but you play one well. i will further say this. not only can an ar15 be easily converted to full auto but virtually any semi auto can be converted to full auto.
'Batman' Shooting: Gun Lobby Counts On Short Attention Span
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
but you play one well. i will further say this. not only can an ar15 be easily converted to full auto but virtually any semi auto can be converted to full auto.
use some imagination. its not my job to teach you gunsmithing. look on youtube. there are all kinds of videos of kids showing off firing the ar15 on full auto.
A smart, crazed microbiology student with access to the right chemicals and a place to release them can kill a whole lot more people than a gun. Like thousands more.
It's not the tool that's the problem.
And the idea that we'll trust our "Fast and Furious" gov't (the guys who put thousands of guns into the hands of violent criminals for months) with gun control is beyond a joke.
It's not the tool that's the problem.
And the idea that we'll trust our "Fast and Furious" gov't (the guys who put thousands of guns into the hands of violent criminals for months) with gun control is beyond a joke.
Simply not true. You need an auto sear and an M16 receiver or modified AR15 receiver to make it full auto. Not terribly difficult, IF you have a milling machine, machinist skills and the plans and dimensions. Things not readily available to the average shit for brains career criminal.
In one year, of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Ageless only 0.15% of them had been converted to full auto. That's SIX firearms out of 4,000.
You anti gun loons should 1) get your facts straight and 2) stop peeing in your panties over problems that don't even exist.
Anyone notice that in the U.K. they are instituting permanent ARMED police foot patrols in certain areas? A decision in response to ARMED gangs and hoodlums who didn't get the memo about turning in there firearms to the government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-on-routine-foot-patrol-for-first-time.html
A "critical thinker" would have to at least consider the possibility that gun control isn't working too well there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-on-routine-foot-patrol-for-first-time.html
A "critical thinker" would have to at least consider the possibility that gun control isn't working too well there.
Yesterday I went shooting with some friends and acquaintences, one of whom happens to be a cop (11 years as a detective). I asked him directly about converting semi-autos to full auto. His response was: "If it was easy to convert a semi-auto weapon to a reliable full-auto weapon, half the gang-bangers in America would have them." Amateur conversions to full-auto are unreliable and criminals know that. They're too likely to jam in a firefight.
He also said that the vast majority of gun homicides in Southern California are gang and/or drug related. The second biggest cause is domestic disputes. He said that if you're not in a gang, don't do business with gangs, don't use illegal drugs and aren't in a relationship with a crazy person, your chances of being killed by a bullet are very close to zero.
He's an interesting statistic.
âAccording to statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and those caused by doctors. There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. that cause 120,000 accidental deaths each year. Accidental death per physician is 0.171 percent. There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. responsible for 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year for a percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner of 0.0000188. Doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than [responsible] gun owners.â
In the year 2000 they were 225,000 deaths caused by hospital staff mistakes.
Where is the cry for Doctor/nurse background checks, psychological screening and severe penalties for wrongful deaths?
Personally I think most anti guns loons are either willfully ignorant of the facts or they just have a bug up their butt about guns.
I saw there was the usual post-tragedy vultures out with anti-gun editorials in the Washington Post today. I assume the rest of the liberal media had their full complement as well.
They seem to fall into three broad categories. One, there are the full blown Brady bunch anti-gun zealots who make no secret of their desire to disarm law-abiding America and turn us into a verison of the UK, cowering behind closet doors as criminals barge into our houses. After all, as privileged white people, isn't that what we deserve?
Two, there are the self-described middle of the road types, the David Brooks and John McCains, who decry the crazies on both sides and support "common sense" regulations, like federal regulation of private gun sales ( ie closing the "gun show loophole"), registration of all rifle sales (for easy confiscation later) and limits on how many guns you can buy, etc. Who can oppose "common sense?"
Finally, there are the frauds who claim to formerly been all-out Second Amendment supporters but now sadly have seen the light that our laws are just way too loose. After all, they are fond of saying, you don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer, and why does anyone need a high cap mag?
The key to understanding this issue is that none of these people will be content when whatever anti-gun policy they are pushing is adopted. No, it will just establish a floor for the next erosion of our rights. The way to combat this slippery slope of defeat is to resist any compromise, no matter how minor.
Do supporters of other Constitutional rights have to justify why they shouldn't be curtailed? No, the burden and it is a heavy one, is on the people who would cut back on Constitutional rights. For some reason, with gun rights we have to continually justify our position as though it wasn't written in black and white in the Second Amendment.
Let's look directly at the case of these crazed shooters like the joker or the Virginia Tech kid. Turns out they had something in common. They were being treated by psychological counselors. Maybe we need a law that requires counselors to notify the government if they have a patient who poses a risk of going postal. There is no constitutional right to confidentiality in that situation. What are the chances liberal swould support that sort fo requirement? I can hear the objections already.
They seem to fall into three broad categories. One, there are the full blown Brady bunch anti-gun zealots who make no secret of their desire to disarm law-abiding America and turn us into a verison of the UK, cowering behind closet doors as criminals barge into our houses. After all, as privileged white people, isn't that what we deserve?
Two, there are the self-described middle of the road types, the David Brooks and John McCains, who decry the crazies on both sides and support "common sense" regulations, like federal regulation of private gun sales ( ie closing the "gun show loophole"), registration of all rifle sales (for easy confiscation later) and limits on how many guns you can buy, etc. Who can oppose "common sense?"
Finally, there are the frauds who claim to formerly been all-out Second Amendment supporters but now sadly have seen the light that our laws are just way too loose. After all, they are fond of saying, you don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer, and why does anyone need a high cap mag?
The key to understanding this issue is that none of these people will be content when whatever anti-gun policy they are pushing is adopted. No, it will just establish a floor for the next erosion of our rights. The way to combat this slippery slope of defeat is to resist any compromise, no matter how minor.
Do supporters of other Constitutional rights have to justify why they shouldn't be curtailed? No, the burden and it is a heavy one, is on the people who would cut back on Constitutional rights. For some reason, with gun rights we have to continually justify our position as though it wasn't written in black and white in the Second Amendment.
Let's look directly at the case of these crazed shooters like the joker or the Virginia Tech kid. Turns out they had something in common. They were being treated by psychological counselors. Maybe we need a law that requires counselors to notify the government if they have a patient who poses a risk of going postal. There is no constitutional right to confidentiality in that situation. What are the chances liberal swould support that sort fo requirement? I can hear the objections already.