Guys, please educate me on this 2nd Amendment Issue, I'm trying to understand

[Yousaidwhat]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Personally, I think every man, except me, should have his penis removed, because all they are good for is raping people.

Did you take a class and get a degree to keep your penis?

 

[LoneLaugher]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Probably the worst sticking point here (among a few) is that it's pretty easy to understand that the Founding Fathers didn't/couldn't foresee the massive improvements in weaponry.

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the REAL problem is that, now that the issue is politicized, it's necessarily dumbed down to bumper-sticker sloganeering and intellectual dishonesty.

Because that's how we roll.
.

Yeah! And if you add that BOTH SIDES dumb it down, you can throw your hands up and do nothing. Your happy place.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

Yes, because the 2nd isn't about duck hunting. It's about the natural right to defend oneself from tyranny, from wherever it may come. They'll have such weapons and so shall we. Why in the world would you purposefully put yourself at a tactical disadvantage?

You'd get further if you'd keep to that POV. But if you are like all your pals, you will soon be talking about defending yourself from a home invasion.

 

[Mac1958]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Probably the worst sticking point here (among a few) is that it's pretty easy to understand that the Founding Fathers didn't/couldn't foresee the massive improvements in weaponry.

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the REAL problem is that, now that the issue is politicized, it's necessarily dumbed down to bumper-sticker sloganeering and intellectual dishonesty.

Because that's how we roll.
.

Yeah! And if you add that BOTH SIDES dumb it down, you can throw your hands up and do nothing. Your happy place.

Yikes. A day without the Regressives finding something to bitch about in my posts is like a day without sunshine.

Holy crap.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Probably the worst sticking point here (among a few) is that it's pretty easy to understand that the Founding Fathers didn't/couldn't foresee the massive improvements in weaponry.

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the REAL problem is that, now that the issue is politicized, it's necessarily dumbed down to bumper-sticker sloganeering and intellectual dishonesty.

Because that's how we roll.
.

Yeah! And if you add that BOTH SIDES dumb it down, you can throw your hands up and do nothing. Your happy place.

Yikes. A day without the Regressives finding something to bitch about in my posts is like a day without sunshine.

Holy crap.


.

I'm a "regressive"? You're a passive aggressive. How's that for fun?

I can demonstrate your passive aggressive characteristics with ease.

You have never proven that I have any characteristics of a "regressive".

Here is another opportunity.

Tell us something that a "regressive" does or says and then find me saying or doing it.

 

[Mac1958]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Probably the worst sticking point here (among a few) is that it's pretty easy to understand that the Founding Fathers didn't/couldn't foresee the massive improvements in weaponry.

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the REAL problem is that, now that the issue is politicized, it's necessarily dumbed down to bumper-sticker sloganeering and intellectual dishonesty.

Because that's how we roll.
.

Yeah! And if you add that BOTH SIDES dumb it down, you can throw your hands up and do nothing. Your happy place.

Yikes. A day without the Regressives finding something to bitch about in my posts is like a day without sunshine.

Holy crap.


.

I'm a "regressive"? You're a passive aggressive. How's that for fun?

I can demonstrate your passive aggressive characteristics with ease.

You have never proven that I have any characteristics of a "regressive".

Here is another opportunity.

Tell us something that a "regressive" does or says and then find me saying or doing it.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Frankeneinstein]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

I don't have time to go into detail right now but to quickly address this:


Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

the most [but not only] pressing reason for being allowed to own it is the legal matter, when someone wants to defy the constitution and render our rights useless they don,t come right out and say that is what they are doing, the first nibble at the edges or your right and then work their way right into the crux of your rights until it is nothing more than a memory, the second amendment is a "red flag" amendment meaning that when you see people taking aim at it red flags should go off and action needs to be taken against it...should the media legally be allowed to lie? the answer is yes, otherwise it would not be free, we know that has its problems and drawbacks but it is better than the alternative....

please ignore the lines!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

You prove my point with every post! I wuv me!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British). So, I think support for automatics and the like to fight a tyrannic government isn't a realistic benefit/reason.

But, if we have the same weapons at the individual, ground-soldier level, we can do like Washington did when he crossed the Potomac River and commandeered supplies and weapons from The Hessian mercenaries.

If we can fight equally on the ground, we can eventually take control of bigger weapons. We will at least have a chance.

All the missiles, technology, and air support in the world cannot suppress an insurgency without boots on the ground. Furthermore, one cannot govern corpses or those who are shooting back. It comes down to the consent of the governed. At some point, the people will succeed.....if they have relatively equal weapons and ammo.

Remember, should the U.S. Government (with the most powerful military the world has ever seen) ever become tyrannical and start trying to expand territory into Canada or Mexico, you will want We the People to have the ability to take control of that Government and its obscenely powerful military. You (Canadians) want Americans to be armed sufficiently.

