You are right. I cannot and do not care to argue any points you've made. 

I really tried giving you a chance. Now I realize you aren't here for open and honest debate. You are here to a pompous ass and rude to other board members. AVB already tried that. It didn't work. He even claims to have had an Awakening and now realizes there is no more room for compromise.


I also don't believe you know anything about bump stocks. If you did you would realize they really don't make a rifle more deadly. If anything there was likely less loss of life in Vegas. The only comparable between them and full auto is they allow quick bursts of fire, but it is not a sustained even pace and is even harder to be accurate. Lastly a bump stock is not needed to bump fire.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Nah. No with this court. This needs to drag on until Ginsburg croaks. 

Remember Kennedy retires this year. I think we have a solid 4. The reason they haven't taken 2A cases is their worried about the 5th. Though I don't disagree Ginsburg gone would be great.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Still makes me uncomfortable. Too close of a call. Their decision is so finial. 

10 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I really tried giving you a chance. Now I realize you aren't here for open and honest debate. You are here to a pompous ass and rude to other board members. AVB already tried that. It didn't work. He even claims to have had an Awakening and now realizes there is no more room for compromise.


I also don't believe you know anything about bump stocks. If you did you would realize they really don't make a rifle more deadly. If anything there was likely less loss of life in Vegas. The only comparable between them and full auto is they allow quick bursts of fire, but it is not a sustained even pace and is even harder to be accurate. Lastly a bump stock is not needed to bump fire.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

What the heck are you talking about?  I agreed with the person making the post that I quoted.  You have a very bad habit of thinking that every statement is filled with malice. I agreed and did not have any rebuttal to Gunsnfreedom.  How is that anything you've made it out to be??!?

9 hours ago, Shane45 said:

I reject banning bump stocks because that ideology accepts that banning an inanimate object has an effect on the problem. With that being said, politics being what they are, I will accept some losses of derp items to gain real ones.

One other consideration. Consider for a moment the executive order for an assault weapons ban that would already be in place if Hillary won.

This 

34 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

What the heck are you talking about?  I agreed with the person making the post that I quoted.  You have a very bad habit of thinking that every statement is filled with malice. I agreed and did not have any rebuttal to Gunsnfreedom.  How is that anything you've made it out to be??!?

It’s hard to judge tone and meaning over the Internet.  We are all a little on our guard at the moment with everything happening.  He probably saw the response as a “whatever man” type.  Cap’s a good guy.  Don’t take it personal.

Trump Bans Bump Stocks, in exchange for making Machine Guns legal again?

What the heck are you talking about?  I agreed with the person making the post that I quoted.  You have a very bad habit of thinking that every statement is filled with malice. I agreed and did not have any rebuttal to Gunsnfreedom.  How is that anything you've made it out to be??!?

Then my apologies. It came off as "I really don't care what you have to say". I think this whole David Hogg and his band of Antis has moved me to the paranoid category.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

13 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

It’s hard to judge tone and meaning over the Internet.  We are all a little on our guard at the moment with everything happening.  He probably saw the response as a “whatever man” type.  Cap’s a good guy.  Don’t take it personal.

Thanks. I have no doubt he's a good guy. You're absolutely right - tone and meaning can be hard to judge on a web forum. 

Trump Bans Bump Stocks, in exchange for making Machine Guns legal again?

 

I will take that deal. Though it is new and previously unregistered machine guns legal again. Registered machine guns made prior to 1986 are legally and transferable for those with the money to afford them.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would love to own a M240 (but don't think I can fund ammo for it)

Thanks. I have no doubt he's a good guy. You're absolutely right - tone and meaning can be hard to judge on a web forum. 

It definitely is hard to tell sometimes. Twitter and Facebook on the other hand it is much more clear. I was called a brainwashed scumbag today for replying to a tweet "Abolish the Second Amendment". My reply was "no problem just get 2/3 of Congress to vote for New Amednment that repeals the Second and 3/4 of states to ratify it".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry I’m late. Did we convert another one?  Do I have to put away my torch and pitchfork?

16 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Sorry I’m late. Did we convert another one?  Do I have to put away my torch and pitchfork?

Hearts and minds voyager, hearts and minds

11 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

As I said, anyone can have a differing opinion,d I asserted that others may not agree with me making claims on what others may need in defense.

