Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[Slipknot]

I don't know what C&P means but I think we should wait to see what the experts find out about his motive before speculating and blaming GUN as usual. That is IF they let us know when they learn the real truth if they don't already know. Just because something is possible, is no reason to go ahead and do it just to prove that point. Evil is everywhere. If George Soros gets his way and we have globalization, you can forget about freedoms and liberties because then they will be in control and they WILL control us all.
People need to go to church or something.

[Slipknot]

Jim, you have laws about automatic fire already, criminals don't follow the law. If they find someone or learn how to, they will convert a semi auto themselves if they want to bad enough. Same with the tough gun laws in Chicago, criminals go out of state and bring them illegally.
Society is breaking down for some reason, and some people can't handle the technology advances.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Jim, you have laws about automatic fire already, criminals don't follow the law. If they find someone or learn how to, they will convert a semi auto themselves if they want to bad enough. Same with the tough gun laws in Chicago, criminals go out of state and bring them illegally.
Society is breaking down for some reason, and some people can't handle the technology advances.

Slipknot, your arguments make a superb case as to why the things I posted, can never eliminate gun crime entirely. Never. But you cannot tell me that they won't help reduce it a bit. Maybe it' snot worth the liberty we'd have to give up, that might be a valid point. But many argue on the right that there is zero benefit to any gun laws, that we can't reduce crime by one zillionth of one percent. I don't buy that. Noting is that absolute.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Slipknot, your arguments make a superb case as to why the things I posted, can never eliminate gun crime entirely. Never. But you cannot tell me that they won't help reduce it a bit. Maybe it' snot worth the liberty we'd have to give up, that might be a valid point. But many argue on the right that there is zero benefit to any gun laws, that we can't reduce crime by one zillionth of one percent. I don't buy that. Noting is that absolute.

I understand your point
I have common sense also


BTW that bill is about suppressors, not silencers. They suppress the noise a bit, not silence. That is Hollywood who use silencers not real life. Suppressors can aid in saving hearing and noise pollution, I'll wear ear protection and use the range in the hours allowed and I am fine with that. If you want a suppressor, go to a state that allows one I guess.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I don't know what C&P means but I think we should wait to see what the experts find out about his motive before speculating and blaming GUN as usual. That is IF they let us know when they learn the real truth if they don't already know. Just because something is possible, is no reason to go ahead and do it just to prove that point. Evil is everywhere. If George Soros gets his way and we have globalization, you can forget about freedoms and liberties because then they will be in control and they WILL control us all.
People need to go to church or something.

C&P = cut and paste. I stole that from an editorial.

You said

"what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people."

and I was just pointing out that the right would also use that no differently for political purposes.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

C&P = cut and paste. I stole that from an editorial.

You said

"what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people."

and I was just pointing out that the right would also use that no differently for political purposes.

it still would bother me whether it's the left,right or Libertarians

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

it still would bother me whether it's the left,right or Libertarians

Ok, but that is not what you said.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Ok, but that is not what you said.

correct, I said Left because that is what Hillary is and that is relevant in this case ,no? . what is your point, that there are others that do the same thing? does not make it ok

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the pro- gun crowd doesn't do the same?

Did anything happened in Feb. of this year w/background checks?

What would Feb have made a difference on?

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is allowing silencers a common sense gun law?

Edit - think how many more deaths there may have been if people didn't know as soon where the gunman was.

"Silencers" / noise suppression reduce sound mainly at the shooter by tens of decibels, so from levels that wreck your hearing to levels that merely play havoc with your hearing. They don't "silence" a gun so nobody can here it - unless you are in Hollywood (sarc).

I would prefer not needing to register with ATF and pay $200 to buy a suppressor and reduce the impact on my ears. But it is illegal for me to own one in RI and I do not own one.

Originally Posted by PaulS

I believe that was going to be introduced this week (and remove a $200 tranfer tax on slencer) - also loosen regs on armour piercing bullets, allow gun owners to transport registered firearms across state lines, carry guns in national parks.

So I am OK with autos being banned (they are) but would like to see silencers allowed - for my hearing.

I would enjoy an opportunity to fire full auto for grins and giggles - or a bump stock. I don't own a bump stock and have no desire to get one. I CANNOT LEGALLY purchase an auto without jumping through a lot of paperwork and have no desire to do so.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

What would Feb have made a difference on?
.

No it wouldn't have.

I was pointing out where you said that the left keeps trying to make legislation more restrictive by showing you an example of the right trying to weaken legislation. That's what both parties do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

correct, I said Left because that is what Hillary is and that is relevant in this case ,no? . what is your point, that there are others that do the same thing? does not make it ok

No it does not make it right but I wasn't making that point you were. You are acting as if the right doesn't do that when there's numerous cases in the past they have. we can't hold someone to a higher standard than you hold yourself or you can't hold one party to a higher standard than you hold another party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No it does not make it right but I wasn't making that point you were. You are acting as if the right doesn't do that when there's numerous cases in the past they have. we can't hold someone to a higher standard than you hold yourself or you can't hold one party to a higher standard than you hold another party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not but thanks for assuming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device