T
TheOldColonel
Guest
If you’ve fired a standard 1911, then you would understand why this might be a bit unpleasant.
- Status
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
My aversion from this comes not just from training, but from my time as a Chapalin at a level one trauma center. After a while, your get tired of seeing “GSW to leg” coming up on the incoming Medical Chopper pager.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
What’s this “we” and “are” business?
Conservatives give to charity more than four times as much liberals do while making less money.
Conservatives give to charity more than four times as much liberals do while making less money.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
really? i think i would prefer a full auto in a war zone? this is one reason the ar isn’t really a military weapon. no soldier would go into battle with one if he had options.
yet, that difference is very important. would you go to war without full auto? yes a gun can be modified but not by most people today.
one way is to start teaching morals in school again. the idea that whatever you wanna do/believe is ok is the problem. kids don’t know right from wrong.
what is wrong with the background checks we now have? if you mean private sales, how do you enforce it? if you sell to a criminal you are already performing an illegal act. would a criminal agree to a background check or just buy from someone who will not require it? it is a feelgood law.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No, I actually don’t know the types you are talking about.
And have you even been to a gun range yourself?
And have you even been to a gun range yourself?
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
Yeah fair enough, but if people keep their booger hooks off the bang switch it’s a non issue 
I understand your position though.
I understand your position though.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
To be fair, none of my friends who have actually been in firefights have ever told me they used their M4’s in anything but semi auto.
Cover fire is generally laid down by a SAW or some other squad level machine gun
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
From other threads (i think @Spyridon) told me, the full auto setting is essentially only ised for supressing fire
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Until someone gets hurt, it’s a non-issue. Then it becomes a huge issue.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
This is correct.
The idea that the AR is so drastically different than the M4 or M16 is intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, the idea that AR15’s are military grade is ridiculous.
My rifles are built with much better parts than the lowest bidder that builds the military’s.
The idea that the AR is so drastically different than the M4 or M16 is intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, the idea that AR15’s are military grade is ridiculous.
My rifles are built with much better parts than the lowest bidder that builds the military’s.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
I’ve carried guns for a living for like 10 years. I’ve been to many ranges.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
You can’t blame a gun for user error though. They don’t fire unless the trigger pulled. There’s no such thing as an “accidental” discharge. Only negligent ones.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
A few months ago, where I live, a man sat down in a Carcker Barrel to have lunch. As he sat down, his semi-auto pistol fell from his shoulder holster, struck the hardwood floor and discharged. It was in Condition 1. Luckily, no one was killed or injured.
He was, however, taken into custody by police and charged since any gun owner is responsible for any rounds discharged.
I suppose that sort of gives new meaning to the name “Cracker Barrel.” Right?
He was, however, taken into custody by police and charged since any gun owner is responsible for any rounds discharged.
I suppose that sort of gives new meaning to the name “Cracker Barrel.” Right?
U
upant
Guest
especially if the selective service remains at 18. if they call a draft you can use a gun to kill who the government wants eliminated, yeah, ok,
21 for everything if it must be 21; including voting. if you are so immature you can’t distinguish right from wrong, why would we allow them to vote?
what is the gun show loophole exactly? what is a peer-to-peer transfer? lending your gun to someone is a peer-to-peer transfer. show it require a check?
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
That sounds like a lawsuit. I can’t name a single pistol manufacturer that doesn’t build their pistols drop safe.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Gun show loophole… in many parts of the country people selling or transferring firearms do not need to complete a background check at gun shows.
Peer to peer transfer… any time a gun changes hands from one to another. Things like lending, gifting, loaning, etc. Not things like recreational uses where the owner is present.
At the end of the day, I think we are all better off if we treat guns with seriousness and acknowledge the fact that, in addition to recreation and self-defense, every gun is a tool that can be used for the express purpose of taking another’s life. If you are law abiding, these minor inconveniences and delays will never prevent you from owning a firearm.
Last edited:
E
Escabrosa
Guest
Juries judge if an action was an an appropriate response to a particular fear, not necessarily if the fear is credible, and even then it’s not something that can be objectively measured.
You use terms like “concealed carry enthusiast” and “gun fetishist” to trivialize people who rightly think they have a right to protect themselves. It’s like saying someone is a “seat belt enthusiast”, or is a “motorcycle helmet fetishist”. Clever use of words, but not entirely appropriate.
Sure, there are folks who get carried away, but often it’s in response to the very credible fear that there are a lot of people who want to take away their right to own a gun. People who passionately support the right to life or free speech often seem fanatical as well. I don’t think it’s right to mock them either.
You use terms like “concealed carry enthusiast” and “gun fetishist” to trivialize people who rightly think they have a right to protect themselves. It’s like saying someone is a “seat belt enthusiast”, or is a “motorcycle helmet fetishist”. Clever use of words, but not entirely appropriate.
Sure, there are folks who get carried away, but often it’s in response to the very credible fear that there are a lot of people who want to take away their right to own a gun. People who passionately support the right to life or free speech often seem fanatical as well. I don’t think it’s right to mock them either.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
That’s not a loophole. The law was specifically written to allow for people to be able to sell their private property without involving the government. Because it’s not the governments business.
Enforcing background checks on every single transaction private and commercial would be completely impossible.
Enforcing background checks on every single transaction private and commercial would be completely impossible.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
It’s a loophole codify by law, but a loophole nonetheless. Legislators write all sorts of loopholes and pass-throughs into laws, that doesn’t change their nature. So, I’m not sure what your quibble is.
Possible or impossible, the courts have held that there are times when public interest outweighs the private. In those instances, legislators have a constitutional right to act to protect the public interest.
I still maintain that these kinds of requirements, while inconvenient, do not keep law abiding gun owners from exercising their 2A rights. Btw, I’m speaking as a gun owner who had to wait 3 months to get her CPL.
Possible or impossible, the courts have held that there are times when public interest outweighs the private. In those instances, legislators have a constitutional right to act to protect the public interest.
I still maintain that these kinds of requirements, while inconvenient, do not keep law abiding gun owners from exercising their 2A rights. Btw, I’m speaking as a gun owner who had to wait 3 months to get her CPL.
P
PetraG
Guest
It is impossible to keep people who have a right to own guns but no right at all to sell them to those forbidden by law from owning them from selling to prohibited buyers, anyway? Why? It is impossible to require gun sellers to confirm that they are selling to someone who also has the right to own? Why is that? How, may I ask, is the inventory of a privately-owned gun store not “private property”? Why do gun store owners not have this “right” you imagine that other owners have?
I guess people legally prohibited from buying firearms are just inconvenienced by having to go to gun shows to buy their weapons instead of being able to patronize some other firearm retailer.
That is a huge loophole that puts a responsibility on gun store owners and siphons off their business without solving the problem of gun sellers who are irresponsible about who they sell their guns to. I think private parties should have to be responsible to confirm that they are not selling to someone prohibited from owning a gun. If you know the person well enough to know they are not prohibited, great. If you are selling to a total stranger and neglect to confirm that they are not legally prohibited from owning, I think you have in your neglect helped someone to violate the law. You have no right to do that and don’t deserve to have such activity protected. That is nonsense.
Last edited:
- Status