- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:55 am to AUbused
Once again the GOP is going to prove they can't govern. They could have and should have gotten ahead of this and introduced a reasonable bill ahead of the Dems.
The Dems have moron ideas and the GOP couldn't run a lemonade stand. We are fricked as a country folks.
The Dems have moron ideas and the GOP couldn't run a lemonade stand. We are fricked as a country folks.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:57 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
because I didn’t have a bump stock...
i do.
but i get the gist of your point! oldie but a goodie.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:58 am to AUbused
quote:
Well, to start you wouldnt be able to buy a device that approximates a fully auto weapon down at Cabelas so maybe he doesnt go through the trouble or attempting to acquire one on the black market and tries to aim his shots or spray semi-auto. It seems likely that having that device enabled him to injure/kill more people since, as stated above, the crowd was densely massed making full auto a good choice for max damage. Or maybe he builds a bomb. Who knows.
He would have been forced to aim, which probably would have led to less injured, but easily could have led to more dead.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:58 am to AUbused
If your point held water, a bump fire type of attack would have happened years ago when they first hit the market.
The fact is, not many people outside of the gun enthusiast world knew what they were before Monday. In an attempt to seem like you want to do something, anything, you are wanting to ban an inanimate object as opposed to the physical action of killing people. But alas! Problem solved! It's already been addressed! Murder has been banned for centuries.
The fact is, not many people outside of the gun enthusiast world knew what they were before Monday. In an attempt to seem like you want to do something, anything, you are wanting to ban an inanimate object as opposed to the physical action of killing people. But alas! Problem solved! It's already been addressed! Murder has been banned for centuries.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:00 am to Haughton99
quote:
How can even the most brainless poster here say something like this less than a week from a shooting where a bump stock was used to kill and injure so many people?
The scary thing is the misunderstanding of weaponry by libs! You realize AR doesn't mean assault rifle, I can make a bump trigger with a rubber band, and anyone that knows a decent machinist can get a suppressor made. Your logic is the same as banning automobiles because people get in wrecks and die!
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:02 am to Clyde Tipton
quote:
If your point held water, a bump fire type of attack would have happened years ago when they first hit the market.
The fact is, not many people outside of the gun enthusiast world knew what they were before Monday. In an attempt to seem like you want to do something, anything, you are wanting to ban an inanimate object as opposed to the physical action of killing people. But alas! Problem solved! It's already been addressed! Murder has been banned for centuries.
In truthfulness no reasonable person should object to a banning of bump stocks and similar devices. And here's why.
Using them is already illegal. But it's a damn loophole in the law that allows them to be sold . Why on Earth would anyone object to banning the sale of something that is already illegal to use? That makes no sense.
In fact, the GOP should have came out with this proposal FIRST.
Conservatives are gonna frick around and give these idiots progressives some power back if they aren't careful.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:02 am to hesterhamma
quote:
Your logic is the same as banning automobiles because people get in wrecks and die!
what's the intended purpose of an automobile, and what's the intended purpose of a gun ?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:04 am to 632627
quote:
what's the intended purpose of an automobile, and what's the intended purpose of a gun ?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:04 am to Jcorye1
quote:
but easily could have led to more dead
Yeah. I was kind of wondering about that. Without the elevation advantage id say definitely not. But with so many people taking ineffective cover aiming might have been the way to go.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:04 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Irrelevant to the discussion.
please explain....
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:07 am to 632627
quote:
what's the intended purpose of an automobile, and what's the intended purpose of a gun ?
They are both tools and their purposes for ownership vary from individual to individual. Hell, their purposes for ownership often vary several times over the years within the same individual.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:07 am to Clyde Tipton
quote:
In an attempt to seem like you want to do something, anything, you are wanting to ban an inanimate object as opposed to the physical action of killing people
First of all, I own and built my AR so lets not get carried away. Second, I've done nothing other than speak(similar to HeyHogs) about the defense of these devices within the context of current law and how it would be defended.
Other than that, Ive only spoken to whether something being mass produced and highly available increases the likelihood of its use. Are you going to, with a straight face, try to argue that mass availability plays no part in the likelihood of use? Come on dude.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:09 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Using them is already illegal.
Link to this law?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:09 am to 632627
The only thing banning bump stocks will do is give the left a win to beat their chests on.
You know what’s just as dangerous than a bump stock? YouTube videos that show anybody with a keyboard how to use all kinds of creativity to mimic a bump stock. BAN THE INTERNET
So it boils down to passing meaningless, useless legislation so the left can say “we care, but the right doesn’t” It’s feel good legislation for the ignorant
You know what’s just as dangerous than a bump stock? YouTube videos that show anybody with a keyboard how to use all kinds of creativity to mimic a bump stock. BAN THE INTERNET
So it boils down to passing meaningless, useless legislation so the left can say “we care, but the right doesn’t” It’s feel good legislation for the ignorant
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 11:10 am
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:21 am to 632627
quote:
what's the intended purpose of an automobile, and what's the intended purpose of a gun ?
That would depend on a person's mindset. I see an automobile as transportation, and my guns are hunting tools and personal protection tools. But if I buy a car with the intention of running someone over, isn't it therefore weaponized!
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:23 am to MrLarson
OK.....ban the bump stock..... ban the silencer. Makes no difference to me. Neither of those laws would have stopped this guy or any other mass shooting.
Personally, I really don't see the reason why anyone would NEED a semi-automatic AR 15 for personal protection or for hunting.....but that's just me, but I'm not going to tell anyone else they shouldn't have one
Personally, I really don't see the reason why anyone would NEED a semi-automatic AR 15 for personal protection or for hunting.....but that's just me, but I'm not going to tell anyone else they shouldn't have one
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:29 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Personally, I really don't see the reason why anyone would NEED a semi-automatic AR 15 for personal protection or for hunting.....but that's just me, but I'm not going to tell anyone else they shouldn't have one
Reasonable. But then the question becomes where DO you draw the line.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:35 am to Schmelly
quote:
The only thing banning bump stocks will do is give the left a win to beat their chests on.
You know what’s just as dangerous than a bump stock? YouTube videos that show anybody with a keyboard how to use all kinds of creativity to mimic a bump stock. BAN THE INTERNET
So it boils down to passing meaningless, useless legislation so the left can say “we care, but the right doesn’t” It’s feel good legislation for the ignorant
Yep, this is true, but once again the GOP has proven that they can't govern. They EASILY could have, and should have, got out in front of this and proposed SOMETHING instead of once again being the party that appears to not care.
The fact of the matter is we DO need better gun control, but not in terms of limiting what everyone can have, but in terms of limiting who can buy a gun PERIOD.
How about this. If you suddenly start sending money overseas and purchasing large quantities of weapons and ammo, maybe someone should be taking a look at you? Anyone suggested that?
For that matter, maybe a person should have to have a dealer's license to be able to buy tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, or at a minimum maybe the local FBI office should make contact with people who buy that much ammo in a short amount of time.
When 500 of your fellow Americans are shot by one a-hole using weapons that were legally purchased, it isn't unreasonable to suggest we need to review our laws on purchasing guns.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News