What is an "Arsenal"

[NevadaLover]

I've likely fired more full auto weapons than you...in a variety of field conditions. A bump stock isn't 100% the same as full auto, but it does replicate full auto capabilities. And you can certainly fire a whole lot faster with a bumpstock than you can just by pulling the trigger in semi-auto mode. So don't pretend as if it has no bearing on a weapon's rate of fire.

If you reread my post without your hatred of firearms, and I don't believe for one second that you have even fired an auto much less many, you would see clearly that I said a bumpstock can, under perfect conditions, help you unload faster! And if you know anything about firearms and have actually read your precious 1986 NFA legislation you would understand that a bumpstock does not fall under that legislation as it functions totally different than the legislation outlines, and I don't think US firearm owners, which I doubt you are one, need to take ownership of this issue, it's no different than someone who runs people over with a car or mixes fertilizer with diesel to blow people up, the car the fertilizer and the firearm were used illegally to get the job done and no legislation in any universe would stop that so take your anti-bumpstock/anti-gun garbage back to the hillary forums where it belongs.

 

[Dalko43]

If you reread my post without your hatred of firearms, and I don't believe for one second that you have even fired an auto much less many, you would see clearly that I said a bumpstock can, under perfect conditions, help you unload faster! And if you know anything about firearms and have actually read your precious 1986 NFA legislation you would understand that a bumpstock does not fall under that legislation as it functions totally different than the legislation outlines, and I don't think US firearm owners, which I doubt you are one, need to take ownership of this issue, it's no different than someone who runs people over with a car or mixes fertilizer with diesel to blow people up, the car the fertilizer and the firearm were used illegally to get the job done and no legislation in any universe would stop that so take your anti-bumpstock/anti-gun garbage back to the hillary forums where it belongs.

I don’t hate firearms. I own more than a few and am a diehard supporter of the 2nd amendment. I also support deregulation of suppressors and vehemently oppose NYs SAFE act.

I’ve fired plenty of full autos: SAW’s, M240’s, .50 Cal’s, m4’s on 3 round burst. A bumpstock may not provide the exact same rate of fire as a full auto, but it does mimic those capabilities. It may follow the letter of the law regarding the 1986 NFA but it is questionable if it is following the intent or not.

We already acknowledge that there are strict regulations on full auto firearms. Why is it such a stretch to accept regulation on a device that mimics those capabilities?

By the way, these last 2 comments are why I hate discussing gun politics on a forum. If you even so much as mention the possibility of regulation you’re branded as anti 2nd amendment. Sometimes I think the extremist gun rights advocates are just as guilty as the diehard gun control advocates when it comes to alienating the average law-abiding gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SigSense]

If you even so much as mention the possibility of regulation you’re branded as anti 2nd amendment. Sometimes I think the extremist gun rights advocates are just as guilty as the diehard gun control advocates when it comes to alienating the average law-abiding gun owner.

Count me as one them "extremist" gun rights advocates then. There's a very good reason why Americans oppose any 2A infringements; because the government lies. They lie to Americans each and every day. YOU know it, everyone knows it, and we're all quite tired of it. I think America's attitudes are changing rather quickly in regards to government oversight and intrusion in our lives. When the government starts regulating all the other Constitutional Rights like they do the 2A -- then I might think differently. That's always a good exercise that I play with the few Lib/Left/Dem friends in my life.... I call it the "Regulation Game." Let's look at some existing rights Americans enjoy and see if Dalko43 agrees with the analogies:

If Gun Grabbers/Dems/Libs/Left really believe that the Background Check System or increased gun control doesn’t interfere “in any way” with people’s constitutional rights to own a gun, doesn't it follow that the same system would not constitute an infringement on people’s right to vote? This would give Republicans a system for stopping vote fraud and Democrats a system that they have already vigorously endorsed. Sound reasonable?

How about we have all people that want to practice a certain religion get a background check and carry a concealed license? I mean -- look what various Muslims are doing globally right now. Religious terrorism is rampant and we must get it under control. How do I KNOW if a person is not a religious bomber? We need all religions and their followers to be registered. Sound reasonable?

