Good news or Bad for Mass gun owners? (fit in, house)

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I just love this argument . All those other devices/means mentioned have another main purpose. The only purpose of guns is to kill.

I just love this argument.

Another purpose and it's also the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from being enslaved by people like you and the type of government that you support.

The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently. This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.

As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; If a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control” they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people. This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,” will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.

So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.

It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives 
on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in
 order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.

There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

And with police and trained security personnel, is where they belong. Not in civilian hands.

What makes them them any more or less dangerous than any other firearm? If I was a Swat member armed with an AR15 storming a home where someone was armed with a Mossberg 590 shotgun or a modern 30.06 hunting rifle, I'd be just as anxious as I would be if they had an AR15.

If number of bullets is your concern, a Ruger 10/22 that every Boy Scout in the nation learned to shoot on equipped with a large capacity drum magazine shooting 22 long rifle would be very deadly in a "spray and pray" type of mass shooting.

Where do you draw the line?

I'm not trying to be a typical "from my cold dead hangs" arguer here but the similarity of operation of many firearms and the "deadliness" of them all makes this a very slippery slope when you talk about what should be in civilian hands vs not.

[Cape Cod Todd]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

What makes them them any more or less dangerous than any other firearm? If I was a Swat member armed with an AR15 storming a home where someone was armed with a Mossberg 590 shotgun or a modern 30.06 hunting rifle, I'd be just as anxious as I would be if they had an AR15.

If number of bullets is your concern, a Ruger 10/22 that every Boy Scout in the nation learned to shoot on equipped with a large capacity drum magazine shooting 22 long rifle would be very deadly in a "spray and pray" type of mass shooting.

Where do you draw the line?

I'm not trying to be a typical "from my cold dead hangs" arguer here but the similarity of operation of many firearms and the "deadliness" of them all makes this a very slippery slope when you talk about what should be in civilian hands vs not.

It is a very slippery slope and it should make us all nervous that our well intentioned AG has the power herself to outlaw something without going through the process.
If you own a Bump stock you are now open to becoming a felon and I have no doubt that if some poor Joe is caught with one that they will make an example of him.

The AR is a scary gun to many that don't understand it and their only exposure is that they have seen one in an action movie where the hero is using something similar to mow down hundreds of bad guys often without reloading.

No one wants to be shot but if you had a choice of being shot in the arm I would rather take a hole in my arm from a AR15 and not have my arm blown off with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Most kids first guns beyond a BB gun is a .22. They are cheap to buy and cheap to shoot and a load of fun but guess what that scary .223 AR15 shoots a bullet that is only a bit bigger than a .22. The AR does have a lot more power behind it but at close range does it really matter? Many .22 rifles come with what is called a tubular magazine that holds 15 plus bullets that can be shot just as quickly as a AR. You can buy 5-6 of these .22 rifles for the cost of one AR15.
What is going to stop mass shooter from buying 5 .22 rifles at Walmart loading them up and going on a murderous rampage?
How about the basic Mossberg pump 12 gauge shotgun that can hold 6 shells.

The thing is that the state can ban the AR15 and many other guns with similar features but where do they draw the line when those bent on murder buy another type of gun to kill?

Hinkley shot JFK with an old bolt action rifle.

Where do they draw the line? When all guns are banned from the public.

[tysmith95]

Bump stocks should have never been legal in the first place. Fully automatic weapons have always been illegal. With bump stocks you are altering the gun to make it a fully automatic weapon.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

Hinkley shot JFK with an old bolt action rifle.

Where do they draw the line? When all guns are banned from the public.

I think you meant that Oswald shot JFK. He used a Mannlicher-Carcano bolt action rifle.

Jack Ruby used a snub-nosed .38-caliber Colt Cobra to kill Oswald. A high quality revolver to be sure.

Hinckley shot Reagan with an RG 14, a cheap .22 revolver not much different than a starter gun.

Sirhan Sirhan used an Iver-Johnson Cadet .22 caliber revolver to kill RFK. Another cheaply made revolver. A step up from an RG.

