CDZ Do we need to treat guns and gun modifiers as separate issues?

[2aguy]

"Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such?"

No – these and other issues should be considered pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, the lawfulness of measures restricting magazine capacity has already been subject to judicial review.

Laws restricting magazine capacity have passed Constitutional muster.

Suppressors are not banned on the Federal level but are subject NFA restrictions and regulatory policy as Class III ‘weapons.’

Six states ban suppressors.

Bans on ‘bump-stocks’ would likely be upheld as Constitutional.

No...magazine limits are unConstitutional.......the California circuit ruled so when they stayed the new magazine ban.

 

[Leo123]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

A semi-auto with a bump stock installed was not considered to be illegal because there is no change to the internal firing mechanism. It is legal to fire a semi-auto at any rate. A semi-auto can be 'bumped' with no bump stock at all as well. If bump-stocks were to be made illegal, there would most likely be other tack-ons invented to do the same or similar thing. As usual, the leftist thrust is to always blame the gun instead of the shooter. Heck, even if this human debris (Paddock) did NOT have bump stocks, he could have killed just as many.

I don't think that people are wrong to want the bump stock banned after seeing the results of such a thing being operated in the hands of a bad guy who was able to obtain such a thing legally. Otherwise why should we be involved in such a thing ? If we made it (the bump stock illegal), then we are at least making an effort to separate ourselves from the carnage. Not doing anything is sending a message that we don't have enough sense to know that these things don't need to end up in the hands of bad guy's as if we just walked up and gave it to them on a silver platter.

The Bump-Stock didn't kill anyone.....Mr. Paddock did that.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

A semi-auto with a bump stock installed was not considered to be illegal because there is no change to the internal firing mechanism. It is legal to fire a semi-auto at any rate. A semi-auto can be 'bumped' with no bump stock at all as well. If bump-stocks were to be made illegal, there would most likely be other tack-ons invented to do the same or similar thing. As usual, the leftist thrust is to always blame the gun instead of the shooter. Heck, even if this human debris (Paddock) did NOT have bump stocks, he could have killed just as many.

I don't think that people are wrong to want the bump stock banned after seeing the results of such a thing being operated in the hands of a bad guy who was able to obtain such a thing legally. Otherwise why should we be involved in such a thing ? If we made it (the bump stock illegal), then we are at least making an effort to separate ourselves from the carnage. Not doing anything is sending a message that we don't have enough sense to know that these things don't need to end up in the hands of bad guy's as if we just walked up and gave it to them on a silver platter.

one has to wonder why the Obama admin made them legal in the first place in 2010

 

[beagle9]

Recently much of the focus in the gun debate is not on guns at all, but gun "modifiers" such as silencers, extended magazines and bump stocks. Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such? I don't see how limiting these modifiers is impinging on Second Amendment rights since you are not limiting the ownership of small arms. I am not a gun expert so I'm putting it out there for those who are. Is there an issue with limiting gun modifiers only? If so please state clearly what that problem is.

Yes...you are......silencers protect hearing, magazines hold the bullets...bump stocks you can have.

As the judge in the ruling that stopped the new ban on magazines in California stated.....if you go after magazines you will eventually dictate that people can only own single shot pistols......

. Well in any case this situation is probably going to change some things, because we can't have people like this individual as we have had with other individuals (showing a deadly pattern over time), using the same methods to take out hundreds at a time. Now there are laws now that can be strengthened, and enforced, but some things like these bump stocks might have to be added to the automatic weapons ban. Like I said before, it's kind of ok to have banned stuff in ones personal collections, just as long as these banned products are no longer easily available to the public at large, they stay locked up, they are no longer advertised by companies or mass produced by companies. Am I right maybe ?? You would think that the gun culture would be a more exclusive society, more secretive, and would want to be more exclusive in the current atmospheres created by to many years of liberalism in this country. Might be time to help government to find solutions instead of operating against government to find solutions. Might be the way the NRA is looking at it now.

 

[2aguy]

Recently much of the focus in the gun debate is not on guns at all, but gun "modifiers" such as silencers, extended magazines and bump stocks. Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such? I don't see how limiting these modifiers is impinging on Second Amendment rights since you are not limiting the ownership of small arms. I am not a gun expert so I'm putting it out there for those who are. Is there an issue with limiting gun modifiers only? If so please state clearly what that problem is.

Yes...you are......silencers protect hearing, magazines hold the bullets...bump stocks you can have.

As the judge in the ruling that stopped the new ban on magazines in California stated.....if you go after magazines you will eventually dictate that people can only own single shot pistols......

