jordanrb81
New member
why "in exchange" what useful purpose to bump stocks server. if you want to deregulate suppressors I'd buy one, but why tie those two things together?
Florida School Shooting
- Thread starter simple
- Start date
- Status
why "in exchange" what useful purpose to bump stocks server. if you want to deregulate suppressors I'd buy one, but why tie those two things together?
Off-choader
New member
I tie the two things together because even though I think bump stocks are stupid and useless I would never support a ban unless getting something in return. I do not think a bump stock ban would have any effect on murders or crime. It is just a tactic of the gun control crowd to incrementally erode my rights.
jordanrb81
New member
well strictly speaking a bump stock is an aftermarket part... it's not a right, the firearm is a right. if accessories, like those offered by bravo company (a personal favorite of mine) were unavailable your rights aren't being eroded. it would be a bummer, but if NITTO discontinues a tire, my rights aren't violated. that's a bit melodramatic don't you think. also this isn't a negotiation, and if you want a suppressor bad enough, you can get one.
e60ral
Banned
they actually had gun control including full bans, banning sales or exchange of firearms, regulating sales and manufacture, brandishing laws, limits or bans on open and concealed carry, restrictions on dangerous or unusual weapons, restrictions on who could own guns, where guns could be fired, minimum ownership ages, gun registration, etc...
and not long after that time period many places even regulated fast-firing semi-automatic weapons like full automatic
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4825&context=lcp
Gun laws were tougher in old Tombstone - latimes
etc...
e60ral
Banned
i'm curious what the justice department is going to do. trump is asking that they issue regulations instead of new legislation, but that seems hard to do since the ATF has already issued interpretation that they are not a regulated accessory
jordanrb81
New member
yeah, that's great but if you were in Boston or NYC or Philly the guy in the beautifully tailored suit from London and his wife in the beautiful gown from Paris, they both had a derringer on them and everyone was calm cool and collected. which was the point I was making. gun laws aren't an enemy of mine.
Off-choader
New member
I have no trouble paying 200$ tax stamp on suppressors, well worth it IMO. I know the bump stock is not a right outlined in the constitution my worry is that it is a slippery slope.. that would eventually result in lost rights that I do care about. If I genuinely thought a bump stock ban would prevent a shooting though I would be all for it.
e60ral
Banned
^^everyone wasn't cool and collected though, that was the period when we saw the most gun laws being added in response to rising "interpersonal violence" and to stop the "unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons" to which "each and every person so [degraded themselves]". more guns, more gun violence, which caused a response of passing new laws, i think most at that time were about concealed carry.
Last edited:
jordanrb81
New member
I don't think it would stop shootings either, but it being available may make an unskilled shooter more dangerous. my understanding is while using a bump stock increases the fire rate, especially for an untrained unskilled shooter, most who use them can hardly control them, accuracy is diminished greatly. well if you're shooting into a crowd of people but your target is the crowd, no particular person then that is helpful. if you're shooting a target, or a deer, or a wild boar, it sort of works against you. I don't see it as a slippery slope to a totalitarian regime I just see it as getting rid of what amounts to a dangerous toy.
a suppressor doesn't reduce accuracy, though I think it slows the bullet down (not positive) and sure if you've played one to many games of hitman on Play Station maybe you think it's a sinister device, but I think it just makes shooting more enjoyable. not only for the shooter, but for their neighbors as well. this goes back to my previous quote; "your right to swing your fists ends at another's nose." you have a right to, in many communities, shoot in your backyard, and your neighbor has a right to enjoy peace and quiet... wouldn't a suppressor just make everyone happy in that situation?
mynameistory
New member
Not sure why you guys would even need a gun to confront an active shooter, our fearless leader sure doesn't.
President Trump: I would have run into school during shooting ?even if I didn?t have a weapon? | Tampa Bay Times
President Trump: I would have run into school during shooting ?even if I didn?t have a weapon? | Tampa Bay Times
96RedRunner
Senior Member
I was one of us, just like you in the middle, just a person minding his own business when things went south, thankfully I was carrying when seconds counted. Then LE showed up for the paperwork.
The biggest tradegy of this, the failure on LE's part. The laws and procedures didn't fail, but those who enforce said laws and procedures failed us. That's my point. No way in hell do I want to be left with LE covering my six as my only option. Until you experience something like I have you will never grasp the true meaning of self protection. That is what makes people fight to maintain that right. The Right to live or die!! Look at the kids with the balls to do what they could with kevlar mats. When LE supposedly had their six.
Last edited:
jordanrb81
New member
Yeah, I mean he totally would, as long as the bone spurs weren't hurting his feet too badly that day.:flame:
I'm gonna get it for that one HAHAHAHA
jordanrb81
New member
uhhh... maybe you haven't been paying attention. but I carry, I am currently carrying as I type, I am sorry for whatever vague incident happened to you, but this isn't about conceal carry laws... is it?
jordanrb81
New member
you're not wrong, but I think the issues of the time went beyond derringers, those same big cities were having slaughters in the streets due to gang (mostly ethnic) fighting as well as the birth of organized crime... which is still basically a gang. So yes those laws were passed at the time, but not because high society was packing heat.
96RedRunner
Senior Member
Was there anything constuctive you wanted too say, got a point.
ndcent
New member
mynameistory
New member
I already made it. Sorry that incredibly vague thing happened to you that one time, maybe.
Off-choader
New member
He has some courage, He was a beloved billionaire that could be retired on an island, but instead he gave that all up to be hated and ridiculed nonstop, He already gave up his life for America, I have no doubt he would have given it up for those kids.
I love my country but I think I would probably just have bought a few thousand acres in the rockies or Wyoming and disapeared.
Last edited:
96RedRunner
Senior Member
I was paying attention, I read the part about you shooting I assumed you carried. I know it's not about CC.
My post was about the fact LE and laws are not the cure all, so why should there be more laws to restict our freedom. When LE does'nt do their part to protect us. Sorry I did'nt make that clearer.
As for "vague incident" don't be sorry I'm not I like living.
e60ral
Banned
the gang stuff was a few decades later
- Status