 

[miketx]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Personally, I think every man, except me, should have his penis removed, because all they are good for is raping people.

Did you take a class and get a degree to keep your penis?

No, I issued a penile decree. And then there's the fact that used to work in a penal institution.

 

[Likkmee]

Bottom line. Every nation who has ever been able to oppress its citizens, at one time or another, has done just that ! Coming to you soon...or at least they'll try. An idiocracy of over medicated video game playing assholes will be an easy take once us old guys are dead.The Nazis were cupcakes compared to what your modern brainwashed flag waving Nazi regime is capable of.
Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia

No response. No surprise. GaWd BlAst murka !

 

[miketx]

Why?

I'm just messing.

Y'all were just talking past each other. That's all.

600 rounds per minute is the rate of fire. I think they were confused by your magazine capacity statement. They were correct to call it rounds per minute.

For the record, I have never heard of a hi-cap magazine holding 600 rounds. I would love to see someone shoulder such a weapon, because the magazine would weigh at least twice as much as the weapon itself.

Furthermore, with the exception of gatlin-style mini-guns with multiple, spinning barrels, I have never seen a gun run through more than 300 rounds at a time without doing serious damage to the barrel, to the point where the gun fails (or catches on fire).

Here's what it does to an AK:


Magazine capacity is one of the dumbest arguments ever. It may increase actual rate of fire (fewer reloads), but fewer reloads has very little impact on effectiveness. Sustained firing on automatic is highly inaccurate. You end up fighting to keep the gun down, even with the best upward flash deflector, you will still struggle to keep fire on target. In fact, three round bursts are much more effective.

Libtards always bring out that "800 rounds a minute" bullshit, to which I always reply with my magazine remark. They only way a rifle can fire anywhere close to hundreds of rounds a minute would be if were belt fed.

 

[Issa]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

Defend against an army? Goodlick Afghanis, Iraqis they were armed heavily and they couldn't do shit. Keep on finding excuses.

 

[bripat9643]

<wink> <wink>

This is not legally considered an automatic weapon.....but it can fire at 600 rounds per minute

It can't fire that many rounds. It's more like 200-300. Of course, you can probably fire 120 with a semiautomatic without any modifications at all

 

[SavannahMann]

The legal speed limit in the United States is maxed out at 70 MPH. Yet every manufacturer of any vehicle, car, truck, motorcycle, makes at least one model that is capable of going well past that limit. Dodge makes several models, including the Hellcat version of the Challenger. It has a top speed of 190 MPH. Chevrolet, Nissan, Toyota, Ford, and the list goes on and on.

Cars list their time from Zero to Sixty, as though this is a big selling point. How long it takes you to reach freeway speed in their car, as if we have to blast off the starting line and get to speed in less than four seconds on a daily basis. Cars are sold with front lock, or line lock, which locks the front wheels to allow you to spin the back wheels or smoke them. I personally don’t know why you would want this feature unless you feel you don’t spend enough on tires.

Drifting, or breaking the back end loose to slide around a corner is also illegal. Yet, several makers have cars that do this with ease, in fact, they have pretty much designed the cars to do it. Again, you can’t do it legally on the street, so how do the manufacturers get away with it?

They get away with it because it is a truism. Just because you can do a thing, doesn’t mean you will do a thing. Just because someone buys a Ferrari that can do 210 MPH doesn’t mean they’ll take off on the highway at that speed. Just because they can launch control off the line doesn’t mean they’ll leave the stoplight that way.

People buy these cars, and some go and get them customized. So they’ll do even more. They’ll set up the engine on a Nissan GTR so it goes from the stock 500 Horsepower, and get it up over a thousand as one example. The car already goes nearly three times the legal speed limit, so why does it need to go even faster?

Weapons are much the same. Just because you buy one that can do what was done in Las Vegas, doesn’t mean you will do that. There are millions of weapons, if each weapon was used in just one murder, the United States would run out of people before we ran out of guns.

But we don’t. We don’t run out of people. But let’s pretend that there is a weapon that is too much, too dangerous. What is it? Nuclear Weapons? Perhaps. Artillery? People own those, and always have through the entire life of this nation. When the Consitution was signed and went into effect, you could buy a cannon. A lot of people did to put on ships, protection from Pirates and Privateers. Some of them were given a Letter of Marque. This meant they were privateers of the United States Government. Authorized to fire on, and capture enemy ships.

You can still buy cannon today. Not just black powder, but actual field artillery. A man in Texas just bought a fully functional Sherman Tank. The same tanks that were used in World War II.

Now I suppose it’s possible that he will roll downtown in his tank and fire on a crowd. It’s also possible that he will be essentially harmless with it. Perhaps he wants to do something like this.



