The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Up to you, the politicians, and the courts.

But the funny thing is that with conservatives and the NRA refusing to do a single thing to address our irresponsible gun culture, there may be a day when the more left of the nation has the power to do the extreme. Ultimately, it won't have been the Left that screwed up our "right." It will be those who refuse to look at the situation today out of some misplaced fear that somebody is just days away from scooping up all their toys.

Click to expand...

given how few guns legally possessed are used in criminal activities, WTF do you get off whining about "irresponsible gun culture"? the people who cause the vast majority of gun problems are already banned from owning them. BTW, last I checked, CCW private citizens are more law abiding and safer with firearms than cops

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

EMNofSeattle said:

So what is your argument again?

"You're so worried about people taking your guns that you refuse to give up your guns" this argument makes no sense

Click to expand...

His arguments are essentially "you shouldn't be able to have the same guns criminals have or cops have because private citizens aren't as important as cops or criminals"

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

EMNofSeattle said:

Why not? most rounds already penetrate body armor.

Click to expand...

This misses the point. It's not about the rounds or the "silencers" or whatever else they come up with to try to militarize the civilian population. It's about the attitude that this is all just about more toys to play with.

Then they will argue that they need such things because the "criminals" have them. It's a cycle of idiocy that only encourages irresponsibility.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

This misses the point. It's not about the rounds or the "silencers" or whatever else they come up with to try to militarize the civilian population. It's about the attitude that this is all just about more toys to play with.

Then they will argue that they need such things because the "criminals" have them. It's a cycle of idiocy that only encourages irresponsibility.

Click to expand...

Suppressors, there's no such thing as a silencer, since no device makes a gun "silent"

silencers have far more civilian applications then military. in fact in the vast majority of countries silencers are unregulated to legal gun owners, so the claim it's to "militarize" civilians is absurd, you're showing lack of understanding of the basic issues.

there is nothing irresponsible about allowing civilians to own small arms. and in all of this you still haven't articulated a coherent argument, it's the same emotional platitudes that have always existed.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Up to you, the politicians, and the courts.

But the funny thing is that with conservatives and the NRA refusing to do a single thing to address our irresponsible gun culture, there may be a day when the more left of the nation has the power to do the extreme. Ultimately, it won't have been the Left that screwed up our "right." It will be those who refuse to look at the situation today out of some misplaced fear that somebody is just days away from scooping up all their toys.

Click to expand...

The truly ironic part of that is that if the left gains the power to "do the extreme" they will exercise their authority at the point of a gun. As it was at Lexington and Concord, so will it be when and where the left decides that it's time to do away with individual liberty in pursuit of the cause of political correctness.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

EMNofSeattle said:

So what is your argument again?

"You're so worried about people taking your guns that you refuse to give up your guns" this argument makes no sense

Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing that wasn't my argument.

My argument is that gun owners are so petrified over even the slightest law to encourage better responsibility from them that they paralyze the entire discussion. Eventually, enough time will and enough people will have been massacred that somebody will be in the position to do the extreme.

Do you like Obamacare? Obamacare is the hasty result of the Republican Party refusing to have the discussion on Universal Health Care for decades. How do you think the gun issue is going to play out with only one side trying to get to a healthier place with the gun culture? If the NRA and its worshipers were smart, they would get ahead of this and control it. But...they aren't too smart. The NRA is more interested in the gun market and gun owners are too busy identifying themselves through their guns.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

This misses the point. It's not about the rounds or the "silencers" or whatever else they come up with to try to militarize the civilian population. It's about the attitude that this is all just about more toys to play with.

Then they will argue that they need such things because the "criminals" have them. It's a cycle of idiocy that only encourages irresponsibility.

Click to expand...

translation-private citizens should be handicapped when confronted by armed criminals

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Well it's a good thing that wasn't my argument.

My argument is that gun owners are so petrified over even the slightest law to encourage better responsibility from them that they paralyze the entire discussion. Eventually, enough time will and enough people will have been massacred that somebody will be in the position to do the extreme.

