


I suppose they could. Nothing says they have to.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Military court rules "Bump Stocks," are not machine guns.....duh.....​Bump stocks are not machine guns.....





occupied said:


> They are about the stupidest thing ever though.


My car alarm is going off. That's all from act 1 scene 2 of the communist party gun control playbook. 


2aguy said:


> Hey...dipshit.....
> 
> Here you go......as to our ongoing discussion of your desire for background checks as a means to get gun registration...versus democrats who keep releasing gun criminals....


Uh huh. So, fingerprinting, DNA cheek swab rape kits, the whole "armed and dangerous" police file photo workup, mandatory full registration of all gun ownership purchases and sales? And you refuse to come out on the record against these pernicious and progressive infringements of our Constitutional rights.


2aguy said:


> broke into the Showtime Guns & Ammo store on August 2nd, 2019 and stole approximately 50 firearms.


Now I can't even say that's a crime. Who's taking all these fingerprints, calling the cops on customers, and discriminating? Selling guns to certain customers with stellar records, perfect employment history, good credit, and no arrests or mental health issues but discriminating and telling other customers that they're not allowed to purchase or possess firearms, or even calling the cops and trying to have people arrested for attempting to purchase firearms which they have the legal right under the Constitution to keep and bear? That's a right which "*shall not be infringed.*" It doesn't require perfect credit.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> They're ridiculous pieces of garbage that let you do an initiation of the third world "spray and pray" shooting technique without an actual full auto rifle.




They are unusable for any tactical application.

When the guys shoot it at the range the bullet spread at a 50 yd berm is several feet.  If they were shooting at a car at 50 feet I doubt a fifth of the bullets would hit the car.  That is how big the spread is.

 Then it jams the rifle.

The only reason Pollack was able to get casualties with a bump stock was because of his shooting position.

I contend that Pollack would have had more casualties with a quick reset trigger semi auto. Almost anything I can think of as a knowledgeable firearm user would have been more effective.

It is silly to ban bump stocks as a public safety issue.  Not only is is silly but it is against the Constitution seeing that the Bill of Rights says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is just nothing more that these filthy anitgun nuts being dickheads.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> moron you are the one who said the bump stock helped him, not us.


Well hell yes it helped him. That sounded exactly like machine gun fire. 

By the time Paddock ended the terror attack by taking his own life, 59 people were dead and another 527 injured. In the midst of one 31-second span, *he fired a staggering 280 rounds, roughly nine bullets every second — from about 1,200 feet away.*​
1,200 feet away - 9 rounds per second aiming randomly into a massive crowd? Obviously he didn't NEED to be accurate dummy - It was like shooting fish in a barrel. 









						Las Vegas terrorist Stephen Paddock fired 280 rounds in 31 seconds into concert crowd, killing 59: ‘It was like a war zone’
					

Stephen Paddock was surrounded by a lethal arsenal assembled over four days since his Thursday check-in.




					www.nydailynews.com


----------



## DrLove (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> They are unusable for any tactical application.
> 
> When the guys shoot it at the range the bullet spread at a 50 yd berm is several feet.  If they were shooting at a car at 50 feet I doubt a fifth of the bullets would hit the car.  That is how big the spread is.
> 
> ...



There are limits to the second amendment. Did you know that Loony Bird? Scalia did. SCOTUS has confirmed a state's right to ban semi auto assault-style weapons. 

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​​Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.​​Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.​








						Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment
					

The authors ignored the 2008 Heller decision in which conservative Justice Scalia's




					www.mcall.com


----------



## occupied (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> They are unusable for any tactical application.
> 
> When the guys shoot it at the range the bullet spread at a 50 yd berm is several feet.  If they were shooting at a car at 50 feet I doubt a fifth of the bullets would hit the car.  That is how big the spread is.
> 
> ...


The right fighting to keep weapons that are only good for indiscriminate mass murder reveals their true intentions.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> They are unusable for any tactical application.
> 
> When the guys shoot it at the range the bullet spread at a 50 yd berm is several feet.  If they were shooting at a car at 50 feet I doubt a fifth of the bullets would hit the car.  That is how big the spread is.
> 
> ...


A.  A Bumpstock is not an "arm".  It's an accessory.

B. Crowd size was the deciding factor in the effectiveness of the shooter.  A wide target where the distribution of the shots was actually a positive rather than negative.  It would have worked nearly as well at a busy mall or a block party.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

occupied said:


> The right fighting to keep weapons that are only good for indiscriminate mass murder reveals their true intentions.




Bump stocks are range toys that have no tactical use.

Serious gun people won't touch them.  The stereotypical bump stock user is some 20 year old kid that gets shits and giggles out of hearing bang bang bang.

 I wouldn't care if they were unavailable to buy because they are useless.  However, the bigger issue is that the fucking government has no right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.  It says so in the Bill of Rights.

In this case it was Trump that got the ATF to issue the stupid infringement.   He was screwed by the NRA.  The NRA came out after the Las Vegas shooting and the idiots sided with the Libtards and said they should be banned.  The NRA lost a lot of members because of that, including me.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> They are unusable for any tactical application.
> 
> When the guys shoot it at the range the bullet spread at a 50 yd berm is several feet.  If they were shooting at a car at 50 feet I doubt a fifth of the bullets would hit the car.  That is how big the spread is.
> 
> ...


And gun nuts are adamant that anyone who wants such a dangerously inaccurate device should be able to get and use it.  Think about that for a minute . How much more dangerous is an entremely inaccurate gun as compared to a gun with normal accuracy? Is that what a responsible gun owner would want?


----------



## occupied (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Bump stocks are range toys that have no tactical use.
> 
> Serious gun people won't touch them.  The stereotypical bump stock user is some 20 year old kid that gets shits and giggles out of hearing bang bang bang.
> 
> ...


 Gun ownership more than any other right requires responsibility yet gun politics is almost entirely devoted to shielding gun nuts from consequences in the aftermath of tragedy. All the arguments of slippery slopes and ludicrous fantasies of civil war and the collapse of civilization are worthless. Just say you like to shoot guns and they make you feel safe. Be honest in your arguments and quit with the hyperbolic flights of fancy. No one wants to take your guns, they just want you to take responsibility.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> And gun nuts are adamant that anyone who wants such a dangerously inaccurate device should be able to get and use it.  Think about that for a minute . How much more dangerous is an entremely inaccurate gun as compared to a gun with normal accuracy? Is that what a responsible gun owner would want?




It is a toy, Vern.

It is made to go bang bang bang and has no tactical use.  Pollock didn't do his damage because some of the rounds were fired from a bump stock.  He did his damage because of his tactical location.

My backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous. 

What gets me are the stupid uneducated anti gun nutcase Moon Bats that have never seen one in their lives and have no idea what they are saying when they say the stocks should be banned.

What we need is for the Supreme Court to overthrow the NFA and order that any gun law be subject to strict scrutiny.  That would end the filthy ass government from infringing upon our Constitutional rights.

We got an indication a couple of months ago from Justice Thomas that this may be coming.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> It is a toy, Vern.
> 
> It is made to go bang bang bang and has no tactical use.  Pollock didn't do his damage because some of the rounds were fired from a bump stock.  He did his damage because of his tactical location.
> 
> ...


Your backyard pool doesn't fire a deadly projectile in random directions. If it is such a uselwess toy, why are gun nuts so adamant that everyone have access to them?


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

occupied said:


> Gun ownership more than any other right requires responsibility yet gun politics is almost entirely devoted to shielding gun nuts from consequences in the aftermath of tragedy. All the arguments of slippery slopes and ludicrous fantasies of civil war and the collapse of civilization are worthless. Just say you like to shoot guns and they make you feel safe. Be honest in your arguments and quit with the hyperbolic flights of fancy. No one wants to take your guns, they just want you to take responsibility.




The problem with you Idiot anti gun nuts is that you don't understand that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  There is no qualifications to the right to keep and bear arms stated in the Bill of Rights.  It doesn't say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged but the government can infringe upon your right to own a bump stock.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know anymore about the Constitution than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology or Ethics.

We Americans sure as hell don't trust you deranged Left Wing fuckers to define what is reasonable because you will always be bat shit crazy, like wanting to ban AR-15s.

By the way Moon Bat.  One of the very first thing Joe Potatohead's Taliban buddies did the other day when they took over Afghanistan was to  ban firearms.  The Taliban get to keep their guns (supplied mostly by Potatohead) but the people can't have them.  They think that is reasonable gun control just like you shitheads here at home.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Well hell yes it helped him. That sounded exactly like machine gun fire.
> 
> By the time Paddock ended the terror attack by taking his own life, 59 people were dead and another 527 injured. In the midst of one 31-second span, *he fired a staggering 280 rounds, roughly nine bullets every second — from about 1,200 feet away.*​
> 1,200 feet away - 9 rounds per second aiming randomly into a massive crowd? Obviously he didn't NEED to be accurate dummy - It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
> ...




Shit head.....he could have done that without the bump stock, you moron, and without the bumpstock every single one of those rounds would have gone into the crowd, not over the crowd....you idiot.


The bump stock saved lives...you dumb ass.

You don't know what you are talking about, but you continue to display your ignorance and stupidity...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> And gun nuts are adamant that anyone who wants such a dangerously inaccurate device should be able to get and use it.  Think about that for a minute . How much more dangerous is an entremely inaccurate gun as compared to a gun with normal accuracy? Is that what a responsible gun owner would want?




There are thousands in private hands, one was used illegally, you dumb fuck.

