Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This. I am not even sure what people think an "assault" rifle is any more. If it looks scary, "assault rifle". If it holds more than 10 bulllets in a magazine, "assault rifle", if you can fire rounds quickly, "assault rifle".
I don't think anybody should have a fully automatic rifle. I think it should be against the law to convert a rifle into a fully automatic rifle. I think that all devices, like bump stocks, that allow for that should be illegal to own, and there should be severe penalties.
To be fair, it's a pretty steep fine already, especially compared to other similar things like texting and driving. And it has made some impact, maybe not to the extent you'd like, but impact none the less.
Very few people own truly fully automatic rifles and you need a very expensive license to do so. It is against the law to convert a rifle to fully automatic. Yes, bump stocks are legal and its because they do not convert the weapon to a mechanical fully automatic weapon. There is actually a technique to shooting bump stocks and while yes they allow the weapon to be fired much faster, its just not pulling the trigger and bullets fly. Want to ban them, that is fine by me. Want to ban an "assault rifle"? They are already illegal.
I politely disagree. It took a 4th offense for my father in law to finally lose his license for 15 years. That was just the 4th time he was caught. A guy I've seen fall down from drinking and he was allowed to keep his license for decades. His final offense came at 10 o'clock in the morning.
Glad you agree. I have found that most responsible gun owners agree with most reasonable gun control proposals, and the polls bear this out.
I also don't believe banning them changes a thing. It will make people like you feel safer and like you did something but once again, if people want to kill people, they will. In 94 Clinton got his ban on large capacity mags and the next year we had an American citizen bomb and kill 180 people.
Again, I would point out that the assault weapons ban, imperfect as it was, did have a positive impact. So I'm willing to try again. Some of these things will work, some won't. I want to stress that I don't want to take away your rights. We need to find ways to make it harder for the bad guys without hurting you and all of the other responsible gun owners out there. Everything that I'm in favor of has that in mind.
How much do you think his job was worth to him? I wouldn't trade my job for a million dollars at the point in my life where I almost ended up where he did. I don't drink and drive anymore, so it's made a difference.
So what this Vegas guy used they are calling "semiautomatic assault-style rifles". I understand that he modified them in a way to make them illegal (bumpstocks?) but even without the modifications, what would be the purpose in owning a "semiautomatic assault-style rifle"? What w eould do with it?
A year after it passes a crazy white male who was upset with his government killed 180 (that number could be wrong) via a bombing. You can't stop crazy.
The obvious answer is that alcohol or cars are not the problem. He is the problem. The courts failed to recognize this after the 2nd offense. He should have had mandatory AA, long term monitoring to correct the problem. But, since he had money for a lawyer, he was able to get off with very little follow up.
What's your minimum? Whatever it is that's a pretty steep fine for a DUI I'm guessing.
Sorry, I was thinking of pleading down to willful reckless driving or a lesser charge. Not when his lawyer makes a case for him that he's a father and grandfather and has a long career at the post office and needs to keep his license to make a living. If it was me, I would have let him live on the street. At least when he's drunk the worst he could do is bump into someone.
As for the 100 round mags, I have never shot anything like that, but I have shot 50 rounds at a high rate and I ruined the barrel. I honestly can't imagine the use of one without destroying the gun quickly.
Yeah they don't do that anymore. Thats why I asked how long ago it was. Most states have mandatory minimums.
Not sure I follow your thinking. Do all people that own assault rifles kill people? If they do, it's not manslaughter, it's murder.
Something I myself have often maintained and currently do maintain. The question is how? Many here advocate that it is foolish to believe there will be some sort of gun grab by legislation, beyond of course the desire to currently do a bit of a grab through legislation. Think about that for a moment. I maintain that the process should be done correctly, through the existing process of amending the constitution. I maintain this shows the supremacy of the rule of law and it shows respect to those who will be asked to give up something. It reassures them that their worst fears will not come true. That legislation of the moment will not overcome the rule of law and the respect for their rights.
You said you don't hear people calling for million dollar fines for people who drive drunk. You didnt narrow it to only those who killed people doing it, at least not in the post I responded to.
Me, I would never want the weight of a hundred round magazine. It makes a weapon difficult to carry, aim , and shoot, and it increases the likelihood the magazine will not sit flush and so will jam. Also it extends so far the weapon is difficult to manipulate without bumping that magazine into something. It is foolishness, for visual effect in movies mostly.
You dont see the error in such a study? They even tell you right there in the study. "These deaths may have been from domestic violence"
When the zombies come you are going to want that sikencer...BTW, I recently became the owner of a shotgun. I’m unlikely to get very far in causing mass carnage if ever I flip my lid, but it gives me a little peace of mind knowing I have some protection in the event of the zombie apocalypse or the crash of the financial markets or some massive natural disaster. I also can understand not wanting to have any gun in the home, as I was of that mind for many years. Ultimately the “I’d rather have it and never need it, than need it and not have it” mentality prevailed for me. But I get both sides of it.
What I don’t get is the guys with arsenals in their homes, and the guys who are pushing hard on the notion that the 2nd amendment allows me to have fully automatic M16 assault rifles. Nobody needs that ####.
Unless the zombies come.
I'm not classifying anything. I put the term "semiautomatic assault-style rifles" in quotes because that is exactly how the news articles are describing the Vegas guy's guns. I haven't seen anything yet on the exact make/model of guns he used.
Basically. Though I understand he had to buy a rifle and then go on the internet and buy some other part for a hundred bucks to make that happen.
People want the illusion of protection.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Agree 100%
They didn't know where the shots were coming from real-time. For all they knew there were multiple shooters and they were on the ground.
To be fair though, there really wasn't internet then. Much easier now to buy gun parts, do gun research, etc.
You realize he was capable of "building" as massive bomb that was able to destroy a building without the information provided by internet? Think that info was easier to get than info about guns? You can walk into almost any legit gun school and the guy behind the counter will do his best to educate you on what is available.