Click to expand...

I don't need more laws to encourage responsibility. Perhaps that's a lifer requirement.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Well it's a good thing that wasn't my argument.

My argument is that gun owners are so petrified over even the slightest law to encourage better responsibility from them that they paralyze the entire discussion. Eventually, enough time will and enough people will have been massacred that somebody will be in the position to do the extreme.

Do you like Obamacare? Obamacare is the hasty result of the Republican Party refusing to have the discussion on Universal Health Care for decades. How do you think the gun issue is going to play out with only one side trying to get to a healthier place with the gun culture? If the NRA and its worshipers were smart, they would get ahead of this and control it. But...they aren't too smart. The NRA is more interested in the gun market and gun owners are too busy identifying themselves through their guns.

Click to expand...

more stupidity and ant NRA (rather than anti criminal) animus. the fact is when gun owners see all sorts of idiotic restrictions proposed by gun banning politicians its only reasonable to oppose any stupid restriction no matter how minor it is/

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

EMNofSeattle said:

Suppressors, there's no such thing as a silencer, since no device makes a gun "silent"

Click to expand...

Yes, that is why I put silencer in quotes.

EMNofSeattle said:

there is nothing irresponsible about allowing civilians to own small arms.

Click to expand...

Oh, but we aren't talking about small arms are we? We are talking about their "right" to automatic and military grade weapons. You know, because of bank robbers and the police have them. It's not fair that civilians can't play military in their imagined combat zones.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Rucker61 said:

I don't need more laws to encourage responsibility. Perhaps that's a lifer requirement.

Click to expand...

Sure you all do.

When we poke fun and make light of our weapons through our little stickers, show our new guns off to our special friends, or give a twelve year old an uzi so she can accidentally kill her range coach, we create an irresponsible gun culture. Perhaps insisting that the civilian population refer to them as weapons instead of guns is a good place to start. We refer to our kid's toy guns as guns. Perhaps weapon is more suitable to what "gun" owners have.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Yes, that is why I put silencer in quotes.


Oh, but we aren't talking about small arms are we? We are talking about their "right" to automatic and military grade weapons. You know, because of bank robbers and the police have them. It's not fair that civilians can't play military in their imagined combat zones.

Click to expand...

if civilian cops have them, that is not "military grade hardware" but rather civilian suitable defensive weapons for use in a civilian environment.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Sure you all do.

When we poke fun and make light of our weapons through our little stickers, show our new guns off to our special friends, or give a twelve year old an uzi so she can accidentlayy kil her range coach, we create an irresponsible gun culture.

Click to expand...

what a stupid attempt to characterize 100 million lawful gun owners.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Luftwaffe said:

To begin, a bump stock is such a ridiculously simple "device" that even if you banned its manufacture, any moron with a small workshop could simply make his own bump stocks in his back yard. It really boils down to just having a spring and a regular stock you can work with.

Many proposed laws also add in the idea of banning "other fire-rate altering devices" without explicitly naming what the aforementioned "devices" are. This then brings us to the conundrum of what is the "Average" fire rate of a semi automatic firearm? Who is the arbiter of this "average" fire rate? Is the "Average" fire rate 100 rounds per minute, or 10 rounds, or 1 round?

If I can pull the trigger more often in a certain time frame than a 10 year old can, would my finger be considered a "fire-rate altering device?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gICeZJ4TaY

As seen in the video, this man bump fires a semi-automatic AK with nothing other than his finger and a special style of hip-firing. He fires 75 rounds in under 30 seconds while clearly not trying to be as expedient as humanly possible.

The sheep are now starting to reveal themselves as the wolves they really are; these laws accomplish nothing more than to simply drive gun control efforts towards the eventual banning of all semi-automatic firearms.

Click to expand...

Bump stocks are a waste of money, they do work,but I can shoulder fire with the same results by a little forward pressure on the fore stock. Albeit 3-5 rounds but have put off a pretty good string of 7.62x39. Also a waste of ammo.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Sure you all do.