Cars kill over 30,000 people every single year........we should ban those.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2021)

DrLove said:


> There are limits to the second amendment. Did you know that Loony Bird? Scalia did. SCOTUS has confirmed a state's right to ban semi auto assault-style weapons.
> 
> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​​Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.​​Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.​
> 
> ...




You guys keep lying about what Scalia said......you are dishonest assholes...

You dumb ass...what he actually said...

What did Scalia say about the rifle the Las Vegas shooter used?  About 20 million Ar-15 Rifles are now in private hands........you idiot...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

*Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. *
*
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),** the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.*
=======
*Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

*


----------



## occupied (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> The problem with you Idiot anti gun nuts is that you don't understand that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  There is no qualifications to the right to keep and bear arms stated in the Bill of Rights.  It doesn't say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged but the government can infringe upon your right to own a bump stock.
> 
> You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know anymore about the Constitution than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology or Ethics.
> 
> ...


Take the same responsibility for your gun politics you are hopefully taking with your guns themselves. Tell the truth and quit with the over the top bullshit. I believe we have the right to responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I'm on the same side of this issue with people who's arguments are all crazed fever dreams of civil wars and insidious plots.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

occupied said:


> Take the same responsibility for your gun politics you are hopefully taking with your guns themselves. Tell the truth and quit with the over the top bullshit. I believe we have the right to responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I'm on the same side of this issue with people who's arguments are all crazed fever dreams of civil wars and insidious plots.


You stupid uneducated dimwit Moon Bats would know what "responsible" meant if it was tattooed on your Libtard asses.

I am a responsible gun owner.  I have almost 30 ARs and a M-16  They have never been used in a crime and never will.

However, many asshole Libtards think it is "responsible" to ban me from having them because the turds don't think I have a need for them.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)




----------



## occupied (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> You stupid uneducated dimwit Moon Bats would know what "responsible" meant if it was tattooed on your Libtard asses.
> 
> I am a responsible gun owner.  I have almost 30 ARs and a M-16  They have never been used in a crime and never will.
> 
> However, many asshole Libtards think it is "responsible" to ban me from having them because the turds don't think I have a need for them.


Quit being a whackadoodle about it. It's hard to believe anyone that buys into the fantasies you people trade back and forth are capable of responsibility.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You guys keep lying about what Scalia said......you are dishonest assholes...
> 
> You dumb ass...what he actually said...
> 
> What did Scalia say about the rifle the Las Vegas shooter used?  About 20 million Ar-15 Rifles are now in private hands........you idiot...



How could I be lying about what he said when I gave you direct quotes ? Ya dummy.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shit head.....he could have done that without the bump stock, you moron, and without the bumpstock every single one of those rounds would have gone into the crowd, not over the crowd....you idiot.
> 
> The bump stock saved lives...you dumb ass.
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, but you continue to display your ignorance and stupidity...



Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds. 
And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
You truly are a dumb fuk


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Shit head.....he could have done that without the bump stock, you moron, and without the bumpstock every single one of those rounds would have gone into the crowd, not over the crowd....you idiot.
> 
> 
> The bump stock saved lives...you dumb ass.
> ...


So that's your argument? Bump stocks save lives? You are getting dumber by the day.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There are thousands in private hands, one was used illegally, you dumb fuck.
> 
> Cars kill over 30,000 people every single year........we should ban those.


There are thousands of hits of meth in private hands. That isn't a very good argument for legalization.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

DrLove said:


> There are limits to the second amendment. Did you know that Loony Bird? Scalia did. SCOTUS has confirmed a state's right to ban semi auto assault-style weapons.
> 
> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​​Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.​​Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.​
> 
> ...


You dumbass Moon Bat.  You are confused as hell about this as you are about everything else.

Scalia said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected the same as the other individual rights.

He is not around to say what he thinks the limitations are but I guarantee you they are not the same as you filthy ass anti gun nut Moon Bats think they are.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

One of the surest paths to get SCOTUS to hear your case is a split among the Federal appeals courts.

Ultimately, this case may go from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, if the govt chooses to appeal.  If CAAF agrees with NMCCCA, then you have yet another Federal appeals court saying "BATFE was out of line."  Sure, it doesn't affect anyone outside the military, but it's another chip in the wall.     That is a good thing.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> "BATFE was out of line."


So let us have our guns back then.


Flash said:


> Sure, it doesn't affect anyone outside the military, but it's another chip in the wall. That is a good thing


And stop with the Marine Corps drill. It's dishonorable anyways if they don't let have our guns back.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
> And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
> As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
> You truly are a dumb fuk




You really don't know what you are talking about.....

As has been pointed out to you by actual people with experience with bump stocks......the recoil caused the muzzle to rise, sending rounds over the crowd, that meant bullets not hitting people.......then, the bump stock causes rifles to jam....meaning he would have to clear the malfunction to keep shooting....

Had he simply fired by pulling the trigger. he would have put more bullets directly into the crowd, killing and injuring more people...

That you don't understand this simply shows you are an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So that's your argument? Bump stocks save lives? You are getting dumber by the day.




No...shithead......I stated the fact that he used a bump stock instead of simply pulling the trigger saved lives...you dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
> And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
> As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
> You truly are a dumb fuk




60 people killed out of 22,000.......and you think with the bump stocks that meant he was hitting a lot of people?   Again, you doofus.......the bump stock kept him from killing even more people.....you moron.


----------



## hjmick (Sep 12, 2021)

"Bump stocks" are not machine guns... Well, duh.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

hjmick said:


> "Bump stocks" are not machine guns... Well, duh.


I don't think precise measurements of trigger pull and weight should have to regulated by law for each type of permitted weapon — to bring such fine details of gunsmithery to a court of law with the sole objective of banning guns and registering gun owners as sex offenders and murderers with DNA and fingerprints.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 12, 2021)

Instead of finding out what the hell really happened on that evening in Vegas when a maniac named Stephen Paddock opened fire on a "Trump rally" country concert, we agonized for about three years about "bump stocks". With all it's resources the FBI couldn't come up with a motive when it was right in front of them but we still worry about "bump stocks". Go figure.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You really don't know what you are talking about.....
> 
> As has been pointed out to you by actual people with experience with bump stocks......the recoil caused the muzzle to rise, sending rounds over the crowd, that meant bullets not hitting people.......then, the bump stock causes rifles to jam....meaning he would have to clear the malfunction to keep shooting....
> 
> ...


Do you consider deadly projectiles firing in random directions with no way to even guess who or what they may hit to be a good thing? A safety feature?


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you consider deadly projectiles firing in random directions with no way to even guess who or what they may hit to be a good thing? A safety feature?


Nobody would dispute the protectiles are deadly, that is the purpose of a firearm, after all, but the exact technique of ready, safety-off, aim, and fire is up to the discretion of the shooter, with an adequate safe range to fire the weapon and with backstop or some common sense of clear terrain free of human habitation downrange.

Some people might be exaggerating about the sensitivity of the trigger pull for political purposes, to call any sort of weapon a "bump stock" at all.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you consider deadly projectiles firing in random directions with no way to even guess who or what they may hit to be a good thing? A safety feature?




Since you are one of the Moon Bat pussies that are afraid of guns and don't know a lot about them and I do let me clue you in on something.  There are several more effective ways to have killed more people.  Double tap triggers, directed semi auto fire, semi auto with quick release triggers, legal or illegal machine guns. A bump stock was about the worst he could have chosen.  That put bullets down but they were scattered so much the effectiveness was diminished.

You don't jack shit about bump stocks.  All you know is that you are a filthy ass anti right to keep and bear arms Libtard asshole and anything banned is fine with you. Even if you don't know jack shit about what is being banned.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

*You would think that if bump stocks were such a danger to the public and there are over a million of them sold that there would be bump stock killings at least weekly.  However, we only have one recorded crime with one and that is unclear on how much was actually done by the bump stock.

If bump stocks were so deadly as to require a suspension of the Bill of Rights to get them off the streets how come we don't see them being used in the shootings that happen nightly in these Democrat controlled big city shitholes like Chicago, where most of the gun crime in the US takes place?

If these asshole Moon Bats want to take away our Constitutional rights then it needs to be for something much more significant than one crime committed by one lunatic.*


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Nobody would dispute the protectiles are deadly, that is the purpose of a firearm, after all, but the exact technique of ready, safety-off, aim, and fire is up to the discretion of the shooter, with an adequate safe range to fire the weapon and with backstop or some common sense of clear terrain free of human habitation downrange.
> 
> Some people might be exaggerating about the sensitivity of the trigger pull for political purposes, to call any sort of weapon a "bump stock" at all.


Ok, so do you consider having less control over the actual destination of that deadly projectile to be a good thing, or a bad thing? If your answer is dependant on the specific situation, please describe the circumstances where having less control, or even indication of the trajectory of that deadly projectile  would be preferable.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Since you are one of the Moon Bat pussies that are afraid of guns and don't know a lot about them and I do let me clue you in on something.  There are several more effective ways to have killed more people.  Double tap triggers, directed semi auto fire, semi auto with quick release triggers, legal or illegal machine guns. A bump stock was about the worst he could have chosen.  That put bullets down but they were scattered so much the effectiveness was diminished.
> 
> You don't jack shit about bump stocks.  All you know is that you are a filthy ass anti right to keep and bear arms Libtard asshole and anything banned is fine with you. Even if you don't know jack shit about what is being banned.


