Once drone armies are implemented which is only a few years off. These gun fellatiors will have no chance even with their rapid fire calibre weapons. All they will do is stick the rifle up their asses before a drone decapitates their stupid ass
Guns will be as obsolete as a longsword in about 5-10 years
You're changing "semi-auto" to "machine guns". Fully automatic weapons are already banned, most people don't own one and you cannot buy one without approval of your local police chief.
Do you want to stick to one lane or are you just going to go full re again?
Which bad guy had a machine gun? Hand guns are semi-autos.
And you don't need to a 12 year old with a nation full of older women but you did.
I've never understood this. Going by the logic that "it's our right to have them because the govt has them", citizens should be allowed to have their own nukes and missiles. Is that what you're advocating for?
Nope. I’m not advocating anything. That WAS the intent and spirit of the law. Today is much different than when it was created. You’re also taking that too far. The gov wouldn’t nuke it’s own people. Come on at least be rational about this. The police need them because bad guys have them. Remember the guys that had full auto AKs that robbed that bank in LA? The hand guns they had were no match. Also, this guy did not have fully automatic weapons. They are banned. In order to get one it has to be pre-ban and it costs a ton of money for the stamp. So it’s not like there are a ton of legal ones out there. Bottom line is that there is no easy solution to this. Ban all scary looking guns and you’re hurting the enthusiast, the law abiding citizen and empowering those that would do bad things with those guns that are already in circulation. People that do bad things don’t care about laws. They’re going to get weapons legally or illegally
An AR 15 with a bump stock cannot stand off an army. THAT is stupid.
So the big evil government that people need to protect themselves from would be willing to use guns on its own people but not nukes? Sounds like you're equivocating.
Guns kill people. Nukes destroy the country including the one they live in. Come on man. Stop it. Again. I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m saying that’s what the law was for. Like it or not, it’s a fact.
Ah ok I misunderstood you. Agreed that was the original intent of the law.
The problem with your argument is in scale.
The locks on your doors won't stop someone from kicking your door down, or breaking out windows or just burning your home to the ground, but you are en led to at least a modi of protection and often deterrence is all that is needed. While the government has a multi-tiered barricade system on their buildings, our homes have almost nothing but we are not nearly as big a target as the government is. We take our chances. Still, we have the right to build a fortress if we so choose until we use it to imprison people, then it gets removed from us or us from it.
There's a reason mass shootings don't happen at gun shows and police stations but concerts, airports, churches, schools and universities instead. Even the Ft Hood shooter didn't try it at the range but in a place where people were by and large unarmed.
I'm not talking about protecting yourself from intruders. I agree that guns are a good deterrent in that regard and am fine with people have guns in that respect, I was only addressing the "protect yourself against the government" argument.
None of which has anything to do with what I said. A lot of cheap semi-auto rifles are look-alikes. But they can still be modified easy enough to fire full-auto.
It's a futile endeavor but that doesn't mean shouldn't have the right to try.
Of course they can. You can build a fully automatic weapon in your garage if you have the lathes and equipment. It's illegal as to modify to full auto without a registered sear and completely illegal to manufacture without a class II license. So nothing legislation can do to make it more illegal. When fully automatic weapons become a problem, we can talk about that.
The problem is people focus on the peripherals like how much ammo he had, how many guns he had, the bump stock, all this . He could have rammed a truck through that crowd and killed a ton just as easily. No one focuses on the truck or trying to make it harder to rent a van or truck.
If he had a suppressed rifle with subsonic rounds he could have killed people all night, here and there and still be on the loose.
I'm not in favor of work arounds for things like the NFA or 1986 ban on autos by having bump stocks. I'm not in favor of a lot of that's a side issue to the gun debate.
People always look for the post mortem "can't happen again" root cause analysis however sometimes people are just ing crazy or they hate others and decide to go out in a blaze. It sucks, but that's a risk you take when you pack yourself into a crowd of 20K, outside in a compromised position, lit up like a target. You don't know you're taking that risk and in an ideal world it wouldn't be a risk to have a good time but even in church you can be gunned down if you drew a short straw that day. The best you can do is have the ability to send lead back the other way if at all possible, maybe stop the attack, maybe not. Maybe even make it worse, but these people won't attack in situations that don't favor a high body count.
yeah, i had this argument with dmc a while back and he wasn't understanding it then either
A suppressor doesn’t do what it does in the movies. It does NOT make it silent. It also slows the round down so it might not have been as deadly. They didn’t find the guy because of the sounds outside or because of the muzzle flash. You couldn’t see it anyway. They found him because of the noise inside the hotel. They still would have heard it with a suppressor.
except no because unlike what happened in Nice in a street, the area was barricaded and fenced
Which wasn't at all possible in this scenerio. The Orlando shooting, the Colorado theatre shooting, and the like might be a different story. You can argue logistics all day, how hard or easy it is to pull off, what components are legal and which are not... but the fact remains that a crowd of people were fired upon by automatic rifles from a distance. To just throw your hands up and say nothing can or should be changed is irresponsible.
Again, I'm not anti second amendment. I'm a gun owner myself. All I'm saying is that maybe we need to question what the practical application for some of these guns are.
what what a lib cuck
when's the wedding brah?
So once those people ran out of the gates, no one could have mowed them down with a truck?
You just argue to see your name on the screen.
Last Saturday scrah
No wonder you've been so pissed off lately.
They weren’t automatic weapons sir. Stick to the facts. I will say that there is absolutely no need for bump stocks. Simple.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
