Question for gun enthusiast.

Vrenn, please do tell the USMB forum more about how tough you are, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

Seriously dude, you sound like a typical ITG.

And please explain how you came to believe that your super-duper toughness is somehow relevant to the topic.

I never claimed to be a hero of any kind. You brought that up. Does that mean you want to worship me? Thanks, l'll pass. I look terrible wearing orange.
 
Men can’t become women. One side believe they can. The other uses logic. You lose cult boy.

3i7d5e.jpg
 
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?
Self-defense is reason enough.
 
If you want to shoot up a school, movie theater or concert, a Bump Stock is a nice way to augment your AR-15

Our Supreme Court wants to ensure you have the necessary tools to do your job
Our Supreme Court did exactly what it was intended to do: checks and balances.

The Executive Branch made and unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court shut it down.
 
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?
They do? Who's attacking their home that needs that kinda firepower?
 
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.
And you only know what Everytown, or Giffords told you to say.

I'll bet you can't make an intelligent argument for banning guns WITHOUT repeating an anti-gunner talking point, or making a false claim.
 
Our Supreme Court did exactly what it was intended to do: checks and balances.

The Executive Branch made and unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court shut it down.
Our Supreme Court did exactly what was intended
Pander to Conservative Gun Nuts

They are aware of the carnage a Bump Stock can do

They don’t care
 
Our Supreme Court did exactly what was intended
Pander to Conservative Gun Nuts

They are aware of the carnage a Bump Stock can do

They don’t care
The ATF made an unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court shut it down. The Supreme Court never said that bump stocks can't be banned. It said that a ban would have to be done through congressional legislation.

It's quite telling that you Leftists don't understand that and even oppose it...lol

This is quite an embarrassing moment for you people. Or, at least it should be.
 
The ATF made an unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court shut it down. The Supreme Court never said that bump stocks can't be banned. It said that a ban would have to be done through congressional legislation.

It's quite telling that you Leftists don't understand that and even oppose it...lol

This is quite an embarrassing moment for you people. Or, at least it should be.

Congressional Legislation?
:laughing0301:

The Bump Stock allows an unsafe rate of fire that has no use other than slaughter people.
It is a de facto Machine Gun

The court knows how unsafe these tools are
They do not care
 
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 don't offer a reason for exercising my rights, no matter how much of a hissy fit you throw.
Secondly, I have no use for a gun stock. My long rifle is lever action, and my 12 gauge is a pump. But any gun owner wishing to own one has the right.
 
The reason machine guns were banned was not for the machine gun mechanism but the rate of fire and lethality of the weapon

Supreme Court should know better and ban something that approximates a machine gun
 
Do you have an answer to the OP question
I already answered it in post #7, jackass Democratic party of slavery supporter.

Do you want to your idiotic question "is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense?".. answered in big bold red letters?

YES!
 
Last edited:
Congressional Legislation?
:laughing0301:

The Bump Stock allows an unsafe rate of fire that has no use other than slaughter people.
It is a de facto Machine Gun

The court knows how unsafe these tools are
They do not care
You win the 2024 Totally Missing The Fucking Point Award

I would love to say that I find it amazing that you Leftist clowns want unconditional laws to be created by the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch, but it's exactly what you want...lol
 
So you spend a ;lotta time with Columbian drug runners or playing cards with retired FARQ rebels?
You boy Creepy Joe is importing foreign criminals into the country like there's no tomorrow, so the potential of cartel violence in The United States is definitely becoming more possible all the time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top