Thanks for your info. So what am I supposed to do with the guns I have now? I've had guns since I was a kid, and i'd really like to keep the first one one my daddy gave me when I was somewhere around 10 or 11, and that old 8 gage goose gun that was my grand dads, but if you say I don't know anything about them now, I guess I should do something with the rest of them. What would you do?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> *You would think that if bump stocks were such a danger to the public and there are over a million of them sold that there would be bump stock killings at least weekly.  However, we only have one recorded crime with one and that is unclear on how much was actually done by the bump stock.
> 
> If bump stocks were so deadly as to require a suspension of the Bill of Rights to get them off the streets how come we don't see them being used in the shootings that happen nightly in these Democrat controlled big city shitholes like Chicago, where most of the gun crime in the US takes place?
> 
> If these asshole Moon Bats want to take away our Constitutional rights then it needs to be for something much more significant than one crime committed by one lunatic.*


Well said. It's about time one of you gun nuts stood up and said less control of where the bullet goes is what we all really want anyway. GOOD FOR YOU!!!


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Thanks for your info. So what am I supposed to do with the guns I have now? I've had guns since I was a kid, and i'd really like to keep the first one one my daddy gave me when I was somewhere around 10 or 11, and that old 8 gage goose gun that was my grand dads, but if you say I don't know anything about them now, I guess I should do something with the rest of them. What would you do?




You don't know jackshit about firearms.  You prove it every time you post your bullshit.

You are an ignorant asshole.

You have never even seen a bump stock, have you?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> You don't know jackshit about firearms.  You prove it every time you post your bullshit.
> 
> You are an ignorant asshole.
> 
> You have never even seen a bump stock, have you?


I'm so thoroughly impressed that you know so much about me that I didn't know myself. Is that a natural ability, or did you have to study under a psychic or fortune teller to gain your skill? Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm so thoroughly impressed that you know so much about me that I didn't know myself. Is that a natural ability, or did you have to study under a psychic or fortune teller to gain your skill? Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?




Have you ever used a bump stock?  How about even seeing one?

Those are yes or no questions.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Have you ever used a bump stock?  How about even seeing one?
> 
> Those are yes or no questions.


No, I have never used one, and yes, I have seen them. You might also note that I have never used a blindfold while shooting a gun. I don't have to actually do it to understand that isn't something a sane person would want to do.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 60 people killed out of 22,000.......and you think with the bump stocks that meant he was hitting a lot of people?   Again, you doofus.......the bump stock kept him from killing even more people.....you moron.



So he could have made 60 kill shots and several hundred wounded in 30 seconds without a bump stock? Dumbest claim ^  I've ever seen on this board. EVER


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> So he could have made 60 kill shots and several hundred wounded in 30 seconds without a bump stock? Dumbest claim ^  I've ever seen on this board. EVER




Moron.....why are you anti-gunners this fucking stupid.....he didn't just shoot for 30 seconds......he didn't kill all 60 in 30 seconds, you moron.  

Had he fired without the bumpstock more bullets would have hit more people, killing and injuring more people...you dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> So he could have made 60 kill shots and several hundred wounded in 30 seconds without a bump stock? Dumbest claim ^  I've ever seen on this board. EVER



Moron...it is estimated he fired 1000 rounds during the attack...

hit killed 60 people out of 1000 bullets fired.....you idiot.  Had he simply fired those 1000 rounds normally, more than 60 people would have died, you dumb ass.

He started shooting into the crowd at 10:05 and stopped at 10:15....the police did not breach his room until 11:20......you don't know what you are talking about.....you don't understand any of the issues involved, you are an idiot.

Had he kept shooting without the bumpstock, more people would have died, you idiot.









						2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## DrLove (Sep 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron.....why are you anti-gunners this fucking stupid.....he didn't just shoot for 30 seconds......he didn't kill all 60 in 30 seconds, you moron.
> 
> Had he fired without the bumpstock more bullets would have hit more people, killing and injuring more people...you dumb ass.



Pure nonsense - But down deep you know that. Yes, the firing went on for more than 30 seconds. That was the worst of it however. Obviously he had intervals where he switched weapons. The claim that he could have killed as many or more without bump stocks is ridiculous. 

Paddock began firing at the crowd at 10:05 p.m. using an arsenal of 23 guns, 12 of which were upgraded with bump stocks – a tool used to fire semi-automatic guns in rapid succession. Within the 10-minute period, he was able to fire more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition.​




__





						Gunman opens fire on Las Vegas concert crowd, wounding hundreds and killing 58
					

On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd attending the final night of a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring more than 800.




					www.history.com


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Pure nonsense - But down deep you know that. Yes, the firing went on for more than 30 seconds. That was the worst of it however. Obviously he had intervals where he switched weapons. The claim that he could have killed as many or more without bump stocks is ridiculous.
> 
> Paddock began firing at the crowd at 10:05 p.m. using an arsenal of 23 guns, 12 of which were upgraded with bump stocks – a tool used to fire semi-automatic guns in rapid succession. Within the 10-minute period, he was able to fire more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition.​
> 
> ...




You are an idiot...you do not know what you are talking about........

He fired 1000 rounds at a crowd of 22,000 people, tightly packed into the concert arena with restricted ability to escape...

And he only managed to kill 60 people...

Do you understand how stupid you sound when you post what you post?

The bump stock caused bullets to fly over the concert area.....which meant fewer bullets hitting actual humans...you doofus.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot...you do not know what you are talking about........
> 
> He fired 1000 rounds at a crowd of 22,000 people, tightly packed into the concert arena with restricted ability to escape...
> 
> ...



The idiot is in your mirror. Your claim is specious at best.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Then why did Trump ban them?


To appease the anti-gun loons.
See how well it worked?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Democrats talk about bans but do nothing, Neither Obama nor Biden has banned anything.


Only because of the political realities involved.
If they knew they could do it w/o causing the Democrats the house/senate, they would.  
In a heartbeat.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Nah, their not machine guns.


Correct.   They are not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> And the difference is?


A bump stock requires the shooter to pull the trigger for each shot.
Machine guns do not.
There you go.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot...you do not know what you are talking about........
> 
> He fired 1000 rounds at a crowd of 22,000 people, tightly packed into the concert arena with restricted ability to escape...
> 
> ...


6 kill shots per minute plus all the other victims that didn't die. You are one twisted little gun nut.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> So he could have made 60 kill shots and several hundred wounded in 30 seconds


30 seconds?
He fired for 10 minutes.
Had he used one of the AR10s he had in the room, he could have easily killed and wounded more, w/o a bump stock.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> A bump stock requires the shooter to pull the trigger for each shot.
> Machine guns do not.
> There you go.



No - It's an involuntary pull of the trigger - not a conscious, voluntary one. The shooting stops when one takes their finger OFF the trigger.

Now you tell me this bump stock doesn't fire as fast as a machine gun. Paddock was getting off 9 rounds per second. I believe the Slide Fire is even faster.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> No - It's an involuntary pull of the trigger - not a conscious, voluntary one. The shooting stops when one takes their finger OFF the trigger.


Fact remains:   The trigger is pulled for each shot.
Thus, semi-automatic.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> 30 seconds?
> He fired for 10 minutes.
> Had he used one of the AR10s he had in the room, he could have easily killed and wounded more, w/o a bump stock.






I accept your concession.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:   The trigger is pulled for each shot.
> Thus, semi-automatic.


That is the way it is defined, but it was poorly defined. Machine guns were banned because of their rate of fire. but they mistakenly thought regulating the trigger system design was all it took to limit that rate. It's time to redefine what we need tp limit, and to write new rules that actually accomplish that goal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> So he could have made 60 kill shots and several hundred wounded in 30 seconds without a bump stock?


I can think of any number of ways.
He had $30-40k of firearms in the room - more than enough to buy a water-cooled M1919 and 10,000rds of .30-06.
Oh - and a hose to run water to and from the bathroom.
Casualties would have been an order of magnitude higher.


----------



## pknopp (Sep 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Only because of the political realities involved.
> If they knew they could do it w/o causing the Democrats the house/senate, they would.
> In a heartbeat.



 So they can't do anything so it's not really a point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

pknopp said:


> So they can't do anything so it's not really a point.


They "do nothing" because they place their partisan political power over what they tell us is the right thing to do.
The fact thry have not done any of the things they say we need to do in no way means they will not.


----------



## pknopp (Sep 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> They "do nothing" because they place their partisan political power over what they tell us is the right thing to do.
> The fact thry have not done any of the things they say we need to do in no way means they will not.



 Other than you noting why they will not. It's been decades and nothing has been actually done. It's like Republicans and abortion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Other than you noting why they will not. It's been decades and nothing has been actually done.


The Democrats remember 1994 and 2010.


----------



## pknopp (Sep 13, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The Democrats remember 1994 and 2010.



 Yes and you are simply enforcing my point.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 13, 2021)

I don't think the courts ever said that so-called "bump stocks" were classified as machine guns but they were ruled illegal under a similar statute that covered machine guns. Of course the Military judicial system would declare that the possession bump stocks alone wasn't the same as possessing a machine gun. Why does it come as a surprise to (mostly) the left?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2021)

whitehall said:


> I don't think the courts ever said that so-called "bump stocks" were classified as machine guns but they were ruled illegal under a similar statute that covered machine guns. Of course the Military judicial system would declare that the possession bump stocks alone wasn't the same as possessing a machine gun. Why does it come as a surprise to (mostly) the left?


The ignorant are often surprised.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Bump stocks are not machine guns.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, as if those guys would know what a machine gun is.  They don't even know what an assault rifle is..


