- 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
re: Trump just announced ordering DOJ to look at banning bump stocks
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:31 pm to upgrayedd
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:31 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I'm against giving them an inch, but if you were ever to make a concession, this might be the one.
People keep saying this, but what is the point of the concession? Do people actually believe if we give up bump stocks or AR15s or whatever the media chooses to focus on that it will be the end all conversation on gun restrictions? They want everything and they are willing to take it bit by bit. Conceding is just giving them one more bit.
1
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:35 pm to lsufan1971
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:47 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
agree with you. And, it's because of people like you giving in. Eventually they will get thier way. Today they have you in favor of banning a silly accessory which will have no effect on mass shootings. Tomorrow they will have you against the next thing until there is nothing left.
giving in? what do you want me to do go protest? I have a job. I am not giving in, i would never vote in favor of this, but i also can not do anything more.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:49 pm to oleyeller
quote:Same
Im okay with this. I have zero desire or need for a bump stock. Waste of time and money.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:49 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
People keep saying this, but what is the point of the concession? Do people actually believe if we give up bump stocks or AR15s or whatever the media chooses to focus on that it will be the end all conversation on gun restrictions? They want everything and they are willing to take it bit by bit. Conceding is just giving them one more bit.
I know the only concession that will good enough for the dems will be full confiscation. I said I'm still trying to figure out my opinion on this one given that you can't give them an inch. All I'm saying is that if he was ever to throw them a bone so it looks like he's willing to work with them a little, this might be the one to throw them. Of course, they'll still bitch about it and come up with some negative spin despite the fact that they got what they wanted. I still think standing ground on the AR platform is the drawn line.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 4:58 pm to oleyeller
quote:
giving in?
quote:
Im okay with this.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:04 pm to Propagandalf
now quote the whole thing. What can i do? Nothing.. if there was a vote id be against it. Me being okay with it is me talking on a mesg board saying it is what it is. I literally cant do anything but cry about it, what good will that do?
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:07 pm to oleyeller
My problem with this is the slippery slope effect.
I agree on the lack of usefulness of bump fire stocks. I in part agree that they are not the intention nor effective for the intention of the amendment. They aren't accurate and serve no mulitia purpose. However, I do not believe we should "ban" them. Make them an NFA item. But that opens up problems too. The reason they are not an NFA item is because of the strict language used in those documents. I for one do not feel confident in this day and age in amending the NFA documents. TOO MANY irrational / illogical folks in the current times. We would see way too many things put on the lists.
For instance, binary triggers are not regulated by the NFA. The reason is because only one round is fired per action. Open up the can of worms by moving slide fire stocks, and these will most definitely be put in or the wording will be vague enough to all interpretation to pull more away than what we are lead to believe is the intent.
Like the "blade" / "stabilizers" on pistols not being designed to shoulder and therefore don't fall under regulation as the NFA currently is. Opening the discussion of "adapting" the NFA regs may add an interpretation for "intent".
Now what does that affect? Maybe the slide / bump fire stocks are regulated, maybe I'm seen bump firing my stock AR and get hit with an "intent"?
Maybe gun manufacturers are forced to make it all but impossible to bump fire with regular stocks. This comes by multiple ways one of which could be making trigger pull harder (~10+ lbs minimum), or the triggers having to have longer resets. Now ARs (possible other semi-auto firearms, pistols included) are less accurate and rate of fire is down significantly. Can't change the triggers either or you are going against the regulations. Criminals do not give a shite, they will modify how they see fit and the rest of us are now way undergunned.
I get that this is all just hypothetical and could be complete bullshite, but it could also be way better than what they come up with too. I don't like it from a "what next" standpoint, but I don't mind it from a "I don't like those anyway" standpoint. I would have to see the language 100% prior to form an opinion on what is going to take place.
On the positive side (long shot would not happen), I wouldn't mind seeing them open up the talks of changing the NFA regs, IF, they:
1) pulled out SBRs and Suppressors (maybe even SBSs)
2) just left in full-auto (and "continuous fire devices") along with Destructive Devices
3) made AOW no longer a catch all for bullshite
TL:DR; I don't trust the government in its current form to not completely attack other non-regulated things if they open up this topic for discussion. However, I could be swayed based on language and the delisting of certain items that I believe make no sense to be on there.
