I don't see the ownership of a bump stock as a reason to kill someone
Yet that's exactly what you're advocating when you want to infringe on the 2A.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I don't see the ownership of a bump stock as a reason to kill someone
I don't see the need for anyone to own a motorcycle that exceeds 65 mph. Let's ban all those dangerous devices from existence.
BTW, motorcycles claim more lives every year than rifles do.
I just told you about men with decades of experience creating unsafe situations with just double-barrel shotguns, a la Joe Biden. I've seen it dozens of times too. So should double-barrel shotguns be banned, by your logic?My friend who owns the guns we shot today I trust more than myself due to his experience and knowledge. With proper training and experience everything can be "safe"
Eh I actually disagree with that. Although the rate of fire for a nomarl person would be slower the accuracy would be significantly.
With a bump stock it takes more focus to make the thing work than to aim. I can def see an inexperienced person creating a bad situation with a bump stock than a regular AR stock.
I know the audience here and I knew I'd get flamed for that statement but honestly I don't understand what the purpose and proper use for a bump stock is. For a law abiding citizen like myself it's a toy. It's just a fun way to shoot and spend money lol. In the wrong hands though it can do s lot of harm. I know I know right, 2A... but after using one for the first time ever it serves no purpose other than fun when ingood hands. It's not for protection or anything like that. Just my opinion. Again I know several here will disagree and that's fine.
I use lol a lot. I don't care if you think it makes me look foolish.
I don't know how I feel about civilians owning full autos.
Extreme arguments remove logic.
Should civilians own full army equipment? Like a tank or a fighter jet or an appachi helicopter? What do you think?
Don't worry. It does. No one else is laughing.I use lol a lot. I don't care if you think it makes me look foolish.
I don't see the need for anyone to own a motorcycle that exceeds 65 mph. Let's ban all those dangerous devices from existence.
BTW, motorcycles claim more lives every year than rifles do.
Go back to Greece. What a maroon. Just join the Democrats and make semiautos illegal too, sheeze.
Definitely an out yourself thread.
Olympus, the same argument can be made for all semi-automatics. They can fire waaaaay too fast. They should make it so with handguns you have to rack the slide every time you want to shoot so it’s not so semi-automaticky.
Think about how ridiculous the above sounds.
Everything was good and fine until mobsters and bad people (who were ALREADY bad) used full auto to kill people. Because bad people dis bad things with guns, they made everyone pay with the NFA and 1986. People owned full autos before the NFA and did the same thing a lot of people do at the range...shoot and plink for fun.
IMHO, arms, specifically bearable arms shouldn’t be subject to regulation. It leads to the the eventual goal of the anti2A hyenas.
Well motorcycles require some practice and knowledge prior to riding own. The regulations are stupid on motorcycles by the way. The fact. That someone who passes a computer test of 20 questions just by 60% and go buy a 200hp superbike is plain silly.
"Go back to" whatever is just a bitch out comment. Use this as an opportunity to educate instead of being a douche.
Note that civilians in the US can and do own tanks and fighter planes. I can't speak to attack helos, but I assume the same is true there. As it should be.I use lol a lot. I don't care if you think it makes me look foolish.
Should civilians own full army equipment? Like a tank or a fighter jet or an appachi helicopter? What do you think?
Eh I actually disagree with that. Although the rate of fire for a nomarl person would be slower the accuracy would be significantly.
With a bump stock it takes more focus to make the thing work than to aim. I can def see an inexperienced person creating a bad situation with a bump stock than a regular AR stock.
I know the audience here and I knew I'd get flamed for that statement but honestly I don't understand what the purpose and proper use for a bump stock is. For a law abiding citizen like myself it's a toy. It's just a fun way to shoot and spend money lol. In the wrong hands though it can do s lot of harm. I know I know right, 2A... but after using one for the first time ever it serves no purpose other than fun when ingood hands. It's not for protection or anything like that. Just my opinion. Again I know several here will disagree and that's fine.
Note that civilians in the US can and do own tanks and fighter planes. I can't speak to attack helos, but I assume the same is true there. As it should be.
Mind answering this?I just told you about men with decades of experience creating unsafe situations with just double-barrel shotguns, a la Joe Biden. I've seen it dozens of times too. So should double-barrel shotguns be banned, by your logic?
Functional ones? I didn't know that either. Learned a lot today.
I don't see the need for anyone to own a motorcycle that exceeds 65 mph. Let's ban all those dangerous devices from existence.
BTW, motorcycles claim more lives every year than rifles do.
No def not. I did understand a lot of things that didn't think of before.After what you learned, do you still want to lock men up in cages for years at a time because they owned a piece of plastic?
Well motorcycles require some practice and knowledge prior to riding own. The regulations are stupid on motorcycles by the way. The fact. That someone who passes a computer test of 20 questions just by 60% and go buy a 200hp superbike is plain silly.
No I don't think that's a reason to ban said shotguns.Mind answering this?
Well I can't speak for instruments of death. But the bump stock was fun as hell.i think OP just meant these instruments of death are super cool.
Then you were not being intellectually honest when you said that bump stocks and full auto should be banned because you can "def see an inexperienced person creating a bad situation".No I don't think that's a reason to ban said shotguns.
I explained my comment was not fully serious. It was among the lines of "if full autos are regulated I am shocked that they haven't regulated bump stocks"Then you were not being intellectually honest when you said that bump stocks and full auto should be banned because you can "def see an inexperienced person creating a bad situation".
My initial comment was based on the fact that full autos are so heavily regulated. I am a gun owner and gun rights supporter. Do you get it?
No no. I specifically said I'm not in position or have knowledge to put such regulations in place.I get it alright, but you’re ultimately looking to regulate behavior with a tool (no matter how stupid you might think it is). Behavior can’t be regulated. People are either good or they’re bad.
I haven't studied the bill of rights to be honest. I'm all about our rights. Read my clarifying comments above.As a recent new gun owner , why would you not understand our 2nd amendment and our passion to uphold it ?
Oxymoron. How can you support that which you have not studied?I haven't studied the bill of rights to be honest. I'm all about our rights.
My initial comment was based on the fact that full autos are so heavily regulated. I am a gun owner and gun rights supporter. Do you get it?