Aren't there simple modifications you can make to certain semi-automatic assault rifles to make them fully automatic?
Most of the parts that would make the conversion are Class 3 parts and thus regulated as much as a Class 3 fully automatic weapon. It's not as simple as grinding part of the trigger off. You'll get mad timing issues like the hammer hitting the bolt before it's fully locked with the receiver. It might be capable of automatic fire, but it's just as capable of blowing up in your face and seriously injuring/killing you.
Some bump fire stock are approved. Some not. Some have been approved and later unapproved and resulted if ATF raids on people that bought them while they were legal.
Bump fire is a ridiculous thing. It's analogous to crazy hobbyist overclocking among computer nerds: cool for the hobbyist, dangerous to the amateur, and useless in any practical sense.
Aren't there simple modifications you can make to certain semi-automatic assault rifles to make them fully automatic?
Yeah a bump stock, which isn't illegal I don't think
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking of. Bump stocks are ATF approved.
They don't technically make a weapon full auto either. A fully automatic weapon or "Machine gun" is one that fires multiple bullets with each pull of the trigger. A bump stock uses the recoil to move the trigger back into contact with the finger so the trigger is pulled once for every round fired.
The assault weapons ban was terribly worded and badly researched. Bringing it back would be a terrible idea. The rules were arbitrary and in many cases easy to get around without significantly altering the deadliness of the weapon. Besides of gun crime in the United States, very little (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%) is actually committed with the type of weapons that the assault weapons ban would make made illegal.
It's an ineffective piece of "feelgood legislation" that penalizes law abiding citizens, while doing nothing to actually stop gun crime. I'm all for new legislation for firearms, but it needs to be something better than that.
The most effective thing of the ban was the magazine capacity limitation. But as it wasn't a retroactive ban, it just created a very lucrative market for "pre-ban" weapons.
In fact, now that I think about, bring on the assault weapons ban. I'd love for my M4-style rifle to quadruple in value. :P
I don't like gun conversations because there is a rational middle ground that people can tend to come to. Let's talk about something more controversial.
I don't like gun conversations because there is a rational middle ground that people can tend to come to. Let's talk about something more controversial.
Capital punishment by partial-birth meth legalization.
The most effective thing of the ban was the magazine capacity limitation. But as it wasn't a retroactive ban, it just created a very lucrative market for "pre-ban" weapons.
In fact, now that I think about, bring on the assault weapons ban. I'd love for my M4-style rifle to quadruple in value. :P
Dont forget pre-ban magazines. Plus, since most magazine manufacturers don't put dates of manufacture on magazines, and it's up to the state to prove guilt, you got plenty of people who just bought post ban mags anyways. Then the police show up and take some guys actual pre-ban magazines and now the entire gun community is up in arms about it. No pun intended.
In NY we still have the capacity restriction, and this shit is happening all the time. Don't get me started on California and the ways they get around gun laws out there.
I don't like gun conversations because there is a rational middle ground that people can tend to come to. Let's talk about something more controversial.
Capital punishment by partial-birth meth legalization.
Dont forget pre-ban magazines. Plus, since most magazine manufacturers don't put dates of manufacture on magazines, and it's up to the state to prove guilt, you got plenty of people who just bought post ban mags anyways. Then the police show up and take some guys actual pre-ban magazines and now the entire gun community is up in arms about it. No pun intended.
In NY we still have the capacity restriction, and this shit is happening all the time. Don't get me started on California and the ways they get around gun laws out there.
I would only have ban compliant firearms and magazines in NY. It's a just too expensive to collect that pre-ban stuff.
Could someone tell me what's the difference between condemning terrorism and acts of Terrorism? Or whether you are a stronger leader if you call something an Attack instead of a Terrorist Attack? and why is this important to us? (it's not like there are federal funds to be gained by calling it a disaster)
Romney's "criticism" of the handling of the events in Libya were fairly ridiculous and edged into conspiracy territory. The argument over the semantics of what Obama said the next day is a laughable one.
Y'ALL CAN TAKE MAH GUNS WHEN YA'LL PRY EM FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS! YOU CITY-SLICKING UPTOWN SOCIALISTS JUST SIT IN YA'LL'S LIBRARIES SIPPIN ON CHAMPAIGN AND EATIN CAVIAR AND YA'LL DON'T KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE DOWN HERE IN THE BOONIES!
Y'ALL CAN TAKE MAH GUNS WHEN YA'LL PRY EM FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS! YOU CITY-SLICKING UPTOWN SOCIALISTS JUST SIT IN YA'LL'S LIBRARIES SIPPIN ON CHAMPAIGN AND EATIN CAVIAR AND YA'LL DON'T KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE DOWN HERE IN THE BOONIES!
Ahem. I'm done.
That is some terrible trolling. Very obvious. 2 of 10 at best.
