Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

It's probably worth noting here that a big reason access to full auto firearms was restricted is because Congress at the time was concerned with their increasing use in violent crime. (and taxes)

It's also probably worth noting here that a big reason you rarely ever see full auto firearms used in violent crime today is because they're hard to get.

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

John, there have only been 2 homicides with legally held fully automatic weapons since they were controlled, the records are not easy to access. I was wondering how many with illegally held automatics?
No being a lawyer of any type, i wonder why if the 2nd A gives you the right to keep and bear arms you cannot have bombs, cannons, fully automatic weapons, etc.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.


So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

Can you think of a fairer word than coward?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device