Please contact your local representative and tell them NOT to support any new governmental regulation on firearms or aftermarket equipment. Links for easy e-mailing are in the description of the video.
I think you better back up and look at the facts. It is the liberal Demo's that have been trying for gun control for the last 8 year and more, not the Republicans.
I believe it is more along the lines of "we have to do something" mentality. Republicans are falling for it. They are taking the bait. This bill is especially dangerous because it is a "rate of fire" bill. Trying to limit access or ban items that can increase the rate of fire in semi-automatic weapons. Now to the average person, this might at first glance seem reasonable. I assure you it is a mere stepping stone. Not to mention Constitutionally wrong. Once they get a rate of fire-bill passed, tell me whats stopping them from passing a bill limiting trigger weight or semi-automatic weapons all together? In fact, the bill as it stands could actually make buying aftermarket 3lb triggers a felony.
haha i got it wiscohunter, the demos and repubs, all the same, kidding yourself if you think one is better than the other
Let me start by saying, It is a stupid idea and something that won't make anybody safer so for that purpose I wouldn't support it. but if they do manage to pass something, I don't see a constitutional argument that could stop it as it isn't a limitation on any weapon.
Good then please write your congressman and tell them you do not support this bill and expect them not to as well. The fact is that if you give them a "rate of fire" restriction bill, then you have consequently given them the green light to go after anything that shoots faster than a pump shotgun.
Can i play devils advocate? Do you think laws limiting access to fully automatic wepons is infringing on the second amendment? While i support the second amendment and own multicolor guns, i do think the NRA supports profits over people or rights. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
The founding fathers had 3 lb triggers? And bump fire stocks? Give me a break. You don't need 47 guns or however many he had) to hunt or defend yourself from anything. And don't say psychos with knives blah blah blah... There needs to be regulation and it's a good thing that repubs are taking the lead, And hopefully will be reasonable, than Letting the libs go to town. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
Your right, we don't need any of those things. I don't need my rifles, or my 9mm or my car or my house or really much of anything. All I really need is food, water and my bible. But thankfully it is called the bill of rights and not the bill of needs. I have a right to own as many guns as I want and no one should infringe on my right. Need has nothing to do with the conversation, and yes there were rapid fire weapons around that the framers knew about. Look up the Puckle gun, invented in 1718 and the framers knew about these and if they wanted to regulate "special military weapons" they would have. You cannot regulate righteousness, people can and will always find a way around whatever regulation is put in place. Respectfully, Axtell
If you can't defend your home with a shotgun, then you need to practice more. At least until the zombie hordes show up. No where was anyone given the "right" to buy an item that turns a legal weapon into an illegal weapon.
I disagree, if someone is breaking into my home I want to have every advantage I legally can to either discourage him from continuing to violate my property or shoot him before he hurts me or my family. Aim and/or need has nothing to do with it, and in my opinion there is never enough gun when it comes down to stopping someone from harming my family or myself. I have a right to defend my family and I do not want further restrictions and infringements put on that right. And a bump fire stock does not make any gun "illegal," they are still perfectly legal semi automatic firearms, Respectfully, Axtell
We already have "rate of fire" laws and regulations. Fully automatic is not legal. I have no issues with intelligent conversation about gun laws. The slippery slope argument and the "it's my right!" BS is getting really tired. As I have said before, there are many, many weapons that are illegal for civilians. As methods and weapons change, we need to also be willing to consider change. There will always be nutters that find a way to kill others, but we don't need to make it simple and draw them a picture. A little common sense goes a long ways on this subject. But, the "gun nuts" are not even able to have a conversation on this. Neither are the staunch antis.
It is "legal" to own a fully automatic gun. It is very expensive to purchase one and rules need to be followed, but you can buy and own a fully automatic gun if you want one.
True. But, it requires a background check and fees and its illegal to own one made after 1986 I believe. I cant make or buy one made today. So, I guess you could still say that there are laws and regulations that limit rate of fire weapons. I have zero problem with that. It does not infringe in any way on my right to defend myself and property. I certainly have no problem discussing any other devices that now modify a weapons capacity or rate of fire. Things have changed since we had muskets hanging over our mantels in this country.
