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.
I'm actually ok with it to because I find them useless. If it gives them a bone whatever.
It's not a very pertinent or even relevant result in that you do not need one to facilitate full auto mode in a few semi-auto firearms. Recoil-breechblock inertia response fire has been a known quantity for at least multiple decades already.
The single biggest reason why these stupid things became popular is for the thrill of the "rip". No one has yet been made aware how many units equipped with bump stops and high cap. mags. he had to cycle through because of jamming. I don't think this was the kind of guy capable of refining ejectors, magazine springs or chamber lead-in ramps to facilitate reliability. My bet is they've found more than one rifle he was using with a round stuck in the throat or a partially discharged casing sideways in the ejector port.
No one can get into their ACTUAL thought process about technological advances.
What history DOES tell you, is that technology moved VERY SLOWLY, and the chances of them having an understanding the changes over 200 years would be very limited when it comes to technology.
Speed and type of advancements have no bearing on this. Its the concept of being armed. If you have a machine gun, an I have a fork, I'm not armed. Its really quite simple.
You continue to say that nobody can get into their thought process, then you step right into doing exactly that, claiming they could have never known...you are arguing against your own premise.
Rubbish, all death concerns me but that is pretty irrelevant in a debate about the exceptionally high numbers of people shot to death, yes there are other ways to kill but the easy access to firearms in the US has meant that not only are the numbers of people shot to death exceptionally high but the murder rate itself in the US is exceptionally high.
Since you're concerned about death and death rates, Bet you want to ban Autos also since they kill even more people every year. They are extremely dangerous and deadly tools. You can drive them drunk, no license and with no insurance.
OK. Let's say the writers of the second amendment DID possess some super human power and would know exactly the type of weaponry available in the 21st century.
Does that mean you have to stay with it? Even when it isn't working? Can you not say, heck they were wrong about slavery, maybe they got this gun thing all wrong to?
I know I would.
I'm done arguing with you.
As I've stated ad nauseam, AS A FOREIGNER YOU'VE GOT NO BUSINESS BUTTING INTO OUR AFFAIRS. I'm gonna' have to leave it at that.
So you think the intent was to make sure we could always defeat the British based on the weapons they had in their hands at the time the document was signed? Like if it was a rouge group from Holland during the same time period with the same weapons they would have said "Hey, not THOSE guys! They are allowed to rule us, they aren't the British"
Here's where statistics are open to interpretation. You see those statistics as proof that more guns equal more murders. I see them as proof that if you restrict guns, folks find other ways to kill people. As in France, where they other means kill 60% of murder victims.
Do you understand that the TOTAL (includes all means) rate is much less everywhere else in the developed world.
Libs feel America better off with govt restricting their guns, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary
A couple hundred years ago, the Framers studied past governments, their efforts to disarm their people, the efforts of common criminals to assault, rob, rape, and murder law-abiding citizens, and the programs some govts ran to commit mass murder on their own (disarmed, of course) populations.
And they concluded that a citizenry would be better off, more prosperous, and safer if govt had NO authority to restrict or take away their firearms. Part of that came from stark evidence that if govt were given just a little authority, say to make a few "common sense" regulations, that govt would inevitably reach for more authority, and more, until it assumed the power to disarm the entire populace. It happened over and over in history, both in countries that had guns, and in countries before guns were invented.
After studying the problem from every angle for years, the Framers concluded that far more deaths would happen when govts had the authority to restrict or take away their populations' weapons, than would happen if the govt had NO authority to do that. Even including the occasional madman who would go into a public place and shoot people until the cops arrived.
Fast forward to present-day United States. The gun-rights-haters have tried law after law to restrict ownership of guns, from waiting periods to monthly purchases to registration to so-called "assault weapon" bans to regulations so onerous as to amount to complete bans. And the murder rates, rapes, etc. And criminals have kept right on using guns against the population, at levels high enough that liberals still demand more and more gun laws.
It has become clear even to the dimmest gun-rights-hater that these gun laws just don't work, by their own admission. And yet they keep demanding more of the same.
It looks like the Founding Fathers were right - they saw these haters coming a mile away, and wrote a Constitution that flatly bans them from making any such law. And they were equally right in predicting that, once govt was allowed to make "just a few common-sense restrictions", they would go on to make more and more, without end.
Now the haters are demanding law after law, despite of literally centuries of history that shows their anti-gun laws have never worked. The OP is right in announcing that it's too late for gun control... but perhaps in a way he didn't think of. By demonstrating so effectively that their "gun control" does nothing but restrict the law-abiding, they have proven to the world that they are lying when they say they are doing it "to make everyone safer". In fact they are making us LESS safe... and it is impossible that they haven't noticed that.
We can only conclude that the people still demanding more "gun control" laws, are doing it for a more nefarious purpose. After decades of proving their piecemeal laws don't work, they must be trying now to (gradually) eliminate ALL guns... and exposing the populace to uncontrolled assaults, rapes, and even murders by criminals, slaveowners... and by governments, as has happened time and again throughout history.
Sure, they throw up their hands in feigned horror, and protest that "nobody is trying to take away ALL your guns!", usually accompanied by insults and namecalling. But what else could they possibly be intending? They have seen as well as everyone else, that their laws don't work. Yet they keep demanding more. They are running out of plausible reasons for their demands... and that leaves only a few ominous reasons as their real goals.
If Paddock lived in a strict gun-controlled society, he would still find a way to get a gun. People like him don't value life, or law and order.
Paddock didn't find a way to get a gun. He legally obtained 47 guns, with 23 in the Mandalay Hotel room, many modified with bump stock that allowed them to fly hundred rounds of bullets per minute.
In the above strictly gun controlled countries I mentioned, it may not be hard for the murderer to illegally obtain a hand gun.
But the concert goers were out of range for hand gun from a 32th floor hotel room.
I thought he had explosives in his car and home? No?
The reports as I read them were ammonium nitrate, AKA fertilizer. It's not an explosive but could be made into one.
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.
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.
Libs feel America better off with govt restricting their guns, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary
