Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[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

[nightfighter]

This guy was a murderous nut job. He had the fiscal ability to acquire weapons and accessories legally. Marrying some of these accessories to the weapons is against the law, as it is currently written here in Mass. ie suppressor and bump stock. A bump stock will convert a semi automatic into a full fire automatic, and it is stupid easy to install and make operational in less than ten minutes. Again, the law states that in this configuration it is illegal. As for large capacity feeders and magazines, I will address what I know, which is about magazines. In Mass. It is illegal to possess magazines of over 10 rounds capacity. Pre-ban magazines manufactured before September 13, 1994 are exempt from this restriction.. So I cannot buy or acquire large capacity mags legally. These are some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
So what is the next step? To stop the production of accessories such as bump stocks and suppressors? Maybe. Turn in all accessories that "could" render a weapon illegal? (I have none) Require all pre ban magazines be turned in? That won't happen...(mine are pre ban). Unless it were to be mandated upon transfer or death of registered owner.
It is a slippery slope. Both sides of the debate need to find some room for negotiation in the best interest of the Union. But I also think our monies would be much better spent on mental health in this country and rebuilding our hurricane ravaged states, cities, and commonwealths as opposed to spending billions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other active theaters

[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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

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

I got that from what to you posted and I pointed it out.
You said the left politicizes the tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device