That pesky 1st Amendment has been causing plenty of strife on America's streets lately. How about regulations that advise that anyone that wants to post on the internet must have a background check, and carry a concealed "smart phone" license? Can't have anyone making forum posts on a cell phone that can be easily hidden in their pockets. It would not be considered a “reasonable restriction” if the government were to enact a ban on speaking in public, citing to the way some people use words to commit crimes, but this is analogous to banning the mere possession of a gun in public. It would not be constitutional for the government to limit the number of books a person can buy in a month, but this is analogous to the one gun per month limits that are coming up in legislative chambers these days. Think of the children. Sound reasonable?

I really love how all the usual players got in front of the cameras after Las Vegas recently. I love this buzz phrase they throw out “national discussion on gun control.” Yeah, they mean that in the same way Hitler wanted to have a “national discussion on what to do with Jews.”

 

[2025 deleted member]

Dalko you support deregulation of suppressors. Isnt it understandable that others think the 1986 law is an over-reach?

 

[toylandcruiser]

I don’t hate firearms. I own more than a few and am a diehard supporter of the 2nd amendment. I also support deregulation of suppressors and vehemently oppose NYs SAFE act.

I’ve fired plenty of full autos: SAW’s, M240’s, .50 Cal’s, m4’s on 3 round burst. A bumpstock may not provide the exact same rate of fire as a full auto, but it does mimic those capabilities. It may follow the letter of the law regarding the 1986 NFA but it is questionable if it is following the intent or not.

We already acknowledge that there are strict regulations on full auto firearms. Why is it such a stretch to accept regulation on a device that mimics those capabilities?

By the way, these last 2 comments are why I hate discussing gun politics on a forum. If you even so much as mention the possibility of regulation you’re branded as anti 2nd amendment. Sometimes I think the extremist gun rights advocates are just as guilty as the diehard gun control advocates when it comes to alienating the average law-abiding gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Shall not be infringed”

 

[NevadaLover]

1. I don’t hate firearms. I own more than a few and am a diehard supporter of the 2nd amendment. I also support deregulation of suppressors and vehemently oppose NYs SAFE act.

2. I’ve fired plenty of full autos: SAW’s, M240’s, .50 Cal’s, m4’s on 3 round burst. A bumpstock may not provide the exact same rate of fire as a full auto, but it does mimic those capabilities. It may follow the letter of the law regarding the 1986 NFA but it is questionable if it is following the intent or not.

3. We already acknowledge that there are strict regulations on full auto firearms. Why is it such a stretch to accept regulation on a device that mimics those capabilities?

4. By the way, these last 2 comments are why I hate discussing gun politics on a forum. If you even so much as mention the possibility of regulation you’re branded as anti 2nd amendment. Sometimes I think the extremist gun rights advocates are just as guilty as the diehard gun control advocates when it comes to alienating the average law-abiding gun owner.

So in regards to 1, you don't hate firearms, you want suppressors legalized for all, and you oppose the safe act, supposedly, yet you are in full support of outlawing bumpstocks because they mimic the effect of a full auto but not really and they don't follow the "spirit" of your precious 1986 NFA regs?? legalizing suppressors not only violates the "spirit" of the law it kills the law, so it's okay to kill a law but not skirt the "spirit" of the law? that is as hypocrital as these polticos and hollywood morons who scream "outlaw firearms now" while being surrounded by heavily armed guards and carrying their own CCWs.

2. as I said before the bumpstock is NOTHING like a full auto, all it does is pull the trigger for you WHEN it functions correctly, read that again it pulls the trigger each time it moves, that is in no way like a full auto in fact it's a lazy mans crank trigger,

3. if you acknowledge the regs regarding full auto and want to incorporate bumpstocks and other things that "mimic those capabilities" then how can you even think of legalizing suppressors since they are strictly regulated???

4. If defending gun rights in any way makes someone an extremist gun rights advocates then throw me on that list right now proudly! and the reason so many of us fight any regulations outlawing any firearms in any way is because people like you talk about the 1986 NFA reg as though they are common sense and outlawing bumpstocks is also common sense, so what's next? outlaw semi-autos because they make it easier to fire quickly or hold too many rounds? or maybe like some other gun hater who wants RFID tags on all guns and ammunition because to him that's common sense? Nope, gotta go with toylandcruiser "shall not be infringed" and plainjane "I'd just have to respectfully disagree"!

 

[BigBamBoo]

The anti gun definition of an arsenal....a single shot .22 and a hand full of shells for it.