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron....a bump stock is not a machine gun, not by definition, not by function.  A prius is not a Formula one racer...a bump stock is not a machine gun.


If a bump stock is a machine gun then we'll all have to get a stamp from the Federal Government to own shoes that are not slip-ons or Velcro secured.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 13, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bump stocks are amusing toys for the most part. Most people recognize you can't aim whatsoever with one.
> Having said that, it can be used to provide devastating mass injury if firing into a crowd as the shooter in Las Vegas did by killing 9 people in under 30 seconds and a total of 58 dead with 411 injuries.
> Bump stocks are and should ALWAYS continue to be strictly forbidden.
> And I am a gun supporter with 3 guns in my home.


You're not a gun rights supporter; you're not a supporter of the Second Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 13, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Yeah... and flying planes into people is not legal.
> And driving car bombs into people is not legal.
> Say what you want, but the Vegas man killed and injured more people than any other mass shooter in history. PERIOD.
> I am a staunch supporter of gun rights. But I am not blindly stupid.
> 50 flying bullets in a wide area is more dangerous than 10.


You know, you make a great point.  They should make killing people illegal; that would stop guys like that no matter what tool he was going to use.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 13, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Haha... you know nothing about me.
> I have been around guns my entire 56 years of life.
> The first time I shot one was with my grandfather when I was about 6 or 7.
> When I turned 18, on that DAY - I went out and bought a Mossberg 20 ga. because I wanted to hunt with MY own gun I bought.
> ...



You're an idiot.  We know that much about you.  Possession of a few guns does not at all make you knowledgeable.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 13, 2021)

DrLove said:


> There are limits to the second amendment. Did you know that Loony Bird? Scalia did. SCOTUS has confirmed a state's right to ban semi auto assault-style weapons.
> 
> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​​Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.​​Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.​
> 
> ...


Scalia was a gun controller.  Scalia may support gun control but the Constitution does not.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

occupied said:


> Gun ownership more than any other right requires responsibility yet gun politics is almost entirely devoted to shielding gun nuts from consequences in the aftermath of tragedy. All the arguments of slippery slopes and ludicrous fantasies of civil war and the collapse of civilization are worthless. Just say you like to shoot guns and they make you feel safe. Be honest in your arguments and quit with the hyperbolic flights of fancy. No one wants to take your guns, they just want you to take responsibility.



That's just pure bullcrap.  Gun rights defenders are the first to call for consequences for shooters who abuse the right and use their guns to illegally harm others.  It is the Democrats who refuse to punish those who commit gun crimes. It is Democrats who avert their eyes, minds, and hearts from the dead children in Chicago and across America from gang shootings that go unpunished day after day.  It is Democrats who emptied jails of dangerous criminals, putting them on the streets of America, so they would have room to lock up those who refuse to wear a mask for Covid.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

occupied said:


> They are about the stupidest thing ever though.


seemed to work pretty good in las vegas,,,

maybe your the stupid one,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron....a bump stock is not a machine gun, not by definition, not by function.  A prius is not a Formula one racer...a bump stock is not a machine gun.


doesnt really matter cause the 2nd A was specific for military grade weapons that include machine guns,,


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
> And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
> As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
> You truly are a dumb fuk



Here's a guy shooting 4 mags, 120 rounds, in 60 seconds.  And he's an extremely slow shooter and slow at changing mags.  Imagine how many more could be killed by a guy just picking up another loaded gun or who knew how to rapid change a magazine.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 60 people killed out of 22,000.......and you think with the bump stocks that meant he was hitting a lot of people?   Again, you doofus.......the bump stock kept him from killing even more people.....you moron.



Shooting into a large mass of people, nearly half of the rounds fired hit no one.  Your point is exactly correct.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Shooting into a large mass of people, nearly half of the rounds fired hit no one.  Your point is exactly correct.


that means more than half did hit people,, sounds like a useful weapon in the right hands,,


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Here's a guy shooting 4 mags, 120 rounds, in 60 seconds.  And he's an extremely slow shooter and slow at changing mags.  Imagine how many more could be killed by a guy just picking up another loaded gun or who knew how to rapid change a magazine.



Two per second is not NINE per second


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That is the way it is defined, but it was poorly defined. Machine guns were banned because of their rate of fire. but they mistakenly thought regulating the trigger system design was all it took to limit that rate. It's time to redefine what we need tp limit, and to write new rules that actually accomplish that goal.



ATF rules a 14 inch shoe string is a machine gun:





__





						Shoestring Machine Gun
					

In September 2004 the ATF decided that a 14 inch long shoestring was considered a machine gun: Here is an official letter stating the facts: In 2007 the ATF decided the shoestring alone was not a machine gun.  It was



					www.everydaynodaysoff.com
				




A rubber band is a machine gun:


In fact, you can rapid fire a gun simply by how you hold it to your shoulder


So, please provide a list of all things to be banned to prevent rapid fire of any gun.  Start with bellies, hips, shoulders, and fingers, because any of those can be used to do it.

The reason gun rights supporters object to the banning of a relatively useless range toy is that it is just one more meaningless, feel-good-only, ban from the left.  It's that pattern of banning these that have no effect on the murder of babies in Chicago and other cities that worry us because bump stocks are just one in a long history, and longer plan going forward, of meaningless, ineffective, bans that are designed, in the end, to remove our ability to exercise our natural right to the tools of defense.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Two per second is not NINE per second



Any one can pull the trigger 9 times in a second.  The point is, it could be  60 dead in 30 seconds - which is, of course, far, far,  faster than the Vegas shooter killed.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Any one can pull the trigger 9 times in a second.  The point is, it could be  60 dead in 30 seconds - which is, of course, far, far,  faster than the Vegas shooter killed.


No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.   


https://www.quora.com/profile/Chris-Everett
Chris Everett
Gun owner, extensive knowledge in technical and legal issues related to guns.
Answered 5 years ago · Author has 9K answers and 53.4M answer views

The rate of fire number is fairly misleading. From an engineering perspective, yes, the rate of fire could be classed as 180 rounds per minute, or even higher. But just because that’s the rate, doesn’t mean that you can actually fire 180 rounds in a minute.
The rate of fire is going to be slowed by the fact that you have to do mag changes every 30 rounds or so, by the fact that your finger won’t be keeping up for that long, and probably even by heat in the rifle.
Realistically, an experienced shooter can probably fire 3 rounds a second, at least to start. But every 30 rounds (ten seconds) they need to stop and reload. That reload will take about five seconds, unless you are VERY fast. So that’s 30 rounds in 15 seconds (effective fire rate of 120 rounds per minute, not 180). Few people will retain that fire rate through the a full minute, probably slowing to closer to two rounds per second by the end. My guess is that an experienced shooter (though not a professional) is probably looking at around 90 rounds a minute of effective fire. You might be able to speed it up a bit if you sacrifice all accuracy and normal use of a firearm.


----------



## Flash (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> ATF rules a 14 inch shoe string is a machine gun:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Jerry's video substantiates what I have been saying.  Bump stocks are inaccurate as hell and it jammed on him four or five times.  Also semi auto is faster and significantly more accurate.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

Flash said:


> Jerry's video substantiates what I have been saying.  Bump stocks are inaccurate as hell and it jammed on him four or five times.  Also semi auto is faster and significantly more accurate.



Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> that means more than half did hit people,, sounds like a useful weapon in the right hands,,




Are you really siding with the idiots on this?

He was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....who didn't know they were under fire, and who had limited exits to escape.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.




Over 400 yards, doofus.   

He needed to get the bullets into the concert area, and about half went over the crowd....according to the numbers you posted.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you really siding with the idiots on this?
> 
> He was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....who didn't know they were under fire, and who had limited exits to escape.....


thats a situational issue,, if my house is attacked by hundreds of antifa I would love to have a bumpstock instead of a single shot semi-auto,,,


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Over 400 yards, doofus.
> 
> He needed to get the bullets into the concert area, and about half went over the crowd....according to the numbers you posted.



Still a piece of cake assuming he wasn't drunk.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Still a piece of cake assuming he wasn't drunk.



And the only reason he was able to kill so many was the fact they were in a tightly packed crowd......if he had fired on a street, or somewhere else they could have escaped or hidden behing things....

the bump stock did not help him....it saved lives because if caused bullets to completely miss the concert area....you dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Still a piece of cake assuming he wasn't drunk.




Hey...Pythagoras.....explain to us how the slightest tilt upward of the barrel changed the angle of his shooting........that means that the bullets flew over the concert area.....you dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> thats a situational issue,, if my house is attacked by hundreds of antifa I would love to have a bumpstock instead of a single shot semi-auto,,,




No, actually, you wouldn't.....you would miss them.  Semi-automatic fire would be far more accurate.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...Pythagoras.....explain to us how the slightest tilt upward of the barrel changed the angle of his shooting........that means that the bullets flew over the concert area.....you dumb ass.



Do you have a link to back up your butt hunch? No?? Then beat it.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No, actually, you wouldn't.....you would miss them.  Semi-automatic fire would be far more accurate.



Well yes, probably it would have been more accurate.
If only it were possible to fire 9 rounds per second with a semi-auto and no bump


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No, actually, you wouldn't.....you would miss them.  Semi-automatic fire would be far more accurate.


so youre saying a large amount of ammo going downrange into a large group of people is less effective than single shots??
and dont forget with a bumpstock you can always switch to single fire when you need better accuracy,,,

really doesnt matter cause we should all have full auto as per the 2nd A permits,,,


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> that means more than half did hit people,, sounds like a useful weapon in the right hands,,





The fact that the asshole used the bump stock saved lives.  That is not arguable.  It is also obvious that had he used a semi truck and driven through the venue he would have killed thousands.

