Active shooter at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas...

[jamil]

Show all your "no one needs a semi-auto" friends this, and they'll want to ban revolvers.

It's a good thing he's a good guy with a gun.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Jesus USA Today. SCARY GRENADE LAUNCHERS ARE JUST AT YOUR FINGERTIPS.

It all comes down to this: The media doesn't understand guns -- and doesn't want to | Fox News

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Show all your "no one needs a semi-auto" friends this, and they'll want to ban revolvers.

Big "askreddit" thread today posed the question: Gun owners of reddit: If semi automatic firearms were banned tomorrow and the government required you to turn them all in, what would it take to get you to comply? What would be a reason to why you wouldn't comply?

Obviously this is an asinine proposal... but the comments were surprisingly tame. Lot of highly-upvoted gun owners essentially saying what we all say (lot of boat accident comments, too!). It was a pretty reasonable thread for being on Reddit.


https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/74fqt6/gun_owners_of_reddit_if_semi_automatic_firearms/

 

[actaeon277]

Apparently the "not one more inch" cry of 2012 is dead since they're going a novelty item instead of my high capacity magazines or assault rifles...........this time.

 

[Denny347]

Indy?

Yup, east side.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[jedi]

Big "askreddit" thread today posed the question: Gun owners of reddit: If semi automatic firearms were banned tomorrow and the government required you to turn them all in, what would it take to get you to comply? What would be a reason to why you wouldn't comply?

Obviously this is an asinine proposal... but the comments were surprisingly tame. Lot of highly-upvoted gun owners essentially saying what we all say (lot of boat accident comments, too!). It was a pretty reasonable thread for being on Reddit.


https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/74fqt6/gun_owners_of_reddit_if_semi_automatic_firearms/

This has already occurred in ct. They had to register their lobg guns.

 

[PaulF]

Q. Does having reduced or restricted access to "bump-fire" stocks infringe my right to keep and bear arms?
A. No.

Q: Does banning a non-essential add-on accessory that modifies the behavior of a firearm limit my ability to effectively keep and bear arms?
A: I don't think so, but I'd love to hear a cogent argument otherwise.

I don't think there is a court in the world that would find that a bumpstock is factually an arm in and of itself, and thereby worthy of protection under the 2A. Banning bumpstocks simply does not effect our ability to keep, bear, or utilize arms in any reasonably arguable way.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: taking action against a product or service that has a negative effect over the public good, when that product is not itself a functioning arm and thereby excluded under the 2A, is perfectly within the established purview of the Federal Government. They don't need to bargain with us, they can simply declare the device unfit for sale in the us without running afoul of the constitution...

...and I fully expect they will.

 

[churchmouse]

Q. Does having reduced or restricted access to "bump-fire" stocks infringe my right to keep and bear arms?
A. No.

Q: Does banning a non-essential add-on accessory that modifies the behavior of a firearm limit my ability to effectively keep and bear arms?
A: I don't think so, but I'd love to hear a cogent argument otherwise.

I don't think there is a court in the world that would find that a bumpstock is factually an arm in and of itself, and thereby worthy of protection under the 2A. Banning bumpstocks simply does not effect our ability to keep, bear, or utilize arms in any reasonably arguable way.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: taking action against a product or service that has a negative effect over the public good, when that product is not itself a functioning arm and thereby excluded under the 2A, is perfectly within the established purview of the Federal Government. They don't need to bargain with us, they can simply declare the device unfit for sale in the us without running afoul of the constitution...

...and I fully expect they will.

Possibly. Next comes magazine capacity.

 

[jamil]

Q. Does having reduced or restricted access to "bump-fire" stocks infringe my right to keep and bear arms?
A. No.

Q: Does banning a non-essential add-on accessory that modifies the behavior of a firearm limit my ability to effectively keep and bear arms?
A: I don't think so, but I'd love to hear a cogent argument otherwise.