 

[2025 deleted member]

The anti gun definition of an arsenal....a single shot .22 and a hand full of shells for it.

I saw Bob Lee Swagger kills 4 mercenaries with that particular setup. Shot from a distance standing in a rocking boat too.

 

[Dalko43]

NevadaLover, I'm not in favor of telling other people they can't have bumpstocks. As I noted earlier, I think any prohibition or restriction would be mostly a symbolic gesture. But I am a realist; if this administration doesn't affect restrictive regulations on the bumpstocks (via either executive authorities or the legislative route), the next one will.

And if i have to pick and choose between loosening restrictions on suppressors and keeping bumpstocks as unregulated items, my vote is for the suppressors which are much more practical and relevant for the everyday shooter. I'm totally in favor of rewriting certain aspects of the 1986 NFA, but I'm realistic in expecting that such a legislative move is highly unlikely in today's political environment.

“Shall not be infringed”

And yet the precedents set by numerous Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that certain weapons can in fact be restricted or prohibited from civilian ownership. Let's have a realistic conversation here.

 

[toylandcruiser]

NevadaLover, I'm not in favor of telling other people they can't have bumpstocks. As I noted earlier, I think any prohibition or restriction would be mostly a symbolic gesture. But I am a realist; if this administration doesn't affect restrictive regulations on the bumpstocks (via either executive authorities or the legislative route), the next one will.

And if i have to pick and choose between loosening restrictions on suppressors and keeping bumpstocks as unregulated items, my vote is for the suppressors which are much more practical and relevant for the everyday shooter. I'm totally in favor of rewriting certain aspects of the 1986 NFA, but I'm realistic in expecting that such a legislative move is highly unlikely in today's political environment.



And yet the precedents set by numerous Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that certain weapons can in fact be restricted or prohibited from civilian ownership. Let's have a realistic conversation here.

Because the Supreme Court rules on something is irrelevant. Most of them are super liberal anyways. What matters is what the document says that they are supposed to support. “Shall not be infringed”. Anything regulation is infringing. Simple as that.

 

[NevadaLover]

NevadaLover, I'm not in favor of telling other people they can't have bumpstocks. As I noted earlier, I think any prohibition or restriction would be mostly a symbolic gesture. But I am a realist; if this administration doesn't affect restrictive regulations on the bumpstocks (via either executive authorities or the legislative route), the next one will.

And if i have to pick and choose between loosening restrictions on suppressors and keeping bumpstocks as unregulated items, my vote is for the suppressors which are much more practical and relevant for the everyday shooter. I'm totally in favor of rewriting certain aspects of the 1986 NFA, but I'm realistic in expecting that such a legislative move is highly unlikely in today's political environment.



And yet the precedents set by numerous Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that certain weapons can in fact be restricted or prohibited from civilian ownership. Let's have a realistic conversation here.

The biggest problem I have with what you are saying is the fact that you act like all we need to do is ban bumpstocks and all will be good with the antis, if you really think banning bumpstocks will stop them then read this, http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article178967491.html, then if you can comprehend what I am trying to explain to you read this, http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...its-ban-on-the-open-1507936129-htmlstory.html.
they aren't going to stop until they get a total ban on all firearms, and people like you trying to say ignorant things like "lets just let them ban bumpstocks" and acting as though that will be the end of it just helps the loony antis get their lies beat into the heads of the ignorant voters who don't do their due diligence on the issues and go along with what they read in forums like this and on lib sites like the huff post, so quit trying to convince people that it is the best thing for all to "just outlaw bumpstocks" because it's just one more step towards the end of the 2nd amendment like they want and that sir will be the start of the next civil war. IMO.

And stop trying to act as though america has to choose bumpstocks over suppressors, it isn't a give and take proposition as you keep saying, giving up bumpstocks will not magically make the libs say "okay now you can have your suppressors", if they get bumpstocks they will keep on going after every other part of the right to keep and bear arms until it no longer exists!

 

[NevadaLover]

Because the Supreme Court rules on something is irrelevant. Most of them are super liberal anyways. What matters is what the document says that they are supposed to support. “Shall not be infringed”. Anything regulation is infringing. Simple as that.

It's amazing to me that people can't get that simple fact through their head.

