The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Nay, but if others want to own it and use it in a responsible manner, that's fine by me. I can't afford to feed bump firing or full auto in anything beyond .22.

As to semi vs auto being more deadly, everything being equal, I think a well trained person with a bolt action at long range is more devastating than a well trained person with full auto at closer ranges.

the only reason I can see for bump fire is for suppressing fire but seeing none of us are in combat or engaging a large group of burgulars there really is no reason for it,some people think its cool I guess but I think it's just a waste of ammo and seeing ammo aint cheap it's also a waste of money

inmediasres wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

inmediasres wrote:Everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner until they do something otherwise.

Then we should ban all guns then. Drawing the line at Fully automatic is disingenuous at best if not outright arbitrary. Can we not do damage with semi-automatic rifles? are they flawless? no more so than any other gun. A case could be made for bolt actions, maybe. Point is a gun, is a gun, is a gun. You allow them, or you don't.

But it's not that black and white. The destructive capabilities of an automatic weapon are significantly greater than those of a semi-auto weapon. Trying to shoot a target at 50 yards with a Glock 34 isn't the easiest thing in the world. However, if I give you an MP5k with a 30 round clip, you'll most likely hit that target and decimate anything within its immediate vicinity. Some will probably cite the case in Arizona last years with Giffords as an example of where a semi-auto weapon is just as deadly. That's a fair point. I would then ask how much worse things would have been had an automatic weapon been in his possession. The fact is that those weapons were designed specifically for destroying life more efficiently than a semi-auto weapon.

Possibly they are more effective, possibly not. Most people aren't trained to be effective with them. Point still stands a semi-auto is a dangerous weapon, so drawing the line at fully auto is arbitrary. I mean a semi automatic weapon by your reasoning is more deadly than a bolt action, should we not ban semi autos as well?

Again, Don't ban the tools, Keep them out of the hands of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are by definition, law abiding.

Edit: and bolt actions are more effective than muzzle loaders, should we not ban bolt actions and the metallic cartridges as well?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Again, Don't ban the tools, Keep them out of the hands of the criminals. Law abiding citizens are by definition, law abiding.

If it isn't because of their effectiveness or being a greater threat, what would you say is the reason for fully automatic weapons being restricted in the United States?

originally it was all an attempt to stop "gangster weapons". The NFA was a direct response to both the gang crime of the 1930's and criminals like bonnie and clyde, baby face nelson, john dillinger, and others. That's why it wasn't just automatics, it was sawn off shotguns, certain concealable weapons, and silencers. All of which were percieved as "gangster weapons"

reguardless, the point is not that they are more or less effective it's that semi and full auto weapons are both dangerous and can kill a lot of people, so the banning of one and not the other is arbitrary.

But there are plenty of things that can kill "a lot" of people. We can't restrict them all. We restrict the ones that we think would kill the most. I still don't understand why you feel that this is a situation of absolutes. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

wlewisiii wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Slide fire. Number two reason why full auto should be legal.

Fully auto is legal. Fill out your form 1 and pay your tax and find a transferable firearm. Nothing any civilian has any need for other than to play with so that, to me, is a pretty minimal burden.

As for these things, I don't want to be anywhere near one.

I believe you also can't convert weapons so it ends up costing 10k+ for a modern fully automatic weapon. I don't mind the paperwork, it is the cost for it that bothers me. I still would never get a fully automatic weapon as I see no need for it and it is just a waste of ammo. As far as the slidefire, I would never allow one at a range. You would have to be a total jackass to use one at a range without consulting the owner first.

Cole wrote:
I believe you also can't convert weapons so it ends up costing 10k+ for a modern fully automatic weapon. I don't mind the paperwork, it is the cost for it that bothers me. I still would never get a fully automatic weapon as I see no need for it and it is just a waste of ammo. As far as the slidefire, I would never allow one at a range. You would have to be a total jackass to use one at a range without consulting the owner first.

I was thinking about this. If I owned a full auto Thompson or the like, the last thing I would want is for them to relax the full auto restrictions. The second they do, my Thompson would plummet in price and I would lose thousands and thousands.

inmediasres wrote:

Cole wrote:
I believe you also can't convert weapons so it ends up costing 10k+ for a modern fully automatic weapon. I don't mind the paperwork, it is the cost for it that bothers me. I still would never get a fully automatic weapon as I see no need for it and it is just a waste of ammo. As far as the slidefire, I would never allow one at a range. You would have to be a total jackass to use one at a range without consulting the owner first.

I was thinking about this. If I owned a full auto Thompson or the like, the last thing I would want is for them to relax the full auto restrictions. The second they do, my Thompson would plummet in price and I would lose thousands and thousands.

*cues worlds smallest violin*

inmediasres wrote:But there are plenty of things that can kill "a lot" of people. We can't restrict them all. We restrict the ones that we think would kill the most. I still don't understand why you feel that this is a situation of absolutes. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Because it's that line that is arbitrary. You get rid of fully auto because they "can" kill more? well Semi's CAN kill more than bolt actions, and the difference between bolt and semi is much greater than semi to full. If you're worried about people dying, then you ban the all or you accept the reality we live in. what is the purpose of banning fully auto and not semi's even if it worked the criminals would still resort to the semi's, so you've done very little in the way of actually reducing crime. That's why this blanket ban thing is utter bull. you find the source of the problem (the people that will do harm) and you cut them off from the tools AND desire, but you don't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who would otherwise do no harm because of some arbitrary amount of dead people that you think is acceptable, because some people may disagree with you. So you don't get to decide that line.

