Assault rifle sales

You kind of sound like one of the "sky is falling" people that inflates gun and ammo prices every election and shitty event. You're the reason that $60 lowers were going for $200 last election. Just saying.

No I'm sorry, I am not one of those "the sky is falling people". I am the person that will be sitting on my front porch with my "weapon of war" and a cold beer in my hand on the day the sky does fall. I was simply stating a fact that I was told, and wondered if anyone else had input on the situation. As you can see by the link posted by a helpful individual my question was answered and dicks made the call to cover their asses.

That being said, I do not encourage discharging a firearm while under the influence haha.
 
I'm getting so sick of "reactionism" (I don't know if I just made up that word or not). The companies that sell automatic weapons are trying to make it out that they don't, and the companies that sold them are pulling them off the shelves. Does it change what happend Friday? No. Will it change events that will happen again? No.

I'm not trying to underplay what happend. It's a tragedy of epic proportion and I can relate all to well since I have a child the same age as the victims. Trust me, it is difficult to cope with the images that are going through my brain, I can't imagine nor I want to imagine what is going through theirs.

The reactions of the gun makers and sellers is what has be baffled. It's not like they were making lollipops and suddenly one day a rogue lollipop caused some horrible tragedy. These are guns. Automatic ones. Ones that should be in the hands of trained individuals and kept out of the hands of others. Now, I've never fired one of these rifles, but I've fired a couple semi-automatic handguns and non-automatic rifles. The ones I've fired, there was no mistaking the deadly force they are capable of. Now, Bushmaster (those who make them and those that sell them) is all the sudden ashamed of what they sell enough to pull them off the shelves. Not out of some sort of manufacturing defect safety recall, but out of concern of their image. That's reactionary and wrong. You make and sell a LEGAL product. I don't know that I'd ever buy one - I don't hunt nor do I feel the need to own an automatic weapon - a semi-automatic pistol seems to be all the protection I feel I'd need - but that's just my opinion. I personally feel that if you need to hunt at 800 rounds per minute, perhaps hunting isn't your sport - but again, that is just my opinion.
 
I think they should have selling airplanes after the 9/11 incident too.

If somebody plows 50 people to the ground with their chevy truck, will chevy stop selling trucks?

I think not.

Reactionism, good anology..
 
I'm getting so sick of "reactionism" (I don't know if I just made up that word or not). The companies that sell automatic weapons are trying to make it out that they don't, and the companies that sold them are pulling them off the shelves. Does it change what happend Friday? No. Will it change events that will happen again? No.

I'm not trying to underplay what happend. It's a tragedy of epic proportion and I can relate all to well since I have a child the same age as the victims. Trust me, it is difficult to cope with the images that are going through my brain, I can't imagine nor I want to imagine what is going through theirs.

The reactions of the gun makers and sellers is what has be baffled. It's not like they were making lollipops and suddenly one day a rogue lollipop caused some horrible tragedy. These are guns. Automatic ones. Ones that should be in the hands of trained individuals and kept out of the hands of others. Now, I've never fired one of these rifles, but I've fired a couple semi-automatic handguns and non-automatic rifles. The ones I've fired, there was no mistaking the deadly force they are capable of. Now, Bushmaster (those who make them and those that sell them) is all the sudden ashamed of what they sell enough to pull them off the shelves. Not out of some sort of manufacturing defect safety recall, but out of concern of their image. That's reactionary and wrong. You make and sell a LEGAL product. I don't know that I'd ever buy one - I don't hunt nor do I feel the need to own an automatic weapon - a semi-automatic pistol seems to be all the protection I feel I'd need - but that's just my opinion. I personally feel that if you need to hunt at 800 rounds per minute, perhaps hunting isn't your sport - but again, that is just my opinion.
I think you meant to say semi auto. Citizens cant buy automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. You would need a 200 dollar tax stamp from the ATF and the local sheriff to sign off on the form if you wanted to buy a pre 1986 machine gun.
 
Automatic weapons require a special permit that is difficult to obtain. Unless you live in union county of course. The weapon used was a semi automatic just like the pistol you shoot. One trigger pull= one bullet. In my opinion no more deadly than a 12 guage shotgun with 00 buck shot. With every buckshot round at least 15 pellets of which are approx .30 cal in diameter are being spread across a larger area.
 
