Cog wrote:
Yes Plant I have big objection because any bans lead to other bans until we have no guns at all. Just ask the folks in Connecticut, New York, and Maryland where this goes.
KaiserJeep wrote:The Constitution says the "right to keep and to bear arms". A plastic stock designed to circumvent the prohibition against full auto weapons is not an arm, it is an accessory with no legitimate purpose.
I have fired the original M16A1 on full auto. Very little purpose to that either, outside of firing into a crowd of enemy soldiers. However, firing into a crowd at a concert and firing into a crowd of enemy soldiers, there is a world of difference.
Shaved Monkey wrote:Wasnt the constitution written in a time when people didnt have semi automatics
Shaved Monkey wrote:Wasnt the constitution written in a time when people didnt have semi automatics
yellowcanoe wrote:Cog wrote:
Yes Plant I have big objection because any bans lead to other bans until we have no guns at all. Just ask the folks in Connecticut, New York, and Maryland where this goes.
Those states may have more restrictive gun legislation than other states but they are a long, long way from banning guns completely.
Cog wrote:-snip-
Why not just be honest here? You want to ban all semi-automatic weapons because with your logic they have a faster rate of fire than does a bolt action or pump. Because everything affects rate of fire. Large capacity magazines, light triggers, buffer springs, even the training of the shooter. So at least be honest and say you want to ban all semi-auto rifles because that is exactly what the gun-grabbers want to do.
Bump fire stocks do not turn a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. Its still one trigger pull, one shot. Quit buying into the propaganda. The BATFE has already ruled that it does not violate the rules on turning a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. They ruled that way because it doesn't.
The Second Amendment does not say shall not be infringed unless it has no practical value or if I don't like what you like.
Newfie wrote:Cog,
I don't buy your argument that banning bump stocks would result in a total ban. As you well know there are any number of rules and regulations and Laws that regulate guns. We had a Hugh capacity ban, we have bans on full auto, limits on barrel length, etc.
By your argument we should already be at zero weapons.
Do you support REMOVING the ban on full auto?
Cog wrote:The left wants to ban all guns and that is their goal.
Newfie wrote:Cog,
I don't buy your argument that banning bump stocks would result in a total ban. As you well know there are any number of rules and regulations and Laws that regulate guns. We had a Hugh capacity ban, we have bans on full auto, limits on barrel length, etc.
Do you support REMOVING the ban on full auto?
Cog wrote:-snip-
Yes I do. Because its not the tool, its the person. 19 guys with box cutters killed more than the number killed at Pearl Harbor. But yet, I can buy box cutters all day long.
I can do aimed shots at the rate of 60 per minute, 180 rounds per minute unaimed with a standard AR. I can also bump fire an AR using my belt-loop or a rubber band wrapped around the trigger, as any number of Youtube video's will show you.
The left wants to ban all guns and that is their goal. If you want to cower down and give up your guns now, no one is stopping you. Go down to the police station and turn them in. In the mean time I will continue to exercise my rights. Funny thing about gun banners, they want to use the government to enforce their bans but don't have enough balls to enforce those laws themselves. I invited any of you who don't like my right to bear arms to come to my house to disarm me. Don't send a government goon, come yourself if its that important to you. Have the balls of your own conviction and don't hide behind the government.
evilgenius wrote:No infringement is one thing, but they could make all ownership of anything related to unusual gun operation completely and totally public, just like with the sex offender registries. That way other people could avoid buying property in neighborhoods where gun nuts live. Gun nuts would have to pay an economic price, in terms of lower real estate valuations, for owning bump stocks or otherwise skirting the traditional understanding of the role of guns in society.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests