Lethal weapon: This is the gun that is killing America

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

The issue is kits converting semi to auto guns. Who cares about any other features?

I can bump fire my pistol - with a Walmart shopping bag (the reusable ones, cause I care about the environment).

And no legal kit without a tax stamp will make a semi into a full auto. That is dumb.

Semi being one pull of the trigger will result in one round being fired.
Full auto being one single pull of the trigger will result in more than one round being fired.

If you pull your trigger really fast, doesn't make your gun auto.


Besides, how many of those mass shootings were done by auto rifles...even bump fired ones..with weapons bought legally. (I really don't know).

Edit-The 'drop-in' device linked in your video becomes illegal once you bend it. Even having the unbent product in the same house as an evil AR15 will be illegal... Without paying the tax stamp paperwork.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No bump-stock needed to pull a trigger really fast:

Doing that to an AR15 would make it highly inaccurate. Unless you get a flash compensator. It would still be inaccurate.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Really? Then why are there are soooo many bump-fire stocks available?

The other way of accomplishing this would be to remove the semi-auto sear and install an automatic sear instead, but the government holds them in their possession and you need a class 3 license to get approved.

You can't just swap out sears. The receiver is cut in a way that the parts are not interchangeable. Modifying a receiver not only takes knowledge and equipment that the average Joe does not have, but it a felony (constructive intent.)

The government does not hold them in possession. You can buy them from the manufacturer if you have the right paperwork (Class III dealer).

No one can legally buy (certain dealers excepted--any they only deal to LEO or military) any FA firearm made after 1986 and this includes receivers and sears. The NFA registry was closed in 1986.

Bump-fire kits remain a parlor trick. They do not make something FA, as previously explained, and they are impracticable and not really useful for anything but wasting ammo and making videos.

Will all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

The issue is kits converting semi to auto guns. Who cares about any other features?

The guy was messing with his audience. He just dropped apiece of plastic in front of the buffer tube. Not even near the sear.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


This # doesn't seem to happen in Canada and they have guns too. I think the problem is not the guns but the people in America. I'm not saying it's all Americans, but there has to be something about the USA that is driving these people to do this. Whether it be it's far to easy to get guns, or some other issue, but I have not heard of one mass shooting in Canada like I have in the US.

Sure, the canadians have to apply for a gun license, then they are free to buy but from my understanding they literally go through a gun safety course, apply for the license, pay a fee and tada they can buy a gun/guns.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yep. The thing is, I don't chose to interpret it a specific way. I'm interpreting it as it was written and according to what was agreed on at the time it was written as the meaning of the language used. If I were to interpret it differently, I would automatically be doing it an injustice at best by ignoring the language of the time, and harming society at worst by enforcing a law well outside of it's well thought-out intention.

Fag used to mean firewood, then cigarette (for obvious reasons), now a pejorative for a homosexual. If I were to read some obscure legislation from 250 years ago that said all fags need to be kept under lock and key for the safety of the community, I would not read it in today's vernacular. If I were to read it in the language of the time, it would mean keep firewood stored safely for fire hazards are a real danger to urban areas. If I were to read it in today's language, it could mean keeping homosexuals in prison, else they be a danger to society. Do you see how important it is to read the documents knowing full well the use of the language at the time it was written?

It is absolutely necessary and ethical to read laws regarding the definitions of the language used at the time they were written. It's not a choice, it is vital.

Edit: Who are "you people"? I'm an American. If you are, then we're on the same side.

reply to post by NavyDoc


It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

EarthCitizen07

It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

It doesn't really make sense that the military should have better weapons than civilians do. The Civilians are the sovereign in this country, and the military just hired professionals, often ex-civilians will get together in military units to protect both the sea ways and our country from foreign invasion. They are the first line of defense.





How much money and time is wasted in boot camp because
the ex-civilian knows nothing of firearm safety.

