It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bump Stock Ban Legislation

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
It's going to be a done deal...the NRA just supported it.

It's pointless though

Not necessarily.


as you can still easily alter semis in many other ways.


True, that. I've seen one converted in just a couple of minutes.


I guess a step in the right direction maybe.


If it can prevent one crazy SOB from using it to kill a # ton of people, then perhaps so.




posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: alphabetaone

Your an idiot if you can think if any reason someone needs to use a bump stock. The whole idea was to make a semi auto seem like a full auto. Yeah this is something needed shoot 1000 rounds to attempt to kill a deer. This manufacturer should be sued by the Victims and they would win by arguing this device was designed to dot nothing but cause carnage. You can't aim with them so no target shooting you cant hunt with them and expeCT to hit anything g look at the security guard 200 + rounds and he only hit him in the leg. And apparently not eBen a severe enough injury to prevent him from clearing guests out of the floor.

Fools like you want to clain there was some practical use for this but guess what there isn't. I say no need to ban just let the people injured and killed fluke a law suit and bankrupt the company.


Did anyone sue the truck manufacturer after Nice?

They didn't intend for the truck to be used as a weapon that caused carnage killing 80+ people.


I was unaware the intended purpose of a truck was to kill or inflict bodily damage, unlike a gun.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: alphabetaone

Your an idiot if you can think if any reason someone needs to use a bump stock. The whole idea was to make a semi auto seem like a full auto. Yeah this is something needed shoot 1000 rounds to attempt to kill a deer. This manufacturer should be sued by the Victims and they would win by arguing this device was designed to dot nothing but cause carnage. You can't aim with them so no target shooting you cant hunt with them and expeCT to hit anything g look at the security guard 200 + rounds and he only hit him in the leg. And apparently not eBen a severe enough injury to prevent him from clearing guests out of the floor.

Fools like you want to clain there was some practical use for this but guess what there isn't. I say no need to ban just let the people injured and killed fluke a law suit and bankrupt the company.


Did anyone sue the truck manufacturer after Nice?

They didn't intend for the truck to be used as a weapon that caused carnage killing 80+ people.


I was unaware the intended purpose of a truck was to kill or inflict bodily damage, unlike a gun.



But you just said. . .



originally posted by: Liquesence

If it can prevent one crazy SOB from using it to kill a # ton of people, then perhaps so.





posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah, I did say that.

As in: guns were created with the intent, or purpose, to harm/inflict bodily damage.

Trucks weren't.



And I never said guns should be banned.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

But using your words. . . If it can prevent one crazy SOB from using it to kill a # ton of people, then perhaps so.

We can ban cars, it'll save lives, guaranteed.
We could ban knives. It'll save lives, guaranteed.

We could even ban guns and it'll save lives.

Guaranteed.

You have to ask yourself though, is this the kind of society I want to live in?

Sure, it'll be safer than sh#t!

Not so much on freedoms. . . . . . but yeah, we'd be safer.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Some will argue the points you have made, out of principle, that just because something can be used for a nefarious purpose it should be banned by the rationale expressed. Agreed, anything can be used nefariously.

But I'm not arguing those points, but rather about "bump stocks." For what purpose does a bump stock serve?

Again, guns were created with the purpose to harm. Cars weren't. But I'm also not advocating banning guns. I own guns.


is this the kind of society I want to live in?


Nope, that's why I never advocated the banning of anything.

ETA:

Basically, the "but people use cars to kill people so you wanna ban them too?" argument is a false equivalency that is quite silly and overly dramatic.


edit on 10-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Fair enough.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join