CDZ Should bump stocks be legal?

[miketx]

View attachment 152537

Other than massacring innocent people there is no reason to have this level of firepower

what kind of car do you own?

What size house do you live in?

What kind of pet do you have?

Why don't you have a bigger, fancier, or more exotic one?

There are many restrictions on the car I own to make it safer. I am not allowed to drive drunk and must be licensed, insured and wear a seat belt
My house is limited by local zoning and safety laws
I am restricted in the type of pet I can own......I am not allowed to own a tiger

These guns have no application in civilian use other than to massacre as many people as you can in a short period of time

There are many restrictions on the car I own to make it safer.

and even more in the manufacture and selling of firearms

My house is limited by local zoning and safety laws

Not allowed to move? limited in what way?

Can't put on additions, paint it, etc?

I am not allowed to own a tiger

Why not?

These guns have no application in civilian use other than to massacre as many people as you can in a short period of time

no, there are multiple uses, you just ignore the ones that don't fit your agenda

Name a practical use of an AR-15 that has been modified to shoot 500 rounds per minute?

Show us where you can buy a 500 round magazine that will make your false claim true?

 

[Toronado3800]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

They are legal now and should remain that way.

Ok.
why?
are theybagainst the spirit of our virtual ban on automatic rifles?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I'm surprised that the Obama administration did not go after these bump stocks sooner.

He/They were pretty hot about green tipped ammo.

Green tipped is candy compared with a bump stock.

obama didnt go after them at all

the ATF under his command oked them

right here is the ATF letter authorizing as not a controlled weapon

http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

 

[miketx]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

 

[Toronado3800]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I'm surprised that the Obama administration did not go after these bump stocks sooner.

He/They were pretty hot about green tipped ammo.

Green tipped is candy compared with a bump stock.

obama didnt go after them at all

the ATF under his command oked them

right here is the ATF letter authorizing as not a controlled weapon

http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

I disagree with your string of logic. If we made a mistake before should we repeat it?

If you think automatic rifles should be easier to buy that is a logical stand. Just say so.

 

[Humorme]

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

I'm not sure I understand your posts. So, let's see if we can meet at some point.

Automatic weapons for civilian use were made illegal when Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting the future manufacture of full auto for civilian use.

The difference between the bump stock and full auto fire is that the bump fire fires rapidly, but it is not full auto fire. Bump stocks are not as controllable nor as accurate as full auto.

Then again, this is more about left wing semantics. If the shooter had not used a bump fire stock, but relied on night vision optics and aimed semi auto fire, with that big a crowd, he could have doubled his kills.

So, knowing this, why does the liberal, knee jerk response still represent a danger? It's simple:

I've had the opportunity to acquire and use bump stocks all my life. But, full auto fire is primarily suppressive. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single weapon and semi-auto only mode. And he had far fewer targets to shoot at. I would still pass on owning a bump fire stock. But, we all realize that the issue is about one insignificant cosmetic feature today and tomorrow it's another. And the left will always be saying "well it's a start."

Our founding fathers as well as the earliest court decisions did not allow for government meddling in the Right to keep and bear Arms - and for good reason. Today, we could reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings without gun control.

The left will NEVER entertain that discussion. Their agenda is about banning guns not saving lives.

Is the effective "ban" on fully automatic rifles good yet a potential ban on bumpstocks too far?

The revolutionary reason for owning a gun gets further out the window every day. I can not buy a Sherman or arm a true P-38 as much as I can't purchase a F-22 or cruise missile. If I am a good free Kansas revolutionary or whatever and I think my gun is going to help me....it will in so far as the military may not be able to subdue me peacefully and take me alive. They will just use overwhelming firepower to kill me

I fully disagreed with the laws banning full autos for civilians. I gave the federal government an opportunity to show me where a legally held full auto had ever been used in a crime. They could not do it.

It was another feel good, lacking substance law that not only weakened the Second Amendment, but added to that unconstitutional belief that the government is in the Rights granting business. They aren't.

The bump stock did not increase the shooter's kill ratio. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single firearm and NO bumpstock. The bumpstock is unreliable; it does not do the job that a fully automatic / three round burst does. We're talking cosmetics and that's all. The legal principle that the government can infringe upon your Rights is what is at stake here.

 

[Toronado3800]

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

I'm not sure I understand your posts. So, let's see if we can meet at some point.

Automatic weapons for civilian use were made illegal when Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting the future manufacture of full auto for civilian use.

The difference between the bump stock and full auto fire is that the bump fire fires rapidly, but it is not full auto fire. Bump stocks are not as controllable nor as accurate as full auto.

Then again, this is more about left wing semantics. If the shooter had not used a bump fire stock, but relied on night vision optics and aimed semi auto fire, with that big a crowd, he could have doubled his kills.

So, knowing this, why does the liberal, knee jerk response still represent a danger? It's simple:

I've had the opportunity to acquire and use bump stocks all my life. But, full auto fire is primarily suppressive. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single weapon and semi-auto only mode. And he had far fewer targets to shoot at. I would still pass on owning a bump fire stock. But, we all realize that the issue is about one insignificant cosmetic feature today and tomorrow it's another. And the left will always be saying "well it's a start."

