Question for gun enthusiast.

[braalian]

Of course it is a right. Does that mean you are incapable of answering the question?

I dont “need” most of the things I own.

“Because I want to” is a perfectly sufficient answer to the question you pose here

 

[Anathema]

Riddle me this, in the next county, you see an entire Air Force equipped with F-15s and 16, acres of M-1A2 Tanks, Bradleys and if they are on a coastline, they start showing up with a small navy, do you really want that around? If they have it, they are going to use it. And get a few million killed in the process. And they are still going to lose. I wonder where you would get the trillions to do this suicide.

There are more of us than you might imagine. Definitely not a sufficient number to beat the whole military… but then again, I don’t believe most of the military and law enforcement members would take up arms against the general public.

 

[BULLDOG]

The exact point I’m making is that there doesn’t need to be a reason. I gave a couple in my first comment, but there is no need to have a reason to possess any firearm in this country.

I won't argue that point with you. I never said you had to have a reason. As a practical matter is there any other use for high capacity and volume firearms, other than self defense?

 

[Anathema]

I won't argue that point with you. I never said you had to have a reason. As a practical matter is there any other use for high capacity and volume firearms, other than self defense?

I listed dour of them earlier in this thread

 

[BULLDOG]

I dont “need” most of the things I own.

“Because I want to” is a perfectly sufficient answer to the question you pose here

Your response doesn't answer the question in any way. Are you just too much of a coward to give a valid answer?

 

[Vrenn]

Of course it is a right. Does that mean you are incapable of answering the question?

They can't answer the question as their heads would explode. In 1933, the same arguments were being made and out of it came the mass shootings and the 1934 Firearms act that had many limits. The weapons of war far exceeded the common sense of the public.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required?

/——-/ Long answer, it’s none of your business how people exercise their constitutional rights.
Short answer: Fu*k off gun grabber.

 

[Vrenn]

I listed dour of them earlier in this thread

And outside of mass murder and wars, there are better weapons for what you listed available. And none of them requires a high capacity mag.

 

[BULLDOG]

I listed dour of them earlier in this thread

No you didn't. Self-defense was specifically excluded. What competition requires high rate and capacity?

 

[rightwinger]

I honestly expected a quick direct answer. I expected a real gun enthusiast would know. The gun nuts here only have answers to stock questions. They only know what the NRA has told them to say.

The answer is that there is no practical application of a Bump Stock unless you want to slaughter small children. The Supreme Court knows this

That is why they respond with insults

 

[Anathema]

nd outside of mass murder and wars, there are better weapons for what you listed available. And none of them requires a high capacity mag

Considering that the Second Amendment was primarily written for War, I would suggest you have your answer.

 

[Vrenn]

I dont “need” most of the things I own.

“Because I want to” is a perfectly sufficient answer to the question you pose here

In 1934, I needed to own a Thompson 1921 or a BAR no longer cut it. But, of course, Bonnie and Clyde would agree as would John Dillinger.

 

[BULLDOG]

/——-/ Long answer, it’s none of your business how people exercise their constitutional rights.
Short answer: Fu*k off gun grabber.

Even more accurate is you are either a coward or you can't come up with anything other than self-defense that requires high rate and capacity.

 

[Vrenn]

Considering that the Second Amendment was primarily written for War, I would suggest you have your answer.

It was written to prevent internal war. And how did that work out again?

 

[BULLDOG]

Considering that the Second Amendment was primarily written for War, I would suggest you have your answer.

Quit tapdancing. If you know the answer, give it.

 

[the watcher]

I honestly expected a quick direct answer. I expected a real gun enthusiast would know. The gun nuts here only have answers to stock questions. They only know what the NRA has told them to say.

Then why did you ask the question? There are no stupid answers, only stupid questions.

 

[1srelluc]

Even more accurate is you are either a coward or you can't come up with anything other than self-defense that requires high rate and capacity.

I provided your answer.

 

[Vrenn]

Considering that the Second Amendment was primarily written for War, I would suggest you have your answer.

It was written for the wars that the founding Fathers knew about. They weren't clairvoyant. They could never even dream about the weapons and needs in 1892. The original idea was to keep the Federal Army down to no more than 75,000 troops which two states could easily bring up more than that if push comes to shove. The 2nd amendment, as written, pretty well covered the fears that the FFs had. But as the weapons became more and more lethal, 1/3rd of the 2nd A became less effective. The Federal 1934 Firearms act was about the first thing to chip away an 1/3 of the 2n A.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required?

nobody is going to use a bump stock to defend their home. they are gimmick, nothing more

 

[BULLDOG]

The answer is that there is no practical application of a Bump Stock unless you want to slaughter small children. The Supreme Court knows this

That is why they respond with insults

This thread might be related to bump stocks but is about any gun with a high rate of fire. Bump stock or not.