When we poke fun and make light of our weapons through our little stickers, show our new guns off to our special friends, or give a twelve year old an uzi so she can accidentally kill her range coach, we create an irresponsible gun culture.

Click to expand...

Where do you even get this stuff from? What are "special friends", anyway?

Perhaps insisting that the civilian population refer to them as weapons instead of guns is a good place to start. We refer to our kid's toy guns as guns. Perhaps weapon is more suitable to what "gun" owners have.

Click to expand...

How do you propose to enforce this requirement? Pushups for failure to comply? Will such semantic games really mean much, especially when the law uses weapons for dangerous items other that firearms, too?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Rucker61 said:

How do you propose to enforce this requirement? Pushups for failure to comply? Will such semantic games really mean much, especially when the law uses weapons for dangerous items other that firearms, too?

Click to expand...

Such semantics is exactly what creates discipline. But what does discipline and guns have to do with each other. Ruins the fun, right?

It's not about "enforcing" anything upon civilians. It's about moving the civilian population's irresponsible mood towards their guns into something more worthy of the right. Putting weapons in the hands of children is not conducive to respecting weapons. Buying dozens of assault rifles is not conducive to respecting those weapons. By the third or fourth weapon, they become just toys to play with. In the man time, the argument is supposed to be about "protection?" What a joke. One of you here on this thread boasts of protecting himself with a 9mm, yet also argues that he can't protect himself unless he has exactly what cops carry. Another wants the right to military-grade rifles because without that privilege his 2nd Amendment has been utterly crapped on, YET his right to bear arms is perfectly intact. In the mean time, military personnel are constantly concerned with breaking a safety rule and getting caught disrespecting their weapons. Even their trigger finger remains straight and off the trigger, which means muscle memory is a part of creating a proper perspective towards weapons. Not so much the case within the civilian population is it?

Allow me to submit another point. Certainly, throughout the wars we have seen plenty enough of PTSD. We should be seeing military personnel flipping out and shooting up the country. Yet, its normally and routinely the civilians, who have no real training, nor the proper mindset, pulling triggers. Passing them off as just "crazy" means nothing when gun owners applaud Trump's move to roll back Obama era gun control that stated that people under psychiatric care cannot purchase weapons. And this latest yahoo in Vegas was apparently healthy. Yet, he surrounded himself with all of his toys to do what only one of them was capable of. And he came from the same rotted culture that would display bumper stickers of joy for guns. There are no laws that require gun owners to have safes. There are no laws that require gun owners to demonstrate competence (there are for driving). All of this amounts to a bad gun culture of irresponsibility and any position that would move to make maters better for even gun owners is absurdly rejected as an impossible move to obliterate the 2nd Amendment.

But who needs discipline and a healthy perspective on gun ownership, right? The government is out to get us. Bank robbers want my television. The Russians and the Islamist are beating down our doors. In the mean time, let's have some fun popping off rounds and playing with our guns. The pathetic and contradictory arguments to do nothing is exactly the reason we have this bad culture and poor perspective on weapons. The arguments to do nothing are just as ridiculous as the arguments to strike out the 2nd Amendment. And the funny thing is that gun owners demonstrate more fear of the world than anybody. This is why I argue that it is the mindless civilian gun owner, who inherited his right, who will eventually open the door to hurting the right that I earn and deserve. It's not enough to simply "have the right." You need to respect it. And people who use bank robbers and police & military inventories to define that right do not respect it. They seek to abuse it.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Such semantics is exactly what creates discipline. But what does discipline and guns have to do with each other. Ruins the fun, right?

