Right to bear arms.

[MikeB]

Since President Obama has been erroneously mentioned twice as approving or allowing this butt stock thing let's clear that up.

There are 2 companies that make this thing, both located in Texas. In 2010, one of them (not looking it up) petitioned the supervising govt agency (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) for permission to manufacture and sell them. In the petition they stated, that the butt stock“ provides a way to help people with disabilities simulate an automatic weapon without having to hold it a certain way. It's intended to “assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to 'bump-fire' an AR-15 type rifle.” I copied the exact verbiage because when I read it I thought it was so friggin ridiculous and outrageous it would be funny except for the present tragic circumstances. The ATF responded that it was a firearm part, not a firearm and not subject to existing gun control laws. The only thing President Obama had to do with this was that he happened to be President at the time.

The current bill banning these things has bipartisan support so in the spirit of "we have to look like we're doing something" it will likely be passed and these things outlawed. For now, there is such demand for them that the companies are no longer taking new orders. Walmart and others have already pulled them. But the "technology" to jerry-rig these things is relatively simple and there are thousands already in circulation so they'll be around for the next time. And the next.

[Castaway]

On 10/5/2017 at 11:23 AM, Reboot said:

When it was written, it meant the same sorts of hand carried arms a soldier used. What good would it be otherwise as a defense against tyranny?

OK, I get the 2nd amendment... but nowadays, how does one protect themselves against a tyranny that is armed with nukes?

[mogo51]

3 hours ago, MikeB said:

Since President Obama has been erroneously mentioned twice as approving or allowing this butt stock thing let's clear that up.

There are 2 companies that make this thing, both located in Texas. In 2010, one of them (not looking it up) petitioned the supervising govt agency (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) for permission to manufacture and sell them. In the petition they stated, that the butt stock“ provides a way to help people with disabilities simulate an automatic weapon without having to hold it a certain way. It's intended to “assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to 'bump-fire' an AR-15 type rifle.” I copied the exact verbiage because when I read it I thought it was so friggin ridiculous and outrageous it would be funny except for the present tragic circumstances. The ATF responded that it was a firearm part, not a firearm and not subject to existing gun control laws. The only thing President Obama had to do with this was that he happened to be President at the time.

The current bill banning these things has bipartisan support so in the spirit of "we have to look like we're doing something" it will likely be passed and these things outlawed. For now, there is such demand for them that the companies are no longer taking new orders. Walmart and others have already pulled them. But the "technology" to jerry-rig these things is relatively simple and there are thousands already in circulation so they'll be around for the next time. And the next.

Well said.

[mogo51]

3 hours ago, Castaway said:

OK, I get the 2nd amendment... but nowadays, how does one protect themselves against a tyranny that is armed with nukes?

Pray a lot.

[mogo51]

8 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

My sympathy to your family for their loss but maybe Castro in taking the weapons from the people has saved thousands of lives. This year in the USA there has been 33,599 gun related deaths and in Cuba there has been 58. Even taking into consideration the population differences If Cuba had a similar population it could work out at 1,621 deaths hypothetically.

Also as Castro proved having the population armed never stopped him from removing the weapons from them in the first place and I'm sure if the people decided to rise up against the Government in the USA no amount of firearms will hold off a Government with Appache helicopters, tanks, aircraft and a whole military at it's disposal.

Sound basic mathematics Snowy but will never be acknowledged.  The same trumpet blowers will turn out in force.

[earthdome]

3 minutes ago, mogo51 said:

Sound basic mathematics Snowy but will never be acknowledged.  The same trumpet blowers will turn out in force.

Hmm.... the vast and technologically advanced US military has not been able to subdue Afghanistan in 16 years of fighting. For the most part the Taliban only have small arms like AK's, RPG's and IED's.

[Reboot]

9 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

My sympathy to your family for their loss but maybe Castro in taking the weapons from the people has saved thousands of lives. This year in the USA there has been 33,599 gun related deaths and in Cuba there has been 58. Even taking into consideration the population differences If Cuba had a similar population it could work out at 1,621 deaths hypothetically.

Also as Castro proved having the population armed never stopped him from removing the weapons from them in the first place and I'm sure if the people decided to rise up against the Government in the USA no amount of firearms will hold off a Government with Appache helicopters, tanks, aircraft and a whole military at it's disposal.

Yeah I am sure Hitler disarming the Jews saved lots of lives too. 

Castro killed thousands of people, and drove millions out of the country, and thousands of people died trying to leave.

But hey, at least he got the guns. Now Cuba is a poor shitty place with few human rights where women have to whore themselves to foreigners to survive.

Most of you people are totally ignorant if what happened in Cuba..you just see it as a cheap vacation.

As for rising up, go look around at other places. The Russians with jets tanks and bombs could not subdue the Afghanis in the 80s. All they had were hand held weapons. Neither can we without their consent. And that's just one example. Your point isn't valid, historically.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Reboot

[Reboot]

5 hours ago, stevewool said:

And on it rolls , sorry boys but its beyond me now, i have no idea about guns and what models they are , i have never handled a gun and in fact i have never seen a gun other then my grandsons 2 he has with his cowboy suit he wears and i have no idea what they are.

I dont think i can add anymore to this thread and as a outsider its silly to me, i am not saying the people who love these items are wrong or right at all, but from someone from another world, well its been good to talk.

 

So you know nothing about guns, Steve. Is it possible your opinion could be less than well imformed?

[Reboot]

36 minutes ago, earthdome said:

Hmm.... the vast and technologically advanced US military has not been able to subdue Afghanistan in 16 years of fighting. For the most part the Taliban only have small arms like AK's, RPG's and IED's.

This.

[stevewool]

36 minutes ago, Reboot said:

So you know nothing about guns, Steve. Is it possible your opinion could be less than well imformed?

I started this thread about a person who could do all this with so many guns and that should never be allowed and that was my opinion , how can I be less well informed of what happened , a person pulled the trigger on a gun and the outcome was there for all to see.

Now was this person crazy, maybe at the time, but was he crazy when he brought all those weapons over a length of time who knows.