The hotel room was set up as an anti gun advertisement.  That was the main purpose of his crime.  

And, he was a former IRS agent... so, once again he was one of those the anti gun people think are the only people who should have guns.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

westwall said:


> The fact that the asshole used the bump stock saved lives.  That is not arguable.  It is also obvious that had he used a semi truck and driven through the venue he would have killed thousands.
> 
> The hotel room was set up as an anti gun advertisement.  That was the main purpose of his crime.
> 
> And, he was a former IRS agent... so, once again he was one of those the anti gun people think are the only people who should have guns.


as I said,, its all situational,,,

if a person wants to kill innocent people they will always find a way,,


----------



## Flash (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> so youre saying a large amount of ammo going downrange into a large group of people is less effective than single shots??
> and dont forget with a bumpstock you can always switch to single fire when you need better accuracy,,,
> 
> really doesnt matter cause we should all have full auto as per the 2nd A permits,,,


We don't know how many of the 1000 bullets he fired were from the one bump stock he had among the 23 firearms.

However, it is likely not many given the propensity of the bump stock to jam a gun.  You can get a great example of that in the Jerry Miculek video above where it jams several times.  That is what I would see as a range officer when the kids would bring out the stupid bumpstocks just to hear it go bang bang bang.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> so youre saying a large amount of ammo going downrange into a large group of people is less effective than single shots??
> and dont forget with a bumpstock you can always switch to single fire when you need better accuracy,,,
> 
> really doesnt matter cause we should all have full auto as per the 2nd A permits,,,




No....as I told the other two idiots, the bumpstock pushed the muzzle up and likely jammed the rifle...saving lives.

Sooo....you are an idiot too...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.


The LV shooter did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.


490 yards.


----------



## DrLove (Sep 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The LV shooter did.


Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks? 
Wouldn't have happened my friend.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> ATF rules a 14 inch shoe string is a machine gun:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?


Look at you, changing the conditions of the test.
His rifle fired 9 rounds/sec because he pulled the trigger 9 times/sec

Fact is, when it comes to killing as many people as he could, he chose his weapons poorly.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?
> Wouldn't have happened my friend.







Proving once again that you don't know a damned thing about firearms.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.






Good luck with that.  John Browning turned a lever action rifle into a gas operated machinegun in a day.  Legislation will never keep up with innovation.  Smart people are smarter than you idiots.  Just admit it and leave them alone.  The violent predators that you support will do just fine.  You don't need to help them commit their crimes.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

westwall said:


> Good luck with that.  John Browning turned a lever action rifle into a gas operated machinegun in a day.  Legislation will never keep up with innovation.  Smart people are smarter than you idiots.  Just admit it and leave them alone.  The violent predators that you support will do just fine.  You don't need to help them commit their crimes.


Again, that was my point. The  purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.
> 
> 
> Chris Everett - Quora
> ...



8 rounds from a revolver (much heavier trigger) in 1 second:


Here's a binary trigger shooting 20 rounds in 2 seconds.


I'll concede on the 9 rounds per second - for now.  The fastest video I can find is 7 rounds on a standard trigger.  With a slide-fire stock or even simple bump firing with a standard AR, you can easily achieve that kind of fire rate, though, in short bursts.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.


And, yet, he missed about half of the time.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> thats a situational issue,, if my house is attacked by hundreds of antifa I would love to have a bumpstock instead of a single shot semi-auto,,,



If you shoot the front 3, the rest run.  If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If you shoot the front 3, the rest run.


Shoot the guy with the megaphone and the rest run.


woodwork201 said:


> If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.


And statndard-capacity magazines.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No....as I told the other two idiots, the bumpstock pushed the muzzle up and likely jammed the rifle...saving lives.
> 
> Sooo....you are an idiot too...


in only that one scenario,,

at least I'm not an anti 2nd shill trying to take away your right to own weapons,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If you shoot the front 3, the rest run.  If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.


you hope the rest run,, rather not take that chance,,,

not sure how you miss when they are shoulder to shoulder,,


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Again, that was my point. The  purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.


The intent of the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to prevent such bans.  In Miller, the Court ruled explicitly against such bans.  The Constitution guarantees our right to own one of these:









						Minigun Door Gunner | Adventurous Shooting | Gunship Helicopters
					

Our Las Vegas gun range is the only place you can shoot 400 rounds from a minigun inside from an airborne door gunner A-Star helicopter. Place your order!




					gunshiphelicopters.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> you hope the rest run,, rather not take that chance,,,
> 
> not sure how you miss when they are shoulder to shoulder,,



Easily: use a bump stock or any bump fire technique.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> The intent of the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to prevent such bans.  In Miller, the Court ruled explicitly against such bans.  The Constitution guarantees our right to own one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.


they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,


They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?


no I dont,, the 2nd was so the people to be as equally armed as any threat they may face and that includes full auto,,,


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.


I agree with the Founders.  I agree with the Constitution.  I agree with the 2nd Amendment.  No, I don't agree with any gun control law.  I agree with putting violent criminals in prison for long periods of time; prisons without TV and basketball.  I agree with punishing the criminal, not the law-abiding.  Punish the act, not the tool.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,


The 200 dollar tax wasn't intended to keep people from owning automatic guns; it was intended to keep black people from owning automatic guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?


They weren't banned.  Haven't been banned.  Idiot.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> no I dont,, the 2nd was so the people to be as equally armed as any threat they may face and that includes full auto,,,


Gun nut that thinks machine guns shouldn't be banned. Typical crazy gun nut.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Again, that was my point. The  purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.







You CAN'T.  That's the point.  No weapon is impossible to convert.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I agree with the Founders.  I agree with the Constitution.  I agree with the 2nd Amendment.  No, I don't agree with any gun control law.  I agree with putting violent criminals in prison for long periods of time; prisons without TV and basketball.  I agree with punishing the criminal, not the law-abiding.  Punish the act, not the tool.


You don't agree we should have laws, yet you claim to agree with the constitution. What a goofy little putz you are.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Gun nut that thinks machine guns shouldn't be banned. Typical crazy gun nut.







Idiots think the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says.  Hello idiot


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> They weren't banned.  Haven't been banned.  Idiot.


So you want to nit pick. Yes, there are some legal machine guns, but only a tiny amount. dumb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

westwall said:


> You CAN'T.  That's the point.  No weapon is impossible to convert.


That's exactly what I said wasteballs. That's why you require gun manufacturers to limit the speed that it will fire. Don't tell me they can't come up with a way to do that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

westwall said:


> Idiots think the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says.  Hello idiot


Gun nuts think it says a lot more than it does.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You don't agree we should have laws, yet you claim to agree with the constitution. What a goofy little putz you are.


I agree we should have laws.  Those laws must comply with the Constitution; it's in the Constitution.  You, and the left in general in all, don't agree with the Constitution.

Article VI, Clause 2:

*This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.*


You don't get to just make up laws because you want them; they must follow the Constitution and the Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So you want to nit pick. Yes, there are some legal machine guns, but only a tiny amount. dumb ass.


According to the BATFE, there are 175000 regulated guns and devices... that's not a tiny amount.









						ATF Reveals The Number of Registered Machine Guns - The Truth About Guns
					

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Thanks to an addition slipped into to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, guns with giggle switches are beyond the reach of most civilians. While ostensibly legal to own, thanks to FOPA’s Hughes amendment, there’s been a de facto ban on civilian transfer or...




					www.thetruthaboutguns.com
				




I don't know where this guy gets is numbers but it's an interesting look at where those weapons are owned.  The map promised in the title isn't there but there are some interesting comments such as Washington DC having 62 NFA weapons per 1000 residents.  Edit: I got the map to work; it didn't work in Tor browser.  Edit 2: This article claims 3.6 million NFA items in the US.  I don't know which is right but either number is not tiny.









						Map of Federally Regulated Weapons - Metrocosm
					

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn18sharesIn four states (New York, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona), it is illegal to carry nunchucks. Oddly, those same states have a total of 60,715 legally registered machine guns.   Machine guns are one of six categories of “Title II” weapon, which are...




					metrocosm.com


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> The 200 dollar tax wasn't intended to keep people from owning automatic guns; it was intended to keep black people from owning automatic guns.


are you saying only black people are poor??

if so that would be racist,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Gun nuts think it says a lot more than it does.


you have that backwards,,

anti gun nuts thinks it says things it doesnt,,

the first 4 words make it clear its about military grade weapons and the last 4 clearly say you nor the government has a say in what I have,,,

but thanks for stopping by and making a fascist of yourself,,,


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's exactly what I said wasteballs. That's why you require gun manufacturers to limit the speed that it will fire. Don't tell me they can't come up with a way to do that.






And, for the umpteenth time, I can make a single shot rifle into a machine gun.  Unlike you, i am smart and skilled with tools.  There is NO way that you can magically put Pandora back in her box.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Bump stocks are not machine guns.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And?

Military court rulings have no bearing on civilian courts, no bearing on state and local governments, no bearing on the Federal government. 

Trump’s bump-stock ban remains in place.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Only because of the political realities involved.
> If they knew they could do it w/o causing the Democrats the house/senate, they would.
> In a heartbeat.


This is a lie.

