[QUOTE=JohnR;1129367]

I'm OK with banning bump stocks


QUOTE=WDMSO

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial




see...even when you agree they keep arguing like you disagree...talk about perplexing :eek:...it's almost like marriage

I feel the same way. Perhaps a better flag would be a public listing of any gun owner who owns more than a certain number of weapons (pick a number). Listing of weapon owners would be publicly posted at city/town halls and printed in local media (newspaper) quarterly. Just as gun owners have a right to bear arms I think residents and law enforcement have a right to know if there is a "private arsenal" for lack of a better word in their neighborhoods. All to often neighbors say they had "no idea" their neighbor had that many weapons. If they knew maybe they could monitor behavior more closely and alert law enforcement.

If th government can regulate sudafed to flag an abuser (potential meth cook), they can moniter arms hoarders. Unless the hoarder has a lot of straw men buying for him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WE ARE IN )#*$#$$!@ AGREEMENT on Bump Stock / slide fire. YOU ARE NOT READING THE EFFING QUOTE. I am cApLoCkInG so you might stop to read rather than narrativetalkingpoints. You are going down the road of NRA this and that and jumping topics. (PS - not yelling mad, yelling shockingly but with @#(*#$@#$ smiley faces :faga: )

As for trigger control, some are way faster than others (though when speed goes up accuracy typically goes down). Kindofa stunt like a ProgressiveSocialist 22 year old mom's basement with Cataracts "Medical Marijuana" recipient searching for a higher THC count. Well, except Medical Marijuana is not in the Bill of Rights.

As for noise? Any reduction in noise DBA at your ear is beneficial, no?


A good read on how MOST legislation is effed up by our elected officials and often written by Lobbyists. Ever hear of the Affordable Care Act?

http://memeshappen.com/media/created...now-right-.jpg

So you think posting the address of people that have X amount of firearms, publicly, would be a good idea? The two biggest firearms problems we have are suicides and violence with youth / gang - frequently with stolen / underground weapons.

Good idea?

Let the public know...yup. That puts the final cap on stupid in this thread. Good day boys!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe - trying to come up with something. I mean we're not going to ban guns that is a given... but maybe we can regulate how many a person can own and what types they can have in their domicile. Always looking for a compromise. Discussion is a good thing ;)

Tysdad - You are the people we need to hear from. I'm not a gun owner but support gun ownership. What would you suggest as a compromise?

I'd publish the names of gun owners as well as a list of the weapons that they own and the combination to their gun safe, just in case someone needs to get in there....that should help prevent crime.....

I am open to discussion on the broad topics and might support some things BUT time has shown that those that only want maximum control or confiscation will go to any length and move any goal post necessary to strip Consitutionally provided rights. By publishing people's names is at worst dangerous to those people and encouraging theft or worse. At best it allows public shaming Grab-Your-Torch-And-Pitchforks of your neighbors. I don't have an "arsenal" not have intention / plans of building one but if I was on some list that would make me susceptible to people coning to my home? Where my family lives?

As for variety of guns, styles, and such - look at how many specialized rods you have - your beach rod, schoolie rods, boulder rod, plugging, Albie, oh and then add your freshwater stuff, Salmon Rod, fly rods. Specialized and task built rods for different purposes.

You could easily have 10 different guns for different purposes, competition, trap / skeet, plinking, tournaments,. You may collect old rifles like some collect Needlefish ( ; ) ) . Perfectly legit owners of guns would be called out under such a "list".

Recently in RI bills went through (I believe needing to be signed by the Gov) that requires confiscation of weapons for someone that has a DV restraining order against them. Something that reasonable people could debate. But people won't be reasonable - particularly if there are gains to be made politically. I could support something like that if it is temporary, has well defined sunset clauses, and an impartial arbiter. I really don't think we will find a neutral arbiter. Denis, how many impartial arbiters / politicians have you met in your travels through local and state government ; ) ? 20-30%? 40?

Currently their are Dem politicians at state and federal levels going around with information stating because 2A you can get Grenade Launchers and that guns should be confiscated.

Yes, we need better discussion and understanding. We also need to understand that 2A defines a Constitutional Right. There is a process to change that though, 66% approval in Congress and 3/4 states Convention.

If congress wants a compromise, pass the Share act so we have reciprocity among the states for concealed carry permits and add in to halt bump stocks to satisfy the snowflakes. Criminals and psychotic people are going to break laws to do what they want to do no matter what just like a gun free zone does not insure your safety. I see no problem with collections of arms by civilians as long as they are properly stored and as far as others not realizing it, that is a good thing.

Good discussion.
Here is a hypothetical question.
If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know? I know we can compare it those who collect other things but most other collectibles are not considered deadly weapons. Is it a privacy issue?

Scott mentions a good point that it would be a bad idea because then criminals would then know you have a cache of weapons and try to steal them. Of course any responsible gun owner would have them in a locked weapons vault I assume. Could also be a good deterrent if it was publicly known that your home was armed to the hilt.

What we look for when we have civil discourse about a topic is a reason WHY for a stated position. John did that well with his response to my comments. The old argument of we can't do it because "It will set a precedent" doesn't cut it. Tell me why banning bump stocks is wrong and who it would hurt if they were banned. Explain why owning 42 deadly assault weapons should be legal. These are questions in the national discussion. I'm here to learn from both sides.

Well, it sound like the shooter took multiple legal semi-automatic rifles (not assault weapons) and through mods made them near equivalent to automatic rifles - something heavily regulated since the 1930s and almost impossible to attain since 1984. This shooter may have been able to afford real autos because they costs thousands with a couple digits before the comma. But he went the mods route.

We can have a good debate on the Bumpstocks - in fact, the Evil NRA just released a statement that the Guv should look into if Bumpstocks and other methods to realize capacities closer to full auto should be banned. See attached.

If my neighbor owned 42 deadly assault weapons legal semi-automatic rifles I'd demand some range time with my neighbor to learn more.

Part of the concern with the National discussion is that people want to take them away because your neighbor having grenade launchers and Zombie stocks is morally not woke enough. /sarc

Lots of disinformation and purely wrong info out there by people that want them banned.

As for the safe, yes, your guns should be locked up and many states have regulations for that to protect against theft and negligent access by kids / other adults. My kid (that I throughout support as a great & responsible kid) does not have the combo to the safe. But a determined thief can usually bust a safe in an hour or less.

no and no....they are legally owned and registered, the local authorities know.....if you purchased 4 firearms a year over 10 years you'd have 40 weapons......people actually collect these like anything else, the drive to acquire something that you don't have or would like to add to your collection or to find something valuable for a good price all fuels this...I know people that collect some unusual stuff and spend what most would consider insane amounts of money to acquire certain things...a "collection" of one or two things isn't all that interesting, a large collection of any related objects is pretty interesting....I know...we're talking about firearms that can injure and kill...there's no shortage of preaching about properly storing these things and training for use

Good one ;) - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

There may be some way to collect inert ones but never tried not desired enough to bother looking. Other than a 10 second lookup based on this thread. I have seen Inert Artillery shells in Army Navy stores but never in one's house.

Did make homemade gunpowder once with a friend when we were 12. Lit up one helluva genie :hihi: - Trying to explain to the Pharmacist that one of the ingredients was for a school experiment, hahaha.

I do wish I could see the look on your face when you read that.

Hehehe

I think it's a no on the live hand grenades and I understand anyone who can't understand why someone would collect firearms, I also understand why some do...I stopped hunting primarily because I hunted with some knuckleheads once and decided I didn't really want to be in the woods if those guys or some facsimile might be out there...a .30-06 is a pretty common semi-automatic hunting rifle and also potentially deadly

So you are suggesting NIMBY? not in my backyard. Like building a prison nearby or some other unpopular thing. Bullcrap DZ, the guns , no matter how many are not going to leave the safe and harm anyone on their own.
Locks are for honest people, a criminal with a grinder can take care of that in minutes.


