CDZ Let's talk about bump-stocks, banana clips and other gun accessories

[2aguy]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

No...it isn't...please read the actual research on mass shooters and magazine changes....

 

[miketx]

Looks like that vest is holding about half a seconds worth of ammo, huh olady?

 

[2aguy]

17 were shot , thats one 20 round magazine thats already loaded in the rifle . And with a spare in the back pocket thats 40 rounds . So say he had 4 - 20 rounders . Thats 2 in a pair of cargo pants pockets , one in a back pocket and one in the Rifle for 80 rounds at the ready . ------------------------ BAN Cargo pants , but before you do that realize that it wouldn't be a big load in a pair of blue jeans or loose fitting 'hip hopper' type pants . ------------------------------ i hope that 'diane feinstein' doesn't see this post .

Simply slide them in your belt.......it isn't as if he is running an obstacle course....

 

[ding]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 

[ding]

Who are the militia? The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

[ding]

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

[ding]

So if our founding fathers were alive today and you asked them what kind of arms should the people possess to serve as a check against a standing army. I suspect they would say that they should be armed with the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. And today that would be semi-automatic rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines.

 

[jwoodie]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

 

[ding]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. (If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

Then you know that the only automatic weapons that can be legally owned are pre-1986 weapons and are so expensive to own that they are more investment than anything else.

I see no reason to own anything more than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

 

[jwoodie]

I see no reason to own anything more than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

Why the high capacity magazine?

 

[ding]

I see no reason to own anything more than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

Why the high capacity magazine?

Because it is more effective than a five or a ten round magazine. A semi auto rifle possesses the capability to be shot accurately at a fairly high rate of fire. Putting a five or ten round magazine on it would be like having a sports car with a 5 gal fuel tank. It's not optimal.

Why not a high capacity magazine?

 

[miketx]

I see no reason to own anything more than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

Why the high capacity magazine?

IMO you are just trolling, trying to make yourself look like you really are trying to understand. You ask questions that the answer is obvious to and your position on banning bump stocks is ridiculous. If you knew anything about it you would know that any S/A rifle can be bump fired without a stock. Even with a bump stock the trigger still has to be pulled one time to fire one bullet.

 

[9thIDdoc]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

"From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes."

Chances are your bolt-action deer rifle was derived from the German Mauser 98 military rifle.
Where is it written that people shouldn't be able to buy a weapon for reasons other than what you or I consider "legitimate hunting or self defense purposes"? There are other perfectly good reasons to buy a firearm, ya know? Competition, collecting, investment and varmint hunting come easily to mind. One of the main reasons AR-15 clones are currently so popular is that they are low recoil, adjustable to fit a wide range of shooters, and have scores of aftermarket products to fit the individual shooters requirements.
I carried an M-16 in Vietnam and it is no more an offensive weapon than it is a defense one.
There are more than enough AR-15s (including clones) in the hands of civilians that if people were buying them to use offensively America would be a depopulated wasteland by now.

 

[Paulie]

I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)

The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?

why do you think it doesnt protect the right to own machine guns?

It's right there in the wording of the amendment you didn't see the machine gun clause? Have you ever even read the constitution bro???

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[Paulie]

This thread is a perfect example of how the media is definitely succeeding in doing its job. How is it even possible to be half ass on the second amendment? you want us to have guns but only up to a certain type and then after that only the government, who clearly only has our best interests at heart at all times; can have the hardcore shit. You people are crazier than any single lone gun nut because there's millions of you and you're going to damage this country worse than any whack job could shooting up a school or a country concert

 

[RetiredGySgt]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

The PURPOSE of the second is to ensure the civilian population is armed and able to form Militias in case of invasion or tyranny. The semi automatic rifle is the primary means of ensuring that.

 

[pismoe]

some good comments and i am happy to see that some people know what the real purpose of the Second Amendment is .

 

[9thIDdoc]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

"This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)"

Well...on the bright side, you have now convinced me you were once a 2nd Lt. On the not-so-bright side it's a real shame that while you were in OCS training to be expert with all weapons they didn't inform you what ammunition the 1911 actually fires.