In the unlikely event that semi-automatics are banned individuals will manufacture full automatics easily for a few dollars. But don't be discouraged. I urge every "progressive" politician to campaign for gun control and gun bans. It's a real winner.
I encourage every conservative to keep turning a blind eye to assault weapons, it's a real winner for church goers.
It focuses attention on how deadly full automatic weapons can be for someone intent on mass murder. The effort to ban them is an ad campaign for machine guns, and machine guns or virtual machine guns will always be easy to obtain.
So what you're saying is that bump stocks can be good for someone intent on mass murder. Exactly right.
Why not prove your manhood with other accomplishments? A hand gun for home protection and a hunting rifle if you are a hunter makes sense.. The rest is posturing and ego.
Unresponsive. Of course, modern military rifles can and often do kill, but they are specifically designed to wound. I have never met anyone who served in the military who did not know this.
Utter BS. Like when hunting anything with the appropriate caliber, if you put the round in the right spot, it will kill. Trust me .233 at high speed, 7.62, etc. is the right caliber. I repeat, charge someone with an M14 in their hand and see what happens to you.
Your unseasoned and unsupportable opinion on the matter does not constitute a reasoned, rational argument for limiting the rights of the law abiding.
They were designed to be tactically effective, and as such the morality of their use is dictated by the shooter. A nutjob can use them to commit horrific acts... and an honest citizen can use them to stop the nutjobs.
I do not hunt anymore or go to the range. I hate cleaning guns. Yes, rubber bands work better than a bump stock. Go to youtube.com and search: bump stock rubber band. I suspect you will be astonished at what you see.
I proved my manhood by being a good husband and good father. Why do you equate lawful firearms ownership with manhood? I have firearms for 3 Gun, "sniper" rifles for long distance shooting, shotguns for hunting and handguns for self-defense. All legal. I used to race downhill mountain bikes. Was that to prove my manhood?
These carbines are not about duck hunting and neither is the 2nd Amendment. We're talking about self-defense and tactical applications, which these weapons (and magazines) are uniquely well suited for.
Again, this is not about hunting; though semi-auto rifles have been around and being used for hunting for the better part of a century.
I was; and I was trained heavily on these weapons and as such am highly aware of their effectiveness and documentable superiority as personal defense tools.
Especially when confronting an armed criminal. The argument for less lethal military rifles and ammo assumes that a wounded enemy will use up more enemy resources than dead bodies that can be ignored until after the battle. Perhaps logical, but I am not entirely convinced.
His ex-wife of the family he wanted to kill taught Sunday School there. He wanted to kill them and all their fellow Christians. He was an avowed atheist, always saying how stupid Christians were.
I'm definitely not convinced, since if we win the battle, our resources are being consumed to take care of the enemy wounded, and why would we fight to lose. We also drop bombs, shoot missiles, fire HE artillery and mortar rounds and shoot heavy machine guns at the enemy well before they come into range of the individual soldier, and none of those are designed to wound. Plus we give Snuffy multiple rounds. If a bad guy is just wounded, he can still fight back. Snuffy knows this and will shoot until the threat is removed.
