Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

tortoise1956

(671 posts)
2. Yes
Tue Oct 3, 2017, 04:09 PM
Oct 2017

The law forbids ownership of automatic weapons except under very strict conditions. There is no earthly reason to allow the sale of modifications that effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle in to one capable of being fired at a rate comparable to that of a select-fire weapon? And as far as I'm concerned, this should apply to ANY modification that, when installed, ends with a weapon that is capable of multiple rounds expended for each single trigger pull. (Please don't try to say that bump stocks are multiple trigger pulls - that is semantics, and frankly after watching my city get shot up by a maniac with a death wish, I'm in no fucking mood to put up with that bullshit...)

For anyone who wants to argue that this falls under infringement, all I can say is that, after the carnage witnessed in Las Vegas Sunday evening, we are in danger of having our second amendment rights curtailed dramatically if we can't agree to at least this change. (Think loss of the ability to carry a weapon outside your home, either open or concealed) Besides, when it really comes down to it, Even Scalia agreed that the 2nd was not an unlimited right.

I feel like there should be a third (and maybe fourth) option better Oct 2017 #1
Bravo CreekDog Oct 2017 #3
I dunno about that... better Oct 2017 #4
Yes tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #2
And even beyond it not being unlimited... better Oct 2017 #5
I agree with part of your post... tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #6
A very fair point better Oct 2017 #7
tip your servers people! this kind of entertainment isn't free! CreekDog Oct 2017 #10
And your point is? tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #12
you don't seem to think it's ok to ban it simply on the basis of how fast and much it can fire CreekDog Oct 2017 #15
Why would you ban fully automatic weapons? tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #18
My point is extremely simple: he's trying to make his position sound thoughtful and reasonable CreekDog Oct 2017 #19
I'm ok going on record recommending banning these entirely. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #8
Thanks, AC tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #13
This would actually help a great deal with my retirement plans if they did. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #23
are you for real? CreekDog Oct 2017 #33
WTF is your problem? tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #35
Put them under NFA regulation. Straw Man Oct 2017 #9
if you vote yes in this poll, i'll eat my hat CreekDog Oct 2017 #11
Why would I vote "yes" to a total ban ... Straw Man Oct 2017 #20
Next up pistol braces... ileus Oct 2017 #14
Pistol braces don't give ARs more firepower... they just give them more stupidity. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #17
I voted Yes discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #16
Belt loops and sticks too Alea Oct 2017 #21
Your post reminded me of an old McGyver clip... yagotme Oct 2017 #22
Well there are youtube videos of people using rubber bands to bump fire. n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2017 #26
Yup. n/t yagotme Oct 2017 #29
I notice stacks of the Surefire 60 or 90 round magazines in the leaked pics. ileus Oct 2017 #24
The slide stock is only useful on guns with an external, detachable magazine. Kaleva Oct 2017 #25
At the VERY LEAST... Zoonart Oct 2017 #27
I favor banning ALL militaristic weaponry. Doreen Oct 2017 #28
ALL " militaristic weaponry" oneshooter Oct 2017 #31
I meant anything that has rapid fire. Doreen Oct 2017 #32
The Winchester M70 uses the same locking bolt action as the bottom rifle. oneshooter Oct 2017 #34
This is the "Mad Minute " drill 30 shots in 3 minutes or less oneshooter Oct 2017 #38
Does 24 aimed shots in under 15 seconds meet your definition of rapid fire? Lurks Often Oct 2017 #37
I'm not opposed or for such a ban. SomethingNew Oct 2017 #30
I'll join a few others and say I have no problem going on record in favor of banning these. Decoy of Fenris Oct 2017 #36
No. I won't even consider supporting any new HeartachesNhangovers Oct 2017 #39
I generally oppose the passage of ineffective legislation Kaleva Oct 2017 #40
Terms have meaning Always Right Oct 2017 #41
Ban? Kang Colby Oct 2017 #42
Of course you don't CreekDog Oct 2017 #44
Gun Related Research Survey cmhfnd Oct 2017 #43
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Do you favor banning "bum...»Reply #2