Suzuki GSX-R Motorcycle Forums Gixxer.com banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Dreaming of buttsecks for years...
Joined
·
13,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The NRA has once again decided to negotiate away our rights. I've stopped renewing my membership and instead I have joined the Gun Owners of America. They are taking the stance of no more restrictions and removing some restrictions already in place. If you are a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I urge you to join them as well.

https://gunowners.org/
 

·
Dreaming of buttsecks for years...
Joined
·
13,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The big one right is not fighting against the bump stock ban. It's being written as "any device that increases the rate of fire". I can bump fire using my beltloop, a stick, etc. It fixes nothing. What it does do is opens the door for interpretation. Competition triggers, lighter weight triggers, light weight bolt carriers, etc. could all be deemed as rate increasing devices. Further, a self loading, or semi-automatic firearm could also be deemed as rate increasing. This is a dangerous game of "lets make a law, then interpret it in our favor". The NRA used to have a no compromise mentality. Now it would seem that as long as they get to keep their jobs at NRA headquarters, it's I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

The NRA has a history of backing these "common sense" legislation moves, which are simply more restrictions. They're condemning, but not actively fighting these new age restrictions either.


I follow "Military Arms Channel" on youtube. Matt is a huge 2A guy, and knows his stuff. He goes into great detail over how the NRA is selling us out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
32 Posts
Interesting. Looks like they did back peddle though.

I would assume that the Bill would be revised before being signed in to law for the reasons you listed. I guess we will see.
 

·
Hand-Eye Coordinator
Joined
·
6,529 Posts
The big one right is not fighting against the bump stock ban. It's being written as "any device that increases the rate of fire". I can bump fire using my beltloop, a stick, etc. It fixes nothing. What it does do is opens the door for interpretation. Competition triggers, lighter weight triggers, light weight bolt carriers, etc. could all be deemed as rate increasing devices. Further, a self loading, or semi-automatic firearm could also be deemed as rate increasing. This is a dangerous game of "lets make a law, then interpret it in our favor". The NRA used to have a no compromise mentality. Now it would seem that as long as they get to keep their jobs at NRA headquarters, it's I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

The NRA has a history of backing these "common sense" legislation moves, which are simply more restrictions. They're condemning, but not actively fighting these new age restrictions either.


I follow "Military Arms Channel" on youtube. Matt is a huge 2A guy, and knows his stuff. He goes into great detail over how the NRA is selling us out.
Is it really defined as such? That is a horrible definition, if it is. Bump stocks don't increase the rate of fire, they just make it easier to fire rapidly. The ways to increase the rate are what you just mentioned.
 

·
Ex-Lady Supermod
Joined
·
16,100 Posts
The big one right is not fighting against the bump stock ban. It's being written as "any device that increases the rate of fire". I can bump fire using my beltloop, a stick, etc. It fixes nothing. What it does do is opens the door for interpretation. Competition triggers, lighter weight triggers, light weight bolt carriers, etc. could all be deemed as rate increasing devices. Further, a self loading, or semi-automatic firearm could also be deemed as rate increasing. This is a dangerous game of "lets make a law, then interpret it in our favor". The NRA used to have a no compromise mentality. Now it would seem that as long as they get to keep their jobs at NRA headquarters, it's I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

The NRA has a history of backing these "common sense" legislation moves, which are simply more restrictions. They're condemning, but not actively fighting these new age restrictions either.


I follow "Military Arms Channel" on youtube. Matt is a huge 2A guy, and knows his stuff. He goes into great detail over how the NRA is selling us out.
This doesn't mesh with what I have heard on the local news. Florida has made bump stocks illegal and raised the age to buy guns and the NRA has already filled suit against the State of Florida. Trump has not made any decisions as to what to do after the Florida shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Guns are not the problem. I've had a gun sitting and a shelf by my bed for years and it has killed anybody or anything(it stares at me funny sometimes though). The problem is with the heart of the person holding said gun. So even if they somehow made a law that did ban all guns. It still wouldn't stop the person that decides he wants to kill. Personally I'd rather have a full auto weapon if somebody wants to break down my door. I don't play when it comes to protecting myself and my family.
 

