Connecticut elementary school shooting
- Thread starter myp
- Start date
.You have had your wish for a very long time. The National Firearms Act requires that all automatic weapons require special licenses:
In the United States, full automatic M-10 machineguns are NFA articles. As Military Armament Corporation was in bankruptcy large number of incomplete sheet metal frame flats were given serial numbers then bought by a new company, RPB industries. Some of the previously completed guns (already stamped MAC), were stamped on the other side RPB thus making it a double stamp gun. RPB Industries made many open bolt semi guns and sub machineguns before the the ATF seized roughly 200 open bolt semi autos in use in the drug wars of 1981. The company did not recover from this decision. Wayne Daniel then a machine operator for them purchased a lot of their remaining inventory and formed SWD, designing a new weapon which was more balanced, available fully automatic or semi-automatic with his new ATF approved closed bolt design. This design is still present today.
The original rate of fire for the M-10 in .45 is 950 rpm
Interesting tidbit. I already knew that Assault Rifles had to have a special permit or something to carry I read it in a book. It should be that way really the only thing a person like myself needs is a handgun (which I have a few of), and rifles and shotguns.
Though even if we were allowed Automatic Assault Rifles again it is the parents responsibility to make sure they are stowed in a way kids will have a very hard time retrieving them. Especially if those weapons belong to you.
No automatic weapon was used to kill the women and children. You are being played by the media and the politicians. Automatic weapons are very hard to get. There are expensive licensing fees. You must have a license from the federal government to have one.
It really does not matter what you think we need. We have the right, as beings, to defend ourselves. Attempting to disarm America will result in a few things. Three categories of people will continue to have them. Politicians will always be armed, either directly as Senator Feinstein was in the past, indirectly by having someone else hold your weapon for you, the protective services like the military, the police and the Internal Revenue Service, and the criminals. Only the law abiding citizen will be rendered defenseless. So let the politicians go first. Let us have a decade first with the politicians as disarmed as they want the rest of us to be. After that experiment let's talk again.
Last edited:
Do you know what an assault rifle is?
It is a rifle. One trigger pull causes one round to go down range. So you really want to ban all rifles. After you and yours destroy the mainstay of the Bill of Rights which of the remaining nine amendments will be in your sights next?
Maybe we should have some common sense first Amendment restrictions. Isn't it about time that only the government be allowed to have such a powerful weapon as a say in public spaces?
If you want to be a subject rather than a free citizen shouldn't you consider a safer place like England? The Queen Mother will protect you by disarming you.
If you want to ban rifles then just don't buy one.
My definition of an Assault rifle. AK-47, M-16, anything automatic that is my definition of Assault rifle. My Definition of 30-06, and bolt action rifles are in my book hunting rifles.
So you definition and my definition may be different but I don't see why a person would need to own an AK-47, or M-16.
You are talking to the wrong person I own my own guns so I am all for allowing people to own guns within means. So if your definition is different then mine which it seems to be sorry for the mix up.
Many people use assault rifle to mean any weapon that looks scary.
What you are describing is an automatic weapon. They are almost never used in this country to commit murders. They are controlled. They require a federal license. They are not a problem.
If you are faced by an assailant with a semi-automatic weapon are you telling me you would prefer to have a bolt action rifle? Do you expect anyone to believe that you prefer to start at such a huge disadvantage when facing someone who intends to do you harm? I would have to describe you as very evil if you wished for anyone else to be at such a huge disadvantage.
What do you mean by "allowing people to own guns within means"?
I own plenty of handguns semiautomatic, revolver. I own a Shotgun, and two hunting rifles.
I am all for people owning guns within means I mean Automatic weapons should be left to the Military only not licenses should be issued for them. Semi Automatic rifles well. I myself don't care if people own them but I myself don't find hunting with them as much fun. That is me. Though before my accident I preferred bow hunting anyway.
That was my fault though I thought he used an M-16 the rifle is similar in design but when I read up on it I saw what it was. So you have my apologies.
This is just heart breaking. I don't understand what could be going through someone's mind that they are ok to walk into a school and harm children. Children are our future and are innocents.
That being said I do not believe in harming others no matter the age it is just more heartbreaking when it is children.
I also don't believe have stricker gun laws is going to change anything. If someone wants to get there hands on a weapon and harm other people they are going to find it one way or another. Look at the jails, the inmates have no weapons but people still get stabbed and hurt.
I live in Canada and guns are not allowed but they still find themself into the hands of the wrong people when they want them. I really don't know how this is going to be controlled but personally I feel that the world is becoming a scary place and you just never know when your time is up. But that being said as well I believe that everyone has a path they were giving some live long healthy lives other peoples are very short but there is a purpose for all of us, We are only given what we can handle and things are always done for a reason.
Stay Strong Families of the Connecticut Elementary School and I am incredibly sorry for your loss.
That being said I do not believe in harming others no matter the age it is just more heartbreaking when it is children.
I also don't believe have stricker gun laws is going to change anything. If someone wants to get there hands on a weapon and harm other people they are going to find it one way or another. Look at the jails, the inmates have no weapons but people still get stabbed and hurt.
I live in Canada and guns are not allowed but they still find themself into the hands of the wrong people when they want them. I really don't know how this is going to be controlled but personally I feel that the world is becoming a scary place and you just never know when your time is up. But that being said as well I believe that everyone has a path they were giving some live long healthy lives other peoples are very short but there is a purpose for all of us, We are only given what we can handle and things are always done for a reason.
Stay Strong Families of the Connecticut Elementary School and I am incredibly sorry for your loss.
The right to defend oneself should never be taken away. Let parents decide where to send their children. Do they want them to be taught in schools that are not likely to every be attacked or do they prefer to send their children to a school where they can be slaughtered until people with guns arrive?
~OR~ Do I decide to place my child in the hands of a stressed out, underpaid, unvetted, untrained, and unknown person who just happens to have the ability to kill my child on a whim.
I choose the lesser evil.
Now, you just need to create a means for me to know which schools and teachers put my child at risk, that I can make the choice.
I choose the lesser evil.
Now, you just need to create a means for me to know which schools and teachers put my child at risk, that I can make the choice.
Who said anything about being unvetted and untrained? I flat out said they needed to be held to the same standards as cops.
Is that preferable to having 20 killed by one angry guy?
What if one or two are killed early in an encounter. Which is better? 27 or two?
Hey guys, this is a discussion about the school shooting and respectable surrounding topics. While some may disagree, I think that talking about generic gun control has no place on this thread. It is being discussed in other threads. Have some *@#(@* respect.
And I will have to respectfully disagree. *People* caused this. A gun didn't wake up one morning and thinking "I'm gonna go shoot some people." A gun didn't walk into that school. A person chose to do that.
But if the gun wasn't there a person also could not have said "oh let me pick up a gun and go shoot people". It is a two way street. Sure guns don't kill people, but guns enable people to kill more people than they otherwise could.
Similar threads