It's not about "enforcing" anything upon civilians. It's about moving the civilian population's irresponsible mood towards their guns into something more worthy of the right. Putting weapons in the hands of children is not conducive to respecting weapons. Buying dozens of assault rifles is not conducive to respecting those weapons. By the third or fourth weapon, they become just toys to play with. In the man time, the argument is supposed to be about "protection?" What a joke. One of you here on this thread boasts of protecting himself with a 9mm, yet also argues that he can't protect himself unless he has exactly what cops carry. Another wants the right to military-grade rifles because without that privilege his 2nd Amendment has been utterly crapped on, YET his right to bear arms is perfectly intact. In the mean time, military personnel are constantly concerned with breaking a safety rule and getting caught disrespecting their weapons. Even their trigger finger remains straight and off the trigger, which means muscle memory is a part of creating a proper perspective towards weapons. Not so much the case within the civilian population is it?

Allow me to submit another point. Certainly, throughout the wars we have seen plenty enough of PTSD. We should be seeing military personnel flipping out and shooting up the country. Yet, its normally and routinely the civilians, who have no real training, nor the proper mindset, pulling triggers. Passing them off as just "crazy" means nothing when gun owners applaud Trump's move to roll back Obama era gun control that stated that people under psychiatric care cannot purchase weapons. And this latest yahoo in Vegas was apparently healthy. Yet, he surrounded himself with all of his toys to do what only one of them was capable of. And he came from the same rotted culture that would display bumper stickers of joy for guns. There are no laws that require gun owners to have safes. There are no laws that require gun owners to demonstrate competence (there are for driving). All of this amounts to a bad gun culture of irresponsibility and any position that would move to make maters better for even gun owners is absurdly rejected as an impossible move to obliterate the 2nd Amendment.

But who needs discipline and a healthy perspective on gun ownership, right? The government is out to get us. Bank robbers want my television. The Russians and the Islamist are beating down our doors. In the mean time, let's have some fun popping off rounds and playing with our guns. The pathetic and contradictory arguments to do nothing is exactly the reason we have this bad culture and poor perspective on weapons. The arguments to do nothing are just as ridiculous as the arguments to strike out the 2nd Amendment. And the funny thing is that gun owners demonstrate more fear of the world than anybody. This is why I argue that it is the mindless civilian gun owner, who inherited his right, who will eventually open the door to hurting the right that I earn and deserve. It's not enough to simply "have the right." You need to respect it.

Click to expand...

what your argument essentially is the fascist Heinlein argument concerning rights. "SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP" and appeasement nonsense. The "I earned a right to own guns, those who have not shouldn't have that right". I reject your silly hatred of freedom or perhaps I should say FEAR of Freedom. appeasing the gun banners isn't going to stop their jihad against our rights. Indeed, if all gun owners were better informed, more aware of their rights, and best yet, more vigilant in safeguarding our rights, the gun banning movement would be even more upset.

the problem is-perhaps your intentions are honorable. But you advocate things gun banners also want to impose to start chipping away at gun ownership.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

Such semantics is exactly what creates discipline. But what does discipline and guns have to do with each other. Ruins the fun, right?

It's not about "enforcing" anything upon civilians. It's about moving the civilian population's irresponsible mood towards their guns into something more worthy of the right. Putting weapons in the hands of children is not conducive to respecting weapons. Buying dozens of assault rifles is not conducive to respecting those weapons. By the third or fourth weapon, they become just toys to play with.

Click to expand...

You can't possibly know this for every gun owner. It sounds like projection. What would "respect" for weapons look like? Only owning 2 AR-15s? Only owning one firearm of any particular type?

In the man time, the argument is supposed to be about "protection?" What a joke.

Click to expand...

It's about a protected right. How I choose to lawfully and safely engage in exercising that right should not be a concern of yours.

One of you here on this thread boasts of protecting himself with a 9mm, yet also argues that he can't protect himself unless he has exactly what cops carry. Another wants the right to military-grade rifles because without that privilege his 2nd Amendment has been utterly crapped on, YET his right to bear arms is perfectly intact.

Click to expand...