The companies that sell automatic weapons are trying to make it out that they don't, and the companies that sold them are pulling them off the shelves. These are guns. Automatic ones. Ones that should be in the hands of trained individuals and kept out of the hands of others. Now, I've never fired one of these rifles,

Actually, the guns they are pulling are not Automatic, they are semi-auto. Wally world and Dick's don't sell automatic weapons.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2
 
So I am mis-informed - nothing new there. Either way, it's a legal weapon they were selling.
 
You can buy new "automatic" weapons, and suppressors as well, if you have the class 3 tax stamp. That is semi-difficult to obtain, you have to pass a regular background check, and ATF background check, and you have to get the local sheriff to agree to let you have one. Its not as difficult as it sounds, just a lot of paperwork, and headache, and cost.

I would imagine that at the least, we will see some of the same gun control laws we had in the 90's reinstated very soon. Which were actually pretty basic, magazine restrictions mostly. I personally dont know how I feel about this. I have an "assault rifle" with a 30-round magazine, and with the last handgun I purchased magazine capacity was a determining factor. Do I need this? No. Do I feel like it is my right to own them? Yes. There is a line between controlling the guns that are bought and sold and taking away our rights. In the wake of a tragedy everyone starts leaning towards taking away rights, but doesnt take time to consider the fact that criminals dont follow laws anyway.
 
Does anyone know what is going on with assault rifles? I was jus in a dicks sporting goods and a man in a suit with a badge and the store manager walked up to the gun counter and told the guy behind the counter to pull all assault type rifles and high capacity magazines off the shelves. I had a Troy battle mag in my hand and I asked if I could buy it, he let me but sad it would be the last one they would sell. No one would say if it was just dicks sporting goods doing this, but I did get out of the manager that it was a company wide move. I was just wondering if anyone else had seen this happening at stores other than dicks.
I hope you bought a couple for me. The sky may be falling, but you need to bring something high powered over to the house so we can shoot exploding targets and make the ground fall from the sky.
 
In the wake of a tragedy everyone starts leaning towards taking away rights, but doesnt take time to consider the fact that criminals dont follow laws anyway.

Exactly. After all, this guy didn't read the sign that said, "Gun Free School Zone" and turn around and go home.

Mike Huckabee puts it plainly at around the 3 minute mark of this clip:
 
Maybe it is just me, and you guys may jump all over me for this, but if it means the anti-gun people will shut up for a while I have no problem with them outlawing hi-cap mags.

I will gladly give up a 30-round magazine for the right to own and carry a gun.

I always say that if you are ever in a situation where you need a 30 round mag, you are doing something you shouldn't be doing. When is the last time you heard of some guy getting in a massive shootout with some bad guys and he was saved by some hi-cap mag? No, you hear of a guy getting off 1-4 rounds and taking care of the situation. I carry a .45 with a 8 round mag and one in the pipe, with a second 8 round mag just in case.

I know first we give them our hi-cap mags, then we give them our assault rifles, next it is all guns. That will be the argument. Don't forget who we have in office now. We have to give them SOMETHING or else they will take it all. We need to appease them for the time being.
 
Maybe it is just me, and you guys may jump all over me for this, but if it means the anti-gun people will shut up for a while I have no problem with them outlawing hi-cap mags.

I will gladly give up a 30-round magazine for the right to own and carry a gun.

I always say that if you are ever in a situation where you need a 30 round mag, you are doing something you shouldn't be doing. When is the last time you heard of some guy getting in a massive shootout with some bad guys and he was saved by some hi-cap mag? No, you hear of a guy getting off 1-4 rounds and taking care of the situation. I carry a .45 with a 8 round mag and one in the pipe, with a second 8 round mag just in case.

I know first we give them our hi-cap mags, then we give them our assault rifles, next it is all guns. That will be the argument. Don't forget who we have in office now. We have to give them SOMETHING or else they will take it all. We need to appease them for the time being.

The only problem w/ this argument is that in many cases, including this one, the perp was carrying several fully loaded mags anyway. So in this case, what difference would it have made if he only could get 10 round mags? He'd just walk in with more on hand.

The problem here isn't what exists legally/ is available to everybody, it's in what is available to a guy who shouldn't have it. If you fix (1) access of the weaponry to unstable people and (2) the rationale behing it happening, then the greater list of what is available to everybody is irrelevant.