Mike

For most of the US's history, citizens have actually had better access to firearms than military. From 1873 to the 1892s, the US army issue rifle was the 1873 Springfield "Trapdoor" single shot rifle. It needed to be loaded after every shot. In the meantime, civilians could arm themselves with any number of lever action, pump action, or bolt action "repeaters" and if so outfitted were considerably better armed than your average US infantry soldier. Semi-auto rifles and shotguns really made their breakout in the early 1900s with the Remington Model 8 (1906). The US army didn't get a self loading rifle until 1936 with the M1 Garand... a full 30 years after civilians had access. The Thompson machine gun in 1917 was also in civilian hands well before military hands.

It has only been since the legislation in 1986 that an individual infantry soldier in the US army has had access to more advanced personal weapons than civilians. No major statistical trends warranted the legislation, but it happened anyway. How does one fight a tyrannical government with an army better equipped with civilians worse equipped? Yes, the whole intention was to have the civilians provide not only an ever present, but credible projection of force.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


The 2nd amendment doesn't include ordnance, only arms (man portable personal weapons). Ordnance was recognized then as it is now as being a different category of weapon.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

The AR15 & M4's don't have the same specs. AR15 is a hunting/sport rifle. The round isn't legal in some states to hunt deer - just varmints. The military uses the round because it is easy to treat a wound from it, thus making it more humane.

Even your run of the mill AK47 isn't military spec - most civilian AKs would fail after being abused if it were to be used in a military/full auto setting. Some dumb people even have AKs without lead rivets. (*The receiver would fail*)

So...civilians don't have the same M4/M16 as the military.

We do see military adopting civilian weapons for military use...at that point, it is the military that has civilian weapons and not the other way around.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

The intent of the writers of the second amendment and the militia act was to make certain that the government did not have a monopoly on the means of force and that the citizenry could, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government. If you consider that the founders just got done fighting a revolution against their own government, you can see the logic of their position.

As for today, I think that the same principles hold true--that the state should not hold a monopoly on the means of defense or coercion. A police officer should be no better armed than the citizens he is policing.

Galvatron
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't include ordnance, only arms (man portable personal weapons). Ordnance was recognized then as it is now as being a different category of weapon.

Yes, please continue being the "rational" one
as someone should do it. Even when the gun
grabbers have shown them selves to anathema
to reason, healthy compromise, or truth.













I will continue to push for compensation
commensurate with the level of infringement
heaped on us for decades.



I'll take two.

Mike

mikegrouchy

Galvatron
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't include ordnance, only arms (man portable personal weapons). Ordnance was recognized then as it is now as being a different category of weapon.

Yes, please continue being the "rational" one
as someone should do it. Even when the gun
grabbers have shown them selves to anathema
to reason, healthy compromise, or truth.

I will continue to push for compensation
commensurate with the level of infringement
heaped on us for decades.

I'll take two.

Mike

Love the comic...so true, so true.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I can see your frustration with all these gun laws being wholly excessive and repetitive in nature but why have professional military and professional police and professional firefighters and professional anything if civilians can do the job tax free and better?

Maybe we should voluntary everything then. Heck maybe even volunteer schools with volunteer teachers too.

NavyDoc

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

The intent of the writers of the second amendment and the militia act was to make certain that the government did not have a monopoly on the means of force and that the citizenry could, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government. If you consider that the founders just got done fighting a revolution against their own government, you can see the logic of their position.

As for today, I think that the same principles hold true--that the state should not hold a monopoly on the means of defense or coercion. A police officer should be no better armed than the citizens he is policing.

edit on 6-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

They weren't fighting their own government, they were fighting off the british imperialists, the british monarchy to be exact. The states were colonies of great britain back then until they gained independance from winning the war.

Further I would not want my government to have a monopoly of power. Yes the citizens should be armed. Its how far they should be armed and the interpretation of the second amendment I have issue with.

EarthCitizen07

I can see your frustration with all these gun laws being wholly excessive and repetitive in nature but why have professional military and professional police and professional firefighters and professional anything if civilians can do the job tax free and better?