Our founding fathers as well as the earliest court decisions did not allow for government meddling in the Right to keep and bear Arms - and for good reason. Today, we could reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings without gun control.

The left will NEVER entertain that discussion. Their agenda is about banning guns not saving lives.

Is the effective "ban" on fully automatic rifles good yet a potential ban on bumpstocks too far?

The revolutionary reason for owning a gun gets further out the window every day. I can not buy a Sherman or arm a true P-38 as much as I can't purchase a F-22 or cruise missile. If I am a good free Kansas revolutionary or whatever and I think my gun is going to help me....it will in so far as the military may not be able to subdue me peacefully and take me alive. They will just use overwhelming firepower to kill me

I fully disagreed with the laws banning full autos for civilians. I gave the federal government an opportunity to show me where a legally held full auto had ever been used in a crime. They could not do it.

It was another feel good, lacking substance law that not only weakened the Second Amendment, but added to that unconstitutional belief that the government is in the Rights granting business. They aren't.

The bump stock did not increase the shooter's kill ratio. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single firearm and NO bumpstock. The bumpstock is unreliable; it does not do the job that a fully automatic / three round burst does. We're talking cosmetics and that's all. The legal principle that the government can infringe upon your Rights is what is at stake here.

We may disagree with what the law should be, but I understand your logic there and point of view.

It feels good to find someone online who made a point without name calling.

 

[Humorme]

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

I'm not sure I understand your posts. So, let's see if we can meet at some point.

Automatic weapons for civilian use were made illegal when Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting the future manufacture of full auto for civilian use.

The difference between the bump stock and full auto fire is that the bump fire fires rapidly, but it is not full auto fire. Bump stocks are not as controllable nor as accurate as full auto.

Then again, this is more about left wing semantics. If the shooter had not used a bump fire stock, but relied on night vision optics and aimed semi auto fire, with that big a crowd, he could have doubled his kills.

So, knowing this, why does the liberal, knee jerk response still represent a danger? It's simple:

I've had the opportunity to acquire and use bump stocks all my life. But, full auto fire is primarily suppressive. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single weapon and semi-auto only mode. And he had far fewer targets to shoot at. I would still pass on owning a bump fire stock. But, we all realize that the issue is about one insignificant cosmetic feature today and tomorrow it's another. And the left will always be saying "well it's a start."

Our founding fathers as well as the earliest court decisions did not allow for government meddling in the Right to keep and bear Arms - and for good reason. Today, we could reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings without gun control.

The left will NEVER entertain that discussion. Their agenda is about banning guns not saving lives.

Is the effective "ban" on fully automatic rifles good yet a potential ban on bumpstocks too far?

The revolutionary reason for owning a gun gets further out the window every day. I can not buy a Sherman or arm a true P-38 as much as I can't purchase a F-22 or cruise missile. If I am a good free Kansas revolutionary or whatever and I think my gun is going to help me....it will in so far as the military may not be able to subdue me peacefully and take me alive. They will just use overwhelming firepower to kill me

I fully disagreed with the laws banning full autos for civilians. I gave the federal government an opportunity to show me where a legally held full auto had ever been used in a crime. They could not do it.

It was another feel good, lacking substance law that not only weakened the Second Amendment, but added to that unconstitutional belief that the government is in the Rights granting business. They aren't.

The bump stock did not increase the shooter's kill ratio. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single firearm and NO bumpstock. The bumpstock is unreliable; it does not do the job that a fully automatic / three round burst does. We're talking cosmetics and that's all. The legal principle that the government can infringe upon your Rights is what is at stake here.

We may disagree with what the law should be, but I understand your logic there and point of view.

It feels good to find someone online who made a point without name calling.

Maybe you and I can become an example for those guys who think they have to call you names to make a point to follow.

We don't have to be adversarial when we disagree. I might find myself in your neck of the woods and want to sit down and talk one on one like friends with a common interest.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I'm surprised that the Obama administration did not go after these bump stocks sooner.

He/They were pretty hot about green tipped ammo.

Green tipped is candy compared with a bump stock.

obama didnt go after them at all

the ATF under his command oked them

right here is the ATF letter authorizing as not a controlled weapon

http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

I disagree with your string of logic. If we made a mistake before should we repeat it?

If you think automatic rifles should be easier to buy that is a logical stand. Just say so.

why do you dance around the post

clearly the obama administration made them legal in the first place

not some damn republican

 

[beagle9]

One never knows when a good guy with a gun might need to take on a crowd.

. You mean an MS-13 crowd or did you mean gang ?

 

[beagle9]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

 

[miketx]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

 

[beagle9]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

 

[miketx]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

Like most liberal moonbats you ignore reality. 10 seconds vs 15, GUN BANNER! Come get them!

 

[beagle9]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

Like most liberal moonbats you ignore reality. 10 seconds vs 15, GUN BANNER! Come get them!

