- 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: Adios Bump Stocks
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:47 pm to slinger1317
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:47 pm to slinger1317
quote:
Do you mind explaining that further?
Sure.
quote:
I'm pro gun all the way
This is bullshite. "I support the Second Amendment, but..." is fairly common for people who own guns and like shooting them, but don't really care about gun rights. You aren't pro-gun.
quote:
No practical use other than to simulate full auto, which is also banned.
This is also bullshite. There are several practical uses for increasing the rate of fire for your weapons, and full-auto is not banned.
quote:
Some of you snowflakes get your panties in a bunch over anything.
This is bullshite, too. Your group wants to limit gun rights. Pushing back against that in any way we can doesn't make anyone a snowflake or whatever else you want to throw around.
0
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:48 pm to slinger1317
quote:
No practical use
You really want the government applying this logic to your rights?
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:49 pm to Chocolate Jesus
quote:
They can have that win.
Why would you want to cede ANY ground whatsoever to a group of people who will never stop encroaching at every opportunity? There is no tactical win whatsoever.
quote:
We actually are inching closer to having suppressors being unregulated
LULZ do you work at a fudd gun shop or something? If the HPA was going to be passed it would have been when the GOP owned the House, Senate and Presidency. Silencers will NEVER be a non-NFA item. Hence why giving an inch on anything is a loss, once it's taken away or regulated, the odds of that course being reversed is essentially non-existent.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:49 pm to slinger1317
quote:
The military has
quote:
Do you think a simple farmer should have that as well?
Access to them, yes. Absolutely. You know that already exists, right?
quote:
And FTR, I am pro gun
People who are pro-gun don't need to repeatedly remind everyone that they're pro-gun.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:51 pm to thingshavechanged
Are binary triggers still legal?
This post was edited on 3/29/19 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:51 pm to slinger1317
quote:
The military has automatic weapons, tanks, drones, etc. Do you think a simple farmer should have that as well?
Sure, why not? Is he going to be able to afford multi-million dollar equipment, know how to operate and wield the ultra-expensive ordinance required for them to be effective? If he has that much money and desire, he could do just as much damage with currently available means.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:51 pm to The Maj
quote:
You really want the government applying this logic to your rights?
I agree with you.
I think in this case, anyone who has a brain can see that a bump stock is merely a novelty.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:52 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Are binary triggers still legal?
Yes, at least for the time being.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:53 pm to Damone
quote:
Sure, why not? Is he going to be able to afford multi-million dollar equipment, know how to operate and wield the ultra-expensive ordinance required for them to be effective? If he has that much money and desire, he could do just as much damage with currently available means.
Ok, whatever man. If you can't apply some common sense here then you are just furthering the stereotype of a 2A wacko. I'm a southern, conservative hunter and I don't think Joe citizen should have a bazooka or an automatic rifle. Call me a liberal pansy, I guess I just don't fit in around here.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:54 pm to slinger1317
quote:
merely a novelty.
30 round magazine?
Night vision sights?
Bayonet lug?
Flash suppressor?
Where you want me to stop?
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:55 pm to thingshavechanged
This is exactly what will happen with all guns. When the left says "no one is coming for your guns", this is what they mean.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:56 pm to slinger1317
quote:
I'm a southern, conservative hunter and I don't think Joe citizen should have a bazooka or an automatic rifle.
Then you're ignorant, a hypocrite, or a liar. Maybe a combination of the three.
No offense.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:56 pm to slinger1317
quote:
If you can't apply some common sense here then you are just furthering the stereotype of a 2A wacko.
My position is eminently more consistent and defensible that one seeking to draw an arbitrary line on how far a Constitutional freedom should extend.
quote:
I'm a southern, conservative hunter
I don't doubt that, but you are not a Second Amendment supporter.
quote:
and I don't think Joe citizen should have a bazooka or an automatic rifle.
I think a lot of things that I don't see necessary to be codified into law.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 12:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
ignorant, a hypocrite, or a liar. Maybe a combination of the three.
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Checks out.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:00 pm to Damone
The 2A says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say which arms are okay to keep and bear. You interpret that to mean "all," and I interpret it to mean "within reason." There is no cut and dried line, and I get that.
I certainly don't want the government drawing the arbitrary line for us. But I just think that common folk can agree on certain things. Never going to please everyone, I get that.
It doesn't say which arms are okay to keep and bear. You interpret that to mean "all," and I interpret it to mean "within reason." There is no cut and dried line, and I get that.
I certainly don't want the government drawing the arbitrary line for us. But I just think that common folk can agree on certain things. Never going to please everyone, I get that.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:01 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
What 2nd amendment hating, big government democrat do we have to blame for this?
Trump!
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:02 pm to slinger1317
quote:
The 2A says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yep, and what do you think that means?
quote:
I interpret it to mean "within reason."
This, too. What do you think this means?
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:06 pm to thingshavechanged
quote:
used by the gunman in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre
Shouldn't that be gunmen instead of gunman!!!
Stop believing lies! You don't have to always know the truth to recognize a lie!
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:13 pm to slinger1317
quote:
I'm pro gun all the way, and I don't have a problem with a bump stock ban. No practical use other than to simulate full auto, which is also banned. Some of you snowflakes get your panties in a bunch over anything.
Hello Fudd, let me ask you a question:
What is the acceptable rate of fire (rounds per minute) for someone shooting a semi-auto? I would like a number
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
More importantly, what does the U.S. Supreme Court think that means? Per Scalia:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogues. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogues. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
This post was edited on 3/29/19 at 1:24 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News