42 deadly assault weapons is not the term to use in a discussion about semi automatic rifles. A so called assault rifle would be the military version of an Armalite rifle AR15 as they are known and the military assault rifles have select fire. Machine guns are not legal since the 30's so don't be like the anti gun liberals by calling a common ar-15, AR-10 ( which is the .308 version as opposed to the .223 caliber)or an AK-47 an assault rifle.

They are picking away with their gun control little by little, it is about control. They can't control us, so they want to mistakenly try to control guns. I call them guns not weapons.

[QUOTE=scottw;1129373]only applies to those whom it applies ... thats all

right, that is better

--

they cant the law will not allow ATF to have a searchable Data base

That's my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't see the need for the public to know who has one gun, 15 or 150, I can only see good neighbors suddenly becoming bad ones. I do however see a reason law enforcement should have access to who's amassing enough weapons to start a war. What is the difference between this nut or one that happens to be a radical Islamic nut? What they are buying, where and when IMHO should be part of the record that local law, federal agents or anyone in homeland security should be able to see.

It's sad that this is where we are today, that we can't go calmly into a football stadium, concert hall or country fair, or airport without being concerned about our safety. I see no reason to not be monitoring purchases by law enforcement and maybe this is already in place, but if not; I think it would be a good thing to be monitoring. Sadly this isn't Mayberry and Aunt Bee isn't baking Andy a nice pumpkin pie for the holiday weekend.

If legal gun owners or collectors have no reason to be concerned, then why would you mind if law enforcement has a record or what you own? If someone breaks into your home and walks away, then law enforcement has a record of what was taken. The argument about what legally should be allowed to purchase is clearly a contentious one. I would back legislation to ban anything that can be used to cause the loss of life and injuries this or previous attacks before them caused. Whether that is bump stocks, silencers or semi-automatic weapons which can be converted to automatic operation.

It's clear most on this site are gun owners, I'm sure are all responsible owners, it's properly locked and used safely and responsibly. My problem is that someone just like you, no someone exactly like you, once a very responsible gun owner, well respected, a great guy according to all the neighbors, suddenly losses is job, his wife, his truck, his health, his self respect and then one night after a half a bottle of booze hatches a plan to make a statement and grab his 15 minutes of fame. Hopefully it's never someone we know, but it's always someone, someone knows.

Hope your indoor range has some good filtration, that stuff you breath will kill you.

Gun collectors don't want anyone to know what they have in case something like the big "Obama is going to take our gun" scare really happens
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama and Hillary have been the best gun salespeople of all time

Yep
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

And the NRA marketed that Fear expertly and Gun owners believed all of it and still believe .. there will be no more bump stocks to ban they will all be bought up by Saturday.. the ban if it happens will grandfather in the old ones

The NRA understands this so their PR stunt to support the ban has not credibility its good optics

You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct. Spin statistics to make it look one sided. Life is about choices, not everyone chooses to be a gun owner. 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also. Your agenda does not compute. Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, don't take my guns but no worries about using the DOJ to subpoena your social media because you hit like on an anti-trump meme. There is your new world order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's move this conversation to what is important about this Country. What makes this Country (generally) safe, safer than any large country in the world: Freedom

Freedom is the underpinning of our society. The core of those freedoms are the right to speak and assemble, to redress your grievance against the country, to defend your life, your family, and your property. Freedom to respect, and yes, even disrespect. Freedom to enter old and new ideas into the national common and not go to jail or beheaded. Freedom to run a government of the people. And as a last resort, Freedom to change that government should it become tyrannical. We ain't perfect. we are flawed. But we do a better job than almost everyone else - in the world.
This conversation and spirited debate we have here does not happen in all countries. Some places you could die for saying this. Sometimes it is ugly.