. Don't want your dam guns, just keep them locked away if they are illegal. In the mean time let's ban that bump stock as a gesture to those who lost their lives to that dam device in Vegas. Hey give them some Ray of hope that we care about them, and upon how so many fell on that day.

 

[miketx]

If someone used a bump stock on a rifle they had and killed my wife, I would surly want to see them suffer horrifically and then executed. The gun with its attached stock would simply be a tool and an inanimate object, just like the liberal yammering to ban it is.

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

Like most liberal moonbats you ignore reality. 10 seconds vs 15, GUN BANNER! Come get them!

. Don't want your dam guns, just keep them locked away if they are illegal. In the mean time let's ban that bump stock as a gesture to those who lost their lives to that dam device in Vegas. Hey give them some Ray of hope that we care about them, and upon how so many fell on that day.

Gestures are for gun banners. How about you libs start prosecuting gun criminals?

 

[beagle9]

. You would be thinking of other people's wives possibly dying by the same dam weapon in such an efficient manor no ? I understand you speaking of your family member only, and how you would feel in such a situation, but when people look ahead after a tragedy or learning experience like that, then they want to try and save as many lives as possible in another situation if it happens again in the future, and if the bump stock is part of the solution by it being banned then so be it.

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

Like most liberal moonbats you ignore reality. 10 seconds vs 15, GUN BANNER! Come get them!

. Don't want your dam guns, just keep them locked away if they are illegal. In the mean time let's ban that bump stock as a gesture to those who lost their lives to that dam device in Vegas. Hey give them some Ray of hope that we care about them, and upon how so many fell on that day.

Gestures are for gun banners. How about you libs start prosecuting gun criminals?

. Anyone who disagree's with you is a liberal eh ? You think that label is so bad that it shuts down debate ? One thing is for sure, and you expressed it here, and that is that you only give a crap about your little circle, and to hell with what went on in Vegas. Well the NRA disagree's with you, so I know your head exploded on that one. LOL.. Settle down, no one is coming for your weapons, just keep them out of sight instead of bragging about them. I've seen people be so irresponsible with their collections, that it's ridiculous. People need to treat weapons with the utmost respect and secrecy imho.

 

[beagle9]

I agree about getting tough on crime and gun criminals. Yes.

 

[miketx]

Idiotic at best. The guy could have killed just as many without a bump stock. It's tool, like you. You want a path that leads to total gun bans, and while you you may deny it, that can be the only outcome of your delusion. If it takes 10 seconds to empty a 30 round mag with a bump stock, it only takes 15 without it. been there and done that, Voice of experience here. So your ban is totally meaningless, like all gun control stupid is.

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

Like most liberal moonbats you ignore reality. 10 seconds vs 15, GUN BANNER! Come get them!

. Don't want your dam guns, just keep them locked away if they are illegal. In the mean time let's ban that bump stock as a gesture to those who lost their lives to that dam device in Vegas. Hey give them some Ray of hope that we care about them, and upon how so many fell on that day.

Gestures are for gun banners. How about you libs start prosecuting gun criminals?

. Anyone who disagree's with you is a liberal eh ? You think that label is so bad that it shuts down debate ? One thing is for sure, and you expressed it here, and that is that you only give a crap about your little circle, and to hell with what went on in Vegas. Well the NRA disagree's with you, so I know your head exploded on that one. LOL.. Settle down, no one is coming for your weapons, just keep them out of sight instead of bragging about them. I've seen people be so irresponsible with their collections, that it's ridiculous. People need to treat weapons with the utmost respect and secrecy imho.

LOL! What does that have to do with bump stocks? Nothing. You are spinning hard it's pathetic.

 

[beagle9]

. Ban the bump stock, and place it in the same category as the automatic weapon. Nothing more, and nothing less. Americans won't let the government take the guns ever, but when devices are produced that can kill hundreds at a time, then it's time to say no to that device. The right is running on emotion with the issue, and just like you did, you were only thinking of your family but no one else's.

Like most liberal moonbats you ignore reality. 10 seconds vs 15, GUN BANNER! Come get them!

. Don't want your dam guns, just keep them locked away if they are illegal. In the mean time let's ban that bump stock as a gesture to those who lost their lives to that dam device in Vegas. Hey give them some Ray of hope that we care about them, and upon how so many fell on that day.

Gestures are for gun banners. How about you libs start prosecuting gun criminals?

. Anyone who disagree's with you is a liberal eh ? You think that label is so bad that it shuts down debate ? One thing is for sure, and you expressed it here, and that is that you only give a crap about your little circle, and to hell with what went on in Vegas. Well the NRA disagree's with you, so I know your head exploded on that one. LOL.. Settle down, no one is coming for your weapons, just keep them out of sight instead of bragging about them. I've seen people be so irresponsible with their collections, that it's ridiculous. People need to treat weapons with the utmost respect and secrecy imho.

LOL! What does that have to do with bump stocks? Nothing. You are spinning hard it's pathetic.

. To hell with a bump stock... When they become illegal, just make sure you got some before they are gone, then lock it up, and don't brag about it. If the government goes rogue, then you and the militia can join together to straighten it back out. Simple.