Bump stocks. Who will be

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
twich54 said:
what is your definition of a 'standard rifle' ?

as for the Ruger, it 'could' easily be construed as an assault weapon, myself probably not, but regardless I know where you're going with this and yes it could easily be classified as such in a ban by the Gov't.
Click to expand...
For the purpose of this discussion, in simplest of terms, a standard rifle is any rifle that is not capable of fully automatic (ie machine gun) firing *. The AR-15 as well as the Ruger, and a plethora of other designs, representing tens of millions of rifles, qualify as such (for they have hammer and trigger/firing mechanism designs that make it uneasy to convert into fully automatic mode)

Now, do you honestly believe it to be realistic that we’d see the Gov’t ban such rifles? Without causing a civil war that is ……

* Yes, M16 sear/bolt carrier conversion kits could work around this definition but they have been banned since the 70’s/80’s so I don’t consider them a relevant item.
 
amey01 said:
1. I've never espoused "banning them"
2. What do you think AR stands for?
3. If the a rile called Assault Rifle is not an assault rifle, I don't know what is.

For clarification (from one of the AR-15's designers)



mmmmmmm - just what citizens of a modern, civilised society need to walk around carrying.
Click to expand...
Are you not espousing the ban of AR-15?

I am curious; do you also espouse the banning of the other “AR” pattern rifles (ie AR-10, AR-17, AR-7, AR-5)?

If not, which rifles, in addition to the AR-15, do you wish to see banned? Any gun ban proposal must start with a list of weapons you wish to ban.

BTW, the AR in all these rifles stands for Armalite and not assault/automatic rifle as the main stream media would lead you to believe.
 
amey01 said:
Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1997.
The USA had 346 mass shootings last year alone (2017)

What part of that "utopian reality" do you not seem to grasp?

How is this single statistic "not based in reality"? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Your argument is getting more and more absurd by the post.

PS - I used Australia for example - but only because I am Australian. I could no doubt pick any developed country for similar emphasis [except the USA of course]
Click to expand...

As I mentioned previously, Australia’s (insert another Country of your choice) supposed “Shangri-la” gun society bears little resemblance to that of the US. It is not reality in the US for the simple facts that a small % of law abiding gun owners would volunteer to relinquish their guns in buyback fashion while hardly any criminals would. With several hundred million guns in existence, replenishment of guns would be exponentially easier to obtain.

I am curious …. at its peak, how many guns were owned in Australia? How many now?
 
This is perfect!

28468368_10210740921108919_1448846247981315199_n.jpg
 
Pneumonic said:
As I mentioned previously, Australia’s (insert another Country of your choice) supposed “Shangri-la” gun society bears little resemblance to that of the US. It is not reality in the US for the simple facts that a small % of law abiding gun owners would volunteer to relinquish their guns in buyback fashion while hardly any criminals would. With several hundred million guns in existence, replenishment of guns would be exponentially easier to obtain.

I am curious …. at its peak, how many guns were owned in Australia? How many now?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could look that up.

Regardless, it's not like the USA is unique or the "guinea pig" in this regard. Every other civilised country has "been there, done that" - we've all had gun problems and solved the them in rational and measured ways. And it has worked. So there is no point kicking and screaming "it won't work". And drawing long bows, coming up with wierd and bizzare reasons why it won't work. Experience would tell you otherwise. Example would tell you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
RCHeliGuy said:
Just because people feel Entitled to have guns without doing any work doesn't mean they should have them.

What does "Without doing any work" mean Mark?


"The intent was always that armed people would form well regulated militias, but that hasn't happened and still people demand to have their guns anyway. Seems like a huge lack of follow through."

The Media and anti gun forces are always up in arms about any political group they deem to be extreme right wing, Nazi, racist or bigots. What do you think would if large groups of gun owners started meeting to practice shooting and planing for stopping the state government from taking some specific action? I would suggest you would have a situation that would make Waco or Ruby Ridge look like summer camp.

