Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

 

[Slade3200]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Why is that lame? I’ve met several posters on this board that support such things and state that any kind of regulation on firearms is unconstitutional.

 

[Slade3200]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

So what does that have to do with anything that I’ve said?

You compared the regulations of automobiles to the regulations of guns.

No I didn’t. I was talking about machine guns

 

[Slade3200]

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

 

[iceberg]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Why is that lame? I’ve met several posters on this board that support such things and state that any kind of regulation on firearms is unconstitutional.

Because I can't go into 7-11 today and buy a gun so your analogy is a push to the extreme to try and make people scared of the guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

 

[Slade3200]

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

 

[iceberg]

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

Fine. Ban bump stocks. You get the same effect with rubber bands however. So the point of the ban would be what then?

So at this point all we have is limiting mags to say 20 or less. Now you simply put 3 taped together in the AR and changing mags takes seconds. Would this have helped ANY mass shooting to date? Limiting mag capacity.

I'm all for common sense laws too. But I want them to address known issues, not personal fears or individual desires that in the end change nothing about mass shootings.

Common sense again to me will address issues. Not just be actions to nod wisely n go "yes, common sense".

So tell me from your pov how your suggestions would have addressed any mass shooting to date. I've explained addressing issues, not fears, is my way of doing something for "common sense".

 

[Slade3200]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Why is that lame? I’ve met several posters on this board that support such things and state that any kind of regulation on firearms is unconstitutional.

Because I can't go into 7-11 today and buy a gun so your analogy is a push to the extreme to try and make people scared of the guns.

My analogy is a question to gauge what somebody supports. Im using what should be a no brainer scenario to hopefully find agreement between myself and the person I’m talking with to show the rational behind regulations.

Shockingly I’ve come across many that push back against the 711 scenario and think it should be an acceptable thing

 

[iceberg]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Why is that lame? I’ve met several posters on this board that support such things and state that any kind of regulation on firearms is unconstitutional.

Because I can't go into 7-11 today and buy a gun so your analogy is a push to the extreme to try and make people scared of the guns.

My analogy is a question to gauge what somebody supports. Im using what should be a no brainer scenario to hopefully find agreement between myself and the person I’m talking with to show the rational behind regulations.

Shockingly I’ve come across many that push back against the 711 scenario and think it should be an acceptable thing

Not with us. Argue that point with those that stupid and we won't derail.

Stick to the topic, not others arguments please.

 

[Slade3200]

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Why is that? It wouldn't solve anything. It only takes a second to change a magazine.

 

[Slade3200]

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

Fine. Ban bump stocks. You get the same effect with rubber bands however. So the point of the ban would be what then?

So at this point all we have is limiting mags to say 20 or less. Now you simply put 3 taped together in the AR and changing mags takes seconds. Would this have helped ANY mass shooting to date? Limiting mag capacity.

I'm all for common sense laws too. But I want them to address known issues, not personal fears or individual desires that in the end change nothing about mass shootings.

Common sense again to me will address issues. Not just be actions to nod wisely n go "yes, common sense".

So tell me from your pov how your suggestions would have addressed any mass shooting to date. I've explained addressing issues, not fears, is my way of doing something for "common sense".

The point of the ban is being responsible in our commerce to regulate the killing power we legally allow people to possess

 

[iceberg]

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Fine. We ban bump stocks but it changes nothing. Rubber bands will be used by people who want this effect.

How is that common sense or addressing issues when nothing changes except device used.

And while you "feel" no one needs it, emotions are not common sense. Please tell me how this change addresses the problem, not your emotions.

 

[iceberg]

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

Fine. Ban bump stocks. You get the same effect with rubber bands however. So the point of the ban would be what then?

So at this point all we have is limiting mags to say 20 or less. Now you simply put 3 taped together in the AR and changing mags takes seconds. Would this have helped ANY mass shooting to date? Limiting mag capacity.

I'm all for common sense laws too. But I want them to address known issues, not personal fears or individual desires that in the end change nothing about mass shootings.

Common sense again to me will address issues. Not just be actions to nod wisely n go "yes, common sense".

So tell me from your pov how your suggestions would have addressed any mass shooting to date. I've explained addressing issues, not fears, is my way of doing something for "common sense".

The point of the ban is being responsible in our commerce to regulate the killing power we legally allow people to possess

But you have not shown it will do that. You just want it done anyway. Unless your regulations show direct effect in resolving the issue, it's not common sense. It's control.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

 

[iceberg]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Fine. We ban bump stocks but it changes nothing. Rubber bands will be used by people who want this effect.

How is that common sense or addressing issues when nothing changes except device used.

And while you "feel" no one needs it, emotions are not common sense. Please tell me how this change addresses the problem, not your emotions.

I never messed with bump stocks (and a majority of shooters never did either) but the mass murder that made them famous was also responsible for the killers guns jamming. They overheated because they were not manufactured for high speed shooting and over heated.

 

[iceberg]

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Fine. We ban bump stocks but it changes nothing. Rubber bands will be used by people who want this effect.

How is that common sense or addressing issues when nothing changes except device used.

And while you "feel" no one needs it, emotions are not common sense. Please tell me how this change addresses the problem, not your emotions.

I never messed with bump stocks (and a majority of shooters never did either) but the mass murder that made them famous was also responsible for the killers guns jamming. They overheated because they were not manufactured for high speed shooting and over heated.

The bigger the mag the nastier it looks but it also becomes less effective much over 30 anyway. I had a 150 round drum n when full it was a bitch to pick up by itself. I seldom got past 5 rounds using it either.

And spray n pray is seldom effective. Hence 3 round bursts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

Which is why I always ask people that are for magazine limitations: Would you be happy if only 22 people got killed in a mass murder instead of 23?

It simply doesn't solve anything.