Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.
You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.Stupid argument. Of course laws reduce the occurrence of the prohibited activity. You know you have gone down the rabbit hole, when you're making this idiotic argument.. So how do we keep Mandalay from happening again ???
We can't.
No law will ever stop some asshole hell bent on murder.
Ban semiautomatic rifles and he'll wear a bomb vest, or use a truck or one of many other ways to cause mass casualties.
The prohibited activity
You mean like the laws against murder?
FYI banning semiautomatic rifles won;t to shit to lower the murder rate
Dafuq?
Please explain how banning bumpstocks will keep mass murdering criminals from getting one or making one!
The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.
. Not a joke, but a good will gesture in a situation where virtually nothing gets done to prevent the next attack from being even more successful than the last. Kicking a can down the road is not a good thing, and on behalf of the fallen hopefully something is done to stop the next madman from doing it again. Making a weapon automatic in any way, shape or form should be illegal under the current ban on automatic weapons we have now.. It appears that people are getting by the current ban, and that is what the NRA wanted a review upon, and rightfully so.. Is what is shown here legal ??. Yeah, but I bet it isn't as efficient of a method, but do tell.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.
You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
100%
That's why your proposed ban on bumpstocks is such a fucking joke.
. People can figure out anything, but they might be breaking a law when doing so.The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.
Yeah, because no-one would ever figure out a way around Thaaat!
. Not a joke, but a good will gesture in a situation where virtually nothing gets done to prevent the next attack from being even more successful than the last. Kicking a can down the road is not a good thing, and on behalf of the fallen hopefully something is done to stop the next madman from doing it again. Making a weapon automatic in any way, shape or form should be illegal under the current ban on automatic weapons we have now.. It appears that people are getting by the current ban, and that is what the NRA wanted a review upon, and rightfully so.. Is what is shown here legal ??. Yeah, but I bet it isn't as efficient of a method, but do tell.You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
100%
That's why your proposed ban on bumpstocks is such a fucking joke.
. People can figure out anything, but they might be breaking a law when doing so.The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.
Yeah, because no-one would ever figure out a way around Thaaat!
. It won't, but just like our vehicles are equipped with the capability to go 100 mph in a 35, but do we do it ?? Yes some do, but when caught there is a law to reference that says you will not drive your vehicle over 35 in a 35, and if you do here is the fine or punishment for it. Paddock went the equivalent of 100 in a 35 with his actions, and the question is did the bumpstock enable him to do that ?? Now we haven't banned cars from going 100 in a 35, and this by placing devices on them that removes that ability from the driver, but if someone were to do such a thing, and they were to kill up a bunch of people, would that be what the citizens would be calling for next ?? Probably so, and the tech industry is poised to give it to them. Look I don't want us to lose our freedoms no more than the rest of you, but if this nation doesn't get tough on the criminals, then we all end up suffering. The bumpstock was sought to be placed on the sacrifice table in order to preserve the semi-automatic rifle in the situation I figured, and I agree that we just need to get this nation working to preserve our freedoms again, but the only way to do it is to stop the bleeding.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.Stupid argument. Of course laws reduce the occurrence of the prohibited activity. You know you have gone down the rabbit hole, when you're making this idiotic argument.We can't.
No law will ever stop some asshole hell bent on murder.
Ban semiautomatic rifles and he'll wear a bomb vest, or use a truck or one of many other ways to cause mass casualties.
The prohibited activity
You mean like the laws against murder?
FYI banning semiautomatic rifles won;t to shit to lower the murder rate
Dafuq?
Please explain how banning bumpsticks will keep mass murdering criminals from getting one or making one!
The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.
You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
. Not a joke, but a good will gesture in a situation where virtually nothing gets done to prevent the next attack from being even more successful than the last. Kicking a can down the road is not a good thing, and on behalf of the fallen hopefully something is done to stop the next madman from doing it again. Making a weapon automatic in any way, shape or form should be illegal under the current ban on automatic weapons we have now.. It appears that people are getting by the current ban, and that is what the NRA wanted a review upon, and rightfully so.. Is what is shown here legal ??. Yeah, but I bet it isn't as efficient of a method, but do tell.You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
100%
That's why your proposed ban on bumpstocks is such a fucking joke.
. No crap Sherlock, so why bring it up in the way that you did ? We are talking about a weapon that was turned into an automatic weapon in order to mow down as many as one could in the situation. You don't want to address that for fear of a slippery slope, but I ask this are your fears justified ?. Hard to get those items up stairs to a perch over looking thousands in order to slaughter as much as he could, so your comparisons in order to try and spin this are moot points at best. Do you think that there are never any precautions to be taken in order to stop such a thing from happening again ??. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.Of course it holds water.
You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.
This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.
His weapons were not modified.
And the point you can't seem to grasp is that only the person who committed the crime is responsible for the crime.
99.995% of people who won semiautomatic rifles will never kill anyone but you don't give a shit about their rights you would rather let the actions of a few be the reason to deny the many of a protected right.
It doesn't matter to you that he could have done the same or worse with pipe bombs, or a big ass truck and a snow plow
You don't drive a big ass truck with a snowplow into a hotel room you fucking moron.
The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.
You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
. It ain't about me or what I think or what I want, but it's about doing the right thing as a nation when things like this happen or go wrong. We have obstructionist in everything these days, and the left has since created an environment in this nation where nothing gets done no matter how heinus the crime or situation is. So we will just sit back and wait till the next traggedy takes place, and then bury it along with every other issue that gets buried in this nation due to politics. Y'all keep beating me up, but ignore the fact that the NRA called for a review of the bumpstock to see if it is a legal modification add to the weapon in which turned the weapon into an "automatic" weapon.. People can figure out anything, but they might be breaking a law when doing so.The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.
