- 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 1:48 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:
I am a very pro 2nd amendment guy - and I have fired fully automatic a few times back about 30 years ago. At some point gun rights folks will have to make some concessions or face overwhelming opposition and political force - especially as our society rapidly continues to evolve into an urban/suburban society of non gun owners.
I am right there with you on this one.
Does anyone honestly think it's happenstance when the last two Congressional gun bill votes happened to have mass shootings the weekend before the votes where scheduled?
Lot more going on here than meets the eye...but as a gun owner many times over and DEVOUT 2nd Amendment guy I also realize that there is no need for bump stocks or trigger crank devices for semi autos. I'll gladly give these up to appease the far left in order to keep my other gun rights.
Now suppressors are a different story.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:56 pm to AUTimbo
common sense re enters the thread
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:12 pm to Tigerhead
quote:
My last post was in reply to someone who apparently believes the only way to assure our freedom is to arm up to the same level as our military. So that we are prepared to defend ourselves against our own military. Which in my opinion is an invalid 2nd amendment argument. Why? Because I can't afford F-18s and Bradley fighting vehicles. Please. If you are going to argue the 2nd amendment, don't sound like a fool. That only gives the other side more ammunition.
So you don't believe the founding fathers had it right with the Bill of Rights? check
so who is the fool here?
2A was written exactly the way it was for a specific reason...whether or not we could monetarily keep up in the arms race against our own overbearing government has ZERO relevance as to what the 2A's provides for.
To argue otherwise is a fools thoughts.
Without 2A there may one day be no other Constitutional rights...as 2A protects all the others. otherwise they are just words with "No Teeth"
Just as a law against murder is only words to a criminal, the Constitution is just words to a rogue or rights violating government.
In essence the 2A is there to keep the government in fear of it's people, so they will honor our rights.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:17 pm to Tigerhead
quote:
My last post was in reply to someone who apparently believes the only way to assure our freedom is to arm up to the same level as our military. So that we are prepared to defend ourselves against our own military. Which in my opinion is an invalid 2nd amendment argument. Why? Because I can't afford F-18s and Bradley fighting vehicles. Please. If you are going to argue the 2nd amendment, don't sound like a fool. That only gives the other side more ammunition.
The VC and NVA didn't use F-18s and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Now, we beat them, but at what cost? Took 8 years. And they won the sequel (the important one, as it turns out) war against our proxy anyway, rendering all our efforts, blood, treasure, sacrifice, moot.
And don't get me started on all the asymmetrical threats that have given us so many fits 30 years or more now, armed with little more than AK-47s and improvised explosives.
The threat of armed resistance is more credible when backed by a citizenry of riflemen than a citizenry with smartphones and Antifa flags. The Founders understood that. I wonder why so many folks today cannot.
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.
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
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:34 pm to AUTimbo
quote:
I'll gladly give these up to appease the far left in order to keep my other gun rights.
If you give someone an inch, they will take a mile.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:11 pm to MikeBRLA
I used to think like that.
Now I'm a firm believer in lose a battle to win the war.
Now I'm a firm believer in lose a battle to win the war.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:12 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
1. What makes a bump fire stock inherently more dangerous than a regular stock?
It increases the realistic rate of fire significantly.
quote:
2. What makes one gun inherently more dangerous than another gun?
See above
quote:
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.
That's dumb. If you can have a black cat, why can't I have a hydrogen bomb? List the safe explosives in order of safetyness.
quote:
4. Do you genuinely feel that banning one type of firearm will put an end to mass shootings?
Not in the near term. However, limiting their availability will certainly help reduce casualties. Where were all the hero concealed carriers who are out there protecting the populace in LV? The extreme gun rights people always say that their carrying protects the population, yet nobody stopped this guy. What gives?
quote:
5. List the things people need.
Common sense, clearly.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:13 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The threat of armed resistance is more credible when backed by a citizenry of riflemen than a citizenry with smartphones and Antifa flags. The Founders understood that.