Y'ALL CAN TAKE MAH GUNS WHEN YA'LL PRY EM FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS! YOU CITY-SLICKING UPTOWN SOCIALISTS JUST SIT IN YA'LL'S LIBRARIES SIPPIN ON CHAMPAIGN AND EATIN CAVIAR AND YA'LL DON'T KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE DOWN HERE IN THE BOONIES!
Ahem. I'm done.
That is some terrible trolling. Very obvious. 2 of 10 at best.
I rate your trolling of his trolling a 2 of 10 as well. Needs more gusto.
The problem with the Libya attack is that the administration quickly blamed a YouTube video as the cause of the attack and stuck with that even after it was known to be a terrorist attack. If the administration had just said "under investigation" from the start it would not be as big of an issue.
Romney's "criticism" of the handling of the events in Libya were fairly ridiculous and edged into conspiracy territory. The argument over the semantics of what Obama said the next day is a laughable one.
Romney's "criticism" of the handling of the events in Libya were fairly ridiculous and edged into conspiracy territory. The argument over the semantics of what Obama said the next day is a laughable one.
Okay let's not argue semantics, but for the sake of argument let's say he did call the Benghazi attack a terrosit attack (which he didn't there's transcripts of his speech). Why then would Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice get up and blame the attack on a spontaneous riot due to a youtube video that very few people around there had seen at that point? In Rice's case she went on FIVE different talk shows and blamed the video. Are they THAT uncoordinated?
There are conflicting official stories and theories about quite a number of attacks like this every year. The only unique thing about this attack is that it happened close to an election. You are swallowing their bait. Simple as that.
There are conflicting official stories and theories about quite a number of attacks like this every year. The only unique thing about this attack is that it happened close to an election. You are swallowing their bait. Simple as that.
And then Obama himself gets up before the UN and blames it one the video.
There are conflicting official stories and theories about quite a number of attacks like this every year. The only unique thing about this attack is that it happened close to an election. You are swallowing their bait. Simple as that.
Stupid words that are basically just the dribble of an inept manchild
None of this actually matters, you know. None of it. From minute one, the war machine of Mittens has attempted to politicize the death of those in Benghazi, attacking everything from who delivered the news to how it was delivered and what specific wording was used. You know what did happen after those people died? A lot of people started asking "Why?" and outside of the political shit show that is the Republican nominee's camp, things have started to get done. A real investigation is currently happening. Until it is complete, any discussion is pretty much just speculation.
All you are doing is using those people's corpses as a corpse flail to attack the president over shit that no one would care about at any other time. Really, you should just go drown yourself.
I like to think of it as me not drinking the kool-aide that the media hands me. There's evidence they KNEW it was a terror attack either day-of or the day after, and for two weeks they blame a video and ARREST an American on trumped up charges. excuse me if I seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat here, but something doesn't add up.
I like to think of it as me not drinking the kool-aide that the media hands me. There's evidence they KNEW it was a terror attack either day-of or the day after, and for two weeks they blame a video and ARREST an American on trumped up charges. excuse me if I seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat here, but something doesn't add up.
You're still typing about this situation. Why are you still typing about this?
I like to think of it as me not drinking the kool-aide that the media hands me. There's evidence they KNEW it was a terror attack either day-of or the day after, and for two weeks they blame a video and ARREST an American on trumped up charges. excuse me if I seem like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat here, but something doesn't add up.
You're still typing about this situation. Why are you still typing about this?
Comments
The assault weapons ban was terribly worded and badly researched. Bringing it back would be a terrible idea. The rules were arbitrary and in many cases easy to get around without significantly altering the deadliness of the weapon. Besides of gun crime in the United States, very little (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%) is actually committed with the type of weapons that the assault weapons ban would make made illegal.
It's an ineffective piece of "feelgood legislation" that penalizes law abiding citizens, while doing nothing to actually stop gun crime. I'm all for new legislation for firearms, but it needs to be something better than that.
In fact, now that I think about, bring on the assault weapons ban. I'd love for my M4-style rifle to quadruple in value. :P
In NY we still have the capacity restriction, and this shit is happening all the time. Don't get me started on California and the ways they get around gun laws out there.
Y'ALL CAN TAKE MAH GUNS WHEN YA'LL PRY EM FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS! YOU CITY-SLICKING UPTOWN SOCIALISTS JUST SIT IN YA'LL'S LIBRARIES SIPPIN ON CHAMPAIGN AND EATIN CAVIAR AND YA'LL DON'T KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE DOWN HERE IN THE BOONIES!
Ahem. I'm done.
Why then would Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice get up and blame the attack on a spontaneous riot due to a youtube video that very few people around there had seen at that point? In Rice's case she went on FIVE different talk shows and blamed the video. Are they THAT uncoordinated?
All you are doing is using those people's corpses as a corpse flail to attack the president over shit that no one would care about at any other time. Really, you should just go drown yourself.
Yeah.