Goober McTuber wrote:They are not going to take away our guns. You're not really this stupid. Are you?
Bullshit.
Maybe not a Federal level, but they sure as hell are on a state level. Here is the link for an initiative petition to place this on the Oregon ballot this fall. I will leave it to you to go ahead and read it and see where it clearly calls for surrender of the "outlawed" weapons.
In the liberal cesspool that is Oregon politics, this will most likely get the 88,000 signatures to get placed on the ballot. It stands a very good chance of passing when the filthy hipster liberals vote. It will end up in the US Supreme Court.
If enacted, individuals currently in possession of such firearms will have until April 1, 2019, to surrender their firearms to the Hunting Beach Police Department. Violations would be classified as a felony.......
I understand they are collecting signatures for a ballot initiative, and it will definitely go through the legislative process, but even an ostrich with its head in the sand can see the constant assault on the 2nd amendment by liberal media (CNN, NBC, etc) and politicians. We have already lost privacy with phone calls, email, and texts monitored & collected. It wasn't all that long ago when East Germany had a dossier on every citizen, all communication, occupation, family, friends, and now we have the same in the USA in the name of national security.
Joe in PB wrote:Nothing is guaranteed except for taxes and death.
And right wing paranoia. From your link:
Setting aside its plainly unconstitutional nature, even state law preempts such a proposal. San Francisco learned that the hard way after enacting a similar initiative in 2005. That initiative, known as “Proposition H,” prohibited residents from possessing any handgun within the city. Even the notoriously anti-gun Gavin Newsom, San Francisco’s mayor at the time, admitted that the measure was merely a “symbolic gesture” that was unlikely to withstand a legal challenge.
And for once, he was right. NRA attorneys immediately filed suit, challenging Proposition H as preempted by California state law. The Trial court agreed with NRA’s attorneys, a decision that was later upheld by the Court of Appeals. Proponents of the measure petitioned the California Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to uphold the law, but that petition was ultimately rejected, thereby striking down the measure once and for all.
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Why are you so eager to ban bump stocks, Goobs? Granted, the Vegas shooter had some firearms that used them, but at issue is what does the product do that makes a weapon more effective? I submit to you that a bump stock in all actuality decreases the lethality and effectiveness of a rifle. After all, Paddock would have hit people with his eyes closed if he had the rifles pointed in the general direction of the crowd and simply pulled the trigger as fast as he could.
I will address all three previous posts by Joe, Goobs, and 88 with mine.
I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on the bump stock in terms of it being banned except that the reasons that people object to it do not seem to correlate to the actual function of the device. That it was used in Las Vegas means less in terms of its’ usefulness than the greater argument that it was attached to a weapon used to kill people. The bump stock did not make Paddock’s guns anymore lethal than being without them— indeed, I’d argue that bump stocks make a rifle less effective as a killing device than one with a standard stock.
If decreasing lethality is your goal, then promoting bump stocks should be your course of action. Why? Because a bump stock throws off a person’s aim. Furthermore, a bump stock does not increase the volume of fire beyond what any person not afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis could put down range. Firing a rifle quickly does not increase its’ lethality either, not does a semiautomatic or self loading rifle mean that it spits bullets out the muzzle any quicker than someone who has practiced with, say, a lever action rifle.
What would increase the lethality of a rifle without adding useless devices like a bump stock? A modified trigger where the throw is shortened, the resistance of the trigger is decreased, and optics. I could add improved ammunition, a bipod, a steady, solid shooting position, normally in the prone, a shooter’s vest which has padded shoulders for recoil mitigation, ear protection, venting to cool the barrel, and asundry other improvements which are either basic techniques for good sight picture and control or device to steady the weapon— something the bump stock notably does not do.
Ultimately, the bump stock was a gimmick device to make a piker think he was Rambo. He could load up a rifle and marginally increase the volume of fire. Of course he would be lucky to punch a hole in a target more than 10 yards away, but he’d look and sound badass. It’s the technological equivalent of Muslims in the Middle East shouting “Allah ackbar!” and holding their AK-47s over their head while firing over a wall. It’s worthless.
All of this is why I don’t really care about the banning of bump stocks. For me it’s not the actual device, but the ground given in a fight where it is both symbolic for anti-2A activists and a sense of momentum. It’s the “give us an inch and we’ll take a mile” undertones that course through any discussion of supposedly common sense gun control.
My opinion of those who fervently believe that such things as bump stocks are vile and evil work-arounds to the machine gun restrictions already in place is that they expose their ignorance of firearms and ballistics in general and specifically the art of shooting, which is a unique skill in and of itself.
Finally, what a person does with a bump stock— outside of murdering innocent concert goers —is none of our business. Just because you can’t conceive of an idea of why someone might wish to own one and place it on a firearm is kissing cousin to anything else that people do or own, but you do not. Bernie Sanders says he can’t understand why anyone would need 1,857 different types and brands of underarm deodorant, but you what? It’s not his decision to make. Just because he uses patchouli oil or doesn’t use deodorant doesn’t mean we all have to succumb to that rigid form of thinking. After all, I am quite certain that I could rummage through your belongings and find stuff which you don’t need and therefore should relinquish ownership of— perhaps that automobile your drive around in by yourself but has room for eight inside. The name I was taught that applied to such people is”busybody.” Get your nose out of my business, mister, and I’ll stay out of yours.
** Final edit (hopefully) **
The false equivalency of tying semi automatic rifles to machine guns via hokey items like bump stocks or weird iron sights that supposedly fix your awful shooting skills disregards what a machine gun is. What it is not is a point of aim weapon, or in other words a precision gun. A machine gun is an area weapon or a gun used for fire suppression. It is not used to efficiently kill a person except by sheer volume of fire. This is why machine guns use belt ammunition. A 10, 15, or even a 60 round magazine is not useful for the cyclic rate that your military arms produce. You’d run dry in seconds.
Now, there are rifles that can run fully automatic such as an M4. It uses 5.56mm ammo and (generally) a 30 round magazine just like the villainous AR-15 rifles. Older versions of the M16 had a selector switch that allowed the gun owner to choose between single shot and automatic. Going full auto was and still is highly discouraged because of the burn rate on ammo and because of muzzle rise that using that produced. In other words, you will miss your target.. Old .45 caliber Tommy guns were designed to specifically make use of that particular trait. You’d overrun a trench, aim low, pull the trigger, and let the muzzle rise so that your rounds walked down the length of the trench where the enemy was conveniently lined up waiting to be killed. But these guns were highly situationally dependent. They were to be used in support of semi automatic rifles.
If you take a self loading or semi automatic rifle and modify the sear or add devices like a bump stock to it, you haven’t made it any more a machine gun than you turn your Toyota Prius into a Formula One car by welding a wing onto the trunk lid.
Dinsdale wrote:Rooster -- for the most part, I agree with you.
But for fucks' sake, could you stop putting apostrophes on possessives?
TIA
I had to check what I was doing wrong. I brought it up to my wife and she said the same thing as I did— we’ve been using an apostrophe after the “s” in its all our lives. Huh. You learn something new every day. Thanks, Dins!