In some situations, a 9mm may be the best or best at hand self defense weapon. In other cases, an AR-15 would be preferable. If my right to own a firearm "in common use for lawful purposes" or "useful to a militia" is infringed, then the right is not perfectly intact. There's no such beast as a "military-grade" weapon, unless you want to include pump action and semi-auto shotguns, semi-automatic handguns and revolvers and bolt action rifles, all of which have been or are military grade weapons issued to US military personnel for combat use.

In the mean time, military personnel are constantly concerned with breaking a safety rule and getting caught disrespecting their weapons. Even their trigger finger remains straight and off the trigger, which means muscle memory is a part of creating a proper perspective towards weapons. Not so much the case within the civilian population is it?

Click to expand...

With the criminal portion of the population? Not likely. Of course, we still have negligent discharges in the military, even with our training. I know that laying a rifle on the ground indicates a huge disrespect for a firearm in the military, but in the civilian world it's actually the smartest thing to do sometimes.

And he came from the same rotted culture that would display bumper stickers of joy for guns. There are no laws that require gun owners to have safes. There are no laws that require gun owners to demonstrate competence (there are for driving). All of this amounts to a bad gun culture of irresponsibility and any position that would move to make maters better for even gun owners is absurdly rejected as an impossible move to obliterate the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

There are no laws for safes or certification because to allow the feds, state or local government to require such discriminates against low income citizens and creates an environment where anti-gun regimes can impose sufficiently strict requirements as to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just because there is no requirement to own a safe doesn't mean that a significant portion of lawful gun owners do not do so.

But who needs discipline and a healthy perspective on gun ownership, right? The government is out to get us. This is why I argue that it is the mindless civilian gun owner, who inherited his right, who will eventually open the door to hurting the right that I earn and deserve. It's not enough to simply "have the right." You need to respect it. And people who use bank robbers and police & military inventories to define that right do not respect it. They seek to abuse it.

Click to expand...

Rights are not earned. Your opinion on what it takes to "respect" a right is noted as an opinion, seemingly biased by a lifetime of indoctrination by the USMC. I don't care if someone "respects" our rights - I care that they follow the law, Constitutional laws, and don't hurt anyone.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Rucker61 said:

You can't possibly know this for every gun owner.

Click to expand...

That's the problem, isn't it? Everybody likes to think they are responsible, despite storing hand guns in drawers or under mattresses. Everybody likes to think they are respectful, despite looking for more trinkets to adorn their guns because it looks cool. Everybody likes to think they understand the burden of being a gun owner, despite putting assault rifles in the hands of their children on ranges. You know what I'm saying. Here's an example of our perversion...

In 2005, when I got my license to carry from the state of Virginia, I discovered that the law stated that one had to be 21 to handle a pistol in the ranges. But an assault rifle was free game because it was listed under shotgun for hunting purposes. Another law, in regards go concealed weapon carry, was that one could not carry a concealed weapon into an establishment with a bar. It was the law that one had to pull their gun out and place it on the table as they ate at an AppleBees. Of course, what do you think the casual customer did? The attempts to correct both issues were still ongoing when I left Virgina in 2007. This kind of confused crap is all over the country. Ad seeking to correct or fix anything is always met with the same old tired and irrational fear of losing the 2nd Amendment (despite no Democrat ever trying to introduce legislation to strike it). That is this nation's gun sense. And that is the sort of thing that creates bad gun culture.

Rucker61 said:

It's about a protected right. How I choose to lawfully and safely engage in exercising that right should not be a concern of yours.

Click to expand...

But it is not about protection. It stops being about protection when you start creating an arsenal. It becomes simple "fun" at that point. And this is why I called the "protection" argument a joke. Keep in mind, this would be the argument of "responsible" gun owners who believe their own BS. Don't forget, this is a thread that contains a couple gun owners who's argument is that they must have militarized weapons...cuz bank robbers. <--- That would be an example of the "responsible" thinking gun owner.