Hahaha - shall we find examples or sides being wrong and stuck on stupid??

From the article: Who here owns 17 Fishing Rods?

:hidin:

so it's just the ...oooohh... 3% controlling congress? what about the others who own 133 million guns what influence do they have? don't like guns...don't own any- no one is forcing you to.

Seat belt laws do not "stop" all vehicle deaths. But they reduce vehicle deaths.

A very, very common argument I hear from the gun crowd, goes something like this..."if you enact such-and-such a ban, people can still get guns and kill others". In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws.

No law is that perfect. Not one. So should we eliminate all laws?

Some (not all) gun crimes are committed with zero planning, sometimes people just snap in the heat of the moment. Common sense tells me, that in those cases, the less firepower the person (who is no longer completely in control of himself) has at his fingertips, the fewer graves we need to dig.

Some (not all) gun crimes are carried out by the mentally disturbed. Not all of these people have the ability to circumvent gun laws and either buy things on the black market, or manufacture it themselves.

No law is ever going to be perfect. That doesn't mean laws don't add value.

Agreed. But another cornerstone of our society, is the belief that your freedom to swing your arms in the air, ends where the tip of my nose begins. It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

I would never, ever support a ban on handguns, hunting rifles, or things that can reasonably be argued are for personal self defense. When we start talking about things that bring the killing potential to military-level numbers...I think that's a different conversation.

I concede that any bans are a limitation on freedom, there's no way to deny that. But the pro-gun side is refusing to concede that bans can have any value whatsoever. I don't get that argument. If you want to claim that it's not worth giving up the tools of war to save a few lives, well I disagree with that, but at least it's intellectually honest. To say out loud that bans won't help? I mean, we know that some bans are essentially worthless, especially in reducing garden-variety gun crime in urban areas, where handguns are available everywhere, so it's very easy to acquire the tools to kill a person or two.

Mass-shootings are a completely different problem, requiring a completely different fix. The body count will be very much driven by the tools that are available, which is why the Vegas shooter didn't choose to open fire with the Marlin .22 that my Dad taught me to shoot with. If that was all he had available to him, he could not have possibly shot 600 people. It's not possible.

I'm not saying we ban everything except the Marlin .22. I'm saying, at the very least, we need to be able to say out loud that if certain things were banned, it might make it harder to kill huge numbers of people in a short span of time. But we can't agree on that. So a conversation isn't possible.

It certainly doesn't mean that all laws do add value. So many of the laws we have been imposed on us since the war on our Constitution began have diminished the value of freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it that we may be at a critical point where the scales will irrevocably be tipped in favor of all-powerful government. Getting rid of the Second Amendment is a huge tipping in that direction. If you apply the Socratic method of debate on gun control to its final conclusion, it is inescapable that elimination of the Second Amendment is the goal.

"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

Sure it does. Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing. If people were choosing not to wear seat belts despite the danger, I presume they felt like they had a good reason to do so. Now it's illegal to make that choice.

"seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny."

The feds have nukes, stealth bombers, those cool bombs that destroy caves, rail guns, etc. So the only reason they aren't using those against me, is because I might have a couple of guns in a vault? That makes more sense, than I can make when I say that smart laws might save a few lives? Really?

"the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it"

I disagree. every night this week, I heard gun advocates claim that no gun control laws can effectively ban all attacks. They are saying, that because the laws aren't perfect, that they are worthless. I hear that every single night, all night long, from the right. It's one of the most common statements.

"The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object."

Limitless freedom isn't the object, we know this. The founders were specific on that, that they weren't designing an anarchy. Some limits on freedom are perfectly constitutional. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security.

Cars cause a lot of deaths. I have never, not once, heard anyone call for a ban on cars. We aren't a society that wants to ban everything that's dangerous. Not even close.

I don't see a big benefit to allowing things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. I see a very big benefit, to a few less graves being dug during mass shootings (I am not talking about street crime).