Senate Democrats would vote against a new AWB just as they did in 2013 when they voted against the Manchin-Toomey legislation.

If Democrats oppose a UBC measure they’re certainly not going to support another AWB.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 14, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Senate Democrats would vote against a new AWB just as they did in 2013...


... because they do not want to lose control of the senate.
You prove my point.
Well done.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

westwall said:


> And, for the umpteenth time, I can make a single shot rifle into a machine gun.  Unlike you, i am smart and skilled with tools.  There is NO way that you can magically put Pandora back in her box.


Some individuals have always had the ability to make modifications, but that has nothing to do with what is legal and  available over the counter. An illegally modified machine gun will still be an illegally modified machine gun. Banning the  manufacture and sales of machine guns, as if they were any other gun was done for one reason, and one reason only. Their rate of fire was too high. Laws concentrating on how they were designed seemed like a good way to reduce the number of high firing guns on the street at the time, In time it proved to not solve the initial problem of an extremely high firing rate. If we ban bump stocks,  someone will design something else that will do the same thing, only better. That's why we should do what should we didn't know to do from the start. Ban guns with the ability to rapid fire. Manufacturers can come up with any design they want, as long as it meets other applicable standards, and is not capable of exceptionally high firing rate. Yes, some people will still be able to illegally modify them just like they can now, I have no idea how they might limit the firing rate, but I also have no doubt that someone will know. When a gun is found with it's rate limiting ability bypassed, it would be the same as when they find a gun with an illegal  DIAS now.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Some individuals have always had the ability to make modifications, but that has nothing to do with what is legal and  available over the counter. An illegally modified machine gun will still be an illegally modified machine gun. Banning the  manufacture and sales of machine guns, as if they were any other gun was done for one reason, and one reason only. Their rate of fire was too high. Laws concentrating on how they were designed seemed like a good way to reduce the number of high firing guns on the street at the time, In time it proved to not solve the initial problem of an extremely high firing rate. If we ban bump stocks,  someone will design something else that will do the same thing, only better. That's why we should do what should we didn't know to do from the start. Ban guns with the ability to rapid fire. Manufacturers can come up with any design they want, as long as it meets other applicable standards, and is not capable of exceptionally high firing rate. Yes, some people will still be able to illegally modify them just like they can now, I have no idea how they might limit the firing rate, but I also have no doubt that someone will know. When a gun is found with it's rate limiting ability bypassed, it would be the same as when they find a gun with an illegal  DIAS now.






I am trying to educate you....there IS no way to limit the firepower.  Especially now with 3d printing.

Now even simpletons can do the manufacturing to bypass whatever law you decide to pass.

So, evil people will ignore your laws, and the innocent will suffer.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 14, 2021)

westwall said:


> I am trying to educate you....there IS no way to limit the firepower.  Especially now with 3d printing.
> 
> Now even simpletons can do the manufacturing to bypass whatever law you decide to pass.
> 
> So, evil people will ignore your laws, and the innocent will suffer.


You're


westwall said:


> I am trying to educate you....there IS no way to limit the firepower.  Especially now with 3d printing.
> 
> Now even simpletons can do the manufacturing to bypass whatever law you decide to pass.
> 
> So, evil people will ignore your laws, and the innocent will suffer.


I'm not sure if you are really that dense or if you just can't stand to admit you are wrong. Of course there are 3d printed guns, and people who illegally modify guns, and that won't change. However, those things have very little to do with our gun supply. For each gun made with some other method, there are probably thousands made by manufacturers. Home made or modified guns won't compete with gun manufacturers any time soon. Do you agree that machine guns should be virtually banned as they are now? (yes, I know there are a tiny amount of legal fully automatic guns. Quit nit picking. )


----------



## westwall (Sep 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really that dense or if you just can't stand to admit you are wrong. Of course there are 3d printed guns, and people who illegally modify guns, and that won't change. However, those things have very little to do with our gun supply. For each gun made with some other method, there are probably thousands made by manufacturers. Home made or modified guns won't compete with gun manufacturers any time soon. Do you agree that machine guns should be virtually banned as they are now? (yes, I know there are a tiny amount of legal fully automatic guns. Quit nit picking. )





Yeah, they will.  So called ghost guns already do.  And no, I don't think machine-gun should be banned.  

No legally owned machine-gun has ever been used in a crime save one time.

A cop used his Transferable MAC 10 to try and murder his wife IIRC.

So, over 175,000 weapons, and one crime by a cop.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.



You are an idiot.   Cars kill far more people than guns do, so we need to prevent them from going at high speed...no one needs to drive faster than 25 miles an hour...

you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.




The machine gun was banned because they didn't think things through...normal people weren't shooting people, criminals, again, were doing all of the shooting.

What do you mean "newer," designs?  The semi-auto rifle has been in existence at the same time the machine gun was in existence, you idiot.  Only now do you have a problem with it.

How about we start banning criminals...by locking them up and keeping them locked up when we catch them, instead of doofuses like you and the democrats releasing them over and over again..

Mass public shooters?  12 in 2019......out of over 330 million people....

They killed a total of 73 people.

deer kill 200 people a year

ladders kill 350 people a year

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.

Rifles are not a problem.....criminals are the actual problem and you don't care about them for some stupid reason..

Criminals in democrat party controlled cities kill almost all of the 10,258 gun murder victims in 2019......and almost all of the victims were criminals engaged in being criminals.

They didn't use rifles....you dipshit...

You focus on the rarest of rare events and the rarest of rare weapons because they are covered 24/7 when a mass public shooting happens...meanwhile, you guys completely ignore the actual criminals, who are mostly young black males murdering other young black males with handguns....because that doesn't scare normal people....because normal people understand that if they don't live in democrat party crap hole cities, and in those tiny areas in those cities where the democrats allow gangs to run wild, then they will likely never even see gun crime.

But you can't ban guns if you focus on actual crime...so you focus on the mass public shooters because they give you 24/7 news coverage to scare normal people.......

You are an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?




I don't....I support a ban on criminals...a life ban on any criminal caught with an illegal gun...that stops crime...not banning guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You don't agree we should have laws, yet you claim to agree with the constitution. What a goofy little putz you are.




Machiine guns are banned in Mexico......and the drug cartels have all the machine guns they want...

Fully automatic military weapons are banned in Europe.....and they are the preferred weapon of the European criminal gangs....

You don't understand the topic.....you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Some individuals have always had the ability to make modifications, but that has nothing to do with what is legal and  available over the counter. An illegally modified machine gun will still be an illegally modified machine gun. Banning the  manufacture and sales of machine guns, as if they were any other gun was done for one reason, and one reason only. Their rate of fire was too high. Laws concentrating on how they were designed seemed like a good way to reduce the number of high firing guns on the street at the time, In time it proved to not solve the initial problem of an extremely high firing rate. If we ban bump stocks,  someone will design something else that will do the same thing, only better. That's why we should do what should we didn't know to do from the start. Ban guns with the ability to rapid fire. Manufacturers can come up with any design they want, as long as it meets other applicable standards, and is not capable of exceptionally high firing rate. Yes, some people will still be able to illegally modify them just like they can now, I have no idea how they might limit the firing rate, but I also have no doubt that someone will know. When a gun is found with it's rate limiting ability bypassed, it would be the same as when they find a gun with an illegal  DIAS now.




No....ban criminals instead.   That is the one thing you don't want to do.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot.   Cars kill far more people than guns do, so we need to prevent them from going at high speed...no one needs to drive faster than 25 miles an hour...
> 
> you idiot.


Yes, we do have speed limits, dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, we do have speed limits, dumb ass.




Wrong.......mandatory, universal speed limit...25mph.....we don't have that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 16, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wrong.......mandatory, universal speed limit...25mph.....we don't have that.


I'm sure you wonder why most say you are childish. That post is why.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really that dense or if you just can't stand to admit you are wrong. Of course there are 3d printed guns, and people who illegally modify guns, and that won't change. However, those things have very little to do with our gun supply. For each gun made with some other method, there are probably thousands made by manufacturers. Home made or modified guns won't compete with gun manufacturers any time soon. Do you agree that machine guns should be virtually banned as they are now? (yes, I know there are a tiny amount of legal fully automatic guns. Quit nit picking. )



Wrong.
Machine guns can not be legally banned or are banned.
All the government has or can do is limit the sale of machine guns to those with licenses and have paid the $200 tax.
If you make it yourself, then all you have to do is pay the tax.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, we do have speed limits, dumb ass.



Actually we do not have speed limits.
Roads owned collectively have speed limits we all agree to.
But on your own property, you can go any speed you want.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> 8 rounds from a revolver (much heavier trigger) in 1 second:
> 
> 
> Here's a binary trigger shooting 20 rounds in 2 seconds.
> ...




I had a binary trigger for one of my ARs.

One hundred times more accurate and more reliable than a bump stock.

However, still nothing more than a range toy. 

It could put a lot of rounds down range.  Almost as fast as full auto.  However, it could never be a serious tactical weapon.

I am an experienced shooter.  I could get the pull shot on target but the release was always way off.  Like 8-10 inches at 100 yds off.

If you were using it for suppression fire then it would work but unless you practiced a whole lot you were never going to do double taps with it.

I probably shot close to a thousand rounds trying to develop the skill to control the release shot and was never successful.  I'm sure there are some people who could do it but I don't think a normal shooter could.

The Las Vegas shooter would have been much more deadly from his position if he used a binary trigger instead of a bump stock.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 16, 2021)

Flash said:


> I had a binary trigger for one of my ARs.
> 
> One hundred times more accurate and more reliable than a bump stock.
> 
> ...



