Gh85Carrera...

That's a low blow asking me if I am an American citizen.
I have an opinion. Respect it. Debate it.
Just for you... I grew up in Oakland Calif. Born in Hayward.

Back when I graduated from High school... You did this. You moved out and got an apartment.
You got a job. You entered college or you enlisted. At 18 back then, you were considered an adult.
Today, at 21 most are still children.
I am not against owning a firearm but we don't need children owning weapons and
adults owning a hundred of them.

What? Go look again...try and see what changed. It was not the availability of weapons (https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/)

Or don't.

Then go look at the FBI UCR: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

Or don't.

Banning anything to do with the AR platform is statistically insignificant. Focus on the problem. Doing anything else is a disservice and pandering.

Hey Nick, no worries. Apology accepted. Maybe I'm just a bit too sensitive when it comes to my "honesty" being question. I do my absolute level best to be honest with everyone, at all times, in any situation.

We do, obviously, have a philosophical difference regarding what constitutes a "right" vs. a "privilege". To me, "rights" have no strings attached, are not "granted" to anyone by anyone, where "privileges" do come with stipulations, and are "granted". I do believe "rights" can be revoked as punishment, so no, I do not believe them to be absolute and irrevocable under any circumstances.

Anyway, sorry that I got a bit testy with you. My apologies.

So, just as a point of further discussion, is there a limit (on capacity) at which you would consider it to be an infringement upon our rights? What if we were limited to single shot rifles and handguns, and to double shotguns? Would that be an infringement or, because we can own some form of arm, you would not feel as if our rights were infringed?

That's a tough one. There are factors that would weigh in much in the same way factors weighed in on the decision by the court. The court seemed of the opinion that 10 rounds wasn't sufficient for self defense. I'm of the mind that if you can't do the job in 10, a double stack isn't going to help you much more. I don't know where the line gets drawn. Ultimately for me it comes down to being accurate rather than having the ability to spread lead. I shoot my rifles as single shot. I've never even loaded a round in the magazine of my .250. Every pistol I have ever used has had some sort of optics on it whether it's scoped for distance or a laser for close quarters. But again, it's a tough question that I don't have an honest answer for.

Isn't part of the problem that a nut can get their hands on a semi auto that will bump fire 30 or more rounds though? Sure mental health, breakdown of the two parent family and other factors play in, but ultimately doesn't the availability of gun and the number of rounds it can carry play into the equation too? I'm not saying "ban the AR" because I know that's pointless since it's nothing more than a platform.

Those same nutz can rent a uhaul and run over a crowd of people or fill it with fertilizer and blow a bunch of people too.

Good luck with that. You are shooting in a controlled environment without the hinderance of lead (or fists, bats, hammers, drugged up youth) flying at you. FWIW...I have not had to operate in that situation either. Once again, look at the documented police encounters. These folks are trained and accepted as our protectors. They routinely dump their high capacity magazines in a situation. Sometimes its convincing, other times not. A home owner suddenly confronted with a life/death situation...lucky to get 1 shot out of 10...if that.

Part of why I'm a fan of laser sights on a pistol. Takes some of the guess work out of shooting. I can't hit the broad side of a barn with open sights. Pistol, rifle.. don't care I can't shoot em' steel sight.

But that's not what they're deciding to do here or at least not an achieve the same body count. Elsewhere that can't be said, but here in the states not so much. Even in places where gun laws are strict, they'll use a gun if they can. The fact that it's more difficult to get the gun with the high capacity magazine seems to make it a more rare occurrence elsewhere than here.

Laser sights mean nothing if you can't control your flinch and/or don't know the difference between squeezing and pulling the trigger, which is a problem for most people. I have never owned a laser sight and I can shoot pretty tight groups with good ole three dot sights, because I practiced a lot with a random dummy round or two in my mags, not knowing when the gun was going to go bang or click. Once you see how much you flinch on a click, you learn to control it and that makes all the difference in the world.

And possibly even if you have a steady aim/shot with or without laser sites...
If you're suddenly afraid for your life due to an immediate threat to your life, you may still shoot like crap.

"Bump" fire is not full auto. And it is very inaccurate fire, since the firearm must be held loose for the bumping to work. You do not need anything more than a belt loop to do it. And ANY semi-auto can be bump fired.

About the only way it is "effective" is a situation like Las Vegas, where inaccuracy is not an issue.

I think a bump stock is stupid. Purposely firing a firearm inaccurately is against every proper operational principle. And a waste of ammo. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal. No more so than have a track rated car on city streets.

[QUOTE=cabmando;10414043]We've never met have we? :)
Oh... and I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in DC or NY. :)

BTDT....I wasn't "armed" though...so I just acted like the rest of 'em :)

Ok killer...as long as you refuse to deal with the core issue of using violence as a means of resolving problems you will remain being a killer.

I understand all of that which is why I didn't refer to it as full auto but rather as bump firing. Watch a few videos, there's a guy that bump fires quite accurately shooting against a guy using a bump stock to bump fire. Both close range which isn't fair.

[QUOTE=KC911;10414553] So you flicked people off and yelled "screw you pal!"?

Jeff,
I had some time to think about it and I have to be consistent and say no, it wouldn't be an infringement because as I pointed out in my argument for a ban of more than 10, you can still buy it, carry it, buy the ammo for it and shoot it. I just don't see the right to keep and bear arms as defining the number of rounds those arms can fire. Now, do I think it would ever happen? No. Mostly because there are so many revolvers, semi autos, pump shotguns etc. that you'd never be able to limit the gun to a single shot. The country couldn't afford the buy back and the people wouldn't abide by a ban.

[QUOTE=cabmando;10414579] Absolutely! But I substituted a different word for "pal" just trying to fit in... :).

Cabmando,

Our founders recognized that men have a natural right to bear arms and they included it in the constitution in those terms.

Part of that right is for the purpose of defense against criminals. Unconstitutional laws all over this country restrict that expression of the right. (restrictions on what kind of arms one can own, where they can be carried). We can only work to overturn those over-reaches by government.

While the police and other law enforcement play a role in the protection of the populace, there is no reason for them to use any arm that I am not allowed to own and keep on my person for the defense of myself and those close to me. Any restrictions on the type of gun, magazine capacity or ammunition that are imposed on citizens must rightly be imposed on all forms of law enforcement - but that doesn't make them less a violation of a natural right.

The final reason that our founders saw the need to enumerate this right was as the final defense against oppressive government - a fight they fought themselves.

The Russian populace was the most armed in the world before the revolution. Stalin disarmed the public and slaughtered them by the millions.

History is clear that governments abuse defenseless populations. We don't need that here.

I get the whole 2A.. I'm a gun owner. Own several. But anyone who believes they could take a fight to our federal government needs their head examined. It's not even the Military you'd have to worry about, it's the police. God forbid it ever happened, if the Military took the side of the government in protecting the country from enemies foreign and domestic, the uprising wouldn't last more than a week. The talk of owning arms to to combat an oppressive government is Rambo type bull****. In reality, they'd be squashed like bugs. Look at the brave souls who took over that federal building in Oregon. Once the gloves came off they surrendered peacefully in spite of all the big talk. Reality my friend, they're already better armed and have more ammo than most people could ever imagine. Back in the day before there was air power you could maybe pull it off. If they own the air and have a significant ground force, it's game over.