I don't think there is a court in the world that would find that a bumpstock is factually an arm in and of itself, and thereby worthy of protection under the 2A. Banning bumpstocks simply does not effect our ability to keep, bear, or utilize arms in any reasonably arguable way.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: taking action against a product or service that has a negative effect over the public good, when that product is not itself a functioning arm and thereby excluded under the 2A, is perfectly within the established purview of the Federal Government. They don't need to bargain with us, they can simply declare the device unfit for sale in the us without running afoul of the constitution...

...and I fully expect they will.

Let me get this straight. The argument in favor of banning them, is because there's no reason NOT to? How about we stick to not banning things for the sake of doing anything.

 

[jamil]

WTF?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/las-v...addock-had-better-rifles-than-the-us-military

Editor’s Note: James LaPorta is a former Marine infantryman and a military trained combat marksmanship instructor.

 

[actaeon277]

Possibly. Next comes magazine capacity.

Or just make magazines illegal. Go with an installed magazine that can only be loaded one at a time.

 

[jedi]

PaulF, 2A is not about "guns".
Its about the right of the people to overthrow their government via whatever means be it violent or otherwise using whatever they want. A musket, a sword, a hammer, a warship, a tank, a nucleat bomb, a death star, etc..

Our forefathers had just violently overthrew their king and wanted to ensure that future generations could do the same and ensure that the central government, .gov, knew and understood that.

 

[tbhausen]

They are still up on Gunbroker

Some people on a popular AR-15 specific website are reporting that their ads have been taken down.

 

[sheepdog697]

WTF?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/las-v...addock-had-better-rifles-than-the-us-military

Editor’s Note: James LaPorta is a former Marine infantryman and a military trained combat marksmanship instructor.

wtf in regards to???

 

[churchmouse]

PaulF, 2A is not about "guns".
Its about the right of the people to overthrow their government via whatever means be it violent or otherwise using whatever they want. A musket, a sword, a hammer, a warship, a tank, a nucleat bomb, a death star, etc..

Our forefathers had just violently overthrew their king and wanted to ensure that future generations could do the same and ensure that the central government, .gov, knew and understood that.

And this is exactly the reason they want to take away the 2A.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Let me get this straight. The argument in favor of banning them, is because there's no reason NOT to? How about we stick to not banning things for the sake of doing anything.

That would be ideal. So let's hope another distraction pops up to make people forget this.

People on INGO (including the extremists) are mistaking realism for leftism/statism/anti-2A thought-crime. Ideally nothing is banned. But right now emotions are high. Emotions wane after each day... the longer it takes, the better off we are.

 

[jamil]

That would be ideal. So let's hope another distraction pops up to make people forget this.

People on INGO (including the extremists) are mistaking realism for leftism/statism/anti-2A thought-crime. Ideally nothing is banned. But right now emotions are high. Emotions wane after each day... the longer it takes, the better off we are.

Well, Trump is really good at distractions. Maybe he can start tweeting about tranny midgets.

 

[PaulF]

Let me get this straight. The argument in favor of banning them, is because there's no reason NOT to? How about we stick to not banning things for the sake of doing anything.

Let me get this straight: you see my post as an argument in favor of banning bumpstocks?

"We" aren't likely to ban anything, because "we" value liberty. One big problem is that "we" don't speak for the government...the type of people who argue "there's no rule against it" do.

...well, there's nothing really stopping them from banning bumpstocks. That's my point. Unless there is a valid argument that elevates accessories to the same level of protection as arms themselves, "we" may well have lost this argument before it even begins. I am saying we need to broaden our view of the battlefield, "we" may face pressure on unexpected fronts.

If we insist on elevating the importance of toys to the level of arms it will be much easier for our opposition to lessen the importance arms to the level of toys, in my opinion at least.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Well, Trump is really good at distractions. Maybe he can start tweeting about tranny midgets.

Ignoring politics for a second, because **** them...

He did imply some super-ominous whatever today. Maybe that'll take over as lead controversy: