gun control

135678

Comments

  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    asmallcat said:
    sean.ray said:
    @A_Ron_Hubbard, but no one should have the political will to ban *all* guns. That would be unconstitutional.
    About my car, because my car is on public roads and could be a potential harm to someone because I use it in public, I do need to register and get a license for my gun if I carry it with me in public, So if I do carry my firearm in public, there is already a law to register it, is that not correct? (This is not a smart ass question, if I’m wrong please correct me.)
     I’m talking about how I protect my own home, and I don’t think it should be anyone’s business what I use to defend my home. Yes, I believe it should be a reasonable limitation to what that entails, but that doesn’t mean someone can illegally search my home to make sure I’m following the law. (Without due process I mean.) and I think that entails registration of guns.
    (btw- I say this when I get political, but I want to assure you, I’m just conversing with you. It’s not my intention to address you in a negative way. Hope this doesn’t come across as hostile that is not my intention.)
    This is true of any law. The police can never just come into your house to make sure you're following the law. That's a violation of the 4th amendment no matter what they are looking for, whether it's guns, drugs, whatever. The police can never just enter your home "just because."

    If it was the law of the land that every firearm had to be registered and the police had probable cause to believe that you had unregistered firearms stored in your home, then yes they could get a warrant to search your home. But that would be the only way. 
    I think what Sean (please correct me if I'm wrong here @sean.ray) is getting at is that mandatory registration of arms that are only in his private residence is tantamount to an illegal search.
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    Wait I totally just caught the “one big inbred fuck fest” Die Antwoord reference. 
  • @Flukes exactly.
    Flukes
  • Flukes said:
    asmallcat said:
    sean.ray said:
    @A_Ron_Hubbard, but no one should have the political will to ban *all* guns. That would be unconstitutional.
    About my car, because my car is on public roads and could be a potential harm to someone because I use it in public, I do need to register and get a license for my gun if I carry it with me in public, So if I do carry my firearm in public, there is already a law to register it, is that not correct? (This is not a smart ass question, if I’m wrong please correct me.)
     I’m talking about how I protect my own home, and I don’t think it should be anyone’s business what I use to defend my home. Yes, I believe it should be a reasonable limitation to what that entails, but that doesn’t mean someone can illegally search my home to make sure I’m following the law. (Without due process I mean.) and I think that entails registration of guns.
    (btw- I say this when I get political, but I want to assure you, I’m just conversing with you. It’s not my intention to address you in a negative way. Hope this doesn’t come across as hostile that is not my intention.)
    This is true of any law. The police can never just come into your house to make sure you're following the law. That's a violation of the 4th amendment no matter what they are looking for, whether it's guns, drugs, whatever. The police can never just enter your home "just because."

    If it was the law of the land that every firearm had to be registered and the police had probable cause to believe that you had unregistered firearms stored in your home, then yes they could get a warrant to search your home. But that would be the only way. 
    I think what Sean (please correct me if I'm wrong here @sean.ray) is getting at is that mandatory registration of arms that are only in his private residence is tantamount to an illegal search.
    There's nothing I'm aware of where a mere registration has been ruled an illegal search. It's an interesting argument though - basically that by being forced to reveal how many guns you have in your home, it's equivalent to a search of your home to see how many guns you have. 

    I don't think that would be a ground that any gun registry program would be overturned on, but I also can't think of a similar item where there's an argument you're constitutionally permitted to possess it and you also have to register it. 
  • Hatorian said:
    tom_g said:
    I'm in the market for a bazooka, because, you know, tyranny.  Why should the government stop me from owning an M1 Abrams tank?
    Actually I don’t think there’s anything stopping you from buying a tank. Didn’t some guy recently buy an old world war 2 tank and cause a big roucus parking it outside his house? Granted it probably doesn’t have the required mechanics to actually fire and I’m sure he can’t buy shells for it but if I guy can build his own rocket to try and prove the world is flat what is really stopping people with the right technical capabilities and funds to build weaponized rockets or finding ways to build an armoured vehicle that has the capability to become offensive?
    Not sure that this is what you're talking about but there was this a couple years back....

    https://globalnews.ca/news/1894439/top-gears-the-stig-delivers-petition-to-reinstate-jeremy-clarkson-in-a-tank/
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Some topical tv on CNN tonight for this thread; town hall with students & parents from Stoneman, Marco Rubio, Dana Loesh from the NRA, the Broward County sheriff, and more.
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited February 2018
    And some way to redirect or lock up the homicidal young men away from schools (or violence in general) - Obviously there are huge cracks in mental health treatment but I hate to say it, some of these guys are never going to get "cured." People used to be institutionalized and they aren't any more, for lots of good reasons but some very bad ones. Why do 17 people need to die before someone like that with dozens of warning signs gets locked up? This also kind of goes against an American ideal of personal liberty but it's just something I've been thinking about.
    Because most of these people don't actually have a diagnosis that warrants locking them up.  Without a major change in how people view personal liberties and being put on regulatory lists, nothing is going to be able to be done.  

    "But the young man who had written about shooting his classmates was calm, cooperative and polite. The posts, he insisted, were nothing more than online braggadocio. He denied being suicidal or homicidal; he had never heard voices or gotten strange messages from the television. He admitted to having been bullied and was resentful of classmates who seemed to have more thriving social and romantic lives. But he adamantly denied he would be violent toward them.

    What options did I have? It was clear to me that he did not have a psychiatric illness that would justify an involuntary hospitalization, but I was reluctant to release this man whose story echoed that of so many mass shooters.

    I could fudge it a little, claiming to need more time for observation, and admit him to the hospital anyway. But within the week he would go before a hearing officer to contest being held against his will. The hearing officer would probably come to the same conclusion I had, that he was not dangerous because of a mental illness, and he would be free to go. The only advantage of this version of events would be that the order to release the man who might be the next mass shooter would not be signed with my pen.

    Maybe the hearing officer would share my trepidation and commit him out of fear of the alternative. Then the hospital would have 14 more days to treat him.

    The psychiatrist responsible for his care would know how to treat delusions, paranoia, mania, suicidal impulses, self-injurious behaviors, auditory hallucinations and catatonia. But there are no reliable cures for insecurity, resentment, entitlement and hatred.

    The one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer. Of course, this would do nothing about any guns and ammunition he may already have amassed. Nor would it deter him from getting guns from private-party sales, which are exempt from background checks in many states.

    I ended up admitting this patient, and he was released by the hearing officer two days later. He never took any medication, never reached the threshold for a federal firearm prohibition and left the hospital in the same state he arrived in. Like so many of his peers, he will not seek out therapy for the longstanding personality traits that seem to predispose him to violence and rage, and there is no way to impose treatment upon him."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/mental-health-stopping-mass-shooters.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/opinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

  • Registration is a price of owning a vehicle.  I'm assuming you own at least one registered vehicle. Why would registering your guns be a bigger invasion of privacy?  
    To be fair, at least in Ohio, you don't have to register a car to own it.  You have to register it if you want to drive it on a public road.  
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited February 2018
    Right, that's in the current system we have now. Not that I think we should start locking up anyone with any signs of mental illness. But this whole idea of being a danger to oneself or others is pretty strictly interpreted to being sort of a literal danger of injury or death at this present moment (I just made that up, that's not an exact term I read anywhere). There have been tons of stories reported of people who have fallen through the cracks in that system in California and other places even when they already had a diagnosed mental illness and the authorities have been made aware of it, because they refused treatment, and then were released just to be homeless. How is being homeless in L.A. or some other place in California not being a danger to yourself? The article uses as an example a kid who was simply observed making statements that were scary, but some of these people have taken it to much further extremes in terms of animal abuse, domestic abuse, stockpiling firearms, stalking etc etc. It seems like one very dark silver lining of having so many mass shootings on the books is people can start looking at the data of what they know about these shooters and looking for that profile in others. 

    Where she says "there are no reliable cures for insecurity, resentment, entitlement and hatred" That might be true, but all those things don't necessarily lead to a school shooting. Lots of people live with those feelings and don't commit violence toward others. 

    Well, you're allowed to make bad decisions if you have insight into the condition you have and understand warnings that people give you.

    Otherwise you get into situations such as: "Citizen!  I notice that your alcohol consumption is above recommended norms, you somehow still smoke cigarettes and your weight is above a safe mortality zone. Please report for voluntary retraining.  Have a nice day."

    "Experts say the people willing to kill strangers don’t all have a certain mental illness, and in many cases never sought professional help. They are often paranoid, resentful or narcissistic, but not always to the extent that they had been found to have a disorder.

    Dr. Michael Stone, a New York forensic psychiatrist, found that about half of the 200 mass murderers he had studied had no clear evidence of mental illness before the attacks. About a quarter displayed signs of depression and psychopathy.

    It’s not clear that access to mental health care would have prevented violence. Elliot O. Rodger saw several therapists before he killed six people in Isla Vista, Calif., in May 2014. His therapists disagreed on the nature of his mental disorders.

    Adam Lanza, who killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, had received years of counseling from psychiatrists and psychologists. Though he had Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism that does not suggest violent behavior, he had never been found to have any mental illness that would."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/mass-murderers.html

    So, even putting people with scary mental illness signs on some sort of list or in forced treatment, you'd miss half of school shooters.  And imagine how many people would be on these lists or receiving forced treatment who would have never done anything had you not intervened?


  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • tom_g said:
    This is my surprised face.

    Indeed, even in the 50's, 60's and on when we had much stricter gun control, it was driven, in large part, by fear of the Black Panthers being armed. 
  • No, we really can't. We need to stop thinking like this. We have let this country be taken over by extreme parts of the right wing. This has happened entirely by democratic processes. In fact, they're much closer to having the 2/3rds majority of states to pass or block amendments to the Constitution than we are. It's taken them over a decade to do this. It's going to take at least that long to take it back, and if you want to tackle substantial gun control it's going to take longer than that, because guns are very popular and the backlash you're going to get by perceived overreach in gun control or bans is going to be swift and vicious.
    I wanted to revisit this. I feel like this is exactly the strategy the dems have been following since Clinton - moderate, moderate, moderate, try and win over people toward the middle of the right. How's that worked for us? Of all the shit you can say about the democratic party, you certainly can't accuse them of being too progressive. Meanwhile, the republicans have moved righter and righter, energized their base, and continually get much higher voter turnout.

    Frankly, I think it's been made abundantly clear that the democratic party being the milquetoast party of compromise doesn't work. Almost all polling suggests that this country is liberal by a comfortable majority, but the dems are so wishy-washy that no one is excited to vote for them. Turnout among 18-29 year olds, by far the most progressive group, was 45%. 45 fucking percent! That's embarrassing. Dems need to give people in this age group something to believe in, instead of what boils down to "more of the same" or "at least I'm not Trump."

    Look how well Bernie Sanders did. His announcement for president drew a crowd of like 40 people. He was basically completely unknown. Running on the most progressive platform we have seen from a candidate that was actually in the mix we have seen since FDR, he came within single-digit percentage points of being the dem candidate. (Granted, his gun control stance was not particularly progressive). There hasn't been a real progressive candidate in decades. I think you could really energize people to come out and vote with a true progressive message. If 100% of the people in this country voted in every election, Dems would control every branch of gov't, except perhaps the senate, by a landslide. 
    bizmarkiefaderDee
  • A_Ron_Hubbard said:

    Registration is a price of owning a vehicle.  I'm assuming you own at least one registered vehicle. Why would registering your guns be a bigger invasion of privacy?  

    The counter-argument that I usually see to this (not one that I'm making) is that there is a constitutional right to own a gun, but not a car, so therefore it's ok to require registration to drive a car, but not for owning a gun. 

    I don't agree with this line of thinking because it's essentially saying that due to the rights afforded in the 2nd Amendment any regulation on gun ownership is an infringement on that right, whereas in reality there are plenty of regulations and limits on gun ownership that have been deemed constitutional.
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    I guess it was only a matter of time before someone figured out you could put a Tac-Con trigger and a bump stock on the same AR-15.  




  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    cdrive said:
    I guess it was only a matter of time before someone figured out you could put a Tac-Con trigger and a bump stock on the same AR-15.  




    I apologize ahead of time for being glib @A_Ron_Hubbard, but my first thought on viewing this is that there probably aren't any solid interpretations of the 2A that includes "shootin' big guns is damn fun."

    Yet a lot of people who own these semi auto rifles seem to own them primarily for that purpose.

    Notice he also said they had a legally registered M16 they were going to compete the bump-stock too. From what I've read if you have the will and the means, it is possible to legally obtain fully auto weapons.
  • I found the twitter thread fascinating, it's somewhat peripheral to the discussion of gun control, but one worth having
  • Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    MrX said:
    Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
    If the rate or means of fire isn't a useful metric to classify weapons with, as suggested in this thread, how do our gun-knowledgeable bald movers feel about using ballistic energy or projectile velocity to determine which weapons are too dangerous?

    Based on this doctor's experience it seems like this would be a really useful way to help diminish the harm inflicted by an improperly used weapon. Maybe the CDC should be permitted to turn this anecdotal evidence into an actual study.


  • Flukes said:
    MrX said:
    Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
    If the rate or means of fire isn't a useful metric to classify weapons with, as suggested in this thread, how do our gun-knowledgeable bald movers feel about using ballistic energy or projectile velocity to determine which weapons are too dangerous?

    Based on this doctor's experience it seems like this would be a really useful way to help diminish the harm inflicted by an improperly used weapon. Maybe the CDC should be permitted to turn this anecdotal evidence into an actual study.

    Based on quick research, it looks like muzzle velocity is simply a function of barrel length, type of propellant, and mass of projectile. Thus, it would have to be a type of ammo (specifically propellant) ban, as I imagine a barrel length ban might be even harder to do. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    asmallcat said:
    Flukes said:
    MrX said:
    Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
    If the rate or means of fire isn't a useful metric to classify weapons with, as suggested in this thread, how do our gun-knowledgeable bald movers feel about using ballistic energy or projectile velocity to determine which weapons are too dangerous?

    Based on this doctor's experience it seems like this would be a really useful way to help diminish the harm inflicted by an improperly used weapon. Maybe the CDC should be permitted to turn this anecdotal evidence into an actual study.

    Based on quick research, it looks like muzzle velocity is simply a function of barrel length, type of propellant, and mass of projectile. Thus, it would have to be a type of ammo (specifically propellant) ban, as I imagine a barrel length ban might be even harder to do. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity

     There is some talk out there about how an effective means of gun control in terms of tangible benefits is on regulations on ammo instead of just focusing on the guns themselves. I think that certainly is an area to explore seriously. I believe California just passed new laws on how and where people can buy ammo.
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    MrX said:
    asmallcat said:
    Flukes said:
    MrX said:
    Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
    If the rate or means of fire isn't a useful metric to classify weapons with, as suggested in this thread, how do our gun-knowledgeable bald movers feel about using ballistic energy or projectile velocity to determine which weapons are too dangerous?

    Based on this doctor's experience it seems like this would be a really useful way to help diminish the harm inflicted by an improperly used weapon. Maybe the CDC should be permitted to turn this anecdotal evidence into an actual study.

    Based on quick research, it looks like muzzle velocity is simply a function of barrel length, type of propellant, and mass of projectile. Thus, it would have to be a type of ammo (specifically propellant) ban, as I imagine a barrel length ban might be even harder to do. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity

     There is some talk out there about how an effective means of gun control in terms of tangible benefits is on regulations on ammo instead of just focusing on the guns themselves. I think that certainly is an area to explore seriously. I believe California just passed new laws on how and where people can buy ammo.
    A.Ron noted that restricting amounts of ammo people can purchase can have the unintended side effect of making people worse at shooting by limiting practice which makes their guns more dangerous. Just something to consider.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    I’m sure there’s a book or a study or something out there that addresses this, but what spree shooting nearly always has in common is angry, entitled - mostly white - males. If anyone genuinely wants to fix the problem, they should start there. 
  • @asmallcat in regards to using Australia as a analogue for US gun control we also didn't have a big gun culture here, you could never go to a shopping complex and just buy a gun they were very much a specialty store you had to go out of your way to go to. Our version of Walmart didn't sell ammo, we didn't have large scale gun shows. It not being part of the culture also meant we had less guns per capita as well as less of the type of weapons that we were trying to ban. 

    Believe me I am not saying don't try for some form of gun control I'm saying our solution might not fit the US solution
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Whenever I see the argument like "calling something an assault [or automatic, or semiautomatic] weapon is meaningless" I consider that a facetious argument because laws are not written using such broad terms, or at least they don't need to be. So the individuals on this board might not be trying to be facetious, but the originators of those ideas in the political atmosphere who come up with these talking points are definitely being facetious.
    Yes, they should be, but almost never are.  And it's more difficult than you're making it out to be.  It would be like limiting what vehicle you can buy by horsepower based on what you think people need to drive on a highway.  What about trucks?  What about tractors?  What about people who need off road capability?  Or legislating based on whether a car is a manual or automatic.  I think a lot of gun owner resistance to legal restrictions is a long history of bullshit laws that don't do what they're supposed to do.  California has banned "assault weapons" (click through if you want to see how they chose to define that term) since 1989, and yet they've had 11 mass shootings since just 2013.  I don't understand why legislative types make bad laws like this, but they do.  I suspect it's because they legislate from a place of ignorance, much like old white dudes legislate on abortion.

    To answer @flukes question, I feel like what is probably doable is to limit the ammo capacity in rifles.  Make anything higher than say, 10 rounds, illegal.  That is going to be wildly unpopular among gun enthusiasts, but you might have enough moderates and reasonable gun owners to go along with it.

    I suppose you could limit the power of cartridges, but frankly that article seemed like BS to me.  There is a lot of ballistic information out there, it's a hot debate among gun owners whether higher powered low caliber rounds are more effective than lower powered higher caliber rounds. To say definitively that the  5.56 rounds caused damage that this doctor had never seen before seems dubious.  And still, what are we doing here?  We want our children sprayed down with slightly less lethal rounds?  Limiting ammo capacity would directly limit how many times you can shoot a gun in a given time frame, making the rounds less powerful wouldn't do that.  Yeah, I'd rather get shot by a .22 than a 5.56, but honestly I wouldn't want to be shot by either because both are deadly.  Finally, the AR-15 can be configured to shoot many different types of ammunition, so a ban on a particular model doesn't seem like it would do anything than move shooters to the next popular semi-automatic rifle.  Like, if people were running into crowds with a Ford Mustang, and you banned them, here come the Cameros.

    But if we're going around altering the Bill of Rights without any sort of amendment in a combination of legislation and court rulings, why exactly can't we forbid the media from reporting on the shooter's themselves?  Just black hole them.  Focus on the victims and the emergency and community response, and ignore the perpetrators.  Media outlets that report on the shooters face escalating fines and sentences if they violate this. Don't release recorded video and audio of the incident.  



  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited February 2018

    To answer @flukes question, I feel like what is probably doable is to limit the ammo capacity in rifles.  Make anything higher than say, 10 rounds, illegal.  That is going to be wildly unpopular among gun enthusiasts, but you might have enough moderates and reasonable gun owners to go along with it.

    I suppose you could limit the power of cartridges, but frankly that article seemed like BS to me.  There is a lot of ballistic information out there, it's a hot debate among gun owners whether higher powered low caliber rounds are more effective than lower powered higher caliber rounds. To say definitively that the  5.56 rounds caused damage that this doctor had never seen before seems dubious. 


    Thanks for chiming in. I was starting to get the feeling I was agreeing because it was saying what I wanted to hear - that there is a magic line that can be drawn that will reduce the harm. All the more reason to put some money into actually studying these things scientifically.

    And still, what are we doing here?  We want our children sprayed down with slightly less lethal rounds?  Limiting ammo capacity would directly limit how many times you can shoot a gun in a given time frame, making the rounds less powerful wouldn't do that.  Yeah, I'd rather get shot by a .22 than a 5.56, but honestly I wouldn't want to be shot by either because both are deadly.  Finally, the AR-15 can be configured to shoot many different types of ammunition, so a ban on a particular model doesn't seem like it would do anything than move shooters to the next popular semi-automatic rifle.  Like, if people were running into crowds with a Ford Mustang, and you banned them, here come the Cameros.
    Limiting harm is a valid approach to mitigating risk if it's decided the risk can't be avoided completely. For example, at work if I can't guarantee that users won't make mistakes when using a system, my effort is better spent limiting the damage they do when they make a mistake. It's not perfect and damage is still done but, unless we automate the users out of the process and eliminate the risk completely, it's the best I can do.


    But if we're going around altering the Bill of Rights without any sort of amendment in a combination of legislation and court rulings, why exactly can't we forbid the media from reporting on the shooter's themselves?  Just black hole them.  Focus on the victims and the emergency and community response, and ignore the perpetrators.  Media outlets that report on the shooters face escalating fines and sentences if they violate this. Don't release recorded video and audio of the incident.  


    I've asked this question a few times recently. I thought we all decided that was the approach we were going to take when that guy shot up the theatre in Colorado. It didn't last that long even in that case, and now it's completely out the window again. What the fuck happened?

  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    edited February 2018
    I know a guy who when letting people shoot his AR-15, he has 10 round clips for his democrat friends and 30 round clips for his republican friends.  Those types wouldn't be too happy with the 10 round limit.  I'm moderate enough to say "tough shit, sweetie", so I guess I'd be handed the 10 round clip.

    I'm not a hardcore gun dude, so take my opinion with a truck of salt, but I think there is something to be said on a high powered .223 AR-15 shot round vs a lower powered higher caliber gun.  YouTube search ".223 AR-15 ballistic gelatin" and watch how much damage that bullet does internally.  It's pretty horrific.

    Second, I think there is this fallacy of an automatic weapon being more lethal than a semi-automatic AR-15.  Many gun enthusiasts, or the ones I know, will tell you that they prefer controlled rapid fire and the accuracy from that over just spraying bullets from an automatic.  And with an AR-15, good 3-gun competition shooters can still get 3 rounds off in a second.

    Also the notion that banning 1 style of semi-automatic will make people run to another reminded me of how someone turned a Rubio soundbyte into a Curb Your Enthusiasm meme last night.  I thought it was pretty funny:



    gguenotFlukesdarwinfeeshy
Sign In or Register to comment.