. Well in any case this situation is probably going to change some things, because we can't have people like this individual as we have had with other individuals (showing a deadly pattern over time), using the same methods to take out hundreds at a time. Now there are laws now that can be strengthened, and enforced, but some things like these bump stocks might have to be added to the automatic weapons ban. Like I said before, it's kind of ok to have banned stuff in ones personal collections, just as long as these banned products are no longer easily available to the public at large, they stay locked up, they are no longer advertised by companies or mass produced by companies. Am I right maybe ?? You would think that the gun culture would be a more exclusive society, more secretive, and would want to be more exclusive in the current atmospheres created by to many years of liberalism in this country. Might be time to help government to find solutions instead of operating against government to find solutions. Might be the way the NRA is looking at it now.

The government doesn't find solutions.....they create blackmarkets and more crime...

 

[beagle9]

Recently much of the focus in the gun debate is not on guns at all, but gun "modifiers" such as silencers, extended magazines and bump stocks. Should that be a totally separate category from guns and debated as such? I don't see how limiting these modifiers is impinging on Second Amendment rights since you are not limiting the ownership of small arms. I am not a gun expert so I'm putting it out there for those who are. Is there an issue with limiting gun modifiers only? If so please state clearly what that problem is.

Yes...you are......silencers protect hearing, magazines hold the bullets...bump stocks you can have.

As the judge in the ruling that stopped the new ban on magazines in California stated.....if you go after magazines you will eventually dictate that people can only own single shot pistols......

. Well in any case this situation is probably going to change some things, because we can't have people like this individual as we have had with other individuals (showing a deadly pattern over time), using the same methods to take out hundreds at a time. Now there are laws now that can be strengthened, and enforced, but some things like these bump stocks might have to be added to the automatic weapons ban. Like I said before, it's kind of ok to have banned stuff in ones personal collections, just as long as these banned products are no longer easily available to the public at large, they stay locked up, they are no longer advertised by companies or mass produced by companies. Am I right maybe ?? You would think that the gun culture would be a more exclusive society, more secretive, and would want to be more exclusive in the current atmospheres created by to many years of liberalism in this country. Might be time to help government to find solutions instead of operating against government to find solutions. Might be the way the NRA is looking at it now.

The government doesn't find solutions.....they create blackmarkets and more crime...

. Anyone from the black market committing these kinds of crimes ? Last I heard this guy got everything legally. I would rather that there is a black market for weapons to transfer between responsible gun owners with private collections, and not an open market that gives easy of access to flipping weirdo killers who can't believe how open a market it actually is. Profits of corporations is trumping common sense in this nation. The gun culture as I say should be secretive and exclusive beyond revolvers/pistols, shotgun's, hunting rifles, and hunting and fishing knives. The way to keep it alive is to just have fines for those who brandish or bring out their weapons into the public square (illegal weapons). The militia can keep their stash, and so can private citizens with their collections, and even trade or swap within their collections in secret (wink, wink), but bragging about them in the public square, and then producing illegal weapons out into the public square should end or get stiff fines imposed upon those in violation.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

 

[beagle9]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

 

[beagle9]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

. No fient, just a direct move based upon his own fail.

 

[william the wie]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

More like pinning the blame on Obama and the Ds.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think an item which modifies a gun in a way which would make the gun illegal should be illegal.

Now sawzalls which can make a shotgun too short obvioisly can't be made illegal so some reason needs applied

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

More like pinning the blame on Obama and the Ds.

Feint, deflect, obfuscate...it's all intended to shift the conversation from where it belongs.

 

[beagle9]

. Not the sawsall, but the weapon after being modified is what is illegal. The bump stock not being attached to a weapon is of no threat, but once attached it makes the weapon illegal.

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

More like pinning the blame on Obama and the Ds.

Feint, deflect, obfuscate...it's all intended to shift the conversation from where it belongs.

. Really.... Uhh No.... The conversation is spot on, it's just that some don't like what they might be hearing. Look the second amendment is safe, but allowing an IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER THAT ALLOWS HIM TO KILL SO MANY AT ONE TIME IS UEXCEPTABLE. It can be fixed without jepardizing the second, but the solution needs everyone with a heart towards the fallen to get on board with common sense solutions that everyone can agree on.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No it doesn't. Bump stocks were made legal by the Obama administration. They are perfectly legal to own and use. Quit saying they make a gun illegal, they do not. They do not turn a semi-auto into a full auto weapon. Just because a gun sounds evil when a modification is done to it doesn't make it illegal.

Let me ask you liberals this. Speeding has killed millions of people since the invention of cars. Why does the gov't allow the production of cars capable of over 200? Why aren't cars speed limited from the factory to the fastest legal speed limit in the USA?