But yes, if the kid has a backpack of 5-10 round mags instead of 30, to me it seems that it would be harder/slower to move place to place, fire five rounds, grab another mag from the backpack, swap it, and keep shooting. Ditto in LV, those few seconds mean people getting a few steps further away or under cover. I get it that an AR can fairly easily drop and replace a mag.  But if it has to be retrieved, I'm not necessarily buying the 3s thing.

And if it IS that fast, then you're making the case that the Antis want, to vilify SA rifles that can be replenished quickly.

i know it's a slippery slope to go down to say that the Feds should make it a crime to possess mags of x size or larger, I'm ok with people disagreeing (it's a discussion forum after all).  But inability to get big ones by crossing a state line or something would also shut the pols up here...

On the round-count thing. Yes, if you keep your mags in a backpack, briefcase, or in another room, it is going to take longer. Having them in the pocket of a vest, or cargo pants will not.  My point was that the limit has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the firearm. 

And that is fundamentally where I disagree with the theme of your post. The Bill of rights does not grant anything. It stares what we already have and what the government cannot take away. Now the SCOTUS has ruled that rights are not absolute but that bar must be excessively high for the government to cross. In the case of Heller it was specific to felons, mental health, and extraordinary cases of public safety.  

The onus must be on the government to justify the curtailing of rights based on that high bar. They must show that the restriction would be effective. It cannot be “because you don’t need it for xxxx”. 

None of the bills proposed so far, mag limits, restrictions on cosmetic features, CCW neutering, pass that test and should be found excessive and in contempt. 

Background checks, NICS seem to pass that test. I wouldn’t to too opposed to opening it up to public use voluntarily and with privacy controls.  The age limit-thing: eeeehh. Not so sure.

tally ho. 

24 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

On the round-count thing. Yes, if you keep your mags in a backpack, briefcase, or in another room, it is going to take longer. Having them in the pocket of a vest, or cargo pants will not.  My point was that the limit has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the firearm. 

And that is fundamentally where I disagree with the theme of your post. The Bill of rights does not grant anything. It stares what we already have and what the government cannot take away. Now the SCOTUS has ruled that rights are not absolute but that bar must be excessively high for the government to cross. In the case of Heller it was specific to felons, mental health, and extraordinary cases of public safety.  

The onus must be on the government to justify the curtailing of rights based on that high bar. They must show that the restriction would be effective. It cannot be “because you don’t need it for xxxx”. 

None of the bills proposed so far, mag limits, restrictions on cosmetic features, CCW neutering, pass that test and should be found excessive and in contempt. 

Background checks, NICS seem to pass that test. I wouldn’t to too opposed to opening it up to public use voluntarily and with privacy controls.  The age limit-thing: eeeehh. Not so sure.

tally ho. 

Huzzah and chip chip Cheerio to opening up a stripped display NICS

9 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

Huzzah and chip chip Cheerio to opening up a stripped display NICS

I think a system where you could run the check on yourself, and provide that verification to someone else, would work for 99% of the scenarios. I’d get rid of any mention of the sale, or what was being sold. It should purely be used to verify the person. Not the object. 

I think a system where you could run the check on yourself, and provide that verification to someone else, would work for 99% of the scenarios. I’d get rid of any mention of the sale, or what was being sold. It should purely be used to verify the person. Not the object. 

You mean like our FID that we already had to get a NICS check for, yet have to pay for another one?

55 minutes ago, JR88USMC said:

 

 

You mean like our FID that we already had to get a NICS check for, yet have to pay for another one?

 

 

As someone who needs to apply through the NJSP this already is the case. When I apply for s P2P I have to go home and log into their site, enter my CC number for the $52.00 fee to have my back ground checked and sent back to them. 

11 minutes ago, BobA said:

As someone who needs to apply through the NJSP this already is the case. When I apply for s P2P I have to go home and log into their site, enter my CC number for the $52.00 fee to have my back ground checked and sent back to them. 

Local Pd, we do also. But I think it’s $32 or sumtin... idk my wife jus got here batch back.

8 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Local Pd, we do also. But I think it’s $32 or sumtin... idk my wife jus got here batch back.

We should just be able to do that at the friggin store and get it over with. FFLs be agents of NJSP. They’d love the money anyway. 

20 minutes ago, BobA said:

We should just be able to do that at the friggin store and get it over with. FFLs be agents of NJSP. They’d love the money anyway. 

F2f.. no store

Just now, Zeke said:

F2f.. no store

This too. 

Just now, BobA said:

This too. 

On paper the permitting scheme works. In reality it doesn’t, criminals don’t get permits. They don’t buy they’re guns through... screw it. You know the rest.