·
Dreaming of buttsecks for years...
Joined
·
13,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
This doesn't mesh with what I have heard on the local news. Florida has made bump stocks illegal and raised the age to buy guns and the NRA has already filled suit against the State of Florida. Trump has not made any decisions as to what to do after the Florida shooting.
They filed suit over the age restriction, but not the bump stocks. The only reason they're filing the suit against FL is because they're trying to regain the trust of their members. A lot of the active folks are pulling out of the NRA and boycotting businesses that financially support the NRA (like Midway USA).
 

·
Dreaming of buttsecks for years...
Joined
·
13,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Unless you can de-invent the gun, you can not get rid of guns. Obsession of anything is a sickness, but for people like me with several different guns for several different purposes, it's just a hobby. Mine have never hurt anyone, or damaged anything. By your logic, they're all defective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts

·
Dreaming of buttsecks for years...
Joined
·
13,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
check this info on guns in different counties, the US is the worst!!
Can some one explain to me in "logical terms" why anyone needs a AR15?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
1) Home invasions rarely are perpetrated by a single attacker.
2) An AR-15 is a very simple firearm. It takes minimal training to maintain and use.
3) It is highly effective.
4) It's versatile. A single lower can be combined with multiple different upper configurations for different needs.
5) It's variable. The modular design can make it comfortable and ergonomic for almost anyone.
6) It's reliable. It's simplicity of design provides a platform which is not prone to breakdown.
The fact you even ask the question shows you don't know what you're talking about....


Most say it's for fighting our own government. It's far more likely that NK or Iran will attack our infrastructure. The social collapse that would follow would be a dangerous scenario. If you and your family were facing 3-10 armed and starving intruders, you'd want the kind of power the AR-15 can deliver. The AR platform is not dangerous. The hands it rests in are the deadly component.

I hope I never need to use my weapons (yes, I have more than one AR), but if the time ever comes I'll be glad I have them. In an ideal world, no one would ever need an AR. In that same world, no one would need police either.

There's such an easy proof here of why gun ownership is imperative for a free society.
Senario: You don't like guns and don't think people should have them.
Test: Just take them by force.
Result: You fail.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,082 Posts
What people "need" is a slippery slope. And totally subjective. By looking at the lifestyle of some 3rd world countries, people only NEED to eat once every other day or so, they only NEED about a liter of water a day. Do you NEED your couch, TV or air, conditioner? Do you NEED a cell phone, computer, or fancy wrist watch?

You realize there are literally children in sweatshops making the shoes you wear and the phone you use for little to no money and in some case, not even money. Just in exchange to feed their families? How bad do you NEED that cell phone. Because I can guarantee there's a body count in that industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
check this info on guns in different counties, the US is the worst!!
Can some one explain to me in "logical terms" why anyone needs a AR15?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
1) Home invasions rarely are perpetrated by a single attacker.
2) An AR-15 is a very simple firearm. It takes minimal training to maintain and use.
3) It is highly effective.
4) It's versatile. A single lower can be combined with multiple different upper configurations for different needs.
5) It's variable. The modular design can make it comfortable and ergonomic for almost anyone.
6) It's reliable. It's simplicity of design provides a platform which is not prone to breakdown.
The fact you even ask the question shows you don't know what you're talking about....


Most say it's for fighting our own government. It's far more likely that NK or Iran will attack our infrastructure. The social collapse that would follow would be a dangerous scenario. If you and your family were facing 3-10 armed and starving intruders, you'd want the kind of power the AR-15 can deliver. The AR platform is not dangerous. The hands it rests in are the deadly component.

I hope I never need to use my weapons (yes, I have more than one AR), but if the time ever comes I'll be glad I have them. In an ideal world, no one would ever need an AR. In that same world, no one would need police either.

There's such an easy proof here of why gun ownership is imperative for a free society.
Senario: You don't like guns and don't think people should have them.
Test: Just take them by force.
Result: You fail.
Very well said. I agree
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,082 Posts
Can you cite that? I would assume that number means gun related deaths. As in accidental discharges, and suicides.

People use vehicles as weapons fairly often. I seem to recall a guy driving a cube van through a densely packed group of people im paris not too long ago. Or the guy who ran over some BLM folks at one of their protests. Should we even bring up road rage?

None the less, it's splitting hairs. The point is need is a subjective word just like someone who doesnt drive saying you don't Need a vehicle to get by in life is no different than someone who doesn't own a gun saying you don't need one for any logical reason
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top