If we're going to limit modifications to guns you have to limit modifications to cars. No mods that increase a cars speed or horsepower. After all, in the wrong hands, that car could kill someone.

I continue to ask this.....cars kill more people per year than guns. There are hundreds of millions of both out there, but nobody wants to ban cars. Why not? If you really want to save lives, take all cars off the road, give everyone a gun, and make their fat asses walk to work!

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

More like pinning the blame on Obama and the Ds.

Feint, deflect, obfuscate...it's all intended to shift the conversation from where it belongs.

. Really.... Uhh No.... The conversation is spot on, it's just that some don't like what they might be hearing. Look the second amendment is safe, but allowing an IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER THAT ALLOWS HIM TO KILL SO MANY AT ONE TIME IS UEXCEPTABLE. It can be fixed without jepardizing the second, but the solution needs everyone with a heart towards the fallen to get on board with common sense solutions that everyone can agree on.

IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER

Weapon modifiers are irrelevant because duly motivated individuals can fabricate their own. The 2nd isn't the problem or what's at fault either. What's at fault is the manner in which we assign culpability for the set of human behaviors that lead to people being involuntarily shot and killed, maimed or injured.

 

[beagle9]

. Listen you, the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use. I think it did more than make a gun sound ominus as you say, it actually allowed a perp the ability to kill and main almost 600 people at one event. You don't have a leg to stand on with your comments on this. Nice try, but it was a fail once I read your bullcrap line about it being something that causes the gun to SOUND evil. I mean you actually went there didn't you, and you ignored what this device allowed this idiot to do to those poor souls who were like fish in a barrel being mowed down with a modified weapon that allowed it be a rapid fire weapon laying down to many rounds per minute at one time. I mean he may as well have been Al Capone with a Tommy gun up there.

the NRA is asking the feds to review the bump stock to make a judgement as to whether it should be illegal to use.

Feinting move.

More like pinning the blame on Obama and the Ds.

Feint, deflect, obfuscate...it's all intended to shift the conversation from where it belongs.

. Really.... Uhh No.... The conversation is spot on, it's just that some don't like what they might be hearing. Look the second amendment is safe, but allowing an IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER THAT ALLOWS HIM TO KILL SO MANY AT ONE TIME IS UEXCEPTABLE. It can be fixed without jepardizing the second, but the solution needs everyone with a heart towards the fallen to get on board with common sense solutions that everyone can agree on.

IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER

Weapon modifiers are irrelevant because duly motivated individuals can fabricate their own. The 2nd isn't the problem or what's at fault either. What's at fault is the manner in which we assign culpability for the set of human behaviors that lead to people being involuntarily shot and killed, maimed or injured.

. Well you will never change human behaviors or control them, but you can take the legal modifier and make it illegal as well as make it highly illegal to make a homemade modifier. If caught with a homemade modifier out in the public square, then you get 5 years with no probation. Make the laws fit the illegal behaviors, and you will see a slow down in these things. Have to have strict laws pertaining to someone thinking they can subvert the law, and to make a modifier that would make a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon, otherwise in operation of in that way.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Feinting move.

More like pinning the blame on Obama and the Ds.

Feint, deflect, obfuscate...it's all intended to shift the conversation from where it belongs.

. Really.... Uhh No.... The conversation is spot on, it's just that some don't like what they might be hearing. Look the second amendment is safe, but allowing an IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER THAT ALLOWS HIM TO KILL SO MANY AT ONE TIME IS UEXCEPTABLE. It can be fixed without jepardizing the second, but the solution needs everyone with a heart towards the fallen to get on board with common sense solutions that everyone can agree on.

IDIOT TO GET HIS HANDS ON A WEAPON MODIFIER

Weapon modifiers are irrelevant because duly motivated individuals can fabricate their own. The 2nd isn't the problem or what's at fault either. What's at fault is the manner in which we assign culpability for the set of human behaviors that lead to people being involuntarily shot and killed, maimed or injured.

. Well you will never change human behaviors or control them, but you can take the legal modifier and make it illegal as well as make it highly illegal to make a homemade modifier. If caught with a homemade modifier out in the public square, then you get 5 years with no probation. Make the laws fit the illegal behaviors, and you will see a slow down in these things. Have to have strict laws pertaining to someone thinking they can subvert the law, and to make a modifier that would make a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon, otherwise in operation of in that way.

Well you will never change human behaviors or control them

One need not alter human behavior; one need only refrain from making extant means, modes and elements that cotton to its base elements.