The problem with gun control is historical: so many vastly dangerous weapons, designed not for hunting or sport, but for war, have been produced and disseminated. AK47's and their variants number well into millions produced.

if gun control limited civilian exposure to these weapons of war were effectively implemented say circa 1900, I would be all for the restrictions. Knowing that Georgia birthers and tea partiers can get their hands on more serious firepower than i can just worries me.

JinxRemoving wrote:The problem with gun control is historical: so many vastly dangerous weapons, designed not for hunting or sport, but for war, have been produced and disseminated. AK47's and their variants number well into millions produced.

if gun control limited civilian exposure to these weapons of war were effectively implemented say circa 1900, I would be all for the restrictions. Knowing that Georgia birthers and tea partiers can get their hands on more serious firepower than i can just worries me.

whys that? are you afraid of birthers and tea party types?will further restricting firearms make you safer ?

Vodkin wrote: whys that? are you afraid of birthers and tea party types?will further restricting firearms make you safer ?

Who isn't afraid of birthers and tea party types? Birthers and tea party types are afraid of each other.

Why buy guns? To protect yourself. What are you protecting yourself from? People with guns. Who usually have guns? Birthers and tea party types. The logic isn't totally sound, but it's really funny when you lay it out like that.

inmediasres wrote:

Vodkin wrote: whys that? are you afraid of birthers and tea party types?will further restricting firearms make you safer ?

Who isn't afraid of birthers and tea party types? Birthers and tea party types are afraid of each other.

Why buy guns? To protect yourself. What are you protecting yourself from? People with guns. Who usually have guns? Birthers and tea party types. The logic isn't totally sound, but it's really funny when you lay it out like that.

that sounds like complete and udder bullshit to me,I know a few Tea Party people and they sure as hell aren't loading their guns and chomping at the bit to shoot liberals,they aren't wanting to shoot anyone anymore than any of the rest of us here

Well, some of them might be sane

I just don't understand why anyone would be afraid of these guys.
They seem like perfectly reasonable chaps to me.

While I agree it's totally unnecessary and possibly reckless, I also understand the urge to atleast try it once. But not at a range. I would definitely not invest in a stock just for that bullshit.

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

I like that.

Vodkin wrote:

inmediasres wrote:

Vodkin wrote: whys that? are you afraid of birthers and tea party types?will further restricting firearms make you safer ?

Who isn't afraid of birthers and tea party types? Birthers and tea party types are afraid of each other.

Why buy guns? To protect yourself. What are you protecting yourself from? People with guns. Who usually have guns? Birthers and tea party types. The logic isn't totally sound, but it's really funny when you lay it out like that.

that sounds like complete and udder bullshit to me,I know a few Tea Party people and they sure as hell aren't loading their guns and chomping at the bit to shoot liberals,they aren't wanting to shoot anyone anymore than any of the rest of us here

I have, I had a guy at work (customer) that said he had 12 rifles ready for the Obama revolution,.... even tough he was about 65 years old, kind of breathing heavy, and obviously dumb as shit, but thats what he said. And the funny thing is, right behind him, was standing another Obama supporter? or something, i dont know what exactly he was, but at least he was semi sane, also a grampa, and HE said hes thinking of calling the cops on the first guy.

gendoikari87 wrote:

inmediasres wrote:Everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner until they do something otherwise.

Then we should ban all guns then. Drawing the line at Fully automatic is disingenuous at best if not outright arbitrary. Can we not do damage with semi-automatic rifles? are they flawless? no more so than any other gun. A case could be made for bolt actions, maybe. Point is a gun, is a gun, is a gun. You allow them, or you don't.

Well throw a couple liberals into the political equation and what do you get? Half the package.

oh, and speaking of bumfire, here is one of the guys I watch on Youtube... I'm sure some of you will use him in your arguments...

DenistheMenace wrote:oh, and speaking of bumfire, here is one of the guys I watch on Youtube... I'm sure some of you will use him in your arguments...

1:30
"A lot of guys misinterpretate this thing..."

Further along...
"I don't do any of this belt loop crap because it's kind of gay."

DenistheMenace wrote:oh, and speaking of bumfire, here is one of the guys I watch on Youtube... I'm sure some of you will use him in your arguments...

a lot of people misinterpetate...

about says it all.

Inquisitor wrote:Well, some of them might be sane

The ones that scare me have the attitude and don't have the know-how but are willing to try anyway. Sarah Palin leads the pack when it comes to this conflict. She says "I'm a nature/hunting/outdoors person who understands the balance of things. Then you see her with a gun. Typical loudmouth republican. All talk and dangerous!

well, that's the rub: there is such a fanatical, militaristic "fall in line" attitudes amongst what would appear to be a fair number of these people (from what I've seen at rallies, protests on tv, and other gun-oriented forums) that I fear people may really be taking things a few steps beyond the pale with their own "preparedness" and assessment of the ideological conflict. Is there anything more frightening than an angry, ignorant, armed majority that believes they are being threatened?

So yes, while I believe I could take most of them in a footrace, I do fear, at least a little, an angry mob of tea partiers with full autos chasing me around for stating that I believe in worker's rights, women's rights, and corporate oversight. It's a bully/mob rule mentality, where dissent is met with violence instead of reason.

Subtlety seems to be lost on this crowd, as every conversation I have seems to prove, and tolerance is in even shorter supply. And I'm from f%$#ing MASSACHUSETTS. I dread what these people are like in their own, isolated, unchallenged enclaves.