I agree on the lack of usefulness of bump fire stocks. I in part agree that they are not the intention nor effective for the intention of the amendment. They aren't accurate and serve no mulitia purpose. However, I do not believe we should "ban" them. Make them an NFA item. But that opens up problems too. The reason they are not an NFA item is because of the strict language used in those documents. I for one do not feel confident in this day and age in amending the NFA documents. TOO MANY irrational / illogical folks in the current times. We would see way too many things put on the lists.
For instance, binary triggers are not regulated by the NFA. The reason is because only one round is fired per action. Open up the can of worms by moving slide fire stocks, and these will most definitely be put in or the wording will be vague enough to all interpretation to pull more away than what we are lead to believe is the intent.
Like the "blade" / "stabilizers" on pistols not being designed to shoulder and therefore don't fall under regulation as the NFA currently is. Opening the discussion of "adapting" the NFA regs may add an interpretation for "intent".
Now what does that affect? Maybe the slide / bump fire stocks are regulated, maybe I'm seen bump firing my stock AR and get hit with an "intent"?
Maybe gun manufacturers are forced to make it all but impossible to bump fire with regular stocks. This comes by multiple ways one of which could be making trigger pull harder (~10+ lbs minimum), or the triggers having to have longer resets. Now ARs (possible other semi-auto firearms, pistols included) are less accurate and rate of fire is down significantly. Can't change the triggers either or you are going against the regulations. Criminals do not give a shite, they will modify how they see fit and the rest of us are now way undergunned.
I get that this is all just hypothetical and could be complete bullshite, but it could also be way better than what they come up with too. I don't like it from a "what next" standpoint, but I don't mind it from a "I don't like those anyway" standpoint. I would have to see the language 100% prior to form an opinion on what is going to take place.
On the positive side (long shot would not happen), I wouldn't mind seeing them open up the talks of changing the NFA regs, IF, they:
1) pulled out SBRs and Suppressors (maybe even SBSs)
2) just left in full-auto (and "continuous fire devices") along with Destructive Devices
3) made AOW no longer a catch all for bullshite
TL:DR; I don't trust the government in its current form to not completely attack other non-regulated things if they open up this topic for discussion. However, I could be swayed based on language and the delisting of certain items that I believe make no sense to be on there.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:15 pm to The Rodfather
by
this is the thing. We all know it is comming in one way or another. Rather in 2 months or 10 years. Its comming. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Its the way the world is now. Get what you want now, put it away, andworry about yourself because the govt and politicians are going to worry about themself.
quote:
TL:DR; I don't trust the government
this is the thing. We all know it is comming in one way or another. Rather in 2 months or 10 years. Its comming. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Its the way the world is now. Get what you want now, put it away, andworry about yourself because the govt and politicians are going to worry about themself.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:21 pm to oleyeller
quote:
now quote the whole thing. What can i do? Nothing.. if there was a vote id be against it. Me being okay with it is me talking on a mesg board saying it is what it is. I literally cant do anything but cry about it, what good will that do?
I'm not saying you have to go march on capital hill. You said you own a lot of guns. So, I would assume the people around you probably think of you as someone knowledgeable about guns. How you talk about these topics around those people who aren't "gun people" influences their opinion because they know you to be knowledgeable on the topic. For someone who is not knowledgable about guns to have someone who they view as knowledgeable about guns tell them they're willing to surrender this or give up that influences the unknowledgeable person's opinion on the matter. Now your negative view becomes that of one more. The best thing pro-2A people can do is always be an advocate for the cause when the opportunity arises. You don't have to go protest to make a difference.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:28 pm to oleyeller
quote:
I own close to 100guns, 3 ar15s, Have several thousand rounds of ammo
And a $1-300 part that takes no time to install is a waste of time and money?! If you were referring to yourself it’s still bs
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:30 pm to Propagandalf
White House says age restrictions for AR15 purchase on the table
Seems to be anti 2A day at the Trump WH. I know they are trying to get ahead of the fallout from the anti gun crowd. They don't want dead kids being a political topic during the midterms and they feel like these are things most people will just live with but it gives them Democrats a foot in the door that has been closed for awhile.