The second amendment protects our right to defend our selves from our state government. It doesn't mean we have to have a Militia in place. You and I both know how that group would be treated.

Do you think that citizens had more to fear from the newly formed government when the constitution was written or now that the government has grown to be self serving toward the people running it?
Click to expand...
 
Any Tom Dick and mass shooter can just pick up a gun without any training, or oversight.

What part of "well regulated militia" is joe shmo picking up a gun part of?

He's not and that is outside the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Do you really believe you stand an icicle's chance in hell at "defending" yourself if our government comes after you? A swat team shows up at your house with Kevlar vests and helmets, sharp shooters and a battering ram to take down your door and throws a grenade in. That battle would be over before it began.

Thinking you could actually fight against our government in a weapons battle is completely delusional.

This is just a chunk of metal giving you a very false sense of safety and as a result you would be more likely to do something that would get you killed.

Seriously how do you think a situation like this would go down. Let's be "optimistic" and say that one or two law enforcement officials came to your house and you fought them off killing one and injuring the other. Want to take a wild guess what happens next? Now you are a cop killer and the wraith of the department or whoever else they can recruit will come down on you.
 
Last edited:
Brad225 said:
The second amendment protects our right to defend our selves from our state government. It doesn't mean we have to have a Militia in place. You and I both know how that group would be treated.
Click to expand...

Your government has the world's biggest cache of nuclear bombs.

If you need to "defend yourself from your government" I don't think "little Johnny" standing on his driveway with his AR-15 is going to do much, do you?

If you want to make an argument, at least make it a cogent one, because the above is just laughable.
 
amey01 said:
If you need to "defend yourself from your government" I don't think "little Johnny" standing on his driveway with his AR-15 is going to do much, do you?
Click to expand...

Agreed but there seem to be many folks (in rural areas) who believe this for some inexplicable reason. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why.
 
Gordon Gray said:
Agreed but there seem to be many folks (in rural areas) who believe this for some inexplicable reason. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why.
Click to expand...

It's very simple. A gun represents a security blanket. It creates the allusion of safety and control for people. There is something about holding a heavy chunk of metal that can kill very easily that makes a person "feel" powerful. In their minds they are masters of their domain as long as they can have their guns.

This is why people cling to guns so strongly. It's a very emotional thing which unfortunately also makes it a completely irrational thing.
 
RCHeliGuy said:
Any Tom Dick and mass shooter can just pick up a gun without any training, or oversight.

What part of "well regulated militia" is joe shmo picking up a gun part of?

He's not and that is outside the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Do you really believe you stand an icicle's chance in hell at "defending" yourself if our government comes after you? A swat team shows up at your house with Kevlar vests and helmets, sharp shooters and a battering ram to take down your door and throws a grenade in. That battle would be over before it began.

Thinking you could actually fight against our government in a weapons battle is completely delusional.

This is just a chunk of metal giving you a very false sense of safety and as a result you would be more likely to do something that would get you killed.

Seriously how do you think a situation like this would go down. Let's be "optimistic" and say that one or two law enforcement officials came to your house and you fought them off killing one and injuring the other. Want to take a wild guess what happens next? Now you are a cop killer and the wraith of the department or whoever else they can recruit will come down on you.
Click to expand...


Mark you are making my point exactly that no one is going to set up any type of militia because the government would be knocking at your door so fast.

As you often do your are turning my comment into the story you want it to be. I never said I was going to start a battle with the government. You are obsessed with eliminating guns. That is your right but spinning stories is not the way to go about it.

The laws we have need to be enforced. Many of the shooters in the past have been known by the local or federal authorities to be questionable or unstable yet nothing was done.

The biggest issue that we face about controlling guns is neither side trusts the other to not go over board on control or free sale of them.

Though I fear it will be a downhill slide I believe in order to purchase a gun you need to have gone through a class and back ground check even more stringent than that required for a Concealed Carry Permit.
 
Gordon Gray said:
Agreed but there seem to be many folks (in rural areas) who believe this for some inexplicable reason. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why.
Click to expand...