Rucker61 said:

Rights are not earned. Your opinion on what it takes to "respect" a right is noted as an opinion, seemingly biased by a lifetime of indoctrination by the USMC. I don't care if someone "respects" our rights - I care that they follow the law, Constitutional laws, and don't hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

Of course, you are right. But my point was that something not earned is often disrespected. There is a reason "silver spoon" is a widely understood term. Having not had to earn this right, the examples of disrespect are constant. One does not have to shoot up sixty people to display that disrespect. Just a mindless and playful bumper sticker about a deadly weapon does the trick. And what is the mindset of a person who actually seeks bumper stickers about their guns? The nut cases come out of this culture.

Don't worry. I have similar concerns about voting rights. Electing a person to the most powerful position on the planet comes down to an eighteen year old and his "right." But ask him what the differences are between a Democrat/Republican. Our rights breed irresponsibility and it seems to be those who fear losing those rights that are most determined to pervert them.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

That's the problem, isn't it? Everybody likes to think they are responsible, despite storing hand guns in drawers or under mattresses. Everybody likes to think they are respectful, despite looking for more trinkets to adorn their guns because it looks cool. Everybody likes to think they understand the burden of being a gun owner, despite putting assault rifles in the hands of their children on ranges. You know what I'm saying. Here's an example of our perversion...

In 2005, when I got my license to carry from the state of Virginia, I discovered that the law stated that one had to be 21 to handle a pistol in the ranges. But an assualt rifle was free game because it was listed under shotgun for hunting purposes. That is this nation's gun sense. And that is the sort of thing that creates bad gun culture.




But it is not about protection. It stops being about protection when you start creating an arsenal. It becomes simple "fun" at that point. And this is why I called the "protection" argument a joke. Keep in mind, this would be the argument of "responsible" gun owners who believe their own BS.




Of course, you are right. But my point was that something not earned is often disrespected. There is a reason "silver spoon" is a widely understood term. Having not had to earn this right, the example of disrespect are constant. One does not have to shoot up sixty people to display that disrespect. Just a mindless and playful bumper sticker about a deadly weapon does the trick. And what is the mindset of a person who actually seeks bumper stickers about their guns?

Don't worry. I have similar concerns about voting rights. Electing a person to the most powerful position on the planet comes down to an eighteen year old and his "right." But ask him what the difference are between a Democrat/Republican. Our rights breed irresponsibility and it seems to be those who fear losing those rights that are most determined to pervert them.

Click to expand...

you don't know that an assault rifle cannot be purchased unless you have a Class III tax stamp and any such rifles made after May 19, 1986 are illegal for private citizens to own unless they have very special licenses as police or military firearms suppliers?

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

That's the problem, isn't it? Everybody likes to think they are responsible, despite storing hand guns in drawers or under mattresses. Everybody likes to think they are respectful, despite looking for more trinkets to adorn their guns because it looks cool. Everybody likes to think they understand the burden of being a gun owner, despite putting assault rifles in the hands of their children on ranges. You know what I'm saying. Here's an example of our perversion...

In 2005, when I got my license to carry from the state of Virginia, I discovered that the law stated that one had to be 21 to handle a pistol in the ranges. But an assault rifle was free game because it was listed under shotgun for hunting purposes.

Click to expand...

Some semantics - "assault rifles" are selective fire weapons. "Assault weapons" is a made up term for a semi-automatic magazine fed civilian rifle. Why is allowing those under 21 to handle a rifle such a problem for you, especially in a controlled environment? The Uzi incident was tragic, but a one off incident that could have been addressed in a different manner. What weapons are safe for a 10 year old to handle under close supervision.

Another law, in regards go concealed weapon carry, was that one could not carry a concealed weapon into an establishment with a bar. It was the law that one had to pull their gun out and place it on the table as they ate at an AppleBees.

Click to expand...

Please provide a cite for this claim.