With such a large group of people, in the dark, likely aiming was not necessary or change much.
Its just lucky did not use something like a skyrocket with toxic chemicals.
He could then have killed far more.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> With such a large group of people, in the dark, likely aiming was not necessary or change much.
> Its just lucky did not use something like a skyrocket with toxic chemicals.
> He could then have killed far more.




He fired a little over a thousand round and got about a little less than 500 hits, some of the hits were ricochets.

We don't know how many of the bullets fired were from the one firearm with a bump stock.  From what I know about bump stocks I suspect very few.  Probably less than 100 given the way that a bump stock jams up a rifle.

I don't think he was very knowledgeable of firearms.  I see people like him at the range all the time.  They have the firearms and the ammo but not the skills or knowledge to be effective.

The only thing he did right was pick the tactical elevation.  If he was knowledgeable of firearms he could have significantly increased his fire rate and accuracy and could have caused many more casualties.

The guy was rich.  Thank god he didn't use his money to buy black market F-A weapons.  Instead of 60 people dying there could have been 600.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 16, 2021)

Flash said:


> It could put a lot of rounds down range.  Almost as fast as full auto.  However, it could never be a serious tactical weapon.
> I am an experienced shooter.  I could get the pull shot on target but the release was always way off.  Like 8-10 inches at 100 yds off


Mine has a 20" barrel, bipod and weighted handguards.  3-4" @ 100.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Mine has a 20" barrel, bipod and weighted handguards.  3-4" @ 100.


Those things would have helped.

I had my binary on a standard M-4 type AR.  I could do a little better on the bench but off hand it was terrible.

Maybe the right configuration for a binary would be a heavy barrel with a bipod.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 16, 2021)

Flash said:


> Those things would have helped.
> I had my binary on a standard M-4 type AR.  I could do a little better on the bench but off hand it was terrible.
> Maybe the right configuration for a binary would be a heavy barrel with a bipod.


I tried it with all of my uppers, pistol to A2.   Fun.
Then I built the heavy A2 upper for it.    Not surprisingly, it shoots very well in SA.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I tried it with all of my uppers, pistol to A2.   Fun.
> Then I built the heavy A2 upper for it.    Not surprisingly, it shoots very well in SA.




I have a Class III M-16.  I bought it in the early 70s.  

I put aside the original parts but use the stripped lower with modern parts and upper.

I mostly put A-1 type uppers on it.  With the light barrel and on F-A off hand I can usually get 3-4 inch groups at 100 yds with a three or four shot burst.  Of course I have had decades of practice.  On the bench with a rest I can cut that off an inch or more if the ammo is decent.

I can control the short burst but if I fired a string then the group really opens up.

I tried a heavy barrel once.  It didn't help at all on the off hand but did better on the bench.  In fact it hurt on the off hand.   I got worse groups.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

Having fired a M-16 for decades I have developed my own load for it.

Since I only use it as a range toy no need to have hot loads. If I ever need it for the zombie apocalypse I would use M-193 or M-855 ammo.

The load I have is the minimal power to recycle the action.  That cuts back on recoil and barrel wear.   Makes shooting it more fun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 16, 2021)

Flash said:


> I have a Class III M-16.  I bought it in the early 70s.
> 
> I put aside the original parts but use the stripped lower with modern parts and upper.


You need one of those belt-fed uppers.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You need one of those belt-fed uppers.




The problem is finding belt ammo. It was available back in the 1980s but hard to get nowadays.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 16, 2021)

Flash said:


> The problem is finding belt ammo. It was available back in the 1980s but hard to get nowadays.


M249 links are reasonably cheap.


----------



## Flash (Sep 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> M249 links are reasonably cheap.




I was talking about ammo being sold in links. 

Not every belt fed upper will take the M-27 linked ammo.  Good quality belt fed uppers can be expensive.  Like $5k.

The problem with having a belt fed upper on a F-A is that you need a really good military grade barrel.  Those things heat up fast.

When I shoot my F-A I usually limit it to four 30 rd mags.

Even using low velocity loads the barrel gets hot.  Africa hot!

In the decades I've had my M-16 I have worn out several barrels.

If the SHTF I don't think I would want to use the F-A unless it was absolutely necessary.  Ammo goes fast on F-A and ammo would be limited.

My SHTF ARs are the Colt 6920s.  I view my M-16 as a range toy and an investment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 17, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> Military court rulings have no bearing on civilian courts, no bearing on state and local governments, no bearing on the Federal government.
> 
> Trump’s bump-stock ban remains in place.



But they're smart, educated, legal experts who, unlike virtually every other legal expert in the country, knows what actually IS a machine gun.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> I had a binary trigger for one of my ARs.
> 
> One hundred times more accurate and more reliable than a bump stock.
> 
> ...



That's the problem with the police having M16s.  They're made for suppressive fire or sweeping an area.  There is no case where the police should be doing that against civilian targets.  Given a revolution or civil war, the Army could conceivably need that against Americans but never the police.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bump stocks are amusing toys for the most part. Most people recognize you can't aim whatsoever with one.
> Having said that, it can be used to provide devastating mass injury if firing into a crowd as the shooter in Las Vegas did by killing 9 people in under 30 seconds and a total of 58 dead with 411 injuries.
> Bump stocks are and should ALWAYS continue to be strictly forbidden.
> And I am a gun supporter with 3 guns in my home.


You don't need a bump stock to bump fire a semi automatic rifle.

Check it...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

DrLove said:


> You sir, are full of shit.
> And to be clear, I'm a proud gun owner.
> So beat it


You're a Fudd


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Why is this even an argument?
> You guys seriously want Bump stocks to be legal??
> And if you have absolutely no interest in one, like all normal people, than why do you care?
> Slippery slope maybe?


Absolutely a slippery slope.  They won't be satisfied with banning bump stocks.  They want to ban everything.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> What idiot is equipping our military with that crap?


The M2 machine gun is basically a bump fire weapon.  It's one of the best weapons ever.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That's the problem with the police having M16s.  They're made for suppressive fire or sweeping an area.  There is no case where the police should be doing that against civilian targets.  Given a revolution or civil war, the Army could conceivably need that against Americans but never the police.


It's illegal for cops to use automatic fire on US citizens anyway.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.


So, you want to ban semi automatic firearms.  Go figure


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The M2 machine gun is basically a bump fire weapon.  It's one of the best weapons ever.


A.  WW1 technology.

B.  It's primitive recoil mechanism was not a bump stock.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> So, you want to ban semi automatic firearms.  Go figure


No. I have no problem with semi automatic guns that aren't capable of such a high rate of fire. A design that limits how fast the gun can fire. Similar in function to a rev limiter on a car.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No. I have no problem with semi automatic guns that aren't capable of such a high rate of fire. A design that limits how fast the gun can fire. Similar in function to a rev limiter on a car.




You are a moron........simple as that.

These dumb ideas of yours would also apply to hand guns as well...and it is simply another stupid idea meant to irritate normal gun owners who do not use their guns for crime or violence.

You hate guns, you hate gun owners, so anything you can do to make their life more difficult makes you happy....you are sick.

If you really want to lower gun crime, lock up actual criminals who use guns.....stop letting them out of jail and prison over and over again...that solves the problem.....


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are a moron........simple as that.
> 
> These dumb ideas of yours would also apply to hand guns as well...and it is simply another stupid idea meant to irritate normal gun owners who do not use their guns for crime or violence.
> 
> ...


It would have no effect on guns being fired at a normal, lower rate.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It would have no effect on guns being fired at a normal, lower rate.




Yeah...it would......

Again, dipshit...it isn't the gun, it is the target......

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowd hadn't been  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine doesn't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.



We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....



They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019  killing a grand total of



41



Deer kill 200 people a year.



Ladders kill 300 people a year.



Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It would have no effect on guns being fired at a normal, lower rate.




What is it with your mental illness that you don't want to actually keep known, repeat gun offenders locked up?   You are fine with felons with multiple felonies for not only gun possession but for firing guns at people in public being released over and over again from prison...

Keeping them locked up would stop gun crime...........fucking around with guns they don't use doesn't do anything.....

These criminals use handguns, not rifles.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No. I have no problem with semi automatic guns that aren't capable of such a high rate of fire. A design that limits how fast the gun can fire. Similar in function to a rev limiter on a car.


Any semi automatic rifle can be bump fired.

A semi automatic is designed to limit it's rate of fire.  It's called on round per trigger pull...lol


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> What is it with your mental illness that you don't want to actually keep known, repeat gun offenders locked up?   You are fine with felons with multiple felonies for not only gun possession but for firing guns at people in public being released over and over again from prison...
> 
> Keeping them locked up would stop gun crime...........fucking around with guns they don't use doesn't do anything.....
> 
> These criminals use handguns, not rifles.


You keep claming I want people guilty of gun crimes released, when I have told you repetedly that is not the case. Are you capable of not lying?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> A.  WW1 technology.
> 
> B.  It's primitive recoil mechanism was not a bump stock.


A recoil operated weapon, which is far from primitive...lol...is basically bump fire.

BTW, some of the finest rifles, ever, are recoil operated.