And here I thought Al Gore invented the internet. Who knew it was Christoper Columbus?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:15 pm to Jester
quote:
Jester
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:32 pm to Jester
quote:
It increases the realistic rate of fire significantly.
What is inherently dangerous about faster fire rate? How fast is too fast?
quote:
See above
So guns with slower fire rates are inherently safer? Why is a slower fire rate safer than a faster one?
quote:
That's dumb. If you can have a black cat, why can't I have a hydrogen bomb? List the safe explosives in order of safetyness.
You didn't answer the question. 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.
Your straw man is weak, but I'll entertain it. As to why you can't have a hydrogen bomb, my guess would be, aside from regulations preventing it, you don't have the cash. I would rank explosive safeness in the order of their volatility. You think that because a law or regulations are in place that I support them. I wold be a proponent of your legal battle to obtain a Hydrogen bomb. Although chances of it happening are probably zero because your pockets aren't that deep.
quote:
Not in the near term. However, limiting their availability will certainly help reduce casualties. Where were all the hero concealed carriers who are out there protecting the populace in LV? The extreme gun rights people always say that their carrying protects the population, yet nobody stopped this guy. What gives?
Can you cite your source that shows a yet to be specified limit to rate of fire would reduce casualties in a mass shooting?
Concealed carry firearms are typically handguns with short barrels. A shot out to 300yds is not feasible or ethical to take with such arms. Being responsible individuals with guns, the concealed carry crowd did not return fire that they were not certain would hit their target.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:34 pm to Jester
quote:This guy was hundreds of yards away. Concealed handguns wouldn't have meant shite in this RARE case. Have you never seen lives saved in day to day situations by concealed carriers?
The extreme gun rights people always say that their carrying protects the population, yet nobody stopped this guy. What gives?
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:46 pm to Jester
quote:
Where were all the hero concealed carriers who are out there protecting the populace in LV? The extreme gun rights people always say that their carrying protects the population, yet nobody stopped this guy. What gives?
Not that it would matter in this case, as the shooter was hundreds of yards away and elevated, but most concerts tend to be labeled “gun free zones.” If you look back at mass shootings of the recent past, an alarming number occur in these “gun-free zones,” as the law abiding citizens present are sure to be defenseless. What gives?! You mean to tell me a criminal would completely disregard these “no guns allowed” restrictions???? You speak of common sense, this is a perfect example of the lack of it.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 4:05 pm to Jester
quote:
Hearing protection.
Jester, I have an AR SBR, and I live on the Northshore. I will let you shoot that barking bitch without a can and without ear plugs if you so choose.
You can then come back to this board with a little more education and a healthy respect for why people with suppressors like them so much.
I also have a 300 Win Mag with a muzzle break. We can shoot that one with and without a can. 15 rounds of 300 win mag on your shoulder and you will be begging me for that SilencerCo.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 4:08 pm to NimbleCat
I use ear protection. I don't need a suppressor
Posted on 10/4/17 at 4:14 pm to Jester
You just sound like an arrogant troll who wants to stay uninformed at this point.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 4:21 pm to NimbleCat
quote:
You just sound like an arrogant troll who wants to stay uninformed at this point.
For using ear protection? The whole suppressor debate is beside the point.
Bump stocks should be illegal/controlled just like the automatic weapons that they aim to replicate.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 4:23 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
What is inherently dangerous about faster fire rate? How fast is too fast?
I'm not going to spell out the statistics for you. More bullets = more likely strikes when firing into a large crowd. That's the gist of it.Posted on 10/4/17 at 4:28 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
Can you cite your source that shows a yet to be specified limit to rate of fire would reduce casualties in a mass shooting?
This type of nonsensical, obtuse argument is why I chose to be obtuse with the concealed carry statement. Are you really going to act like the high rate of fire this dude achieved didn't have any impact on the number of casualties?
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News