Of course, what do you think the casual customer did? The attempts to correct both issues were still ongoing when I left Virgina in 2007. This kind of confused crap is all over the country. Ad seeking to correct or fix anything is always met with the same old tired and irrational fear of losing the 2nd Amendment (despite no Democrat ever trying to introduce legislation to strike it). That is this nation's gun sense. And that is the sort of thing that creates bad gun culture.

Click to expand...

You seem to be okay with the Democrats attempts to slice off parts of the 2nd Amendment as long as your gun ownership isn't affected. There is no reason for us to give government any more power than enumerated in the Constitution and in the subsequent SCOTUS decisions. Would you trust this administration with gay rights?

But it is not about protection. It stops being about protection when you start creating an arsenal. It becomes simple "fun" at that point. And this is why I called the "protection" argument a joke. Keep in mind, this would be the argument of "responsible" gun owners who believe their own BS.

Click to expand...

How many guns is an "arsenal", what is wrong with fun, and how does having more than x number of guns preclude the protection argument? Are guns to not be used for recreation like competition, practice, plinking and hunting?

Of course, you are right. But my point was that something not earned is often disrespected. There is a reason "silver spoon" is a widely understood term. Having not had to earn this right, the example of disrespect are constant. One does not have to shoot up sixty people to display that disrespect. Just a mindless and playful bumper sticker about a deadly weapon does the trick. And what is the mindset of a person who actually seeks bumper stickers about their guns?

Click to expand...

I don't know, what does a bumper sticker indicate? I'm going to go with "nothing".

Don't worry. I have similar concerns about voting rights. Electing a person to the most powerful position on the planet comes down to an eighteen year old and his "right." But ask him what the difference are between a Democrat/Republican. Our rights breed irresponsibility and it seems to be those who fear losing those rights that are most determined to pervert them.

Click to expand...

If working to protect the 2A from infringement is a perversion to you, then I fear we don't have enough in common to have a rational debate. Thanks for your service, Sarge.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Rucker61 said:

What weapons are safe for a 10 year old to handle under close supervision.

Click to expand...

None. They are 10...years...old. Funny how that is too young to drive a car, but perfectly fine to handle a deadly weapon. That is exactly the poor gun culture I have been describing.

Rucker61 said:

Would you trust this administration with gay rights?

Click to expand...

I care as much about gay rights as I do a civilian's demand to hide his want for military grade weapons under the 2nd Amendment.

Rucker61 said:

If working to protect the 2A from infringement is a perversion to you...

Click to expand...

Oh no. You have the right to bear arms. You have always had the right to bear arms. You will continue to have the right to bear arms. What you and others do is pretend that this means gun anarchy. There is no discussion to be had because you people want everything and anything to be an infringement.

But speaking of respect, the Army has "sarges." The Marines have a Sergeant and that was four ranks ago for me.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

None. They are 10...years...old. Funny how that is too young to drive a car, but perfectly fine to handle a deadly weapon. That is exactly the poor gun culture I have been describing.

Click to expand...

What is the magic age, then, to safely handle a deadly weapon? The Boy Scouts allow 11 year old boys (and soon to be girls) to earn a marksmanship merit badge, firing a "deadly weapon". Have the Boy Scouts been creating a poor gun culture for over a century?

I care as much about gay rights as I do a civilian's demand to hide his want for military grade weapons under the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

So you're just here to tell us your opinion, then? You don't seem to have anything else, like SCOTUS rulings, amicus briefs, or Framers' discussions to indicate any actual knowledge of the RKBA. Again, "military-grade" weapons includes bolt action rifles, repeating shotguns and handguns. Are we not allowed to own those? Original AR-15s are approaching the age where they will fall under Curio and Relic laws. What will you do then?

Oh no. You have the right to bear arms. You have always had the right to bear arms. You will continue to have the right to bear arms. What you and others do is pretend that this means gun anarchy. There is no discussion to be had because you people want everything and anything to be an infringement.

Click to expand...

If I only have the right to bear what the government allows me to bear, that's not a right, it's a privilege. Anything that isn't Constitutional is an infringement. That's not arguable. Please refer to Cruikshank, Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano for what restrictions are allowed by the Constitution.

