You know....it is possible to be for/against one thing and not be a traitor.

[iamwhatiseem]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

 

[AVISSSER]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

I am also pro gun ownership and I agree with you on the bump stock issue.

 

[Mac1958]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

NO WAY IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME IN ANY WAY YOAR A TRAITOR AND YOAR A HITLER NAZI FUCK YOU AAAUUUGHHHH

 

[bendog]

but but but the Second says shall not be infringed .... surely infringed means ANY restriction is unconstitutional (sarcasm)

I agree with the OP.

 

[Bush92]

One shot one kill. Marksmanship training as USMC infantry. Full auto is not necessary except in close quarters...MOUT. Bump stocks not needed in civilian population. No civilian should be concerned with clearing a building room by room.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

Three problems

One is the second amendment

Two is gun laws already on the books that neither party wants to enforce, the 1968 gun laws as an example

Three is liberals in general, you give them an inch they will try to take a mile.


.

 

[xyz]

I don't know about the magazines, could be hard to ban because they fit on certain models, but I certainly think bump stocks should be banned. Especially since you can't normally buy fully automatic guns.

 

[BluesLegend]

I don't know about the magazines, could be hard to ban because they fit on certain models, but I certainly think bump stocks should be banned. Especially since you can't normally buy fully automatic guns.

Bump stocks are a gift to gun control advocates, we shouldn't do them any favors.

 

[deannalw]

Just because something is considered unnecessary by some doesn't mean it needs or deserves to be banned.

I don't truly need the number of guns I have and unless the zombies come, I can't see James or I using all the ammo we've squirreled back.

 

[MACAULAY]

I don't own a gun, but I believe in the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

Liberals do not.

I decided in the 1990's that Nobody needs an Uzi--that was the bad weapon of the day, and it is effectively what I heard shooting down on people in Las Vegas. Nobody needs a gun like that.

But, you can't give Liberals anything. That is what the NRA understands best. You can't deal with them; they are completely dishonest.

Concede anything to a Liberal and they will absolutely be back next year demanding more. They are like the Iranians---cannot be trusted. No one can make deals with them on anything---see Reagan trusting them on Amnesty. Reagan got tricked into granting amnesty in exchange for a Promise that illegal immigration would be stopped.

They lied. They always lie.

This is what the NRA understands. Thus the constant battle.

 

[miketx]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

No good in a tactical situation? The Las Vegas shooter would disagree with you. We need to ban cars that go over 70 mph also.

 

[xotoxi]

I don't know about the magazines, could be hard to ban because they fit on certain models, but I certainly think bump stocks should be banned. Especially since you can't normally buy fully automatic guns.

If the government can ban albuterol inhalers with CFC propellants in favor of expensive brand-name only HFA inhalers, they certainly can ban large magazines.

The gun makers would just have to figure out a way to make smaller magazines that fit certain models. It would be a difficult challenge, but I'm sure it could be done.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

The problem you ignore is that law makers are forbidden from regulating guns, so what a devious lawmaker would do is regulate something that has to do with a firearm and after that he will have precedent to keeping whittling down the right to bear arms until the only place that right exists is in the hands of folks that work for him/her and on some old piece of paper that was once the corner stone of our nation...blowing up the constitution is not likely, but erosion of it is very likely...try taking away the medias right to lie and watch how fast the constitution is rightfully rushed into court.

 

[Darkwind]

Incrementalism is why. Or if you prefer, the camel's nose under the tent.

Nothing wrong with doing away with them per se, but once you start making concessions to one thing, they then move on to another. It is a never ending and relentless drive to do away with gun ownership.

I don't think you are a traitor. I just don't agree with giving them the inch.

Besides, its still the wrong argument. The problem isn't with the bump stock. Nor is it with the gun. It is with the people willing to commit such acts.

How do you eliminate that? I'd start by taking a hard look at Antifa and other intolerant acts and speech by the left, then the right, then the middle.

 

[miketx]

Incrementalism is why. Or if you prefer, the camel's nose under the tent.

Nothing wrong with doing away with them per se, but once you start making concessions to one thing, they then move on to another. It is a never ending and relentless drive to do away with gun ownership.

I don't think you are a traitor. I just don't agree with giving them the inch.

Besides, its still the wrong argument. The problem isn't with the bump stock. Nor is it with the gun. It is with the people willing to commit such acts.

How do you eliminate that? I'd start by taking a hard look at Antifa and other intolerant acts and speech by the left, then the right, then the middle.

