Tweet
Trump said today, "We'll be talking about gun laws as time goes on." Wonder what's to be discussed?
-
"The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced." ~BG D. Ullman -
Whether it was "bump fired" or an illegal modification does not really matter to me. 59 people dead and over 500 wounded is the core matter. In such a crowded situation as this was there is certainly going to be wounds caused by stampeding. The shooter bought all his guns legally. The ammonia nitrate can be easily obtained. The Tannerite also easy to get. And an AR16 can be easily modified by anyone. At the PD there are confiscated "lightening links" easily made.Comment
-
Your point is well taken, but:
The difference is that a bump fire device is legal under Federal law, and the other modification options for semi auto rifles you mentioned are not. If he had such a device (bump fire) he bought that legally too. I have no idea what modification he made (or had made) but if it was the attachment of something like a "bump stock" there is going to be a serious discussion over that one and some of it's going to be in congress.Last edited by Art; 10-03-2017, 08:18.Comment
-
I'm sure that the Stackin Bodies magazine manufacturer will be getting sued.Fred Pillot
Captain
San Jose Zouaves
1876Comment
-
That would be unfortunate, since the item is "legal", but where is the need for such an item on the civilian market?
The "black rifle crowd" has been dancing around the fringe of having waaaay too much firepower like moths around a flame. Sooner or later, something (will Vegas be it?) "bad" enough is going to happen, when even solid gun people are going to say - "hey, this is enough - throw out the bathwater, and we no longer care if the baby (2A) goes with it.
Trump (and I'm all for him) was an anomaly - the hippie-educated 'snowflake' electorate is changing. If the dims get a better candidate, look out. I hope HRC does run again, but I doubt she will.
I'm aware of the argument that a LOT of shooters/hunters are ex-military - and bless their hearts for it - who want to own "something like I carried in the war". Today, that doesn't mean a trapdoor or a Krag, or even an M1 (yes, I hear some of you saying "what's a Krag?") but rather a whole new level of weaponry, which is NOT as easily malleable for civilian use, raising issues never imagined before. Combine that with the precipitous slide into a lack of civility, poor mental health treatment by the VA, a changing electorate, race issues like we thought had pretty much gone away - until 8 years of BHO, and there is a perfect storm on the horizon. Something needs to be done to clean up this mess, and I'm afraid some of what will be done will not be to our liking.Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 10-03-2017, 04:10.Comment
-
It may not matter at this point for the Vegas victims, but I, for one, think the bump stock is a very BAD idea - it is nothing more than a cheat to produce results similar to that which is illegal in most areas. In other words, it is what lawyers call a "sharp practice". It is basically giving the "establishment" (BHO at the time) the middle finger. It serves no "sporting purpose". Yes, I know that a similar effect is possible (with practice) using a limp shoulder and a stiff finger, at the cost of some accuracy - but that does not make it "right".Comment
-
firearms in the constitution are not about "sporting purposes".Comment
-
The word "firearms" does not appear in the Second Amendment, nor in the main body of the Constitution. The operative word is simply "arms" which, I suppose, can be interpreted as anything from a pitchfork to a rocket launcher. The intent was to assure that citizens were not to be deprived of a means of defense against a government run amok.
I take "sporting purposes" to differentiate the civilians from the military - there are basic differences in the level of weaponry involved. Citizens do not need virtually unlimited firepower. I am NOT advocating the abolition of private ownership, simply trying to grasp on a reasonable definition of what is proper and what is over the line. I say we start with obvious cheats such as the bump-stock. My first thought when I saw an ad for one was WTF, this isn't right.Comment
-
-
i get what your saying, and dont totally disagree with you. my caveat to it is, the libs consider sporting arms to mean only something one would use for deer hunting, or duck hunting. every time you here one of the democrats talk about gun control they always have to add in "we dont want your hunting rifle". as for so called gun control, im personally unwilling to give an inch, because the libs want the whole mile, and wont stop until they get it.Comment
-
You see the core of the problem on our side of the fence. There is a wide latitude of opinion, from those Neville Chamberlains who would give up anything to the gonzo types who (probably after a few beers) think that everyone should have their own sub-machine gun. The dilemma lies in where to draw the line, but we need to participate in the process or the line will be drawn for us. Had this tragedy happened on BHO's watch, I cannot imagine what executive orders would already have been written.Comment
-
Childish, you should know how to define this
...I can't.
There are mental health professional's who do not want ill people to be reported for two reasons. 1] It is not the government's right to intrude into this type of health care. 2] If people know that will be reported to the govt.com, then this same people are less likely to come into the clinic's for treatment. If a person is stopped and cannabis is found should those people now be reported to gov.com as a "user" and denied the right to purchase any firearm according to form 4473? How about public intox and we are well aware of "domestic violence". If someone was angry in print that he/she couldn't buy any alcohol, does this precipate a watch list and subsequent denial due to anger issues or other plausible reasons? Just curious...
SamComment
Comment