But speaking of respect, the Army has "sarges." The Marines have a Sergeant and that was four ranks ago for me.

Click to expand...

You haven't shown enough knowledge to be given respect. When someone has taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, yet supports those who would infringe the Constitutionally protected rights of US citizens, then there isn't support for any respect.

You've not made a single Constitutional argument for your position, and in fact the more that you argue about "military grade" weapons the more you enable the protections of US v Miller for ownership of those firearms. Irrespective of that, if all AR-15s and the like were to magically disappear overnight, there wouldn't be any impact to the homicide rate or to mass shootings.

And Master Sergeant is still four grades below my last rank.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

Rucker61 said:

What is the magic age, then, to safely handle a deadly weapon?

Click to expand...

What is the age to get a Driver's permit? What is the age to drink? To vote? The magic age to handle a deadly weapon should be "adulthood." I have no interest in having an obtuse conversation.

Rucker61 said:

You've not made a single Constitutional argument for your position...

Click to expand...

Well, I did offer United States v. Miller (1939), which was the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types. So, this was just a stupid assertion. You, and others, are just too comfortable with your heads up your asses to acknowledge anything that doesnt fit your sad little ideological box. United States v. Miller alone makes my argument and shatters the nonsense that you and the rest of the fools have a right to whatever you all want. But the ignorant mindset rejects what conveniently, doesn't it? I mean what would the Supreme Court and constitutional lawyers know next to people like you who want their toys?

Rucker61 said:

You haven't shown enough knowledge to be given respect. When someone has taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, yet supports those who would infringe the Constitutionally protected rights of US citizens, then there isn't support for any respect.

Click to expand...

Until you no longer have the right to bear arms, your rights are intact. Your argument is as senseless as the Liberal who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The funny thing is that you can't even see that. You are too busy making ideological arguments and trying to pass them off as something more. According to U.S. v. Miller, you are absolutely wrong. And save your insignificant ideas of what respect is. Four grades above a MSgt and you behave like a Private. Be gun proud.

Re: The notion that you can ban bump stocks or other "fire-rate" altering devices is inherently bad

MSgt said:

What is the age to get a Driver's permit? What is the age to drink? To vote? The magic age to handle a deadly weapon should be "adulthood." I have no interest in having an obtuse conversation.

Click to expand...

Why?

Well, I did offer United States v. Miller (1939), which was the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types. So, this was just a stupid assertion. You, and others, are just too comfortable with your heads up your asses to acknowledge anything that doesnt fit your sad little ideological box. United States v. Miller alone makes my argument and shatters the nonsense that you and the rest of the fools have a right to whatever you all want. But the ignorant mindset rejects what conveniently, doesn't it? I mean what would the Supreme Court and constitutional lawyers know next to people like you who want their toys?

Click to expand...

US v Miller says that weapons useful to a militia are protected by the 2A. Are "military grade" weapons useful to a militia?

Until you no longer have the right to bear arms, your rights are intact.

Click to expand...

By this statement, I infer that you believe that as long as I can own a single shot .22, with permission from the government, with mandatory storage subject to unannounced inspections, with a limit of say 50 rounds in possession at any one time, that my right to keep and bear arms still exists and there is no infringement of that right. Is this inference correct? If not, what can the government do to restrict my rights and not totally do away with my 2A right?

Your argument is as senseless as the Liberal who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The funny thing is that you can't even see that. You are too busy making ideological arguments and trying to pass them off as something more. According to U.S. v. Miller, you are absolutely wrong. And save your insignificant ideas of what respect is. Four grades above a MSgt and you behave like a Private. Be gun proud.

Click to expand...

According to Milller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, the government is not empowered to restrict the ownership of weapons "useful to a militia", or "in common use for lawful purposes".

And you, Master Sergeant, are perfectly willing to give away the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens to suit your own biased world view. There's a reason that we don't allow military control of our government.