It has nothing to do with feelings. It's completely logic-based, but I'm sure the need for bump stocks and silencers has nothing to do with the macho feeling of shooting them, right?

quote:
I think bump fire stocks are stupid.

I totally agree. I also think they are dangerous.

quote:
Just like I think smoking pot is stupid.

Again, this is a completely irrelevant comparison. A joint has never been used to kill 59 people indiscriminately.

quote:
Owning a bump fire stock does not make you dangerous in the same way smoking pot doesn't

Your argument is quickly devolving.

quote:
You should only get in trouble if you cause harm with them like shooting up a concert or getting so high you can't drive properly and hit someone.

So, should I be allowed to keep a hydrogen bomb in my shed as long as I don't detonate it? That's the slippery slope you are climbing.

quote:
You do not get to dictate what people should and should not own.

Why not? Is this the anarchic state of Mad Max?

quote:
Also, you do not tell me what I do and don't need. If I want a silencer I should be able to buy one.

Okay, YOU tell me why you NEED a suppressor.

quote:
There is no data that shows they are more dangerous, and even if there was, it should not trump my rights to own one as long as I do not do harm with it.

If they do not increase your ability to kill people, why do special forces use them? Again, nothing should trump my right to own an H-bomb.

5 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89613 posts

Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:10 pm to Jester

quote:
Again, nothing should trump my right to own an H-bomb.

We even sanction and punish other nation-states who develop thermonuclear weapons. You cats should stop resorting to that. It just rings hollow.

Most rational Second Amendment proponents have a simple standard:

If a police special reaction/SWAT/response team can have it, the citizenry ought to be able to have it (contingent on good behavior, of course).

Ditto for an infantry rifle platoon or squad.

However, the line is very reasonably drawn at mortars, artillery, etc., because those weapons cannot be used by the citizenry at large for individual or collective self-defense without more specialized training, support, etc. Plus the relatively low potential for self-defense versus the risk of misuse flip the risk reward equation dramatically against - largely because of the ordnance, not necessarily the delivery means.

They will have to rely upon their organized militia forces for that. We should all be cool with that. We should not, and no reasonable person should, be cool with a supposedly "free" state where only the government and their minions have exclusive franchise on lethal force.

Every state with such an arrangement is tyrannical - however soft or hard that tyranny may present itself.

This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 1:13 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by LSUballs

RayVegas LA

Member since Feb 2008

37831 posts

Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:10 pm to Jester

I don't know what a bump stock is. But I hope the ban them so the gun dorks wail in agony.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ChatRabbit77

Baton Rouge

Member since May 2013

5861 posts

Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:11 pm to Jester

quote:

It has nothing to do with feelings. It's completely logic-based, but I'm sure the need for bump stocks and silencers has nothing to do with the macho feeling of shooting them, right?

Really, of all deaths in the country, how many are caused by rifles with bump fire stocks? I can tell you that rifles of all kinds kill 5 times less people than knives. Regulation on them is stupid because it won't do anything.

quote:

Again, this is a completely irrelevant comparison. A joint has never been used to kill 59 people indiscriminately.

Fine, lets say heroin then. Heroine should still be legal. Better yet, large trucks similar to to the one in France used to kill over 80 people. They should still be legal.

quote:
So, should I be allowed to keep a hydrogen bomb in my shed as long as I don't detonate it? That's the slippery slope you are climbing.

Sure. The idea that people would want to do that is stupid though.

quote:
Okay, YOU tell me why you NEED a suppressor.

Hearing protection.

quote:
If they do not increase your ability to kill people, why do special forces use them? Again, nothing should trump my right to own an H-bomb.

They don't increase the capability for you to kill. You can kill the same amount of people with a suppressed rifle that you can kill with an unsuppressed gun. It helps with muzzle flash and noise in buildings though so you don't get nearly as distracted (you should still wear ear protection ever while using silencers). They are not inherently more deadly.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Propagandalf

Baton Rouge

Member since May 2010

2528 posts

Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:32 pm to Jester

THIS JUST IN! The ATF has confiscated Jerry Miculek's hands. LINK

Bump stocks are the gheyest firearm accessory on the market, second only to the grip pod. But, if you want one...have at it.

Can the pro-gun compromisers answer the following:

1. What makes a bump fire stock inherently more dangerous than a regular stock?
2. What makes one gun inherently more dangerous than another gun?
3. If some guns (or accessories) should be banned because they are dangerous then that means the allowed guns must be not dangerous, or safe. List the safe guns in order of safetyness.
4. Do you genuinely feel that banning one type of firearm will put an end to mass shootings?
5. List the things people need.

quote:
All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take. - Gandhi

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by finchmeister08