Apparent mass shooting on Las Vegas Strip

[houston]

Greater access to mental health services? How many of the domestic terrorists have been on meds?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Functioning like a full auto doesn't make it a full auto. This is the only point I've been trying to convey through my posts. Your initial posts made the mistake of stating it was converted into an actual fully automatic weapon. I was correcting your mistake and pointing out that they could act similar, but they wouldn't actually become one.

Semantics. I didn't mean to suggest they are actually a full auto. But they act like a full auto with use of the bump stock. It is not the same as a semi auto and it is not rapid fire semi auto.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by n david

Semantics. I didn't mean to suggest they are actually a full auto. But they act like a full auto with use of the bump stock. It is not the same as a semi auto and it is not rapid fire semi auto.

Here is a good article on manual trigger pull vs semi-auto vs full auto:
link
https://www.quora.com/How-many-round...ire-per-minute

[Aquila]

What do you guys think about the following?

1.) Ban fully automatic weapons
2.) Ban bump stocks and devices that make semi-automatic weapons fire essentially like fully automatic weapons.
3.) Require registration, a wait period (3-7 days), and a full criminal background check that includes checks against the No-Fly, Selectee, and Watch lists when someone wishes to purchase any semi-automatic weapon. If one has a criminal history indicating that they are a career criminal or if they have a felony, the purchase should be denied. If they are found to be on any of the watch lists, the purchase should be denied. If the buyer wishes to contest any results of the background check there should be a procedure in place to allow for any individual to contest those results and have them resolved within 30 days.

The way I'm seeing it right now is like this... While the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, it doesn't specifically state one has a "right" to a fully automatic or semi automatic weapon.

These ideas have been on my mind today.

Thoughts?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Semantics. I didn't mean to suggest they are actually a full auto. But they act like a full auto with use of the bump stock. It is not the same as a semi auto and it is not rapid fire semi auto.

I'm sure there isn't much difference when you're being shot at by one or the other.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by aquila

what do you guys think about the following?

1.) ban fully automatic weapons
2.) ban bump stocks and devices that make semi-automatic weapons fire essentially like fully automatic weapons.
3.) require registration, a wait period (3-7 days), and a full criminal background check that includes checks against the no-fly, selectee, and watch lists when someone wishes to purchase any semi-automatic weapon. If one has a criminal history indicating that they are a career criminal or if they have a felony, the purchase should be denied. If they are found to be on any of the watch lists, the purchase should be denied. If the buyer wishes to contest any results of the background check there should be a procedure in place to allow for any individual to contest those results and have them resolved within 30 days.

the way i'm seeing it right now is like this... While the constitution protects the right to bear arms, it doesn't specifically state one has a "right" to a fully automatic or semi automatic weapon.

These ideas have been on my mind today.

Thoughts?

nope nope yep

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What do you guys think about the following?

1.) Ban fully automatic weapons
2.) Ban bump stocks and devices that make semi-automatic weapons fire essentially like fully automatic weapons.
3.) Require registration, a wait period (3-7 days), and a full criminal background check that includes checks against the No-Fly, Selectee, and Watch lists when someone wishes to purchase any semi-automatic weapon.

The way I'm seeing it right now is like this... While the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, it doesn't specifically state one has a "right" to a fully automatic or semi automatic weapon.

These ideas have been on my mind today.

Thoughts?

Fully automatic weapons are already banned.

As stated previously, I would be for either banning or regulating bump stocks and trigger cranks.

I would support background checks for purchases, including private sales. I do NOT support using the No-Fly list, as it is arbitrary and unconstitutional. I believe current background checks include watch lists, though I may be wrong.

Unfortunately, NONE of what has been discussed previously or currently would have saved the 59 who died last week.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Unfortunately, NONE of what has been discussed previously or currently would have saved the 59 who died last week.

Which is why I don't think any of the laws should change.

More gun laws would only be burdensome to those who abide by the law.
More gun laws would only restrict the freedoms of those who do want to abide by the law.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Which is why I don't think any of the laws should change.

More gun laws would only be burdensome to those who abide by the law.
More gun laws would only restrict the freedoms of those who do want to abide by the law.

Another argument I've read against banning bump stocks is you can make one with a 3D printer.

[Jito463]

While the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, it doesn't specifically state one has a "right" to a fully automatic or semi automatic weapon.

The right to keep and bear arms (without reservation, 'arms' is listed in the most general sense) shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in the word arms that would imply it was only inferring a specific type of weapon. And the "shall not be infringed" completely negates ANY attempts to undermine it, despite what the Regressives attempt to foist upon us.

There is not one gun law that is legal per the 2nd amendment. We abide by the existing ones because we have little choice in the matter, short of a full blown revolution. And they are not yet onerous enough to justify that extreme of a position. The day may (will?) come when that is no longer true, but I pray that it doesn't happen in my lifetime.