Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,028 posts, read 7,153,530 times
Reputation: 9946

Advertisements

I would like to see a background check that works the instant background check we have is a joke many states don't even share their information. I was floored to find out a few years ago that many states can't share their criminal history because their database is not compatible I guess they are still using 1980 technology who knows I would like to see all that fixed and expanded. If you look at Class 3 weapons local government has to check you out, then federal government does 50 state background check once all that is done your allowed to own full auto machine gun in most states not all. How many crimes have been committed by legal owners of machine guns very few in 83 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,455,339 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
Thats a false and inaccurate interpretation you and many people make. Nowhere in the amendment does it mention a specific gun like a musket. Are you seriously trying to say that the writers of the amendment assumed that they were in a complete and total stalemate in terms of advances of technology and manufacturing? While nobody could imagine the type of weapon produced 200 years from then or from now, they wrote it about the concept of being armed, not the specific tools used to be considered armed. Being well armed implies that you have countermeasures that are adequate to protect you from what the other guy has.
No one will be able to get actually into their heads. That said, you do understand how slowly technological advances happened back then? They wouldn't have the capability of assuming the carnage that guns could do in the 21st century, ESPECIALLY BY ONE PERSON.

Even, so. Do you really believe that your founding fathers if brought back from the dead, and shown today that they woulds say " yup, we really nailed that second amendment " .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:54 PM
 
13,853 posts, read 5,559,638 times
Reputation: 8533
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Shooting 400-something people with a single-shot rifle is going to take far, far more time.
It took the police almost an hour and a half to find that guy's room and clear the area to breach it, and even then only because of the smoke detector and fire alarms. Manually loading each round into the open chamber, a decently skilled operator will fire 20-25 rounds per minute, especially when the bipod is helping get aimed and stay on target. Maybe the number goes up because each shot is more precise? Maybe it goes down because the shooter is being more selective? There's no way to know and say for sure "oh, if we had simply outlawed this, that and something else, none of this would have happened."

But based on emotional, knee jerk response, the answer is to simply strip people of a natural, individual right...none of whom have done anything wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:54 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,234,208 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
And any decently skilled hunter/marksman with a bolt action rifle from the same place Paddock was shooting from would have been able to kill a lot of people, especially since he was using a bipod. Put a bolt action .308 on a bipod with a good quality scope and your targets are huddled together by the thousands in a very small space?
Its been public knowledge since at least the second world war that the volume of fire is critical to battlefield success. Its the reason why our soldiers don't go to war with bolt action rifles anymore. Somebody with minimal marksmanship skills can overcompansate for it by putting out a large volume of fire.

Also Paddock was not an experienced shooter nor did he have any military training. With a 5 round stripper clip and a bolt action rifle he at best might have killed 5 people. Not kill 60 and injure 400.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:55 PM
 
8,050 posts, read 3,617,723 times
Reputation: 2696
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
Thats a false and inaccurate interpretation you and many people make. Nowhere in the amendment does it mention a specific gun like a musket. Are you seriously trying to say that the writers of the amendment assumed that they were in a complete and total stalemate in terms of advances of technology and manufacturing? While nobody could imagine the type of weapon produced 200 years from then or from now, they wrote it about the concept of being armed, not the specific tools used to be considered armed. Being well armed implies that you have countermeasures that are adequate to protect you from what the other guy has.
But how come I thought you were all originalists. Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
8,168 posts, read 8,493,099 times
Reputation: 10146
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Those all involved large groups of shooters, in the hundreds or thousands.
You seem to be missing the point here.
That is a valid point. Here's the original post, which omitted that qualification:
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
The greatest shootings in American history have all occured within the past few years.
Most recent killing sprees in the USA have been single killer, with two notable exceptions,
Columbine and San Bernardino.
The most depressing part of this discussion is how easy it is to recall these kinds of events, isn't it?
I just don't see how to control 350 million guns and a population of several million nut cases.
"or however many it is"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:00 PM
 
16,401 posts, read 8,477,796 times
Reputation: 19250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Yes we should make it as easy as possible for someone to modify a weapon. If it’s so easy why have the stocks been depleted. A real signature moment for the NRA, they finally came out against something and it only took this to get their attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
The NRA is smart enough to know a good deal when they see it.
The NRA typically analyses matters as it relates to the 2nd Amendment, rather than knee-jerking to liberal media/politicians to potentially violate our constitutional rights.

Bump/slide stocks have not been around all that long, and are not really that popular. I have used one at the range, and all it does is make firing more inaccurate.
Sure it makes it a little easier to blow throw ammo instead of rapidly pulling the trigger, but that is about it. Hence the low price, as they are not in high demand.

Needless to say anti-gun liberals want to ban any and everything, so if they can even get a small victory (the way they look at it), they are thrilled after so many defeats because citizens reject their failed ideology.
Don't forget, many a Democrat is a gun owner, and does not want the liberal wing to push their anti-gun agenda.



`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Arizona
7,473 posts, read 4,313,488 times
Reputation: 6118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Wow, I had no idea I had so much power! Who knew posting on CD could influence US policies?

As for " foreigners " interjecting...I suggest you see what your fellow citizens on CD do and say about foreign affairs...then move onto your government.

EDIT: As for why I care more about what happens in the US than say Italy? Because I have family and friend in the US.
If you didn't think you could influence anyone than why do you waste your time posting? You've just admitted you have family and friends in the US and care about what happens here. So obviously you're trying to have an influence on our policies.

I have no control over what others do, I'm not their keeper. Nor do I want to be.

People use all types of media, the internet, print, radio, TV etc. For the purpose of presenting their points of view because they hope to convince others of their way of thinking. Or to refute the opinions of whom they dis-agree. This has nothing to do with power.

But regardless I still have and always will object to having foreigners interject in our affairs. Family or friends living here or not, it's not your country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:01 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,429,204 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
I don't think aim was much of a factor here. the shooter just wanted to rain as much less as possible on a packed crowd a quarter mile or more away.
At the range from the 32nd story to the packed concert grounds of (as has been reported, but probably wrong) at around 1400 yards, he was not aiming in any fashion other than making sure muzzle rise didn't take/lift him off the general target vicinity.

He knew at that range he wasn't going to keep any kind of sight picture either through any kind of optics, or even open sights, while spraying at full auto. He knew to achieve hits he just had to fire down there and the more he fired the more he hit....something.......anything........ ergo; the fully auto enabling bump-stops.

One of the hardest long range shots to make is downhill. This guy was not going to waste time acquiring a target in his scope and then compensating for windage coming across his field of fire via the relatively open area of the next door airport and the lack of trajectory drop one target at a time until he got it right.

This was not a marksman this was a barn painter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,160 posts, read 5,675,842 times
Reputation: 6193
They are behind banning them because it's better than any alternative.

I'm a gun owner and I see no reason to own one of these gimmicky things.

My guess is they'll ban the sale of them, which is essentially pointless because there are already thousands of them out in the wild.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top