If you think back the past 40 years Republican Presidents have instituted some of the most anti 2A laws in the History of the Country.
Nixon 1968 Gun control act
Reagan -1986 Hughes Amendment banning Machine gn sales to individuals
Bush 41- 1989- Import ban of "assault weapons"
Trump- ?
Obama talked about gun control but never really did anything but scare people into loading up.
quote:
The White House said on Tuesday setting an age limit for buying AR-15-type assault rifles, the type purchased legally by a teenager who shot dead 17 people at a Florida high school last week, was under consideration. "I think that's certainly something that's on the table for us to discuss and that we expect to come up over the next couple of weeks,"
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said at a daily briefing when asked if President Donald Trump believed there should be an age limit for the purchase of AR-15-type rifles
Seems to be anti 2A day at the Trump WH. I know they are trying to get ahead of the fallout from the anti gun crowd. They don't want dead kids being a political topic during the midterms and they feel like these are things most people will just live with but it gives them Democrats a foot in the door that has been closed for awhile.
If you think back the past 40 years Republican Presidents have instituted some of the most anti 2A laws in the History of the Country.
Nixon 1968 Gun control act
Reagan -1986 Hughes Amendment banning Machine gn sales to individuals
Bush 41- 1989- Import ban of "assault weapons"
Trump- ?
Obama talked about gun control but never really did anything but scare people into loading up.
This post was edited on 2/20/18 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:32 pm to lsufan1971
I hope Trump doesn’t think he can please these people. They are still bitching about getting a tax break. He can ban every weapon tomorrow and they will hate him more. frick those people and stand your ground.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:32 pm to BayouFann
quote:
And a $1-300 part that takes no time to install is a waste of time and money?
yes because it is useless. zero accuracy, waste ammo, and a gimmick to look cool shooting. Something I would never use personally. I use guns to hunt or protection. If you enjoy a bump stock, thats you. I think they are comical.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:35 pm to jmh5724
quote:
He can ban every weapon tomorrow and they will hate him more. frick those people and stand your ground.
It didn't take Jake Tapper on CNN 10 minutes after Trump made the renouncement to say this was a political stunt. You're correct in he will get 0 credit from the left for enacting any type of restrictions.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:38 pm to lsufan1971
i'm kinda torn on upping the age of ar-15s. if we did that, might as well go across the board for all firearms and ammunition. i high schooler could still go to walmart and buy up all the target load shotgun shells for the powder and build a bomb from it if they really wanted to.
but giving them an inch will result in a mile. probably a country mile. maybe i was the same level maturity of an 18 year old 10 years ago, but 18 year olds now really are a bunch of morons. they still have a kids mindset. do we really want them have firearms unsupervised?
i'm torn.
but giving them an inch will result in a mile. probably a country mile. maybe i was the same level maturity of an 18 year old 10 years ago, but 18 year olds now really are a bunch of morons. they still have a kids mindset. do we really want them have firearms unsupervised?
i'm torn.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:47 pm to finchmeister08
So then someone grabs a Rem870 and starts spraying. That doesn't sound as dangerous as using an AR though 
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:49 pm to jimbeam
quote:
grabs a Rem870
quote:
That doesn't sound as dangerous as using an AR though
really doesnt. It probably will jam
Posted on 2/20/18 at 6:02 pm to oleyeller
quote:
Im okay with this. I have zero desire or need for a bump stock. Waste of time and money.
There are probably several firearm related items that you own that others would be fine banning because they don’t need them.
Stand together or get taken down piece by piece.
This post was edited on 2/20/18 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 2/20/18 at 6:04 pm to finchmeister08
quote:
i'm kinda torn on upping the age of ar-15s. if we did that, might as well go across the board for all firearms and ammunition. i high schooler could still go to walmart and buy up all the target load shotgun shells for the powder and build a bomb from it if they really wanted to.
but giving them an inch will result in a mile. probably a country mile. maybe i was the same level maturity of an 18 year old 10 years ago, but 18 year olds now really are a bunch of morons. they still have a kids mindset. do we really want them have firearms unsupervised?
Upping the age limit will only serve to stengthen gun control efforts in the future as younger generations are distanced from the firearms world. Long game for the antis.
There are millions and millions of teenage gun owners in this country who have never committed a crime, and don’t intend to.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News