Ban Bumpstocks?

[BuckToothMoron]

Why not? They have no real purpose except mass murder. You can't aim for shit with them, but you don't need accuracy when you're firing into a crowd. You certainly wouldn't use them to hunt or for defense, as you're as likely to shoot your neighbor as you are the home invader.

Owing a gun is a right. Since it is a right, there is no requirement to show a need or purpose for owning one. Banning bumpstocks will have no effect on crazy or evil people using bumpstocks to do bad things. I just googled how to make a bumpstocks, and guess what, there are videos on the internet which show how to make a bumpstock. People who want to commit murder are criminals and therefore do not obey laws. As a country, we need to deal with the people who commit crimes, not the tools they employ to commit them.

 

[pismoe]

Why not? They have no real purpose except mass murder. You can't aim for shit with them, but you don't need accuracy when you're firing into a crowd. You certainly wouldn't use them to hunt or for defense, as you're as likely to shoot your neighbor as you are the home invader.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- free country and personal choice is the only reason i support ' slidefires' . Course i think that people should own machine guns if they like JShaw .

I suppose people should feel free to mow down crowds of unsuspecting people at concerts. Why did I not think of that? Land of the free man. Land of the free. I'm free to kill you, your family, and as many other people as I can. Yee haw.

----------------------------------------------- like i said earlier in my last post , i support Americans living in a free country that want to own 'slidefires' JShaw .

Out of curiosity, would you also support rocket launchers? What if the neighbor was just casually launching rockets next door, and they occasionally flew a little too close to your house where your kids play? Would that be okay with you as well?

Hyperbolic, I know. I just ask because I'm wondering how far the freedom should go. The freedom to fuck up other peoples' lives, or yours as well.

-------------------------------------------------------- my thoughts are that Americans have the RIGHT to own the same exact weapons that are issued to the American Infantry soldier . I don't think that that equipment includes rockets or nukes JShaw .

 

[John Shaw]

Which is why I said banning them would be mostly a ceremonial gesture. The real solutions to our gun problems are a lot trickier to find, and our current leaders are far too stupid and corrupt to make it happen. In both parties.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why not? They have no real purpose except mass murder. You can't aim for shit with them, but you don't need accuracy when you're firing into a crowd. You certainly wouldn't use them to hunt or for defense, as you're as likely to shoot your neighbor as you are the home invader.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- free country and personal choice is the only reason i support ' slidefires' . Course i think that people should own machine guns if they like JShaw .

I suppose people should feel free to mow down crowds of unsuspecting people at concerts. Why did I not think of that? Land of the free man. Land of the free. I'm free to kill you, your family, and as many other people as I can. Yee haw.

John Shaw= immature

 

[Chuz Life]

Because ... they are tools of mass murder. Vehicles are tools of transportation. The first serves only one purpose ... well, two if you count dicking around in target practice with a half-assed fully automatic. The second keeps society from falling apart.

Just because you're much more likely to die in a car wreck or from eating too many hamburgers doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shave off that extra 0.00001% chance of being gunned down at a concert by some lunatic spraying hundreds of rounds.

Why do our cops and our military use their guns for public defense if guns are only tools for MURDER?

Did I say guns are only for murder? No. I said fully-automatic guns are. Or at least I heavily implied it. Good for clearing a room and suppressing fire and that's about it.

Huh. No kidding,

As a Marine, I was trained to use fully automatic weapons (and a grenade launcher) for defensive purposes.

Go figger.

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it! And, though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

 

[John Shaw]

Why not? They have no real purpose except mass murder. You can't aim for shit with them, but you don't need accuracy when you're firing into a crowd. You certainly wouldn't use them to hunt or for defense, as you're as likely to shoot your neighbor as you are the home invader.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- free country and personal choice is the only reason i support ' slidefires' . Course i think that people should own machine guns if they like JShaw .

I suppose people should feel free to mow down crowds of unsuspecting people at concerts. Why did I not think of that? Land of the free man. Land of the free. I'm free to kill you, your family, and as many other people as I can. Yee haw.

John Shaw= immature

Can a man not use a little hyperbole here and there? Damn son.

 

[pismoe]

Which is why I said banning them would be mostly a ceremonial gesture. The real solutions to our gun problems are a lot trickier to find, and our current leaders are far too stupid and corrupt to make it happen. In both parties.

---------------------------------- CEREMONIAL is no reason to give the democrats a 'ban' win . Precedent will be used in the future against gun owner JShaw .

 

[John Shaw]

Because ... they are tools of mass murder. Vehicles are tools of transportation. The first serves only one purpose ... well, two if you count dicking around in target practice with a half-assed fully automatic. The second keeps society from falling apart.

Just because you're much more likely to die in a car wreck or from eating too many hamburgers doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shave off that extra 0.00001% chance of being gunned down at a concert by some lunatic spraying hundreds of rounds.

Why do our cops and our military use their guns for public defense if guns are only tools for MURDER?

Did I say guns are only for murder? No. I said fully-automatic guns are. Or at least I heavily implied it. Good for clearing a room and suppressing fire and that's about it.

Huh. No kidding,

As a Marine, I was trained to use fully automatic weapons (and a grenade launcher) for defensive purposes.

Go figger.

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do our cops and our military use their guns for public defense if guns are only tools for MURDER?

Did I say guns are only for murder? No. I said fully-automatic guns are. Or at least I heavily implied it. Good for clearing a room and suppressing fire and that's about it.

Huh. No kidding,

As a Marine, I was trained to use fully automatic weapons (and a grenade launcher) for defensive purposes.

Go figger.

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

 

[John Shaw]

Did I say guns are only for murder? No. I said fully-automatic guns are. Or at least I heavily implied it. Good for clearing a room and suppressing fire and that's about it.

