Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In a gesture of goodwill, Southwest named a row of seats after her.

Been doing this long enough now to see the slide from something I dreamed of doing all my life to something that is absolutely unbearable at times.  Dad flew for 28 years before me and both of my gran

No dog in the fight.  But the 480FS Wikipedia page has an awesome “Woke era to present write up.” never seen that before must be a new AF Historian.

Posted Images

23 hours ago, Prozac said:

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this:  Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers?  Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons.  (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests.  Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

Almost every time I have done the M9 requal shoot, there have been cops there doing their same YEARLY qualification shoot.  Not a single time has any cop there shot better than I did and I'm a decent shot, but I'm not going to go win any 3-gun competition by any means.  Granted these are AF cops, but I've also been at private ranges with civil police and the same general rule has applied.  I think the average person would be shocked at the most police departments shooting requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smokin said:

Almost every time I have done the M9 requal shoot, there have been cops there doing their same YEARLY qualification shoot.  Not a single time has any cop there shot better than I did and I'm a decent shot, but I'm not going to go win any 3-gun competition by any means.  Granted these are AF cops, but I've also been at private ranges with civil police and the same general rule has applied.  I think the average person would be shocked at the most police departments shooting requirements.

Cops are Arming Group A so they shoot twice a year on primary weapons.  That doesn't make it any better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proactive legislation during the Republican super majority is different than ignoring the conversation until the Democrats regain their own super majority.

I'd like to see the NFA updated to have the Hughes amendment removed, gat crank and bump stock classified as automatic modifications (not banned, but with SBR/silencer type restrictions), and national basic requirements for CHL with nationwide reciprocity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if the M4 Bushmaster used in the Resorts World Manila Casino attack had a bump stock? This attack took place on 2 June 2017 (38 killed/70 wounded) and the attacker was a high roller/loser. The Las Vegas shooter and his girlfriend spent mucho time a her brothers house about 25 miles from this casino in Manila and I wouldn't be surprised if he also gambled there. IMHO, the Manila casino attack may have provided the Las Vegas shooter a wee bit of inspiration/motive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Resorts_World_Manila_attack

Edited by waveshaper
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HU&W said:

I'd like to see the NFA updated to have the Hughes amendment removed, gat crank and bump stock classified as automatic modifications (not banned, but with SBR/silencer type restrictions), and national basic requirements for CHL with nationwide reciprocity.

Do you believe that will prevent the next attack?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Do you believe that will prevent the next attack?

No law will prevent the next attack.  Crazy people do crazy things.  You can't stop crazy, but you can make it more difficult for crazy people to maximize damage.  This last attack was exacerbated by someone that used a legal, off the shelf, modification that has zero purpose outside of novelty at the range and spraying a bunch of bullets randomly into a crowd.

Edited by HU&W
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add that one way I think attacks could be deterred (not prevented) would be to hold companies and local government entities liable for the security of people on their property if it's a 'gun free' zone.  But that kind of legislation wouldn't have a chance of ever passing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No law will prevent the next attack.  Crazy people do crazy things.  You can't stop crazy, but you can make it more difficult for crazy people to maximize damage.  This last attack was exacerbated by someone that used a legal, off the shelf, modification that has zero purpose outside of novelty at the range and spraying a bunch of bullets randomly into a crowd.



It’s a novelty sure, but let’s get at the root cause-why is a bump stock a thing? It’s because the Hughes amendment stopped registration of new machine guns.

If I could spend $10 on different parts and $200 on a tax stamp to register a machine gun as an NFA item then the bump stock wouldn’t have been invented and every gun capable of this kind of firing rate would be registered within the NFA construct. As it is, gun control (Hughes amendment) artificially limited supply so prices for legal full auto are through the roof. So someone invents the bump stock which the ATF said was legal!

Let’s stop pretending that more regulation will achieve the desired effects
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an echo chamber.  You guys are talking  and agreeing amongst yourselves.  I am pro gun (ccw).  Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

 

 

 

Edited by Justonethought
Grammar and logic
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HU&W said:

I will add that one way I think attacks could be deterred (not prevented) would be to hold companies and local government entities liable for the security of people on their property if it's a 'gun free' zone.  But that kind of legislation wouldn't have a chance of ever passing.