We shouldn't, but the bankers learned during the great depression that they only got
to possess half the farms, because many farmers would meet their agents with
shotguns and shouts of "get off my property."

For the housing bubble of 2008 they took tons of houses. All quietly, with no media
coverage, and the use of armed sheriffs.

cnbc / ten emptiest cities in America / 2012
Vacant properties have increased by 43.8 percent nationwide since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

EarthCitizen07

Maybe we should voluntary everything then. Heck maybe even volunteer schools with volunteer teachers too.

Have you ever read the original mandate for schools according to the Land Ordianaces
from back in 1780's?

The ordinance was also significant for establishing a mechanism for funding public education. Section 16 in each township was reserved for the maintenance of public schools. Many schools today are still located in section sixteen of their respective townships[citation needed], although a great many of the school sections were sold to raise money for public education. In later States, section 36 of each township was also designated as a "school section".

wikipedia / Land Ordinance of 1785

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

That's an interesting standpoint. I don't own an AR15 and never plan to due to my disinterest in shooting. That being said, I'm a former Marine who shot at the Expert level at the range every year. That would qualify me as a professional. I can nearly guarantee close to the same level of proficiency 6 years after I got out without having touched an M16. Like riding a bicycle. Back in the days when the constitution was written, and for many years afterwards, the common man was a "professional" with the weapons a typical infantryman used. Partially because it was mandatory to serve in some capacity, and because owning/using them was very common and learnt at a young age.

EarthCitizen07

NavyDoc

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It doesn't really make sense that civilians should have the same weapons as the military does. The military are professionals and the militias are civilian armed groups, often ex-military people that get together to protect both from domestic tyranny and as a last line of defence from foreign invasion.

At least that is the way I see it.

The intent of the writers of the second amendment and the militia act was to make certain that the government did not have a monopoly on the means of force and that the citizenry could, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government. If you consider that the founders just got done fighting a revolution against their own government, you can see the logic of their position.

As for today, I think that the same principles hold true--that the state should not hold a monopoly on the means of defense or coercion. A police officer should be no better armed than the citizens he is policing.

edit on 6-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

They weren't fighting their own government, they were fighting off the british imperialists, the british monarchy to be exact. The states were colonies of great britain back then until they gained independance from winning the war.

Further I would not want my government to have a monopoly of power. Yes the citizens should be armed. Its how far they should be armed and the interpretation of the second amendment I have issue with.

The monarchy was the legitimate government of the American Colonies. The British founded, funded, and populated the colonies. The British did not invade the colonies, the British were the colonies. Had the government at the time listened to the colonialists, there would have never been a revolution...in fact, many colonials were still loyal to their homeland and government during the war. The American Revolution was exactly that--a revolution against their legitimate and long standing government and was done because they felt their government no longer represented them (sound familiar?)

Does not matter if you dislike the interpretation of the second amendment--that was the intent by those who wrote it and it is the correct interpretation as they have clearly told us in their writings. I can't help you there--the writers of the Constitution intended that the average citizen be armed as well as the average soldier and said so quite clearly.

You may opine that the 2nd is outdated and must be amended (and yes--amended, not legislated. It is part of the Constitution and needs an Amendment to the Constitution, not some crappy feel good laws, to change) and I would firmly disagree with you, but the fact of the intent of the writers remains and remains very plain.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


All the bankers have to do is collapse the economy on purpose and let people fight themselves. Those with machine guns, bump-fire "semi-autos", lots of ammunition, lots of stored food, lots of skills will outlast everyone else.

I dont think we have enough time to reform washington, pay off our debt, and make things right again.

Unless we collectively get on the same page, tell them exactly what the issues are, remove every banker puppet by force, and install something that works. I have better odds of going to vegas and walking away a millionare than of daydreaming change. Seriously just look at how anti-conspiratorial most forumns on this board are.