Yeah, because no-one would ever figure out a way around Thaaat!
So, you are fully aware that banning bumpstocks will not do ANYTHING to stop criminals from getting them or from making them. . . . but banning them (and the other methods) from law abiding citizens will make you "FEEL" like you have accomplished something.
Got it.
. It ain't about me or what I think or what I want, but it's about doing the right thing as a nation when things like this happen or go wrong. We have obstructionist in everything these days, and the left has since created an environment in this nation where nothing gets done no matter how heinus the crime or situation is. So we will just sit back and wait till the next traggedy takes place, and then bury it along with every other issue that gets buried in this nation due to politics. Y'all keep beating me up, but ignore the fact that the NRA called for a review of the bumpstock to see if it is a legal modification add to the weapon in which turned the weapon into an "automatic" weapon.. People can figure out anything, but they might be breaking a law when doing so.The only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.
Yeah, because no-one would ever figure out a way around Thaaat!
So, you are fully aware that banning bumpstocks will not do ANYTHING to stop criminals from getting them or from making them. . . . but banning them (and the other methods) from law abiding citizens will make you "FEEL" like you have accomplished something.
Got it.
. Wait what (the law doesn't stop the guy from doing 100 in a 35) ??? Well if it got moved to banning semi-automatic rifles that would be unexceptable. Any mod that turns a weapon into an automatic weapon is unexceptable imho. It should fall under the automatic weapons ban that is in place now.. It won't, but just like our vehicles are equipped with the capability to go 100 mph in a 35, but do we do it ?? Yes some do, but when caught there is a law to reference that says you will not drive your vehicle over 35 in a 35, and if you do here is the fine or punishment for it. Paddock went the equivalent of 100 in a 35 with his actions, and the question is did the bumpstock enable him to do that ?? Now we haven't banned cars from going 100 in a 35, and this by placing devices on them that removes that ability from the driver, but if someone were to do such a thing, and they were to kill up a bunch of people, would that be what the citizens would be calling for next ?? Probably so, and the tech industry is poised to give it to them. Look I don't want us to lose our freedoms no more than the rest of you, but if this nation doesn't get tough on the criminals, then we all end up suffering. The bumpstock was sought to be placed on the sacrifice table in order to preserve the semi-automatic rifle in the situation I figured, and I agree that we just need to get this nation working to preserve our freedoms again, but the only way to do it is to stop the bleeding.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.Stupid argument. Of course laws reduce the occurrence of the prohibited activity. You know you have gone down the rabbit hole, when you're making this idiotic argument.
The prohibited activity
You mean like the laws against murder?
FYI banning semiautomatic rifles won;t to shit to lower the murder rate
Dafuq?
Please explain how banning bumpsticks will keep mass murdering criminals from getting one or making one!
Very poor analogy.
The law doesn't stop the guy from doing 100 in a 35. But when a guy does 100 in a 35 you don't say you want to make all cars incapable of doing 100 mph.
And you are fixated on the bump stock so much that you do not realize that banning them will not stop anyone from bump firing a semiautomatic rifle so then the next step will be to call for a ban of all semiautomatic rifles.
. It's more than one shooter, it's more than one shooter.. Now whose hair is on fire ?? LOLThe only thing that needs to be banned is quick reloading magazines. Just limit the guns to 15 rounds and reloading one cartridge at a time. That would eliminate the ability of one person to fire thousands of rounds into crowds.Banning the bumpstock would give the poor souls at least a sporting chance against a sniper with a bumpstock that allowed him to lay down fire upon them at a rate that was unexceptable, and ended up killing them like shooting fish in a barrel. Just saying.
You can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock but of course you didn't know that.
I'm not convinced it was one man.
. So no matter the Changing of the gaurd, the U.S. Government is never to be trusted right ???. What kind of government does those other countries have ???? I thought so......... So you are suspect of government, law enforcement, and our republic because the liberals are mixed into it so much now, (and their power is so strong now), that you and others who think like you feel that you must continue to have equalizers in case the crap hits the fan??? Now I can't blame you for feeling this way, becauseI I am the same, so what to do then ? Are we to just let the nation continue to be attacked over and over again, while we sit there clinging to our guns and Bible as Barack Obama once said ?? Was Obama talking like we are a bunch of fools trying to hold on in a world that him and his ilk was attempting to change into a world unrecognizable by most in the country ??. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.
I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.
Jeez. let's look at other country's that have tried that. Hmm. Mexico for instance. It is illegal for anyone to have a military weapon of any sort. In fact they will shoot you on sight if you have one. Care to guess what the murder rate is in Mexico?
Are you really that incapable of thinking about a problem? We already have country's that have all the laws you want and guess what they don't fucking work. Try something different instead of the same tired old stupid responses that we already know don't work.
Yes. I am suspicious of any government that abuses the People as ours has done. You seem to forget that in the early 20th century there were three great socialist experiments that went on and ALL of them resorted to concentration camps. Germany famously murdered at least 3 million Jews with theirs, Stalin of course made hitler look like a piker by murdering at least 60 million of his own people, and roosevelt felt the need to deny the civil rights of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and send then to camps in the desert where a few thousand of them died.
Let's add the Tuskeegee atrocities, and the intentional poisoning of the "Downwinders" and the biological attacks on San Francisco Bay and we already have a list of US government abuses that have led to the deaths and illness of more than ten thousand people.
We already have evidence of government abuse of power here.