Which is why it costs nearly half a million dollars to buy $69,000 worth of new airplane these days.

Great plan!

 

B07AF89F-63D8-403D-9DF5-CC35C7E1D0C7.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Which is why it costs nearly half a million dollars to buy $69,000 worth of new airplane these days.

Great plan!

Thanks, I think so too.  Sarcasm aside, I do think it would deter establishments from arbitrarily disarming their customers without cause, thereby denying them self protection without providing an adequate substitute.  

4 hours ago, Warrior said:

It’s a novelty sure, but let’s get at the root cause-why is a bump stock a thing? It’s because the Hughes amendment stopped registration of new machine guns.

 

 

I agree.  Hughes is part of the problem.  I recommended repealing it in my original post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Justonethought said:

This is an echo chamber.  You guys are talking  and agreeing amongst yourselves.  I am pro gun (ccw).  Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

You’ve read through 6 pages of debate and think this is an echo chamber without disagreement?  Has someone said they needed  a bump stock to protect their family?

4 hours ago, Warrior said:

It’s a novelty sure, but let’s get at the root cause-why is a bump stock a thing? It’s because the Hughes amendment stopped registration of new machine guns.

If I could spend $10 on different parts and $200 on a tax stamp to register a machine gun as an NFA item then the bump stock wouldn’t have been invented and every gun capable of this kind of firing rate would be registered within the NFA construct. As it is, gun control (Hughes amendment) artificially limited supply so prices for legal full auto are through the roof. So someone invents the bump stock which the ATF said was legal!

Let’s stop pretending that more regulation will achieve the desired effects

 

 

Great point.  The law of unintended consequences.  Too bad few of the anti-gun folks are smart enough on history and details surrounding this debate to recognize the truth in your observations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hughes may be part of the problem, but the real 'problem' with banning items is innovation.  As soon as the government passes a law or the ATF issues a letter making a specific thing illegal, people will find a way to get the same result using a new work around that accomplishes a similar result in a legal manner.  It's not just the bump stock, but the arm brace and countless other things to work around the law.  In modern times when a middle class American can afford to buy automated milling equipment and manufacture their own parts or even entire guns, arbitrary laws banning specific items are obsolete before they even take effect.  The problem is only going to get worse as technology increases and prices decrease.  I'm actually surprised we don't have a bigger problem with people buying ARs and retooling them to be full auto, but that will probably happen if the bump stock gets banned.

 

But the true root cause of attacks like this is America as a country deliberately walking away from the moral foundation of our country.  We have banned God and related religious morals from our government and society while simultaneously crying out against the evils of society that inevitably result.  Hatred of people across the political isle is given only cursory public condemnation while de facto encouraged within both political parties.  While a problem with both sides, the easiest example is the "love trumps hate" slogan protesters carry just before they start throwing rocks or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Justonethought said:

This is an echo chamber.  You guys are talking  and agreeing amongst yourselves.  I am pro gun (ccw).  Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

 

 

 

Show me in the first amendment where it says the only reason I can own a gun is to protect my family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HU&W said:

Thanks, I think so too.  Sarcasm aside, I do think it would deter establishments from arbitrarily disarming their customers without cause, thereby denying them self protection without providing an adequate substitute.  

Ahhh, reading comprehension fail on my part.  Thought you were referring to gun manufacturers being held liable.

Disregard all after...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Justonethought said:

Why would you possibly need a bump stock to protect you and your family?

That's the beautiful thing about being a free man living in a liberal democracy: it isn't about "need".

The whole point is that free citizens are allowed to pursue whatever makes them happy (within the limitations of not violating the rights of others) without having to garner the approval or permission or validation of any other person or organization.

"Because I want to" is all the "need" anyone requires.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Show me in the first amendment where it says the only reason I can own a gun is to protect my family.

I keep trying to find the references to cars and hunting in the Bill of Rights, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...