LET'S BAN GUNS!

[kybkh]

Sounds like people need to familiarize themselves with the Gun Control Act of 1968 so they can quit asking for restrictions that are ALREADY IN PLACE.

The way some of you talk, you want those gone, too. So I'm curious if you had your way, if there would be any control at all.

I told you what I was willing to consider Bumper ban and 31 rd Mag.

Are there any particular regulations that you feel would makes us safer from one another?

[K@th]

Are there any particular regulations that you feel would makes us safer from one another?

I'm not against background checks, age restrictions & waiting periods.

[DBTrek]

Sounds like people need to familiarize themselves with the Gun Control Act of 1968 so they can quit asking for restrictions that are ALREADY IN PLACE.

The way some of you talk, you want those gone, too. So I'm curious if you had your way, if there would be any control at all.

Are you high?

We've done nothing but restrict the 2nd Amendment since it's inception.
You all are back again asking for more restrictions, because every batch of restrictions you've pushed through since the writing of the Constitution has failed to stop lawless criminals from committing gun crimes.
And you have the audacity to approach the argument like "WELL CAN WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS?!?!"

Holy shit.
Florida drugs must be way better these days than they were when I was there.

[Speaker to Animals]

In practice the bumper ban makes little sense, but, in principle, those bumper stocks really do violate the spirit of the law. If full auto is going to be strictly licensed and controlled like it is, then bumper stocks have to be controlled as well.

But like several people have pointed out, full-auto was not banned because it's more deadly (it's not). It was banned because of the tactical edge it gave to organized criminals by allowing them to suppress fire from police during engagements like bank robberies. They wanted to limit access to these weapons because the state doesn't like people having the same tactical advantages as them (which one could argue itself is an unconstitutional position to take to begin with).

Still, you know they are going to take out those bumper stocks just to do something, and those are an easy target because of their violation of the spirit of the law.

[K@th]

You all are back again asking for more restrictions, because every batch of restrictions you've pushed through since the writing of the Constitution has failed to stop lawless criminals from committing gun crimes.

Never mind, DB. Clearly my question is too difficult for you to comprehend.

Oh, and please point out where I asked for more restrictions? You know me well enough to remember that I'm not in favor of nonstop gun controls that don't add value.

[DBTrek]

It's not a comprehension issue, it's a what a ridiculous waste of time issue.

My hypothetical re-writing of the 2nd Amendment with 250 years of hindsight means nothing to anyone, anywhere.
PartyOf5 throwing in with the cult of Rights-haters means actual votes trending toward totalitarianism.

I prefer to focus on the real, not the fantasy.

[Smitty-48]

I told you what I was willing to consider Bumper ban and 31 rd Mag.

Are there any particular regulations that you feel would makes us safer from one another?

Nah, don't ban that bumper thing, that thing is dumb, automatic fire is less effective not more effective, honestly, fully automatic fire with a carbine is counterproductive, repetition is much deadlier, the only thing full auto fire with a carbine is useful for, is in a jungle lane against the Viet Cong, which, not what mass shooters do.

You can fire off 3 to 4 rounds a second with repetition, that bump thing is just a gimmick, what does that give you? An extra two rounds per second? Waste of ammo.

[The Conservative]

22195478_1983250258559546_2609569600004930229_n.jpg

[heydaralon]

Sounds like people need to familiarize themselves with the Gun Control Act of 1968 so they can quit asking for restrictions that are ALREADY IN PLACE.

The way some of you talk, you want those gone, too. So I'm curious if you had your way, if there would be any control at all.

Are you high?

We've done nothing but restrict the 2nd Amendment since it's inception.
You all are back again asking for more restrictions, because every batch of restrictions you've pushed through since the writing of the Constitution has failed to stop lawless criminals from committing gun crimes.
And you have the audacity to approach the argument like "WELL CAN WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS?!?!"

Holy shit.
Florida drugs must be way better these days than they were when I was there.

They definitely are better, but those handguns need to be banned asap

[The Conservative]

The way some of you talk, you want those gone, too. So I'm curious if you had your way, if there would be any control at all.

Are you high?

We've done nothing but restrict the 2nd Amendment since it's inception.
You all are back again asking for more restrictions, because every batch of restrictions you've pushed through since the writing of the Constitution has failed to stop lawless criminals from committing gun crimes.
And you have the audacity to approach the argument like "WELL CAN WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS?!?!"

Holy shit.
Florida drugs must be way better these days than they were when I was there.

They definitely are better, but those handguns need to be banned asap

Why not ban cars, or knives first?