 

[SigSense]

And yet the precedents set by numerous Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that certain weapons can in fact be restricted or prohibited from civilian ownership. Let's have a realistic conversation here.

Ever heard of the Supreme Court decision known as Dred Scott? Keep that in mind when you mention that their decisions enable us to have "realistic conversations." Then see my quote above reference the Nazi's "conversation" regarding the Jews......

 

[Dalko43]

Because the Supreme Court rules on something is irrelevant. Most of them are super liberal anyways. What matters is what the document says that they are supposed to support. “Shall not be infringed”. Anything regulation is infringing. Simple as that.

Again, I encourage you to read some of these Supreme Court cases. At least half of the justices are decidedly conservative in their interpretation of the Constitution. The fact that firearm ownership is even still considered a right instead of a mere privilege is due to the conservative Justices adhering to a strict, traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the Heller vs DC case.

The fact that you summarily dismiss their role in all of this and label most of them as liberal tells me that you are ignorant of why you still have gun ownership rights to begin with.

Also, I don't see anyone here arguing that we make RPG's or artillery pieces legal for civilian ownership. So obviously even the most diehard 2nd Amendment supporters acknowledge that our gun ownership rights can be infringed to some degree.

The biggest problem I have with what you are saying is the fact that you act like all we need to do is ban bumpstocks and all will be good with the antis, if you really think banning bumpstocks will stop them then read this

I know diehard gun control advocates won't stop with bump stocks. But the rest of middle America, the majority of which supports gun rights to some degree, does want there to be some control over automatic weapons. And my stance is less about appeasement and more about enacting regulation/legislation on our terms instead of their (gun control advocates') terms. I'm firmly convinced that if we don't take the initiative in crafting regulation/legislation that at least allows for law-abiding citizens to apply for and buy bump stocks in a regulated manner, a much more unfriendly administration will come along and prohibit their ownership all together.

Also I just don't think bumpstocks are worthy of the gun advocacy groups spending their political capital on. They're mostly impractical for everyday shooters (and consume a lot of ammo). They do skirt around the intent of the 1986 NFA, and it's pointless to argue otherwise. And there are causes much more deserving of our attention (over-turning state-specific bans, loosening restrictions on suppressors, concealed carry reciprocity, ect.).

I care about gun rights, probably more than you because I live in a state that expressly forbids certain types of firearms due to how they look. I just think starting a long and costly political fight over bump stocks is a waste of time and effort.

 

[NevadaLover]

I know diehard gun control advocates won't stop with bump stocks. But the rest of middle America, the majority of which supports gun rights to some degree, does want there to be some control over automatic weapons. And my stance is less about appeasement and more about enacting regulation/legislation on our terms instead of their (gun control advocates') terms. I'm firmly convinced that if we don't take the initiative in crafting regulation/legislation that at least allows for law-abiding citizens to apply for and buy bump stocks in a regulated manner, a much more unfriendly administration will come along and prohibit their ownership all together.

Also I just don't think bumpstocks are worthy of the gun advocacy groups spending their political capital on. They're mostly impractical for everyday shooters (and consume a lot of ammo). They do skirt around the intent of the 1986 NFA, and it's pointless to argue otherwise. And there are causes much more deserving of our attention (over-turning state-specific bans, loosening restrictions on suppressors, concealed carry reciprocity, ect.).

I care about gun rights, probably more than you because I live in a state that expressly forbids certain types of firearms due to how they look. I just think starting a long and costly political fight over bump stocks is a waste of time and effort.

As for middle america supporting gun rights to some degree, I doubt that is true as I have not seen any non-partisan survey that makes that point, every survey that pops up on the web that supports this theory is easily traced to the leaders of gun control groups and therefore is suspect in my world so I don't believe it, and why is it that the majority of these new laws are enacted by politicos NOT by election? that points to the fact that the politicos know that they are not supported by the people, disproving that theory plainly.

And you most definitely do not care more about gun rights than I do, simple point in fact here you are telling people that we need to enact a ban on bumpstocks thus giving up one more small part of our right to bear arms, I will never support ANY legislation that erodes any part of our constitutional rights no matter why because once you start that landslide it is for all intents and purposes impossible to stop and then where will we be? History shows over and over what happens to populations that give up their rights but you and a part of the american people don't see that or refuse to believe it can happen here, good luck with that!