I think it is nothing more than this:

History has demonstrated (see Hitler, Stalin and Tse-Tung for relevant examples) that completely unarmed civilians are the easiest prey. Now, it may be true that they may also be easy prey if armed (and battling against a much stronger opponent) but, many don't wish to take that chance.
 
Amey

That was not what I was suggesting. What do you thing the government would do if 1000 people started meeting and practicing to protect their town. The government would be all over you so fast it is not funny.

Do you think the government would stand by and watch that happen? The government is probably not going to Nuc my house either even if I was deemed a problem.
 
Brad225 said:
Amey

That was not what I was suggesting. What do you thing the government would do if 1000 people started meeting and practicing to protect their town. The government would be all over you so fast it is not funny.

Do you think the government would stand by and watch that happen? The government is probably not going to Nuc my house either even if I was deemed a problem.
Click to expand...

Nor would it be wise to presume, as is often done, that Govt would have all of the members of the military actually on their side in any such hypothetical situation.
 
Gordon Gray said:
Agreed but there seem to be many folks (in rural areas) who believe this for some inexplicable reason. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why.
Click to expand...

Gordon, I live in a rural area and own some of the guns in question, as do a number of people I know. I have to say there is no one I know that thinks they to need to defend themselves from the government with weapons.

Many of us live in areas where Coyotes, Bob Cat and Wild Hogs are prevalent. Unfortunately all of them can be very destructive and aggressive.

Someone earlier mentioned about no one ever having a need for a silencer. I know people that have acquired them after 18-24 months of background search. If you have Possums and Armadillos that are nocturnal creatures that tear up you yard and plants night time is the only option you have to remove them. Not wanting to disturb neighbors that is not common to use one.

If you all are referring to survivalists living in the woods thinking someone is coming for them and their guns, I have no answer for you. Those are not the people I know.
 
Pneumonic said:
Nor would it be wise to presume, as is often done, that Govt would have all of the members of the military actually on their side in any such hypothetical situation.
Click to expand...

This was my general point when Mark said that the only way we can own guns is to have a Militia.
It appears the general consensus is creating a Militia would not be taken lightly or allowed by the government.

My point was our legal right to own guns is protected in the 2nd Amendment should the government become so unstable citizens feel the need to protect themselves.
 
Brad225 said:
Do you think the government would stand by and watch that happen? The government is probably not going to Nuc my house either even if I was deemed a problem.
Click to expand...

"Protect your town" - you're talking like it the dark ages with men with sticks on horseback.

So many assumptions in all these posts, I can't possibly respond to them all. "The government 'probably won't nuke you'", but they might send the military with assault rifles for a man-on-man fight? Can one assume they wouldn't bring tanks / cannons / rocket launchers either. Just men with assault rifles to keep it a fair fight, right?

In the end, the government has far more sophisticated and effective ways of controlling you as opposed to sending men with guns; but without resorting to nuking you (it was just an extreme example to illustrate the absurdity of the argument). They can turn the power off in your town for example. Turn the water off. Remove sanitation. Cut off food supply. Your guns aren't going to help you one bit if your government is hell-bent on doing you harm.

These days, simply cutting off internet/comms would close down a town's economy!
 
Last edited:
Brad225 said:
If you have Possums and Armadillos that are nocturnal creatures that tear up you yard and plants night time is the only option you have to remove them.
Click to expand...

This one deserves special mention.

Are you serious? Using a gun in a residential area to control wildlife?

No wonder there are also so many unintentional shootings in the USA as well as homicides.

I wouldn't want my neighbour indiscriminately popping off around his yard because "he saw an aggressive possum" "tearing up his plants".

That's not safety or protection. That would make me feel very unsafe (for me and my family) indeed.

What year are you living in? Have you not heard of more modern and sophisticated ways to control pests?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SugarMedia
The Composer of "21st-Century Romanticism" Talks About His Music
Replies
1
Views
1K
SugarMedia
SugarMedia

Latest posts

Back
Top