That's exactly what the left scum are doing with the statues....now they want more.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I truly hate the division that exist in this country. Neither side is any better or worse than the other.
And one of the things that urks me is the "all or nothing" mentality. If you are on Side A - you must be for everything that side A conceivably favors and against 100% anything that could even be construed as a Side B opinion.

And today there are two examples.
Bump stocks and High capacity magazines.
I am no gun banner...I have a 12 gauge security shot gun right beside my bed. And that is not the only gun I have. I am totally against banning guns.
But then there is just common sense. But what prevents common sense, is the notion that if you don't like ANYTHING that sounds like Side B would favor it - you must be against it. And that is just stupid.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to have a bump stock other than delivering a mass amount of ammunition very quickly. It is absolutely no good in a tactical situation. It actually makes you less likely to defend yourself since it greatly impairs your ability to hold a target. The only good it can do is deliver a spray of bullets indiscriminately. And that is not a good thing.

Flame away.

I agree on the bump stock because I think we should have full-autos. Bump stocks are a work-around to a bullshit law. Repeal it and we don't need to ban bump stocks.

I disagree on the hi-cap mags. That is not the solution to the alleged problem.

Put it this way. If a soldier in the infantry has it, AT A MINIMUM we should have it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Incrementalism is why. Or if you prefer, the camel's nose under the tent.

Nothing wrong with doing away with them per se, but once you start making concessions to one thing, they then move on to another. It is a never ending and relentless drive to do away with gun ownership.

I don't think you are a traitor. I just don't agree with giving them the inch.

Besides, its still the wrong argument. The problem isn't with the bump stock. Nor is it with the gun. It is with the people willing to commit such acts.

How do you eliminate that? I'd start by taking a hard look at Antifa and other intolerant acts and speech by the left, then the right, then the middle.

Yes but that is that exact line of thinking that I am talking about. And why Congress is totally land locked. Nobody wants to give one inch. It is madness. And why this country is so divided.

 

[Darkwind]

Incrementalism is why. Or if you prefer, the camel's nose under the tent.

Nothing wrong with doing away with them per se, but once you start making concessions to one thing, they then move on to another. It is a never ending and relentless drive to do away with gun ownership.

I don't think you are a traitor. I just don't agree with giving them the inch.

Besides, its still the wrong argument. The problem isn't with the bump stock. Nor is it with the gun. It is with the people willing to commit such acts.

How do you eliminate that? I'd start by taking a hard look at Antifa and other intolerant acts and speech by the left, then the right, then the middle.

Yes but that is that exact line of thinking that I am talking about. And why Congress is totally land locked. Nobody wants to give one inch. It is madness. And why this country is so divided.

When it comes to rights, there is no compromise. Ever. I can agree that Congress should work together but in truth, we get the government we deserve. Start compromising on the little things. Like a balanced budget, or ending baseline budgeting, or deregulation. Hell, I'd be happy if they just fired all the redundant employee positions.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I don't know about the magazines, could be hard to ban because they fit on certain models, but I certainly think bump stocks should be banned. Especially since you can't normally buy fully automatic guns.

If the government can ban albuterol inhalers with CFC propellants in favor of expensive brand-name only HFA inhalers, they certainly can ban large magazines.

The gun makers would just have to figure out a way to make smaller magazines that fit certain models. It would be a difficult challenge, but I'm sure it could be done.

really, inhalers have constitutional protections?....good job

but but but the Second says shall not be infringed .... surely infringed means ANY restriction is unconstitutional (sarcasm)

I agree with the OP.

lets start with the first amendment then and use it as a guideline for the second, what say we put laws on the books to jail all reporters/journalists who lie..every lying commie in america would be, but but but the first says freedom of the press [they would be right of course but for the wrong reasons]...would ya like to see that as well?

 

[xotoxi]

I don't know about the magazines, could be hard to ban because they fit on certain models, but I certainly think bump stocks should be banned. Especially since you can't normally buy fully automatic guns.

If the government can ban albuterol inhalers with CFC propellants in favor of expensive brand-name only HFA inhalers, they certainly can ban large magazines.

The gun makers would just have to figure out a way to make smaller magazines that fit certain models. It would be a difficult challenge, but I'm sure it could be done.

really, inhalers have constitutional protections?....good job

If you cannot purchase a clip that holds 100 rounds, but you can purchase a clip that holds 10 rounds, show me how your second amendment right is infringed?