Huh. No kidding,

As a Marine, I was trained to use fully automatic weapons (and a grenade launcher) for defensive purposes.

Go figger.

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

A well-regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms.

A well-regulated militia.

A well-regulated ...

Well-regulated ...

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to have any weapon you damn well please. It gives you the right to bear arms. Not all and any arms, but arms.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you should have had a 3rd option

__who the hell cares -banning it would be superficial law that will do nothing to solve the problem

 

[Chuz Life]

Huh. No kidding,

As a Marine, I was trained to use fully automatic weapons (and a grenade launcher) for defensive purposes.

Go figger.

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

A well-regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms.

A well-regulated militia.

A well-regulated ...

Well-regulated ...

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to have any weapon you damn well please. It gives you the right to bear arms. Not all and any arms, but arms.

Define well regulated.

This will most likely be hilarious!

 

[John Shaw]

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

A well-regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms.

A well-regulated militia.

A well-regulated ...

Well-regulated ...

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to have any weapon you damn well please. It gives you the right to bear arms. Not all and any arms, but arms.

Define well regulated.

This will most likely be hilarious!

United States v. Miller

For starters. Interesting stuff.

 

[pismoe]

Why not? They have no real purpose except mass murder. You can't aim for shit with them, but you don't need accuracy when you're firing into a crowd. You certainly wouldn't use them to hunt or for defense, as you're as likely to shoot your neighbor as you are the home invader.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- free country and personal choice is the only reason i support ' slidefires' . Course i think that people should own machine guns if they like JShaw .

I suppose people should feel free to mow down crowds of unsuspecting people at concerts. Why did I not think of that? Land of the free man. Land of the free. I'm free to kill you, your family, and as many other people as I can. Yee haw.

John Shaw= immature

----------------------------------------------------------- i'm thinking so , especially when he goes ' YEE HAW' , that just sounds lefty anti gunner to me BuckTM !!

 

[Missourian]

Let them go. Hell, you need to be a millionaire to burn up that kind of ammo for nothing. I told the wife that they were going to be banned the first day after the shooting.

I'm with John Shaw. If you ever need one, keep the stuff on hand to make one...but this is a battle that was lost in 1934, and fighting it only hurts the cause IMO.

 

[John Shaw]

Why not? They have no real purpose except mass murder. You can't aim for shit with them, but you don't need accuracy when you're firing into a crowd. You certainly wouldn't use them to hunt or for defense, as you're as likely to shoot your neighbor as you are the home invader.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- free country and personal choice is the only reason i support ' slidefires' . Course i think that people should own machine guns if they like JShaw .

I suppose people should feel free to mow down crowds of unsuspecting people at concerts. Why did I not think of that? Land of the free man. Land of the free. I'm free to kill you, your family, and as many other people as I can. Yee haw.

John Shaw= immature

----------------------------------------------------------- i'm thinking so , especially when he ge goes ' YEE HAW' , that just sounds lefty anti gunner to me BuckTM !!

How boring would life be if everyone agreed with you all the time? Yet that seems to be what folks like here; a circle-jerk echo-chamber. I'm just taking the more difficult position of the one vs. the many. And I enjoy it, so forgive me for not being entirely serious all the time.

 

[Chuz Life]

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

A well-regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms.

A well-regulated militia.

A well-regulated ...

Well-regulated ...

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to have any weapon you damn well please. It gives you the right to bear arms. Not all and any arms, but arms.

Define well regulated.

This will most likely be hilarious!

United States v. Miller

For starters. Interesting stuff.

I should have been more specific. Since you quoted the 2nd Amendment, I thought you understood I want you to define "well regulated" as it was intended when the framers wrote the damn amendment. I don't give a flying fuck about what some judge said decades later.

 

[John Shaw]

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

A well-regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms.

A well-regulated militia.

A well-regulated ...

Well-regulated ...

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to have any weapon you damn well please. It gives you the right to bear arms. Not all and any arms, but arms.

Define well regulated.

This will most likely be hilarious!

United States v. Miller

For starters. Interesting stuff.

I should have been more specific. Since you quoted the 2nd Amendment, I thought you understood I want you to define "well regulated" as it was intended when the framers wrote the amendment. I don't give a flying fuck about what some judge said decades later.

We aren't living in 1791, my friend. A few years have passed since then.

 

[Markle]

Did I say guns are only for murder? No. I said fully-automatic guns are. Or at least I heavily implied it. Good for clearing a room and suppressing fire and that's about it.

These were not fully automatic weapons, as has been said here several times.

When was the last time a fully automatic weapon was used in a crime in the US?

Why not?

 

[pismoe]

Did I say guns are only for murder? No. I said fully-automatic guns are. Or at least I heavily implied it. Good for clearing a room and suppressing fire and that's about it.

Huh. No kidding,

As a Marine, I was trained to use fully automatic weapons (and a grenade launcher) for defensive purposes.

Go figger.

In a military setting? Sure. In your house? Probably not your go-to weapon. At least, I'd be very surprised to hear a marine tell me they need a machine gun for self-defense. Because the marines I know would laugh at the suggestion.

I may not NEED ANY guns for self defense.

Thankfully, my right to own them and even to use them if it comes down to it is not a right that is contingent upon my "need."

It is far better to own a gun and know how to use it than to ever "need" one and not have it and though it is extremely unlikely it will ever happen, that would include having access to the very weapons you shit your pants over the most.

Why are you acting like I'm some 2nd-amendment hating flag-burner dude? I'm just having a conversation here.

You don't seem to be cognizant of what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment really is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- isn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment about target shooting , squirrel hunting , pheasant hunting and pest control like 'aussie' and 'english' Subjects are allowed eh ??