There is all this focus on the AR-15, but he also had 2 pistols and extra rounds for those.
so lets say he couldn't get an AR... then what would have happened differently? Not much.
 
Maybe it is just me, and you guys may jump all over me for this, but if it means the anti-gun people will shut up for a while I have no problem with them outlawing hi-cap mags.

I will gladly give up a 30-round magazine for the right to own and carry a gun.

I always say that if you are ever in a situation where you need a 30 round mag, you are doing something you shouldn't be doing. When is the last time you heard of some guy getting in a massive shootout with some bad guys and he was saved by some hi-cap mag? No, you hear of a guy getting off 1-4 rounds and taking care of the situation. I carry a .45 with a 8 round mag and one in the pipe, with a second 8 round mag just in case.

I know first we give them our hi-cap mags, then we give them our assault rifles, next it is all guns. That will be the argument. Don't forget who we have in office now. We have to give them SOMETHING or else they will take it all. We need to appease them for the time being.

We went along w a seasonal/winter closure at Tellico and everybody sees how that turned out.Im not ryin to make a whippin boy by any means but by your thinking you should be able to get yourself out of a bad situation w 1-4 bullets,if so why the need for a second loaded mag???
 
The only problem w/ this argument is that in many cases, including this one, the perp was carrying several fully loaded mags anyway. So in this case, what difference would it have made if he only could get 10 round mags? He'd just walk in with more on hand.

The problem here isn't what exists legally/ is available to everybody, it's in what is available to a guy who shouldn't have it. If you fix (1) access of the weaponry to unstable people and (2) the rationale behing it happening, then the greater list of what is available to everybody is irrelevant.

There is all this focus on the AR-15, but he also had 2 pistols and extra rounds for those.
so lets say he couldn't get an AR... then what would have happened differently? Not much.

I'm not saying this isn't the case, I'm saying that everyone is yelling about getting rid of them because of this. If guns were outlawed he may have gone in with a machete and chainsaw, or blown the whole place up.

I'm saying the anti-gun people want this because they feel it will fix the problem, just appease them for a little bit before they try and ruin it for all of us legal gun owners.
 
We went along w a seasonal/winter closure at Tellico and everybody sees how that turned out.Im not ryin to make a whippin boy by any means but by your thinking you should be able to get yourself out of a bad situation w 1-4 bullets,if so why the need for a second loaded mag???

In case I get attacked by a rabid grizzly bear.
 
Bulamn aa guun ine da hanz off a kilr , iz bulamn diss keebord fer deez mispled wurdz, liberal dummiez


thank you for your words of wisdom Captain obvious. You have stated what has been stated 50,000 times in this thread...
 
I'm saying the anti-gun people want this because they feel it will fix the problem, just appease them for a little bit before they try and ruin it for all of us legal gun owners.

But it won't!
They want a TOTAL disarming of the law-abiding American public... to cover the inadequacies of their failed politics/policies and shift blame for "How did that happen?" away from themselves!
All it will take for that to happen is the majority of the good people to piece-mill give up their rights under the 2nd Amendment... a mag cap here, a caliber restriction there and we'll be back to sticks & rocks to defend against criminals that *WILL STILL HAVE GUNS*...
 
We just need our people back in power. Give them a little and it will make them happy and piss off everyone who never wanted them to be taken away. That's what happened in the 90s, and things changed back.

It will happen for the life of our country, give them a little to make them happy, then vote our people in and get it back. We just need to make them happy until their short attention spans turn to endangered tree salmon or something.
 
u guys make very good points that guns are not the problem. It is the person who needs to be helped. news said he had his own psychologist assigned to him in high school. Sounds like his mother needed more support in parenting a challenging child.

so who can we bring these points to instead of writing them on a forum where everyone agrees? Who can we email to show our support so guns will not be banned from responsible people?
 
We just need our people back in power. Give them a little and it will make them happy and piss off everyone who never wanted them to be taken away. That's what happened in the 90s, and things changed back.

It will happen for the life of our country, give them a little to make them happy, then vote our people in and get it back. We just need to make them happy until their short attention spans turn to endangered tree salmon or something.

When the federal assault weapons ban was implement it has a sunset clause to end it in 10 years it wasn't our elected officials who got rid of it. they may have helped it from being reinstated but at this point is has a big chance of being reinstated and it may not have a sunset clause this time.
 
Back
Top