Freedom means I am free to do whatever I want, so long as I do not harm another. My rights end where YOURS begin. I like the Wiccan Rede where this come in. As long as ye harm none, do what ye will.

If you want to have an anti aircraft gun in your yard, fine with me. If you shoot it at me or mine, we have a problem. But so long as you don’t shoot it at anyone, you’re fine and dandy. Blast away at model airplanes flying in the sky above you. Or just shoot it at targets. It’s your world babe, and as long as you don’t hurt anyone, enjoy.

There are at least a hundred thousand of those bump stocks already sold. Possibly even a million of them. Yet we’ve never seen them used before. They are sloppy and inaccurate to my way of thinking, and I’m not a fan. But to each his own. Until he hurts someone, he’s free to do what he wants, and have a good time doing it. Live, and let live.

 

[dannyboys]

<wink> <wink>

This is not legally considered an automatic weapon.....but it can fire at 600 rounds per minute

Show us where they sell a 600 round magazine for such a weapon.

Who said anything about a 600 round magazine?

Do you understand what "rate of fire" means?

But you didn't say that. You said..."but it can fire 600 rounds per minute....", that's what you said. You didn't say rate of fire. So stop your double talking nonsense and tell us all where you can get a 600 round mag so it can shoot 600 rounds per minute like you said it could?

ANY gun that ANYONE tried to fire off 600 rounds per minute WILL jam. The heat generated from firing 30 rounds in full auto is so intense you can't touch the barrel The end tip literally will begin to glow red if another clip is fired.
Many of the shooter's guns were jammed b/c of the intense heat build-up.
These LIB pussies know FUCK ALL about guns!

 

[eflatminor]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

Yes, because the 2nd isn't about duck hunting. It's about the natural right to defend oneself from tyranny, from wherever it may come. They'll have such weapons and so shall we. Why in the world would you purposefully put yourself at a tactical disadvantage?

You'd get further if you'd keep to that POV. But if you are like all your pals, you will soon be talking about defending yourself from a home invasion.

I don't care who is invading my property, be it a tyrannous government, a foreign invader, or a local thug. I have the right to protect myself in a manner that shall not be infringed.

 

[dannyboys]

Why?

I'm just messing.

Y'all were just talking past each other. That's all.

600 rounds per minute is the rate of fire. I think they were confused by your magazine capacity statement. They were correct to call it rounds per minute.

For the record, I have never heard of a hi-cap magazine holding 600 rounds. I would love to see someone shoulder such a weapon, because the magazine would weigh at least twice as much as the weapon itself.

Furthermore, with the exception of gatlin-style mini-guns with multiple, spinning barrels, I have never seen a gun run through more than 300 rounds at a time without doing serious damage to the barrel, to the point where the gun fails (or catches on fire).

Here's what it does to an AK:


Magazine capacity is one of the dumbest arguments ever. It may increase actual rate of fire (fewer reloads), but fewer reloads has very little impact on effectiveness. Sustained firing on automatic is highly inaccurate. You end up fighting to keep the gun down, even with the best upward flash deflector, you will still struggle to keep fire on target. In fact, three round bursts are much more effective.

Libtards always bring out that "800 rounds a minute" bullshit, to which I always reply with my magazine remark. They only way a rifle can fire anywhere close to hundreds of rounds a minute would be if were belt fed.

Belts are loaded with rounds that have very light amounts of powder.
The rounds aren't intended to travel fast or far. Just to hit close contact targets.
We used to call belt fed machine guns "Thumpers".
The reason this is done is to keep the heat transfer down as much as possible so the gun will last longer without overheating and jamming.

 

[miketx]

full autos work good for suppression fire

Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.

From the 32nd floor in Vegas, that shooter could have killed much more efficiently employing one shot, one kill. He instead wanted to terrify more than kill or he just didn't understand or care about the best way to use the weapons he had.

They call the M249 S.A.W. (Below) a "support" weapon. Its purpose is to provide cover for riflemen to advance on a position, or to defend a position from one side.

Our Government is in control of the most powerful military ever to have existed. We have a responsibility to keep that government in check. Our government military has automatic weapons. We don't. That is a severe disadvantage. Our government has the power to lay down suppressive fire, where we don't. That should not be.

If you think about it, the only people keeping the US military in check are its citizens.

One universal truth that all must accept is that people in power want more power, and will do whatever they can to gain it. There is never enough power for people who lust for power. No one, I repeat none of our political leaders are immune from this power lust. They must be kept in control.

We the people of the United States of America are the last line of defense keeping our power-hungry political leaders from taking unilateral control of our Government and using the most powerful military the world has ever known, to attack Canada, Mexico, or any other place to satisfy that power lust.

So, in essence, automatic weapons in the hands of Americans saves Canada. Canada should advocate for Americans having full auto weapons.

Looks like 7.62 x 51