Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[tysdad115]

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?

And on that we agree 100%. That would constitute animal cruelty.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing.

classy

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by PaulS

classy

[wdmso]

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Without a law authorizing them to do so I don't think they would be doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by DZ

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by 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 ... ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

https://youtu.be/x0f7OCnrrpkor Please note his trigger finger not moving and if someone think thats not Automatic fire they shouldn't own a gun


suppressors-good-for-our-hearing yea thats why they are made i thought that was what ear plug were for?


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2011...or-our-hearing

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 )

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?

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf...ses-explained/

a good read another topic that Americas are un aware on how the ability to track weapons have been blocked by our elected officials and Law paid for and written by lobbyist

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?

Originally Posted by scottw

QUOTE=JohnR

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 ...it's almost like marriage

Originally Posted by DZ

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.

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?

[DZ]

Originally Posted by JohnR

WE ARE IN )

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?

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by DZ

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

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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 )

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.

I am-not arguing with those who agree on Ban on Bump stocks again just showing the BS Marketing

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

Really thats your answer to that kind of marketing




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?
your comparing the ACA with Willful blocking of law enforcement to track guns in America talk about narratives and Talkingpoints.

these are all factual statements from the NRA and the bump stock maker If you find this kind marketing acceptable I cant change that nor Am i just exposing to sunlight





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?

--

[The Dad Fisherman]

Maybe they did, but he didn't do anything wrong until that night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the mass shooters that you refer to (not Muslim) predominantly came from certain other countries, the federal government could impose a travel ban from those countries. But if the mass shooters live in the State, the federal government should defer to that State's legal system.

BTW, you first referred to the "federal" government being expected to do something, then in comparing mass shooting to terrorism you eliminated the "federal" and just referred to government. We have been conditioned by the Progressive trend in politics to merge the two--federal government and government being the same thing. The Progressive mindset is that government SHOULD be centralized. That government and federal government should be the same thing. That the federal government (government) should be involved in all things that influence our lives.

Travel bans from other countries, constitutionally, should be the federal government's responsibility. Mass shootings in Nevada, which don't involve foreign influence, should be the responsibility of Nevada. It may be "perplexing" to you why those concerned about the survival of the Constitution as the actual "law of the land" make a distinction between responsibilities of various levels of government, and that "government" doesn't automatically mean "federal" government. But the distinction should be obvious to those who believe that a federation is preferable to a monolithic State.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject

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 ... ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

https://youtu.be/x0f7OCnrrpkor Please note his trigger finger not moving and if someone think thats not Automatic fire they shouldn't own a gun


suppressors-good-for-our-hearing yea thats why they are made i thought that was what ear plug were for?


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2011...or-our-hearing

[scottw]

[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 ...it's almost like marriage

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=scottw;1129373]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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 ...it's almost like marriage

only applies to those whom it applies ... thats all

[detbuch]

So the federal government requires us to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. States require us to buy auto insurance. But the insurance against government tyranny that was given to us free of monetary charge by the Founders is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

Having health insurance doesn't prevent illness. It helps us to more physically and financially be able to survive illness and return to good health. Auto insurance does not prevent accidents. It makes it more possible to financially survive the misuse of autos and maintain our use of them. The Second Amendment is our freedom insurance policy. It does not prevent the misuse of weapons. It makes it possible to resist an armed government which misuses its weapons to strip us of our unalienable rights--to insure that we do not lose our liberties.

No doubt to many of us now, that sounds quaint. A nice, old fashioned sentiment that is no longer relevant, a historical conceit. But is there some evidence that we should not have any fear of an overreaching government? Or worse, that our government should not fear its citizens? Is a government which is confident that its citizens have been fully pacified through its subjugation of the educational system, its transformation of the political system including the founding structure, its massive regulation of the economy, its collusion with the media, its incremental transfer to itself of powers from the people and their local and State governments . . . is such a government truly not to be feared?

Is there some evidence that we actually no longer need the rights and liberties that the Constitution guarantied to us? Have we been persuaded that we no longer need the insurance policy, no longer need outdated notions such as freedom, liberty, rights?

Well, on reflection, we are as, a society, consumed with the notion of rights. But not some ethereal notion of unalienable ones. We are perfectly satisfied with provided rights rather than inherent ones. What we inherit we are responsible for. It is up to us to protect inherent rights. The rights given to us by a government which we do not fear are its responsibility to decide and dispense. Some may have such rights. Others may not. We become divided by "rights." We don't all have the same old unalienable rights. Just the ones given to us by the benevolent government we trust, do not fear, and which does not fear us. Some we have in common. Others are special to preferred or protected groups. They can be more a matter of enforcement rather than codification. "Gays" can force a baker to bake a "gay" cake. But no one can force a baker to make a chartreuse cake. Those who love the color chartreuse have not been given the right by government to demand chartreuse. Of course, the baker no longer has the unalienable right to his property. Those who make x dollars do not have the right to pay the same tax rate as those who make y dollars. Those who score higher test rates may not have the right to enter a university over someone who scores lower test rates. Certain groups need special rights to get a leg up. Some have the right to say certain words, while the use of those words by others are considered hate speech. Some are granted free speech at publicly supported schools, others can claim free speech to shout down, without prosecution, those they disagree with. And on and on and on.

The notion that the world we presently live in should cause us to have no reasonable fear of government tyranny is not based on actual evidence, historical or otherwise. But the greatest threat to the freedom we have inherited is not the government, rather it is our complacency. Our willingness to constantly allow the government to assume the responsibilities that rightly belong to us as individuals, and our ignorance of how economies work (or don't), and the dangers of all-powerful centralization (politically and commercially).

The actual evidence, if rightly looked at, is that discarding the framework that guaranties us individual freedom, with its insurance policies (the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment), and leaving our lives and sacred honor in the hands and ever changing whims of a centralized and fairly unlimited bureaucracy is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

[wdmso]

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf...ses-explained/

a good read another topic that Americas are un aware on how the ability to track weapons have been blocked by our elected officials and Law paid for and written by lobbyist

[tysdad115]

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

[DZ]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

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

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?

[scottw]

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.....

[Slipknot]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

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

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Hehehe

[DZ]

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.