Indeed, where do you draw the line? That's why there can be no compromise. We already have thousand's of laws that address the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms. Along with thousand's of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. Turning law abiding citizens into criminals by banning their lawfully obtained private property will accomplish nothing.

[tysmith95]

You draw the line at fully automatic weapons. They have never been legal, and accessories for semi automatics to transform them into fully automatic weapons should be banned.

That and background checks, people should have criminal background checks along with making sure the buyer is not on any no fly list or FBI terror watch list.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

I think you meant that Oswald shot JFK. He used a Mannlicher-Carcano bolt action rifle.

Jack Ruby used a snub-nosed .38-caliber Colt Cobra to kill Oswald. A high quality revolver to be sure.

Hinckley shot Reagan with an RG 14, a cheap .22 revolver not much different than a starter gun.

Sirhan Sirhan used an Iver-Johnson Cadet .22 caliber revolver to kill RFK. Another cheaply made revolver. A step up from an RG.

Indeed, where do you draw the line? That's why there can be no compromise. We already have thousand's of laws that address the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms. Along with thousand's of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. Turning law abiding citizens into criminals by banning their lawfully obtained private property will accomplish nothing.

I think we should stop at .22 caliber. Your post seems to show it's lethal enough for most situations.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

Bump stocks should have never been legal in the first place. Fully automatic weapons have always been illegal. With bump stocks you are altering the gun to make it a fully automatic weapon.

No they haven't. They were legal to own up until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed. After that in order to own one legally they had to be registered with the Federal government, paying a $200 tax stamp and obtaining a Class 3 Firearms License.

In 1986 the Firearms Owners Protection act was passed and any fully automatic weapon manufactured after May 19, 1986 you could no longer legally own. Weapons manufactured before that date are limited and very expensive, around 15 to 20 thousand dollars or more depending on the scarcity of the weapon. Some state's prohibit their ownership altogether regardless of whether you have a Class 3 Firearms License.

Bump stocks do not turn a semi automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. Bump stocks simulate the same action of an automatic firearm, they are not fully automatic and so have not been banned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In order for the gun to be fully automatic the guns internal parts have to be designed to function that way. It's illegal to alter a semi automatic's internal parts to turn it into a fully automatic weapon. But the law doesn't say anything about an add on accessory as the original firearm is left intact mechanically. They also make a crank with a rotating cam that clamps over the trigger guard that simulates automatic fire too.

I'd suggest you educate yourself on the subject of firearms instead of making a fool out of yourself in front of those of us that do. At the very least all you're doing is spreading false propaganda to convince the ignorant and uninformed.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by robr2

I think we should stop at .22 caliber. Your post seems to show it's lethal enough for most situations.

My post doesn't suggest any such thing.

So then by your logic, maybe the nations law enforcement agencies and the military should be armed with .22's also?

Let me put it to you this way: If someone were to walk up to you and at point blank range drill a .22 into the back of your head or maybe a couple into your eye sockets. Or if your lucky enough to sever an aorta. Then yeah, it may be lethal enough for those situations.

For what it's worth RFK was shot 3 times with a .22 once behind his right ear. He didn't die until 26 hours later.

Hinckley also used a .22 and wounded Reagan, police officer Thomas Delahanty, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy, and critically wounded Press Secretary James Brady. All of whom survived.

If you want to arm yourself with a .22 then be my guest.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

Bump stocks do not turn a semi automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. Bump stocks simulate the same action of an automatic firearm, they are not fully automatic and so have not been banned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In order for the gun to be fully automatic the guns internal parts have to be designed to function that way. It's illegal to alter a semi automatic's internal parts to turn it into a fully automatic weapon. But the law doesn't say anything about an add on accessory as the original firearm is left intact mechanically. They also make a crank with a rotating cam that clamps over the trigger guard that simulates automatic fire too.

I'd suggest you educate yourself on the subject of firearms instead of making a fool out of yourself in front of those of us that do. At the very least all you're doing is spreading false propaganda to convince the ignorant and uninformed.

"Bump stocks simulate the same action of an automatic firearm"

That's what i'm saying, it's a way to get around a ban that has existed for over 30 years.