You don't know much about firearms.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Any semi automatic rifle can be bump fired.
> 
> A semi automatic is designed to limit it's rate of fire.  It's called on round per trigger pull...lol


If there is some design specifically  limiting the firing rate in the following video, it isn't working.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A recoil operated weapon, which is far from primitive...lol...is basically bump fire.
> 
> BTW, some of the finest rifles, ever, are recoil operated.
> 
> You don't know much about firearms.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A recoil operated weapon, which is far from primitive...lol...is basically bump fire.
> 
> BTW, some of the finest rifles, ever, are recoil operated.
> 
> You don't know much about firearms.


That's why a modification to that design, specifically to limit rate of fire is needed.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> If there is some design specifically  limiting the firing rate in the following video, it isn't working.


Should Jerry Miculeks hands be outlawed??...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's why a modification to that design, specifically to limit rate of fire is needed.


So, you want to do away with semi autos


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You keep claming I want people guilty of gun crimes released, when I have told you repetedly that is not the case. Are you capable of not lying?




As soon as you come out in support of regulating cars so that they can only go 25 mph ......to save lives, then you will have some credibility.

20 million AR-15 rifles in the country, well over that now, in fact.

3 or 4 were used to kill people in mass public shootings...

Cars kill over 30,000 people a year......

According to you, that means cars should be banned.....and any remaining cars do not need to race down local streets at 100 mph.....they need governors that limit them to 25 mph at all times...

To save lives..

That is how stupid your ideas are...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's why a modification to that design, specifically to limit rate of fire is needed.




Then be consistent...

Knives kill more people each year than rifles do,

AR-15 rifles number over 20 million in private hands.

3 or 4 were used in mass public shootings in 2019...if that....

Cars kill over 30,000 people every single year....every year....

According to your theory on rifles...this means you need to support a governor on cars that limit them to 25 mph.....we can't have cars that kill over 30,000 people a year racing down side streets at 100 miles an hour...


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should Jerry Miculeks hands be outlawed??...lol


With a rate limiting design, the gun would not be capable of that high rate of fire.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> So, you want to do away with semi autos


No.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> With a rate limiting design, the gun would not be capable of that high rate of fire.




With a governor, cars would not be capable of racing down neighborhoods with schools at 100 miles an hour......and they wouldn't be able to kill over 30,000 people a year.......


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No.




That is exactly what you want to do, you lying crap hole...


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> As soon as you come out in support of regulating cars so that they can only go 25 mph ......to save lives, then you will have some credibility.
> 
> 20 million AR-15 rifles in the country, well over that now, in fact.
> 
> ...


It would be stupid if I said I wanted cars banned. As it stands, you are the stupid one for claiming that I do. dumbass


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It would be stupid if I said I wanted cars banned. As it stands, you are the stupid one for claiming that I do. dumbass




I didn't say you wanted cars banned....I stated that to be consistent, you would need to demand that cars....that can race through neighborhoods at 100 mph.....and a rental truck in Nice, France was used to murder 86 people, only be able to go 25 mph.......to save 30,000 lives a year...

Guns in mass public shootings killed 73 people in 2019, and only 3-4 were rifles......cars kill over 30,000 people a year.....and can drive 100 mph down side streets where children play...


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Then be consistent...
> 
> Knives kill more people each year than rifles do,
> 
> ...


Yes. there are lots of guns in private hands. That is not a reason why we can't change the design requirements. Cars weren't required to have seatbelts until they were.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It would be stupid if I said I wanted cars banned. As it stands, you are the stupid one for claiming that I do. dumbass




Also....cars are the primary delivery method of both mass public shooters and gang drive by shooters.........if you limited them to 25 mph, the police would be able to catch them easier.....

See how your insane logic works?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> With a governor, cars would not be capable of racing down neighborhoods with schools at 100 miles an hour......and they wouldn't be able to kill over 30,000 people a year.......


We are mostly able to prevent 100 mph in a school zone by other means.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes. there are lots of guns in private hands. That is not a reason why we can't change the design requirements. Cars weren't required to have seatbelts until they were.




According to your logic...

20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...actually a lot more.

They need to be limited because 3-4....yes....that is me laughing at you.....were used illegally.....

73 people total, not all killed by rifles were killed in mass public shootings with all guns......

Cars kill over 30,000 people every single year.......

Cars need to be limited to 25 mph if not even slower to save the lives of children in neighborhoods where cars can race at 100 mph.......

Just looked it up...cars killed 39,239 people in 2019....

guns in mass public shootings....73.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> We are mostly able to prevent 100 mph in a school zone by other means.



No...actually, you aren't........signs don't stop cars from speeding....according to you......

If you want to limit guns because of 73 deaths in just one random year........

Then 39,239 deaths by car means that you need to support limiting cars to 25 mph....so they can't race down school streets at 100 mph....


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Also....cars are the primary delivery method of both mass public shooters and gang drive by shooters.........if you limited them to 25 mph, the police would be able to catch them easier.....
> 
> See how your insane logic works?


Yes, logic in your hands does tend to be insane.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Bump stocks are not machine guns.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's how I understand it. (Tell me if I'm wrong.)

A fully auto AR15 can fire a lot more rounds per minute than an AR15 with a bump stock.

A man with a little training can fire as many rounds as a man with a bump stock. Though he'd have a sore finger afterwards.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> We are mostly able to prevent 100 mph in a school zone by other means.



A rental Truck was able to kill 86 people in 5 minutes of speeding down a busy street....more people killed than the Vegas shooter firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people......60 killed


Cars....and trucks, no matter how much you want to lie about them....kill more people than all guns in the United States....so to be consistent...you need to demand that cars are limited to only 25 mph....so they can't race into school parking lots at 100 mph.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Here's how I understand it. (Tell me if I'm wrong.)
> 
> A fully auto AR15 can fire a lot more rounds per minute than an AR15 with a bump stock.
> 
> A man with a little training can fire as many rounds as a man with a bump stock. Though he'd have a sore finger afterwards.




Depends...

The bump stock jams a gun because of the vibration...so that means it stops firing...

Just pulling the trigger allows you to keep firing without the fear of jams.....

Even then...it is the target location of a mass public shooting that makes the difference, not the rifle used...if you are addressing mass public shootings.....


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> A rental Truck was able to kill 86 people in 5 minutes of speeding down a busy street....more people killed than the Vegas shooter firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people......60 killed
> 
> 
> Cars....and trucks, no matter how much you want to lie about them....kill more people than all guns in the United States....so to be consistent...you need to demand that cars are limited to only 25 mph....so they can't race into school parking lots at 100 mph.


I can see you are triggered, and just ranting now. Go put a cool towel on your had to relieve your overheated brain, and try again later.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I can see you are triggered, and just ranting now. Go put a cool towel on your had to relieve your overheated brain, and try again later.




And....you admit defeat........your logic is insane, and can't stand up to the slightest consistency challenge.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I can see you are triggered, and just ranting now. Go put a cool towel on your had to relieve your overheated brain, and try again later.




Let me pile on ......since a lefty like you deserves no quarter...

A rental Truck was able to kill 86 people in 5 minutes of speeding down a busy street....more people killed than the Vegas shooter firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people......60 killed


Cars....and trucks, no matter how much you want to lie about them....kill more people than all guns in the United States....so to be consistent...you need to demand that cars are limited to only 25 mph....so they can't race into school parking lots at 100 mph.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 19, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Here's how I understand it. (Tell me if I'm wrong.)
> 
> A fully auto AR15 can fire a lot more rounds per minute than an AR15 with a bump stock.
> 
> A man with a little training can fire as many rounds as a man with a bump stock. Though he'd have a sore finger afterwards.



A fully auto AR15


Missed this, let me go back........an AR-15 is not an automatic weapon...that would be the military M4 or M-16.....

The AR-15 rifle is a semi-automatic rifle...it fires only one bullet for each pull of the trigger...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No.


The only way to regulate their rate of fire anymore is to make them manually operated.  So, obviously you want them banned.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It's illegal for cops to use automatic fire on US citizens anyway.


I would certainly hope so; can you provide a reference or link?  And, if so, why would any cop be issued an M-16?  As of 2014, US police departments had "tens of thousands" of fully automatic weapons; I'm sure the number is higher now.









						This Is Why Your Local Police Department Might Have a Tank
					

Forget Officer Friendly. A new report finds that local police departments are becoming excessively militarized, equipped with weapons, uniforms and even vehicles formerly used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan




					time.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah...it would......
> 
> Again, dipshit...it isn't the gun, it is the target......
> 
> ...


Love is the highest acknowledgment the site has.  This post deserves even more than that.  This post is the ultimate, best, most complete, response to any consideration of banning AR-15s or standard capacity AR magazines.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You keep claming I want people guilty of gun crimes released, when I have told you repetedly that is not the case. Are you capable of not lying?


You're lying when you say it's not the case.  You voted for Biden/Harris.  Harris has called for elimination of all cash bail.  You vote for those things you support.  You vote for releasing criminals.  You want criminals released.  You want babies shot in their mothers' arms so you can use those deaths for your gun-control arguments.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's why a modification to that design, specifically to limit rate of fire is needed.


What rate would be acceptable?  2 rounds a second, perhaps?


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It would be stupid if I said I wanted cars banned. As it stands, you are the stupid one for claiming that I do. dumbass


As 2aguy has consistently proven, it is also stupid to say you want AR-15s banned.  your selective application of the logic doesn't make one any less stupid than the other.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 21, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You're lying when you say it's not the case.  You voted for Biden/Harris.  Harris has called for elimination of all cash bail.  You vote for those things you support.  You vote for releasing criminals.  You want criminals released.  You want babies shot in their mothers' arms so you can use those deaths for your gun-control arguments.


You're nuts.


----------

